EvC Forum: Reliable history in the Bible

...

Author

Topic: Reliable history in the Bible

Nimrod

Member (Idle past 4938 days)

Posts: 277

Joined: 06-22-2006

Nimrod Posts Only

Message 181 of 300 (384816)
02-13-2007 6:59 AM

Reply to: Message 179 by Nighttrain
02-13-2007 5:30 AM

Finlelstein and Monarchy Jerusalem.

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.

(let me respond to something you didnt ask)

The secular historian Michael Coogan (he made fun of Christians who believe in the Conquest of Jericho in the previous issue to this review) reviewed Finkelsteins book on David, which gave the views you did on Jerusalem.

Biblical archaeology Review
July/August 06
Michael D. Coogan

Assessing David and Solomon
From The Hypothetical To The Improbable To The Absurd

....

Now archaeologist Israel Finkelstein and writer Neil Silberman have written an engaging, yet flawed book.....
..

In their view, David ..was a bandit who eventually gained control of the small, unfortified village of Jerusalem in the backwater region known as Judah.His immediate successors (including Solomon) were little more than chieftans.
...

There are serious problems, however, with their reconstruction.It is rooted in Finkelsteins low chronology, according to which strata at sites such as Hazor, Megiddo, and Gezer, thought by most scholars to belong to the tenth century B.C.E.--that is to he time of David and Solomon--actually date to the ninth century B.C.E.But what of Jersalem? Here,relying on a selective reading of the evidence, Finkelstein and Silberman argue that there is scant,if any, proof of urbanization in Jerusalem prior to the ninth and probably not until the eight century B.C.E, nor are their any signs of literacy or central state during the 10th century....
....

Yet as the authors are aware.......that their views are.... not accepted by the majority of archaeologists and Biblical scholars.

Lets look, for example, at Finkelstein and Silberman's treatment of Jerusalem.During the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200), there is little evidence from Jerusalem excavations of public architecture or even of significant occupation.Nor is there evidence of literacy from the site.On the basis of the archaeological evidence alone--or rather the absence of archaeological evidence--it would be reasonable to conclude that jerusalem in the Late Bronze Age was at best an unimportant rural village.Yet there is other evidence, notably a half dozen or so Amarna letters from the Late Bronze Age found in Egypt...sent to Egyptian pharoahs ... by kings of such major powers as Babylonia, Assyria, and Hatti and from Egyptian vassal rulers in city-states, including Byblos, Tyre, Akko, Megiddo, Gezer, Lachish, Shechem, Ashkelon, Damascus,--AND Jerusalem.Jerusalem was significant enough for its ruler, Abdi-Heba, to correspond with the pharoah.It was, infact the most important city-state in the hill-country, and it had an established scribal tradition.We would guess at none of this if we look only at the archaeological evidence from Jerusalem.

Finkelstein and Silberman need the lack of evidence from Late Bronze Age Jerusalem as a parallel to tenth-century Jerusalem....
...
....they characterize Jerusalem in the late bronze Age as a "highland hamlet" , with a modest yet rustic palace and perhaps a similarly modest temple, along with "a few houses for the ruling elite,mainly the family of the king.Certainly it was no more significant than this"

Watch out for the word "certainly" in scholarly writing.Like "no doubt" it also means the opposite:Authors use such qualifiers when they have no hard evidence and must rely on the power of assertion.There is, however a considerable body of discussion to the contrary, s the authors are aware , since they list some of it in their bibliography.They essentially ignore it.

Coogan goes on to say that their argument from silence is "especially dangerous" when new discoveries are constantly coming to light.Significant new building remains are coming to light from more than one location.

Ill give some quotes related to your actual question in a thread on trans-Jordan.

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 179 by Nighttrain, posted 02-13-2007 5:30 AM		Nighttrain has not replied

Nimrod

Member (Idle past 4938 days)

Posts: 277

Joined: 06-22-2006

Nimrod Posts Only

Message 182 of 300 (384822)
02-13-2007 8:17 AM

Reply to: Message 177 by ReverendDG
02-13-2007 4:58 AM

ReverendDG

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!

The town is Laish NOT LaCHish. They are 2 seperate towns.Ill anwser the rest below.Plus Ill try and do a better job of expalining the significance (maybe my more recent posts have helped).

ReverendDG quotes me saying
Nimrod-
"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."

ReverendDG responds

sorry but the dating for the cities burning is around 1200 bc, some tablets found date around 1500 bc

i 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 earthquake

so 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

Thats because the archaeologists are correct.The Israelites were in the land as pastoralists for 350 years (entire Late Bronze Age of 1550-1200) when the Iron Age (1200) began!

See posts 135 (last half) and 136 for details.

Remember, archaeologists have allowed historians to mislead them into thinking that the Conquest must have been in c1200 if it happened at all.

All reasons for assuming that the Israelite period started in c1200 have been blown out of the water (keep an eye on my newer posts, I am in the middle of showing exactly that-the data demands it!).

It actually started at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (MBA)destructions.

Anchor Bible Dictionary
114-126

Lachish (place)...

Acentral biblical city in the Shephelah.Its king participated in the coalition of the S kings against Joshua and the Israelites,and became the object of one of Israel's sieges (Josh 10).

..........
The palace was destroyed by a severe fire which marks the end of the MB city...destruction of the MB city........

Those are the terminal-Middle Bronze Age destructions I keep talking about.

But now look at what the archaeologists get all confused over (thanks to the lousey job historians have done, with their poor scholarship and interpretation of the archaeological data-ITS NOT THE ARCHAEOLOGISTS FAULT , THEY DO GREAT WORK- its the historians fault)

Here are the Iron Age destructions (1200 or after), and it mentions the c-1230 Hazor destruction (actually the Late Bronze Age or LBA in Hazors case)

.........

Hence it appears that Lachish was not settled at the time that painted Philistine pottery was produced in the nearby region, and that this pottery dates in the main to the period following the destruction of level VI, ie to the last third of the 12th century B.C. , or even later (see below).

The level VI was destroyed by fire. The destruction was complete and the population liquidated or driven out.Following the catrostrophe, the site was abandoned until the 10th century B.C.

A cache of bronze objects, which included a broken object bearing a cartoche of Rameses III, was found in a probe cut beneath the Judean city gate. The cache was sealed beneath the destruction debris of Level VI, and hence this destruction could have occured either during the latter part of the reign of Rameses III (1182-1151 B.C.--low chronology on Wente and Van Siclen) or later.It seems possible that the sudden downfall of lachish coincided with the Egyptian loss of control over S Canaan ca. 1130 B.C.Without Egyptian protection , lachish became easy prey for attack.

