Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re[4]: Stop with the Rohl material.

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: "Peter Kirk"<peter_kirk AT sil.org>
  • To: <b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu>
  • Subject: Re[4]: Stop with the Rohl material.
  • Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 00:02:23 -0500


Dear NPL,

David Rohl has put forward evidence, in his books and in several
papers. I have summarised some of his evidence, but I make no claim to
having been exhaustive. Unless and until you read these books, you
have no grounds on which to say that he has no evidence.

You also implicitly claim that David Rohl has no scholarly training.
This is also an assumption which is untrue. He has a degree in
Egyptology and Ancient History from University College London and
wrote in 1995 that "I am currently completing my PhD research", under
the supervision of Amelie Kuhrt and Dr. Geoffrey Martin.

It takes two to dialogue. You cannot blame David Rohl for not
dialoguing with you and your little fraternity when you are the ones
who don't even take the trouble to read what he has written.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: Stop with the Rohl material.
Author: <npl AT teol.ku.dk> at Internet
Date: 12/02/2000 18:57

<snip>

.. It cannot be refited because there is no evidence, and it cannot be
vindicated because there is none. So what are we going to discuss? That some
think it legitimate to propese unsupported theories and demand that other
people should think it worth while discussing them? I do not think that this
has anything woith scholarship to day. And as to the chronological question,
I see no reason to think of any reason to follow Rohl. I have not read him
and I am not going to waste my time on it...

<snip>

..He necver resorted to the kind of speculation we seemingly find in Rohl.

PK: "seemingly"? Shouldn't you check your facts before making this
kind of accusation?

<snip>

We have had this discussion about what scholarship is several times
over the last two months. Remember that it is the scholars who decide the
rules of their game, not laypersons. The lay can put forward ideas, even
discuss them but without the basic training that includes the ability to
distinguish between theory and postulate, there is little chance that the
layperson can stand up when it comes to a disxcussion with the
professionals. Therefoe I never discuss the details of my car (my ideas)
with mechanics. I have no professional idea of what is going on there.
The Pinocchio simili has nothing with this to do. It has to do with
right or wrong epistemology.

NPL





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page