Reliable history in the Bible

Well it seems that you are determined to get egg all over your fface.The statement under discussion is your "corrected" statement in Message 140

quote:

---

I meant that of the cities mentioned, only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering was not held by them during the Amarna period.

---

This is contradicted by the Amarna Letters (i..e I looked at the evidence and saw that it contradicted your claim - which is why you accuse me of ignoring the evidence).So your corrected claim said that the cities WERE held by the Israelites. Your quote from Message 116 indicates that either you did not know that those cities were conquered (although your sources indicate that Shechem was taken somehow) or that you knew that your "corrected" statement from 140 was not true. So are we to beleive that you have spent a long time trying to defend a statemnt you knew to be false ?

quote:

---

Every post I made before and after CLEARLY indicated that I was not in any, way, shape, or form ducking the issue of SOME Conquest cities described as being held by Israelites in c1550(like Lachish and I later found out Keilah, thanks to PaulK)being lost somwehere along the way to the monarchy.

---

Like the posts where you claim - in contradiction to at leaste one of your sources - that Shechem remained Canaanite ? Like your inability to understand that Joshua states that Gezer was conquered and enslaved ?

quote:

---

PaulK clearly has noticed that I have been 100% consistent from the start and every archaeological detail (including Amarna texts and all texts)has fit in the the Bible, as I have pointed out.

---

WRONG!!! I have noticed that you have been inconsistent on this point. And that is the problem isn't it. Accordign to you it is wrong to point out your errors.Tellin the truth is not morally wrongRefusing to accept your false claims is not a tactic.You're the one resorting to smear tactics. All your evasions, confusions and misrepresentations having failed.It;s not quote mining to point out that you asserted that the burning of Gezer was part of your 1550 conquest and evidence for the Joshua account. It's not quote mining to point out that the absence of any Biblical reference to the burning and that the Bible gives evidence supporting the fact that Gezer was not burnt. It is not quote minint to poitn out that you turned around and claimed that the burning must be part of a later conflict without revising the date ! So did you not have evidence for the date that Gezer was burned ? Or are you just ignoring it because it became inconvenient ?Do we see you dealing with the serious issue of finding evidence of burning at Hazor for your preferred conquest date ? Joshua is quite clear that Hazor was burned. But you've provided no evidence dealing with that issue. Instead we get your nasty little smears.The record speaks for itself.