Evidence for the sudden destruction was found in Area s. the Level VI public edfice seems to have been turned to living quarters for refugees prior to its destruction.

...
With the absence of inscriptions, the identity of the conquering enemy remains a matter of speculation.One suggestion...Sea Peoples......As a corollary to such a reconstruction, the invasion of Sea Peoples was a prime factor in the collapse of Egyptian authority over S Canaan......

The second possibility ....argued by Albright, is that level VI was destroyed by the Israelites, as described in Joshua 10:31-32.The Biblical description fits the archaeological data:a large Canaanite city destroyed by fire... complete desertion of the razed city explained by the annihilation of the populace.On the other hand, the motive for the destruction remains obscure , since the Israelites did not settle here, nor in the surrounding region, until a much later date....

...

Canaanite Hazor was destroyed in the 13th century, and no later than 1230B.C. If it is assumed that Hazor was conquered by the Israelites in accordance with Joshua 11:10-11, the biblical description ... is then incompatible with the archaeological evidence for teh destruction of two major Canaanite cities which were seperated by over a century.

That was less than 1/4th of a page in the massive Anchor Bible Dictionary.

That was a Southern town.Here is the Northern town of Dan or Laish (the Canaanites named it Laish, the Danites named it after themselves).

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Laish (place)...

Var. LESHEM

A city in the extreme N of canaan.. that at least a part of the Israelite tribe of Dan ...attacked and conquered and made their new home....

The excavations of Laish (see more detailed discussion in DAN (PLACE)...

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Dan
.........

"During the MB, the city was about 30 acres........The vessels are to be dated to the MBII and III.Evidence of a destruction at the end of this period comes from two squares in which a thick layer of destruction by fire was found, containing cooking pots, bowls, and other Juglets of the end of the MBIII"

"While Laish appears in a historical contet in the lists of Thutmose III, the excavations have so far shed no light on this campaign, but two finds reflect contacts with Egypt.One is a red granite statuette of a man in a sitting position,Nefertem by name, found in secondary use in a wall of the Isrelite period.The statuette is of a well-known type used in the ritual of the dead, dated to the 19th Dyn., ca. the 14th century BCE. Another fragment of an Egyptian statuette was found on the surface.Originally from the Middle Kingdom, it bears a secondary incription of the Ptolemaic period.

ReverendDG, this is the 1550 destructions that Hazor also had.And Jericho.And Lachish.

But its the fact that Joshua and Judges describe the highland region to have been very much destroyed during the Conquest, AND then mention 2 exteme northern cities to have also been destroyed.They were Laish and Hazor! Hazor first then a little later Laish.

Here is the site nobody doubts is Hazor.

Anchor Bible Dictionary

Tell-el-Qedah
....

The Zenith of the lower City was reached in MBIII (stratum XVI=local stratum 3;ca. 1650-1550 B.C.).....Stratum XVI ended in a major destruction,as did most sites in palestine at the end of the MB.

I have shown that Hazor, Jericho, Laish (Dan), and Lachish (endless others) were all destroyed at the same time in the terminal-MBA (Middle bronze Age) of 1550 BCE.

for c1200 BCE.

Jericho did not exist

Hazor was destroyed in c1230 at the latest.

Lachish was destroyed in c1150.

Now lets look at how Dan (Laish) fits in with the evidence for c1200
(keep in mind that this author is LOOKING for Danite destruction evidence and falls shoort)...

Anchor Bible Dictionary

Dan
The evidence for the arrival of the Danites is both textual and archaeological.Judges 18 gives a detailed account of the migration of the tribe of Dan and the conquest of Laish the name of which they changed to Dan.The excavations did not reveal the devestation implied in Judg 18:27 , but the appearance of a stratum of occupation characterized by pits implies a drastic change in the material culture of the population.The new inhabitants, like their predecessors , lived within the ramparts, but their lifestyle was different.The new Danite inhabitants probably lived in tents and huts and stored their food in pits. These stone-lined pits were dug into the earlier levels of occupation and contained Iron Age cooking pots and a new type of storage ja, the "collare-rim" jar. The arrival of the Danites and the conquest of Laish took place around the beginning of the 12th century B.C.E.

The difference in culture is over-stated.

And it seems to be around c1180 destruction.

here again it doesnt fit a c1200...

Jericho destruction (none)

Hazor (c.1230 destruction)

Lachish (c1150)

It is true that the period around the Iron Age beginning (c1200) saw more destruction than any period since the Joshua and Danite Conquest of 1550BCE (slightly later for the latter).

But there were various factors involved and they werent anywhere near the same time as the Conquest of Joshua was(over 100 years appart for the scattered destructions of c1200).Plus the destructions were much much fewer in the c1200 period, though significant.

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 177 by ReverendDG, posted 02-13-2007 4:58 AM		ReverendDG has not replied

Nimrod

Member (Idle past 4938 days)

Posts: 277

Joined: 06-22-2006

Nimrod Posts Only

Message 183 of 300 (384848)
02-13-2007 9:59 AM

Reply to: Message 175 by Nimrod
02-13-2007 3:01 AM

The Worst Of Biblical Archaeology

I will get to my "Where we went wrong (Biblical Archaeology)" series in a few days.Till then I promised in message #175 to....

provide a stunning example of the WORST Biblical achaeology has brought us...in a new post

And now I will deliever.

There has been some really really REALLY crappy work done in the name of Biblical Archaeology.The entire interpretation of Biblical and arcaeological data has been simply pathetic from those on the historical end. (see post 175 and those after)

In addition to the horrible scholarship by historians interpreting the data,the location of sites and to the work done has really been pathetic at times.

It is a true test of a persons recovery abilities if they can find a way to reject the worst of jobs done via Biblical Archaeology.Till we do, then we might as well be considered slaves that who cant and wont think for ourselves.

Ill pick the absolute *WORST* job of scholarship (combined with horrible excavation work) ever done by "Biblical Archaeologists" one can ever imagine. To be the *WORST* of Biblical Archaeology says volumes mind you!

Here is the *perfect* test case to see if you are brain-washed and still a slave to Biblical archaeology.

It ends up effecting 2 towns but I will cover the main mistake that lead to a direct mis-identification of one town.Then it lead to mis-identification of the other.

