Duke Leto

With respect, spin, what is your authority on the subject above and beyond your reading? Do you have a degree in the subject? Just so I know who I'm dealing with.

spin

I'm happy to cite my sources exactly if you are prepared to do the same. Beyond that, all anyone can hope for is reasoned argument based on the evidence and a working knowledge of the subject matter being discussed.


spin

Duke Leto

Frankly, I'm not sure there's any point in continuing a discussion, since no one else but the two of us appears to have any interest and we are not doing much to effect each other's viewpoints.

You insist on seeing my archaeological knowledge as fatuous and I am not willing to give the consensus viewpoint the confidence of certainty you seem willing to vest in it, so we're at an impasse.

Let me lay out my points as I now see them.

You have chosen to ignore my questions on Kitchen's scholarly integrity stemming from his known involvement in evangelical apologetics. I feel this is evidence that he is unduly dogmatic about his own hypotheses.

You insist on seeing the Rohl and James hypotheses as "mutually exclusive" when I don't think that either of them would claim their chronological frameworks as anything but working hypotheses. These aren't differing versions of the Grand Unified Theory, they are both tentative reconstructions that need further refinement. My original point in saying James corroborated Rohl was in that his stratigraphical dark ages suggested that inflation had taken place, not that their chonologies were in precise agreement, BTW.

As to the Hittites, do I really need to remind you that the name is the Biblical Hebrew one for that people? Are you really asking me to believe that there was never any contact between the society that wrote biblical narrative and the huge empire only a few 100 miles to the north of them? Not a single trade caravan, not a single diplomatic mission, but no intereaction whatsoever? You are telling me that although the biblical narrative states that Hittite nationals fought for David as mercenaries that not one Hittite speaker ever at any time could have gotten through to settle in a Hebrew community? I admit that my linguistic scenario is not probable, but it is not as implasible as you are painting it either.

Let me see if I now have your description of the scenario in Assyria correct. The chronologies match up with the king list, the reign lengths look right, BUT there are 200 years of scantity epigraphical material that Rohl and Newgrosh et al claim may be the result of inflated co regencies and competing dynasties. So what's wrong with co-regencies and competing dynasties? I was under the impression that everyone agreed the Egyptian Middle Kingdom's stated reign length lists are inflated by co-regency, so why can't the same be true of this Middle Assyrian period?

As to the Hittite to Neo Hittite sequence, you have yet to demonstrate unequivocally that it can not be compressed. The argument looks very much to me like:

1) Egyptian Chronology is reliable because the Hittite and Assyrian chronologies prove it to be true.

2) Hittite Chronology is reliable because Egyptian and Assyrian chronologies prove it to be true.

3) Assyrian Chronology is reliable because Egyptian and Hittite chronologies prove it to be true.

I'm sorry if you find that to be a coarse oversimplification, but that is to a certain extent what you ARE claiming here.

Now as to the supposed eclipse tablet, I have to ask two things. Assuming the "On the sixth" is the proper reading, what is that supposed to mean? What notable astronomic event is it recording? Why bother writing it down? Are there other tablets in the Ugarit archive with a similar style corroborating your reading? Does it not strike you as immensely improbable that the tablet can be misread as a record of a sunset eclipse when such an eclipse did take place during historical time at Ugarit?

And I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that Solar eclipses can not heppen during a new moon. The opposite is in fact the case.

In response to the Philistine question I just have to point you in the direction of Rohl's 2007 publication "Lords of Avaris" which deals extensively with the Aegean origins of the Hyksos and touches on both the Philistine question and the Hittite to Neo-Hittite transition. It will at least give you new fodder to state what an idiot Rohl is, if nothing else.

To me the Philistine argument is like calling Robert Graves an idiot for saying Julius Caesar conquered France. (The Franks didn't get there for centuries, after all.)

Amaleq13

You've obtained 442 views as I post this. That's an awful lot if it is only the two of you and the moderators.

