Dating the Exodus

Hi H, So you are using Wood, that's fine. We can discuss it on the Jericho / Ai thread as you suggest. Just trying to save you a lot of unnecessary typing. You didnt miss anything Hydarnes, I haven't had time to reply yet. If I don't reply to a post Hydarnes it is just because I am extremely busy, but I will reply to everything you post.The problem began with the discovery of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. But discoveries of the 30’s and 40's have made the equation invalid. With the discovery and publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa the proof was produced, in the 1920’s, for Winckler's supposition that the Sumeriogram sa.gaz which, according to the lexicographical lists, has the reading habbatu (m) 'robbers' (and 'itinerant workers'), is to be read in the Akkadian (and Hittite) texts of the Hittite and Syro-Palestinian state offices usually, even if not exclusively, hab/piru (Wieppert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Scholarly Debate 1971, SCM Press, London, page 64)The general characteristic of the 'Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East. In short, an ‘Apiru could have been a Hittite, Hurrian, Phoenician, or almost any other nationality of the ancient near east, they were not identified by their ethnicity. They were a social stratum, best defined as outsiders, people on the fringes of society, or people with no political affiliations.The one trait that best comprehends all the 'apiru appears to be that of the outsider status they occupy in comparison with the regnant social and political order. The term "outlaw" conveniently catches the double nuance of the 'apiru as those who stand recognisably outside the prevailing order, both as "fugitives" or "refugees" who flee from the dominant order and as "robbers" or "rebels" who prey upon or threaten the dominant order.But "outlaw," except as broadly redefined, tends to miss the many grades and variations of adaptation of which the 'apiru "outsiders" were capable vis-a-vis the dominant social order. While standing distinguishably apart from the existing order, they also relied upon it insofar as their livelihood was dependent upon the wider society, for which they often worked either as individual "contract labourers" or as hired groups of soldiers, agricultural labourers, or construction gangs. (Gottwald N K, 1979 The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 BCE , SCM Press, London, p. 402)A major problem for equating the ‘Apiru with the Hebrews is that whereas the Hebrews were said to be an ethnic group situated solely within Egypt, the ‘Apiru are mentioned in texts from all over the ancient nears east in a time frame lasting from c.2000 -1200 BCE.
Initially, the apparent similarity between the terms had the ‘biblical archaeologists’ all excited and they were sure that the Amarna ‘Apiru were indeed the Hebrews, but the ‘Apiru are too frequently mentioned in different areas and times to support the equation. For example, in Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after;

​

in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role.

​

documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.

​

In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them,
as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).

​

They are likewise mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).

​

Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt.

​

The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all.

