Biblical Hebrew Forum

[George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au>]

As I mentioned, there's nothing wrong with stirring the pot. I'm all for 
that. It makes us think harder and, hopefully, progresses our understanding. 
But there are some people who do not stir the pot; they break it. David Rohl 
is one such person. While I'm not familiar with the full range of his work, 
the parts with which I am familiar are simply unbelievable. His conclusions 
are based on unreasonable and unsubstantiated leaps in logic, such that they 
fall outside the bounds of what most consider serious scholarship.

This is not about towing a party line. It's about the responsible use of 
evidence methods, and justified conclusions.


GEORGE ATHAS
Director of Postgraduate Studies,
Moore Theological College (moore.edu.au)
Sydney, Australia



From: K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com<mailto:kwrandolph AT gmail.com>>
Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2011 09:09:09 -0800
To: George Athas <george.athas AT moore.edu.au<mailto:george.athas AT moore.edu.au>>
Cc: B-Hebrew <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org<mailto:b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>>
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] FW: mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah

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.