Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Spinti <jspinti AT eisenbrauns.com>]

David Rohl is shunned because he is so clearly wrong. Serious scholarship 
will admit to that. Take a look at Assyrian Limmu lists and explain to me how 
you can compress 1000 years out of it…it can't be done. The current 
understanding of ancient chronology is tied to multiple strands--limmu lists, 
king lists, archaeological ties between sites, tablets in cuneiform from 
diverse locations, etc. You can't put Ugarit in the 1st millennium; it won't 
work. You can't put the Hittite empire there, either, to say nothing of 
Minoan Crete and Mycenaean Greece. And without them in the first millennium, 
you can't have Amarna there, either. 

Kitchen may be off here and there, but he is way closer to correct than any 
chronology that would have us believing that 1000 years can just up and 
decide to become 100 years…but we've been over this before in previous posts 
in previous years. Maybe some future archaeologist will see the redundant 
posts on B-Hebrew as evidence that the last 8 years are really just one year. 
Wouldn't that be interesting from a chronological point of view? :)

James
________________________________
James Spinti
Marketing Director, Book Sales Division
Eisenbrauns, Good books for more than 35 years
Specializing in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Studies
jspinti at eisenbrauns dot com
Web: http://www.eisenbrauns.com
Phone: 574-269-2011 ext 226
Fax: 574-269-6788

On Nov 28, 2011, at 12:09 PM, K Randolph wrote:

> George:
> 
> Is David Rohl shunned by the academic community because he is wrong, or
> because he shook up the academic orthodoxy which is also clearly wrong?
> 
> I pointed to him not as an example of what is right, but as an example of
> what happens to people who do not toe the line of academic orthodoxy. His
> is not the only example, there are others in other fields, but fits this
> context as he is a trained Egyptologist.
> 
> There should be no serious opposition to the statement that the dates as
> proposed by Kitchen and his followers are clearly wrong, off by centuries.
> Serious scholarship will admit to that. Archeology points out that they are
> faulty. But will the herd mentality mentioned by Dr. Thomas Gold allow
> researchers the freedom to find out the truth? Your answer seems to say
> “No!”
> 
> Karl W. Randolph.
> 
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:05 AM, George Athas 
> <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>wrote:
> 
>> Karl, you don't seem to have digested Yigal's earlier post. Appealing to
>> David Rohl is not going to go anywhere in serious scholarship. It's time to
>> join the actual league of critical scholarship, mate.
>> 
>> 
>> GEORGE ATHAS
>> Director of Postgraduate Studies,
>> Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
>> Sydney, Australia
>> 
>> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew