yrw$lym

peter_kirk at sil.org peter_kirk at sil.org
Thu Sep 23 20:47:21 EDT 1999


Dear Ian,

You make it all too obvious that you haven't read Rohl. When you write 
"His basics seem to be if it conflicts with the bible then reinvent", 
I could retort that it takes one to know one, but in fact (as far as I 
have read, which is only part of the way through his first book) Rohl 
is discrediting not the Bible but rather the interpretations and 
interrelationships which scholars over the centuries have put on it. 
He writes: "My point of departure from the stance of Thomas L. 
Thompson, for example, is my preparedness to accept that the Old 
Testament narratives are as valid a source for ancient history as any 
other ancient document" (from "A Note on Methodology", in "A Test of 
Time", p.38), and he seems to stick to that. Of course he is writing 
for an audience interested in the historicity of the Hebrew 
scriptures, and he knows it. I really think you ought to read at least 
Rohl's note on methodology before commenting further on his 
methodology.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: yrw$lym
Author:  <mc2499 at mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    22/09/1999 09:46


At 10.19 21/09/99 -0400, peter_kirk at sil.org wrote:
>Well, if you don't trust Rohl and/or Kitchen, go and look for 
>yourself. According to Rohl, this inscription is still in situ at the 
>top of a building in Thebes. Rohl also has photos, and his book is 
>cheaper than a special trip to Egypt. You may not like others' 
>interpretations of the archaeological data, but that is no reason to 
>dispute the facts they present.

I wouldn't question the physical information at the moment, just the 
interpretation of the significance of shalm.

>By the way, what are the non-scholarly motivations you are suggesting? 
>Rohl has presumably made money from his book.

Rohl's seriousness is non-existent. This guy is a searcher of fundamental 
validity. His basics seem to be if it conflicts with the bible then reinvent.

>But why are you
>questioning Kitchen?

If he sticks to Egyptology, I don't have any real problems -- that is after 
all his field. But there is a long line of scholars who fall over their own 
feet when dealing with religious matters.


Cheers,


Ian





More information about the b-hebrew mailing list