Biblical Hebrew Forum

["Trevor Jenkins" <Trevor.Jenkins AT suneidesis.com>]

On Saturday, 12 February, 2000 00:03:57, Peter Kirk <peter_kirk AT sil.org> 
wrote:

> Ian wrote:
>
> "It would be good if people would stop making assumptions about things
> they simply cannot know. I have not read Rohl..."
>
> Enough said. You stand condemned by your own words. You simply cannot
> know about Rohl's theories if you have not read them, so instead you
> make assumptions about them.

I don't normally participate in the discussions of this list because my
Hebrew is so poor. However, the recent triade from Ian Hutchesson
appealing for the censoring of all posts that mention Rohl's datng
hypothesis is the most ludicrous suggestion I've read here.

As Peter Kirk has been at pains to point out over several months Ian
Hutchesson's opinions are nothing but supposition and inuendo about exactly
what it is that Rohl is saying. Exemplified by Ian Hutchesson's own
admission in the quoted passage above.

Whilst I too have not read Rohl's books I have watched his presentation of
the material in his TV series. Indeed I caught a repeat showing of one
programme yesterday. Afterwards I felt that some slurry had been removed
from my mind from Ian Hutchesson's triades. A triade that, unlike Rohl
himself, does not give voice to opposing ideas.

I'm left with the thought that Rohl's populist books and the accompying TV
series are the real reason that Ian Hutcheson doesn't like Rohl's viewpoint.
For they are cogent, well argued, equal-sided and reasonable. Moreover they
are pitched at the non-specialist and ergo can never be considered scholarly
in anyway. As with Hebrew so with my knowledge of "dating"; it's limited.
Because Rohl has made the material accessible to me a non-specialist I have
a certain liking for his approach. When Ian Hutchesson produces an equally
approachable summary of his views then I'll consider his opinion.

As to out-dated ideas still being promulgated I can only cite those things
that are no longer accepted but continue to be taught. I'm a computing
scientist and we still use Chomsky's work on language. Whilst his deep
structure concept may have been dismissed his language classification work
*is* still valid. It is in this vein that I'm prepared to consider Rohl's
viewpoint for maybe there is something in it. Surely that is the mark of a
scholar---to consider to abhorent view for anything of merit. Otherwise I'll
return to my looking out of my window, as I did on first reading Ian
Hutchesson's triade, to see how big the book bonfire has grown.

Regards, Trevor

British Sign Language is not inarticulate handwaving; it's a living
language. So recognise it now.

--

<>< Re: deemed!