If you're done, you're done but don't quit just because you think only the two of you are reading.

spin

This is not correct. I've used a lot of archaeological data in this discussion. When not citing Kitchen, the world authority on the period, I've only referred to archaeologically derived data. It's Rohl who seems willing to use such disreputable sources as early Hebrew legend as though it has some historical value. It only has for fundies and I would have assumed you're not of sugarhitman's ilk.

If you think non sequitur is a means of argument, then you should introduce it elsewhere. Why do you refuse to deal with Kitchen's evidence and analyses??

You continue to refuse to deal with their contradictory positions. Fudging the data is not a realistic approach to the dilemma that they rule each other out, unless you want to call 100 years an acceptable error margin. James is only about 200 years at variance with standard dating. Rohl is a further 50% at variance.

Ignorance is not a reasonable response. Who in the field of near eastern history accepts that the biblical Hittites are the Hittites of Hatti? I tried to make it clear that I was referring to the people of Hatti, not some confused idea from Jewish legend.

Are you asking me whether I believe that the Egyptians who were antagonists with the Hittites would have fostered Hittite movements within their territory??

It's the convenient fudge used by Rohl and gang in Egypt. There is the slight chance that one state may get their own history wrong, but that two get it wrong at the same time for the same length of time is stretching credulity beyond reason.

Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the evidence in Kitchen's TIP. You really seem to be totally oblivious of the data he has arrayed.

Egyptrian chronology is reliable, as demonstrated by Kitchen, through internal consistency.

Hittite chronology supplies synchronisms with both Egyptian and Assyrian. It helps us to understand Amarna and who the significant figures were. The Amarna Asshur-uballit has to be the first Assyrian king of that name. The Amarna data describes the actions of Shuppiluliuma I of Hatti in northern Syria. And Amarna also supplies the Babylonian king Burnaburiash II. All these kings form a locus which fixes all the chronology of the near east. If you reduce the Egyptian chronology by 300 years, you have to do so in Assyria and Babylon (and the Hittite chronology, which is much more complex). Near misses aren't good enough. There are no major problems with the status quo chronology as is. Asshur-uballit, Shuppiluliuma, Burnaburiash and Akhnaten were all contemporaries as per Amarna and the standard chronology. From this we know that Ramses II and Hattushilash III were contemporaries, because of their treaty and because of the time from Amarna to the treaty. There's another 70 years from Hattushilash III to the fall of Hatti. Rohl wants Ramses II to be the Shishak of the bible, circa 935 BCE. The fall of Hatti must then be 865 BCE. Neo-Assyrian king Ashur-nasir-pal II is already giving king Sangara of Karchemish trouble, but by Sangara's time there had already been several post-Hittite kings of Karchemish. Post-Hittite kings at the same time as Hittite kings, hmmm??

Time and time again Rohl and his aids imply giving up functionality of synchronisms in order to grub up some extremely poor substitute. Prime example being Ashur-uballit I for a figure not in the kinglist and whose name is mostly lost in a lacuna.

Assyrian provides a continuous chronology through its kinglists, most of which is supported by royal epigraphy. It is correct because of its own internal consistency. It also agrees with other chronologies.

Utter rubbish.

"On the sixth" is explained in the next phrase, "the day of the new moon", of Hiyaru.

Sorry, just a brain fart.

Since when were Greeks horse-rearing people, like the Hyksos?? Look at the Egyptian representations of the Philistines at Medinat Habu. No horses. Perhaps the Philistines gave up the use of chariots.

Sorry, you didn't seem to understand the problem. Your analogy doesn't deal with the issues. It's got nothing to do with retrojected nomenclature. It's about the lack of knowledge of the disaster that hit Palestine with the arrival of the Philistines and Danuna. If you were there and had a literate culture you would have recorded the unmissable event. There are Hebrew recollections of conflicts with the Philistines (as in Samson and Saul), but no arrival.

