Dating the Exodus

And now, a little question for Jar:Do you just enjoy the fact that you can wield such an uncanny ability to get others so thoroughly aggravated with your obscene mockery of well-stated points that don’t particularly comply with your ideological adherences?

quote:

---

That is BS and you know it.

---

Ah, you came just in time to grace us with your complimenting words.

quote:

---

Actually, I just get really annoyed by shallow logic and misdirection. I don't think we should withhold information, quote mine and misrepresent to defend a particular point of view or position.

---

I think I've heard enough of your guile for one thread, and I would appreciate it if you would, from now on, refrain from cluttering decent topics with this inconsiderate and disingenuous foolishness.

quote:

---

For example, if you really wanted to support your assertion of the relation between Habiru and the Hebrew Nation, why didn't you include the next section from the Wikipedia section.

---

Seeing that you proved your dishonesty earlier with your accusation about my withholding the name of a mentioned "expert", the above is naturally rife with the same drivel.I mentioned, immediately subsequent to my furnishing the source:This is an especially valuable attestment coming from a source that seems to be itself very critical of making such a nexus.Oh, but how quick you are to point out misdemeanors in others, only to reveal your own folly.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 11:20 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 11:21 PM

Jar, if you don't take serious offense, how old are you?

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

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

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

Don't worry about it. Take your time.

quote:

---

If the Exodus occured in 1446 it was during Thutmosis III reign, when the empire was arguably at its strongest.

---

That depends on the chronology you're going by. Others place it during Amenhotep II. The fact is, Egyptian chronology remains fundamentally uncertain.

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. Josephus puts the duration of the conquest at about 20, and I lean towards that placement. The Bible does not indicate how long the conquest lasted.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 11:14 AMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 11:15 AM

Oh boy! Multitudinous apologies.Unfortunately there was an enormous muddle in my sourcing. I HAD originally understood from Josephus' writings that the conquest was roughly 5 years, but because the elapse of time had eroded a distinct recollection, I quickly attempted to verify the date and [inauspiciously] found a random website that [inadvertently?] misstated Josephus' duration of the conquest as 20 years (obviously confusing the time that Joshua lead the people of Israel, as Paulk astutely pointed out, and the actual conquest itself). Instead of checking Josephus' actual writing, I corrected my thinking on a flawed "source", and then proceeded to correct your "mistake" as well.See, that's what happens when you're too into this stuff!! This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:33 PM

While it is quite understandable that my presence on this board would pose such a severe discomfiture to your godless turf, I would immensely appreciate if you would exert a little more effort to conserve your invective remarks for when they actually count.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:37 PM

Charles,Forgive me if this sounds just a tad rude, but I haven't the smallest inclination anymore to dignify your incessant [and less than erudite] cynicism with an answer.

And to contribute briefly to the extraneous note:Unfortunately, my sentiments seem to tell me the same thing. I'm thinking of revising the original title to address "Ron Wyatt's Archaeological Discoveries", rather than inserting the clause tethering it to the infamous "Exodus Revealed" thread.BTW, I'm surprised you think it makes much sense, I wrote it at 4:00am in the morning, naturally not a time salutary to eloquent writing. This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-17-2004 05:56 PM

quote:

---

Hey, it is no problem, I can see how Josephus' writings could be misunderstood, and we all make mistakes.

---

But my failure to verify the source is just inexcusable, considering that this subject is one of great focus for me .I'll respond to your contention a little later.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-18-2004 02:29 PM