Dating The Exodus II

LOL somehow posted in admin mode and I'm not an Admin!

Hi Jar,I read WT's reference to the 'Apiru in the message referred to. He quotes Dr. H.R. Hall, former Head of the Department of Egyptian and Assyrian Antiquities of the British Museum in London, from "The Ancient History of the Near East" page 409:

​

"We may definetly say that in the Tell el-Amarna Letters we have Joshua's conquest seen from the Egyptian point of view." (END Dr. Hall quote)So, I had a look on my bookshelf, and although I do not have the Book that Hall is quoted from, I do have a reference from John Bimson's Redating the Exodus and Conquest (1978, JSOT, Sheffield) that informs us that Dr. Hall's claim was made in 1920!!biblio from Bimson:Hall H.R. 1920 The Ancient History of the Near East 5th edition.This is nearly one hundred years old, have you any idea when Rutherford wrote the book that WT is using?1920!! cannot believe it, how many texts have been discovered since then that have thrown more light on the 'Apiru issue?Brian.

Hi WT, Where did I say that about? Of course sources are not invalid because of their age, they are invalid when they are out-dated though, and 1920 is way out of date for the hyothesis that the Amarna 'Apiru were the Hebrews. Have you any idea how many texts have been published since that time that have illuminated the Amarna period?The Hittite texts at Boghazkoy were not all fully published then. Winckler's discovery of the Sumeriogram 'SA.GAZ' in the Hittite texts was equated with the Akkadian 'habbatu' (robbers). In 1939, it was demonstrated that the consonantal element of 'Habiru' had to be rendered 'Apiru, thus all etymologies dependant on the root 'HBR' (wonder who that looks like), were now excluded. (Wieppert M, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribles in Palestine, SCM Press, London 1971, p64).The Nuzi tablets (15th century BCE) were not discovered until 1925-31. These texts tell of private individuals hiring 'Apiru for different tasks such as personal armies. (Weippert, 68) Also, speak of 'Apiru being used as slaves (Bright,History of Israel, SCM Press, London 1972, 94)Mari texts were not discovered until between 1933-36 and 1951-56. Two letters from here mention Ami-ibal claims that he was not an army deserter, he was a refugee (habaru). In another Addu-sharrum claimed he was a migrant and thus immune to extradition. (Lutterworth Dictionary of the Bible page 363)Ras Shamra/Ugarit texts were not discovered until after 1928. Discoveries tell of SA.GAZ ('Apiru) (Bright J. p93).Alalakh was not excavated by C. L. Woolley until 1937-1939 and 1946-1949. The Statue of King Idrimi (1500 BCE) describes a time when he 'a-nali-bi ERIN.MES LU SA.GAZ a-na MU.7KAM.MES as-ba-ku' 'For seven years I was an 'apiru'. (Smith S. The Statue of Idri-mi, Occasional Publications of the British School of Archaeology in Ankara I, London, 1941, pp14-17).Idrimi became an 'Apiru through his own choice, and only for a period of time! How does this equate with the Hebrews?Do I need to go on WT?Bright, writing in 1972 tells us that: We cannot, however, even if this is so (possible etymological link), simply equate the Hebrews and ‘Apiru. ‘Apiru are found much too far afield to allow such a thing. In Mesopotamia, for Example, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III. I Babylon, and after, in the Nuzi Texts (15th century), they play an especially prominent role, while documents from Mari (18th century) and Alalakh (17th and 15th centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throught out the patriarchal age. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (19th century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (14th century). They are likewise mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (14th century). Egyptian documents of the Empire period (15th to 12th century) refer to them, both as foes and as rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt. The Amarna Letters (14th century), where they appear 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 11th century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel. p.93One major problem with the equation of ‘Apiru with the Hebrews as an invading force in the Amarna Letters can be found in EA 148, where the King of Hazor is charged with aiding the ‘Apiru!! How on earth can this be equated with Judges 4-5 where the complete opposite is the case?1920 is a scandalous source to use, not because it is old, but because the author did not have access to the subsequent evidence.When was Rutherford's book written? I am not a scientists, I never deal with Darwin.I hope you can see the problem with using a theory that was suggested before literally over one hundred thousand other texts were discovered? What about it, do you think that Petrie didn’t make mistakes?You do know that Petrie identified Lachish with Tell el-Hesi (Laughlin J, Archaeology and the Bible, Routeledge, London, 2000, p.4). So is Tell el-Hesi still identified with Lachish, if it isn’t then why not?Also, Petrie’s understanding of stratigraphy was unbelievably bad, he imagined that a Tell was always of a uniform size regardless of what layer was being dug.Petrie’s ‘sequence dating’ was also severely flawed, while it allowed natural groupings to be dated with strata, his dating of the strata was often way out. What I am doing is trying to show you that research does not stand still. Sure, at one time it was thought that the 'apiru/Hebrew at Amarna was proof of the biblical account, but that was 80 years ago, there has been an enormous amount of work done since then. The 'apiru/Hebrew hypothesis has been universally abandoned, that Rutherford uses an 80 year old out-dated, falsified hypothesis says a lot about his research skills. But you don't know what the evidence is!!If you knew which letters described an invasion you would have posted the catalogue numbers by now.Surely Rutherford would have written something like:'Dr. Hall informs us that the Amarna Letters describe the conquest from the viewpoint of the Canaanites as EA??, EA??, EA ??? and EA???, described a unified invasion.Surely he outlines Hall's evidence?Please take this advice that I offer you in a friendly manner. You seriously need to read more up to date journals and books, I am not criticising you or trying to bring you down in any way. But, if you are truly interested in this stuff, you honestly have to read more up to date material.However, if you feel confident enough that Hall’s claim is still accurate, then the El-Amarna catalogue numbers that outline an invasion would be welcome, they should be on the same page that Rutherford quotes Hall on, or in the end notes.Cheers, see you soon.Brian.

