kwrandolph at email.com
Thu Aug 26 19:04:44 EDT 2004
Back in the Dark Ages when I was a student, the common statement about new theories was that they succeeded not because they convinced the old guard, but because the old guard died off.
This is not only true of the social studies like history, sociology, psychology, and so forth, but also for hard sciences like physics and chemistry. By the admission below, is not reliance on Manetho part of the old guard, and possibly Rohl the wave of the future?
Since I support neither, it will be interesting to see how it goes.
Karl W. Randolph.
----- Original Message -----
From: MarianneLuban at aol.com
> > >
> > That is not the point. I am quoting Rohl's book as a convenient source
> > of data which needs explanation. If Rohl or his associates have found
> > data which seems to contradict "established" Egyptology, this
> > establishment needs to provide explanations for this data, and not write
> > it off by ad hominem arguments against its source.
> 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.
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
More information about the b-hebrew