Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   David Rohl's Research (Re: 'A Test Of Time', re: Egyptian chronology)
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 16 of 50 (220924)
06-30-2005 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 9:44 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
I think that you will find that the assessment of the meaning of 'Apiru has more to do with Sumerian and Hittite references than with the Amarna letters.
The term is too widespread to be restricted to the Biblical Hebrew people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 9:44 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 50 (220928)
06-30-2005 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by jar
06-30-2005 9:49 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
Jar + PaulK
We'll see. One thing is sure - how could archeologists have correctly identified who is meant by Habiru IF indeed the chronology was out by 350 years? As you know, becasue of this, most of the Bible has been relegated to myth status and even the very existence of the glory of Solomon is questioned.
If it wasn't for such anti-Biblical bias everyone would be happy at the new-found consistency between Egyptology and a carefully gaurded document containing hundreds of genealogies and conquest accounts (ie the Bible).
Let's let the side-by-side comparisons speak . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 9:49 AM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2005 10:03 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 18 of 50 (220930)
06-30-2005 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 9:56 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
As I have stated the widespread use of the word is one important factor. Another is the way that it is used. Neither of these are dependent on the specific chronology.
Let me also remind you that even according to Rohl much of the original work was NOT motivated by bias against the Bible - just the opposite. Rohl attributes what he sees as errors to researchers being too quick to take their finds as confirmation of the Bible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 9:56 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 10:09 AM PaulK has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 50 (220933)
06-30-2005 10:09 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by PaulK
06-30-2005 10:03 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
^ I agree. The anti-Bible approach came after. For good reason actually. They weren't finding anything (biblical)!
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 10:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2005 10:03 AM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 20 of 50 (220945)
06-30-2005 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 9:44 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
quote:
The point, as I will demonstrate in upcoming posts, is that the consistency between the Armana letters and Kings/Chronicles is undeniable.
Presumably you mean 1 & 2 Samuel - unless you are using the Septuagint.
But let's start with the background. The Amarna letters from Canaanite rulers indicate that they still at least pay lip service to Egyptian rule of the region. Even Labayu claims to be a loyal servant as his father and grandfather were before him (EA 253) (And does that not suggest a hereditary monarch whose father and grandfather ruled before him ?)
How is the Egyptian dominance of the region reflected in the Bible ? Does Judges mention it ? Or 1 Samuel ? If the Egyptians are expected to intervene in the struggles referred to in the Amarna Letters is it not likely that they would have done so in earlier conflicts - the battles with the Philistines in 1 Samuel, before the crowning of Saul, for instance ?
In short does the background history given by the Bible match up with what we can infer from the Amarna Letters ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 9:44 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 7:27 PM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 50 (221000)
06-30-2005 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PaulK
06-30-2005 11:09 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
Presumably you mean 1 & 2 Samuel - unless you are using the Septuagint.
Many of these events are recounted in Kings/Chronicles with additional detail. But, yes I meant to include 1/2 Samuel as well.
But let's start with the background. The Amarna letters from Canaanite rulers indicate that they still at least pay lip service to Egyptian rule of the region. Even Labayu claims to be a loyal servant as his father and grandfather were before him (EA 253) (And does that not suggest a hereditary monarch whose father and grandfather ruled before him ?)
Well most of these Canaanite rulers were not Israelite. There were many ethnic groups in the region at the time.
Do you have the Labayu's quote handy?
How is the Egyptian dominance of the region reflected in the Bible ? Does Judges mention it ? Or 1 Samuel ? If the Egyptians are expected to intervene in the struggles referred to in the Amarna Letters is it not likely that they would have done so in earlier conflicts - the battles with the Philistines in 1 Samuel, before the crowning of Saul, for instance ?
In short does the background history given by the Bible match up with what we can infer from the Amarna Letters ?
The Bible acknowledges many of these neighoring Levantine tribes, cities and nations consistently. It does not necessarily identify the 'parent company' of an outpost - nor should we expect it too. Of course there are are important biblical egyptian links to Solomon within this period.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 06-30-2005 07:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PaulK, posted 06-30-2005 11:09 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2005 2:31 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 50 (221025)
06-30-2005 10:59 PM


Habiru
I'm quite convinced that the term Habiru had various applications from 2000BC to 500BC.
