Reliable history in the Bible

While the speeches are unique, the teachings are not. Those values taught are an eclectic mix of various sects that were about. Some of which seems to be from the Essenes, others from the Hillel school of pharisaic thought. [qs] And the people who wrote the specific gospels were unable to write something unique to promote their specific theology?Many of the lessons are contradictory. Some show a Jesus of peace, others , if you read it plain, show a more militant Jesus (which of course, is interpreted Spiruitually, rather than literally).There is a big difference between 'Go and sin no more', and "I come not for peace by with a sword".You also have to , in your musings, take into account the gnostic point of view of Jesus. There are so many contradictory beliefs about Jesus, and then there was the 'filter' of convention that the writings went through (via the Council of Nicea.Because of the various different view points in the surviving texts, I am more likely to see the Jesus presented is a composite of a number of people,sects.

There are two simpler explanations one could make, per Ockham.1. Some event won sufficient renown to be recorded. It is not necessary to invoke a miracle. It is only necessary to allow that some people viewed it as such.2. (Specific to the Lazarus story) 'Sufficient renown to be recorded' does not appear to be a factor here as John is the only one who mentions this miracle. Matthew, Mark and Luke, along with contemporaries such as Paul of Tarsus, take no note of it. These other writers had every reason to call attention to such a stupendous event if they knew of it. The simplest explanation is that John made up the story. This argument has already been advanced by others, but here's my version.Evidence for existence and evidence for miracles is not the same on balance. As a result, any new evidence has to pass a different standard for acceptance.Existence is an everyday thing. We know people can exist because we watch them do it all the time. We do it ourselves.If artifacts from the period tell us a person existed and we have no evidence to the contrary, we may reasonably accept it, however provisionally.Miracles are not everyday. By definition they represent happenings that are, in the common experience of human beings worldwide, impossible.If artifacts from the period tell us a miracle happened, we may reasonably withhold assent because overwhelming evidence to the contrary already exists. Reason requires more concrete evidence than hearsay to overturn the combined weight of universal human experience.The quality of the evidence is substantially different.The existence of a story is prima facie evidence for a storyteller. The story could not be here without one. Likewise, the existence of a teaching is prima facie evidence for a teacher. The teaching could not be here without one. The rest is attribution.The existence of a story is hearsay evidence for a miracle. A story about a miracle can easily exist without the miracle.This is not to say attributions are made of the same solid stuff as simple knowledge that a storyteller or teacher existed. But we do know in this case that an attribution is in order. When it comes to quality of evidence, we are already way ahead of the miracle scenario. I agree the analogy is not perfect. But it's a little better than that.Shakespeare's plays do exist in different versions. All purport to represent Shakespeare's words. In spite of the discrepancies, the common material makes it reasonable to accept, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the attribution given in all the versions: a single source known as 'Shakepeare' lies behind this common material.Yeshua's teachings exist in different versions (Matthew, Mark, Luke). All purport to represent Yeshua's sayings. In spite of the discrepancies, the unity of vision still makes it reasonable to accept, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the attribution given in all the versions: a single source known as 'Yeshua' lies behind the common material.Scholars generally believe the three Synoptic writers drew from one document containing the collected sayings of Yeshua. If so, we may say their goal resembled that of Elizabethan editors publishing annotated editions of Shakespeare's plays. You would see expect to see less variation in the text of the plays but much more variety in the content of the annotations. This is pretty much the kind of situation we encounter in the Synoptics. Much common material appears in the Synoptics' portrait of Yeshua.We have multiple writers (the three Synoptic authors) whose portraits show clear consistencies. The simplest explanation for the consistency is shared material--a common source.If a common source existed, that source could be an influential teacher whose ideas were recorded--OR--an influential teacher who credited a (perhaps fictional) person named Yeshua as the source of his ideas--OR--an influential teacher who had his ideas credited by others to a (perhaps fictional) person named Yeshua.If no common source existed, the authors, or a group they relied upon, colluded to produce the common material.One then has to decide which is more plausible: that a single source existed, or that the common material is the result of committee work.If one decides a common source is more likely, one is left with Yeshua the Teacher or 'Yeshua the Teacher.' Either you get Yeshua or someone who might as well be for all practical purposes Yeshua.If one decides committee work is more likely, one is obligated to show how the evidence for collusion better outweighs the evidence for a single source as an explanation of the common material.We know more than simply that the authors themselves existed.Here is your statement again with one name changed.

quote:

---

all we really know is that "matthew" and "mark" and "luke" and "john" existed, even if those were not really their names. isn't matthew, mark, luke and john a simpler explanation than matthew, mark, luke, john and pontius pilate? shouldn't sir william of ockham shave pontius pilate out of the picture?

