Kim Sargerson
Re:The Amarna Period again
Wed Aug 31, 2016 13:25
109.156.216.144

Marianne
"What I said to Cullom about people who have not made an extensive study of Manetho pontificating applies to you, as well."
If by studying you mean sitting in a room on your own imagining this or that way is how the numbers can work out, then, yes I can imagine you have done a lot of that. We have all done some. But from what "expert" teacher have you learned your special expertise on this imaginary text?

"Josephus does not have the most accurate version of Manetho"
I did not say accurate, I said more detailed and original. It is perfectly clear that all the copies lack accuracy. As Theophilus only cites exactly the same group as Josephus, but with variant regnal years and months as well as omitting 3 names and two periods given in Josephus, I do not see how you are defining "accuracy" here. The individual reign figures could indeed be more accurate, if we could decide which king was meant. But Josephus has not invented the names Rathotis, Akencheres, yet Theophilus omits them. Is that your standard of accuracy?

"Most of the time, Manetho wrote "then" and "then""

We have no text of Manetho to know what he wrote.
J
osephus uses "then", Theophilus specifically "after him". So if you are going with Theophilus as more accurate, you should take this into account.

Josephus and Theophilus include family relationships and gender references which are missing elsewhere. The sense of "then" in Josephus has the connotation of "afterward" or "next" becaue he is listing the next generation, in many cases. Its presence in a chronological narrative list in Greek is hardly surprising. It does not denote "not necessarily a consecutive succession". Josephus and Theophilus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, all take the list (and Eusebius and Africanus the lists of all the other dynasties too, let us not forget) as signifying complete, separate and consecutive periods. They all spoke Greek.

" I addressed you politely until you began to attack me"
No, you didn't. Not what I would call politely. The fact that you have simply ignored any points I have made against you and resorted to, once again, a claim of superior knowledge (on a subject where almost nothing is certain) means that I have to resort to "shouting" to make the point clear ... and you still don't get it. You claim that I have tried to attack you gratuitously (look it up, it means "unearned", and if anyone posts their ideas on this forum, and someone else does not agree with them, the whole point is to be able to attack those ideas) and undermine your knowledge, when as far as I can see your comments to Bob, to Jaime, to Joe, to Cullom and to myself have all been exactly that (you seem to have missed Tory this time around). Disagreeing with you is not the same as undermining you. If you care to check back a month or more ago in posts to Jaime I commented that it was probably about time to start a discussion on the New Kingdom again; I did not start this thread to annoy you, and quite honestly it never occurred to me that you would respond to it. But when you claim a superior knowledge of "Manetho" of course I must question that. How is this superior knowledge derived? Apart from studying the various copies of Jerome and Eusebius scattered around the world, and the odd papyrus fragment, what extra information do you possess? Information, not supposition, is the basis of knowledge.

" I have spent years studying the writings of the ancient historians"
And what do you think I do for fun? I do not know how old you are, or how many years this actually is, but I started on Thucydides and Herodotus (and don't correct the Latin spelling) in Greek at the age of 12 and I am now 58. Work out how long that is. Do you claim greater length? better tutors? better dictionaries? Give us a break with your claims to expertise, please, come down off the mountain-top and treat the other people on this forum as equals. You never used to be like this, so what has changed? I can recall some very constructive and useful discussions with you some years ago, both on and off this forum. It all stopped when I challenged your evidence for the theory that the month lengths in "Manetho" were not complete month lengths, but the civil month in which the period stopped. Instead of defending your position, you started to become abusive. Since then you seem to have been nothing but. Why?

  • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 18:34
    Kim: "Everyone who thinks anything about "Manetho" that is positive, is of the opinion that Josephus had access to a more detailed and more original text than the others." What I said to Cullom about ... more
    • Re:The Amarna Period again — Kim Sargerson, Wed Aug 31 13:25
      • I wrote: "What I said to Cullom about people who have not made an extensive study of Manetho pontificating applies to you, as well." Kim: "If by studying you mean sitting in a room on your own... more
        • "What I said to Cullom ..."Kim Sargerson, Thu Sep 1 12:31
          Hello Marianne You wrote "Why did I need some specific teacher?" So you are claiming, as I thought, superior insight based on autodidactism. That is not necessarily a bad thing, but if you can do it, ... more
    • Re:The Amarna Period againMarianne Luban, Tue Aug 30 19:06
      I should clarify one thing, however. Even though version of Theophilus of the kinglist of Dynasty 18 is more correct than that of Josephus in some respects, he did not understand that there were some ... more
Click here to receive daily updates