Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Niels Peter Lemche <npl AT teol.ku.dk>]

        Dave Washburn: 
> Let's get real here, shall we?  Nobody but you has brought in 
> anything resembling "ultra-conservative" viewpoints.  Peter's point, 
> and mine as well, is that Ian needs to read the material he is 
> fussing about before doing any more fussing.  Rather than do that, 
> he lumps Rohl, about whom he actually knows virtually nothing, 
> with Velikovsky.  What is the purpose of this?  Perhaps you can 
> explain it; but it seems to me that it's nothing more than simple 
> guilt by association.  Do you consider this good scholarship?  
> Why?  And why is it only acceptable for one side of the discussion 
> to engage in it?  The fact is, lumping Rohl with Velikovsky without 
> even doing Rohl the courtesy of reading him is simple ad hominem, 
> backed up with guilt by association.  He is doing his best to try 
> and discount a viewpoint by dragging in a name that really has 
> nothing to do with anything.  He has done this several times, and 
> each time someone has nailed him on it.  Yet, it's all he has 
> because he really doesn't know what he's talking about.  He 
> doesn't know what he's talking about because he hasn't read it.  
> This has nothing to do with ultra-conservatism, and I think you 
> know it.  It has everything to do with having a clue what you're 
> talking about before you rail against someone, and it has 
> everything to do with dragging a name out of left field in order to try 
> and discount something you haven't even read.  Now I see you 
> doing the same thing, except that instead of Velikovsky, it's "ultra-
> conservative."  The method is the same, the truth is that the topic 
> has been dragged in from the sidelines but has nothing to do with 
> the matter at hand, and still neither of you has read the book.  This 
> kind of approach is not within the realm of what I would call 
> scholarship, no matter how many ways one tries to define it in 
> one's own favor.
> 
> 
> Dave Washburn
> 
        I am of course happy that Mr Washburn is not sharing my ideas of
scholarship. I would be rather disturbed if he did. He is of course
sidestepping any serious discussion about the issues involved, never geting
down to discusss the evidence instead of some crazy theory about the
evidence. Exactly what I said. No, I haven't read the book by this person
who I really do not want to mention anymore, neither am I going to read any
other book belonging to this genre (if not accepted as novel like Waltari's
Sinuhe novel). I do know the evidence that has to do with chronology and
will form my ideas based on this, not on a book by a parasite to the
scholarly world, living from spoils and left overs from my world. 

        In the real world--not the world of Mr Washburn--we can move around
with the chronology of the period involved within limits of, say 50 years.
That's all. 100 years or 200 years or 300 years is simply impossible and
creates so many and diversified problems that the whole idea breaks down
from within.

        Without any hope of being able to impress Mr Washburn.

        NPL