---

For many years this argument was made by those who dismissed the idea that Pilate ever existed. He is a prominent figure in all four Gospels but outside the Gospels he was unknown to history. On this basis many people suggested he was a fiction.Since 1961 we know not only that 'Matthew' Mark' 'Luke' and 'John' existed, we also know Pontius Pilate existed. That's the year that a limestone block was discovered in Caesarea Palaestina with Pilate's name inscribed on it. Archaelogists believe it to be genuine, the remnant of a building erected during his prefecture of Judea.Today we have concrete evidence (limestone, actually) that the Gospels in combination are perfectly capable of supplying evidence for the existence of a real person whose name is otherwise lost to history.It has thus been established that dismissing a prominent Gospel figure as a fiction--on the basis of lack of outside evidence alone--is not the safest way to shave.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Hi archie, I have heard this argument many times, usually from Christians, but it is incorrect.Pilate is mentioned by Josephus, Philo, and possibly even Tacitus, so there has always been evidence supporting an historical Pilate.Philo was even a contemporary source, so it is strong evidence.Also, no one has ever been able to tell me the name of one of these people who suggested that Pilate was a fiction.Brian.

Point taken.Many sources do allude to a debate about the historicity of Pilate, including the main Wiki article which says the 1961 discovery 'settled' it.
Pontius Pilate - WikipediaBut even though mention of a 'debate' about Pilate's existence abound, none I have found provide the details you have asked for, either. It is a vexing exercise to try to find mention of this debate in a source one can trust not to be biased.Speaking of which: while the article on Pilate at Wiki is really pretty good, the entry for Pilate Stone is a disaster after the opening paragraph.The much-reported 'debate' over Pilate's existence may be an urban legend. Apologists do love to perpetuate them. Or it may refer to a minority view that really did exist. It could be that people remember a debate about Pilate's historicity that took place mainly among interested non-specialists hanging out in the pre-1961 equivalent of message boards. Their thoughts on the subject would be less likely to be preserved than that of scholars in the field. (Example: Scholars today generally accept that a 'historical Jesus' existed. The general view is that his teachings were recorded in a source document that was used by the Synoptic authors. But you'd never know this consensus existed by reading discussions at EvC.) Mention of a 'debate' about Pilate may also be in part a misrepresentation of the real and ongoing debate about how much to trust the episodes involving Pilate in the Gospel narratives.As for the references you cite: neither Tacitus nor Joephus (I knew of both) are contemporary figures. They wrote some decades after Pilate left office in a time when the Gospels were already being written and promulgated. For this reason anyone doubting the existence of Pilate would simply doubt the veracity of these texts as we have them. They could postulate that mentions of Pilate were deliberately placed in these texts by Christians who found it awkward that his name did not appear where it should have. People assert hypotheses just like this, after all, if the subject turns to the mention of Jesus in Josephus.It bugs me that I was unaware of Philo's mention of Pilate. Philo, as you say, was a contemporary. Skeptics in any debate that once existed could still argue that Christians tampered with the text. But by this point the weight of extra-canonical evidence for Pilate really adds up.I thus stand corrected on my last point. It is valid to point to Pilate's existence as an example of a Gospel figure corresponding to a historical person. One can legitimately view this as lending plausibility to the idea that other figures in the Gospels may represent real persons. But it is not correct to say, as I did, that no contemporary evidence for Pilate existed outside the Gospels before 1961.___Edited by Archer Opterix, : cleanup.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

These points are all interesting. It's worth mentioning, though, that nothing here weighs against the possibility of a historical Yeshua. On the contrary: every situation described is par for the course in the case of an influential historical personality.Choose any famous figure whose existence is not doubted. Vergil, Dante, Joan of Arc, Elizabeth I, Lincoln, Nixon, Mao. Their ideas and work all show the influence of others. Their work is in turn portrayed in different and sometimes contradictory ways in subsequent portraits. Some portraits are fanciful and some more realistic. In time (if not right away) most portraits take on the quality of icons or myths rather than realistic portrayals of an actual person. All are composites.BTW - Although your post is billed as a response to me, an isolated bit of code in it (paragraph 2) suggests you are quoting that question. The question isn't mine.
___Edited by Archer Opterix, : typo repair.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

quote:

---

ts hard to seperate the possiblity of there being a real person from the stuff the book says he did, like i have argued, just because theres a book about him doesn't make him real. people like to bring up how illogical it seems for men to make up a fake person to foster a religion, the problem is that people have shown over 6 thousand years that it is possible.

