Anthony Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> MJ Thomas Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> > Are we seriously to consider as evidence
> hearsay
> > from people some two thousand years after the
> Giza
> > pyramids were built?
>
>
> Do you have evidence they were wrong? Ignorant?
> Misled?
>
> They could read the writing on the walls... it was
> still there in 441BCE. We have no business
> calling them liars.
I certainly don't see anybody calling these people liars, Anthony.
As I understand it these people (who were priests and therefore - I presume - deeply religious) told Herodotus what they
believed to be true.
However, there is often a world of difference between what actually happened and what a person believes happened, but it is not necessarily a detrimental reflection on the person concerned.
For example, I once had a visit from two highly personable young members of the Mormon Church. They told me in some detail what they believe to be the true history of the American Indians; a history that as you possibly, nay, probably (
), know is somewhat different to the orthodox archaeology-based version.
Does this make these two young Mormons liars?
Of course it doesn't.
They were telling me what they believed to be true.
Just as the priests told Herodotus what they believed to be true.
Whether you like it or not, Herodotus' comments on the Giza pyramids are essentially nothing more than hearsay.
Unless, of course, you can point to hard evidence to the contrary (I remind you that you are the one proffering part of Herodotus' travelogue writings as evidence that Khafre built the second Giza pyramid, not me).
You mention 'the writing on the wall'.
Do you mean this literally or as a figure of speech?
If the former, where is this 'writing' today?
Can you show that it is irrefutably linked to the Second Giza pyramid?
MJ