Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>]

Dear Marianne,


On Monday, July 26, 2004, at 04:25  PM, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:

> And yet his arguments against those "mainstream scholars" (who are not
> exactly in agreement on chronological matters, themselves) have 
> persuaded few
> knowledgeable persons.  If you are saying that these "mainstream 
> scholars" never pay
> any attention to new and persuasive arguments from their peers--you 
> would be
> very wrong, indeed.

This depends greatly upon whom a scholar considers to be a peer, or up 
to par, or at their level academically. It's easy for some to dismiss a 
Rohl or a Courville on just such those grounds.


> > > If Rohl is correct that Saul is Labayu, then the places mentioned in
> > > association with Saul's wars against the Philistines (cf. 1 Samuel,
> > > chapters 6-14) "ought" to possess archaeological evidence of being in
> > > existence in Late Bronze Age times and _not_ the Iron Age (1200-1000).
> > >
> > > My investigations into the archaeological findings on the various 
> > > towns
> > > mentioned in the Saul narratives concluded that these towns did _not_
> > exist
> > > in the days of Akhenaten and Labayu, they existed ONLY in Iron Age 
> > > times,
> > > after the arrival of the Philistines who arrived ca. 1175 BCE as the
> > Pelest
> > > in the days of Pharaoh Ramesses III who reigned ca. 1182-1151 BCE. 
> > > Ergo,
> > > Rohl's "alternate chronology" needs some more "work." For the data 
> > > cf. the
> > > below article
> >
> > Please.  We all know that archaeology is based on the accident of
> > preservation.  To say that we "ought" to find archaeological material 
> > at
> > such
> > and such a place for such and such a time, is to bypass the actual 
> > sporadic,
> >
> > not to say whimsical, flyspecks of preservation that we do encounter 
> > and
> > suggest that what is essentially a random process - the accident of
> > preservation - should follow some kind of rule set that makes what we 
> > want
> > accessible to us several thousand years later.  It just doesn't work 
> > that
> > way.  Factors such as erosion, rebuilding, destruction on a massive 
> > scale by
> >
> > enemies, and what-have-you, combine to make the whole thing a very
> > unpredictable process.  That may not be what we want, and we may not 
> > like
> > it,
> > but those factors tell us, in essence, that if we don't like it, too 
> > bad.
> >
> > This is why arguments from silence will never get anywhere, especially 
> > in
> > this
> > field.  To say that "there's no positive evidence where we 'ought' to 
> > expect
> >
> > it," is equally to say "there's no negative evidence where the 
> > accident of
> > preservation might have wiped something out, either."  It would be 
> > nice of
> > scholars would get a handle on the fact that absence of evidence does 
> > NOT
> > equal evidence of absence.  If you're into C programming, it would 
> > look like
> >
> > this:
> > (absence_of_evidence) != (evidence of absence)
> > That's how arguments from silence ALWAYS work.  What's important is for
> > qualified Egyptologists who, like Rohl, don't have some kind of ax to 
> > grind,
> >
> > to examine the revised chronology *on its own merits* and *based 
> > strictly on
> >
> > the evidence presented* and determine whether there might be something 
> > to
> > it.
> > Unfortunately, since he presented the material in popular form, first 
> > in a
> > television show and then in a popular book, too many scholars have just
> > written him off as a headline-grabbing crackpot instead of seriously
> > examining what he said.  That's just sad.
> >
> > Before someone brings it up, I really don't care one way or another 
> > whether
> > Saul was Labayu or whether he was Saul.  None of this chronology stuff
> > matters to me at all, I have my own little niche off in the grammatical
> > corner.  But the way that Rohl's material has been treated by 
> > "scholars"
> > betrays an attitude that really bothers me, and that's the only reason 
> > I get
> >
> > involved in this type of discussion.
> But these "scholars"--and I don't know why you cast doubt on them by 
> putting
> this word in quotes--don't simply say "Oh that Rohl, he is a 
> boat-rocking
> trouble-maker" but give reasoned arguments contra him.  I would say 
> that that re
> ally bad treatment in the academic world is to ignore someone 
> altogether.  One
> of the reasons I believe Rohl has received so much attention from other
> scholars is that they have seen the potential impact his theories have 
> on the
> uninformed.  Rohl wrote the above mentioned book and it was so  
> well-produced and so
> expertly laid out(graphics and whatnot) that few laymen would suspect 
> that
> claptrap could be so beautifully presented. (Most scholarly works tend 
> to look
> the opposite of "fancy" but those for "popular consumption" do--no 
> accident
> there).  Plus, Rohl was very visible on television, going about like 
> Indiana
> Jones, complete with a "sidekick", Bob Bianchi.  I think it is scarcely 
> any wonder
> that other scholars decided to deal with all this before it got to be 
> "dogma"
> in the eyes of too many people.  But, even so, it is, to a considerable
> degree.  There is an entire mailing list devoted to Rohl and his 
> theories.  I once
> joined it and got tremendous flack for making too many "points" against 
> him.
> The opposition I received was virulent and hardly reasoned.  It was 
> like "This
> is a list of Rohl fans and we don't want your arguments."  When my 
> points were
> too sensible, the moderator, who apparently worshipped Rohl (a woman) 
> simply
> did not allow them through. So I quit.  And I am not the only person 
> who had
> this experience.  And that, sir,  is the other side of the coin of 
> intolerance.

There are reasoned arguments on both sides of the chronology issue.