I will no longer quote your posts because they dont have much relevance to hardly anything I actually said (minus pathetic quote-mining that ignores 99% of the non-typo comments I have made consistently).I will respond to some issues just for clarification though. (I will try and keep my archaeological literature quotes thin, because your post-bombing will only dilute the discussion anyway)You not only twist out of proportion my own words, but also the Biblical text.One prime example is you insistence that "the Bible gives evidence supporting the fact that Gezer was not burnt" due to it not being specifically mentioned. I suppose that if samples of urine were found in Terminal-MBA Gezer then you would claim that .... Anyway, the reference to "ONLY" Hazor being burned was the northern campaign.I have already proven to you that Hazor was destroyed (hint hint .. they didnt use bulldozers back then they used fire)at the end of the MBA and I simply refuse to quote the literature again.Here is the entire text of the NIV , in the area that covered the northern campaign. All of these towns would see their Canaanite populations survive the Israelite Conquest (both in archaeology and in the Bible's text).I NEVER (repeat *NEVER*) indicated that the Israelites held these towns through Judges.And Im sick and tired of you twisting (a few stray sentences out of context)my posts claiming I said otherwise.But lets look at the archaeological situation from the SOUTHERN CAMPAIGNS (specifically the highland regions) in the archaeological record.I would refer you to post 108, 135 and 136 again.90% population destruction in the highland-regions (Israelite HELD repeat HELD repeat again *HELD* territory) and 90% of sites were totally cleansed of its sedentary population.Beyond that,we already have looked at southern cities Gezer, Jericho, and Shechem (though you seem to ignore the clear evidence of terminal-MBA destructions infact you look for pretty much any excuse you can find to avoid the archaeological data or find some so-called contradiction)being destroyed in the terminal MBA.You claim that the lack of mentioning Shechem specifically as conquered somehow indicates that it wasnt. I showed you endless mainstream references that admitted that it likley could have been conquered (they werent influenced in the least by the terminal-MBA destructions though because they though the Conquest -if it happened- was over 300 years later).Even fundamentalists , who use the excuse that "only 3 cities were destroyed" & think the Conquest was long after the MBA ended (143 years after 1550, that would be 1407BCE)cant held but assume Shechem was conquered.I AM QUOTING THIS BECAUSE I MUST SHOW THAT COMMON SENSE SCRIPTURAL READING (INTERNAL TEXTUAL ANALYSIS WITHOUT REGARD TO MBA ARCHAEOLOGY)SHOWS THAT SHECHEM WAS CONQUERED. This is a site that doesnt consider the terminal-MBA destruction to be relevant (like all Biblical commentators, the MBA-destructions is simply ignored* not mentioned due to the assumption that it ante-dated the Conquest by anywhere from 140-300 years).Paul will surely take my quote and say something like "your source contradicts you because it desnt mention burning of Shechem" but AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE , I am simply showing that broad understanding of scripture (from secular, fundamentalist, and liberal scholars)from an internal analysis.I know that my sources dont agree with me on terminal-MBA destructions being Israelites.THATS MY POINT. They reached the same conclusions even when they had no motivation (ie interest in terminal-MBA destructions)to do so.Here is an example of mind-blowing distortion. The archaeology show's Shechem and Gezer to have been destroyed in the terminal-MBA (c1550BCE).The scripture clearly shows Gezer to have been conquered and it seems that Shechem was also.Joshua 12:24 lists Tirzah (a town around Shechem) and others around Shechem to have been Conquered.Here is what the Anchor Bible Dictionary said about Tirzah I am not sure if I want to go down a list of specific cities (and proving MBA destructions) because there are too many questionable locations of cities.The logic behind identification also is strained (often times to fit into post-1200 "Israelite cities"; archaeologists have really made alot of questionable identifications based on "Biblical Archaeology" , even skull-crushing hypocrites like William Dever accept the traditional locations as a fact despite the fact that they present themselves as recovering Biblical-archaeologists and parade their hollow awakening as credientials to justify their blathering "expert" commentary), but we rarely get that.Many other issues include the assumption that trans-Jordan nomadic kingdoms (invisible to archaeology)somehow dont count as "cities". I guess they arent human or something?In the past, I have went down a list of destroyed cities to prove MBA destructions.Instead I will just refer to the total archaeological picture. I have already presented quotes from top-archaeologists who say that most cities in Palestine were destroyed at the end of the MBA.I have also showed that they were almost all in the highland-regions. More importantly, there was a shocking and un-explainable vanishing of 90% of the highland-population.The list of destroyed cities in the highland-regions terminal-MBA is simply enormous.It would almost take too long to list the cities that ARE (or, in some cases, were at one time) identified (correctly or not) as the Biblical cities.This is just burndestruction mind you. A few are Jericho , Hebron, Debir, Lachish , Hazor and Bethel.Not to mention Gezer and other Biblical cities.In the North Hazor and Laish (Dan) were destroyed.the Bible indicated few destructions there but Joshua 12 lists kings captured.Even William Stiebing (in the 1 or pages he quickly skipped over covering MBA destructions) had to show that terminal-MBA destructions happened in negev towns the Bible mentions. BOTH were destroyed at the end of the MBA (the settlements were very small and pottery limited but they were destoyed at that time).Stiebing was simply amazing.Before he got to the terminal-MBA 1550 destructions (which he only spent a few pages on and then it got passed over as the review became only an irrelevent critique of Bimsons old New Kingdom 18th dynasty Thutmose III Exodus).He would look at 14 towns and compare the destruction evidence from all possible Conquest peiods (c1200 , c1400 , c1700, c2400, c1100) and the best match he could come up with was 5 destructions in the "c1200 Conquest.The ironic thing was that those 5 destructions were from scattered peiords from c1230(Hazor) to c1150.Stiebing spent many pages on those Conquests (especially the elite c1200 and Fundi c1400 Conquests).His conclusion was that only c1200 Conquest could have any possibility.5 of 14 matches for destructions.He didnt mention that his quick 2-page Terminal- Middle Bronze Age matched 10 of 14 destructions (did he miss that?!)and he counted Ai against the Bible based on the dubious et-Tell identification (the other 3 were Trans-Jordan towns which had no sedentary occupation, which is ironic since Stiebing covered Finkelsteins views on nomadic populations being onvisible to archaeology), which even he admitted wasnt convinving on most counts.I will (in a future post) quote from the Theological Dictionary Of the Old Testament (the most scholarly wok ever done) with regards to whether the Hebrew word for "tribes" or "kingdoms" (or "tribal chief" and "king") actually substantively mean anything different that we should factor into when looking for Trans-Jordan "cities".On Ai and the popular et-Tell location see my post #93.Here is what Joshua 12 says This was before Joshua 13 started a long list of tribal-rights the people had if Israel held control (PaulK cant understand the concept of Israel loosing control)Check the archaeological record of destructions (all Bible Dictionaries fall short of mentioning all possibilities , only the Anchor even gets a C- in my book, all others fail by multitudes.)Then check Judges (especially the first 3 chapters to see which were lost soon-after or never quite held at all) to see which were lost back to the natives.Then check the rest of the Bibles text til Kings for an even more complete picture.The match is simply unreal!Thats just towns with evidence of destruction.Even with disputed towns, the over-all archaeological situation shows a 90% population reduction the the highland regions (though the archaeology picks up the specific destructions in ALL regions!)The Conquest as described in Joshua (and the supplementary material in Judges)has been 100% proven.PERIOD.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

