Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: DISCONTINUE ROHL

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: peter_kirk AT sil.org
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: DISCONTINUE ROHL
  • Date: Mon, 04 Oct 1999 11:02:40 -0400


Dear Brian,

Please permit me one last brief posting on this as I have not had any
chance to respond to Ian's last four postings on this subject which
have arrived since I last read my E-mail 24 hours ago. From these
postings it is clear that my position has not been made at all clear
to Ian, as he seems quite confused about my suggestions concerning the
Philistines.

I also wish to reject any suggestion that my postings have been at a
personal level, as I have tried very hard to answer the arguments
only. As I stated yesterday, this is a scholarly question of great
importance for the study of the Hebrew Bible. I would hope that there
would be those on the list prepared to discuss it in a proper
scholarly way. If there are not, let us indeed close this discussion.

The one point I wish to make is in response to the following paragraph
from Ian in response to me, which he also repeated in briefer form to
Dave:

"Look at where Kenyon puts the artifacts generally known as Philistine
-- 12th century. This material is not long after the Mycenaean III B
and the Ramses III material. the archaeological evidence puts Ramses
III at the basic time the Sea Peoples' artifacts arrived in Palestine.
OK, you wanna claim that the Sea Peoples were not Philistines, but the
archaeological evidence places the Sea Peoples' materials in the
twelfth century along with Ramses III artifacts, ie Ramses III objects
are just prior to the spread of Sea Peoples' artifacts, so he is
archaeologically linked to the Sea Peoples -- and this was the point
in the previous post on the subject which invalidates Rohl's stuff.
>From there there is a continuous sequence of ceramic items (eg from
Tell Beth Mirsim) to show continuous development of the pottery all
the way down to Greek times and beyond. Just read Kenyon's chapter on
the Late Bronze and those following, as well as Ahlstrom's similar
chapters (ch5 - ch12)."

I am not contesting any of this archaeological material. Neither is
Rohl, except for the absolute date which cannot be fixed by
archaeology. All of the above fits well with Rohl's theories and my
tentative alternative suggestion. The only point contested here is
that Rohl and I are questioning the identification of the Philistines
of the books of Samuel with the Sea Peoples.

Ian, are you putting forward the proposal that the Philistines of the
books of Samuel are unquestionably to be identified with the Sea
Peoples and that anyone who questions this is unscholarly? If not, on
what other point raised in this paragraph do you actually disagree
with Rohl or myself?

Peter Kirk



______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: DISCONTINUE ROHL
Author: <brocine AT earthlink.net> at Internet
Date: 03/10/1999 08:07


Gentlemen,

Discontinue the threads concerning Rohl. Your positions
have been made clear, and many of the recent posts have had
more material of a personal nature than is becoming to this
forum.

Regards,
Bryan Rocine
b-hebrew staff





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page