If you like giving up hard evidence for biblical legend, giving up clear synchronisms for poor substitutes, trusting Rohl without having read Kitchen and accepting the same trick played over and over again to compress chronology in different contexts because it is necessary to make the one chronology work, when the current status quo functions relatively well, I don't think argument and reasoning are going to help.


spin

David Rohl

Reply to (a load of) spin:

I am one of those 442 readers of this thread and I think that I am entitled to feel pretty aggrieved at the insults and defamatory remarks hurled onto the pages of this forum by this ‘spin’ creature. <comments on moderation removed>

But first, how qualified is spin to challenge the New Chronology theory?

It is obvious that his knowledge is poor at best. Any person with half a brain would know that a solar eclipse can only take place at the very beginning of a lunar month when the Sun, Moon and Earth are aligned. Hence a solar eclipse cannot take place on ‘the sixth [day] of the lunar month’. Yet spin seems to think that it is impossible for a solar eclipse to occur on ‘the day of the new moon’. This is 100% rubbish. That is precisely when solar eclipses occur!

He says that my ‘strange reading’ of the Ugarit tablet KTU 1.78 ‘ignores all other dating attempts’. I do not ignore them but simply offer an alternative date based on a more logical translation of the text. This translation does not involve rejecting linguistic rules (such as some scholars’ unacceptable turning of BTT, which they translate as B-TT ‘on six’ into ‘on sixth’ B-TDT). If my reading of the text is strange, then both Christopher Walker of the British Museum and Fred Espenak of NASA must be barmy as well for using the same strange translation of BTT as the verb root ‘put to shame’ (well attested in Ugaritic, Hebrew and Aramaic). I and many others thus understand that ‘the day was put to shame’ refers to an eclipse of the sun. The phrase ‘the sun entered’ is also well attested as the ancient way of describing the sun entering the horizon (i.e. sunset) in both Egyptian and Semitic literature. Spin needs to support his claim that ‘the sun entered’ refers to the eclipse itself by giving us a reference from the ancient literature. I think he will struggle to find a single example. In fact, last time I looked, nine out of fourteen scholarly translations of the tablet that I have seen refer to a near sunset eclipse of the sun on the first day of the lunar month of Hiyarru. My reading is therefore neither strange nor in the minority.

In his Public Profile spin claims to come from ‘nowhere’ and that his occupation is ‘time wasting’. Well that’s because he obviously has no formal academic training in any of the subjects upon which he spews out is verbal diatribes. He has been asked for his academic qualifications but refuses to respond - because he can’t without exposing his utter failure to gain any qualifications in these fields. Instead he spends his whole miserable life doing nothing but slander people from the safety of his ‘nowhere-man’ existence whilst forcing those he slanders to completely waste their time trying to put the record straight after all his lies.

He accuses me of being ignorant about linguistics. Does this criticism come from a man qualified sufficiently in the subject to comment? No. Let’s just look at his championing of evangelical Christian Professor Kenneth Kitchen on the question of Egyptian ‘S’ never shifting to Hebrew ‘SH’. To rely so heavily on a Christian ‘fundamentalist nutter’ (spin’s words for another evangelical Christian scholar) is foolhardy in the extreme - especially if that ‘nutter’ has an agenda (i.e. to protect is vice-like grip on the discipline of Egyptian chronology - even revisions of a few years are lambasted by the grumpy professor). So how does spin explain Kitchen’s rather remarkable oversight of the name Moses, which appears in Egyptian texts as Mose (ms) and in Hebrew as Moshe? Is this not a shifting of Egyptian S to Hebrew SH? What about the city name Ashkelon? In Egyptian it is Askelana and in Hebrew Ashkelon. Another one that Kitchen seems to conveniently forget? There are others. And, of course, in the New Chronology, the lingua franca of the region at the time of Ramesses II and his contemporary Solomon is Akkadian which does transfer Egyptian S to Semitic SH.

