Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

> 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 can't comment.

> You stand condemned by your own words.

Your condemnation will not change the facts. I have supplied what seems to be 
sufficient criticism of the Rohl material. If you don't agree with my 
criticism deal with it. If you can't, why post?

> You simply cannot know about Rohl's theories if you have not read
> them, so instead you make assumptions about them.

You seemed to think I could last post, when you assumed I was reading the 
stuff. Please think before you write.

> Why should I read further?

If you want to deal with the criticism then you read. Is the criticism 
erroneous? If so, how so? Rhetoric will not change things. Either deal with 
the criticism, or stop posting the stuff.

> But in fact I did read further only to find even more clear evidence
> that you have no idea what Rohl is talking about. 

Changing tunes in mid whistle.

> 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.

He has made a total mess of his reading of the Amarna letters in an effort to 
give believability to his theories. He has simply manipulated the Amarna - 
Mesopotamia indications in an effort to hide the obvious support for the 
status quo in ANE chronology.

> Where he is revolutionary is mainly in what he says (rather
> speculatively) about biblical characters.

So you admit that he has nothing really to offer but speculation. Hopefully 
you can see the various errors in his attributions of biblical characters in 
the Amarna age.
 
> 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,

As Rohl hasn't put most of his musings before a scholarly audience, it is a 
bit much to call him a scholar.

> 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.

My interest is dealing with the evidence -- eventually in relation to the DSS 
-- and which if any materials belong to that period. I have some idea of the 
matters he works on. To deal with the Amarna letters for example you need to 
read them. At least I can say I have. In reading them it will become clear 
that Rohl has manipulated his data, misrepresenting the letters and their 
content. If that doesn't please you, you can either show how I'm wrong, or 
change your opinions about the Rohl material, or let it ride.

> 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.

I suppose you could post telephone book listings as well, moderators 
permitting. You have so far only assumed the material you have posted, or, at 
least, found Rohl's musings worthy to use in attempts to deal with the 
historical reconstructions, though the historical verifiable content has been 
shown to be lacking -- so much so that your usual recourse is that it hasn't 
been totally falsified. The important point it seems in you usage of the 
material is that it is not blatantly contradicted to stimulate the further 
dissemination of the stuff. I have called you on it: the material seems to 
misrepresent most things it deals with. I think you should either deal 
sufficiently with it, ie show that there is more than a superficial effort on 
Rohl's part to write a perverted apology for biblical traditions in the 
context of an unsupporting archaeological and epigraphic data, or stop with 
the Rohl material.

I took the effort to respond point by point to your last post, to show the 
specific problems -- already noted -- were real.

> But actually there is not so much left which I
> have not already posted over the last couple of weeks.

There was so little content to start with. I'm impressed how much you've 
stretched it out.


Ian