Locating Biblical Bethel

By David Livingston

"Most scholars today locate Old Testament Bethel at the Arab village of Beitin about 11 mi north of Jerusalem.An examanation of the evidence, however, indicates that this identification is incorrect.It is important to correctly locate Bethel because Ai is located with relation to Bethl (Gn 12:8, Jos 7:2), and finding Ai has been a major focus of ABR's reaearch work

How was Beitin originally identified as Bethel? Edward Robinson was the first to identify it in the 1830's.he equated the modern Arabic name of "Beitin" with "Bethel" (which is feasible, but not compelling).Actually, there was no village at the site in Robison's day.Apparantly, it was an area name rather than a village name.In fact, for over 1400 yars the very name "Bethel" had been completely forgotten.

Besides the name, the only other evidence Robinson used in the identification was the distance of Bethel from "Aelia" (Jerusalem)mentioned by the early church fathers Eusebius (4th century AD) and Jerome (5th century).His measurment of the distance was done on horseback,estimated by the length of time his horse traveled from jerusalem to Beitin.Is this an accurate way of measuring distance?"

"100 years later,W.F. Albright accepted Robinsons identification without even checking the distance,either by horseback or automobile!"

"On this basis then, Albright and later James Kelso, excivated Beitin for several reasons.The results were published in 1968(Kelso).We read the report before it was published looking for archaeological proof that Beitin was truely Bethel.However we could not find anything in the report to prove it"

"So we wrote Dr. Albright and asked what proof he could point.ALBRIGHT ANWSERED THAT THERE WAS NO ARCHAEOLOGICAL PROOF (no inscriptions or anything specifically confirming that Beitin was really Bethel).He insisted that the identification was maintained by the Biblical and patristic (church fathers) evidence."

"With that we restudied the Biblical references and concluded that one could not locate Bethel precisely from them,either.SO WE WROTE AGAIN ASKING ABOUT THE BIBLICAL PROOFS, THINKING SURELY WE HAD MISSED SOMETHIN.HIS ANWSER WAS THAT THERE WAS NO BIBLICAL PROOF AT ALL.The identification was made using the archaeological and patristic evidence.But, he had already eliminated the former himself.Now we wer elft with only the patristic evidence of Euseubius and Jerome. What was it and how accurately could it be checked?

Bible and Spade Vol 11 no.4 Fall 1998

http://www.ancientdays.net/bethel14.htm

Simply pathetic identification.

But it gets worse ("as if it can" some mught be saying--- TRUST ME, IT GETS WORSE! or I should say the rest of the work is nearly as bad thus compounds and makes it worse that way)

Anchor Bible Dictionary

Bethel page 710-712
Harold Brodsky

............

Most scholars since the time of Edward Robinson identified Bethel with Tell Beitin (M.R. 172148).See BEITIN,TELL (M.R. 172148).However,Livingston (1989) has suggested that bethel may actually be el-Bireh, a few km SW of Tell Beitin.

.........
Bibliography
Livingston, D 1989 The Last Word on bethel and Ai BARev 15/1:11.

Anchor Bible Dictionary
p651
William Dever

BEITIN,TELL

9M.R. 1721480

Since Edward Robinsos's proposal in 1938 (based on both linguistic grounds and biblical references (Gen 12:8; Judg 2:19; etc), biblical Bethel has been identified with Beitin, 8 miles N of Jerusalem.

..the site was first investigated by W. F. Albright in 1927. Following that, Albright directed excavations in 1934, followed by campaigns under James L. Kelso in 1954, 1957, and 1960.

The preliminary rports (albright 1934a , 1934b, 1935, 1939; Kelso 1955, 1958 , 1961)and final reports (Kelso 1968), the volume in particular , offer some far ranging conclusions , but little of the evidence on which they are presumably based. There are , for example, few complete plans , no usable sections, no stratum numbers-- in short little real data. therefore the following summary are brief and very tentative.

.....

The MB (ca. 2000-1500 B.C.) is said to be represented by a city wall and gate, but the details are unclear.The published plan of the "gate" is incomprehensible, and the citys walls are scarcely even described.a so-called "sanctuary" and "temple" are obviously well-constructed buildings , but their functionsa re far from certainThe range of MB occupation seems to extend throughout MB 1-III (Albright's Mb IIA-C), but the published pottery is mostly from the last phase of teh epriod, suggesting that most of teh structures should be placed there.A destruction is claimed at the end of the M.B.,ca. 1550 B.C. but again little evidence is presented.

........

A severe destruction at the end of the LB is attributed to the israelites (based on the biblical tradition), but no justification for this conslusion is offered.Indeed, the published description ..... does not offer much ...evidence.... beyond ..unsupported statements.....

But the historian or biblical scholar seeking to check the evidence will find the report unuseable(indeed almost a parade example of the inteerpretive problems typical of the "Biblical archaeology" movement........

...

Bethel was probably one of the more prominent Bronze-Iron Age towns in central-Palestine......yet the excavations carried out do no more than sketch the archaeological history of the site, and even with little precision or confidence in any single detail.The exposure was inadequate, the results of the various seasons are poorly coordinated (there are no stratum numbers), and the description of the successive phases is minimal and sparsely illustrated.Stll more serious is the lack of any research design...few real data emerge for the archaeologists, historian, or biblical scholar

Like William Dever can interpret real data anyway(his articles on archaeology are full of referneces to 18th dynasty Egyptian pharoahs conquering MBA Palestine-IMPOSSIBLE!).Notice Dever never questioned the identification, yet he want to play the role of a critic of Biblical Archaeology.

But that aside, WOW just WOW!

I say that with great sadness because the important site (Tell-Beitin, whatever ancient town it actually was-- NOT Bethel) is now covered with a modern town.No further excavations are possible.There are more examples of Albright's horrible work screwing up imortant sites I can think of (it almost brings tears to my eyes that he missed the importance of Bab Edh Dhra long ago, and didnt bother to excavate it much and now a modern town is over it).

To mention Albright and Dever in the same sentence may overload our senses wth regards to our crap tolerance.Mostly due to Dever's presence (true) , but post #175 showed Albright give alot of philosophy that he simply did not follow.

Dever and Albright....

2 people that are more responsible for the screwed up historical interpretation of the Bronze Age Palestine from c1600-c1100 than nearly anybody else.

2 shamelessly self-serving promotion artists.

Anyway, this "Bethel" location is awfully dubious, but it also brought us the location of so-called "Ai" to et-Tell.

Any archaeologist will tell you at-least that.

