Reliable history in the Bible

... accept both of the references to Jesus as authentic writings of the 1st century historian (with some later Christian insertions in 1 reference).Source.Louis Feldman. (email him)

Its well known that Egypt was never again the same after Esarhaddon (sp?) and/or Assur-baniphal sacked Thebes.I almost think its a trick question.Speaking of Egypt and Assyria, I bet somebody will ask why the Bible said Tirhaka(sp?)was king of Cush and not Egypt (in 1 place).Necho too.I think.

Here is a very interesting link.I cant paste the Testimonium Flavianum because it uses an odd highlighting format code that wont past.But the highlighting makes the critically disputed sections stand out.Its the first thing in the link.http://www.geocities.com/...k2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.htmAfter the Josephus quotes, here are some snips"The Testimony of Josphus is the most important extra Biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus, owing to the fact that he is our most authoritative source for events of the first century in Palestine. For this reason, sketpics are adimate about denying the authenticity of the two passages in which Joephus mentions Jesus. Often one will hear skeptics entone some statment to the effect that, "no serious scholar accepts that passage," or "all real scholars know that it was made up." Often they don't even bother with the notion that the passage was "tweeked" to include Christian sentiments. They blythly accept the idea that the whole thing was made up and Josephus never mentioned Jesus at all. It is far from the truth that most scholars agree with that. In fact most scholars now days agree that there is a core passage mentioning Jesus, but that it was added to with christian phrases such as "if it be lawful to call him a man," and the like.Even the major atheist amature scholar of the secular web, Jeff Lowder, agrees that the passage is genuine, at least in its core."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. " He quotes Louis Feldman as saying that the authenticity of the James passage in Jospehus "has been almost universally acknowledged."(Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.)As to the major passage, the "TF," Most scholars agree that it at least has a core of authenticity, but has been reworked. Thus most scholars agree that Jospheus does at least mention someone named Jesus of Nazerath who probably give rise to the Christian movment. According to Louis H. Feldman in "The Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question" in Christological Perspectives, Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards (New York: Pilgrim, 1982) there are liberal scholars who leave the entire passage intact! (e.g. A.M. Dubarle, the French scholar). Feldman's count: 4 scholars regard as completely genuine, 6 mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being totally an interpolation.[ Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91]"There is alot of neat information in the rest of this link.I do find this interesting because 100 years ago, there werent any secular scholars who accepted the Josephus references as anything but fraudulent Christian editing.Wikipedia covers that angle IIRC.Wikipedia described it as something like one of the greatest scholarly turn-arounds in history.

.... I would be FAR more concerned with what L. Feldman has to say on the issue.Brill has a commentary series on Josephus, and books 1-4 are commented on by from Feldman,and perhaps more(I dont know, I only have the paperback of the Book 1-4 commentary,all are under single cover).Feldman is the top of his field.And he isnt a Christian(not that I would discriminate against a scholar for their views,its their skills that I appreciate).Next issue....Does it prove the NT Gospels?No, but it sure does prove that shortly after Christ died (2 generations at most), people already had beliefs that seemed to indicate the events happened(though it isnt overwhelming evidence alone).Were 2 generations at most (and infact Josephus would have access to people who lived while Christ did)enough time for myths to be created over a man?It just becomes more evidence that nay-saying people must make excuses about in-order to maintain thir ability to ignore.

ReverendDG Again, I would pay more attention to the parts that document what Feldman has said.Feldman is actually quite good at parsing what scholars believe exactly(it seems he is the only one to take a mini-survey , though if you email him he will tell you that he hasnt ever taken a massive "head-count" but feeels that around 80% accept the TF as authentic Josephus comments in-part).The debate is around TF and the website (I linked to) is very much aware of that.At the time, 10% of the 40 scholars believed it (the TF) to be 100% authentic Josephus words.That is amazing considering how extreme the statement would be.

