Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Shishak

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>
  • To: MarianneLuban AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Shishak
  • Date: Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:06:45 -0400

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:

[snip]

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






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page