Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Ian wrote:

"It would be good if people would stop making assumptions about things 
they simply cannot know. I have not read Rohl..."

Enough said. You stand condemned by your own words. You simply cannot 
know about Rohl's theories if you have not read them, so instead you 
make assumptions about them. Why should I read further?

But in fact I did read further only to find even more clear evidence 
that you have no idea what Rohl is talking about. Rohl does NOT reject 
the idea that a population called the Philistines arrived in the iron 
age - in fact he has very little to say about the iron age. He agrees 
that there was no Israelite invasion in the late bronze - he finds it 
in the middle bornze, following Dr. Bimson. He disagrees with the 
archaeological consensus almost solely in matters of absolute dating. 
Where he is revolutionary is mainly in what he says (rather 
speculatively) about biblical characters.

If it becomes a generally accepted rule on this list that people 
should post details only of their own personal theories and not 
describe those of other scholars or alleged scholars not on the list, 
I will abide by that. Such a rule would also have to prohibit 
criticism of scholars not on the list, and certainly the regurgitation 
of other people's critical comments which you must have engaged on if 
you have not read the primary evidence of Rohl's theories, his books. 
Now I think such a rule would be a ridiculous imposition on a list 
like this one. As long as there is no such rule I will post Rohl's 
material as I choose. But actually there is not so much left which I 
have not already posted over the last couple of weeks.

Peter Kirk