However, that does not change the fact that the Habiru of the Amarna tablets, written over a few hundred years, may essentially apply to the Biblical Hebrews in particular becasue by that time that may have been the common useage of the word. That is precisely the premise we make when we look at the Amarna tablets - and it is internally consistent, and externally consistent in the New Chronology.
Habiru - Wikipedia

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 11:13 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 31 by Brian, posted 07-02-2005 4:43 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 23 of 50 (221029)
06-30-2005 11:13 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Habiru
Have you read the Armana Tablets? I don't see how you can see any connection to Hebrews in the references to Habiru in the tablets. Instead, the term seems to be applied to mercenary peoples that were hired by all sides during the various city-state disputes. There is certainly NO indication of either a political entity called Habiru or ANY organized army.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 10:59 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2005 3:15 AM jar has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 24 of 50 (221066)
07-01-2005 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 7:27 PM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
You don't explicity address the issue of Egyptian dominance. My own quick investigation found quite a few references to God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but none to Egyptian rule. So we have a quite significant mismatch between the Bible and the political background of the Amarna letters.
One translation of the relevant part of EA253 is as follows
quote:
Look, I am servant of the king, like my father and my grandfather, I was servant of the king already before. I have not sinned, I am not guilty.
I'm a bit surprised that you don't have ready access to the text. EA253 is one of the letters written by Labayu. Shouldn't it already be part of your analysis ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 7:27 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2005 3:20 AM PaulK has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 50 (221083)
07-01-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by jar
06-30-2005 11:13 PM


Re: Habiru
I don't see how you can see any connection to Hebrews in the references to Habiru in the tablets.
If that's really your viewpoint that you can't even see why we might think the Habiru in the tablets might be the Hebrews GIVEN the Egyptological and retro-astronimical revised chronology (both of which are independent of the Amarna tablets) then it seems to me you are not open to discussion.
I'll be happy to chat with you anytime you want to discuss.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by jar, posted 06-30-2005 11:13 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-01-2005 10:40 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 50 (221084)
07-01-2005 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 24 by PaulK
07-01-2005 2:31 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
PaulK
You don't explicity address the issue of Egyptian dominance. My own quick investigation found quite a few references to God bringing the Israelites out of Egypt, but none to Egyptian rule.
Your right about references to Egypt (except for Solomon's wife). But of course this time in Egypt was not one of world dominance. We're at a *relative* weak point during the monotheistic sun worshipping phase that nended with Ramses I.
So we have a quite significant mismatch between the Bible and the political background of the Amarna letters.
One translation of the relevant part of EA253 is as follows
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, I am servant of the king, like my father and my grandfather, I was servant of the king already before. I have not sinned, I am not guilty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm a bit surprised that you don't have ready access to the text. EA253 is one of the letters written by Labayu. Shouldn't it already be part of your analysis ?
All of the letters contain that sucking up. Wisdom doesn't burn bridges.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-01-2005 03:27 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2005 2:31 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by PaulK, posted 07-01-2005 3:36 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 27 of 50 (221089)
07-01-2005 3:36 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2005 3:20 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
Egypt is at a relatively weak perid at the time of the letters - but that doesn't change the fact that it was strong in the recent past. If your dating is right we should expect to see references to that strength in the parts of the Bible dealing with the immediately preceding events (e.g. later chapters of Judges up to the crowining of Saul) as well as some indication of the current situation where there was still hope and fear of Egyptian intervention. And we don't see that.
As for EA253 it is not the sucking up, it is the explicit reference to Labayu's father or grandfather which pretty strongly suggests that their service would have been known at the Egyptian court. As I stated the most natural fit would be a hereditary monarch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2005 3:20 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 28 of 50 (221121)
07-01-2005 10:40 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by Tranquility Base
07-01-2005 3:15 AM


Re: Habiru
If that's really your viewpoint that you can't even see why we might think the Habiru in the tablets might be the Hebrews GIVEN the Egyptological and retro-astronimical revised chronology (both of which are independent of the Amarna tablets) then it seems to me you are not open to discussion.
You say that your other information is independent of the Armana Tablets. Is that a correct statement?