---

OK, I'm curious. So far as I can see i is entirely pluaisble that there was some person behind the stories. It is certainly true - as you point out - that legends tend to accumulate around significant figures. Perhaps more so when relgious belief is involved.But I'm not familiar with any close parallel to the supposed invention of Jesus. Yes, religious make up fake histories, puttign their roots in the distant past. Occult groups have claimed contact with people who it seems did not exist - but never as people present and active in their circles. Mark was likely written less than 40 years after Jesus's death. Can you provide an example of a close parallel in a similar timeframe ?

What "seems to be from the Essenes", and on what evidence do you claim the historicity of Hillel? what writing was filtered "via the Council of Nicea"?

The concept of baptism, and they were heavy believers in the coming of a messiah for one. They reached out to the poor. They believed in a ressurrection (abet a spiritual one, not a physical one). They were concerned with the battle of between "light and darkness', a concept
mimiced in Corthians, 1 peter, the gospel of John,and 1 john.Hillel was recored in not only the talmud, but was extensively quoted in the Pirqe Avot. He is the founder of the 'house of hillel'Josephus talks about Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel I being Hillel's great grandson.As for the 'editing' of the Council of Nicea, they rejected all the gnostic gospels. Such gospels as 'The gospels of Thomas', and "the sophia of Jesus Christ" were eliminated. Apparently, the Gospel of John was modified somewhat to make it a non-gnositic book (In the 4th century, euribus used the Gospel of John as a book against the Gnostics, yet another tritarian , Epiphanius, argued against it, saying it was written by the Gnostic priest Cerinthus.Then there was secret mark, and The secret book of James, and a whole range of gnostic books that were rejected, and attempted to be destroyed.Edited by ramoss, : No reason given.

Outstanding evidence, no doubt.By the way, what might be the date of the Talmud and the Pirqe Aboth, how much of its content would you claim as historically accurate, and on what grounds would you assert these texts serve as better evidence for the historicity of Hillel than do the writings of the early Christians serve as evidence for the historicity of Yeshua? And why is Josephus to be taken at face value when talking about Gamliel's relationship to Hillel but not when talking about James' relationship to Jesus?Parenthetically, you might wish to read up on the Council of Nicea ... Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.Edited by ConsequentAtheist, : No reason given.

What date would you assign to the Israelite Conquest of Canaan?I know you said MBA/LBA, but the dates for these are not universal.So, before I comment on the rest of your post and the alleged 'clear archaeological evidence', could you supply me with a date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites?Cheers.Brian.

(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.

