Pappy Jack

I have no evidence for this, I'm afraid. As such evidence that we do have is based on the written language, and as written language is notoriously much more conservative than spoken language, it may well be that there were borrowings which have simply not been recorded.

Such evidence that there is on freed slaves suggests that Egyptian society would have been so much more attractive to them than, say, nomadic Canaanite that, given the choice, they would choose Egypt. And there is no reason to suppose that Egypt would have wanted or tried to expel them forcefully.

ericmurphy

Dave, you do realize that Champillion died almost 200 years ago, right? And that some progress has been made in Egyptology in the past two centuries?

Why are you always citing scholarship that's anywhere from 50 to 200 years out of date?

spin

Hey, Rohl's book is less than 10 years old, isn't it?

Pause. Reflect... ... ... Oh! Yeah, right. You said scholarship...

(I'm still waiting for afdave to either accept the debate challenge on Rohl or accept that he can't trust Rohl.)


spin

Cege

Thanks, Dean, but I've seen Rohl's route, plus lots of others. There are lots of significant variations.

I want to see the one afdave approves, based on/confirmed by/whatever archeology.

afdave, I wanna see your map!

-Jay-

I really hope you aren't holding your breath, my friend.

regards,

NinJay

-Jay-

Dave, over in the Genesis: Written Record thread, you're spending some effort trying to take archaeology out of play, because you're trying to claim that since Dean Anderson (in particular. There are others.) has pointed out that the Documentary Hypothesis isn't contingent upon the archaeology, the archaeology is therefore irrelevant. (I suspect the real reason is that you realize that archaeology presents a big problem for the dumb-as-a-box-of-hair Tablet Theory that you're so fond of.)

In this thread, however, you're claiming that the archaeology (well, Rohl's version of it, anyway), is necessary and sufficient to establish the veracity of the Exodus narrative.

Your position between the threads seems inconsistent. This is predictable, though. The Tablet Theory requires a Noachian flood. Archaeology disconfirms a Noachian flood, and therefore must be taken out of play. Dean's statement that the DH isn't contingent upon the archaeology (though it is consilient with it) gives you the opening to do that. However, for the Exodus to be credible as an historical event, archaeological evidence is required - it's just too absurd to think that 2.5 million people (plus their possessions and animals) could have spent 40 years in the desert and then conquered Canaan without leaving a lot of evidence - so you have to find some interpretation of the archaeology that force-fits the field data to a timeline that's compatible with the Exodus.

You've managed to put yourself into a position of having to argue in favor of both of two mutually exclusive propositions. Isn't that painful? Doesn't some of that cognitive dissonance leak over the mental partitions you've put in place?

regards,

NinJay

Sauron

The only kitchen that afdave's ever looked into......oh, nevermind.

Dean Anderson

I don't think that's fair to Dave.

It has, in actual fact, been me who has been keeping archaeology out of the other thread.

I knew that Dave had this hobby-horse about Rohl - and I also knew that it doesn't matter to the DH whether there was an Exodus or not.

So I deliberately stood my ground and kept pointing out that archaeology was off-topic for that thread, and refused to discuss it there. That's why Dave created this thread - which is fine by me, since it means the other thread can concentrate on the DH vs Tablet Theory rather than getting derailed into Rohl discussion.

-Jay-

Thanks for the clarification, Dean. I was specifically referring to Dave's justification for the use of the G.F. Wright excerpt. Reviewing that thread at length, I see that keeping archaeology off the board wasn't originally his idea. For that mischaracterization, Dave, I apologize.

However, I stand behind my statement that archaeology damages the Tablet Theory, while archaeology (or something Dave calls archaeology) is necessary to his defense of Rohl, so he's still stuck trying to play both positions. Good archaeology is not Dave's friend in either case.

regards,

NinJay

Jukia

Awww, you picked up that word from a thread dealing with radiometric dating, no doubt. Funny how you use it here but don't buy it elsewhere.