Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>]

It would be good if people would stop making assumptions about things they 
simply cannot know. I have not read Rohl. I have read some of the mainstream 
literature which of course is a prerequisite for matters such as those Rohl 
is misrepresenting. The problem is that it is clear misrepresentation and the 
fact that no-one who follows the theories is reading mainstream materials 
indicates that there is no scholarly intent. 

What "may" have been is of very little use when dealing with history. One 
puts up a hypothesis to see if it floats. One cannot simply continue to build 
further hypotheses upon the first hypothesis until there comes new data to 
confirm that original hypothesis. One starts with facts, such as the 
existence of a certain range of pottery, such as that found in western 
Palestine at the start of the iron age, and compares it with the pottery of 
the same location slightly earlier and one finds a complete change. The data 
shows a change of cultural activity reflecting the arrival of a new 
population. This is fairly standard stuff in the world of archaeology. When 
someone doesn't accept the implications of the standard analysis one puts 
forward a new analysis to be evaluated by the experts in the field. Rohl has 
not done this. Rohl has merely recycled old discarded theories, such as those 
of Velikovsky, though with different purposes. Rohl, despite his rhetoric, 
seems specifically orie!
nted to apology of the bible, turning his back on the scholarly world to make 
an unlearned appeal to a popular audience, which is in collusion with the 
author. 

There is almost nothing speculative about the Philistine arrival in Palestine 
in the early twelfth century BCE. What is woefully obvious are the 
contortions performed by such people as Rohl in order to set things "right" 
again, boldly rejecting every inconvenience, distorting every item of 
evidence. Consult most any archaeologist working in the field today and see 
how many will reject the notion of a population arrival in Iron 1. See how 
many will reject that that population was the Philistines and related 
peoples. This is ordinary material that is so well supported that one can 
only see manipulative motives for the desire to totally do away with the 
developments in the field over the last century.
 
There is nothing speculative about the absence of signs of an invasion of 
Palestine in the late bronze to match the traditions of the Hebrews. The 
situation has caused the profound reanalysis of the data  by most 
archaeologists and historians and a reformulation that concludes that there 
was in fact no invasion, but an internal urbanisation which gave birth to 
bigger political organisations.

Given such a development of analysis from the data uncovered, one can only 
expect a backlash which attempts a grand design to undermine *all* the data. 
This is done by negating the validity of all the contemporary data and 
blindly depending on documentation which cannot in any sense be dated within 
a millennium of the events.  Such dependence illustrates the lack of 
seriousness of these analyses.

If anyone would like to claim any "reconstructions" of mine are speculative, 
I would expect them to at least know something about the material dealt with 
rather than merely supplying someone else's questionable materials.

If Rohl would like to put his theories up for examination on this list then 
he is welcome. Until such time I can see no reason for having to suffer his 
stuff when there is no recourse to the author to deal with the problems and 
no spokesperson with sufficient expertise in the subjects dealt with to 
respond to the problems.


Ian