.... here is an example of blatant dishonesty on PaulK's part.Paul K quotes me(a selective typo as typical, this time from #140). First of all, he knows that I was describing cities the Israelites Conquered AND WERENT DESCRIBED AS LOOSING anytime during Judges.(Again see post #116----I made frequesnt references to the first few chapters of Judges)It clearly was said like this...."I meant that of the cities mentioned, only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering [and holding] was not held by them during the Amarna period."And even then the lack of mention in Judges of them loosing a city PROVES NOTHING with regards to whether the Bible actually claims they "held" a city throughout Judges.AGAIN, here is what I have said since this discussion began.Back to post 116 we go. I CLEARLY knew that some highland regions (where they were last mentioned as holding in Joshua-Judges, and no direct reference in judges to a loss of control) were lost by the Israelites in the Judges period. (does it take rocket science to figure out that a people described as being opressed constantly would loose land, especially right in the middle of the 500+ year Judges period?)How many times must PaulK miss my direct "its no suprise" sentence that was right with my comments on lost cities the Israelites held and werent described as loosing (and YES I was the one who BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF LOST LAND to begin with)??!!!!!He has the unreal audacity to YET AGAIN say... This showed just what I have said ALL ALONG yet he keeps on ruining this thread over such pathetic mis-representation claiming otherwise.The disruption is specially true since a few highland cities being lost like Keilah and Lachish doesnt contradict-in the least- the Bibles text, this is nothing more than an attempt to attack me and hope the slander sticks.It has nothing to do with contradicting the Bible.Paul knows it.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I nopte that your posts are becoming even more dishonest. Refusing to quote my posts to try to hide their relevance for instance. But that's typical isn't it - after all when I quoted verses from the Bible that you had cited as supporting you attacked me, trying to argue that they were irrelevant.

quote:

---

.... here is an example of blatant dishonesty on PaulK's part.

​

Paul K quotes me(a selective typo as typical, this time from #140).

---

Of course the quote is NOT selective. That IS the ccorrected statement.

quote:

---

First of all, he knows that I was describing cities the Israelites Conquered AND WERENT DESCRIBED AS LOOSING anytime during Judges.

---

No, I don't know any such thing. And it isn't even true, is it ? Neither Gezer nor Keilah nor Lachish are described as having been lost in Judges. It is said that Canaanites live in Gezer, but that is what Joshua also says - that the Canaanites of Gezer were permitted to live under Israelite control. Nor is Shechem truly - we know that Judges says that the Israelites accepted rule from there and that it was destroyed by Abimelech, but not what happened after.So the clear dishonesty is on your part.

Judges 1:27 also says that Canaanites lived in Taanach, Megiddo and Dor, despite Joshua routing these cities in Josh 12:7-14.amazingly accurate and no conflicting narratives! Brian

Surely this is contrary to the biblical account? (apart from being an illogical claim)Twelve thousand men and women fell that day”all the people of Ai.12 000, not counting children, would be a very significant city in the mid 2nd millenium bce.Brian.Edited by Brian, : removed text covered by next post