Its clear that you havnt.The Jericho evidence shows that the people had pretty much already died in a famine (or left) at least slightly before the Conquest.Infact the entire Canaanite population was already down significantly in all of the "promised land" sites that the Israelites took at the end of the Middle Bronze Age(90% of sites were abandoned and what was left was much reduced from the MBA-LBA transition).The Jericho evidence leads me to believe that is was actually slightly before (the 95% population reduction)the Conquest, though it is possible that the Israelites did slaughter some civilians.Amazing sight here (looking in Dr. Bill's direction).We have VERY precise archaeology to inform us of the Jericho Conquest details (every last detail fits except the precise way the Canaanites vanished), and it shows the bombastic reporting of the battle report (perhaps their was a command to wipe-out Canaanites, but maybe it was a metaphor), yet he takes the Bible's words literally.Then, with the very foggy Jesus archaeological details(nearly non-existent, except the minor Josephus details...which ARE much of what one might expect based on the "Bible" btw), he reconstructs away.Interesting though(honestly).Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

(first of all, I meant to say *plague* not "famine" in my initial post about Jericho.I also think the command to wipe out the Canaanites was to serve as a "see I told you" argument much later as proof positive for the ages that peer pressure cant be overcome.Pagan practices and rejection of Gods instructions will always be present in this world,even among those with the most religious of parents.The world could have been in Utopia by now had the israelites followed God's plan,and maybe we could have avoided the God awful 20th century with more bloodshed than all previous ages combined.)NOW Dates arent too important to me but mainstream archaeology assigns the end of the MBA to 1550 BCE in both Egypt and Canaan.The expulsion of the Hyksos in Egypt was 1525 BCE, well after the MBA began.I was just reading an introduction to the Hebrew Bible by the fantastic scholar John J. Collins (see his Hermeneia commentary on Daniel for an example)and he gave 1539 for the start of the 18th dynasty which took 14 years to drive the Hyksos into the south of Canaan.David Rohl has said that the vast majority of Egyptologists accept 1539 as the start of the 18th Dynasty.Kenneth Kitchen also accepts that date (its known as the low chronology) though 1549 is also a possibility.(almost all online dates for Egypt still give the outdated "1570" date as the beginning of the 18th dynasty, so references to dates online arent going to do anything but be 30 years too early for most of the 18th dynasty.Either way, the Hyksos expulsion was clearly after the MBA began.And I wont repeat what we have discussed before (see Edom thread, and we surely wont disagree), but the initial 1525 explusion of the Hyksos to Canaan only reached Sharuhen.I MUST add that there is much debate about the exact period for the specific dates.I actually had the audacity to think I could pick out snips from the highly technical Journal Of The Ancient Chronology Forum journal #10 (far more technical than any previous issue) , but that turned out to be a complete joke.I gave up on article after article and went though several different authors contributions.There just isnt any way to take snips.And the endless footnotes to German journals (well after I saw Bimson refer to a paper he wrote in a German journal, I gave up for good.There was a small half page of Bimson's long paper that actually seemed like it could be snipped with only 4-5 quoted paragraphs.There are literally 200 footnotes per author and the footnotes are LONG)Ill put the complicated source material in that journal aside.Ill go with the mainstream dates for the destructions in Canaan that terminated the MBA:1550BCE.All the non-technical reference material gives that single date.Ill now move on,and now present an update that few know about (I just found this jewel myself).A mainstream Egyptologist and Ancient Near Eastern scholar made a powerful testimony........ New Chronology (Rohl) - WikipediaThis wikipedia reference above confuses seperate issues.Rohl actually dates the c.1550 destructions (commonly dated) near the start of the 2nd Intermediate Period (what would be c1700BCE), and has been universally rejected,even in his former journal (JACF)."Rohls date" isnt the issue at all.That aside, this is big news because the 1550 MBA destructions can now be considered a respectable candidate (the ONLY in reality).My "clear archaeological evidence" is based on the referenced material showing massive destruction in the Joshua cities (a significant number of the major ones) of Palestine all at the same single year(1550).My "clear evidence" is the settled city population vanishing 90-95% at the same time (Read the JACF #10 and you will see that I wouldnt dare claim precise dates for everything but estimates must suffice).Honestly, the only thing you can really do is show some other entity who destroyed most of the Canaanite cities c.1550.And if you want to lower the chronology of the MBA end in Canaan then you are the one pulling a Bryant Wood (giving chronological delays from the MBA end in Palestine verses Egypt's MBA end.).You need to base all you destructions on a 1539 start of the 18th dynasty (dont use outdated chronologies)and if you say there were chronological lags for the outer regions to fit destructions of ThutmoseI (c1490)or Thutmose III (c 1440-1450) then you must assume that Jericho's (a backwater interior city)destruction was even later.That puts you WAYYYYYYYY outside the mainstream though you and Bryant Wood would make good buddies.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : mayor typo's that stood out

Ahmose (Nebpehtyre)1539-1514
Amenhotep I (Djeserkare)1514-1493
Thutmose I (Akheperkare)1493-1481
Thutmose II (Akheperenre)1481-1479
Thutmose III (Menkheperre)1479-1425
Hatshepsut (Maatkare)1473-1458
Amenhotep II (Akheperure)1427-1392
Thutmose IV (Menkheperure)1392-1382
Amenhotep III (Nebmaatre)1382-1344
Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten (Neferkneperure-waenre)1352-1336
Neferneferuaten (Ankhkheperure)(Nefertiti)1341-1337
Smenkhkare (Ankhkheperure)1337-1336
Tutankhamun (Nebkheperure)1336-1327
Ay (Kheperkheperure)1327-1323
Haremheb (Djeserkheperure)1323-1295This can help make references to battles in a "said kings" year equal the dates that fit the most up-to date scholarship.Its clear that the MBA destructions (1550) were fom 1 of 2 parties:Egyptians or Israelites.Whatever New Kingdom Egyptian battles that are used as evidence of terminal-MBA Canaanite destructions must have a pretty darn good explanation of why the MBA in Palestine should have such a pottery delay from the 1550 date in Egypt.If nothing can be offered, then use pre-New Kingdom battles as evidence.If nothing can be found, then I suppose Hurrians or Kassite excuses could be offered.If nothing comes up for 1550 destruction evidence from ALL OF THE ABOVE , then we must see what cities the Bible gives.Then compare that to the destruction evidence (one must NOT assume that conquered peoples means burnt cities though they can be a heavy indicator to consider)for each individual city.Then compare the Bibles big-picture description of Canaan during the Conquest to the total picture the archaeological situation offers.Then, if anything matches ,we must weigh the odds of how that could match and simply not be anything but coincidence.Remember that the Bible's Conquest is attributed mainly to the "D" "source" which is nearly 1000 years after 1550.No other "source" gets credit for having much material before the 800s.

