evidence confirms biblical depiction of Edom

Early Edom and Moab:The Beginning of the Iron Age in Southern Jordan
by Pitor BienkowskiPage 21-36 The Egyptian evidence on Ancient Jordan
by Kenneth KitchenOne interesting area mentioned under the article "Early 2nd Millennium" is KUSHU. References abound in the actual texts for anybody who wnts to follow up , endless textual locations are mentioned.Ill avoid too many direct quotes to avoid copyright violations.KUSHU waas mentioned in the Story of Sinuhe (c. 1900 BC) and in something called the "Brussels texts".In Sinuhe text , Sinuhe summonss the leader Ya'ush from Kushu. The name is identicle to the Ya'ush (Jeush) in Genesis 36 verses 5,15 , 18 among sons of Esau mentioned as perhaps camping in Edom in the patriarchal age.In the Brussels texts (c 1800 BCE) , not rulers but chiefs of clans of Kushu are mentioned.The names are too damaged Kitchen says.Kitchen mentions that "an archaic biblical" reference is "generally admitted to indicate" the most likley location of those clans in Hab 3:7 which places Kushan parallel with Midian.Kushu/Kushan is set south of Shutu (which Kitchen did an excellent job of showing to be Moab in an earlier section)then , in what would become Edom in the middle of what would later become Moab and Midian.Kitchen describes that there would be clans from then till the period till Rameses III , and refers to later articles.He goes on to add that tribal chiefs in the area seem to be what is described in the Execration Texts, the Shutu list , and Edomite King Lists of Genesis 36:1-39.The family succession ,Kitchen says, should be compared to the Egyptian 13th dynasty with little more than 6 out of 60 kings with familt succession.The Execration Texts, says Kitchen , have not just urban centers but tribal groups linked with them (this in western Palestine).Kitchen shows counterparts in contemporary Old Babylonian Mesopotamia where there are lines of kings ruling over tribal confederations or groups in given areas alongside urban rulers in the same place."Such would also have been the Assyrian King List's early 'kings who lived in tents', and not merely fictions" (Ktchen references)."Clearly, if it were not for the attestations of such tribal kings in cuneiform documents with their urban counterparts , we would (archaeologically)know nothing of them.Thus, the relatively poor, even fugitive attestation of material evidence for the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in (later) Edom and Moab is equally unreliable as negative evidence, if (as is most probable) the rulers of Shutu and clan-chiefs of Kushu were agro-pastoralists and largely nomadic pastoralists respectively."That was section 2 in "Early 2nd millennium BC" titled "KUSHU" , the first was SHUTU , he has a 3rd section then a summary before moving on to the mid 2nd millennium.Later , he mentions.Page 26
The El-Amarna correspondence, mid-14th century BC
by Kenneth Kitchen"This archive is Egyptian only by find-spot , except for Egyptian 'file-copies'.Hence it can be dealth with here only summarily, especially as little of it affects Jordan. With one exception, noted below , all letters from east of the Jordan come from (or refer to) places north of a line from Pella across to Busruna (Bosra , Busra Eski Sham) of EA 197:13 , 199:23. This includes seven towns in Ge(shu)r (EA 256),(footnote), the land immedediately east of the Sea of Galilee. Then there is Ashteroth , now Tell 'Astara (EA 197:10; 256;21) and Siri-bashani (EA 201:14), 'Rock of Bashan', the Biblical Har-Bashan in the Jebel Druze.The one seeming exception to an entirely northern locale is the land of Seru, in EA 288.26.Here, Abdi-Khepa , ruler of Jerusalem , claims: 'I was as war (all the way) from the land of Sheru (up) to Gini-Kirmil'. The latter is in North Canaan , probably nar the Carmel range (Schmitt 1987:43-48), so the former (Sheru) would correspondingly symbolize the southernmost pole of Abdi-Khepa's vision , and hence the fairly general inclination to accept an identification of Sheru with Seir(footnote."(1 more short paragraph in that short section)From page 21-31 with about 5 pages of footnotes from 31-36 is Kenneth Kitchens contribution.This above only took up about 1/4 of a page. His late 2nd millennium BC: 19th-20th Dynastys, c. 1300-1170BC covers over 3 pages and seems to have a ton of textual mentions of Edom/Sier and Moab.Sier would be called Edom by Egyptains around 1200BCE it seems.I bought this book about 6 months ago (used for like $10 and it sounded interesting) , but never read it yet.I randomly scanned some pages in the back by the editor , and it seems to be a very detailed archaeological pottery dating responce to claims of Israel Finkelstein, with many full pages representing drawings of pottery remains.Nearly every paragraph starts like "Finklestein provides no real evidence to dat the pottery in question to Irin I, but apparently regards it as a self-evident truth." or "In fact, there is very little resemblance between the store-jar rims from Edom which Finklestein has sited...." nearly the whole chapter(a dozen or so pages).The current Biblical Archaeology review seems to have a pretty good 5+ pages devoted to this Edom topicin their current issue (written by the archaeologists).On top of that , they have about 4 pages devoted to a pretty good critique of the Finkelstein book.Every other magazine I read (like Smithsonian and many others)present Finkelstein as the middle, near last, and last word on everything.They give maybe 1 short paragraph to "conservatives" then pages to Finkelstein. Slate magazine and many others also never failed to promote Finkelstein in major puff peices but I cant find anything refering to impressive books by Kenneth Kitchen that are a breath of fresh air.Biblical Archaeology Review seems very biased and misleading on Pre Monarchy days but they get much more fair closer the the 1st millenium. On the Patriarchal issues , Biblical Archaeology Review needs a half decent editor that is up to date.The previous issue had a good 5 pages devoted to the Patriarchal issue and it was unreal. I have only did a little reading for maybe 6 months on these issues , and I couldnt believe how out of date their scholarship was. The article author kept refering to 40 year old conservative scholarship as if it was current.I am shocked I even knew nearly who the scholars were who (which he didnt even gebin to name)some 40 years ago promoted the old views he tried to pass off as the last word on those who accept the patriarchal text as true.The article author metioned the Patriarchal days in Genesis as proven fabrications when the Hurrian and Amarna Age parallels were proven false.He refered to the 1960's Interpreters Dictionary Of The Bible , with its disproven parallels , as evidence that the patriarchs were proven false.The Negev had no archaeological remains from either the mid 2nd millenium (Hurrian parallels)nor from the Amarna Age (c.1350 promoted by C H Gordon , which again , he didnt mention). He didnt mention that It was mainly E A Speiser from 1964 (Anchor Bible Commentary) who promoted the Hurrian parallels , and even by 1971(!) William Hallo mentioned in his History of The Ancient Near East that Hurian parallels were outdated scholarship but the archaeology supports the c1700-2000 wanderings consisten with the Bible anyway.Whats amazing is that the BAR issue mentioned that Hallo was just hired as an editor , yet he couldnt have presented his 1971 book to help get the article author up to speed?The Biblical Archaeology Review author said that (not exact quote) "because we have discovered so-called Hurrian parallels to not be unique to just c1500 then it proved the Bible to be wrong on the patriarchal age".Better check out a 1966(!) book by Kenneth Kitchen. He is a conservative scholar who said that LONG ago , plus showed that nearly every archaeological issue there is points to the patriarchal days to only fit into c1700-2000 BCE period , which also happens to be the Bibles near literal dates anyway (not 1500 BCE).And much of the Biblical circumstances only fit into the c1700-2000 period in a unique way.here is the FULL text for those to read.BiblicalStudies.org.uk: Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old TestamentThe 1966 book will be released updated in print form soon.Not that anybody will pay any attention to 2006 scholarship when they cant get past the early 60s.Anyway, hope my first post didnt break any rules. Im new to this area of study.Already fustrated at OLDDDDDDD outdated scholarship lol.And I dont know jack.Kenneth Kitchen seems the most grounded in reality though.Hope this place can likewise be a sane up to date voice to cheer me up.There arent too many it seems.Every google search I try on Archaeology always leads to people screaming "Finkelstein Finkelstein Finkelstein" like he "proved the world to be false afterall".I am a little shocked the BAR author critiqued Finkelstein the way it did though.Have they ever done that before? This is the first real critique I have ever heard on his work (aside from Kitchen quotes some Christians mention) till I just picked up the Edom archaeological book I quoted.EDIT:My beef was that the March/April BAR author (who was a PHD no less!) didnt even mention the c1650-2000 BCE period AT ALL. Just kept shooting down the "Amarna Parallels" an especially "Hurrian Parallel's". He presented Wellhausen as the last word (I didnt even mention this outdated scholarship from the "liberal" or "minimalist" side that he rpeseneted as current)which didnt bother me. I just didnt like the false presentation of the "conservative view" especially when it was conservatives themselves who corrected the incorrect scholarship.And nearly a half century ago! Now I see why so many non professionsals (like me)on the web keep trashing the Pre Monarchy Bible history in endless fashion.Its all you hear about from popular culture and popular magazines.The false presentation of conservative views not to mention non ideological scholarship (see Kenneth Kitchen)that shows leading indicators for accurate historical details.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Reason for edit: poorly worded paragraphs.Just want to add some things at bottomI type so slow it effects my typing grammar.Not flowing well.Need to get sentences put together better in future.

This is 13 pages not 5 as I thought earlier.Ive read it at least 3 times today.Ill try and quote some of the parts that are relevent to what people have been saying and paraphrase other parts to avoid breaking copyright laws.Edom and Copper:The Emergence of Ancient Israels rival.
Thomas Levy and Mohammad NajjarIt seems clear that these 2 did the archaeological work listening to their comments, so they have credibility.They explain alot about past mistakes in dating Edom.
They mention very careful preparation of organic samples then sending them to seperate high precision dating facilities for seperate witness. They mention pottery dating like comparing Egyptian scarabs.They havnt dated everything, includinh 4 large towers southeast of the Khirbat en Nahas (Ruin of Copper in Arabic they said , I remember Nachosheth meaning Bronze or Copper in Hebrew from my studies) fortress. They think they could date from 1400-1200 or to various points in the Iron Age.They have dated the earliest levels of a worker building (built for significant metalurgical activites) during the 12th to 11th centuries.Carbon dates and Egyptian scarabs confirmed this.So that puts building activities at least back to 1100.A gatehouse and fortification walls were built at the start of the 10th century.By the middle of the ninth century, it went out of use.The lowest stratum("A4a")was on the bedrock before the gate was founded was radiocarbon dated to the later 11th or early 10th century.Above that is their "A3" stratum (gatestructure surface) dtes to early 10th century.The gate is contmporaneous to similar Negev fortifications in the Negev.They describe later layers and relate it to Biblical events.The metal workers from the early part of the Iron Age must have had tremendous organizational skill as they mass produced copper at a level that left thousands of kilograms of black opper slag waste still clearly visible from even the air.They go on to mention that it appears that the Bible is describing a complex society with a king before Israel had its king.An archaic state of some kind seems to have evolved prior to Israel's."Anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians have struggled mightily to define and identify from archaeological remains what makes a state level society.They are doggedly looking for the litmus test that will distinguish a state from a chiefdom."They go on to mentions assumptions we like to make when a king is mentioned with regards to how he ruled, how much land , and ability to field an army."However ,it isnt so simple".From the anthropoligical record, the societys cannot be easily divided between "kings" and "chiefs" and they "fall along a continuum" that is complex.There is no simple dividing line and neat categories.They mention how much more difficult it is to draw a distinction based on a "mute archaeological record".The question is not whether Edom or Israel were states or chiefdoms "but whether, based on the archaeological evidence , those societies had the levels of social complexity needed to field armies , contruct monumental buildings and carry out technologically intensive industrial activities".They mention that the "chief" "king" issue is "relatively unimportant"."What seems clear is that,at least by the beginning of the Iron Age , Edom was a complex society with the ability to construct major buildings , defend itself with strong fortifications , and create a technologically sophisticated organization to draw copper ore and thereafter to manafacture objects with it.If it could do this there is no reason to doubt that it could also ield an army.They go on to mention that Edom was ALWAYS a kind of tribal society even when it reached its most advanced stage in the 8th to 6th centuries.Just like it was a complex society from the Iron age if not Late Bonze age.They descibe it as the tail end of this period, I wonder if it doesnt go much further back considering that we only see the Copper production required as the industry collapsed in Cyprus in the Late Bronze Age.Perhaps Edom was "complex" before then just without many buildings?Anyway, Solomon was described as having ruled for 40 years but that seems like a neat Biblical number rounded up from perhaps 20-30 years, say 25.Ive seen history books describe the Shishek invasion as around 920, and he finished the temple in 4 years so say 940 BCE. The Septuagint says there was 440 years from the construction till the Exodus so thats around 1375 then the 40 years of the wandering makes around 1340 when there Israel had to avoid going through Sier.Sier was what Edom's area was called in Egyptian records up till around 1210 hwen it was clearly called Edom.Edom was in archaeology "complex" it seems with buildings and everything close to that time (1200).They had Dukes or "Kings" according to the Bible though non-fundamentalist's need not worry about a single word.There is perhaps 100-150 years then to get back to around 1350 (assuming the Israelites came in around that time) when the Israelites might have needed to pass by them. I think they could have had an army that would have caused them the Israelites consider it. Clearly by 1220 BCE , in the late Exodus, Edom was archaeologically "on the verge" of the point if not already there. Even if the Exodus was around 573-594 years before the temple being buily (as early as 970) then that would be around 1600BCE and it seems that tribes could have been there even then despite the "absence of evidence" in archaeology. Textual evidence could indicate tribes (not necessarily Edom) were there as far back as 1900 BCE with names that later descendents of Esau took.Jericho was destroyed around 1550-1600 based on carbon dating and as recently as 1370 (1410 +or- 40 years)based on pottery finds that Bryant Wood combed over.The Ipuwer papyrus has linguistic features that fit the 13th Dynasty or slightly later (close to 1600-1650) and sound an awful lot like the Exodus (to put it mildly).Plus it has been described as historical not fictional by scholars.ForbiddenEven the Amarna letters arent a total slam dunk against Israelites being in the land those they would seem to indicate it at first.Nealy every text in the Delta and Palestine has been destroyed and Kenneth Kitchen said that 99% of archaeological relics underground havnt been unearthed though Im sure it isnt as bad in Palestine and Egypt.Due to Papyrus and not stone being used.Doesnt last except in dry (upper Egypt) conditions)From the 12th dynasty , there is overwhelming evidence of North West Semites being in the delta.David Rohl does a good job of showing the large amount of Asiatic slaves with NWS names also.He gives strong evidence (linguistic and other) to locate Goshen and shows the Semites lived there from the 12th to 2nd intermediate period.Pehaps including Israelites (or settlement founded by)Then a new group (Hyksos or other semites , or israelites according to Kitchen)came in.This fits in with all possible Exodus periods as the Israelites were in Egypt from anywhere from 210,215 or 430 years.It works for the "215" year period from the Middle Kingdom "bondage" to around 1600 Exodus.The 430 works for the Middle kingdom Bondage to 1400-1500 Exodus.The 400-430 works for the 2nd intermediate period to 1215 conquest (1250-1260 Exodus).Ill keep an open mind up for all possibilities.But Edom clearly isnt a problm at all anymore for a 1215 Exodus and perhaps further back. And aside from Jericho , Ai, and a few others William Steibing shows that around 80% of cities described in Joshua were destroyed c1200 BCE.Not that he accepts the Conquest mind you. Kitchen is even honest in that he admits that at least 1 of the cities destroyed c1200 seems to have been from the Sea Peoples not Israelites.Edom isnt a problem anymore though.Anyway.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Adding a few comments on North West Semites in Egypt.