But there is something else that both Kitchen and his disciple, spin, seem to be completely unaware of. The fact (and yes it is a fact) is that the biblical Hebrew script did not distinguish between S (sin) and SH (shin) before the introduction of pointing in the early centuries AD. In other words, any biblical text or annal of the kings of Judah would have written the name Shishak as sin-yod-sin-qoph - no-one would have been able to tell whether of the original S was vocalised sin or shin without knowing it from oral tradition

And, before anyone moves the goal-posts, the ending of Shishak in a qoph is no problem either because, in the 10th century proto-Hebrew script, the signs for waw and qoph were also identical (see the Lachish VI ostracon where waw is clearly the same sign as qoph - a loop mounted on top of a vertical stem). So, if a 10th century BC scribe (contemporary with Shishak - in the NC identified with Ramesses II bearing the hypocoristicon ‘SYSW), wrote the name of the Egyptian pharaoh Sysw in the script of his day, he would have written sin-yod-sin-waw. If then a 7th century BC scribe (contemporary with Josiah) was to attempt to read that name from an ancient temple scroll, he might easily have read it as sin-yod-sin-qoph, given that in his time the two signs had separated and the loop on stem was then only identifiable with qoph. Incidentally the name Shoshenk - which Kitchen identifies with Shishak has no yod in it and was pronounced in East Semitic as SUSINKU - nothing like Shishak.

I may not have a degree in linguistics, but I do have a first class degree in the ancient Egyptian language and a degree in Egyptology and Ancient History and have taken university courses on Levantine archaeology, Mycenaean and Minoan archaeology, Egyptian archaeology, Egyptian environment, Ancient Near Eastern history from 3000 to 300 BC, Greek history and historical method. So I believe that I am a darn sight more qualified to explain the linguistic arguments over the Shishak/Sysw hypothesis than spin is.

Getting back to Kitchen’s TIPE Preface - which spin relies on so much for his arguments - all of the professor’s criticisms have been answered by NC scholars and shown to be unfounded. Just like plate tectonics theory, which was ridiculed for years before it became accepted by the ‘establishment’ twenty years later, the New Chronology is gaining ground bit by bit. Israeli professors are now openly stating that the character Labayu from the Amarna Letters was most likely the historical model for King Saul (as in the NC); many younger Egyptologists now reject Sothic dating and question Kitchen’s Third Intermediate Period chronology; Egyptologists (including Kitchen) accept the discovery of a second king Hedjkheperre Shoshenk made by myself and other NC researchers; other grandees of Egyptology have agreed that a vizier of the 12th Dynasty may well have been the proto-Joseph figure who was the source of the Genesis tradition (as in the NC); a private poll of 100 Egyptologists voted in the clear majority that the most likely time for the biblical Exodus was the Second Intermediate Period (New Chronology) and not the 19th Dynasty (Orthodox Chronology); and even Kitchen publicly - in front of 300 delegates at the Reading University ‘Exodus: Myth or History?’ conference - accepted that (and I quote) ‘there are now two powerful Exodus dates - David Rohl’s and my own’. It is therefore somewhat ironic that spin’s hero is conceding the possibility of a Middle Bronze Age (Second Intermediate Period) Exodus, yet spin himself can’t climb out of his dark little hole to see this new dawn.

Finally, to put the record straight about the filming of Kitchen’s interview for the ‘Pharaohs and Kings’ TV series. In this matter spin blatantly lies through his teeth. He has no right to do this. He was not there. He did not witness the interview. And he has absolutely no idea how TV works. He does not even have the common sense to work out that a newcomer to TV (me) had absolutely no control over what the broadcasting company, producer and director decided to do with the footage shot for the production. That’s like a newly ordained priest telling the Pope how to run the Catholic church.

The TV crew (with director) and myself went up to Liverpool University to film Kenneth Kitchen in the departmental museum. The first several hours were spent filming the discussion between myself and Kitchen over various chronological topics. Then the director filmed Kitchen’s interview for one-and-a-half hours. Because I felt it would not be proper to attend that interview (and so that Kitchen felt free to say what he wanted) I left the room and sat outside in the corridor for the whole interview. I did not edit or even see the list of questions prepared by the director, and I did not, at any time, view the film footage of the interview. I had no say as to which parts were edited into the documentary. Nor did I have a say in how the documentary as a whole was edited. I was not permitted to sit in on any of the editing sessions, so had no influence over how the series was put together. That is the way TV works unless you become an established star, at which time the tables are turned.