Im quite fine with the mainstream dates because they all claim to show the massive destruction in the later part of the MBA Palestinian cities in a single year(1550).That also serves another purpose of mine(which I will get to in your next question).I am limited by the sheer volume of archaeological details involved, but mainstream Egyptologists-Manfred Bietak for one- have found endless pottery that suggests many Egyptian and Palestinian towns from the MBA (especially)and also the early part of the LBA actually date later in the LBA.From some MAJOR cities too.Infact I have to conclude that what is commonly assumed to be Sharuhen (for example,not to mention many major Hyksos cities in Egypt) is actually a LBA city.Read the Journal of The Ancient Chronology Forum issue #10 and honestly nothing can be taken for granted when one sees close examinations of pottery.The archaeological situation is a rapidly moving target and it seems that few want to admit that.Until people read and respond to the JACF #10, then I must assume they are satisfied with simlistic conclusions that could be way out-of-date.Im quite fine with all the Palestinian cities being destroyed in a single year though, which mainstream archaeology assigns.The fact is that they could be anywhere from 1600-1550 right from the start plus many towns may infact be much later.Mainstream articles of certain MBA Palestinian towns often will(at times) attribute MBA destructions to ThutmoseI (or some vague "successor to Ahmose") without telling us how MBA destructions could be by any New Kingdom Pharoah. Simple.It shows that neither the non-semitic Egyptians (Thebian natives who are the nationalists that we commonly know of from history as "Egyptians" since so many documents survived in the dry climate)were walled off from Palestine till from 1633-1525, and it wasnt till c1490 or am I wrong?)nor any Egyptian king made a deep campaign into Palestine.It makes the Conquest possible without any "Egyptian" (unless the Hyksos can be considered Egyptian) interference for absolute starters.The 2nd major issue is that the Egyptians cant be passed off as the agents of the destruction. We are getting off topic.Kitchen trashing Rohl is hardly a revelation.He was the one responsible for people rejecting much of Rohl LONG AGO.Many people (I have read)wondered how much of Rohls dates would appear in popular encyclopedia's.He was referenced (by a minimalist) in articles in respectable journals (like the Journal For The Study Of The Old Testament) as evidence against conservatives.Kitchen responded in a later journal saying something like "He actually had the audacity to footnote David Rohl....an absolute flake!".That aside, I think David Rohl realy did think his pottery research on the Hyksos put their dates earlier.Bimson and other have refuted him in detail (highly-technical, and since I dont have access to the endless journals footnoted, I cant speak with any authority at all here).I also think David Rohl care's about the state of archaeology.He thinks elitest attitudes have choked general public interest in archaeology as well as funding for digs.Though he never mentioned it (that I know of), I think the lack of avalibility of journals to the general public is the worst problem.His former journal JACF however is a refreshing irregular exception.All but the latest issue are free to read.And issue #10 only costs $10.It is large and despite being technical (again, the footnotes cant be checked by most people du to journals being trapped in a few select black holes in universities everywhere), it is full of detail on almost every relevant subject.Rohl is one of those people who wants everybody to be interested in his favorite field.Back to Kitchen.He has "trashed" many people who want to alter chronology to fit their research.Many mainstream folks have tried to move the chronology of Egypt back (including moving the 18th dynasty back as far as 1575BCE from 1539BCE , to fit in with Thera carbon-dates)and Kitchen responds with typical bombast in journals. I'll assume you mean 1210 (or slightly before the Merneptah reference)when you say "around 1200". The Bible doesnt name "1446" as a date.There is a reference in Kings that the Temple was built (around 965)"480 years" after the Conquest in some late-Hebrew texts.The King James used the 480 years date but the oldest Greek texts (which were later copies that came from a 285BCE translation)give other periods.I take issue with your comment about there not being Israelites running around in c1550 BCE.Finkelstein has shown that the people that would later become Israelites were the nomadic peoples of the MBA-LBA transition that are invisible to the archaeological record (he used examples of 55,000 Arab Nomads in Palestine during the 20th century (CE/AD) that didnt leave a trace of their existence).He wrote a book From Nomadism to Monarchy (I dont have it, but I have read his views from other sources).The Israelites Nomads were a major (maybe even the majority?) entity in the highland regions of Palestine around the time the cities