[b-hebrew] Shishak

Brian Roberts formoria at carolina.rr.com
Thu Aug 26 16:06:45 EDT 2004

I must say, Marianne, that your post has an elitist tone which is quite 
disturbing. Scholars are not a priesthood who can only be questioned 
seriously by other priests. We must not undervalue the perspective of 
the fresh eye, no matter whence it comes.

Answer me this: Is Rohl a trained Egyptologist?

Best Salaams,

Brian Roberts

On Thursday, August 26, 2004, at 03:10  PM, MarianneLuban at aol.com wrote:


> But it is the point.  Egyptologists are learned in the field.  The is a 
> good
> reason why Rohl is popular with those who are not.  Think of Rohl as a 
> kind of
> lawyer.  He is articulate and knows how to make a good case.  Someone 
> who
> does not know the law could be swayed by his arguments quite easily.  
> But a judge
> or another attorney can spot the weaknesses in the case.  They know the
> precedents and can tell when another lawyer is making a point that 
> "will not wash"
> within that framework.  You may think this is "apples and oranges"--but 
> it
> isn't.  Precedents are set only in unestablished law but the arguments 
> for them
> becoming precedents still have to be based on established law and 
> deemed to be
> sound and, of course, the buck stops at the highest court--or with 
> congress, so
> metimes.  By the same token, an Egyptologist has to operate within a
> framework, too--that is rely on previous scholarship--points of which 
> have been
> extensively argued in the journals and books until a consensus has been 
> reached.
> This can be a very lengthy process, indeed, and is receives the 
> contributions of
> various specialists in aspects of the field.  However, in the instance 
> of
> Rohl, he has chosen an area where there is no consensus, that being the 
> Bible vis
> a vis Egyptian history.  Unfortunately for him, though, he has elected 
> to
> alter ANE chronology, a matter that has received very much 
> consideration.
> Therefore, unless his arguments are very excellent, they are bound to 
> be rejected
> within the framework.  But Rohl knew that when he went in.  Your 
> statement that
> the "establishment" is required to make sound arguments to disprove him 
> if
> they do not agree with his assertions is incorrect.  If Rohl wants to 
> set new
> precedents, it is *he* who is required to make the sound arguments, not 
> vice
> versa.  If not, he loses in the lower court or it is simply a matter of 
> "case
> dismissed" because of a brief that relies on an untenable premise.  It 
> is not
> encumbent upon Egyptology to address any and all "crackpot theories".  
> I am not
> calling Rohl a crackpot because in a certain area he has done well--and 
> that is
> in dealing with the TIP.  But the TIP is late in Egyptian history and 
> the
> alteration of its chronology does nothing to change the chronology in 
> retrospect.
> Only prospectively.  And only by around 140 years.   No matter what, 
> this
> still does not make Ramesses II the "Shishak" of the Bible by anybody's 
> math.
> All it can do is make the dates assigned to world history higher until 
> the Dark
> Ages when perspective becomes muddied.  The fact is, we say it is 2004 
> CE, but
> nobody really knows exactly what year it is.  You may notice we are
> discussing Manetho and the viability of what he wrote, but you would be 
> surprised to
> know just how much of accepted Egyptian chronology is based on him--and 
> the
> dates given in the Bible, as well.  There is no alternative because the 
> Egyptians
> did not use a running calendar like the Julian, Gregorian or Hebrew.  
> Each
> time a new king was crowned, it was Year One all over again by their 
> civil
> calendar.  And, if some dynasties happened to be ruling concurrently, 
> so much the
> worse.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list