Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>]

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>