James Hoffmeier
Part of the problem is that, in the Bible, Ai and Bethel are always mntioned as being close to each other, and the identification of Ai has been based on the proposed identification of the site of bethel--neither of which has been clearly dmonstrated.We may be looking in the wrong place

It should be mentioned that the topographical details and name of Beitin arent even overly-convincing.William Stiebing (though he always comes down on side the elite stale old conclusions-in the end)is about the most genuinely honest judge of the evidence with regards to details.

Out Of The Desert
William Stibing
Unfortunately, while Rainey's arguments are provocative, they are not absoluetly decisive.He points out, for example, that the Arabic Beitin is derived from the Hebrew Beth-el, in accordance with philological rules observed at work in a number of other cases.But such an argument cannot prove that the name of Bethel was not transfered to Beitin from another nearby site like El-Bireh.Raineys topographical arguments are equally inconclusive--they show that El-Bireh does not have to be Bethel, as Livington argued, and that Bethel fits the evidence just as wellbut they dont prove that El-Bireh cant be Bethel.

Stiebing came down on the side of Beitin being Bethel because Bireh doesnt have MBA pottery.But Bireh is a modern and heavily populated Arab town.The mound simply dosnt have many opportunities for excavation.Anyway, at least Stiebing put the Biblical Archaeology (being Bethel=Beitin)to the test.Many people just accept it without question.

Stiebing also didnt mentin that idiotic way it was located to begin with.As bad as things were in the early 1900's, this location was (one of the few)done in the early 1800's and in a really pathetic and comical way.

Anyway,there is a good way to see if somebody is a brain-dead slave to the failed joke that was "Biblical Archaeology"......

..if they accept Beitin as Bethel and et-Tell as Ai then you have a truely brain-washed soul indeed.Somebody who sold their soul long ago to the devil that is Biblical Archaeology. (and they might not even notice it, they have been so brain-washed)

This message is a reply to:
	Message 175 by Nimrod, posted 02-13-2007 3:01 AM		Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 230 by Nimrod, posted 07-03-2007 5:50 AM		Nimrod has replied

trance-lik-state

Junior Member (Idle past 6274 days)

Posts: 5

Joined: 01-31-2007

trance-lik-state Posts Only

Message 184 of 300 (384972)
02-13-2007 6:32 PM

Reply to: Message 151 by PaulK
02-01-2007 12:40 PM

Mind you, anybody surprised to find bronze tools in the Bronze Age is not exactly on the ball. By definition the Bronze Age requires the use of Bronze (IIRC specifically in cutting implements). I have a strong suspicion that the actual issue is the mention of iron in Deuteronomy 33.25. Because that argument would actually make sense.

How did Egypt erect the pyramids without iron?

Surely these events predate Deuteronomy 33 by any chronology. What event marks the beginning of Iron I?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 151 by PaulK, posted 02-01-2007 12:40 PM		PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 185 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2007 6:46 PM	trance-lik-state has replied
	Message 186 by jar, posted 02-13-2007 6:49 PM	trance-lik-state has replied
	Message 193 by Nighttrain, posted 02-14-2007 7:19 AM	trance-lik-state has not replied

PaulK

Member

Posts: 17825

Joined: 01-10-2003

Member Rating: 2.2

PaulK Posts Only

Message 185 of 300 (384978)
02-13-2007 6:46 PM

Reply to: Message 184 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 6:32 PM

Egypt was late to adopt iron. Exactly how the Pyramids were built is argued over, but they did it without iron tools (the Pyramids are relatively early in Egyptian history - about 2500 BC).

Deuteronomy was almost certainly written in the Iron age, which is dated as starting ~1150 BC for the area we're talking about. But that's because it wasn't written by Moses - more likely it was written during the Babylonian Exile or later. I've not heard of anyone dating the Exodus as recently as the 12th Century BC. The Merneptah Sele has Israel in Canaan more than 50 years earlier.

But all this distracts from the central point that your whole argument - that bronze tools were thought to be unavailable in the Bronze Age is just plain wrong - and obviously so to anyone who even understands what the term "Bronze Age" means.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 184 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 6:32 PM		trance-lik-state has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 189 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 7:08 PM		PaulK has replied

jar

Member (Idle past 416 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

jar Posts Only

Message 186 of 300 (384979)
02-13-2007 6:49 PM

Reply to: Message 184 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 6:32 PM

the old fashioned way

How did Egypt erect the pyramids without iron?

With wood, water, stone, copper and patience.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 184 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 6:32 PM		trance-lik-state has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 190 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 7:20 PM		jar has replied

trance-lik-state

Junior Member (Idle past 6274 days)

Posts: 5

Joined: 01-31-2007

trance-lik-state Posts Only

Message 187 of 300 (384980)
02-13-2007 6:54 PM

Reply to: Message 172 by Brian
02-10-2007 7:09 AM

Re: In response

You keep forgetting that I think the united monarchy and before is fictional.

Moabite Stone

"This artifact is another important source that corroborates the biblical account of the early Israelites."

Great, and you have evidence of Israelites in Egypt during this period?

The Bible makes clear that 70 or 72 persons (children of Israel) went down to Egypt during famine and were embraced by a ruling Joseph. How did seventy persons already have a racial identity as "Israelites"?

The point is that they were of Canaan and after going into Egypt they absorbed their customs and ways, which makes your question a straw man.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 172 by Brian, posted 02-10-2007 7:09 AM		Brian has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 188 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2007 6:58 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

PaulK

Member

Posts: 17825

Joined: 01-10-2003

Member Rating: 2.2

PaulK Posts Only

Message 188 of 300 (384981)
02-13-2007 6:58 PM

Reply to: Message 187 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 6:54 PM

Re: In response

You do realise that the Mesha Stone dates to a time when Judah and Israel were separate kingdoms, and it provides no evidence for the United Monarchy at all. If you're going to prove Brian wrong you need something that is actually relevant. The Mesha Stele isn't it.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 187 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 6:54 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

trance-lik-state

Junior Member (Idle past 6274 days)

Posts: 5

Joined: 01-31-2007

trance-lik-state Posts Only

Message 189 of 300 (384984)
02-13-2007 7:08 PM

Reply to: Message 185 by PaulK
02-13-2007 6:46 PM

Did you know that a large contingent of Christian scholars believe Deuteronomy was written by Jeremiah? If so, then your chronology is in agreement with them. Chapter 33 is accurate; iron and brass did exist and were in use.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 185 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2007 6:46 PM		PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 192 by PaulK, posted 02-14-2007 2:06 AM		trance-lik-state has not replied

trance-lik-state

Junior Member (Idle past 6274 days)

Posts: 5

Joined: 01-31-2007

trance-lik-state Posts Only

Message 190 of 300 (384988)
02-13-2007 7:20 PM

Reply to: Message 186 by jar
02-13-2007 6:49 PM

Re: the old fashioned way

How did Egypt erect the pyramids without iron?

