Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

>> 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 

Peter, your unsupportable assumptions are part of the problem.

>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.

The point is this, Peter, if you are not prepared to deal with standard
works in your presentation of someone who your citations clearly show is
giving tendentious analyses, do you think you have given any incentive to
buy such a book which seemingly abuses scholarly practices rather blatantly?

You may support this material, but you have shown no knowledge whatsoever
of the standard works and cannot say how Rohl has represented them in his
presentation of the data. You are shooting in the dark, hoping by accusing
me of what you have been doing, you can make some hit.

> But then later you 
>wrote that you had not read the material. 

Specifically to demonstrate the point that you often make unfounded
assumptions, including knowing what happens inside my head at variance with
my understanding. I think I'm in a better position to know such things.

>So you were apparently 
>relying on hearsay or repeating someone else's comments without 
>attribution. 

You can make more assumptions.

>I suggest you avoid that, it does make you look rather 
>ridiculous when the truth comes out.

And stop this rhetorical avoidance the ugly truth that the material you
have been purveying has shown little seriousness, down to tendentious
choices of outdated transcriptions to arrive at a better looking appearance
of names in order to justify his speculative connections with biblical
characters.

>>> 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.

It's obvious that you cannot deal with the straightforward criticism of the
material you are sending to this list.

Rhetoric will not change the fact that your material has been shown to be
suspect and seemingly been falsified.

>> 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.

All I asked is either deal with the criticism or stop posting the stuff. As
you have not dealt with the criticism, I gather you cannot.

><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. 

The process is quite simple. You submit a paper to a refereed journal.

>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.

No, he's doing quite well thank you very much as a tour guide amongst other
things.

>> 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.
>
>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. 

You have his tendentious version of the major one I'm complaining about, EA
284, which showed Yanhamu in Egypt in the presence of the pharaoh, or EA
127, which is less sure: "isn't Yanhamu there with you? Ask him!" This last
is a letter to the pharaoh from Rib-Adda of Byblos. Yanhamu was a wide
traveler who went as far as the northern extremity of Egyptian influence,
being mentioned in Amurru, EA 171. When a letter was addressed to him, it
implies he was in Egypt to receive it. This also implies that Tadua and
Yashuya were in Egypt as well. Rib-Adda sent to pharaoh EA 84, which talks
of a courier called Puheya held in Egypt, and EA 85, which asks: "Isn't
Puheya there with you? Ask him!" There should be little doubt that at the
time Mutba'lu wrote to Yanhamu, both Tadua and Yashuya were in Egypt with
him, or had been or would be -- depending on the writer's timing. 

I have complained about Rohl's implicit criticism of the scribal
representations of names, regarding his tendentious manipulation of the
name Tadua to insinuate a yahwistic element. I should also mention that the
representations of names are so reasonable that nearly all names from the
letters yield relatively transparent etymologies. The only problems arise
when a name seems to be a hypocoristic form, such as Miya (EA 75).

Moreover, I have criticized his general presentation of the letters,
surreptitiously accepting the old Albright analysis of "Habiru" equating to
"Hebrew", when a wider reading of the letters would show the error.
Consider for example EA 81 from Rib-Adda of Byblos to pharaoh: Abdi-Ashirta
said, "Kill your masters and become Habiru, as (has done) Ammiya!"
Obviously being Habiru had nothing whatsoever to do with a specific ethnos
or more subtle paraphrases of the idea. In many letters you have people,
even kings, joining the Habiru (eg EA 148). David may have been a "soldier
of fortune" in his shaping of the data to try to fit his conception of the
Habiru, but it is a shame that that conception doesn't seem to fit with the
status quo for the last fifty years.

Consider the use of Ps57 to extract a hypocoristic name for Saul. The psalm
merely claims to be a poem of David "when he fled from Saul in the cave."
In a general lament, the speaker says, "I am in the midst of lions (Hebrew
'lebaim'); I lie among ravenous beasts - men whose teeth are spears and
arrows, whose tongues are sharp swords." Somehow, the speaker,
unanalytically assumed to be David, must be referring specifically to Saul
here and alluding to the Saul's nickname (I bet this is the first time that
most readers knew about such a nickname) and that that nickname
miraculously was used in the Amarna letters for Saul instead of his "given"
name. Under normal circumstances this would be called butterfly logic. On
this sort of stuff rests the whole argument. This is incredible -- in a
truly negative sense.

The Amarna Levant was one heavily influenced by Egypt. There were
commissioners traveling the land administering the local rulers at the
acknowledged bidding of the pharaoh. These local rulers wrote groveling
letters to the pharaoh making plain their relationship. Even the unruly
Lab'aya uses an image that plainly acknowledges his position, even while
being defiant: "even the ant, when being crushed, does it not perhaps
revolt and sting the hand of the man who crushes it!?" (EA 252) At the same
time acknowledges he is doing the pharaoh's bidding. This Egyptian
domination does not exist in the Samuel tales. That is a world in which
there is a simple Philistine/Israelite conflict. Not one of the ethnic
names found in Samuel is mentioned in the Amarna letters. There is nothing
to connect the two situations or suggest a connection except the mind of
Rohl. Even Mutba'lu, who is supposed to have been Ishbaal, was king of
Pihili (Pella) which was about fifteen kilometres north of the place
attributed to be where Ishbaal ruled from (Mahanaim).

>But I doubt it, 
>for how can you know what Rohl has done with his data if you have not 
>read his writings?

I'll leave that for you to assume.

>> 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....
>
>PK: You have alleged this but not demonstrated it. 

Read EA 15, which outlines Assyria's first contact with Egypt, then EA 9,
Burnaburiash's letter which complains that Assyria, is his dependent, and
has no right to make independent contacts with Egypt. All you need do is
find a better moment in history than the fourteenth century when the
Kassites dominated Mesopotamia, explaining the choice from the relevant
sources, and I may in fact agree with you. As things appear at the moment,
we have good status quo chronologies that have no trouble dealing with this
and one needs hard evidence to unseat the status quo here. The only people
who have trouble are Rohl and his ilk.

>If you want to 
>demonstrate it, read the book first. Then make some specific 
>criticisms.

I have made specific criticisms regarding his use of sources, his
tendentious choices, his unsupportable assertions, and his ignoring recent
scholarship, which you haven't been able to respond to. You seem to be
exceptionally short on data -- just the stuff you can dig out of Rohl's
footnotes.

I'll leave the ball in your court. If you want to deal with the criticisms,
please don't let me stop you, but I will not respond to any more of your
rhetorical evasions.


Ian