When I saw the viewing cut of the series with the producers I was very perturbed by how little of Kitchen’s interview was included in the final edit. I wrote to the commissioning editors of both Channel Four and Discovery Channel, saying that I would resign and not record the voice over for the series unless the director gave Kitchen a better showing. Their response was that the director felt Kitchen was so boring and rambling that it would kill the programme to include any more of him. The producer of the series then threatened to sue me for the cost of the production (£650,000) if I did not fulfil my contractual obligations and record the voice over. So I had to do finish the production under protest.

That stand in support of Kitchen’s right to criticise my NC theory in ‘my’ TV series cost me any future I might have had with the TV companies. So I fell on my sword in support of my main critic. Ironic, then, that Kitchen then wrote a really nasty letter to his fundamentalist friends in Bible Belt America which was circulated all over the evangelical Christian community (I even got five copies sent to me by different people who had come across it). Clearly spin has seen that letter, otherwise he would not have raised the issue of the interview which was one of the snide remarks in Kitchen’s circulated letter. Incidentally, prior to the broadcast and Kitchen’s circulated attack, I wrote a personal letter to the man apologising for the way that he had been treated by the TV people and informing him that I had attempted to resign in protest at the lack of airtime he had been given. Kitchen responded with a courteous letter thanking me for my efforts on his behalf, but then soon after sat down and wrote his nasty fundamentalist round-robin. So our good Christian evangelical professor appears to be a pretty uncharitable example of Christian tolerance if you ask me. But then his disciple outdoes him every time and has shown himself to be one of the most hideous individuals on the internet.

Doug Shaver

The other regulars here can speak for themselves, but in my case, lack of posting does not imply lack of interest. It implies lack of enough relevant knowledge of the subject to allow a useful contribution to the debate.

David Rohl

Reply to Duke Leto:

To put the record straight with your comments about ‘fundie bating’ and ‘grandstanding showmanship’. Perhaps you would explain these comments?

I have always had the policy of giving lectures to anyone who invites me. I have indeed lectured in the USA to an evangelical audience and other similar groups in the UK and Europe. So what is wrong with that? I have always made it clear to them that I am a ‘non-believer’ and that my presentations have nothing to do with ‘faith’. I also state that I treat the biblical narrative exactly as I would any text from a Ramesses II relief in Egypt, or Herodotus for that matter. In other words, where the Old Testament narrative is consistent with archaeology and contemporary texts, it can be taken seriously. Where it deals with miraculous events I have no comment to make.

But I do not lecture solely to Christian groups. Surely you know that? I have lectured in synagogues, to dozens of Egyptological societies, to university audiences in Vienna, Glasgow, Manchester, Bristol and London, to Egyptological institutes, to the Egypt Exploration Society, to the Geographical Association in London, and to archaeological and historical societies in the UK, Ireland, France, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Israel and Egypt.

So what do you think is the right thing to do? Should I refuse to talk to a particular group because I don’t follow their religious views? Or should I present my ideas to whoever wants to hear them? I know what the correct response to that question is and I think most people who read this know as well. You sound a bit like the critics of Jesus in the New Testament who complained that he was prepared to talk to tax collectors and not just to them. Are you not being a tad small-minded and disingenuous to suggest that people with big ideas should only lecture within the ivory tower of academia?

The New Chronology discussion group at Yahoo is not my ‘fan club’. It was not set up by me and I do not run it. Nor do I have any influence on what it discusses. In fact, the majority of contributors are not New Chronologists at all but rather defenders of the Orthodox Chronology position. Many are recognised academics. Again, the proper thing to do is to let them get on with it without interference from me. And I did not choose the moderators - one of whom (I believe the one you think is a ‘Brits are the lost Hebrews’ advocate) is not a New Chronologist at all! Again, the right thing to do is not interfere. I am not a control freak.