With wood, water, stone, copper and patience.

Not a satisfying answer. Why don't we put Iron I before Early Bronze?

What prevents moving Iron 1 (besides reputations)?

This message is a reply to:
	Message 186 by jar, posted 02-13-2007 6:49 PM		jar has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 191 by jar, posted 02-13-2007 7:39 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

jar

Member (Idle past 416 days)

Posts: 34026

From: Texas!!

Joined: 04-20-2004

jar Posts Only

Message 191 of 300 (384996)
02-13-2007 7:39 PM

Reply to: Message 190 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 7:20 PM

Re: the old fashioned way

Not a satisfying answer. Why don't we put Iron I before Early Bronze?

What prevents moving Iron 1 (besides reputations)?

Many, many things. First, folk were not stupid. You do not move from a more successful solution to a less successful one.

Second, knowledge is a cumulative venture. What is learned leads to a further advance.

Third, iron requires far higher temperatures and technology to work than bronze.

Fourth, specifically dealing with the pyramids, there are NO indications that iron was used. However there is evidence the copper and perhaps bronze was used. In fact they have found recycling centers where the tools were returned, reworked and then reissued.

Fifth, we have pretty good ideas when the Egyptians first encountered because it was in the form of weapons of war used by their enemies and that made a considerable impression on them.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
	Message 190 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 7:20 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

PaulK

Member

Posts: 17825

Joined: 01-10-2003

Member Rating: 2.2

PaulK Posts Only

Message 192 of 300 (385077)
02-14-2007 2:06 AM

Reply to: Message 189 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 7:08 PM

In Message 149 you wrote:

quote:
Many Biblical critics have said the metal known as bronze or brass did not exist in the early Mosaic authorship period; therefore, late post Solomon authorship is supported. Deuteronomy is synchronized as having been written in Middle or Late Bronze, or the fifteenth century BC.

No you say

quote:
Did you know that a large contingent of Christian scholars believe Deuteronomy was written by Jeremiah? If so, then your chronology is in agreement with them. Chapter 33 is accurate; iron and brass did exist and were in use.

So these Christian scholars agree with the critics you were trying to prove wrong - they date Deuteronomy to the Iron Age, after Solomon. But Deuteronomy is still about events that supposedly happened during the Exodus, so the reference to iron would be wrong.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 7:08 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

Nighttrain

Member (Idle past 4015 days)

Posts: 1512

From: brisbane,australia

Joined: 06-08-2004

Nighttrain Posts Only

Message 193 of 300 (385104)
02-14-2007 7:19 AM

Reply to: Message 184 by trance-lik-state
02-13-2007 6:32 PM

concrete and iron

How did Egypt erect the pyramids without iron?

All laid out for you in Davidovits` book--The Pyramids--An Enigma Solved. No cutting tools were found (or used) because they made use of geopolymer cements to cast blocks in situ. His company exports his re-discoveries to construction projects around the globe.

Surely these events predate Deuteronomy 33 by any chronology. What event marks the beginning of Iron I?

The discovery of rust in rocks? Actually artifacts made of meteoritic iron were around long before man (the Hittites?) starting working ore in quantity.

If we believe the Bible, Tubal-cain was a worker in iron (Gen 4:22).

This message is a reply to:
	Message 184 by trance-lik-state, posted 02-13-2007 6:32 PM		trance-lik-state has not replied

Nimrod

Member (Idle past 4938 days)

Posts: 277

Joined: 06-22-2006

Nimrod Posts Only

Message 194 of 300 (385641)
02-16-2007 2:34 PM

Reply to: Message 87 by Nimrod
01-17-2007 4:03 PM

Egyptian "conquest" in Crisis.

I have ALOT of stuff to type or various subjects (Its almost endless and I wish I had time, it may come a little slowly in the coming weeks.The amount keeps on increasing as more and more issues need to be responded to.I need to finish my "What Went Wrong" series which hasnt hardly started.I couldnt begin to respond to the severely outdated-about 70 years- comment's about Deuteronomy's date of composition in the time I have.I have to correct my HIGHLY PRE-MATURE comments about Bryant Woods Archaeological Study Bible articles-he actually admitted that the Jericho archaeological evidence goes against his LB1 destruction and that the evidence seems to support the MBA destruction!!!! Plus so much more)........... but will get back to the debate challenge, so we can see where we are now.

Lets remember there are several issues at play here.This "conquest" debate is also a challenge to the Egyptian assumptions that we have been throughly brain-washed over for seemingly ever.I will now see where we are in this discussion/debate.

I also mentioned that the Bible took the burden of perhaps being pelted with a deadly blow against its historical veracity if more northern destructions were found during the terminal-MBA Conquest of 1550 BCE.

I must say that I thought I actually found a number that could really put a dent in the Bibles high-precision accuracy for the period.I have been searching for evidence of northern destructions in the Conquest cities for the terminal-MBA WHERE THEY SHOULD NOT BELONG.

I found THIS publication summary!

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/.../wl/publications/yoqneam3.html

Remains of the Bronze Age were uncovered at Yoqne'am in Areas A1 and A4 (Photos L1-3). Area A1 is located on the northern slope of Tel Yoqne'am (Plan 1.1, Squares L-N/19-21, O/19, P/19-20). This area is a section excavated from the city wall of the Iron Age northward down the mound's slope. The earliest remains uncovered here, built directly on bedrock, are from the MB IIA. The entire stratigraphic sequence from the early MB IIA (Stratum XXV) to the end of the Late Bronze Age and into the Iron Age is represented in Area A1.
....
Though the architectural remains associated with Stratum XXb are better preserved in Area A4, we are unable to reach any comprehensive conclusions about the character of the transition between Stratum XXI and the new settlement erected immediately on top of it (Stratum XXb), due mainly to the badly preserved remains of the former. This transition is most evident in Area A1 (see the stratigraphic discussion of the Stratum XXb remains in both areas, Chapter 4). The interruption in the stratigraphic sequence between Strata XXI and XXb is not paralleled by the ceramic assemblages, which display continuity between these two strata. Moreover, in neither area did the excavation reveal any sign of a violent destruction that might explain the stratigraphic break and overall change in the nature of the architectural elements attributed to each stratum. Together with the ceramic evidence mentioned above, this phenomenon is of great significance for the character of the transition between the Middle Bronze Age and the Late Bronze Age.