The first semi-undisputed reference to Israel is the Merenptach Stela.I am going to mention just some things from Bible and Spade Vol 18 no.3 and Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament #49. (Bible and Spade is the most detailed and informative of any Magazine or Journal IMO , plus back issues are dirt cheap).The Bible and Spade article typically has endless pictures, and this 18 page article by Bryant Wood has over 50 pictures (which are highly visible, right down to every last Egyptian letter in texts)and drawings, which are required to be able to understand much of the detailed commentary.Ill just sum up some of the less detailed parts.To even quote a single sentence can be tough because Wood has about 5 footnotes, references to journals, and parenthesis per sentence lol.Wood's area of specalty is Late Bronze Age pottery and I think part of his very detailed dissertation was in placing the start of the Iron Age at 1177 BCE.He places almost all of the destruction at the hands of the Sea Peoples and Egyptians.He is interesting in that (and his magazine with is loaded with PHD candidates) promotes Israel as being in the land from around 1400 BCE based on what he views as Biblical chronology.Though, its the details of his article that are most interesting , his spin is what I will sum up.He mentions that almost all investigators agree that the Canaan section has a chiastic structure (poetic format that has matching image elements before and after a focal point)But how it should be laid out has been an issue of heated debate.He uses an arrangement roughly similar to Bimson from 1991.A- All the rulers are prostrate, saying "Peace!"
Not one among the Nine Bows dare raise his head.B-Plundered is Libya.
Hatti is at peace.
Caried off is Canaan with every evil.C-Brought away is Ashkelon.D-Taken is Gezer.C-Yenoam is reduced to non-existence.B-Israel is laid waster, having no seed.
Khurru has become widowed,
because of the Nile land.A-All lands together are (now) at peace.
Everyone who roamed about has become subdued.Wood mentions that the format has several aspects that are significant.A "ring" nature proceeding from the general to the particular.A and A are global terms telling of domination. B and B are boasts of Merenptah's boast over nations of the eastern mediterranean while C,D, and C are individual city-states claimed to have been conquered in Canaan.Merenptah called himself "Binder of Gezer" after this , so it seems to have been his focal battle.Wood says Khurru is a general term for the Hill country of Palestine (which Israel would represent as the main people there) , and is parallel with Libia, Hatti (Asia Minor and northern Syria) and Canaan (South Syria and coastal Palestine). Wood gives about 12 references to scholars who feel this suggests Israel was a significant power at this time.Wood mentions that contrary to typical Egyptian practise, Israel was written in the masculine when other cities and nations are written in the feminine.Wood wonders how well informed Egyptian scribes were as to Israel being names after a male Jacob/Israel.Wood mentions that Israel would have been inbetween a 40 year period of "peace" (doesnt mention the irony of his comment)after a battle with Jabin of Hazor.I myself wonder if Israel decided that mentioning Egyptian battles and entries into Canaan would make the Exodus (whether real or not) look like a non definitive event.Clearly , the Bible isnt meant to be a complete record of every event and very little of Egypts attention was ever devoted to the hilly interior of Israel.Egypt could be irrelevent.Donald Redford doesnt think Merenptah's account is "historical" and feels he only made a minor penetration into Gezer and no further. (all the more significant if Israel was mentioned to "pump up" Egypts boasts , it means Israel was an important entity by 1210 BCE)Wood then menions the determinative that describe Israel as a community and not a foreign territorial state.Like the Judges period describes.I myself feel Israel could have been in the land since as far back as 1600 BCE , and in many places didnt even come close to a genocide on Canaanites but infact lived alongside them(with much archaeological evidence of pagan practise and temples).Perhaps the "command" of genocide never was intended to be that except as standard military practise in the Ancient Near East to reduce the defeated party as much as possible.The Bible's textual emphesis on "utterly destroying" Canaanites was simply a later way of describing the Israelites falling to "peer pressure" and that they couldnt handle popular pagan practises hence they would have been better off as being isolated from pagans (ie killing off any near neighboors).Israel was seen as an important enough power (perhaps THE power in Palestine's unimportant hill region) for Merenptah's victory him but werent exactly the territorial majority population.Israel seemed to be a type of power for their isolated region around where the action was which Israel isolated itself from.Bimson describes Woods PHD thesis in 1985 describing the transition from Late Bronz Age to Iron Age (1177) as a tremendous advance which rendered much speculation on Israel's origins as obsolete (a modelf of Israels origins that required several evolutionary scenarios that depended on the Iron Age having already started) though it did not seem to disrupt too many budding schools of thought.Bimson described the effort by some to deny Merenptah's Israel refered to Biblical Israel as falling apart.Bimson also refered to prominent Egyptologists who wondered what Wood wondered (though not mentioning Wood)with regards to Egypts possible knowledge of Jacob/Israel due to the masculine gender.Bimson also menioned that some tried to make Merenptahs Israel as a single tribe but Bimson then mentioned the Song of Deborah (said by scholars to be an old fragment that descibes a tribal confederation) and the fact that Israel never saw itself as a single tibe in its textual records.While, going over some budding theories describing the hill region of Palestine seeing its peoples pastoralist existence (what is said to later become) transition toward a sedentary society (in the context of Israels origins), Bimson mentions...."Finkelstein refers to Merenptah's inscription merely to say: 'One should not ignore the fact that a group of people living in Canaan at the end of the 13th century BCE was described in the Merenptah Stele as 'Israel'" " "Infact, however, he ignores himself throughout the rest of his book"Clearly , much modern scholarship does not want to overlook only the "absent evidence" (assuming Israel never amounted to anything based on scant secular textual references) but the needle's that have been found in the haystack (represented by the Israel Stela being treated in a small way like so many other evidences) .Bimson goes on to mention that the 3 theories on Israels origins (including Finkelsteins) we hear about so often depend on assumptions that the early Iron Age was an abequate basis for reconstruction.It may only be relevent for the date and nature of Israel's sedentarization not origins.Israel was mentioned as a significant tribal confederation perhaps 3 decades before the Iron Age began.It is ironic that the ONLY menion of "Israel" ever in Egyptian records was back well before the Monarchy period.In 1209 BCE (though there MAY have been a mention in the 15th century,Ill mention later)I also think that the hill country towns wouldnt even be mentioned in Egyptian records but once.That being in Shoshenks campaign around c925 BCE.Talk about "absence of evidence"!Take away those 2 references (which survived on solid rock) and Israel isnt mentioned ever by its powerful neighboor. And The Victory poem of Merneptah was 1 of 3 records that Mernptah would have menioned Israel at that time.Ill cover the battle reliefs in Karnak temple later.Aside from the short 28 line "Israel Stela" or "Merenptah Stela", the larger hymn of victory in the Karnak temple is mostly destroyed.Only 1/6 has survived.Composed of 39 lines.Israel is missing , but gezer, Ashkelon , and Yenoam is present. More "absence" on the Bibles part.Shame shame. And whats more freaky , the "Israel Stela" ,while 100% intact, ouldnt have room to spare as the "Israel" mention occupies only the last 2 lines on the extreme.Whew!Israel got its 2 lines of fame in Egypts 3000 year history and in a period where the minimalists say Israel didnt exist!Bimson sums up."Before the beginning of the Iron Age , Israel must have been a semi-nomadic people......When the Stela's structure is properly understood, it implies that Israel was an important and geographically extensive tribal coalition by the late 13th century BCE."Wood mntions tht the most "striking aspect" is the statement that Khurru (Paletine) as wiowed because of the bombastic defeat of Israel. It seems that Israel was the major power of the highlands in 1210 BCE.Bimson mentioned"In Redford's view , Merenptah probably achieved no more than a minor punitive action against Gezer....and the rest on the Israel Stela was "quite unhistorical"."Suffice to say that if the coda is not a reliable source for Merenptah's military activity , it is all the more striking as evidence of Israels importance in his day.For if Redford is correct,Israel had become well know to Egyptian scribes an encounter on the battlefield to make it an object of their attention."We know that no Israelite king was ever mentioned in Egyptian records due to "absence of evidence".We know that the Shoshenk wall inscriptions have fallen into mostly ruins, right? It was the only mention of the Israelite Monachy days where towns were listed,right (Im not sure about these things honestly, correct me if Im wrong)?David Rohl said he snapped a picture of part of it (a location he was interested in) and a few years later it wasnt there anymore as it was ruined."near absence of evidence" fits that description and the description of the "Israel Stela" from 1208 here "Israel" was inches from the border of the Stela which was uncommonly complete with no parts missing or destroyed.We know the Karnak victory hymn , which it was based was 80%+ destroyed including a part that we thankfully know would have mentioned Israel.There is another location where Israel is mentioned.There are battle reliefs in Karnak also showing scences from the battles of the "Israel Stela" and naming (whats left however is just one name)the location of the battle.Ashklon is the one names in scene 1.Gezer seems to be scene 2.Yenoam may be scene 3.Israel may be scene 4.Byrant Wood's really showed alot of major scholarship on this issue.Yurco was the Egyptologist who identified the unnamed scene 4 as Israel.The first 3 scenes showed a fortress but the 4th did not indicating that there was not a fortified urban center.Thus it could be Israel.Though it was much destroyed (upper 50%) , Merenptahs chariot is in the center and thus there is little room for a fortress.Though Wood admits it is possible, the evidence is "absent" for a fortress, so it could be Israel.A critic said that Israelites wouldnt have chariots , but in Amarna letter 197, the king of Ashteroth (city in Bashan) gave chariots to the Apiru who were social outcasts and outlaws.Wood also mntions that "just a short time before Merenptah's campaign , Barak fought Jabin King of Hazor.Sisera, commander of Jabins army had 900 chariots.Barak "pursued the chariots" so he himself must have had one.Another objection was the fact that "Canaanites are portrayed so they cant be Israelites" (my paraphrase).But looking at the southern end of the Second Pylon of the Hypostyle hall nearby,we can see clearly how Egyptians portrayed Israelites.Shishek is seen smiting the Israelites who are depicted with short pointed beards, shoulder-length jair with headband and sashes around their wastes, exactly as Canaanites are portrayed. Egyptians depicted all the settled inhabitants of Canaan the same way regardless of ethnic group."Israel" on the Merenptah war reliefs didnt make the cut based on "absence of evidence" (60% destroyed including the name) though it clearly seems to be Israel based on the other scenes peoples relating to the "Israel Stela" which we are also lucky to have.This concludes the Bible&Spade 18 #3 Wood material and JSOT #49 Bimson material material, which I based my posts on plus some thought of my own.Now, Im going to base some comments on Michal Coogan's review of Finkelsteins book with relation to an issue I noticed before, the "absence of evidence" regards to Jerusalem archaeology of the monarchy peiod (I always wondered about the Amarna letter references an this review puts it into stunning perspective by simply mentioning it).We all know that Finkelstein and Silberman (I have books from these 2 FYI) descibe 11th-10th century Jerusalem as some small tribal backwater with just dozens of people.Illiterate and with no proof of urbanization. Before the 9th and maybe even the 8th century, Jerusalem never amounted to anything in terms of buildings or inhabitants.Coogan points out that from the Late Bronze age (1550-1200), there is "little evidence from Jerusalem excavations of public architecture or ven of significant occupation"No evidence of literacy either based on archaeology.Based on archaeological evidence alone, Jerusalem was just an unimportant rural village at best during the Late Bronze Age."Absence of evidence" excusers will need to be Pagan Jerusalem residents of c1350 BCE because the Amarna archives are rare testimony from residents of Palestine during what has otherwise been a dark region for texts.Among, the major powers of the day , there are about a half-dozen letter of correspondence between Egypt and Ebdi-Heba , ruler of Jerusalem."It was, infact , the most important city-state of the southern hill country, and it had an etablished trabal tradition.We would guess at none of this is we look only at the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem."The fact that there "absence of evidence" for Jerusalem in the form of absent archaeological discoveries (though its finally starting to change)despite being the most famous location on Earth may be something we should consider.The fact that Egypt menions Israel by name more in the far back Bronze Age than ANY other time maye be a wake up call to nay sayers.If no for the Assyrian empire coming of age in the 9th century and later mentions of Biblical events ( "Ahab of Israel" in c850 BCE and others)then where would the Biblical "evidence" be while totally absent. The Mesha Stele was a rare artifact due to its non papyrus nature.What if it never was made? What if the Shoshenk campaign didnt happen or what if it wasnt recorded? What if it was recorded but it Karnak inscription got