So would you say that anyone who has done TV series is indulging in grandstanding showmanship? What if the Sunday Times wishes to run three cover articles in its magazine over ten years? Should I have refused to be interviewed? Should I have tried to stop the publisher of my books from selling so many copies? What exactly are you referring to as grandstanding? Is success and having a high profile in my subject grandstanding? Is lecturing to evangelical audiences ‘fundie bating’? Or are you being a little short sighted and, dare I say it, holier than thou here in the use of your language?

If someone has a good idea which turns out to be popular and stimulating to a large readership, should that person not try to promote that idea to the widest of audiences through all the modern media? What is wrong with that exactly? Perhaps I should have ignored the modern world of communication in favour of the typewriter? Perhaps I should have done a Darwin and kept my mouth shut for decades?

Think about it and maybe put yourself in my shoes. Would you have done things differently I wonder?

David Rohl

Being a newbie, I just looked back through the archive and found the sarcastic remark regarding my inability to spell pharaoh from VoxRat on 6th October 2007. How short-sighted some people can be. Let me put you straight VoxRat or whatever you are called (another contributor who prefers anonymity - makes you wonder).

Perhaps you need to use your brain and think before you open your mouth.

Find me one misspelling of pharaoh in the text of the book or in any of my books for that matter. Then ask yourself where the misspelling of pharaoh as pharoah is located. Yes, you got it, on the title page of the AMERICAN version of the book, prepared and printed by the AMERICAN publisher Crown in New York. This was the only page in the USA edition of the book that I did not write or typeset as it was not part of the original UK book publication sent to the USA for the preparation of their version.

So you should be proud of yourself and your fellow countrymen for this marvelous piece of work. Am I responsible for spelling pharaoh incorrectly? No, I'm afraid some crass idiot educated in the USA who probably thinks Cairo is is in Scotland was responsible.

Just like evangelical nutters can do mass murder in the name of Jesus or Mohamed, you can hardly blame either of those historical characters for the sins of their distant followers. So why do you think I am responsible for your American book title page of my A Test of Time UK publication? I suggest you owe me a public apology and retraction. But are you honest enough? I doubt it.

Duke Leto

Well, this was unexpected.

Alright David, let me explain myself. First of all, I was in the process of defending your work to what I perceived as a hostile audience. Virtually every discussion that has been made of your books in this forum has been instigated by one or another American Fundamentalist arguing for biblical literalism and inerrancy. I don't think your reputation is all that high here. As such my first task in the discussion was to forcibly dissociate myself from that milieu lest I be dismissed out of hand as another one in this series of inerrantist quote miners who are only familiar with your books at one remove.

That partially explains the tone. It was somewhat of a rhetorical device, much as one would use in defending Lenin to the John Birch Society or Barack Obama before a meeting of the Aryan Nations.

With respect to the story about the NC Yahoo group, it is true, I did unsubscribe in a huff sometime between 2002 and 2003 because one of the administrators at the time posted a link on familial relationships that was within a British Israelist website. This was probably an overreaction, but I thought it good to recount it to the present audience to make sure that my credibility as an intellectually honest non-Christian was played up. I still strongly disapprove of anyone who would promote the notion that only white anglo-saxons are to be considered God's genuine chosen people, but I do not know that your administrator even wanted to promote the idea, so it was not one of my best moments.

Now to the underlying criticisms of the way you have presented your theories. This requires a story. Ever since college, I've been something of a devotee collector of minority historical theories. Your chronological framework, the identification of Edward de Vere as Shakespeare, and Graham Hancock's silliness were the major ones I picked up during college. It was your nunki.net essay on Hancock that pulled the wool from eyes on him, BTW. I've since become a follower of Earl Doherty's NT revisionism, which puts me in an unusual position of arguing for higher OT historicity and lower NT historicity.