A massive destruction terminated the LB I settlement at Yoqne'am (Stratum XXa), which was followed by an occupational gap. Stratum XIX marks the recovery of urban life at the site during the second half of the Late Bronze Age. This recovery is characterized by the reoccupation of the abandoned LB I site and the establishment of a new settlement on top of it. This stratum, like the one preceding it, ended with a violent destruction.

The ceramic assemblages uncovered on the floors of Strata XX-XIX are an important tool for the relative chronology and cultural attribution of these strata. These assemblages demonstrate that the earlier phase of Stratum XX (XXb) dates from the transitional MB IIC-LB I period, while the later phase of this same stratum (XXa) already belongs to the LB 1 culture. Stratum XIX with its two phases (XIXb and XIXa) should be dated, according to the ceramic evidence, to the LB II. Both strata ended in a violent destruction. The thick layer of debris separating these two strata represents an occupational gap at Yoqne'am following the destruction of Stratum XXa.

The destruction of Stratum XXa was an extreme event in the occupational sequence of Yoqne'am; after it the site was deserted until it was resettled during the LB II (Stratum XIXb). During the thirteenth century BCE the site underwent another violent destruction, which brought to an end the last Canaanite city at the site. The buildings of the early Iron Age I settlement (Stratum XVIII) were erected on top of the ruins of Stratum XIXa, signifying the beginning of a new cultural phase in the occupational history of Yoqne`am.

You may be wondering why I am mentioning this? Incase you missed it....

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Jokneam(PLACE)
...
A city in the Jezreel valley, mentioned in connection with the borders of the tribe of Zebulun.....It's king is mentioned in the list of rulers defeated by Joshua (Josh 12:22).
....

1.Bronze Age.The transition between MB and LB appears to have been XX was noted.......The LB settlement ended in a great disaster evidenced by a 1.5m thick destruction layer.

Anyway, the first destruction was from the terminal-LB1 period of 1400BCE.

LB1 was 1550-1400.

The Biblical conquest was the terminal-MBA of 1550.

Ill come back to this site for sure(perhaps in a new post so nobody misses it).

lets get egyptian chronology straight (see my post being responded to)

Now,lets look at some Egyptian campaigns.

FIRST
Keep in mind that Thutmose III's first campaign was in 1458

Thutmose III ruled for almost 54 years, and his reign is usually dated from April 24, 1479 to March 11, 1425 BCE.
.......

.....when Thutmose II died Thutmose III was too young to rule, so Hatshepsut became his regent and soon coregent, declaring herself to be the Pharaoh.[4] For approximately 22 years Thutmose III had little power over the empire while Hatshepsut assumed the formal titulary of kingship complete with a royal prenomen”Maatkare. After the death of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III ruled Egypt on his own for 32 years until his death in his 54th regnal year.[6]
.........

Thutmose III ruled from 1479 BC to 1425 BC according to the Low Chronology of Ancient Egypt. This has been the dominant theory in academic circles since the 1960's,[7] yet in some circles the dates 1504 BC to 1450 BC are still preferred.[8] These dates, like all the dates of the 18th Dynasty, are open to dispute because of uncertainty about the circumstances surrounding the recording of a Heliacal Rise of Sothis in the reign of Amenhotep I.[9] A papyrus from Amenhotep I's reign records this astronomical observation which could theoretically be used to perfectly correlate the Egyptian chronology with the modern calendar, however to do this the latitude where the observation was taken must also be known. This document has no note of the place of observation, but it can safely be assumed that it was taken in either a delta city like Memphis or Heliopolis, or in Thebes. These two latitudes give dates twenty years apart, the High and Low chronologies, respectively.

The length of Thutmose III's reign, is known to the day thanks to information found in the tomb of the court official Amenemheb.[10] Amenemheb records Thutmose III's death to his master's 54th regnal year,[11] on the thirtieth day of the third month of Proyet.[12] The day of Thutmose III's accession is known to be I Shemu day 4, and astronomical observations can be used to establish the exact dates of the beginning and end of the king's reign (assuming the low chronology) from April 24, 1479 BC to March 11, 1425 BC respectively.[13]

.....
Thutmose III appears to have first led two military excursions while he was reigning under Hatshepsut; these are not considered part of his seventeen campaigns, and predate his first campaign. One appears to have been to Syria and the other apparently to Nubia. These would have been late in Hatshepsut's reign, when Thutmose was apparently growing restless.[8]
...................

First Campaign

When Hatshepsut died on the tenth day of the sixth month of Thutmose III's twenty second year, the king of Kadesh moved his army to Megiddo.

Wikipedia
Thutmose III - Wikipedia

Also see
Egyptian chronology - Wikipedia

We can see that 1458 was the first campaign of Thutmose III.That is already 2/3rds of the way into the 1550-1400 Late Bronze Age 1.LB1.

NOW WE CAN CHECK THE "EGYPTIAN" "CONQUEST" and see how the archaeologists have played the rol of historians and really really bad ones at that.More fantasy-land propaganda that should have been rejected LONG ago.

Now look at William Dever try and twist the archaeological evidence.

Gezer(PLACE)
......
The MB city was brought to an end by a destruction that left three feet or more of burned bricks in every field investigated.Imported Monochrome and local Bi-chrome, as well as other transitional MB-LB pottery suggest a date as late as possible for this destruction. Provisionally ,it may be dated with the first campaign of Thutmose III where he claims to have destroyed Gezer on the walls of the temple of Amon at Karnak....

4.Late Bronze Age.Apart from a few hints in Macalister's material, the LB1A (early 15th century B.C.) is scarcely represented, so a partial desertion may have taken place following the Thutmose III destruction.Stratum XVII of LB IB (late 15th century) is also poorly known, except for cave 1.10A of fielf I, cut into the bedrock outside the "Inner wall".Most of the several dozen burials deposited in the lower level of this cave during a generation or so show signs of athritis, probably from stoop labor, which maye be an indication of the hardships of life during this period.However, imported Cypriot pottery, Egyptian glass, alabaster ivory vessels, and a unique terracotta sarcophagus of Mycenaean inspiration, all indicate international trade (Seger 1989).

A Renascence was underway by the beginning of LB11A, undoubtedly associated with the well-known Amarna period when Palestine was under Egyptian domination.Stratum XVI, which should provide the context for the ten known Amarna letters from gezer (Lance 1967; Ross 1967) was exposed extensively only in field VI, where unfortunately it had been almost entirely disurbed by later pits.Mere hints were preserved of what must once have been an impressive material culture.