destroyed, as many parts of it have been?What if the Tel Dan inscription was not found? What house of David evidence?What if the Amarna letters never made during an odd period in Egypt? What other periods have records from Palestine? What would we think of Jerusalem then? Wht kind of a clue would we have as to Palestine and its literary abilities?The rare Shoshenk recordings of towns in the highland regions of Palestine seem to indicate a confirmation of the Biblical chronology that Solomon and the developing divided monarchy were situated in.Anyway, here are some interesting possible "firsts" mentioned by Bryant Wood in Bible And Spde Volume 18#4.The first non Biblical reference to the conquest (which perhaps isnt of of much value, depends).Wood refers us to Frendo,Anthony J. 2002 Two Long-Lost Phoenician Inscriptions and the Emergence of Ancient Israel. Paestine Exploration Quarterly 134:37-43A Greek historian Procopius of Caesarea wrote in the 6th century AD"They (the canaanites) also built a fortress in Numidia , where now is the city called Tigisis (probably in Algeria). In that place are two columns made of white stone near the great spring, having Phoenician letters cut in them which say in the Phoenician toung: "We are they who fled from before the face of Joshua , the robber , the son of Nun"An Armenian Moses of Khoren mentioned them around 400 AD also.The origional Greek text dates to 234 BCE.Why would the Phoenicians of North Africa invent such a demeaning tradition?The 2nd reference mentioned by Wood is stunning. As with every artifact of importanc, Wood has a highly visible glossy color picture o the text, so I am wondering what some Egyptian Hieroglyphic scholar would say when he/she saw it.Its simple alphabetical Egyptian writtings.Anybody know German?Wood references Gorg, Manfred 2001 Israel in Hieroglyphen , Biblischen Notizen 106:21-27Wood mentions that many cant figure out where skeptics expect the extra-Biblical evidence to come from.The dearth of texts from Canaan dont give many opportunities.The amarna letters are just from a single small window in an early period. The few limited references to campaigns in Palestine from Egyptian sources dont offer the moon and the stars by any means.Wood does mention tht the Merenptah Stela does attest that israel was an important entity.The King of the greatest nation on earth boasted of defeating israel as if it was the most powerful entity in central Canaan at the time of 1210BCE.Then its gets interesting....."...another apparent reference to Israel is an Egyptian text (Gorg 2001). A colum base fragment , now in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin, is inscribed with a portion of a name list. The surviving names are ashkelon , Canaan , and a 3rd name that is only partially preserved. Gorg interprets the third name as Israel.He dates the inscription to the reign of Rameses II , earlier than the Merenptah Stela.""Even more important is the fact that Gorg maintains , based on the spellings , that the names were copied from an even earlier name list from around the time of Amenhotep II , who ruled ca. 1453-1419 or 1427-1401 BC, depending on which Egyptian chronology one uses.....But, like nearly all important archaeological discoveries , there is an element of uncertainty about Gorg's conclusions. Since the name of Israel is only partially preserved , and the spelling is slightly different than on the Merenptch Stela , there is room for doubt. To dat, however , no one has challenged Gorg's interpretation."Honestly, the crystal clear large photo in Woods magazine seems to be enough for people to see.The necessary characters are at least 80% intact and enough to make out what is said.Anyway, there is "absence of evidence" with regards to Israel's existance post 10th century based on Egyptian records, but maybe we have another Bronze Age appearance of Israel.Israel already forgot its absent-T in the Bronze Age once and the inscription barely survived to tell about it.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Add much more,told everybody that at the time.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Keep spotting spelling errors.

I have never trusted radiocarbon as a means of dating archaeological artifacts at all, based on everything (however little) I have read. Ted Stewart in his Exodus book (forget the exact title, buts its similar to Rohl, Velivoksky , etc.)shows that most radiocarbon dates related to Egyptian history have come out with much, much later dates (such as 2350 BCE for Dynasty 1)than conventional history suggests.Only through tree ring dating have the dates been brought back into alignment.Stewart lowers the chronology about 300 years but (prior to doing just that) says the Jericho Middle Bronze Age walls fell c1700 BCE , which would be as many as 150 years before the conventional carbondates show.Carbon dates have been the main means to date Jericho.Stewart ignores , like nearly everybody else, the pottery issues that place the Jericho destruction at c.1400 BCE.David Rohl lowers the conventional chronology of Egypt during the 3rd Intermediate period about 300 years(but doesnt tell people exactly how due to it being related to his PHD thesis, but mainstream Egyptologists have agreed to about 75-125 years so far based on the most recent ISIS Journal I just got)but extends the 13th dynasty a tremendous amount. Its obvious why he said something like "mainstream Egyptologists ignore Radio carbon dating as non-reliable and so will I".Rohl also, assumes the Judges period was around 350 years long consistent with the Bible though others have said the period from the Exodus till 1 Kings 6:1 can be as many as "632" (I read somewhere)years if you add everything up.Peter James is honest (read his http://www.centuriesofdarkness.com FAQ page)about which carbon dates support his revised chronology and which do not. They seem to be all over the place and all questionable.I wondered if people would argue with the Carbon dating in relation to this Edom issue , figuring that since it was an issue that helped the mainstream conservative view of Biblical history, maybe carbon dating would get some critical treatment.I never cared for Bryant Wood's pottery findings , because I felt the Exodus should be a destructive event to Egyptians , and the 18th dynasty Exodus would not fit the description. His conclusions have been easy to ignore because, except for William Stiebing (who mentioned it as possibly holding up) in his mid-90s Exodus book, everybody has chosen to look at the carbon dating conclusions as opposed to pottery finds.If Woods, pottery evidence is correct , then the carbon dates push everything back 150 years from 1400 BCE to 1550BCE or later.Ted Stewart says in his book that Israeli archaeologists seem to put Jericho's destruction at 1700 BCE.Of the 3 towns burnt (I think there were 3 towns described as burnt and destroyed in Joshua) and destroyed in Joshua, Wood has found pottery evidence to date all at c1400BCE.Jericho , Hazor (maybe based on other peoples archaeological work here),and Ai (not Et-Tell but Khirbet Al Maqatar or something spelled similar).Ive seen DVDs showing multiple camera angles of video from various locations around where Ai could be and Khirbet Al Maqitar does indeed seem like it could be Biblical Ai.Carbon dating has been relied upon heavily to undermine what is considered to be pottery finds(c.1400 pottery) consistent with the Bibles chronology.I dont really think c1400 BCE is a good date for the conquest due to Egypt's 18th dynasty , but I have decided that I will have to swallow all evidence even if it is hard and painful (ie might not solve many problems without creating just as many if not more).Its ironic that now, with the Edom dates being pushed back (to help support the Bibles dates) mainly due to carbon dates , we see a lot of 2nd guessing carbon dates lol.

I dont think any carbondates can make me 100% confident that they are error free (not to within so tight a time period as say, 1550 and 1400 for example).Im sure he is doing the best job he can with what data he has.I honestly cant say I have a clue as to what makes a "good" or "bad" carbon date measurement.I was just saying that this Edom issue& the carbon dates will have alot of 2nd guessers from folks such as who commonly post at places like this.Im glad it will, though I cant really say I know much about the technique to form any type of conclusion.That is except to say that it seems that the readings are always all over the place based on several different samples often.My conclusion is that I much prefer pottery dating whenever it is possible.If it takes a series of carbon dates, that help prove parts of the Bible, to get poeple suspicious of the method, then fine with me. Its just a little amusing considering the same folks are the ones who ignored pottery finds at Jericho once the carbon dating procedure "settled the issue".But anything that forces people to consider all the evidence is VERY good, because it will help circulate all evidences including ones hastily discarded (or more likley ignored which leads to discarding whether conscious or not) in the past.Also, I may have over exagerated David Rohls motives for ignoring carbon dates.They actually would seem to support in many ways, his reconstruction.But infact he doesnt shorten Egyptian history enough (not evn close) to fit the majority of raw uncalibrated carbon dates.I think his main reason for rejecting them is because he honestly does not trust them.FWIW, I would prefer that the alternative chronologies of Rohl, James, Stewart , etc. are incorrect because the weak link in conventional Eyptian chronology they all seem to be taking shot's at (good ones too) is the 3rd Intermediate Period and that IMO only hurts (in a devestating way too IMO) the Bibles historical value since the Bible seems to fit in so well at that point.Here is (FA)Question 2 for Peter James.http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm#q2Q2: Can Radiocarbon Dating prove CoD right or wrong?Although this method has the potential to do so, C14 results from the relevant areas are at present generally unsatisfactory. For prehistoric cultures earlier than, or unrelated to, the Egyptian dynasties, archaeologists regularly test dozens of samples. By contrast, for the Late Bronze and Iron Ages, they have tended to assume that, as the chronology is 'known', radiocarbon tests are not really needed. As well as the shortage of results, inappropriate samples have usually been chosen, mostly of wood and charcoal which, unless selected with extreme care, will give dates much older than the context they come from. There have also been many problems at laboratory level, such as varying degrees of pretreatment to remove contamination. Calibration raises further difficulties, as the statistical variables involved are often poorly understood. Consequently most C14 dates for the period in question amount to little more than 'window dressing' for a site report.From another perspective, it is also well known that numerous radiocarbon dates from sites in the Aegean, Egypt and the Near East, have never been published because they do not suit preconceptions - a phenomenon we have dubbed the 'publishing filter'. Though it is rarely admitted in print, there are documented cases from at least three sites (see James et al. 1998, 36).Given all this, we strongly feel that the radiocarbon dates currently available are not adequate to judge the CoD theory. New series of tests need to be performed on good materials from secure contexts, with the samples divided between at least three laboratories for cross-checking as results can differ between them. In one case in the 1970s the same Egyptian samples were tested by the Pennsylvania, British Museum and Uppsala labs (Olsson & El-Daousay 1979). The dates from the first two generally fitted the conventional chronology but those from Uppsala were consistently lower and fit well with our chronology. Had Uppsala alone done the tests it would have looked as if radiocarbon had proved CoD correct! The Uppsala laboratory took pride in its careful pretreatment of samples to remove contaminants, a fact which may perhaps explain the divergent results. We would not, however, use these old tests to reinforce our case. There is increasing realisation, due to enormous improvements in the method, that all determinations from before the 1990s should really be discarded.So until new series of good quality dates are produced we simply cannot say whether radiocarbon can prove CoD right or wrong. The C14 database from Greece is, like that from Egypt, a shambles, and we would fully agree with the following statement made by Sturt Manning (1990, 37) of Reading University:... new series of highly quality dates from sealed stratigraphic contexts from all the Aegean periods are required. The current corpus consists of dates from very different technical processes, and dates usually lacking carbon-13 normalization, or alkali pre-treatment! This is unacceptable... The pressing need is therefore for Aegean radiocarbon dates with the contextual and measurement quality to match the precision of the current radiocarbon calibration curves.Yet only two years later, with no new C14 dates (but not without a degree of hypocrisy), Manning and his colleague Weninger (1992) attempted to use the available results from the Aegean to show that CoD was wrong! Their article, published in Antiquity, has been repeatedly cited. This is unfortunate, as it contained a number of serious methodological errors. Most of the C14 results they used, some going back to the 1950s (!), came from unsuitable samples of wood and charcoal. We have published a detailed response (James et al. 1998, 36-38) showing that if due attention is paid to the context of the samples, the presently available radiocarbon dates for the end of the Late Bronze Age in Greece fit comfortably with our model.His FAQ 3 on tree ring dating is even more interesting.I'll go ahead and quote the entire thing, but if the MODs feel I am violating copyright , then please feel free to edit it to shorten it. (Peter James seems tolerant enough,even making fun of U.K. publications for not granting permission to copy cartoons, Im sure he wont have a cow)Actually, maybe I better not.Buts its in the link.Very interesting. Peter James has written what seems like dozens of books, and even single books like this one have such scholarly detail from multiple disciplines that it almost overwhelms you. The Centuries Of Darkness project is one I hope he stays on top of.People around here would LOVE him too, because his 2 most viscious critics (read his reviews section for many dozens of quotes from reviews) are Kenneth Kitchen and William Dever.

