[b-hebrew] FW: mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah

George Athas George.Athas at moore.edu.au
Mon Nov 28 23:11:48 EST 2011

As I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with stirring the pot. I'm all for that. It makes us think harder and, hopefully, progresses our understanding. But there are some people who do not stir the pot; they break it. David Rohl is one such person. While I'm not familiar with the full range of his work, the parts with which I am familiar are simply unbelievable. His conclusions are based on unreasonable and unsubstantiated leaps in logic, such that they fall outside the bounds of what most consider serious scholarship.

This is not about towing a party line. It's about the responsible use of evidence methods, and justified conclusions.

Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia

From: K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com<mailto:kwrandolph at gmail.com>>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:09:09 -0800
To: George Athas <george.athas at moore.edu.au<mailto:george.athas at moore.edu.au>>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FW: mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah


Is David Rohl shunned by the academic community because he is wrong, or because he shook up the academic orthodoxy which is also clearly wrong?

I pointed to him not as an example of what is right, but as an example of what happens to people who do not toe the line of academic orthodoxy. His is not the only example, there are others in other fields, but fits this context as he is a trained Egyptologist.

There should be no serious opposition to the statement that the dates as proposed by Kitchen and his followers are clearly wrong, off by centuries. Serious scholarship will admit to that. Archeology points out that they are faulty. But will the herd mentality mentioned by Dr. Thomas Gold allow researchers the freedom to find out the truth? Your answer seems to say “No!”

Karl W. Randolph.

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list