But they are extremely important to any historian or archaeologist. Chronology is the backbone of history, as Theile informs us in The Chronology Of the Kings of Judah and Israel. Yes, 1550 is not a problem. What does the Hyksos expulsion have to do with Joshua’s ”conquest’ of Canaan? David Rohl is in this for the money, his ’New Chronology’ has been trashed by everyone, including Kitchen. I think the only reasonable date (if I was to be pressed) for a conquest is around 1200 BCE, however, I think the Conquest is completely fictional. But, there’s a few problems here. For a start the Bible claims that the Exodus was in 1446 BCE, thus the ”Conquest’ would be around 1400 BCE, when, of course, Jericho was not occupied. Another problem would be the inability of any scholar to produce a single shred of evidence that there was such a thing as an Israelite running around the Ancient Near East in 1550 BCE. Populations vanishing could be as a result of the seismic activity in the region. I don’t have to show you anything, you are the one claiming that the Israelites under Joshua swept all before them from 1550-1545 BCE. So, in 1545 BCE we should see the whole of Palestine under Israelite control, either that or the Book of Joshua is mistaken.So, do you have ANY evidence of Israelites in Palestine around 1550 BCE? I have no wish to move any dates. Why? Your are second guessing me, and way off target.I do not think that there was an enslavement, an Exodus, a Conquest, a period of the Judges, or a united monarchy, I believe that they are all fictional, so I don’t need to move anything, or juggle the evidence. Well, Bryant Wood is just a brain dead fundy who interpreted the evidence through the Bible first and his revision of Kenyon’s work was shown to be extremely amateur and poorly constructed. No it isn’t clear at all!We have mountains of evidence that there were Egyptians in the ANE, yet you haven’t provided a single shred of evidence that there were Israelites in existence to destroy anything! Please don’t feel bad about this because not a single scholar has been able to provide any evidence of an Israelite during this period.You also seem to ignore the plethora of evidence for earthquakes in this region, thi sis one reason that Kenyon gave for the destruction of city walls. From which you omitted seismic activity. Okay let’s do that.We will take it one city at a time, and let’s do it in the order that the Bible gives.So, according to the Book of Joshua, right after the destruction of Jericho the Israelites went on to the next town:Joshua 7:2-5 Now Joshua sent men from Jericho to Ai, which is near Beth Aven to the east of Bethel, and told them, "Go up and spy out the region." So the men went up and spied out Ai. When they returned to Joshua, they said, "Not all the people will have to go up against Ai. Send two or three thousand men to take it and do not weary all the people, for only a few men are there." So about three thousand men went up; but they were routed by the men of Ai, who killed about thirty-six of them. They chased the Israelites from the city gate as far as the stone quarries and struck them down on the slopes. At this the hearts of the people melted and became like water. The Israelites had a minor set back here, and we are told it was because of Achan that God allowed Israel to lose the battle. But, after stoning Achan and his family to death (what his family had done wrong we are not told), we are told in chapter 8 that Joshua and his army:When Israel had finished killing all the men of Ai in the fields and in the desert where they had chased them, and when every one of them had been put to the sword, all the Israelites returned to Ai and killed those who were in it. Twelve thousand men and women fell that day”all the people of Ai. For Joshua did not draw back the hand that held out his javelin until he had destroyed all who lived in Ai. But Israel did carry off for themselves the livestock and plunder of this city, as the LORD had instructed Joshua.
So Joshua burned Ai and made it a permanent heap of ruins, a desolate place to this day. He hung the king of Ai on a tree and left him there until evening. At sunset, Joshua ordered them to take his body from the tree and throw it down at the entrance of the city gate. And they raised a large pile of rocks over it, which remains to this day.So, there is no doubt that after conquering Jericho, the Israelites then destroyed Ai.Does this fit in with your clear archaeological evidence?It doesn’t fit in with the evidence that the archaeologists that have excavated there report. For example, Judith Marquet Krause excavated Ai from 1933-35 and concluded that it was unoccupied from 2400 BCE until 1200 BCE, this is reinforced by the excavations of Joseph Calloway, who excavated the site from 1964-76 and he came to the same conclusion. There was no walled city at Ai after 2400 BCE, and the only sing of occupation was a small hut dated to about 1200 BCE.So, how can Joshua and his armies have conquered Ai, killed 12 000 men and women, hung its king on a tree, and plundered the city when there was nothing at Ai in 1550 BCE?Another problem you may be able to solve is the reference in Exodus 1:11, namely the building of the cities of Pithom and Rameses. I do not see any Pharaoh named Rameses on your list there, so how can the Israelites have helped to build the city of Rameses II if he wasn’t born until a few hundred years after you have your conquest?There are many more problems with your scenario, but I think there’s enough to be going on with.Brian.

On the other hand, there is a lot of contradictions, known interpolitions, the fact that the historical record of Pilate deviates signifigently from the Gospel's presentation of him, the definate theological bias of the descriptions of Jesus, and the fact the description of the trial goes against Jewish law, and Roman law.If there was a 'historical' Jesus, I personally think he would bear very little resemblence that the description in the Gospels give him.
It appears to me that the 'legend' of Jesus developed quite much like the 'legend' of King Arthur.I suspect that if Jospehus was correct when it comes to the timeframe that John the Baptist was executed, and the Christian tradition that Jesus was born after John the Baptist, there is the potential that Jesus was the 'Samaratian messiah' who was executed by Pilate in the
"samaratian massacre' in 36 c.e. This is the incident that caused Pilate to be removed from Judah.Jospehus had John the Baptist being exceuted in 34 or 35 c.e. The Christian tradition has him being executed 28 or 29 c.e.

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.