Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

Well, maybe. But that is hearsay evidence which is not admissible, 
even when the hearsay is from someone as trustworthy as Kitchen. Let 
Kitchen or anyone else write up and publish their explanations of the 
Apis bull datings. Then I'll take them seriously.

Peter Kirk


______________________________ Reply Separator 
_________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: FW: Just a clarification
Author:  <Polycarp66 AT aol.com> at Internet
Date:    13/02/2000 18:47


In a message dated 2/13/2000 2:56:11 PM Central Daylight Time, 
peter_kirk AT sil.org writes:

<<
 In this way you may be able to falsify Rohl's general redating (though 
 you also need to explain his evidence from Apis bull datings etc etc). 
 However, I should remind you that this does not falsify Rohl's 
 identifications of biblical and archaeological events, except for those 
 who are committed to the chronology of Thiele etc based on the internal 
 biblical evidence. Rohl actually has two quite distinct theses, which 
 are link only by Thiele's questionable chronology.
  >>

Didn't I just read that Kitchen explained the Apis bull datings in the part 
of his interview with Rohl that ended up on the cutting-room floor?

gfsomsel

---
You are currently subscribed to b-hebrew as: Peter_Kirk AT sil.org
To unsubscribe, forward this message to 
leave-b-hebrew-14207U AT franklin.oit.unc.e
du
To subscribe, send an email to join-b-hebrew AT franklin.oit.unc.edu.