Hi Ned,I have provided some evidence, hope this is satisfactory, if not I can elaborate more.BTW We actually haven't had any of the old information from WT yet, just a quote from a book. But, being the nice person that I am I provided some, maybe WT could actually tell us what the old information is?Cheers.This message has been edited by Brianj, 10-12-2004 09:28 AM

Hi WT,Regarding my claim that the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 is an artificial chronology based on 12 x 40 years, I would like to point out a few problems with your response. Actually, when the Bible tells us that there were 12 generations from the Exodus to the building of the Temple that is exactly where I get the 12 generations from. You actually sound as if you think I just pulled that number out of the air, but it has biblical support in 1 Chronicles 6:3-10, tells us that there was 12 generations between Aaron and Azariah who served in Solomon’s Temple, so this is where the 12 generations come from, and we know that 40 years is too long for a generation, 25 is closer, so the hypothesis is quite plausible and has biblical support.Another clue to the artificiality of the chronology is that there is also another 480 years from the building of the Temple to the return from Exile! 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple and exactly 480 years from Solomon’s building of the Temple to the return from exile, the author clearly wanted to place the building of Solomon’s Temple at the centre of Jewish history. But, exactly 480 years, and exactly another 480 years, a little bit too suspicious, real life isn’t as exact as that. BTW, the Bible also tells us that there was 12 generations from Azariah to the return from Exile, (1 Chronicles 6: 11-15; Ezra 3:2) strange that isn’t it? Answer: I sincerely hope you keep this in mind for two minutes! LOL Because much of the Hebrew Bible is schematic and not to be taken at face value, numbers are also symbolic in the Hebrew Bible. 12 is a recurring number, reflecting the Tribes for example, 40 is a general term for a long period of time, so it is a perfectly reasonable interpretation.But, wait a wee second, you are saying we should take the Bible text at face value, if the text did not mean 480 year why does it say 480 years? Well, remember the building of Pithom and Rameses in Exodus 1:11, the cities that Rutherford informs us actually had cities on the sites long before Pithom and Rameses? Well, check your book, does Rutherford claim that the Israelites actually built Avaris, or some city other than Rameses? You do know that the City of Rameses could not have been built before 1320, and more then likely it was after 1290 BCE?So, if the text did not mean the cities of Pithom and Rameses, why does it say Pithom and Rameses? The text does provide a basis, it gives 12 generations between the Exodus and the Temple. And thus contradicts 1 Chronicles 6:3-10 then, how did you miss that, it is in the same book as Heman’s? You are effectively supporting my claim of an artificial chronology, the 12 generations of priests are there for a reason, and it is not to report an accurate history, or maybe Heman’s genealogy is flawed, how do we verify them? But the 12 generations of priests support a mid-13th century date. 475 is not the same as 480 WT, I hope you aren’t an accountant. Verified by the 12 generations of priest found in scripture, you really should check your facts first before making these absolute claims. Wait a wee minute WT, you were deriding me for revising the text, and altering it for no reason, yet you are happy for Rutherford to do it.
Look at what Rutherford’s calculations actually come to if we take the Bible at face value. You have 19 generations to Heman, Rutherford is happy to take that from the text, yet he rejects the FACT that the Bible clams that a generation is forty years! Rutherford’s time span should be 19 x 40 years, which is 760 years! Rutherford’s 475 years is blatant revisionism! Double standards WT, if Rutherford wants to take the text at face value then he should at least be consistent, he is more guilty than I am of revisionism. There is no need to ignore it, we have a text that informs us that there was 12 generations from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple.
Heman’s genealogy may have extra generations added for some theological reason, differences in the number of generations are a common feature of the Bible. Look at the generations from Joseph to Joshua there are 12, yet Moses who is a contemporary of Joshua only has 4 generation between him and Joseph’s generation, the genealogies need a lot of research, we have one to support 12 generations between the exodus and Solomon’s Temple, you can reject that if you want, but it is still there in the Bible. Never a truer word has been spoken. Plus, of course, Rutherford’s reckless handling of out-dated hypotheses can also provide a basis for any private theory. If he had the sense to study the forty years of research that went into the subject between the time Hall wrote and the time that Rutherford published then perhaps his extreme prejudice would not be showing through quite so obviously.Brian.