You also said that you are happy with all the cities being destroyed in a single year! So, what I am pointing out (and CA told you) it is impossible to arrive at this conclusion from the archaeological evidence.So, just to round off this particular issue, are you still happy with all the cities being destroyed in a single year? And you have no idea what or who caused this destruction, there is nothing available at these sites to identify if there was a human agent at work or not. Also. The Book of Joshua informs us that destroying cities was not the normal practice of the Israelites. Jericho destruction has been carbon dated to 1550 + - 40 years I don’t use the 480 literally at all, I asked for your explanation of it that’s all. You keep forgetting that I think the united monarchy and before is fictional.Also, I have explained the 480 years quite a few times in other discussions, but you weren’t to know that. What you have remembered though is that I said IF I was to assign a date to the conquest, then I think the most likely date would be the end of the 13th century BCE, so you should have been aware that I don’t take the 480 years literally. How I deal with it is like this. The 480 years is a combination of 2 ideal numbers, 12 and 40, we are told that there were 12 generations from the beginning of Solomon’s Temple to the Exodus, 40 years is frequently said to be a generation, thus 12 x 40 = 480. The artificiality of this number is supported by the claim in the Bible that it was yet another 12 generations from the building of Solomon’s Temple to the return from exile, thus we have another 12 x 40 = 480. This means that it was the intention of the authors to place the building of the Temple at the center of early Israel’s history. So I don’t take the 480 literally, but I don’t think you were a member here when Ray and I had a wee argument over the 480 years, he takes it literally and I don’t as it is clearly artificial.I can easily fit the 480 years into a 1200 BCE context, by using a more realistic 25 year period for a generation and multiplying that by 12 to get 300, this gives a date for the Exodus of around the mid 13th century, thus we have a late 13th century Conquest, which fist in perfectly with the most likely date for the Conquest (IF it happened). I was enquiring about YOUR explanation for the 1 Kings 6:1 text. As the title of the thread is the reliability of the biblical text as history, I was attempting to determine how accurate you think 1 Kings 6:1 is, but you have answered this, and stated that this biblical reference is unreliable. The Bible claims (literal reading) that the Conquest would be around 1400 BCE, and there wasn’t a walled city at Jericho then, there was no occupation there c . 1400 BCE. LOL, you have a wonderful knack of completely misunderstanding me, I am sure everyone here would have chuckled at that.I appear to have to keep informing you that I think the origins of Israel as described in the Bible is fictional. I wasn’t slamming you at all, I was asking for an explanation, how do you deal with that information? But you know we cannot do this as the same reasons why you do not take the 480 years literally also apply to some of the periods allotted to the Judges! Do you think we should take the 40 years of Othniel at face value, or the 80 years of Ehud, what about the 40 years at the end of the Song of Deborah, and there is nothing to suggest that the Judges all ruled consecutively! Great, and you have evidence of Israelites in Egypt during this period? Of course you do, you reject the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, you also say that the reference to the City of Rameses is an anachronism. How on earth can you say that you don’t change the text? So this 90% drop was replaced by an invisible invading force? Surely it would take a great army to reduce the population by 90%, and where is the evidence of this great army? Well everything in the debate, in fact, every theory in history writing is speculation. But the scholars involved in the debate do consider earthquakes, drought, famine, disease, and even rogue groups of Egyptians as possible factors. You sure can speculate about this but the evidence cannot be as supportive as you believe. Sorry, if I followed you methodology I’d have been laughed out of university for being too gullible and sloppy in my research. The dark years were caused by Albright, Wright, Garstang, and their disciples, I would venture that there was no secular (or very few) archaeologists working in Palestine in the 1930’s. Most digs were funded by Christian organizations, and Albright was the figure that towered over the discipline. Albright HAD to change his opinion about the date of the Conquest because the overwhelming evidence pointed to the end of the 13th century BCE. He also favoured the Book of Judges over the Book of Joshua as being the more likely scenario. Bollux. It is still stronger evidence than any other suggested date. Still very weak though, but then all the proposed dates are. Albright didn't, Wright didn't, Callaway didn't, and Glueck didn't. Except that Jericho was unoccupied.I think it is more probable that Jericho, just like Ai, is an etiological tale. I wasn't quibbling over 5 years here or there, I was stating the fact that the Bible says it was a 5 year conquest, you say that all cities were destroyed in a single year and that you are happy with that. I pointed out that the one year deal contradicts the Bible, but somehow the Bible is still accurate? And how can it be tested against an invisible people? These are the kings of the land that Joshua and the Israelites conquered on the west side of the Jordan, from Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon to Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir (their lands Joshua gave as an inheritance to the tribes of Israel according to their tribal divisions- 8 the hill country, the western foothills, the Arabah, the mountain slopes, the desert and the Negev”the lands of the Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites and Jebusites):