Now, after I saw the TV documentary and read through the US edition of Test of Time in the late 90s, I had the chance to take the Honors courses in History at the University of Richmond. (VA, USA) The European History readings seminar was conducted by the University's Soviet history specialist Dr. Martin Ryle, and one of the books we were to read on the theory of writing history was the incomplete "The Historians Craft" by Marc Bloch, the French Historian who was executed by the Nazis during WWII.

Two sections of the book led me to think about Test of Time. One was an extended discusion on the nature of historical evidence hypothesizing how European History might be mis-reconstructed if the amount of documentary evidence we have was anything like the state of Ancient History, positing that Ockham's Razor would force people to assume that the two English philosophers named Bacon were one and the same and that the Jesuits and Jesuates were the same religious order. The other was an advocacy to write historical monographs not as dry expositions of fact but as the narratives of historical investigation. (I quite recommend it BTW.)

Since I had a strong interest in the NC at that time, and Test of Time was emphatically a narrative of an investigation, I gave Dr. Ryle the University Library's copy of Test of Time and asked him for his comment. His comments, more or less exactly, were "Rohl has an interesting theory, and he may even be right, but he's presented it in a counterprductive way." I've thought about this and, I've come to agree with Dr. Ryle's judgement.

The necessary precondition to academic freedom is the avoidance of outside power interdicting itself in academic practice. In order maintain academic freedom, we have to be sure not to solicit outside, especially governmental, authority to justify our views. The most disasterous possible outcome is when a government or political group endorses a shoddy piece of scholarship as canonical, as with Lysenko in the hard sciences or "Global Warming is a hoax" activists in modern American politics. There is however, no more dangerous power in a democracy than popular opinion. One of the other texts Ryle had us read was by R.G. Collingwood, and I believe it said something to the effect that the mortal sin for a historian is to appeal to authority in preference to peer review. For better or worse, Test of Time looks to many as though it is an appeal to popular authority over academic authority, and you can't expect academic authorities to be pleased about it. That's the real meat of the "grandstanding" accusation and you can take it however you will.

Now as to the fundie baiting accusation, I admit that it's a little unfair, but there is one thing that you never did in the course of writing Test of Time that you probably should have done and would have solved a lot of the problems in that regard from the get go.

You never explicitly stated that you were not arguing for biblical inerrancy.

Now this probably seemed self-explanatory from an enlighted UK, perspective, but I assure you it is not. Anyone reading Test of Time with regards to your interpretation of the Hebrew errors on the length of the Sojourn would realize that you could not be arguing from a position of Biblical inerrancy, but the lack of a clear denunciation of literalist readings means that fundamentalists were free to assume that your book is a justification of their faith, and this has allowed people like spin to assert that you did not include such a denunciation in a deliberate effort to encourage sales.

You have to remember that in the US, the power of fundamentalists is very real, and incredibly dangerous. Their religion is dependant on inerrancy, and by giving ministries a way to claim that their literalist readings are scientificly justified, you may have actually done some damage in keeping people who might have escaped from their faiths through doubt from doing so. I could make an argument that you should not lecture at Evangelical venues specifically to avoid giving aid and comfort to creationists. Then and again, as long as you are charging them for it...

All this isn't to say that you have yourself been promoting Christianity, you just haven't done enough to keep yourself from being misinterpreted. Does that make sense? (It is, BTW, practically impossible to get a copy of Legend in the US, and most of your Evangelical devotees seem to get their versions of your work from either Test of Time, the TV show, or 3rd party summaries of either, so most seem unfamiliar with that obviously non-literalist work.)

While I have your attention, it might not have helped your case to blockquote the junction of the two Abimelech Genesis narratives on p. 141 of Lords of Avaris. Anyone who's familiar with the documentary hypothesis in any detail knows it as the textbook example of recombined source strands and awkward redaction, so citing it as an example of authentic references to pre-Sea Peoples Philistines is counterproductive when the passage is generally thought to be largely done over by the Josiah-era redactor in any case. My 2 cents.