Its the latest update too! Infact, 2 of the last 3 since August 2005 have been on tree ring dating.http://www.centuries.co.uk/whatsnew.htmWhat's New on this Site14 May 2006Now readable online - P. James, "The Dendrochronology Debate" [ 691K].21 April 2006."The Uluburun Shipwreck - a Dendrochronological Scandal"[ 151K] added to the Internet Notes and Papers section in The Continuing Debate.7 March 2006.Abstract of new article by P. James added to The Continuing Debate:- "Archaic Greek Colonies in Libya: Historical vs. Archaeological Chronologies?" (2005).Also, I made some errors in earlier posts of mine. The Stiebing book I have on the Exodus was from 1989 not the mid-90s like I said. So his comment that Bryant Wood's Late Bronze Age dating for Jericho was before the issue got "settled" in the early 90s.Also, his evidence for the 1200 BCE Conquest was not too flattering to Bible believers. I think I mistook the "80%" agreement with Middle Bronze Age conclusions of David Rohl related to Biblical areas. Infact ,if not for the 2 old possible locations of Ai, Rohl showed that Middle Bronze Age (2B I think)destructions fit very well with the Biblical evidence.Khirbet el Maqatir (ruin of ascending sacrificial smoke) is a site Wood came to for Ai after he relocated Bethel, which Rohl want aware of when he wrote his book.Rohl mentioned Bimson and his work but I dont think he mentioned Wood. Rohl mentioned that there may infact be possibilities that Middle Bronze Age pottery had a delay in making its way to Palestine, perhaps with regard to poorer areas or the interior of Palestine where the Israelites lived.Rohl mentioned examples of mainstream archaeologists who have reached similar conclusions.Ill go and find it.Ill quote as much as I maye be allowed.Rohl mentions that Bimson (in his PHD thesis)dates the Israelite entry into Canaan according to the widespread city destruction usually assigned to the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Rohl mentions how impressed he is with the evidence since nearly every city destroyed around c1550 (my words, Rohl uses code words , plus Rohl assigns much to around c1650 but the MB periods mentioned seem to be c1550)fit the Bibles text in Joshua while cities not mentioned in Joshua werent touched.Jeicho, Debir, Lachish, Hebron , Bethel , Gibeon , Arad, and Hazor all suffer destruction according the MBA.Rohl is refering to "Bethel" is the generally accepted site of Beitin.The site Wood considers Bethel is El-Bireh and Rohl actually mentions that in his chart (but not explaining anything about the site) on page 306 (in the large hardcover edition which is much much better than the UK paperback edition). Rohl has a "?" for destruction there for all 4 periods in his chart (Extant in LB2B,Destroyed at end of LB2B , Extant in MB2B, Destroyed at end of MB2B )for "Bethel (el-Bireh)". El-Bireh was visible in the Wood DVD I saw.It is a very populated modern town and I wonder how much could possibly be excivated.Im sure Wood will try some day.Hormah (as Tell el-Meshash) is uncertain with regards to destruction at the end of MB2B , but it was extant in that period.Rohl lists the destruction as "uncetain".Aside from that and 2 locations for "Ai" , 8 of the 10 sites Rohl mentions from Joshua were destroyed at the end of MB2B.Rohl compares the situation to the Late Bronze Age where only Hazor and Lachish were destroyed.Rohl show that recent archaeological work also puts the destruction of Hazor back to about a century before the c1200 conquest.I know Hazor's destruction near the end of LBA was generally dated at c1230.Many use it to support a c1200 conquest but Wood often makes the point that it is a bias on the part of "late Exodus" believers and that this is a battle from Judges and not Joshua.Wood says there was c1400 destruction at Hazor too , though much of what Wood describes as c1400 , most say was c1550. This c1300 date for the LBA Hazor destruction (as opposed to c1230) Rohl mentions may support the argument (Rohl doesnt touch or consider this)that the Exodus period- Temple completion was longer than 480 years. Maybe David and Solomon reigned for LONGER than 40 years each plus several 40 year periods of "peace" in Judges could actually be longer.Even without such, the 1 Kings 6:1 period of 480 years could be under from 100-150 just by Textual evidence alone.Back to Rohls book.He is mentioning John Bimsons work and redating the MBA2B destructions generally dated at 1550 to c1447 BCE to fit in with the Bibles "480 years" and 966 Temple date."In doing so, he was obliged to place the Exodus event in the mid 18th Dynasty when most scholars would assert the LBA was well underway. This meant that he was forced to argue for a resolution of the MBA destruction horizon from the very beginning of the New Kingdom (c 1550) down to the reign of Thutmose 3 or thereabouts (c 1447 BC). This in turn required either a century long overlap of the late MBA with the early LBA or a radical reduction the length of the LB1 phase. Neither proposal has been widely accepted although Bietak has also recently argued for an overlap of MB2B and LB1 based on the Tell-ed-Daba evidence.My feelings are that there may well be some mileage in this second hypothesis.It does appear likely that the population of the hill country of Canaan in the period of the early 18th Dynasty (LB1) continued to use pottery which was indistinguishable from that used in the latter part of the Middle Bronze Age."Wood seems to feel that "bi-chrome" (something like that)ware evidence found in small amounts in places like Jericho (which Kenyon missed) proves such.I however seem to rember reading elsewhere (though I may be wrong) that bi-chrome ware was also used in the late MB age also.Ithink it is Cypriot pottery.Wood says Kenyon only excivated poorer areas of Jericho and missed a small area where more wealthy residents would live and thus they would have had more exotic pottery where there would be a general lag in many other areas of the hilly interior. I think thats his position.Plus he says it is LB pottery.Itis interesting that many who attack the Bimson idea here this all started , ignore the MB-LB overlap.I seem to remember Halpern attacking Bimson's thesis (in a 1987 BAR issue) , but not mentioning the overlap issue. Halpern spent several pages speaking as if a draconian chop in the length of LB1 from about 150 years down to 20 was the only possibility Bimson's thery could offer. Maybe that was all Bimson mentioned , I dont know. I never read his book as it is OOP and expensive used ($200+).Halpern easily proved that LB1 had to have lasted over 100 years due to successive building constructions that took on average 43 years each.He did not mention the overlap issue.Halpern might have made a good point in mentioning (Im not sure though , needs lots more debate)that Joshua didnt mention too many cities being burnt and destroyed, and much of the MBA destruction was burnt and destroyed.I cant remember if he made any good pottery arguments such as the new pottery being Hurrian pottery (Im not saying it was , nor am I saying Israelites couldnt have lived among Hurrians and included many , just saying that many may claim "pottery wasnt Israelite").I would rather Wood be wrong about the c1400 date (New Kingdom according to conventional chronology)and would prefer the 1550 destructions be dated as such. There was no Exodus in the 18th dynasty IMO but the dark period in the Delta from dynasties 13-16 (which the later ones were were parallel to the Thebian 17th dynasty)were a genuine dark age where the Exodus could have happened.The Ipuwer Papyrus also is a likley parallel to the Exodus plagues, written from a Thebian pespective if it (Exodus) was from the Hyksos period (early Hyksos could be the new Pharoahs in Exodus 1).Or it was a 13th dynasty writting before the Hyksos, or a writting looking back at the Exodus plagues as the Hyksos were taking over.I think the Pharoah's of the Exodus were from the 13th dynasty or possibly Hyksos Pharoahs.Thankfully, there has been alot of Delta archaeological ruins found, despite the fact that most sink deep into the marshy surface.Texts are ruined as well as mummies. Bob Brier says he doesnt know if the Hyksos mummified their remains because all have been destroyed like nearly everything else perishable including texts.Also, thanks to the "400" and "430" years mentioned in Exodus (though the stay was clearly 215 years or maybe 210)mainstream chronologists who support the Bible (thinking the Exodus was 1446 due to the 480years of 1 Kings 6 , though it was longer IMO) have looked in the 12th dynasty for evidence of Semitic settlements.Many good books and magazine articles have been written including Charles Aling books , plus Pro-Bible magazines like Bible and Spade.The fact that around the time of the Hyksos, the 12th dynasty Semitic settlements were replaced by new peoples (Hyksos?)seems to further support the c1600 Exodus.On ironic note is that my first study Bible was Bullinger's Companion Bible. He had the Israelites enter Egypt in what would today be c.1650 and stay 215 years till what would today be c1450 (back in his day , the chronology was slightly different , so his dates were about 40 years different both ways).Today , everybody who has Israelites enter Egypt c1650 support a c1250 Exodus.Plus Bullinger showed why the "480 years" of 1 Kings 6 should really be 573 years. I would prefer it be even longer to reach back to c1600 BCE.I also thought the Thera erruption of c1630 may help support it a c1600-1650 Exodus , but maybe not.Again, the irony of Bible date amazes me. William Stiebing, in his 1989 Exodus book, mentioned the earlier dating of Thera (from c1500 to c1630) as hurting the argument that it could support the Exodus.He did make good points though, in showing that it's effects wouldnt have reached the Delta.Anyway, Steibing found that a c1400 Conquest seems to be ruled out with almost no sites even being occupied in the LBA and the c1200 Exodus only faring slightly better.Stiebing did at least mention some of Woods new finds though.

I may want to make a longer post but I just checked a few Zondervan products , and I had everything correct in my mind, even the vowels. A.L.F (or A.L.PH , I wish keyboards could type Hebrew fonts, it has the final "PH")means "thousand,tribe,clan" and A.L.W.F (with the "u" marker in the Waw,final "PH")means "tribal chief, leader" and I think it maybe as mentioned as prince also.Both are frequent in the Hebrew Bible.The former is used over 500 times I think and the latter over 75. The difference between the words is just a single vowel letter so clearly they are related. I didnt even see the definition of A.L.W.F. as "leader of thousand" so clearly the root word seems to have a strong basis for being "tribe" at some point in history.This might not be the "PhD" definition, but Zondervan is a Christian company that seems to be at least conservative and even fundamentalist. That is the definition Christians see (at least the ones who bother to study, perhaps not many... true).Im sure those making this argument have read many commentaries that show similar definitions.The grammar doesnt work in the Masorah , but the stylistic differences in the DSS, LXX , Samaritan text , etc. show that translations get re-arranged sentence structure with slightly different ways of explainning the same text. Plus numbers change alot for unknown reasons. Clearly an older Pre "Biblical" Hebrew text could have said something slightly different both in words and structure. Then around 500-900 BCE , gotten redacted and confused. Try to read Old Anglo-Saxon and know what every last sentence says exactly. Afterall, it IS "English"!We know in our top of the line history books that the Romans founded "York" and crossed the "English Channel" too. Though they werent named that at the time.Anachronisms and modern updates happen. Sometimes the text is confused (by those who in times past did the updates), other times the modern readers (like us)are confused.If I had time, I would see if this is in any of the Theological Dictionary of the Old testament volumes I have.I want to do some reading and get on to other issues though.The Wanderings issue is just full of what ifs. Even that guy who did the Kadesh Barnea excavation (Cohen) now wonders if he really searched the right spot.Just google his name and the Kadesh-Barnea and you will find an article where he wonders just that.Now I think he has the view that the chronology is way off.Even more radical than Velikovskt too.Ill find some quotes in a future post.I think I read on another thread that this was covered before anyway (the old "1000" issue anyway, not Kadesh-Barnea).I do understand the point about Christians not wanting to confont most issues though.This Edom, Moab , Ammon, issue interests me alot though. Just when these sites were populated is important, especially considering the fact that the conventional chronology is about to collapse right on the Bible's head. Though ,almost all the scholars sounding the alarm (and leading the charge like Peter James) seem to be also trying to show evidence that the Israelite history goes back farther than even conservatives think.A strange world.Maybe its because the evidence is there, nothing more nor less.Ill be back...sometime.I enjoy this site too.Great information. Its a shame so many publications cant be seen online. It would be alot easier if more authors offered some of their books for free online like Kenneth Kitchen and others did. Discussion would be alot simpler.

