MemberJune 6, 2021 at 10:05 am
Thomas, I have lost contact with the allusion to “the fruit of the poisonous tree”. What’s that about?
Velikovsky has the right to be credited with his original theory even though his views may not be accepted or acceptable in academia. I don’t care about the “who”, just the “what”. And I don’t care about “losing half my audience” if it means doing the wrong thing. Those who cringe from crediting an original theorist because of enmity, fear, and the loss of reputation do not deserve the title of ‘scholar’. In this aspect at least, the idea that the Hyksos were the Amalekites et al, I believe Velikovsky was right. From what you typed up, Rohl comes close to suggesting the very same idea. Why didn’t he come right out and identify those Bedouin plunderers of Egypt as the (proto-)Hyksos? Perhaps because if he did he would have to reference Velikovsky? There are many ‘reputable’ scholars out there who got much less right than Velikovsky. All the Documentary Hypothesis scholars, for example. That’s a lot of scholars. But it is OK to cite those who deny biblical history and not someone who actually sought evidence for biblical history. I strongly object to this kind of censorship. Now called “cancel culture”.