A LB1 battle in the MBA archaeological strata?

Man o day.

When Bryant Wood tryed to do that eaxct same thing with Jericho (in relation to a "LB1 israelite Conquest" with essentially the same MBA pottery- he got pounded.... POUNDED.

Notice Dever looked for every excuse he could find to justify the small LBA evidence of occupation! And to make matters worse, he tryed to slip a c1450 battle (when the LB1 was mostly over!)back to even get to that point.The minute evidence of occupation is simply excused away.(I do think Gezer had inhabitants myself but where are the Bible-bashers and their "absence of evidence" insults now?)

Lets see what was said about Shechem

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

During the second half of the Hyksos period (M.B. IIC, ca.1650-1550 B.C.)a heavy "cyclopean" wall was erected around the city (Wall A),just outside the earthen embankment(C)....30 feet high.

...At the time wall A was erected, the courtyard complex was abandoned,and a great fortress-temple (migdAl) was built in its place.The Migdals stone podium survives as ahuge block of masonry,50 by 40 "long" or "sacred" cubits, and the walls of the cella are 10 long cubits thick (about 26 by 21 by 5 m, 85 by 70 by 17 ft.)Towers on each side of the entry (which is 14 cubits wide)......

The evidence suggests that the temple and fortificationswere completely destroyed in the Egyptian conquest of Hyksos Palestine,evidently in two campaigns perhaps of Ahmose and Amenophis I, ca. 1550-1540 B. C.

...After what appears to be an occupation gap of nearly a century, the city, its fortifications, and its temple were rebuilt.

There is no biblical record of a conquest of Shechem by Joshua.Rather one must presume that the whole of the central hill country from Bethel to Megiddo... came into Israels federation of tribes from covenant....

The Egyptians didnt defeat the Hyksos in Sharuhen till 1521BCE and then thats all they got.They didnt go far at all after that 3 year battle.

Yet somehow there was destruction in 1550 BCE in a highland town far west???!!!!

"Egyptian conquest" all-right!

Lets look at the near-by Tirzah

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Tirzah

"The MB gate and stratum 5 show burn destruction, which may be attributed to the raids into Canaan by the Egyptians in their expulsion of the Hyksos"

Sure!

Lets see what William the clown dever says about Hazor's 1550 destruction (at least it cant get any worse than the 1550 strata being assigned to a 1458 battle-like his Gezer interpretation!)

Anchor Bible Dictionary

Tell-el-Qedah
....

The Zenith of the lower City was reached in MBIII (stratum XVI=local stratum 3;ca. 1650-1550 B.C.).....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 ...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.

Does he have evidence for any of this?

First he gives credit to some successor of Ahmose (all came after 1515 and that just the start) for a 1550 destruction.

Did any claim to destroy hazor?

he just gives them credit even though they werent around and didnt claim a destruction (were they too shy to mention a destruction? We know those modest Egyptians!)

Then he skips down to Thutmose III and the c1450 battles.

More "absence of evidence" for Thutmose III destructions!

Lets take a look at Megiddo and see how far the Egyptians got there!

How about those Thutmose III destructions.

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Megiddo

b.Late Bronze Age. The Expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt and the campaign of Ahmose to Canaan ca. 1550 B.C. mark the renewal of Egyptian influence in the country.This event is usually adopted for the beginning of the LB Age. In general , it is very difficult to correlate the archaeological evidence from Canaan with the Egyptian inscriptional evidence. However, it seems quite possible that many cities in the S and inland regions of the country had been devastated, but not those in the coastal area and in particular not Megiddo, where no data indicating a destruction at that time have been found (Weinstein 1981).

The Egyptian conquest of Megiddo apparently occured in 1479 B.C. during the first Asian campaign of Thutmose III............... The Egyptians won the battle which followed, but the Canaanites managed to reach the city.Thutmose III laid seige and succeeded in Conquering megiddo after seven months.....

The battle of Megiddo established the Egyptian domination in Canaan and Megiddo.The Conquest of the city has been taken as an archaeological turning point between strata IX and VIII, but Shea (1979)is right that the annals do not mention a destruction of the city, and remains of such a destruction were not discerned in the excavation

There is a dance.

He said this incase anybody missed it

In general, it is very difficult to correlate the archaeological evidence from Canaan with the Egyptian inscriptional evidence.

How does Laish do?

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Laish (place)...
Var. LESHEM

A city in the extreme N of canaan.. that at least a part of the Israelite tribe of Dan ...attacked and conquered and made their new home....

The excavations of Laish (see more detailed discussion in DAN (PLACE)...

LB Laish is attested in Thutmose III's list of Canaanite cities (no.31: ANET, 242), but the evidence of his campaign at Laish has not been located in the excavations.
....

Dale w. Manor

The detailed Dan article says

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Dan
.....
During the MB, the city was about 30 acres........The vessels are to be dated to the MBII and III.Evidence of a destruction at the end of this period comes from two squares in which a thick layer of destruction by fire was found, containing cooking pots, bowls, and other Juglets of the end of the MBIII
.....
"While Laish appears in a historical contet in the lists of Thutmose III, the excavations have so far shed no light on this campaign, but two finds reflect contacts with Egypt.One is a red granite statuette of a man in a sitting position,Nefertem by name, found in secondary use in a wall of the Isrelite period.The statuette is of a well-known type used in the ritual of the dead, dated to the 19th Dyn., ca. the 14th century BCE. Another fragment of an Egyptian statuette was found on the surface.Originally from the Middle Kingdom, it bears a secondary incription of the Ptolemaic period.
Biran

What a nice job the historians have done.Like with every other city, they assume the israelite Conquest was c1200 at the end of the LBA. And somehow try and make excuses for an Egyptian "conquest" that has 0% evidence. (or in William Dever's case, he just moves the stratigraphy from 1450BCE into a 1550 context without telling anybody, and then acts as if people are too stupid to figure out what he has done)

They notice their was burn destruction in the terminal-MBA.

Observe this .....

Anchor Bible Dictionary
Laish (place)...
.......

It was against this LB city that the Danites mustered their forces; the city apparently recieved no defensive assistance from their neighboring powers (Judg 18:7, 28).The text states that the Danites burned the town (v 27), but no evidence for a widespread destruction by fire on this transitional horizon has been found at the site.

Dale W. Manor

They have evidence that the Israelites were there in c1200? i guess they do with merenptah, but the assumptions, poor scholarship, and blindness is simply amazing.

Historical crapola!

