Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Brian Roberts <formoria AT carolina.rr.com>]

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