The main point I think I started wanting to make is that pastoralists and semi-nomad types seem to avoid archaeological detection.I want to add to that in this post, but due to your advice,I will not expand into too many other topics.The problem is that whenever these topics get started (about new discoveries supporting an early Edom or Judah), many come in and start talking about all the PREVIOUS Biblical periods where there is "no evidence".That kind of kicks off many side topics.The King David palace thread seems to be a chatroom of short unsubstantive posts from naysayers.I agree that it gets overloaded when people respond to all the OTHER issues , I have really overdone it.Im sure I will venture out a bit in my post here , but due to your advice, I have decided to not mention many other issues. Ill also try and explain why a certain something has revlance when it may seem off topic.(Im going to get off to a BAD start lol)First , Ill show the Cohen reference, that tells of his radical chronological views.It actually manages to be relavent because the Iron Age clearly is going to be shortened, thanks to the major efforts of Israel Finkelstein.While I will mention the issue of a possible/likely chronological revision (since it annot be ignored), everything I will type will assume that the traditional dates both in conventional and Biblical history (aside from certain issues related to 1 Kings 6 and Judges)will remain the same.My main point of this post however, is to make a half-o.k. case that Edom , Moab ,and Israel were around long before c1200 BCE.Now, from the June-July Australian Archaeological Diggings issue, here is some of what Editor David Down said that has relavence."Ami Mazar and Israel Finkelstein are locked in a dispute over the date of the early Iron Age II...Alot depends on the outcome" (of the proposed Finkelstein 60-100 year lower revision)Down mentions that Dr. Rudolph Cohen places David in the Middle Bronze II (!).Finkelstein is quoted as saying that less than 500 people lived in Judah in the 10th century.A Radio Carbon conference at Oxford had many high powered attendents that wrestled over this issue with Finkelstein leading the charge.Ted Stewarts outstanding and groundbreaking book (in a number of ways), Solving The Exodus Mystery Volume 1 , mentions a book titled Radio Carbon Variations and Absolute Chronology(the 12th Nobel Symposium held at Upsalla University in Sweden).In it there is a chapter byT. Save-Soderbergh and I.U. Olsson titled "Carbon-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology".It was written in 1983 and it provided a welth of charts and data that showed that Egyptian carbon dates were off by about 350 years on average and it got worse the closer to the beginning of Dynasty 1 where the carbon dates show a 2350 BCE origin.Stewart shows the quotes from updated Cambridge Ancient History articles expressing the concern over carbon dates consistently showing a much lower Egyptian chronology to the amount of 400-600 years.That was the 70s however.He then mentioned how they use tree ring dating to "calibrate" the carbon dates.Stewart questioned that too but presented alternative views from those like Dr. Gerald Aardsma who defend tree ring dating.Carbon dating presents many problems and the Oxford conference that Finkelstein , Shanks, and others attended was very confusing to many who were present.Especially the margin of error issues involved.Howeve, there seems o be a renewed confidence in the method.But perhaps post 1990s dates are more accurate?Ill come back to this later.BEFORE, I start on the views of archaeologists as to Israels sedentarization (or "origins" as often described), Ill simply mention that I think the conquest happened in c1550 BCE beause that is where the archaeological evidence puts the massive destruction of the Middle Bronze Age cities.They were all mentioned in the Bibles Conquest and they were fortified with massive walls (described in the Bible as having reached up to heaven) during the MBA around c.1900-"whenever they were destoyed". Rohl and Stewart describe the period as Middle Bronze B-C and have it at what the conventional chronology places at c1700 BCE (they revise that to c.1406 BCE).Whenever mainstream achaeologists and historians mention these destructions (you will see that they are often ignored)they describe them as c.1550BCE.I mentioned the Late Bronze Age Hazor destruction , that was usually dated at c. 1230 or so. It has often been held up by Conquest believers as evidence of a c1250 Exodus and they relate it to a battle in Joshua from the same time period as Ai and Jericho were destroyed.As somebody who believes in all (or nearly all) that battles in both Joshua and Judges, I see evidence that this battle was from the Judges period.The Bible put this battle as around 225 years after the Joshua Hazor destruction.Even assuming this Hazor destruction was in c.1200BCE,still only the c1550 BCE city destructions can be the Conquest battles.To push this LBA Hazor destruction back to the 14th century would bury the idea of a c1200 BCE Conquest IMO.David Rohl (in his 1994 book and I think even earlier in his Journal) was the first to let the general public know that a personnel conversation with an excavator at Hazor (he foonoted the source)revealed that the destruction was moved back 100 years to the 14th century.Assuming that Solomon reigned from 970-930 BCE , then the Bibles dead reckoning puts the Judges era Hazor opression from 1335BCE-1315BCE and the destruction at 1315 BCE.E.W. Bulleinger placed it during this date back in the 1800s.Ill use his dates, though I think he overlaps some spots and it thus could sretch back even further.c970-Solomon 1010-David 1050-Saul 1090-Samuel 1130-Eli 1170-Philistine opression (Samson) 1178-Abdon 1188-Elon 1195-Ibzan 1201-Jephthah 1205-Jair 1228-Tola 1268-Gideon 1275-Midian servitude 1315-Barak 1335-Hazor servitudeThat pegs the LBA Hazor destruction as perhaps 1315 but Jephthah (1205)was Judging 300 years after the Conquest according to the Bible , and the Conquest seems to fit c1550 BCE , so that would make c1250 the time of Jephthah and place the LBA Hazor destruction as c. 1350 BCE.The Bible says Hazor had a King named Yabin (rare for the Bible to name a king) and that the city was defeated in the 14th century. The only Christian scholar (Bulleinger) Ginsberg let proof read and edit his edition of the Hebrew Messorah way back in the 1800s (before Hazor was such an issue)
placed the final destruction at c1300 BCE.Here is what a roughly 10 page 2004 article by Neil Asher Silberman says (Ill not directly quote)in his Secrets Of The Bible book under the Archaeology Magazine banner.He tells that the 200 acre ruins are among the most impressive and largest in Israel.The city was the only Canaaite city mentioned in the 18th century Mari achives.Correspondence between the King of hazor and Akhenaten is preserved in the Amarna archive of th 14th century.Thus the opportunity is outstanding to palce Biblical events in context.A violent conflagration brought the enormous city to an end in the Late Bronze age.Very deep ash layers were everywhere.It was dated to c.1200 BCE. And related to Joshua's conquest.Israelite settlements were ientified in the 12th century.A number of tablets have been found scattered over the tell and buried in debris.Fragments of a Sumerian-Akkadian dictionary point to the existence of a scribal school.Legal and economic documents date to the 18th century and 14th century.There is much hope that an archive can be found for at least one if not both occupational periods.It would shed amazing light on the history of Canaan and even Israel.Hazor is unique in that is had a name of a King mentioned in a Pre-Monarchy Biblical event.Twice even.Both times "Yabin".Cuneiform tablets at Mari mention a King Ibni-Addu, an Akkadian variant of Yabin. A partially preserved name of a king on a tablet found a Hazor begins with Ibni."late 14th or early 13th".Yaldin believed it was 1230 or 1220 BCE, but Ben-Tor puts the dating earlier based on ceramics and carbon dating.He feels it hurts the Bibles claim the earlier you get.And he assumes that based on the Joshua battle much less that later Judges battle.Absent archives , it is unclear to archaeologists who destroyed Hazor. If it took place in the early 1200s then Seti could have destroyed it.He claims to have destoyed Hazor in a military campaign. Ramses II could have on the way to Kadesh or back from.Ben-Tor believes that the intentional smashing of statues depicting Egyptian Kings would preclude Egyptian destruction.There was no Canaanite state nearby who would seem powerful enough.Very few in the highlands it seemed.No Sea People pottery sherds.Most archaeologists accept that the Israelites were the first to settle in the ruins of the LBA city.Pottery and storage pits resemble many early Israelite settlements at places like Tel Dan , Tell Beit Mirsim, and Izbet Sartah.No evidence for stuctures , suggesting the earliet Israelites lived in huts and tents.The history of Hazor is very unclear after the destruction.Only a single very thin archaeological layer exists after the destruction and till the 10th century.Ben-Tor wonders if it was abandoned.He says the excavations dont account for 200 years , and he feels there was a gap,either after a small Isralite settlement right after the destruction of abandoned prior to a small Israelite settlement hundreds of years later.My feeling is that nothing would have been found much at all reflecting the Israelites, if the site wasnt searched heavily and "staffed by virtually every senior archaeologist in Israel" during periods in the 50s and 60s.I think that thy were perhaps there all along.Ill develop that view later.NOW BACK TO 16th-12th century archaeology of Israel , Judah , and Edom.Now, I will get to another article in the book, where Israel Finkelstien is the subject of a Haim Watzman article.It may not be covered by me here , but Finkelsteins views on the Bronze Age archaeological details of peoples who he views as later becoming the Israelites are spot on IMO.Ill cover it later.And it is a theme that runs through nearly every article on the Canaanite period in this book.Watzman mentions that the archaeological record confirms small Israelite settlements in the highlands of Palestine from 1200-1000. A clear abence of pig bones is mentioned as evidence we have all heard before for these new sites.Sites that didnt exist before c1200 BCE they say.Finkelstin used to believe tht 10th century Israel was a full-blown state till the 1992-1993 period he says.Early articles reflected such.He doesnt mention the 1991 Centuries Of Darkness book and ealier Peter James scholarship as a reason but see "j." of the FAQ 13 I link to below.http://www.centuries.co.uk/faq.htm#q13Finkelstein attributes his reason for changing his view based on what he claims is the lack of archaeological evidence for Judah and epecially Jerusalem during the Bronze and Iron Age.While I think its a little unfair to expect to find much in Jerusalem (since the hottest spots for digs cant be made due to the massive modern day population and off limit locations)Finkelstein impresses me with his views of pastorial archaeology (Ill mention later).Anybody who has read David Rohls book knows that there have been SOME impressive finds in the Late Bronze Age Jerusalem though.Finkelstein felt Judah was largely pastoral , tribal, and lacking in inluence while there were clearly spotted sites in the Northern highland during the 10th century.Judah was to him a sparsely populated and economically backward chiefdom.I feel that is due more to absence of evidence for the 10th century since it seems that evidence it turning up that there may have been impressive architecture at that time but from the 16th-12th (or later), the patten of lifestyle of Israelites and Judaeans could possibly leave few traces that could be easily found.They get to mentioning the Oxford seminar about the large scale radio carbon surveys of Iron Age sites being undertaken presently.Finkelstin confiently proclaimed that "Within 5, 6, ot 10 years the picture will have stabilized" and his chronology will have been confirmed."Preliminary results presented at the seminar point in this direction" said Watzman.Finkelstein said "Then we'll argue over the details".On to the theories of the highland sedentarization process that happened around c1200 BCE.Much of this is based on the same Silberman book, and this is an article from him.Before I get to the correct theory, here were the forunning theories."peaceful immigrants" by Alt and NothA gradual immigration view where the Apiru were already present in Canaan and hostile to the Canaanite rulers more than a century before c1200 BCE. The Israelites were desert nomands who slowly filtered into the highlands and after a long peiod of coexistnce with the Canaanite population,overan them.That got rejected then the new theory was a "peasant revolt".George Mendenhall felt the Apiru were Canaanite peasants who formed a new religion and overthrew their fellow natives.Gottwald expanded the view and viewed the peasants as having fled from the more heavily populated cities of the coatal plain and the natural destination they would have been attracted to was the frontier and forest regions.The "peaceful immigration" theory explained the simplicity of the artifacts in the early Iron Age villages as being due to the Isralites primitive semi-nomadic origins (not far from the truth IMO).Gottwald felt however that the absence of luxury goods were because the high-status trade brokedown at the end of the Bronze Age.No archaological evidence supported such a dmographic shift from the coastal plains to the highlands.Here is the theory I like called "invisible Israelites" by Finkelstein.Rejecting the idea of a peasant revolt for the c1200 transformation, and not acepting evidence of a struggle between Israelites and Canaanites , pastoralists and settled population, feudal lords and peasants.Finkelstein goes far beyond the "chronological limits" most accept.He traced settlement patterns over the canaanite hill country over hundreds of years.The demogrphic revolution of the Early Iron Age isnt to be seen in isolation.The issue of the Israelite settlement are connected closely to much much earlier developments."As recent archaeological surveys have indicated, the hill country of Canaan was thickly settled and dotted with fortified cities, towns, and hamlets in the period beginning around 1750 BC.Yet the surveys also showed that around 1550 B.C. , toward the end of what is called the Middle Bronze IIC period, the settled population in the hill country declined dramatically.During the succeeding Late Bronze Age (1550-1200), while the large cities along the coast and in the major valleys continued to flourish, more than 90% of the permanent settlment sites in the hill country were abandoned and the few surviving sites became much smaller in size.But that is not to say that the hill country of Cannan was empty.Far from it.according to Finkelstein, the people who would late become Israelites were already there."Notice how Finkelstein brushes over the violent destructions and brutal genocide of c1550 described in the Bible and present in the archaeological evidence? Anyway.....Finkelstein felt that what happened was the opposite of the general accepted view of the enlightenment thinker who felt pastoral nomads would settle in a 1 way street of accepted human progress.Finkelstein felt that conditions could cause farmers to become pastoralists at times, and figures this is precisely what happened to the Canaanite highland population at the end of the Middle Bronze Age.Some adopted a new wandering way of life ,others maybe toiled in the feilds of the coasts.They abandoned thei villages."These hill-country farmers-turned herdsman (almost invisible to archaologists when compared to populations that built permanent houses) were able to establish.." a new way of life.Great upheavals of the 13th century created a new dynamic in hill country Canaan.After 1250BC, in the Aegean, many factors brought the end of the Mycenaean kingdoms and the dramatic collapse disturbed the entire Meiterranean world.The rituals of diplomacy and luzury goods were not maintained and it brought down the legitimization of the hundreds of Bronze Age warlords, princes, and priests in Canaan.The scattered pastoralists in the hill country could no longer depend on markets in costal and valley regions where they were used to trading sheep and goats.My view is that the increased population of Israelites in c1200 