Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: Chronology

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re: Chronology
  • Date: Fri, 11 Feb 2000 11:59:13 -0500


I accept that Rohl's method is "risky". But if everyone stays on the
"safer" ground of generally accepted theories, scholarship goes
nowhere except into filling in the small gaps in the edifice of
conventional chronology etc. Meanwhile the scholars feel safe inside
their structure, but they don't always realise that the foundations it
is based on are not as firm as they should be. Maybe some day a storm
will come along and the whole structure will collapse, and the
scholars who rely on it will find it was not really a safe place. No,
we need some scholars who are prepared to take the risk of
re-examining the foundations of the structure, so that it can be
propped up or if necessary rebuilt on firmer ground before the storm
comes. I applaud David Rohl for trying to do that, and lament that the
scholars who otherwise feel safe react so defensively, as if
threatened, to one who probes their foundations.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Chronology
Author: <h9398374 AT hkstar.com> at Internet
Date: 11/02/2000 15:09

<snip>

Having said that, I would say that the reliance of some contributor on Rohl
and other alternative chronologies is even more risky. Theoretically, it is
safer to stay with the conventional chronology. The degree of corroboration
is much higher.

<snip>




  • Chronology, barre, 02/10/2000
    • <Possible follow-up(s)>
    • Chronology, Job Wei, 02/11/2000
    • Re: Chronology, Peter Kirk, 02/11/2000

Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page