​

9 the king of Jericho one
the king of Ai (near Bethel) one
the king of Jerusalem one
the king of Hebron one So, Joshua defeats the King of Jerusalem and his troops, kills the king, and doesn't take Jerusalem, and Jerusalem isn't then given to the Benjaminites? Well apparently Joshua defeated, as well as Jerusalem, Gezer, Taanach, Meggido and Dor, yet as we read Judges 1 these cities are mysteriously occupied again. They read as two entirely different histories. It certainly falsified Jericho and Ai being inhabited at the same time. It falsified the face value Joshua account of the Conquest regardless of which date is proposed.Also, archaeology does not even show that there was anything Israelite around at the time you are proposing. I wasn’t lecturing you, I was pointing out that it is an abuse of archaeology to claim that it supports a single year destruction of all the cities, archaeology simply cannot do that. /But does the Biblical text actually do this?To get to the 600 years you have to accept the artificial chronologies of the early Judges. Remember when you said that the forty years and similar numbers were not to be taken literally? How come, all of a sudden, you are happy to take the 40 and 80 years allocated ot some judges as being literal time spans? How do you know that no Judges ruled at the same time? This looks a bit muddled, and I am probably reading it incorrectly, but this looks as if you are saying that Joshua conquered Jericho in 1550, and some other Israelites arrived 350 years later with Moses? This makes Moses and Joshua about 500 years old. I take it I am misreading it? There are other dates proposed. Only if your hand has been caught in a threshing machine. Yes I mean et-Tell (the Ruin) when I say Ai (the ruin), bit of a coincidence that name isnt it? Indeed it can, and indeed it is, no other site in the area is possible, even fundy John Bright has to admit that Ai is a problem, he knows that there is no other possible site in the region that can be Ai.I’ll ask you the same question that Callaway silenced his critics with: If et-tell isn’t Ai then what city did Callaway (and marquet-Krause) excavate? LOL, I don’t swallow anything, the Bible's version of the origins of Ancient Israel is frankly laughable if taken as historical.It is great literature though, but that is all it is.
It amuses me to see people, and you are doing exactly the same, start of their historical investigation with a conclusion and then go looking for evidence, and ignore the contrary archaeological evidence, change the biblical text, and some how think they have proven the Bible reliable. Except that 38 out of the 40 wasn’t spent wandering, it was spent at Kadesh-Barnea. No. No historian worth his salt can invoke a supernatural element for anything. and no bones, and no fires, not drinking utensils, no sandals or personal belongings, no animal carcases....... Why not just say that it wasn’t Kadesh-Barnea that the Israelites stayed at, after all you have no problem unashamedly doing this for Ai. IF they were, and this has never been demonstrated. There was 3 million in the Israelite camp, or do you wish to alter that text as well? No it doesn't, it suggests it, that is all. It is no certainty that the 'Israel' of the Merneptah Stele and the Israel of the Bible are one and the same. In this case it makes 5!The term in the Stele apparently mentions an ethnic group, the hapiru or ”apiru, were NOT an ethnic group, it is a term for a social strata.I'll reply to the rest of the post during the week when I have some free time.Brian.

First a few of quotes from Brian Now lets look at the the data that I critically studied.The book of Joshua informs us that burning cities was rare IN THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS.Joshua11:13 Then a little later.Joshua 19:40-48 Further data in Judges gives us more detail on this battle from around Joshua's time (and my first Study Bible ever was from a man who died in 1913-16 years before 1929 when Palestinian stratigraphy was first made to be roughly accurate- and he placed the Laish battle during the Conquest from internal textual analysis) Perhaps the Judges battle had fictional elements (The story plus I would wonder how much control the Danites had over the land and especially if THEY built ciies there) , but clearly there was a tradition of Laish being burnt down shortly after the Conquest.Along with another northern city,Hazor.2 northern cities burnt at about the same time.And ONLY TWO BURNT. Anybody with only a single little critical bone in their entire bodies would go searching for a time period when these 2 cities were burnt, if in any way interested in discovering genuine history in some of Palestines dark ages.I have searched and searched and have only found 1 period before 1000BCE when 2 north-Palestinian cities were destroyed in what seems like the exact same period (year?).Shock shock.It was Laish and Hazor! Hazor (Tell-el-Qedah) Hey, its the terminal-MBA again (1550BCE)!And we are talking nearly 100 miles north of Jericho. Must have been one powerful earthquake that Brian keeps telling me about! Selective too. Only destroyed towns that the Bibles says were destroyed.Ill be back to respond to more tomorrow.

