Re: "Israel is laid Waste"
Thu May 24, 2018 04:39
2.96.171.112

Jaime, many thanks for distinguishing the work of myself and colleagues (Centuries of Darkness) from that of a.n.other. The latter's so-called "New Chronology" is utterly impossible: Egyptian NK chronology cannot be lower by 350 years for numerous reasons.Jaime touched on one - which is that while the chronology of the 20th Dynasty may be shortened by 12 years or so (a la Ad Thijs)it cannot be folded in half as a.n.other hopes for and has never argued in detail.On other points from context the city of Salem which Ramesses II attacked would seem from context, to have been in Galilee. On the name Shishak, its possible relation to a shortened version of Ramesses (III and not II!!) and other matters discussed here recently, see the papers both pro and contra in the published colloquium (2015) from=a meeting we held in Cambridge. Details at
https://www.centuries.co.uk/bar-2732.pdf
Finally what means someone can be described as an "egyptologist"? A BA, articles in self-edited journals, and only one small (derivative) paper which slipped into a conference proceedings? I only have a BA and have published several egyptological articles (solo and with Dr Robert Morkot who most definitely is an Egyptologist). But I would not describe myself as an Egyptologist. I will leave it there, except to add a voice of support to Marianne's objections (I think it was her) to anyonymous postings. Why should someone hide who they are? Best wishes, Peter James

  • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Jaime O, Mon May 21 14:19
    Hello Toby, Before anything else: forgive me for the delay aaaaaand… I messed up!! Rohl’s dates for Merneptah are a bit higher, about 875. See the Wikipedia article I sent Marianne. I was working on... more
    • Re: "Israel is laid Waste" — Peter James, Thu May 24 04:39
      • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Jaime O, Sat May 26 12:03
        Hello James thank you for the reply. It's always nice to read something from you, even though we stand on opposite sides of the chronological debate. On the city of Salem - yes, it does seem like it... more
      • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Herbert Storck, Fri May 25 07:19
        Good to see you still active. I have read a couple of your more recent peer-reviewed papers and have been impressed at how your ideas and research have matured over the years. I no longer believe... more
      • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Jon Smyth, Thu May 24 18:37
        "On the name Shishak, its possible relation to a shortened version of Ramesses (III and not II!!) and other matters discussed here recently, see the papers both pro and contra in the published... more
    • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Toby Anderson, Mon May 21 23:09
      Hello Jaime, You have no need to apologize for any delay. The collegiate has the busiest schedule in life. Thanks for the fine discussion. I regret to say that I must bow out of this discussion at... more
      • Re: "Israel is laid Waste"Jaime O, Sat May 26 11:53
        Hi Toby At least we got to tackle some points. Maybe we will continue this discussion somewhere else, some other time. I can already tell the Israel stele and the Karnak relifs will intrigue you,... more
Click here to receive daily updates