Replies

Thanks, I think I've put that on my Xmas list a few times, family members didn't get it for me. :'( From an old file:

Hatshepsut, The Queen Of Sheba And Velikovsky
by Emmet Sweeney
Let's look first of all at the term Queen of the South. In his article, Lorton asks the question: "Why would [the Gospel writers] ... have said 'queen of the South' when they might so easily have said 'queen of Egypt'?" In the same vein, Bimson comments on what he describes as "the total lack of reference to Egypt in connection with the Queen of Sheba." "If the visiting queen was Hatshepsut," he says, "she should be described as the Queen of Egypt by the Old Testament writers." If Lorton and Bimson had done their research more carefully they would have found that the name "ruler of the South" was a recognised biblical term for the Egyptian monarch. Thus for example in the Book of Daniel the Ptolemaic pharaoh is repeatedly called the "King of the South". It is true that this was not the most common biblical designation for the Egyptian ruler, but its occurrence in Daniel, without any explanatory comments, proves beyond question that it was a well-recognised form.

Also in the file is the info that Sweeney is/was a 9/11 Truther.

Here's another quote from that same file (good thing I don't have larger hard drives, that's for sure):

[snip]...he's got a number of essays defending Velikovsky, but doesn't seem to have a complete understanding of what Velikovsky wrote. For example:

Ramessides, Medes and Persians
by Emmet Sweeney
from "Ages in Alignment:
Velikovsky's Chronology of the Ancient World Defended"
Heinsohn's work on Mesopotamia made him realise that a contraction of ancient timescales much more dramatic than anything even Velikovsky had envisaged was called for. Above all, by 1987 he became convinced that the Mitanni, an Indo-European-speaking people who controlled most of Mesopotamia during the time of the 18th Dynasty, had to be one and the same as the Medes, the great conquerors of the Assyrian Empire, who, according to the classical authors, had ruled much of the Near East during the 7th and early 6th centuries BC. If the Mitanni were not the Medes, then no trace of this great people and kingdom could be found anywhere in the region.

Here's two of Velikovsky's Theses, which were published in 1945:

189.	The treaties of Subliliumas with Azaru of Damascus, with a patricide prince of Mitanni, and with the widow of Tirhaka, make plausible his identity with Shamash Shum Ukin. This would signify also that Nabopolassar was a son of Shamash Shum Ukin.
190.	The people and the kingdom of Mitanni did not "disappear" in the thirteenth century. Mitanni is another name for Medes; the northwest part of Medes retained this name as Matiane (Herodotus).

IOW, Heinsohn's becoming convinced in 1987 -- after V had been dead for years -- ain't a very convincing version of what happened with Heinsohn. [unsnip]