It seems both of us are really busy right now, which is fine given that this is a discussion board, can I assume that it is just that you are so busy that you have made what looks like a contradictory claim?You begin your reply by claiming that: The book of Joshua informs us that burning cities was rare IN THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGNS. So rare in fact that the Bible says: Yet Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds”except Hazor, which Joshua burned. (11:13)But, later on in your post you state: 2 northern cities burnt at about the same time. And ONLY TWO BURNT. “Only two burnt” contradicts the claim that the Israel ONLY burned Hazor.This post is also a great example of the ”sloppy research’ I was talking about.You quote Judges 18 as referring to the same period of time as Joshua 19, yet Judges 18 takes place long after the death if Joshua.Judges 2:8 tells of Joshua’s death, and after that we go through almost all of the Judges, before Judges 18 and: 1 In those days Israel had no king.
And in those days the tribe of the Danites was seeking a place of their own where they might settle, because they had not yet come into an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. The Danites had no territory of their own in Judges 18:1, and to wait a long time from Joshua 19 to come into their FULL inheritance.In Judges 1:34 we are told that the Amorites restricted the Danites to the plain:Joshua 19:47 is an obvious insertion. Yes your study is critical, so ”critical’ that it needs a life support machine.Brian

It ALWAYS helps to look at history.ALWAYS!I will do just that. I agree with much of what you say about this actually(perhaps even most?).Biblical Archaeology has brought such incorrect historical constructions, and sadly people (including yourself Im afraid)are still caught in its tight grip.And Ill provide a stunning example of the WORST Biblical achaeology has brought us,... a little later (in a new post following this one).But the point of this post is to show how we came to such a messed up situation.Albright believed in biological evolution, and though he got more conservative on most archaeological issues (though he was one of hell of a bad historian and his archaeological conclusions were quite bad, Kenneth Kitchen was a FAR FAR better scholar at interpreting the Patriarchal era correctly), I wouldnt call him a fundamentalist ( a Darwinian-fundi?).Albright started his career as an Assyrian archaeologist, he didnt care much about "Biblical Archaeology".Anyway , Albright was a genius on philosophy of history, a great archaeologist (he could date diverse pottery like few others) and was one great scholar (on linguistic and other issues) but as a historian who interpreted (tryed) the data, he was just plain awful.Its ironic, but I will lay a little groundwork for this post by quoting him.Ill quote the parts he got right , then I will tell where where he went wrong (really wrong , and his poor interpretive work has ruined our ability to get a proper undestanding of history to THIS day)He was discussing 2 areas where he was an expert.Philology (after written documents were found through archaeology) then later archaeology (of unwritten discoveries).I will make extremely heavy use of elipsis (only a small portion of 7 pages will be quoted), the background detail he gives is always impressive, but I will sadly have to skip it. I will quote some of what he has to say when he gets to the unwritten end of archaeology.It follows similar ends.-"..two main categories, written and unwritten.The former must be studied by the philologist before it can be utilized by the historian, the latter must similarly pass through the hands of field archaeologists before the historian can make use of it" (Archaeology and the Religion of Israel-Albright).-I must point (with regards to archaeology) out that ALL of the stages leading to the final stage, the stage the historian takes over, are 100% solid. Its the interpretation of the data-at the historians end- that has caused such problems and in many cases the archaeologist plays the role of historian which IMO has been dangerous.Ill quote some of his un-written history here (he outlines a similar process of many steps in stratigraphy which I will almost entirely skip), and though I dont need to, I may just quote (with heavy elipsis) his historical outline till the 1940 (when he wrote the book), for background purposes with regards to where I want to take us. It wasnt till the 1900's that any sites could be dated and even then the correct dating wasnt properly done till 1929 after Garstang (and others)started digging in increasing more sites.By the mid-1930s,many (though often poorly and not even a-third as many as are excavated by today) sites were excavated and dated properly, and Garstang completed his work at Jericho. (it was found to be dated at the time people expected:1400 BCE though Kenyons work completed in the late 50's and showed the destruction to be in the "pre-israelite" age of 1550BCE)Lets go back to the period just after Garstang where everybody would still be showing their immature expectations and how their "historical" conclusions would be based on such youthful understandings of the Biblical text and especially what the archaeology showed.This enables us, at the extremely infantile period of Palestinian archaeology to see where expectations were from the start (though there were some results coming in to help historians shape the data around their Biblical assumptions)I will quote from a large secular-historical work that was completed by over a half-dozen PhDs from top universities like Chicago , Stanford, western ,etc.Observe. The 2 Exodus theory was the view most secular historians assumed based on their historical reconstruction of Biblical texts and the archaeological data.Putting the then recent issue of Jericho aside (thought to have happened c1400, which Garstand found in these pre-Kenyon days)...It seems that the "Ramses" issue was front and center on everybodies mind.This seems to back up David Rohl when he said (this was with regards to Egyptian exploration which was up and running LONG before Palestinian archaeological exploration really intensified-due to the above ground remains where the not-yet-invented stratigraphy wasnt important and due to the fact that written remains were so prevelant). Needless to sy, after the 1821 ability to read ancient-Egyptian writtings, the name of Rameses (II) was found everywhere. And the building of pi-Raameses in his reign provided an anchor-point that secular historians would never free their minds from when re-constructing history.This effected the views of fundamentalist scholars as well.And Christian historians of all stripes (liberal, conservative , or what else).I will in future posts rspond to not only this issue but other false assumptions that people based their historical "Biblical Archaeology" conclusions on.This includes"Ramses" (ruled 1279-1213)"Philistines" (arrival in 1177)"Negev sites" (1550 settlements at latest in areas near Palestine)"trans-Jordan sites" (no visible occupation till 12th century)I wont cover the "Amarna letters" issue because their use to discount a earlier Conquest is only used by c-1200 Conquest partisans who only see what they want to.I already covered some of these but a seperate post will cover each issue above (except the amarna letters as I already demonstrated in detail how they fit in 100% with a c1550 Conquest and infact offered great supplementary written proofs to the 100% archaeological or un-written proofs)Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