combined with the new economic conditions forced enough permanent settlements that archaeologists clearly noticed the Isralites for the first time in 350 years.No massive immigration from outside in c1200 BCE and no "C"onquest despite new sites in places previously absent as well as new pottery types in already settled towns."Thus, the founding fathers of the Israelite nation can now be seen as scattered groups of pastoralists living in small family groups and grazing their flocks on hilltops and isolated valleys in th hill country of Canaan."In a later article by Silberman in the same book, he adds."Scholars still debate the cause of the massive social disorder, military conflicts, and economic upheaval that wept across the eastern Mediterranean around 1200 B.C." He added that regardless of the cause, everything was changed forever.The Iron Age would see the rise of small independent kingdoms mntioned in the Bible.Silberman thn goes on to mention no arhaeological evidence of a sudden invasion in c1250-1200.The new Israelite settlements seemed to worship old Canaanite Gods "at least initially", he says.Actually, the northern tribes did so way more often than not according to the Bible , not to mention Judah citizens nearly as much most times. Which are the geographic locations Silbermann is talking about.Silbermann cant help but later say "Even though sholarly infighting continues, a striking picture of the rise of Israelite society has emerged in which archaeological evidence in some cases flatly contradicts the biblical assertions.For example, the common occurrence of female fertility figurines and private offering altars at sites throughout the area of the kingdom of Judea and Isral indicates the exitence of a popular cult of healing and fertility along-side the official, royal cult of the Temple of Jerusalem."What Biblical record is he reading lol? Sounds like what the texts says to me. Also, what archaeology in Jerusalem has been undertaken that indicates anything like a temple discovery? The texts from the Monarchy period, and especially before, are nearly non-existant. actually, more maybe has been found in the Bronze Age text wise though the Amarna tablets seem to cover Canaanite areas not Israelite.Finkelstein accepts that during the Conquest period (c.1550 based on cities destroyed and the Biblical rcord), 90% of the population vanished.He doesnt always mention the violent destructions in the archaeological record, plus descibes the Canaanites as having simply walked away.He also accepts that Israelites were there, just not called Israelites. He also understands why they were invisible to the archaeological record.My first post (above on page 2) described some scholarly articles from the book "Early Edom and Moab" that explained how pastoralist and semi-nomadic peoples are absent from the archaeological record in many places though non-Biblical texts clearly mention them.Included peoples from the area later known as Edom and Moab.Here I will cover texts and comments from distinguished mainstream cholars Wilson, Luckenbill, Pritchard, and perhaps others. This is based on chapter 14 of Ted Stewarts Solving the Exodus Mystery. Stewart want interested in the lack of archaeological evidence , the texts were enough proof for him. he just wanted to peg Biblical period to Egyptian periods.I am presenting this to show textual evidence of populations not found in the archaeological record.The Execration Texts wer curses against rulers fo foreign cities and countries in c.1900J Wilson translated"The ruler of ly-'Anaq, 'Erum, and all th retainers who are with him; the Ruler of ly-'anaq,Abi-yamimu , and all the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of ly-'anaq,'Akirum, and all retainrs who are with him."Pritchard says ""Ly-;Anaq may be related to the Biblical name of Anak"Next is omething kitchen covered, but I skipped over on my page 2 post.I instead covered Edom.Here is Moab being condemed in the Execration Texts."The Ruler of Shutu, Ayyabu, and all the retainers who are with him; the ruler of Shutu , Kushar , and the retainers who are with him; the Ruler of Shutu , Zabulanu , and all the retainers who are with him."Pritchard identifies the Shutu as "probably Maob"Numbers 24:17"He will crush the foreheads of Moab , the skulls of all the sons of Sheth".The names Ayyabum is cueniform for Job says Pritchard."The Bible says Job lived in 'the land of Uz'...scholars say that the land o Uz reached all the way from edom in the south to Syria in the north, on the east bank of the Jordan River..."included the country of Moab"Jeremiah says uz included Edom.Edom was south of Moab.One of Jobs friends lived in Teman, a village south of the Dead Sea.Stewart wonders if Job was a ruler.The Bible mentions him as the greatest man of the East.Job said "i sat as their chief;I dwelt as a king among his troops"No mention is made of Isralites in the book of Job.Perhaps he lived before Israelites were in Canaan.Modern critical scholars place Jobs writting btween 400-700 BCE."However,many scholars have also reconized that Job has close affinities to the style, ideas, and language of" Middle Kingdom documents. "The protests Of The Eloquent Peasant" , "The Admonitions of Ipu-Wer" , "A Dispute Over Suicide" , "the Wisdom of Amenemope" , "A Song Of The Harper, and other documents."The A-B-A style which sets semi-poetical speeches between a prose prologue and epilogue is found in both Job and Egyptian writings. Job is part narrative, part dialogue and par poetry. Several 12th dynasty documents possess this same style."(Since I mentioned Ipuwur......Wilon, Gardner, Hayes, Lichtheim (and many others)all dscribe the orthography, style, and language of Ipuwur to the Middle Kingdom. Lichtheim and a few others (not mentioned above) place it a eywitness accounts of the end of the Middle Kingdom.Stewart clearly proves Ipuwur is describing things he saw , no other way of looking at it)Anyway, Finkelstein has described c1550 (which could be said as some sort of Conquest like event all at the same time)as a period where 90% of the population vanished.He doesnt mention that the cities were Biblical cities conquered in Joshua.Finkelstein describes the post 1500BCE population as becoming invisible to archaeology.Much like the Edom and Moab non-Bilical textualevidence.Finkelstein doesnt feel that 90% of the Canaanites were killed and replaced by a smaller number of Israelites (the Bible describes the isrelites as much less in number than the Canaanites), but feel the whole population of Canaanites simply vanished and took to a pastoralist lifestyle (all 90%!).His archaeology is solid never the less.His "Invisible Israelites" (Silberman calls it) reference to Cananites (who he feels would later become Israelites) would be even more solid if he could say that the "new pastoralists" were already such to begin with, not odd reverse order converts from a sedintary lifestyle to pastoralist.In addition to being a smaller group and not 90% of teh previous population.Anyway ,I feel many highland Canaanite cities with their non-Israelite populations (in addition to most plain and coastal) remained among the Israelites, with their pagan practises and all. Most were violetly killed in certain cities however.The archaeological record supports the Conquest and Judges period.The Amarna letters were Canaanites.Israelites lives in the unimportant highlands and what little letters came from the hill country were Canaanites.The Edomites and Moabites , in addition to many Israelite lands werent populated with sedentary populations till c1200 BCE, and were harder to spot in the archaeological record.Plus carbon dating seems to give dates that make sites look younger.Finklstein figured it out , and that is why he is so eager to use it to support his new chronology.All battles during the Judges period that have been compared to precise archaeological locations , fit the evidence.Like Hazor.Many others havnt been found yet. (I wish Ted Stewart wouldnt be ill, he promised alot of syncronisms in volume 2)New chronologies, that reduce the Iron Age chronology to a condenced level may hurt the Bibles case.But everything seems to add up.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Thanks for catching that.I should said that"It has often been held up by Conquest believers as evidence of a c1250 Exodus and they relate it to a battle [written in] in Joshua from the same time period as Ai and Jericho were destroyed (though evidence is absent from the archaeological record, infact falsified)."Im not even sure what site "Ai" was.But Et-Tell does not have destruction anytime near c1200.The excuse for Jericho is that all the Late Bronze Age (c1200 part) evidence has eroded away.But the examination of where the objects flowed to shows no Late Bronze Age atifacts.Bryant Wood has full page pictures of c1400 artifacts in his Bible and Spade publication, but says no mainstream journals will publish his findings. He swears up and down it is c1400 material.It was even found in Garstang's work in the 30s. I would rather he be wrong honestly as nothing else (the towns destroyed in the Bible) matches c1400.I prefer an extended Judges period (and anything else covered in 1 Kings 6)up to around 600 years and perhaps an extremely minor chronological adjustment (maybe 20-50 years)of Egyptian and Palestinian archaeology.Though Id rather not have the latter as it seems to come down on the post 1000 Iron Age archaeology mainly.I,in no way accept a c1200 Conquest.And the only thing it had going for it in archaological evidence was a c1200 Hazor destruction.the c1400 Conquest is jut as bad, even worse with Israelite occupation evidence (Finkelstein actually helps the case though)The biggest obsticle for a c1550 isnt the destructions but Isralite higland occupations having little evidence before c1200.That is what I am getting at tackling in my post.I am in the middle of a break from posting, and want to finish my post above.

I may not be able to post till later tonight or maybe not till Monday.I hope you are right about Wood.Even Kitchen , who is very strong on a period shorter than 480 years (1 Kings 6), says the dates add up to about 594 years.Why be so dogmatic about the 480 years in the Mesorah? The Septuagint says 440. if you add all the dates up, you will find that is is beyond 480. Without ading to the text , the period from Kings to the Exodus could be longer.Pepy II of Egypt ruled 94 years, so maybe the fact that no Israelite king or Judge ruled for more than "40" may mean that years could be added and the 40 was an estimate, be I dint even go there (Yet).A fictional Judges period ,or a reduced Judges period , has caused us to not be 100% certain about the Hazor destruction.Take the Biblical numbers literally and you have a 14th century Isaelite batle with IBNI/YABAN of Hazor.Try to fug the Judges numbers (shorten)and you have them displaced so badly that the archaeological evidence has to be put into a context with Joshua and not Barak.Now the more correct examination that moved the Hazor archaeological evidence back to the 14th century has displaced even Joshua!And Joshua was aound in the Middle Bronze Age when there were massive fortifications in many Canaanite cities with walls up to the sky according to biblical writers.The Conquest fits the evidence.Ill respond on Ai later.I havnt used it much but I have every Bible and Spade issue from the 1970s till present plus an up to date index. I can repeat their research in many cases.Problem is they are stuck on the idea of a 1400 Conquest.The have a great new long artcile on a new Exodus route in their latest issue.Plus older issues over alot about Ai including definitions.I think Et-Tell had an early Iron Age occupation, right? I can check later.I can find out every occupation based on archaeological disoveries. I need to get off. Common textual views of the Bible reject Pre-Iron Age writtings.Especially by minimalists.If Et-Tell had occupation throughout many periods from around 1100-AD then the common thesis that it was names "the ruin" as aetiological is illogical.Look forward to hearing you views.I know you are an archaeologist. So, it will really be interested to hear you out.Edit: Et-Tell was occupied from 1220-1050 an never resettled.O well. I guess I shot myself there.I respond more on it later.I dont think Et-Tell was Ai.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Re:53I hope nobody is holding off just for me.If you have something to say on Cabon Dating, then please do so as I dont understand it too well, frankly.I re-read Rohl's index and now see that he actually said that carbon dates show a much OLDER Egyptian history from Dynasty 1 and beyond compared to the conventional chronology.Thats s 180 from what I thought, which was that carbon dates showed a lower chronology. He covered the views of scientists who feel that Carbon Dates should be taken as a means to correct the conventional chronology, whereas historians feel the dates shouldnt effect their chronologies.I work weekends , and have been reading some books and journals to get myself up to speed ASAP, but its a slow process.I plan to post the Ai views of c1400 Conquest believers (perhaps today) , which I am not. I naturally feel that the 1550 and 1300 destruction levels of Hazor represent the Conquest of Joshua and the battle of Judges respectively.I feel the endless destructions of c.1550 cities (every single one is mentioned in Joshua's Conquest , without exception)represent the Conquest. The fact that Tell Ed Daba evidence shows Late Bronze Age artifacts (c 1525)and the destructions in Palestine show MiddleBronze artifacts (c. 1550)proves that Egyptians were sealed off from palestine due to the Hyksos presence.Egyptians were NOT responsible for the destructions of c1550 BCE.I'll give details of artifacts later.I am in a pinch though, because nobody else seems to hold my exact views.Its not easy to make my case as I need to search for clues when those exact points arent being made by the publication(s)I read.I have some ideas of what to type but Im sure I will be missing many better evidences to use.Anyway, I dont represent the mainstream conservative view on the Conquest, so I hope c1200 and c1400 Conquest believers(as well as all the others)will present their evidences as well.Anybody can paste any of my quotes and use them to support your own view.On this thread or others.Please keep in mind that most of us dont have access to hardly any journals , except some of the ones we bought. Much material isnt avaliable.Even if it was, it would be safe to say that our posts clearly arent the best presentation of all the avaliable data.My posts represent what I know, NOT everything that there is to be known.Not even close.Anyway , Ai, the Exodus, the settlement of Canaan, (and maybe even Carbon dating) are all closely related but I think the Conquest is where I will try and zero in on ("try").Starting with Ai.BUT, Im not sure if I will be spending most of my time trying to make my c1550 case. I may want to cover the already exausted c1200 and c1400 Exodus , though I cant support such a construction of history. Honestly, I would be better off reading all the older debates on thes issues, as Im sure I would learn alot.I have tried before (been through about 20 threads)but get stuck in the mud when I start following links.Slows down my compltion of the many threads.But nobody said learning was a fast process.Anyway, I hope those with different Conquest beliefs join in.RE:54Hi there.The issue of "no settlemets in Transjordan" has been a big excuse to reject pre 1200 BCE Conquest histories.Believe it or not , the existence of powerful tribal territories in certain palces at certain times is an issue of tremendous importance.I dont have anything infront of me, but (in addition to my posts above)there have been many non-Biblical texts that describe pre-1200 powerful tribes in Southern Transjordan that gave Egypt a good fight.Also, a big issue for pre 1200 Israelite tribal presence has been the lack of archaeological evidence for settlements in the hill country of central Canaan.Just like the above mentioned Trans-Jordan findings.Most of my postings (so far) use mainstream sources (Pritchard , Wilson , Finkelstin,journals, etc.), but the data hasnt exactly sunk in to form a mainstream concensus.Especially in relation to Israelite history.Ill try and provide some quotes and references when I get around to this issue.I really need to read all the other threads though. I may be getting in over my head.Nice talking to you and I look forward to discussing and sharing too.