Are you still on heavy duty painkillers?Try reading the entire discussion it would save you valuable time.How is the leg BTW?Brian.

Hi Buz, The Bible definitely claims that a generation is forty years, that’s why the Exodus group were to wander the desert for 40 years, so that the generation that left Egypt would all be dead.But forty years is too long, it is not supported by any external evidence. What is taken as being ‘traditional’ need not be historically accurate. This is falsified by the external data from thousands of tombs all over the ancient near east that demonstrates that it was extremely rare to live beyond 50 year of age. (Laughlin J H Archaeology and the Bible, Routledge, London, 2000, p74).Even at Avaris, the site touted by the 15th century Exodus supporters, the average age of the bodies found in tombs by Beitak was just 18 or 19 years old (can’t remember exactly but I can find out tomorrow if you want me to).The information from the UR III dynasty describes four generation over a 109 year period, the ten generations of the first Babylonian dynasty spans 286 years, the Persian Achaemenian Dynasty has five generations spanning 165 years so is a bit higher. I haven’t seen any outside of the Bible that go as high as forty years. (Information in Rendsburg p.14) How would this sit with people such as Methuselah or Noah who lived for centuries, almost a thousand years in Methuselah’s case. But I think the lifespans of the ancients were too low for this length of generation, and anyway, weren’t the Israelites getting massacred every other weekend? Without a doubt they do yes, but only when quoting the Bible, very few I know of actually think that a generation was forty years way back then.Albright put a generation at 20-30 years, Kitchen puts it high at 30 years, Hallo at 21 years, Bimson, Rowely, Wright all at 25 years, even Lods that Rutherford uses puts it at 25-30 years.But the Bible does put it at forty years, but most of the chronologies in the Bible are schematic. 12 generations from the Exodus to the Temple of Solomon, then another 12 generations from that to the return from exile, both spanning exactly 480 years, just a little too pigeon holed to be accurate.If we were taking the text at face value, then Rutherford would surely have to use the 19 generation of Heman and multiply it by forty, this would take us way back to the 18th century BCE.Of course, there are huge problems with Heman’s geanology, but that can wait for WT . See you later.Brian.

HI WT, This is not what the Amarna/'Apiru debate is about at all. The debate is about the content of the Amarna Letters and how they actually do not descibe a unified invasion, they mainly describe internecine warfare.The linguistic debate was finished in 1939 when it was shown that the Habiru/Hebrew equation was incorrect. 'Apiru were a social group that lived unconnected to any state, they were mercenaries, temple servants, hired labour and came from every ethnic background in the near east, and from evry era, the term did not describe an ethnic group as once was thought.But, even if Habiru did equal Hebrew the Letters still do not describe an invasion. Hopefully you have already discovered this.Forget the linguistic argument, that is not what the debate is about, it is about the content of the Letters.Cheers.Brian.

Hi WT,No probs mate.I am only posting a batch of replies as I am back to work on Monday and I do not know if I will have computer access yet, I am not expecting to, but I may get a surprise.We both agreed that the length of time between posts would not be a factor, goodness knows when I will have have as much free time as I would like.Good luck.Brian.