were destroyed (1550).They settled down into cities around 1200-1150 BCE.They extablished their monarchy around 100 years after settling down.The Israelites were even mentioned as a stateless people by Egyptians around 1210 BCE.Palestine had a large semi-nomadic population (as a percentage of its overall population) starting around 1550.That was when the city (and infact the entire population visible to archaeology)fell 95%.That was when the majority of Palestinian cities were destroyed in the archaeological record. Is that you Velikovsky?Are you leaving the mainstream for good or just when it suits your argument?The Kenyon Jericho report did mention as much though.True.Then again, so did the Bible. You said that you were satisified with the possibility that earthquakes destroyed all the MBA towns,so that doesnt require anything more from your part? I guess I am supposed to be satisified as well then and move on?The Bible is concise and some parts (and only some parts) taken in isolation may appear to say that "all" of a land was controlled.The purpose and focus of a writting may not be meant to be a complete report for archaeologists to read later. The book of Joshua showed that the Israelites achieved lightening success, and even enough that they could dwell (or wander around) in parts without a whole lot of non-Israelites disrupting them.Judges,even from the very beginning, clarifies the picture. There are more Egyptian texts telling of Israelites within a 340 year radius of 1550 then there are (Egyptian texts extant)within the same range of the Ahab reign around 850BCE.You based textual evidence ALONE(see any of the above)as your belief that Israelites didnt exist till c1200 BCE.So using textal evidence as your meter for existence, there is my proof that Israelites were around in c1550 BCE.Archaeology is more than just texts alone.The books of Joshua-Judges fit the archaeological situation (not to mention the 1210 Egyptian reference). Good then we have established that most of the highland regions of Palestine (and the other towns mentioned in the Joshua-Judges Conquest details)were all destroyed in a single year. Because 18th dynasty Egyptian invasions are used as a reason for the destructions,when a reason is given.Granted most expanations for the terminal-MBA destructions mention no agent, but when they are-then it is often Egyptians used as a reason. (I agree that there is a dearth of documents in PALESTINE for anybody, including Israelites, during the MBA-LBA, except the Amarna letters which show non-Israelite princes/chieftans in towns the Bible says Canaanites survived)Back to your "mountains of evidence" for Egyptians with relation to the 1550 destruction context....But did they (Egyptians) destroy the MBA cities in 1550 BCE?Could they have?Did they claim to have destroyed most of the highland region of Palestine anywhere enar that time(and Bible critics like to say "they write EVERYTHING down that they do", and that claim is with regards to their loosing battles)?If it was near that time (say Egyptian kings claims from c1490-1440), then does that suffice for an archaeological situation from an earlier time(1550)? You say the burn destruction in all of the towns was from seismic activity.Do you have any evidence of fires (or destruction) in towns that didnt have populations in the MBA? Earthquakes dont discriminate.They destroy towns whether they have populations (and we know based on pottery)at the time or not.The earthquakes dont say "well this town is just an abandoned ruin, so I dont need to destroy it, its in bad enough shape already".So, is there any town that was shown to have been destroyed in 1550 that ALSO doesnt have pottery from the period documenting that a population wasnt present.It seems to me that the destroyed cities were from battles.Battles require people from the very time of the war.Earthquake destructions dont.Is there any mainstream source that mentions earthquakes as a reason for destruction in any 1550 town aside from Jericho?Ill be back later to respond to the last question (Ai).Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : typosEdited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

If thats your idea of "problems" I have then Ill gladly take them.First of all, the site and area of what would later be Rameses had lots of activity from at least the time of the 13th dynasty (actually there were times in the 12th too)down to the Hyksos period and frnakly also the 18th dynasty(and of course the 19th).Tell-el-Daba was excavated for 40 years by Bietak.David Rohl said it best so, my quotes of him will be my responce that gets this issues out of the way (Then Im going to respond in a later post on "Ai" later, and I must put it in quotations with regards to your comments because you arent actually discussing the actual site of archaeologically)Rohl mentions Genesis 47:11 and the "region of Ramesses".The Biblical writers (if they made it up) clearly would only be using an anachronism to describe a general location.All scholars know that the Redactor would have put this