Unfortunately the big error in your argument is that you only consider written evidence to be 'unequivocal' evidence, which is patently nonsense:

you wrote:

"If there is no written evidence of an earlier doctrine, how can we be unequivocally informed"

Many other classes of evidence exist that are secure sources of evidence. Artistic being the most obvious.

The approach you are taking is a classic philological tendency critique - totally flawed.

First, you ignore anything that isn't written down in some form, then reject the sources that don't agree with your pre-conceived conclusion (PTs, Djedefre's Cartouche with the star etc etc).

Dave L



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/01/2007 09:31AM by Dave L.