Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Henry Churchyard <churchyh AT ccwf.cc.utexas.edu>]

As someone with an undergraduate degree in Physics, I would like to
point out that what was most notable about Velikovsky's theories at
the time, and still most remembered now, was his "catastrophism", or
positing of vast physical cataclysms (compared with which some mere
namby-pamby reshuffling of chronologies is as nothing), and that the
most vocal and effective opposition to Velikovsky in the early 1950's
was led by Astronomers, Physicists, and Geologists -- _not_ by
Ancient Near East scholar types.  (For some of this, see
http://www.innernet.net/joecisar/e501200.htm .)  So while I haven't
read Rohl's book, probably won't read it any time soon, and generally
have no special qualifications for, or interest in engaging in the
debate over it, it still seems to me that the use of the adjective
"Velikovskian" is probably inappropriate, and possibly somewhat
disingenuous (i.e. using the adjective on the basis of a minor point
of analogy between the two men's theories, but with the real
intention of subliminally tarring Rohl with the broad brush of
Velikovskian disrepute, even though in fact many features of
Velikovsky's views have no counterpart in Rohl) -- that is, unless
Rohl also maintains that the planet Venus had its origins in a comet
that was ejected from Jupiter...  ;-)

--%!PS
10 10 scale/M{rmoveto}def/R{rlineto}def 12 45 moveto 0 5 R 4 -1 M 5.5 0 R
currentpoint 3 sub 3 90 0 arcn 0 -6 R 7.54 10.28 M 2.7067 -9.28 R -5.6333
2 setlinewidth 0 R 9.8867 8 M 7 0 R 0 -9 R -6 4 M 0 -4 R stroke showpage
       % Henry Churchyard         http://www.crossmyt.com/hc/