Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

See some comments below.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Stop with the Rohl material.
Author:  <MC2499 AT mclink.it> at Internet
Date:    12/02/2000 13:36

<snip>

> 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.

PK: When I read some criticism by you of two specific points in Rohl's 
book, I assumed that you had acted in a proper scholarly manner by 
reading the material before commenting on it, although it was clear 
that you had not read the associated footnotes. But then later you 
wrote that you had not read the material. So you were apparently 
relying on hearsay or repeating someone else's comments without 
attribution. I suggest you avoid that, it does make you look rather 
ridiculous when the truth comes out.

> 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.

PK: Do you want me to read it or not? I am beginning to wish I had 
not.

<snip>

> 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.

PK: That's why I wrote "alleged scholar". But Rohl does list eight 
papers which he has written on chronology. And the "scholarly 
audience" is quite capable of buying and reading his book if they 
want, so he cannot be accused of hiding anything, and there are 
footnotes and appendices designed for the scholars. He was working on 
a Ph.D. on this, but I guess he has now lost his chance and been 
excommunicated from the scholarly community for the unforgivable sin 
of revealing their secrets to the world at large.

> 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 
matte
rs he works on. To deal with the Amarna letters for example you need to read 
the
m. 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 
do
esn't please you, you can either show how I'm wrong, or change your opinions 
abo
ut the Rohl material, or let it ride.

PK: I have read some of the Amarna letters, in translation, most 
recently the ones on your website, and my reading so far does not 
support your criticism. Perhaps you can tell me which specific Amarna 
letters have been misrepresented by Rohl in what way. But I doubt it, 
for how can you know what Rohl has done with his data if you have not 
read his writings?

> 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 
reconstruct
ions, though the historical verifiable content has been shown to be lacking 
-- s
o 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 
blatant
ly contradicted to stimulate the further dissemination of the stuff. I have 
call
ed you on it: the material seems to misrepresent most things it deals with....

PK: You have alleged this but not demonstrated it. If you want to 
demonstrate it, read the book first. Then make some specific 
criticisms.

<snip>

Peter Kirk