Maybe I will sound stale then.I dont think I have refered to a single fringe source yet.The Bible and Spade journal is full of PhD's including Bryant Wood.The archaeological team is top notch and very competent.They have done digs for over 25 seasons at some sites looking for Ai.Very important work and they dont fudge data at all.Every article is full of mainstream references.Bimson has a PhD.David Rohl and Kenneth Kitchen may not have PhDs, but they could easily get them (especially Kitchen, this is the man who's groundbreaking chronological studies make up history books, Rohl choose to tackle a mighty tough subject for a thesis). Pritchard and Wilson are the ones who did the amazing piece of scholarship called Ancient Near Eastern texts Relating To The Old Testament and ANE In Pictures.Very high quality translations.Peter James is a first rate historian and researcher.Ill link you to some free journal PDFs (free for a short time)of him and the ISIS researchers.You will notice many top notch academics of all sorts of different views.Ted Stewart admits he is not an academic but his Sothic chapters had the nations top computer scientists help him (Dr. Danny Faulkner).The quotes from the Cambridge Ancient History (most recent edition of volume 1 part 1)on Carbon Dating were genuine and unmistakable.I'll have to grab them later.Thera wasnt a big issue to me.I was pointing out how people can be so confident (Stiebing)that some 100 year off date can disprove Biblical events because they feel they know exactly how long the Judges period was.The volcano wasnt an issue at all to me.And Stiebing is a mainstream historian anyway.The 215 or 430 year stay in Egypt is something Ill get to in the weeks or months ahead.There is very solid archaeological and textual evidence that the Delta had HUGE amounts of Asiatic slaves in dynasty 12 (and beyond) , because the Southern country around Thebes (not where Israelites would be) had slave lists full of mostly Semitic names.Ill get to that some other time, as I think I want to start with some of the Conquest details.But I will (sort of)respond to your Kadesh comment , before getting to Conquest issues, since that may be Conquest related.First of all , I havnt seen any of Wyatts work.I do have the Moller DVD , but he dates the Exodus to 1450 , so it isnt something I would jump all over at first.Bryant Wood , though accepting a 1450 Exodus , gives good scholarly reasons for rejecting certain types of alternatie sites.I am planning to link (later) to a free archive of (for now) free JACF (Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum) issues (the first 6 or so).It was a fantastic publication, but the ISIS got dissolved recently.Issue 10 (last one) finally came out after many years and it was a good one.All types of different views are presented.None fringe. All scholarly.Issue 1 has a link to John Bimson and a great article , which I will quote heavily (due to comments on Tell Ed Daba work plus Conquest details)and explain some areas where I differ.ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum(click on the Bimson article and notice that other top notch historians are contributors like Dodson)His comment on Kadesh (which I dont plan on discussing heavily for now , though there is some good new material I could use from the scholarly and cautious Bible and Spade journal)really shows that the "absence of evidence" isnt just some lame excuse all the time. I know it can be abused by believers but the context it is usually used in by conservative archaeologists is usually within the context of general support for overall Biblical details.The complaints about "absence of evidence" can be more abusive to the field data than those who use the reasonable excuse.Forget the so called "Kadesh" site, since that is one possible site in a huge desert.Lets look at a site a little closer to home, Succoth.
Bimson states on page 29 of issue 1, while discussing another issue."It is a salutary fact that at another eastern Delta site,Tell el-Maskhouta, (the site of ancient Tjeku,=Succoth in Exodus 12:37), no trace has yet been found of a military base from the region of Thutmose IV , nor of forts and other buildings from the reign of dynasty 19, although the existence of such is attested in Egyptian texts."Bimson pointed out on the first page something that should alert all the "absnce of evidence" complainers."For example, Yigael Yadin estimated that to excavate every level of the tell of Hazor (in northern Galiee) in its entirety would take 800 years!"That really needs to be considered.Stop and think.First, you have a site we have already had the benefit of having found (LONG ago).Second, you have a site that has had many decades of endless digging (Bryant Woods organization send teams out every season to help)from every Israeli archaeologist under the sun not to mention the worldwide help.Yet with all that said, we could be looking at 800 more years of untold man hours and hard work till we can hope to find our first ever Canaanite archive.But,even before we found our first Near Eastern tablet from Mari and Hazor,we had Biblical critics saying the "2 Jabans" from Joshua and Judges were obvious double tales (repeating the same battle) because those foolish ancient psuedo-historians called Israelites put together a clunky mostly fictional history.Archaeology has proven (though with scant textual references , especially in Canaanite) that Hazor Kings , which went out of business around the 14th century , seemed to have all (or nearly all) been called Jaban from 18th century Akkadian texts from far away Mari and the few fragments we found of Canaanite texts in Hazor.Those illiterate Israelites have some audacity.They werent supposed to have had writting till around 900BCE at best.Maybe the c600 BCE "D source" went digging through the ground for ancient Hazor archives , so they could stare at a bunch of tablets in a language they didnt understand. Then they could guess the exact time in history Hazor was destroyed during the Judges and "make up their tale".True, we dont have 100% slam dunk evidence it was the Israelites , but till we can find a Canaanite archive, I think we can say that there is a healthy skeleton of top notch history in Judges,as well as Joshua (though that was the c1550 battle), for us to work around when reconstructing the past.Here is what Israel Finkelstein said about the 55,000-65,000 Bedouin in Palestine during 1917-1948 (see Bimson article for source of Finkelstein quote)"The population left almost no material remains,however;without contemporary, documentary evidence,we would not know of its existence"As many conservatives here have been saying,the Bible indicates that there were far fewer Israelites than that, so maybe we should worry about finding the military bases of the mighty warrior Thutmose III or forts and buildings from the 19th dynasty FIRST then worry about a few "invisible" (as Finkelstein and Silberman call them) semi nomads.Now,on to the Conquest issue.Though I was speaking in the context of Kadesh (wherever that is) , it is interesting that Albright estimated that in the Amarna Age , the wooded hill country of Palestine had a population about 20,000-25,000 people with about 200,000 in all of Palestine.I consider those 20,000 to be Israelites since the unique Biblical textual history (no other ancient record lays claim to the endless destructions when there were endless walled cities in MBA Palestine )of the destructions in Canaan which clearly happened in 1550 BCE based on archaeological evidence.In addition,the Bible describes a much smaller population of Israelites killing off the larger population of Canaanites.Finkelstein says that "90%" of the highland Canaanite settlements in 1550BCE were abandoned and what remined was much smaller. The Bible depicts the Israelites during the time of the Judges following the Conquest as subservient to the surrounding nations and living in tents (Jgs 20:8; 1 Sm 4:10, 13:2). Finkelstein says that the advanced MBA Canaanite's decided to become semi-nomads at the start of the LBA (1550), though he has to do ALOT of explainning since it is so unheard of to make the transition from advanced settled people to semi-nomadic.Jericho archaeological evidence shows MB IIC (Conquest destruction in 1550BCE) and 14th century (brief "City of palms" building tht Moabite Eglon took up residence in Judges 3) phases of the Bronze Age city as attested by the pottery.Hazor was also described as being destroyed by Joshua in the destructions of 1550BCE.It is well-known that this destruction occurred at the end of MB IIC according to Ben-Tor 1993.The c1300 destruction of Hazor was described in Judges 4 and genuine literal acceptance of Biblical dates has long shown this.(much more coming in a few hours...editing)

First of all, the only article I used from Bible and Spade to base SOME of a post on was one that reviewed Frank Yurco's scholarship on the Karnak wall relief.Wood dedicated the article to Yurco.Wood isnt allowed to present scholarship to us now? He did a great job of showing pictures and presenting the sholarly details to me.And, it is really amazing that you would bug me with such a pointless argument on THIS issue, because one of Wood's biggest issues is trying to find evidence that Israelites were in the land before MerenPtah.Though Redford and especially Rohl have presented some great scholarship that It was either Seti or Rameses from long before Merenptah, Wood only gave a passing reference to Redfords view in a footnote and seemed to dismiss it.Proving Wood doesnt fugde data to help make his points.Especially on issues dearest to his desires.O,I also remembered one other Wood article I quoted from.It was one that refered to German scholarly journals as well as American ones.Possible mentions of "Israel" in Palestine during the 18th dynasty were presented by a German scholar.Is that "old" news to you, and you feel I shouldnt mention it? The German scholar hasnt been responded to yet.Its been since 2001. Maybe , if you find Wood's presentations of scholarly opinion, not to mention crystal clear pictures of texts in question , to be something to be squelched at for its foolishness, then send an entry for the German journal to publish that details why the German scholar was wrong.Wood wasnt allowed to present the comments of 3rd century BCE pagan Greeks who thought a text in a Canaanite colony said that they fled there during the Israelite Conquest?Why dont you comment on that instead of trying to start some cheezy religion argument.I am in the middle of reading the Oxford encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt, Anchor Bible Dictionary (which mentioned some of Woods pottery findings and careful techniques, though not in the context of an agument over the Conquest, something else), and Oxford history of Ancient Egypt to prepare a post.I also dont like this guilt by association tactic. I already said I may post some views of others (I was planning to post some details of 2 potential sites for Ai though I wouldnt exactly agree with the conclusion that they MAY be Ai, not that anybody has made that conclusion)just to circulate some views around and cover some sites. So, I wasnt exactly planning on using Wood's journal for conclusions. Frankly, Wood and his organization dont jump the gun either. One possible site for Ai has been dug for 25 years by his organization and Wood doesnt accept it as Ai.Also, Woods favorite site (Khirbat el Maqatar)isnt one where he has said he has all the evidence for,including burn destruction. Ive seen DVDs where they show clips of discussions at the end of digging seasona and they are honest year after year in what they havnt found yet.Wood is even heard as cautious when he mentions that some burning may not prove to be from a deliberate destruction.Wood has all kinds of archaeologists and scholars of many faiths post articles. He also doesnt just blindly accept anything. Not that he comments on everything , but those like Moller and Wyatt have been soundly critiqued by Wood.I really dont feel like getting into these petty arguments.Wood is a Christian.Just shoot him and move on past it, if that is such a problem.Since you are here, please see the Livingston PDF I posted and tell me what you think of Manfred Bietek wanting to redate the c1550 destructions in Palestine to 1460?Wood puts everything at c. 1410.I disagree with both and will explain why in a few hours.With archaeological arguments.Do you care to present archaeological evidence for why they are wrong?Or do you just want to argue over Christianity?On Edit:Lets please stay on the topics.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Keep in mind that all (with the exception of an unlocated little city named Ai)of the Conquet cities in Joshua were destroyed in 1550 BCE according to archaeology plus some others like Shiloh and Shechem.The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Donald Redford ed) says this under entry "Hyksos"
(in progress)