​

Obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Bright, J. 1972 A History of Israel , SCM Press, London, page 92)Now according to the dates we have been getting on this thread, the Exodus happened in 1446, but at the same time, in the Alalakh texts from fifteenth-century northern Syria, settlements of 'Apiru are recorded in forty-three places, where they appear as state supported warriors. In a few instances the former occupations of ‘Apiru are listed. In Alalakh Tablet (AT) 180, some of the former occupations of the ‘Apiru are given, they included, ‘an armed thief, a priest, and even an hazannu official’ (Wiseman, D J. ‘The Alalakh Tablets’, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, London 1953, p.12)Now the etymology of the word since the original assertion was that the word Habiru=Hebrew. In 1939 it became clear beyond all doubt that the consonantal element of the word ha-bi-ru, which could not be clearly determined from the cuneiform script, had to be established as '-p-r, whereby at least all etymologies dependent on the root *HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with *'BR and the 'ibrim became dubious. The word ‘Apiru is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word is not known for certain: ‘there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (Gottwald, page 401).Another myth that needs to be exposed is this erroneous belief that the ‘Apiru invaded Canaan, it simply didn’t happen that way, there was no outside force that invaded Canaan mentioned in the Amarna Letters. The letters explicitly state that the warfare was purely internal, small Canaanite city states were fighting against other Canaanite city states and the ‘Apiru mentioned were hired soldiers, mercenaries, who were already living in Canaan.In fact, the ultra conservative Christian scholar John Bimson wrote in 1978 that ‘Study of the Amarna correspondence itself shows that the role of the Apiru in the Amarna period does not resemble the activities of the invading Hebrews during the Conquest as presented in the biblical traditions’ (Redating the Exodus and Conquest, JSOT, Sheffield University Press, page 243).Canaan during the Amarna period can be summed up as being a collection of city-states ruled by local vassals of Egypt. These local princes ruled cities that were under Egyptian administration but at times they were stilled referred to as ‘kings’. Some of these local ‘kings’ were trying to break free from Egyptian control and at the same time trying to increase the size of their own territories by seizing land from their neighbours. To help achieve these aims, they hired troops and mercenaries, in the Amarna letters (EA) the mercenaries are identified as ‘Apiru or SA.GAZ.’Your servant was/is in the land of A [bi (]. Its horses and its chariots [they have given ] to the SA.GAZ; they have not g[iven them] to the king, my lord. When Biridashwa saw this deed, he stirred up the city of Yanuamma against me and closed the gate behind me. Then he took chariots from Ashtarte and gave them to the SA.GAZ; he did not give them to the king, my lord. And Arzawiya went to Qadesh and took the army of Aziru. He seized Shaddu and gave it to the SA.GAZ; he did not give it to the king, my lord. See! Itatkama has caused the loss of the land of Qadesh, and behold, Arzawiya with Biridashwa have caused the loss of Abi. (EA 197)You can see here that it is the local Canaanite princes who are fighting each other, and the victor actually gave the city of Shaddu to the ‘Apiru, this is contrary to the Joshua narratives where the Israelites conquer the entire land by themselves.In the Alalakh census lists of armed SA.GAZ/'apiru there is more precise information. AT 180 refers to two charioteers among 29 men, AT 182 mentions 7 charioteers among 29 men, and AT 183 and AT 226 speak of 80 charioteers among 1,436 men. Thus, while the great majority of armed 'apiru at Alalakh were infantry, a significant minority were charioteers. Given the general social disdain in which 'Apiru appear to have been held, and the fact that they are listed separately from the upper classes, it is doubtful that these Alalakh 'apiru charioteers were members of the military elite. It is probably more accurate to think of them as former feudal aristocrats, maryannu, who, as fugitives from other city-states, brought their skills in chariotry to Alalakh and were hired to drive chariots owned by local aristocrats. The 'Apiru captives from Canaan who are mentioned in Egypt, however, are never associated with chariots; when they are described as warriors, they, are infantrymen and clearly distinguished from the maryannu chariot-warriors (Wiseman, p.12).Given the alleged atrocious and vicious way in which the Israelite God was supposed to have treated the Egyptians, EA 286 gives us some confusing information, the letter to an Egyptian commissioner enquires: ‘"Why do you favour the 'Apiru but hate the governors [i.e., local dynasts]?" (Gottwald, p.403). It is difficult to imagine any Egyptian having sympathy for a group whose God just ripped the heart out of his country!In EA 288, ER-Heba of Jerusalem declares, ’see! Zimridathe town(smen) of Lachish have smitten him, servants who have become 'apiru.. It is beyond me as to how one can become a Hebrew, since Hebrew is an ethnic group surely you have to be born a Hebrew.
What is even more fascinating is that one can become an ‘Apiru for a period of time and them revert back to ones former social status. King Idrimi of Alalakh is forced by a revolt on the part of the inhabitants of his father's royal city of Aleppo to leave the city along with his brothers and lead a wandering life among the bedouin and in the cities of Emar and Ammiya. In Ammiya ‘in the land of Canaan’ he gathers about him people from his home states (Aleppo, Mugis, 'Ama'u), and with them he prepares his return to power.Before the description of the mobilisation of his expeditionary force he summarises, in his autobiography, the preceding period of flight as follows: ’a-na li-bi erin.mes ltjsa.gaz a-na Mu.y.KAM.MES as-ba-ku 'amongst the 'apiru-people. I remained for seven years', i.e. 'for seven years I was an ‘Apiru' (Weippert, p.67).Probably the strongest reason for rejecting the ‘Apiru/Hebrew equation can be found in EA 148, where the king of Hazor is said to be giving support to the ‘Apiru, ‘The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru’. This contradicts the Book of Judges where Hazor is a source of opposition to the Israelites. One example from Judges 4:2-3 ‘So the LORD sold them into the hands of Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth Haggoyim. Because he had nine hundred iron chariots and had cruelly oppressed the Israelites for twenty years, they cried to the LORD for help.’ The ‘Apiru were not an ethnic group, they consisted of many different nationalities. Obviously, we all know that the Israelites were a people, a nation, an ethnic group that emphasised their distinction from all other groups, therefore we have a distinction between the ‘Apiru and the Hebrews. In Canaan the ‘Apiru were for hire as mercenaries by the local princes, this contradicts the biblical version of the conquest of Canaan.If you want to suggest that the ‘apiru contained an element know as ‘Hebrews’, then I suggest that you first establish that there was such a thing as a 'Hebrew', you need to show that it is plausible.I am not sure of the context of Frank Cross’s statement. I would imagine that he is saying that the ‘apiru contained a Hebrew element. But it is difficult to understand what Frank is on about from looking at one sentence.The Habiru/'apiru/Hebrew lnguistic connection is broken.Brian.

