...
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. 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.
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.