"The attack by Ahmose on Sharuhen in southern Palestine was then a logical move or the stabilization of his reign.According to the bibliography of his namesake Ahmose,son of, Abu, it took 3 years to take Sharuhen.The assaults on the other towns in southern Palestine, ere , perhaps, not less difficult.The Middle Bronze Age city-states in inland Palestine were not attacked until the ime of Thutmose III."Seems that there is no clear evidence ,textual or archaeological for attacks on Palestine by Egypt at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (1550) beyond the extreme south west corner.The Jericho entry in the Anchor Bible Dictionary says that the city was destryoed at the end of the MBA (1550) but says nothing about who could have done it.Because there sint any real evidence.Yet, under the entry for Tell El Qedah (Hazor)in the Anchor Bible Dictionay"Stratum XVI ended in a major destruction,as did most sites in palestine at the end of the MB.These destructions were in connection with Egyptian punitive raids following the expulsion of the Asiatic (or "Hyksos")princes at the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th dynasties (ca1540-1500 B.C.).A ephemeral post-destruction stratum, "post-XVI", consists mostly of burials and some transitional MB III/LB1 pottery.It is probably to this horizon that we should attribute the reference to Hazor on the walls of the temple at Karnak, which lists the sites conquered to Thutmose III."Now,with the Tell el Qedah article we get assumptions that many take for granted as fact. That the MB (1550)destruction was Egyptian destructions.Though there is no evidence (for the mind blowing 1550 destructions).And even the 1460 "destructions" of Thutmose III are not at all proven. I dont even know if the claim was even made for destuctions by Thutmose III.Egyptians drew cities up in many campaigns, but we dont even know if they were just passing through, collecting tribute, fighting, or destroying. Plus foreign nations in the Ancient Near East(aside from Israel IMO)often claimed to have destroyed places that others actually did (see the famous Tel Dan claim by Haziel), whether it was other nations or previous leaders of one own nation.In addition to flat out making up statements.One would think that if the Egyptians were responsible for such massive destructions of city after city in 1550, then their leaders would braodcast it everywhere.Even if the wins were minor, then the bombastic Pharoahs would blow them all out of proportion.So, why dont we have any real refernces at the beginning of the 18th Dynasty (Ahmose or Amenhoteph I)to these major destructions? Because Egyptians didnt defeat the Hyksos till some 25-30 years after the MBA.Hence the destructions weret theirs.The Middle Bronze Age ended in 1550 BCE.Baruch Halpern explains that nobody would dare start the Iron Age II any later than 1400 and gave alot of good reasons and references in Noverber/December 1987 Biblical Archaeology Review.Remember that.Iron 1 also had to be 150 years and Halpern explains why.I will later but first lets also know that the 18th dynasty started with Ahmose ascension when he was a child.About 14-18 years after he became Pharoh, he drove the Hyksos out of Egypt.David Rohl says most Egyptologists feel the 18th dynasty started in 1539 BCE and the Hyksos dynasty ended in 1525.Kenneth Kitchen said that the 18th dynasty started either in c1540 or c1550 depending on whether Thutmose II reigned for 3 or 13 years.Oxford History Of Anceint Egypt (Ian Shaw ed)"Archaological discoveries in the 1980s and 1990s, combined with the re-examination of older inscriptional evidence, suggest that the reunification of Egypt took place only in the last decade of the 25 year reign of Ahmose (1550-1525).Thus the dynasty may be said to have begun officially around 1530 B.C......"That puts the Hyksos expulsion at around 1530-1535 BCE.These are the dates Egyptian historians have come to and it is clearly after the Middle Bronze Age ended.David Rohl mentions that Kenyon in Jericho based her dating on a certain "Tell- el Yahudiya Ware".It was a dictinctive juglet that was manufactured during the Middle Bronze Age in Tell ed-Daba (Avaris). The small back pots show a general type of development from priform to cylindrical..By analysing the proportion of priform to cylindrical juglets at Jericho, Kenyon was able to place Jericho periods into 5 general categories.Israeli archaeologist Aharon Kempinski reduced them to 3 but the order was the same.The Middle Bronze Age pottery and pots were all that was found in Jericho (according to mainstream archaeologists) and the rest of Palestine duing the massive MBA destructions while Late Bronze Age Bichrome Ware was found in Hyksos occupation levels in Tell Ed-Daba.The usual excuse by people like Bryant Wood and others is tht Jericho was a backwater, which wouldnt have imported Cypriot pottery.John Bartlett notes"..the important point for our purpose is tht jericho along with other sites of southern and central Palestine (Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell Gezer , Shiloh, Bethel, and Gibeon) , does not show any sign of having used the bichrome ware and imported Cypriot pottery.The explanation is not simply that Jericho was a backater in the Jordan valley which bichrome ware , spreading inland from the coast, failed oto reach, for that leaves places like Tell Beit Mirsam unexplained, and in any case it is not just bichrome ware but a whole range of pottery of the period that is missing from jericho. The obvious explanation is that there was a break in the ocupation of the tell after the destruction of the MB2 city"Notice Bimson PDF journal,where he is excited by Bietak's idea of an overlaping MB/LB1 age.See page 35.ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology ForumBietak (the lead archaeologist at Tell ed-Daba) notices that there isnt evidence for Egyptian campaigns at the end of MBA, so he would like to move the MBA destructions down to c1460 during the reign of Thutmose III. But Egyptologist James Hoffmeier notices that Thutmose III did not cause widespread destructions contrary to popular opinion.Bietak wants to move the c1550 destructions down to c1460 based on a near 100 year so-called pottery lag in Palestine.Bimson and Wood want the trickle in pottery from Egypt to Palestine to take 150 years.One wants Thutmose from c1460 to be responsible for the 1550 destructions.Another wants a "1410 Joshua" to be responsible for 1550 destructions.The problem for the former (Bietak) is that there is no Egyptian records in the early part of the heavily documented 18th Dynasty which is the only part of the 18th Dynasty anywhere near the MBA though it post dates it PERIOD.Especially after the Hyksos expulsion.Plus the archaeology dent allow such a lag.Plus even if it did, then Thutmose didnt destroy all those cities nor did any othe rEgyptian.Not ever.But especially not ina single campaign.The problem for the latter is that the archaeology wont allow a 140 year MBA lag in Palestine.There is a much bigger problem.Many expert historians like Baruch Halpern say that you cant bugde the start of Late Bronze 2 beyond 1400 BCE.Not only does Bitak do just that (lowering it to c1360) but he shortens the entire Late Bronze 1 period to just 70 years from 1430 to 1360.There is a big problem.Megiddo was detroyed in both 1550 and 1460 according to Halpern.Megiddo has a stratum 8 which is Late Bronze 2A , a post 1400BCE level or c1360 acoing to the revision Bimson has show there.So, even if you allow the LB2A to start in 1360 then you have a 1430-1360 Iron Age 1 period in Palestine.Megiddo stratum 9 , below it "exhibits all the characteristics of an LB1 city,in particular a plethora of so-called bi-chrome ware, the hallmark of LB1."Halpern goes on to explain that"In any significant quantity, it is diagnostic of the LB1 period in Canaan".It vanishes by the end of LB1.The LB1 city at Megiddo ended in destruction."universally attributed" to Pharoah Thutmose III.c1460.That is already outside of the c1430-1360 date for a city that is learly LB1 city based on pottery evidence.But it gets worse.The city was built in "2 major architectural phases" which halpern feels should be 37.5 years per phase which takes the building right back close to c1550 at the end o the MBA where is was destroyed there too.So, who was responsible for the Middle Bronze Age destructions then? The man who is perhaps the finest Egyptian archaeologist doesnt seem to place much confidence in Egyptians at the start of the 18th dynasty (which is as close as they can come to the MBA and a path to Palestine) as having done hardly any of it,if any.The textual records of Egyptians dont record much of anything,related to a sweep of Palestine.They certainly recorded eveything else they did.Why wouldnt they mention the totally unprecedented and massive destruction of dozens of Palestinian cities in a single 1550 campaign?There is no excuse, based on their mentality, for not telling about it in the most bombastic terms (they wouldnt need to exagerate it, the destructions are so severe)imaginable on every monument under the sun.This was a destruction that caused 90% of sites in the hill country of Palestine to vanish, and all the few remaining sites to see a reduced population.It was cuch a powerful hit that the "Canaanite" population (which became "invisible" to archaeological discoveries) went from sedentary to pastoralist which was never before seen in history.What textual records that cover this time period (1500 BCE) in Palestine can explain an advanced and settled population with walled cities stretching up to the sky suddenly being reduced in numbers over 90% and being replaced by a pastoralist population? We "know" Israel wasnt there because Egyptian records dont mention them being there at that time.We just "know" that if Egypt doesnt mention "Israel" then they couldnt possibly be there, in 1500 or any other time in history.Even though the Bible names almost all the cities destroyed and fits every other description , we just cant accept anything unless Egyptian records mentions it.That... is .. unless Egyptians forget to mention the most devestation destruction ever.We will go ahead and assume they forgot to mention their own battles.Afterall, the Egyptians are so shy and bashful about recording their victorys.Plus we should assume that Egypt all the sudden cared about the highlands and the nomads present.Just for the 1550 destructions.Nevermind that Egyptians were walled off in 1550 by the Hyksos.We will overlook that and pretend like we "know" it was they who destroyed the walled cities of Canaan and reduced the population 90%+.It couldn be the Israelites anyway because the southern trans Jordan lands has no settlements or powerful tribes there.Acually, Bimson footnotes scholars who correct this 9Bimson page 30 and footnotes)Glueck did surface surveys and found no occupation between the 19th and 13th centuries.Bimson states"However, as a result of further surveys and full scale excavations conducted during the last 30 years, Gluecks theory of an occupational gap has died the death of a thouand qualifications.A great many Middle and Late Bronze Age sites have come to light requiring Gleuck's theory to be modified beyond recognition...there appears to have been some reduction in the population during th periods in question, but certainly not an absence of settlement.Infact glueck himself revised his views shortly before he dies."Bimson goes on to describe how some scholars have lagged so far behind in scholarship that it is just unreal.I would say it is as big of a lag as he want the MBA pottery in Egypt to reach Palestine.Ill make another short post on the Amarna letters and the situation sometime later.Ill also cover the reasons why people felt that a 1200BCE Exodus was required.And why they were wrong.Kenneth Kitchen has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the pre-Exodus (such as Joseph being sold into slavery from 1700-2000)and post-Exodus scholarship demands everything in the Bible being accepted.Decades ago archaeological discoveries werent where they are now, and what was discovered didnt filter in.Post-Exodsus mistakes like a c1200 Exodus theory 9and 1400) and pre-Exodus mstakes (Hurrian "parallels") causes ven worse problems.The patriarchal age fits 100% only within 1700-2000 BCE, no time else. the Israelite monarchy has such an abundance of obvious data, that nobody can deny it and be credible for too long.The Judges and Conquest fit the evidence so much that it is just unreal.Same with the evidence for NorthWest Semites in Egypt BEFORE the 2nd Intermediate Period.And during.All objetions to the Bibles historical record must simply fall flat an wither away based on the evidence.We can quibble about where little old Ai was , but the fact is that ALL cities fell in a single campaign.The walls fell like the Bible said, and the food wasnt eaten (never before seen!) in the conquered cities.The evidence shows that the semi-nomadic Israelites displaced the much more numerous and advanced sedentary Canaanite population.Egyptian records show that Israel was a tent dwelling semi-nomaic tribal group during the Judges period but seemingly powerful enough to be mentioned.Battles in Judges fit the Bibles description to the last detail.Exact time period and same leader names.The major wave of Philistines arrived in c1177 BCE an it is 1170 when they give the Israelite tribes for 40 years till 1130.

You notice that I did not want James to be correct.Same with Rohls revision.Please look at the details.Im glad you agree with Kitchen and his bombastic comments.LOLAs if!I suppose you will tell me that there was not a walled city in c1550?You are mistaking it with the later and smaller 14th century settlement.The 1550 city had a wall.As did many cities in Palestine.Also, many names were clearly North west Semitic in Egypt.Ill get back with you for sure on that one.Your comment about the Associates For Biblical Research are disturbing.Since they are the only organization digging in sites around Bethel. O well, you will save me some time.I felt I owed you a detailed paraphrase of the Ai archaeological sites.But you can shut you eyes if you want.Living in a box wont expand your horizons.I also subscribe to some of the pulications you mentioned.I have about 100 JSOT issues, but I think the Scandinavian Journal Of The Old tetament is MUCH better.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.