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 87 by Nimrod, posted 01-17-2007 4:03 PM		Nimrod has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 195 by Nimrod, posted 02-16-2007 3:50 PM		Nimrod has not replied

Nimrod

Member (Idle past 4938 days)

Posts: 277

Joined: 06-22-2006

Nimrod Posts Only

Message 195 of 300 (385647)
02-16-2007 3:50 PM

Reply to: Message 194 by Nimrod
02-16-2007 2:34 PM

Egyptian "conquest" in Crisis continued.

Back to the Yoqneam issue (ALMOST found a Joshua northern-Conquest city that may have contradicted the Bible!)

From the link.
http://www.fas.harvard.edu/.../wl/publications/yoqneam3.html

The transition between the MB II and the LB I is one of the most intriguing within the sequence of cultures in Canaan , and one of the most problematic to define and date. It has consequently been the focus of a number of studies attempting to establish its cultural and chronological framework (see, among many others, Weinstein 1981, 1991; Dever 1992 and references there). Though the material uncovered by the numerous excavations of stratified sites in Palestine during the past 60-70 years has added valuable information, this issue is still a controversial one, as attested by the disagreement even on its basic terminology. This time span is characterized by the difficulty of correlating the changes observed in the material culture with the historical events that took place in Canaan at the close of the seventeenth and in the first half of the sixteenth centuries BCE. The destruction and abandonment of late Middle Bronze Age sites in the mid-sixteenth century BCE has conventionally been assigned by scholars to the military campaigns of the Egyptians kings of the early 18th Dynasty as part of their efforts to drive the Hyksos out of Egypt and destroy their power in Canaan. In recent years, however, this view has been challenged by scholars such as Redford (1979), Shea (1979) and Hoffmeier (1989), who have au-gested several alternative explanations for the destructions and abandonments of the MB IIC-LB I. Furthermore, several different chronological schemes have been suggested for the end of the Middle Bronze Age.

I will quote more, but here is what the best authority on Ancient Egypt said.

The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt
(Donald Redford ed)
HYKSOS
.......

Manfred Bietak

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 are , perhaps, not less difficult.The Middle Bronze Age city-states in inland Palestine were not attacked until the time of Thutmose III.

Note that Bietak feels the 18th dynasty started at 1539 BCE.Like most do now.

I have respect for Bietak because he is FIRST OF ALL honest (take notes William Dever)and also he is the finest archaeologist there is.A genuine scholar as well.

He places the MBA end all the way down to 1458 mainly due to the massive problems in making anything the Egyptians did (in their "conquest") fit the archaeological evidence.

Back to the link of Jokneam

On the other hand, the archaeological realia have to be confronted with the historical picture, and here the ceramic assemblages are significant. According to the archaeological evidence, the appearance of new ceramic families which are considered hallmarks of the LB I, namely the Chocolate-onWhite and Bichrome Wares (as well as other ceramic types and families; see Chapter 7), is used as a cultural criterion marking the end of the MB IIC and heralding the beginning of the LB I culture in Palestine. Since the early appearance of these ceramic families in Palestine is closely related and considered to be synchronic (around 1600 BCE), it is clear that the cultural change preceded the historical change that took place several decades later.

It is hoped that the evidence of the stratigraphy, combined with the ceramic analysis and the typological comparison with other sites, will form a solid foundation for the following discussion, in which we shall attempt to reconstruct the occupational history of Yoqne'am during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages.

.....
Parallels for the different vessels were primarily sought in Jezreel Valley sites ( Megiddo , Tel Qashish, Tel Qiri) in the vicinity of Yoqne'am. Megiddo and Yoqne'am are the most important Bronze Age sites in the Jezreel Valley , each located next to a major road junction (Wadi `Ara and Wadi Milek respectively). The comparison of Yoqne'am with these neighboring sites in terms of material culture emphasizes the relationship between the sites in the different periods.

http://www.fas.harvard.edu/.../wl/publications/yoqneam3.html

Very very interesting.

Make ones wonder about the where all the anti-Bible "absence of evidence" smarty pants are when the issue is with regards to the "Egyptian conquest".

(The ironic thing is that few here at EVC seem to know that the much maligned K.A. Kitchen invented line of "absence of evidence" actually WAS NOT used with regards to the Bible much. I am about the only person here that heard him say that with regards to Egyptian Iron Age chronology-not related to this MBA&LBA issue here- LONG before I ever heard him use it with regards to biblical events.

Kenneth Kitchen - Wikipedia

A phrase often used by Kitchen is "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" meaning that the lack of higher dated monuments or inscriptions for a certain Pharaoh's reign does not exclude the possibility that this ruler enjoyed a longer reign than is generally assumed. The increasing number of higher dated archaeological finds in Egypt for certain Third Intermediate Period era kings such as a Year 13 stela for Takelot III at Dakhla in February 2005, a Year 7 annal document for Pami, and the discovery of a burial inscription from Vizier Padiamonet's Deir El-Bahari tomb in early 2006--which is dated to Year 27 of the Nubian king Piye--certainly validates Kitchen's contention here.

Before I even knew Kitchen was a Christian, I had ONLY heard him use the term with regards to Egyptian chronological issues.

People (Bible-critics)abuse the context of his Biblical use (again NOT HIS MAIN USE) anyway.

Back to Egyptian chronology.

Anybody want to admit it doesnt fit the 1550 destructions?

And this is an issue of CLEAR stratigraphy (not just chronology).The lines simply dont match.I would say they CANT.

And if you are man enough to admit it doesnt fit, then do you feel foolish for not detecting the b.s. that we have been subjected to?

Why wory about a fundie (Bryant wood)sliding the 1550 destructions into the the latter 1/3rd of 1550-1400 LBA when you ALREADY seem to be swallowing it?

Biblical-Conquest critics?

Are you there?

Listening?

Well?

(The scary thing is that Wood actually has admitted he may have been wrong and infact seems to accept it, Ill get some quotes-that will be one of my projects in the coming weeks.WHEW! Wait till we see the tables turn lol!)

Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 194 by Nimrod, posted 02-16-2007 2:34 PM		Nimrod has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 196 by ConsequentAtheist, posted 02-16-2007 7:22 PM		Nimrod has not replied

Date format: mm-dd-yyyy

Timezone: ET (US)

Rew

...

Newer Topic | Older Topic

Do Nothing Button

4 online now:	dwise1, LamarkNewAge, Percy (Admin), Rahvin
Newest Member:	ChatGPT
Post Volume:	Total: 916,471 Year: 3,728/9,624 Month: 599/974 Week: 212/276 Day: 52/34 Hour: 0/2