in.Rohl adds."But just a minute.If the region of Rameses was an anachronism, not also be just such an anac then why should the "Raamses" of Exodus 1:11 not also be such an anachronism--surely it too could have been edited for a 6th century BC reading that the Romans crossed the English Channel to invade southern Britain in around AD 50and that the Emperor Hadrian finally established a garrison of the 6th legion at York in AD 120.All perfectly clear to us,but we must not forget that in the 2nd century AD the Latin name for the English Channel was Litus Saxonicum and the Roman town that occupied the site of modern York was called Eboracum(the city derived its modern name from 'Yorvic'-- the Viking town estabished on the same site only in the 9th century AD).Would we make the Sixth Legion contemporary with Alfred the Great simple because a book we had read stated that the Romans had fortified York? Of course not.So why should we so readily acceptthat Ramesses II was the Pharoah of the Opression simply because, according to the book of Exodus,the Israelites had built a store city of Raameses? It is quite possible, taking our example of 'Roman York', that the Israelites built an earlier city at the same spot which, by the sixth century BC, was hidden deep under the ruins of Pi-Rameses."Rohl goes on to mention that this part of the Delta (with footnote) was still called Ramesses during the 4th century AD.So the "store-city" built in Exodus chapter 1 was built at the site of or in the region of "Ramesses" which was named after a famous city.Before,I get to AI I should offer some links in my favorites section that cover some interesting issues.One is a debate around a T.V. documentary that (I didnt see it)seemed to indicate a Conquest of 1490 BCE (I disagree).The link(below) has Herschel Shanks (the Biblical Archaeology Review editor)review the program, then the program director responds and a it becomes a good debate.Page not found - Biblical Archaeology SocietyThis link(below,a continuation of the debate from same site)has (of all people!) Ronald Hendel "review" the program.Hendel is one of the Bibles biggest critics and BAR commonly calls on him for "responces" to conservative articles.He lacks substance as a rule, and aside from snide remarks, he generally doesnt say much beyond bold pronouncements.He has lost so many debates to Kenneth Kitchen (even when getting the last word) that it is simply unreal.Kitchen showed in March/April 1995 BAR that slaves were sold for 10-15 shekels from 2370-2000BCE (Akkad Empire & Third Dynasty of Ur),20 shekels from 1900-1700 BCE (Code of Hammurabi and Inscriptions of Mari),and 30 shekels from 1600-1300 BCE (Inscriptions of Nuzi & Ugarit).Kitchen showed that Joseph was sold as a slave for 20 shekels of silver in Genesis 37:28 but by Moses time, the price was 30 shekels (Exodus 21:32).Kitchen showed that the changing prices in the Bible reflected the going rates in Near-Eastern countries at the same time.(its ironic but Kitchen assumes the time of Moses to be around 1250-1300 , but the actual time of Moses was around 1590-1600, though BOTH are within the 1600-1300 going rates)Joseph was sold into slavery either 215 or 400-430 years before 1590(circa).2000-1600 BCE (20 shekels going rate) fits the actual dates and the 1650 date Kitchen assumes.Hendel got the last word in May/June 1995 BAR.His attempt to refute Kitchen was based around his confused reference to Leviticus 27:5.It listed 2 redemption prices (20 and 50 shekels depending on the age)required that free Israelites gave to dedicate themselves to God.It (Leviticus 27:5)did not give the price of slaves ,and Kitchens observation's of the Near-Eastern slave prices for their times wasnt refuted.Nearly 10 years later,BAR botched a review of Kitchens 2003 book On the Reliability of the Old Testament by letting Hendel review it! It lead to a Take 2 in July/August 2005, and it was an interesting deal where 2 people (1 Hendel and the other William Hallo)reviewed it and Kitchen got to give a multi page responce.The end result was that Kitchen destroyed Hendels argument that Deuteronomy was aritten circa 600BCE, by showing that the objective evidence places it around the 14th-12th century.(Im subjective and feel it was mostly written around 1600 BCE, but I respect objective informed scholarship based on broad non-selective fact gathering)Hendel strikes BAR again!I got this in the mail by ABR (not BAR!)(snip) NOW,here is the BAR debate where Hendel jumps in!Page not found - Biblical Archaeology SocietyI mentioned the JACF earlier and didnt know that issue #10 was free to read.Honestly, it may be the best evidence against my contention (based on mainstream archaeology) that all towns listed in the reference works as destroyed in "1550BCE" may actually be from different periods.(Bimson's article in issue #2 doesnt reflact his current views but they show Jericho details very well)ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum(index to all issues)ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum(issue 10, great scholarship!)
