Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Ian Hutchesson <mc2499 AT mclink.it>]

It's pretty clear, Dave, that you have nothing to say about what it is you
find compelling about Rohl's proposed restructuring of the Third
Intermediate Period. Is it from your reading of other Egyptian materials
which you have found wanting and that Rohl has come along with a means of
dealing with that want? This response of yours below seems to be sophistry
to me. You still don't say anything at all, but you say it well.

What I reject is the redating of the Third Intermediate Period from the
beginning of the eleventh century down three centuries. I reject the notion
that Ramses II lived in the tenth century or that he was the Shishak who
went into Palestine and was remembered in the OT. I reject linguistic
arguments as at best secondary.

And I reject the notion that one need read any hare-brained book that pops
into a conversation. When you tell someone to read a book, you are usually
recommending it for some specific reason, but in this case you seem unable
to give any tangible reason whatsoever. Yet, this book amongst other things
is putting forward a number of notions that requires the whole Egyptian
chronology to be abandoned. Do you deny this? Do you deny that there are
many things that the book proposes that are contrary to the status quo in
Egyptology?

Which books on Egyptology have you read that gives you the background to
say this: "I have read Rohl and I have to admit that his material about the
current misinterpretation of the Third Intermediate Period has convinced me"?

What "current misinterpretation"? How is such a misrepresentation
manifested? Do any Egyptologists say that there is such a misrepresentation
or does it exist solely within the covers of Rohl's popular book? One of
the standard works on the Third Intermediate is Kitchen's, but I didn't
note him saying anything particularly different about the period.

It is an old fudge to say "read the book". It requires a bit more analysis
to say in what way and why you think the book is successful, in order to
show anyone that the opinion is reasoned and that the book is actually
worth reading. Here is a link that has a lengthy synopsis of the Rohl book:

http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

Is this misrepresenting the book, or are there any major omissions?

Is there any point in analysing the indicators that the 19th century
pundits used as a basis of their construction of chronology, when the vast
amount of information that we have regarding the ANE has come to light in
this century? Amarna. Hatti. Our knowledge of Mitanni.

So how about getting down to some nitty-gritty and stop avoiding the book.
Tell me what the problems you see as valid are with regard to the standard
view of the Third Intermediate Period, which is a period that I know a
little about, having worked on a project that covered some of the period.


Cheers,


Ian


>Ian, I have no idea what you're actually reading but it's clear you're 
>not reading my posts.  I haven't said that I discarded anything.  
>This is ridiculous.  You reject Rohl without even reading him (and 
>then have the brass to accuse me of depending on secondary 
>sources!), you put words in my mouth that I never even implied, 
>you have your mind made up and really don't care to cloud it by 
>actually investigating the situation.  You complain that I keep falling 
>back on "Read the book."  Yes I do, and I make no apologies for it. 
>If you haven't actually seen what he says, you have no idea what 
>you're talking about.  If you don't even bother to read the material 
>that you are fussing about so much, why should anybody take you 
>seriously?  You don't have any idea what the arguments are for the 
>proposed restructuring of the Third Intermediate Period, and you 
>don't want to know because you might actually have to rethink 
>some things and you don't want to do that.  You complain that I 
>don't "say anything of substance," but the fact is that you would be 
>unable to discuss anything of substance because you haven't even 
>bothered to look at the material.  You're trying to stack the deck, 
>Ian.  You want to be able to discuss what you consider of 
>substance, but you don't want to deal with the actual evidence 
>because you won't go read it.  You called my comment about 
>intellectual honesty ad hominem, but the truth is that this is what 
>is required in this situation because you refuse to level the playing 
>field by taking an honest look at the actual source of the 
>discussion.  If that's ad hominem, so be it.  This will be my last 
>response to you on this subject, because I think it's clear from 
>other responses that all can see how absurd your position is.