Hi WT No, I didnt say that exactly. I said that Garstang's bias for the Bible clouded his judgement and he made connections between the biblical accounts and the material evidence that just weren;t there.His dating is unreliable because of the contrary evidence to his claims, it has nothing to do with his personal bias. The improved techniques corrected the errors Garstang made in dating the material evidence from Jericho.Brian.

Just a short summary on my 13th century date.I would say that my dating is holding out extremely well, I am rather pleased that, despite the fact that all of my arguments are falsifiable, that no one has been able to falsify one of my claims at all!So far my dating has been tested by the claim that the 1220 dating of Hazor cannot be the destruction by Joshua. The 1220 date for Hazor's destruction is an important part of my claim, and since no one has provided a single solitary piece of contrary evidence, then my association of the 1220 destruction with Jshua still stands.The 1220/Joshua destruction is easily falsified, to do so all that is required is to point to an earlier end of occupation at Hazor. The supporters of a biblical 1446 would only need to show that Hazor had an end of occupation level around 1400, this would support their dating and falsify my hypothesis.I am happy that the 1220 destruction of Hazor by Joshua still stands.The next attempt to falsify my 1220 date is the equation of the Hebrews with the 'apiru by using the amarna tablets.My claim is that the Exodus has to be after 1350 because the letters from certain people in the amarna tablets come from an area that Joshua was supposed to have utterly destroyed 50 years earlier by biblical dating.The Amarna Letters do not even slightly hint at an external invasion, which is surprising given the claim in the Bible that 50 years earlier Joshua essentially gutted the land. There is no mention of an 'Israel' in any of the Letters, therefore, my hypothesis still stands.1247-ish Exodus, 1200-ish Conquest still stands as the BEST date for these events.Can I elevate the 13th century date from hypothesis to 'theory' as it is the best explanation available?Oh, does anyone have any contacts in the media?I am thinking about producing a video Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 08-15-2004 06:28 AM

Hi Hydarnes,I don't think you seem to appreciate what the problem is here. It isnt only that 'apiru doesn't equal Hebrew, you also have to contend with the fact that the descriptions of the 'Apiru in the El Amarna Letters 1400-1350 BCE do not resemble the claims made for the Hebrews in the Bible.The 'Hebrews' were said to be an external invading people, Joshua1-12 outlines some of their military actions, sweeping destruction, great areas of Palestine completely routed by these newcomers. The references to the 'Apiru in the Letters are nothing like this at all. Remember that the Letters date from 1400 BCE, the date the Bible tells us that Joshua was obliterating the population of Canaan. If the 1400 date for the Conquest is true, why is there no evidence of external invasion, why do the Letters never mention the 'Israelites', why are the references to the 'apiru (if they are the Hebrews) so different from the biblical accounts?Brian.

Hi Yaro,Hydarnes is quoting Dr. Frank Moore Cross. He is well known for his work with the dead sea scrolls.Brian.

Hi H, Does this in any way resemble the Bible's account of the Conquest of Canaan? You can be honest with yourself here.Also, how does the documented claim in EA 148, where the king of Hazor is said to be giving support to the ‘Apiru, ‘The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru’. fit the picture of the conquest as portrayed in the Bible?Do you see these problems as 'stumbling blocks' to the 15th century conquest theory?Brian.This message has been edited by Brian, 08-15-2004 03:14 PM

Hi Vidusa, How much, roughly, does it cost to self-publish your book?Did you try to get any reputable publisher to publish this book for you?CheersBrian.

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.

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 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.

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.

Hi WT, So, which end of occupation level did the Cambridge attribute to Joshua?Brian.PS, catch up with everyone tomorrow sometime, sorry about the delay guys.

