Biblical Hebrew Forum

[peter_kirk AT sil.org]

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