... responding to several issues you have raised in recent posts (I cant wait!).I got a real kick out of your comment that modern day Arabs called an archaeological site the Arabic word for ruin/mound and that this somehow proves that it was Ai (an ancient word that some think means "ruin" , though there is dispute).By that logic, almost any Palestinian site could have been Ai.I will give a quick responce to the latest post of your as it is almost as crazy as the small one you made on Ai (that post was NOT one of your finest moments lol , especially as you lecturd me on "logic" in the same short post-no worries though, I say foolish things too). Im going to stop right there, because you go through the Joshua-Judges chronology.First,do know that the later chapters of Judges dont have a date placed on them.All scholars notice that.They dont know the specific time the events happened, but most (all?) feel that the Judges event with regard to Dan happened just after the Conquest (Joshua 1-12) and just before Joshua gives out the land rights in Joshua 13 (or perhaps a little after).In essence they consider it a Conquest battle, but slightly after.My Companion Bible was written by a man who died in 1913 (a great scholar, the only Christian whom Ginsberg allowed to help him edit his hebrew texts-see link), which was before Palestinian archaeology had any chronological details (correct anyway), and he put the battle about 20 years after the Joshua Conquest.So it is a Conquest battle, but not one during the Joshua campaign.Hence no contradiction.E. W. Bullinger - WikipediaStiebing counted the Laish battle as a Conquest battle.When checking his scorecard for various Conquest proposals.Every other person searching for a Conquest date seems to mention Laish (even the Anchor Bible Dictionary , though they use a c1200 destruction). If it said THAT then the battle would clearly be pre-Judges chapter 1.Though it wouldnt make any sense (the plain was the Amorite's land where every city saw them quickly fight back)It actually says they (Danites) were restricted FROM the plain and driven into the mountains.(ie back to the region where the Amorites were all killed and the Israelites were much stronger)Laish would be an area where the Danites would be all alone among Canaanites.The (un-dated)Judges text says 600 Danites burnt the city and took it over because no Canaanites were near-by. (Joshua's text refers to this as an event slightly post-Conquest)There is no contradiction.I would sy that the Danites probably took the city in the few years between Joshua 13-24 and (between) Judges chapter 1.Then the Canaanites would quickly dive them out (Judges 1).Maybe the Danites would come back a little later AFTER they were driven out. (the site didnt have much archaeological activity for a long time after the 1550 destruction, perhaps the semi-nomadic Danites didnt leave many archaeological traces?).My guess is that some of the Danites would eventually come back and then adopt Canaanite culture as their own.They were known (of all the Israelite tribes) for worshiping Canaanite Gods.Most would take to a semi-nomadic existence.Remember that by c1150 , many (or most?) Danites still lived in southern Palestine near the Philistine cities.Joshua and Judges showed where tribal rights were if Israel held land. The Joshua text refering to Dan taking Laish was parenthetical and indicated an event after the actual Conquest-proper.The Judges text was also a side-story.The value to us today is that the story gives us archaeological details that we can critically examine when weighed against the archaeological discoveries.If you know of any other northern Palestinan cities to have been destroyed in c1550 BCE then I am all ears.If you know of any other period that Jericho, Laish, and Hazor were burned then I all ears.

sorry but the dating for the cities burning is around 1200 bc, some tablets found date around 1500 bci don't know where you get the idea that they burned Lachish, they have never found any evidence of this, hazor shows a layer from fire, lachish was toppled by an earthquakeso tell me one thing, why does no one find any break in caanite culture, they find nothing to show that the populations were reduced enough that a new culture took over, most archeologists now say the israelites are a subculture and not an invading culture as the OT says

jericho was burned in 1550 give or take 30 years well considering Lachish was never burned and hazor was burned in 1200 bc you would have to have them open
only jericho was found to be burned even close to 1550
the bible doesn't even say that Lachish was burned! go read what joshua did!

