Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

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