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: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 19:45:22 -0400


On Friday, August 27, 2004, at 07:17 PM, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:

[snip]

I said that scholarship is must fall within a framework of previous
scholarship by which certain assumptions have already been established. For example,
it has been established that Amenhotep I reigned after Ahmose I. If someone
wishes to disprove that, the person first takes this assumption and then must
provide a pretty solid case why this is not so in order to convince those who
believe in this order of succession. One cannot simply say "Well, I have this
evidence that I believe is a fact" and then expect others to agree that it is a
fact without some pretty good evidence--or argument. Unlike in a criminal
case, there usually is no "solid evidence"--in Egyptology (unless one digs up
something new that sheds a whole different light on everything) but only
arguments for a new interpretation of the old evidence. So, as in a civil case, it
is the arguments that pursuade and establish a new "precedent" for looking at
any given matter in a certain light. If the arguments are persuasive enough.


Now you're speaking of two different things. One can be correct yet persuade noone. Cassandra, anyone? Being correct does not require a consensus. Being correct requires only that one's arguments contain the facts.

Best Salaams,

Brian Roberts





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page