Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - RE: Re[2]: Stop with the Rohl material.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Dave Washburn" <dwashbur AT nyx.net>
  • To: Biblical Hebrew <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: RE: Re[2]: Stop with the Rohl material.
  • Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2000 09:22:48 -0700


NPL wrote:
> No, Peter, this does not make sense. Münchhausen proposed the Moon
> to be a green cheese. Who could say that he was wrong before Armstrong
> arrived there? There is no obligation to find evidence to disprove a
> hypothesis that has no evidence to support it exept wild speculation. This
> is the essence of the Popper.approach to science that has been advocated so
> many times on this list and elsewhere; or as Liverani--one of Ian's and my
> favourites--put it more then twenty years ago: 'I fell no obligation to
> answer worng questions by other people'. It is a waste of time. As far as I
> understand, Rohl has not produced anything that looks like evidence based on
> the Amarna archive.

This kind of attack is as unscholarly as anything I've seen recently.
"Pinocchio's nose grew when he lied. You have a big nose.
Therefore you must be lying." What kind of ridiculous guilt by
association is this?

There is accordingly no reason to waste time of refuting
> his speculations. Th Amarna period is not one about which it is allowed to
> speculate wildly. It is one of the periods on pre-classical times about
> which we know the most (but of course not all). It has been heavily studied
> by many author--the literaure is massive, and this is also relevant to the
> Amarna letters.

Of course it has, and Rohl is no exception. He not only deals with
the Amarna letters, he deals with numerous inscriptions and papyri
as well. As Peter pointed out, and as some here don't seem to
comprehend, Rohl's thesis is that the Amarna period (among other
aspects of Egyptian chronology) has been dated incorrectly. If we
assume a date for the Amarna correspondence that is far removed
from the Samuel-Saul-David period in Palestine, well then of course
Rohl's identifications are wrong. But this is precisely the evidence
that hasn't been forthcoming from Rohl's critics on this list.
Somehow I get the impression that NPL hasn't read Rohl any more
than Ian has.

Rainey, in his recent work on the language devoted 70 peges
> to the literature about these letters, and claims his list to be no way
> exhaustive, Heintz' bibliographies are even more complete. So why should we
> pay attention to wild speculations from a person who has never obtained any
> credibility of any kind among our fraternity?

Yes, Rainey and others have worked extensively on the letters.
But if the dating is off, they went up a blind alley, now didn't they?
Simply dubbing Rohl's material as "wild speculations" is likewise
unscholarly (to say nothing of rude), and I would be very interested
to know exactly what constitutes "our fraternity" and how it's
decided.


Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Teach me your way, O Lord, and I will walk in your truth;
give me an undivided heart that I may fear your name.
Psalm 86:11




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page