Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Stop with the Rohl material.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Ian Charles Hutchesson <MC2499 AT mclink.it>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Stop with the Rohl material.
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 13:48:02 +0100 (CET)


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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page