ISIS - Journal of the Ancient Chronology ForumAlso, Brian said we would take each and every town in order(gulp..its 33).I disagree with this site (below) in endless ways but it is a good guide to what we will be discussing.Canaan Conquest in Biblical Archeology I sure hope Im not the only one that going to be discussing/debating everything.I havnt even gotten to Ai yet(coming)....

This is going to be a lesson that EVERYBODY should take notice of and refer to.We need to go back to source material (in this case 1828)to make sure we arent building the 10th story to a building that never even had floors 1-9 built on a solid foundation.Ill start with the trite commentary we have all heard till our ears popped.Commentary on Et-tell I mean "Ai". "Ai" "Ai" "Ai"Heard enough(it can only be measured in trillions of audible repeats and playbacks)However here is YET more on "Ai" "Ai" "Ai". "Ai" "the site" "Ai" "Ai" "Ai"Whew, like we needed to hear the same old stuff a few more times!More commentary on Et-tell I mean "Ai" "Ai" "Ai"This time from a conservative evangelical.... "God God" people are telling me as I type these nauseating playbacks that only serve to prove what a bunch of lemmings the state of the people behind modern "scholarship".Well,we start to get clues on top of clues as to why this guy (and others) are so far off. Ugh.He continues (and please keep in mind that this was 1998 when it was already known that Hazor's terminated LBA destruction was c1300 NOT c1230)Actually thats enough of him.Lets go to the cover story of the September 7, 1998 issue of Christianity Today which was "Did the Exodus Never Happen" pages 44-51Hoffmeier mentioned Stratum VIII and the c1300 destruction of Hazor Actually sounds good till you read his next sentence (keep in mind this is 1300 BCE though Hoffemier thinks it was 1230...and it gets worse...) Judges had a battle between Israelites and Hazor around 1300BCE(perhaps another player was involved but not mentioned in scripture)and Hoffemier is talking about this 1300 battle (which he thinks was 1230)that included the destruction of stratum VII as from Joshuas time??!!Hoffmeier proved to be much more competent than Browning though when he said THIS about Ai.IMPORTANT! Wow.Somebody actually ot it right (or began to get to the heart of the issue most simply take for granted as if there isnt a foundational issue).There is hope yet.Common sense has its place in this world yetWith that crack of hope,lets take the common sense step and go to the foundational issue involved.Bethel.Lets step back all the way to 1828 (sad that one has to slip back 178 years, buts that was the last time we hadnt screwed up totally, with this centuries "experts" taking the reward for the worst screwing up) I addeded the emphesis myself and the next section starts with"Roman Milestones Tell The Story"This link may show much of what the journal showed.http://www.ancientdays.net/bethel14.htm The Anchor Bible article spends much of the time criticising the work done as poor and the excavation reports as unusable.The artcile didnt mention it but the whole identification was the most sloppy exercise of all.So, with reagrds to Ai , it is not et-tell.We dont know what it is.We need to know which site is Bethel first.Beitin isnt Bethel.We know that much.Thus we havnt a clue where Ai is.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : Working on better material.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Sorry.I meant to say that the 1300 destruction (and Rohl in 1993 told everybody that the "1230" destruction was actually 1300, as he had a conversation with Ben-Tor, Hoffmeier and others shouldnt be making that mistake in 1998)was the Judges battle.And it was.Ill respond to you, CA, and others once I clean up #93.Ill provide sourced material for anwsers.EDIT:Im glad you quoted that.Stratum "VIII" is the topic.i need to edit that too.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Not at all.Silberman (a co-author with Finkelstein) calls this Finkelstein theory....."Invisible Israelites" (Secrets of The Bible)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. Silberman adds."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. Ill try and grab the book and give a fuller quote later.Silberman clearly described Finkelsteins views that the pastoralist peoples that emerged 1550 were what would later be Israelites.The Merenptah document proves who they were.The archaeological situation fits the bible like a glove.The only think the Bible isnt 100% clear on is when exactly the Israelites settled into cities.The archaeological record shows around 1200-1150 when the settled population exploded.The Israelites were demanding a king by 1050 at the latest according to the bible.I need to grab the book i refered to and quote it fully.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