Hi H,Essentially, and correct me if I am wrong here, you are taking the stance that the ‘Apiru was a general term applied to stateless individuals, and, as such, the ‘Hebrews’ MAY have been included in this classification? Not at all, it speaks of ‘all the lands’ joining with the ‘Apiru, again nothing like what scripture tells us.Does this record seem to reflect anything in the Bible, given that it is referring to the King of Hazor? "The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned himself with the `Apiru...He has taken over the land of the king for the `Apiru." (p.235. EA 148. "The Need for Mainland Tyre." Moran. 1985) This record is the EXACT opposite of what the Bible claims.You should recognise it as it appears on the same page that you have attained almost all your information.Regarding this ‘plagiarism’ Hydarnes, and it is not a criticism on my part and it doesn’t detract from the substance of your arguments here, but it is common courtesy to reference your sources. What you have written here is more or less lifted straight fromHebrewhabiruslavesYou should not include material that is not your own without attribution to the original source.As I say, this doesn’t detract from the arguments; it is a matter of courtesy.None of your quotes suggest that Canaan was under attack by an EXTERNAL force of ‘Apiru, there is no invasion in the Amarna Letters. But there was no ‘emergence’ mentioned in scripture, the Conquest was characterised by how fast and widespread it was. But you have no archaeological support for a Conquest of Canaan at this time, many of the cities that Joshua was said to have conquered show no signs of being destroyed, or have destruction level incompatible with a unified lightning fast campaign, or they were unoccupied. Scripture’s narrative is incompatible with both the Amarna Letters and the archaeological evidence from 14th century Palestine. Yes indeed, which would make the conquest begin around 1400, about the same time that the Amarna Letters began. Why have a ‘tentative duration’ when the Bible tells us how long Joshua’s conquest lasted?Caleb’s age gives the necessary information.Joshua 14:7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land, and I brought word back to him as it was in my heart. Joshua 14:10 "Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! Some commentator’s say the Conquest took seven years because they take off the 2 years from the 40 in the widerness that passed before the Israelites crossed the Jordan. But it is either 5 or 7 years. Well since we have seen that the Bible does indeed specify a length of time, is it any surprise that your claim about Josephus is incorrect as well?Josephus writes in Antiquities of the Jews Book 5 Chapter 1 Verse 19:
19. The fifth year was now past, and there was not one of the Canaanites remained any longer, excepting some that had retired to places of great strength. So, both the Bible and Josephus support a 5 year (Bible perhaps 7), and this is absolutely against what is going on in the Amarna Letters. Of course there is the possibility that Josephus contradicts himself, so if you give me the reference for Josephus where he states the conquest was 25 years then it would be very useful.A 1446 Exodus needs a 1400 Conquest, the Conquest is over by 1393 by Bible chronology, and the Canaanites have been obliterated, the land is being divided up between the tribes. The Amarna Letters date from 1400-1350, how can this be if all the Canaanites were utterly destroyed by Joshua’s armies? The Bible, at face value, insists that the Canaanites were wiped out 7 years maximum after the start of the Conquest, the Letters falsify this chronology and the historical accuracy of the Conquest narratives.The Amarna Letters are one of the strongest pieces of evidence against a 15th century Exodus. The information in the Letters also render the conquest narratives of Joshua 1-12 unhistorical. Which has just been disproven by the fact that the Bible says the Conquest took 7 years at most, how can the Kings keep writing to Pharaoh when they are supposed to be dead? The circumstances falsify the biblical narrative, they are incompatible. Look, at the end of the 7 years Joshua was supposed to have claimed most of Palestine, if that was in 1393, how on earth did the Letters continue to 1350?The Amarna Letters support my 13th century dating for the Exodus perfectly.Brian.

Hi Jar,I should have been clearer, I was meaning a unified sweeping conquest by 'apiru.brian

HI Paul,2. If the Exodus occured in 1446 it was during Thutmosis III reign, when the empire was arguably at its strongest.The conquest needs to start around 1400 BCE for the 1446 to be correct. The Conquest was over in about 5 years, the Amarna letters cover 1400-1350, the Israelites should have already divided the land up between the tribes.If we go by Amenhotep III and miss out the Amarna Letters period, then that would still nullify the 15th century Exodus and still support my 13th Brian.