Dating the Exodus

About 60+ a few.edited to add, too young to have been an eyewitness for the Exodus. This message has been edited by jar, 08-15-2004 11:27 PM

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Are you seriously over sixty? Or just fibbing a bit?This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-16-2004 12:05 AM

Born the same day the Casablanca Conference started.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Hi WT,The Cambridge AHC didn't refute me at all, it actually suports my hypothesis very well. The CAHC tells us that the only end of occupation level is dated to 1220 BCE, there is no level earlier than this. The Bible claims that Joshua ended occupation at Hazor, now it is a simple choice after this information is known:We have a claim that Joshua ended the occupation of Hazor.There is only one level in the Hazor records that show an end of occupation.Therefore, either Joshua ended the occupation of Hazor in 1220 or someone/something else did.If Joshua did not end the occupation in 1220 then, by Bible chronology, he HAD to end occupation in 1400.There is no end of occupation level in 1400 BCE, the Cambrisge agrees with this when they talk about the ending of Mycenaean pottery, they even say that occupation of the city came to an end in the 13th century.Is there an end of occupation layer at Hazor that can be dated to 1400 BCE?Could I just point out that the edition you are using is the 1962 edition. You do know that the majority of Yadin's work was after this date? Therefore, the 1962 edition cannot contain Yadin's work. I go with Joshua because there is only one end of occupation layer at Hazor, if there was an earlier one then I could associate that one with Joshua, but there isn't.Maybe Barak did attack Hazor and end occupation, but that means that Joshua didnt. Yadin died in 1984, but here is a link to his bio,Yigael Yadin I could have explained this better, what I meant was, that in general terms, IF you are not sure about something, you are man enough to admit it. I was speaking in general terms, thats all. This is just the nature of scientific enquiry WT. Archaeology doesn't claim to prove anything for certain, no historian SHOULD claim that their theory proves anything. They may claim that it is the best explanation based on the evidence available, but they should know that a future discovery could come along and falsify their theory. Given this possibility, a historian cannot say their theory is proven.But, although archaeology doesnt claim to prove anything, it is extremely good at disproving.Catch you later.Brian.

Brian, if you are thinking of publishing, I can give you a run-down on the joys of hard copy versus Ebooks. Email me. My son and I sell a number of our own works as Ebooks.Nothing scholarly,mind, but the principles are the same.

Hi H,I will answer your post shortly.But, can you answer this question with a 'yes' or a 'no' please?Do the Amarna Letters tell of a large scale invasion from outside Canaan by a huge army of 'apiru?Yes or no answer please.Brian.

I'm sorry but the answer is inconclusive. However, like I said, the facts don't support your assertion that the two events are incompatible.I'm going to start looking into your take on the Jericho and Ai issue now.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-16-2004 11:06 AM

I am asking specifically about the contents of the Letters, do they mention a large scale invasion or not?Regardless of any external data, do the Letters themselves mention a large scale invasion from outside of Canaan?Brian.

I'd like to raise a couple of minor points.1) These are the same letters that David Rohl interprets as being about the wars of Saul and David. There is no clear match with the Biblical book of Joshua (and I believe that Hydarnes is admitting as much).2) If the Exodus is placed at the end of the reign of Amenhotep III - which is one of the dates Lysimachus has argued - then we should not expect to see Joshua's invsaion in the Amarna letters. At least not unless the 40 years the Israelites supposedly spent in the wilderness are shortened or the Amarna period is lengthened.

Hi Paul,1. I would imagine if Saul and David were involved then the Letters should mention 'israel' as the monarchy would already have been establiched and Israel would already be settled in Canaan.2. I think Lysimachus talked about moving back Amenhotep's reign to Thutmosis IV's time, as Lysimachus argues that these two guys were actually the same person. But, anything after around 1350 would be missed by the Amarna Letters. If there was an invasion into Canaan at the time of the Letters then we would expect it to be mentioned yes. Truth is, the Amarna Letters ONLY talk about internal conflict, there is not even the slightest hint at any group involved from outside the land.Brian.

Is that fully correct? I always felt that some, particularly the letter from Gubla (Biblos) that he used in his last post, point towards pressure coming from the Hittites and Amorites to the North. Biblos was along the Northern Border and the Hittites had recently conquered other Egyptian Vassals and Phoenician allies. So it seems to me there is some indication of outside pressure but I have not seen any indications of an Israel as described in Exodus.For example, consider EA 75

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

1) I personally don't buy Rohl's chronology, but I think it was worth mentioning the quite different interpretation he puts forward.2) To clarify what I meant on this point, I'm not talking about absolute dates here but dates relative to the accession of Amenhotep IV (Akenaten). If Amenhotep III died in the Exodus as Lysimachus argued, then Joshua's invasion should be 40 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. Amarna, however, was abandoned about 25 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. The Tuthmosis=Amenhotep argument doesn't touch this point.

Oh joy, I just lost my whole large write-up, I submitted and the silly thing gave me a "page could not be displayed", went back and it was blank. *sigh* What can you do?To address the question. As I indicated, there seem to be portions contained in the letters that convey a more organized threat, whereas others suggestively belie that possibility, either way, the Amarna letters support the Exodus.And the primary significance is:That irrespective of whether or not the letters proffer any value whatsoever to the actual Conquest of Joshua itself (most likely an i), they most assuredly bear testament to a time when Egypt's military and economic situation imperiled and finally culminated into an international collapse of Empire (later to be partially restored by the 19th dynasty rulers)--illustrated by the political upheavel inherent in the letters. These facts correlate perfectly with a post-Exodus scenario and also fits surprisingly well with the circa date for the Exodus. With this we are poignantly reminded that Egypt had lost both its military and economic vigor after the Exodus, and the events that transpired during the time of Akhenaten are compelling support for this.And whether the Amarna letters connect with the events of the conquest as described in scripture yet remains a point of much scholarly debate, although I highly doubt that they could be referring to a mid-conquest era, and most probably circumstances that would precipitate a post-Exodus conquest.The historical record also dismisses the ignorant gesture that perhaps Akhenaten was "more concerned with internal matters than with minor, petty squabbles between vassal kings". The Hittites had soon invaded the kingdom of Mitanni, Egypt's most important ally at the time, and overthrew them along with murdering Tushratta, their king. Not to mention also that Byblos was was destroyed and its king eliminated. These were hardly matters that were inconsequential to the stability and well-being of the Empire.

quote:

---

2) To clarify what I meant on this point, I'm not talking about absolute dates here but dates relative to the accession of Amenhotep IV (Akenaten). If Amenhotep III died in the Exodus as Lysimachus argued, then Joshua's invasion should be 40 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. Amarna, however, was abandoned about 25 years after the accession of Amenhotep IV. The Tuthmosis=Amenhotep argument doesn't touch this point.

---

Exactly, and which is why I am hesitant to unreservedly espouse the idea that the invasion directly occured under Akhenaten, because there must be at least a 40 year gap according to the record.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-16-2004 12:48 PM

You are ranting and asserting lie.The GP proves the existence of God and this is why secularists want nothing to do with it.This is why they "refute" by insult and arguing the man.