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-01-2005 3:15 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 7:33 PM jar has replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 29 of 50 (221360)
07-02-2005 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 2:39 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
I'm most of the way through Rohl's book and the Saul/David/Solomon evidence in the middle chapters of the book are truly fascinating and more than convincing.
I suppose that is because to anyone unfamiliar with ancient near eastern history/archaeology would find Rohl's work persuasive. However, there are very good reasons for completely rejecting his work. These reasons will become apparent as the discussion develops.
Anyone who knows their Sunday school school stories about these kings of Israel can recognize these figures and the chrnological events from the Amarna letters.
Yes, the Tell el-Amarna letters are a very important part of the origins debate. Unfortunately, when they were found bible archaeologists were far too keen to make parallels with Habiru = Hebrew.
They're a a whole series of letters from the late stages of the Eigteenth Dynasty of Egypt (conventionally 1600-1300BC) that are really undoubtedly tied by Rohl to Levanite figures including Saul, David and Solomon (1000BC).
When the tablets were found, the original assertion was that the word Habiru simply equalled Hebrew. However, a big problem arose for this hypothesis with the mention of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. The publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa produced proof that the Sumeriogram ‘sa.gaz’ that means ‘robbers’ (habbatu) , is to be read in the Akkadian and Hittite texts as ‘hab/piru’ (Weippert, M. (1971) The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate, SCM Press, London.: p. 64).
In 1939 it became obvious that the consonantal element of the word ‘ha-bi-ru’, ‘had to be recognised as '-p-r, which meant that all etymologies dependent on the root HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with ‘BR and the ‘ibrim became uncertain (Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London. P. 401)
The word ‘Apiru itself is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word itself is not known for certain as 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 (ibid: 401)
Although the term ‘outlaw’ seems to be the most apt term to define the ‘Apiru, it does tend to miss out many of the categories of society in which the ‘Apiru are said to have existed. While the ‘Apiru were distinctly recognisable from the population of the existing society that they happened to be involved with, they normally relied on that society for their livelihood. They were often employed by members of a society either as individual contract labourers or as hired groups of soldiers, agricultural labourers, or construction gangs (Ibid: 402).
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.
Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to refer to a social stratum, the equation of the term with the Hebrews is untenable as the Hebrews are said to be an ethnic group. More problematic for the equation is the fact that the Bible suggests that the whole of ‘Israel’ came out of Egypt, however, the ‘Apiru are now attested to in a large variety of sources from different times and places. For example, (I have posted this elsewhere, but for ease of reading I thought it best to include here)
1. 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.
2. Documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.
3. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).
4. They are also mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).
5. 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.
6. 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.
(Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London. P. 92)
John Bright goes on to conclude that 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! (Ibid: 92).
The connection between the Israelites has not been completely broken. Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to be a social stratum rather than an ethnic group, it has been proposed that since the Israelites were employed as slaves in Egypt, and as ‘slave’ is a social rather than an ethnic term, then the term ‘Apiru could indeed be applied to the Israelites. In effect, the claim is that not all ‘Apiru were Israelites, but where there were mentions of ‘Apiru, it is possible that an Israelite component may have been present. Although the connection is plausible, it has never been convincingly argued, and remains extremely questionable.
So, what is this evidence that Rohl has that ‘undoubtedly’ links the Amarna period to Saul, David and Solomon?
I am a lot less enthusiastic about Rohl 'undoubtedly' tying the late 18th dynasty to the 10th century BCE. I would also recommend avoiding using absolutes when conducting historical research, it is not something that historians do as they know that their theories are always open to being proven false by some new find/research.
Rohl independenlty uses non-Levantine egyptological evidence to tie the late 18th dynasty to 1000BC.
I look forward to seeing how he is able to do this.
The Armana letters include name lists and/or actual correspondence between Egyptian Pharoahs (including Tutankhamen) and David (Dadua),
So, you are saying that there is a letter from King David in the Amarna letters? If so, do you have a tablet number?
Ayab (Joab), Saul = Lebaim (Labayu), Jesse (Yishay) and even the minor Israelite king for two years in-between Saul and David Ishbaal (Eshbaal)!
Saul = Labayu? Labayu was a Palesinian king, so how does Rohl turn Saul into Labayu?
Why does the Bible never call Saul by the name Labayu?