Need a little clarification here. The terms 'cities' and 'towns' are bandied around freely without explanation. What constitutes a 'city'? Extent and thus population? A walled enclosure? Major stonework in the ruins of buildings? Finkelstein uses 'town' in the Bible Unearthed to sum up the status of Jerusalem in the 8th century.His idea of 'town' was a settlement of no more than 150 acres--population 15,000 (p3). No mention of fortifications.

Issue #1RamesesOne major element that created the artificial "c1200 Israelite Conquest period" in Palestine was was the false assumption that the Biblical text mentioning the city of Rameses (exodus 1:11)being built by Israelites.It, along with the fundamentalist "c1400 Conquest" (based on a very selective reading of the Biblical texts), contributed to the view that an Israelite Conquest could only be post 1400BCE at the earliest in any circle.But the "Rameses" issue was front and center in secular circles; and combined with the poor scholarship on the Philistine issue, it would dictate a historically-incorrect view that the Israelites couldnt have emerged much before pre-1200BCE. (the Sea peoples invaded Egypt slightly before c1200 BCE and the wave that included the Philistines was 1175BCE).Other issues that we were ignorant of then (such as pastoralist and nomadic peoples not leaving archaeological evidence of their existence)have contributed further away from the correct view of Negev and Trans-Jordan history.First, lest see what secular scholars say about this Rameses issue.Ill start with the always outstanding William Stiebing who worte one heck of a great book that actually covered EVERY possible Conquest date which is not only refereshing, but make him one of a kind(sad that others dont follow).(SIDE NOTE:I just got my Archaeological Study Bible in the mail and my blood is boiling at the frequent and dishonest Bryant Wood articles.They allowed him to write all 90+ articles for the events around the Conquest and Judges period.The book claimed to present all sides.Wood never once even mentioned any possible Conquest events for pre-1400.Pathetic! Ill need to quote later his stumbling crap on explainning away lack of LBA1 occupation in ANY Negev sites like Arad and perhaps I will quote more.Its crap like that which has gotten us into this incorrect view of history.This Archaeological Study Bible has been selling like crazy and was a MAJOR effort from several funding sources.Another generation of false assumptions will result... ie "Israelite period post 1400")Anyway Stiebing on "Rameses" ....... Stiebing goes on to tell of it being largely unsettled for much of the rest of the 18th dynasty and not re-settled till the time of Horemheb (c1321-1293). (I skipped a massive amount of what Stiebing wrote down, this was just a sliver of what he said. He only considers a 19th dynasty Exodus if one at all, though he doesnt give any reasons for such dogma)I must say.....It fits in well with an Exodus during the Middle Kingdom and especially with an Exodus from a Hyksos Pharoah (modern scholarship is showing that the Hyksos were highly "Egyptianized" and may not have invaded- in much the same way that many feel Rameses and Seti were part Semitic yet 100% Egyptian, infact Seti's name was after the Hyksos God!)This was the main pillar that caused many to look for Rameses II as Pharoah of the Opression (or Exodus)and to assume a c1200 Conquest.Once it was found out that his reign was later than the fundamentalist "480 years" (1 Kings of the 100AD Massorah)and that the Ancient Near easten dates led Solomon to have complete the Temple in 967B.C.E. then all the fundamentalists looked to c1400 for the Conquest.It set up the artificial "Israelite" period of c1200 (and fundamentalists were equally & fundamentally un-helpful with their incorrect c1400 obsession)Back to the issue of Rameses being used as an anachronism in Genesis but not being considered one in Exodus1:11 (and historians have based the entire early Israelite history, with its massive implications for Palestine, on such an assumption)....David Rohl says it quite well Stiebing said this (below) about the particular date for the Israelite recording of the "Rameses" city.He gave history of the city Rameses seeing much of its impressive statues , inscriptions, and parts of buildings moved before lakes dried up (late 21st dynasty or early 22nd).Some Egyptians thought the old capital was Bubastis or Tanis. Later Biblical writers (in Psalms)called the city Tanis (Zoan)so clearly the writting in Exodus was likly older if it refered to a specific city.I feel it ("rameses" in exodus 1:11) simply indicated an Israelite updating of a text or oral tradition around c1250-c1000 (based on c1650-1700 material).The reason it ("rameses")was left in after later redactions (say 500BCE) was because the regional name was well known.Though the actual city was later assumed to be elsewhere in later times.