I was refering to the fact that Rohl did his homework and talked to the Hazor excavators.The final phase in the LBA Hazor city was terminated c1300 BCE. Keep in mind, this is a William Dever article.He has a good imagination.See my post 57 (In Edom thread)for expert Egyptian scholarship that tells that there is no evidence for the early Egyptian 18th Dynasty to be responible for these destructions.The great archaeologist Manfred Bietak says that Ahmose didnt get past the south-west of Palestine (Hazor is in the extreme north) and was stuck in multi year wars over single towns.Even then,that wasnt till about 1520 (Hazor Stratum 16)was destroyed in 1550 at the latest based on archaeology unless you allow LB1 lags in Palestine, and frankly I think the "1550" date could be pushed perhaps a few decades back as it was reached to fit with the dreamed up Ahmose "campaigns", which didnt happen and even what did happen was in 1520) Thutmose III didnt campaign till after 1450, almost till the end of the LBI.(LB1 1550-1400) Dever speaks of the impressive rebuilding programs for the rest of this section before getting to the Amarna Age.No destruction from Thutmose III. In Secrets of the Bible of Neil Asher Silberman Silberman adds earlier that the destruction of the palace and entire city was "destroyed by fire sometime in the late 14th or early 13th century" LBIIA seems to be the trend. Kenneth Kitchen has shown that there were several kings named jaban in the historical and archaeological record.The Bible also mentions 2 kings named Jabin.In Joshua and Judges.Both ended in destruction by fire.The dates are unclear but there seems to be around 200 years seperation between the 2 battles.You can see that stratum 16 (1550) BCE plus VIIB-VIII (1300) have 2 destructions.And there ware artifacts of a King named Jabin found in that stratum.There may have even been a destruction layer around 1440 BCE as well.

[qa]Judges4
23 On that day God subdued Jabin, the Canaanite king, before the Israelites. 24 And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him.
[/qa]Score one against me.Maybe Im being too hard on Hoffmeier and others.I just dont like the idea that they keep trying to take a few battles from 1200 and another one (Hazor) from c1230 (at the latest)and try and say that it was the Conquest.There were dozens of battles in Joshua.It doesnt work.Jericho didnt have any walls then.A c1200 conquest doesnt add up in so many other ways.It doent leave much time for the Judges period when the Israelites were pastoralist.The 1550 situation was when the population dropped 95%.The 1550 situation was when the cities were destroyed.The 1550 situation was when the pastoralist people (Israelites) emerged.Though they were "invisible" to archaeology.Whether Hazor was destroyed in c1300 or c1230 (inbetween these times, Seti of Egypt claimed to have destroyed Hazor), the fact is that the urban city was destroyed and it wasnt till perhaps 200 years later that even small activity was found archaeologically.If the Conquest was the 1230-1300 battle, then how could a destroyed city (with no population in the archaeological record) field an army with several hundred chariots in the time of Judges?As for your comment about Rohl,just relax.It was a friggin footnote in his book! Nothing to do with his chronology.My point was that he DID KNOW about it a long time ago.I showed you what Ben-Tor said (how much more does one need!).I quoted Silberman.Silberman is the editor of Archaeology magazine.He ha been a co-author with Finkelstein.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.