Not only that, these names, place names (!), conquests and other events match the Sunday School stories consistently that many of us know in detail! Like David rebelling against Saul and taking a band of men who join the Philistines as mercenries.
Okay, there is a lot going on in there, and none of which is supported at this time. The biggest problem with this claim is that the Amarna Letters do not mention Philistines. Now, since the Philistines did not enter into the history of the ancient near east until around 1200 BCE, and this is about 150 years after the end of the Amarna period we don’t expect to see any references to the Philistines. However, this absence of any reference to the Philistines is puzzling if we move the Amarna period forward about 300 years. Moving the Amarna period forward 300 years or so puts it during the time of a great deal of Philistine activity in the region, so why is it that the Amarna letters do not mention Philistines? (especially if David was in league with them and David is supposed to be mentioned in the Amarna Letters.)
And the Armana letters mention on many occasisons the Habiru (Hebrew) in Israel
I think you need to be a little bit careful with the words that you use because the word ‘Israel’ does not appear in the Amarna tablets. The first mention of an Israel as an ethnic group appears in Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory stele, which is dated to around 1205, and the stele suggests that ‘Israel’ had not yet settled in Palestine.
Are you using the name ‘Israel’ here to refer to the area as it later became known?
when mainstream chronology has them in bondage in Egypt.
This is actually incorrect. The date of the Amarna Letters in the traditional chronology is 1400-1350 BCE. The Bible chronology places the Exodus at c.1446, so by 1400 Joshua and his armies should have been starting the military campaign described in Joshua 1-12. The Conquest of Canaan took 5 years (some commentators say 7 years), so the whole of Palestine should have been under Israelite control by say 1395 BCE, which is not supported in any way by the available evidence.
Mainstream this is explained as a small escaped band. It turns out the Habiru of the Amarna letters are actaully the band of mercnries that David rebelled from Saul with, not a band of pre-Exodus Hebrews!
Really? Could you tell us the evidence that Rohl uses to make this absolute identification?
Read about it more in the link I gave above but I'll also post some of these examples in the days to come including quotes from the Aramana letters side-by-side with Scripture.
I look forward to reading it.
It surely, undoubtedly dates the late 18th Dynasty to 1000BC, correcting the chronology by almost 400 years (given the non-Levantine egyptological and retro-astronomical evidence he gives).
So surely in fact that Rohl is the only Egyptologist who believes it.
It's incredibly fascinating and much more convincing than the nay sayers would have you believe.
I rarely take anything that anyone says as being convincing on its own, I always triple check their claims, I even do this with people I have great respect for, even my ex-lecturers.
I highly recommend you to read it yourself.
I have read it, I have also critiqued it a while ago in a presentation at Stirling University, this is one reason why I know Rohl’s chronology has a few terminal flaws. But these will unfold as we go along. Trust me, Rohl’s chronology isn’t at all convincing when you are familiar with the subject, but I will leave you to make up your own mind as the discussion unfurls.
Cheers.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 2:39 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 8:13 PM Brian has not replied

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 30 of 50 (221369)
07-02-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 3:33 AM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
Even the mainstreamers associate habiru with a small band of Hebrews.
I must point out that although 'mainstreamers' do suggest that David's activities as a mercenary does fall into the category of Habiru, none of them believe that David was around at the time that the Amarna Letters were written. 'Mainstreamers' do say that it is possible that where there is a mention of Habiru that there could be a Hebrew presence. No mainstreamer makes the same unsupported absolute identification that Rohl does, not even those cited by Rohl, i.e. Greenberg, Mendenhall, and McCarter.
'Hebrew' was typically applied to a mixed group such as David's band (which included other ethnic groups) and often derogatarily.
But Hebrew is an ethnic term, you have even said that the Hebrews are the decendants of Eber. Could you clarify this a bit please?
Even in Scripture 9 times out of 10 this is the case.
Any references?
Saul is never called "Labayu" in the Bible.
True, but his keepers were referred to as 'Lions' = Lebaim and Scripture mentions that Saul was named so becasue he was 'asked for' suggesting a renaming.
His keepers? Do you mean bodyguards?
Also, 'Lebaim' mean 'Great Lions', is Rohl suggesting that the bodyguards are 'great' lions and Saul is just a lion?
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 3:33 AM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024