Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: Stop with the Rohl material.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>, <MC2499 AT mclink.it>
  • Subject: Re[4]: Stop with the Rohl material.
  • Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 17:13:13 -0500


See some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Stop with the Rohl material.
Author: <MC2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date: 12/02/2000 13:36

<snip>

> You simply cannot know about Rohl's theories if you have not read
> them, so instead you make assumptions about them.

You seemed to think I could last post, when you assumed I was reading the
stuff.
Please think before you write.

PK: When I read some criticism by you of two specific points in Rohl's
book, I assumed that you had acted in a proper scholarly manner by
reading the material before commenting on it, although it was clear
that you had not read the associated footnotes. But then later you
wrote that you had not read the material. So you were apparently
relying on hearsay or repeating someone else's comments without
attribution. I suggest you avoid that, it does make you look rather
ridiculous when the truth comes out.

> Why should I read further?

If you want to deal with the criticism then you read. Is the criticism
erroneous
? If so, how so? Rhetoric will not change things. Either deal with the
criticism
, or stop posting the stuff.

> But in fact I did read further only to find even more clear evidence
> that you have no idea what Rohl is talking about.

Changing tunes in mid whistle.

PK: Do you want me to read it or not? I am beginning to wish I had
not.

<snip>

> If it becomes a generally accepted rule on this list that people
> should post details only of their own personal theories and not
> describe those of other scholars or alleged scholars not on the
> list, I will abide by that. Such a rule would also have to prohibit
> criticism of scholars not on the list,

As Rohl hasn't put most of his musings before a scholarly audience, it is a
bit
much to call him a scholar.

PK: That's why I wrote "alleged scholar". But Rohl does list eight
papers which he has written on chronology. And the "scholarly
audience" is quite capable of buying and reading his book if they
want, so he cannot be accused of hiding anything, and there are
footnotes and appendices designed for the scholars. He was working on
a Ph.D. on this, but I guess he has now lost his chance and been
excommunicated from the scholarly community for the unforgivable sin
of revealing their secrets to the world at large.

> and certainly the
> regurgitation of other people's critical comments which you must
> have engaged on if you have not read the primary evidence of
> Rohl's theories, his books.

My interest is dealing with the evidence -- eventually in relation to the DSS
--
and which if any materials belong to that period. I have some idea of the
matte
rs he works on. To deal with the Amarna letters for example you need to read
the
m. At least I can say I have. In reading them it will become clear that Rohl
has
manipulated his data, misrepresenting the letters and their content. If that
do
esn't please you, you can either show how I'm wrong, or change your opinions
abo
ut the Rohl material, or let it ride.

PK: I have read some of the Amarna letters, in translation, most
recently the ones on your website, and my reading so far does not
support your criticism. Perhaps you can tell me which specific Amarna
letters have been misrepresented by Rohl in what way. But I doubt it,
for how can you know what Rohl has done with his data if you have not
read his writings?

> Now I think such a rule would be a ridiculous imposition on a list
> like this one. As long as there is no such rule I will post Rohl's
> material as I choose.

I suppose you could post telephone book listings as well, moderators
permitting.
You have so far only assumed the material you have posted, or, at least,
found
Rohl's musings worthy to use in attempts to deal with the historical
reconstruct
ions, though the historical verifiable content has been shown to be lacking
-- s
o much so that your usual recourse is that it hasn't been totally falsified.
The
important point it seems in you usage of the material is that it is not
blatant
ly contradicted to stimulate the further dissemination of the stuff. I have
call
ed you on it: the material seems to misrepresent most things it deals with....

PK: You have alleged this but not demonstrated it. If you want to
demonstrate it, read the book first. Then make some specific
criticisms.

<snip>

Peter Kirk





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page