Reliable history in the Bible

Im going to repeat what I have typed earlier. Stiebing adds (he uses the broad scholarly conclusions) And just to keep things in context, here is the Habiru references Stiebing mentions that the same Habiru people appear in "some Eighteenth and Nineteenth Dynasty Egyptian texts under the spelling..." "Apiru".He also mentions the Amarna letters mentioning the Habiru. (In addition,however;the Amarna letters document that Joshua-Judges was historical due to the fact that 11 of the 12 Biblical cities from Joshua-Judges that have Canaanites holding power and fighting off the Israelites ARE ALSO SHOWN DURING AMARNA PERIOD TO HAVE CANAANITE RULERS!)(Edit:I am only saying that Stiebing only mentioned the Habiru in the Amarna letters, he infact rejects a Conquest PERIOD and he thinks the Amarna letters with the Canaanite tribal leaders disproves especially a c1400 Conquest)Another correction.I pointed out above the fact that the entire population of Palestine (coastal rgions, northern area, lowlands and the Israelite highlands)dropped from 150,000 during the MBA down to 60,000 in the LBA.The part that shouldnt be considered correct is that I said that highland population was about 20,000 during the LB1 period (LB1 is the period 1550-1400 OR 1450-1400 depending on which scholar/archaeologist).Actually the highlands (where the Israelites conquered) were about 18,000 around c1200-1300 , but the entire Palestinian population (including coasts and plains) was 200,000 then. Thats a 9-1 ration.If the entire Palestinian population was only 60,000 during the LBA1 period (1550-4000, or 1450-1400), then the highland region couldnt be 20,000.Conclusion on population.The highland region went down about 75,000 people right after the MBA ended.But the total population left was probably closer to 10,000 and not 20,000 as I stated.Regardless, it (the archaeological record) fits the Bible like a glove as I keep showing.The evidence just stacks up............Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In addition,however;the Amarna letters document that Joshua-Judges was historical due to the fact that 11 of the 12 Biblical cities from Joshua-Judges that have Canaanites holding power and fighting off the Israelites ARE ALSO SHOWN DURING AMARNA PERIOD TO HAVE CANAANITE RULERS!)

---

You post a lot, but it's full of misstatements and illogical arguments like this. So the cities have Canaanite rules - consistent with Judges - but also consistent with the idea that the Israelites aren't even there yet. Or has it escaped you notice that those cities had Canaanite rulers BEFORE Joshua's supposed conquest ?The Merenptah stele is probably best interpreted as evidence of the Judges period, but the Amarna letters simply show no clear sign of Israelite presence. In fact they speak of a fading Egyptian dominance of the area - and the Bible doesn't mention that.So the Judges period probably begins later, after the Egyptians are gone and continues until at least the time of Merenptah.

... to the drawing board if you plan on invoking "logic" as your source. Yes, just looking at the cities and its rulers ALONE does not prove Judges.I was very much aware of that fact.And,yes I understand that just looking at the Canaanite rules- present in the Amarna letters- alone doesnt disprove Judges with relation to it being during the period from the end of the MBA to the Iron Age.I dont mean to hamemr you, but I will have to show where the "illogical argument" actually has come from you.You forget the other powerful element involved: the issue of Israelite Conquered cities (specifically the ones that the Joshua-Judges book doesnt describe them as loosing)ALSO being checked as evidence.Since very few (infact only 1 out of the 12 Israelite Joshua-Judges cities I have counted as being mentioned in the Amarna Letters)are shown to have Canaanite rulers, then that also combines to provide a powerful witness for the historical accuracy of the Joshua-Judges period. The highlands werent a concern for Egyptians.The Via Maris and Kings Highway went around the poor inpoverished area, and unless there was wealth present in the region then the Egyptians simply werent interested.Egyptians would also show interest if bandits attacked travelers and such (it happened around Edom where a traveling Babylonian demanded Pharoah pay for stolen goods by a tribe there), that has been shown.Judges is FAR from a complete record of what went on.Judges shows local situations mostly.Just a situation from a few tribes at a time.And usually, it describes a situation where the Israelites break the yoke of those who opress them.Egyptians didnt seem to care too much what went on in the highland regions, so why should they be described as opressors? And even if they did atack part of the Israelite tribes at times, there is no chance the Israelites could have fought them off.No deliverance means no reaon to mention it in Judges.The Bible mentions that the Israelites went after pagan gods constantly-including during the Judges period- but few details are offered (arguably none). There is scholarship in German journals that does show israel was refered to by name c1400 BCE along with Askkelon (mentioned in several records around then,that isnt the issue) and others.The Israelite issue is the controversay issue, but the scholar who translated an Egyptian record as "israel" hasnt been responded to.But that aside, I am looking at the big picture, not just lone references.The fact is that the Late Bronze Age has at least 1 reference to Israel , and they are described as a stateless people yet a significant power in the highland regions.That is a fact.The archaeological situation at the end of the preceding Middle-Bronze Age fits the Conquest.That is a fact.The Amarna letters fit the details of Joshua-Judges (amazing considering how incomplete and small they are).The Habiru (I dont think this is the same word as Hebrew, mind you, but I do think most Habiru in highland Palestine were Israelites for endless reasons)are stateless peopels mentioned constantly from the start of the Late Bronze Age-the early Iron Age (and ONLY then). (which according to the archaeological evidence , the MBA came after a situation of the highland Palestine being destroyed just like the Bible details ...... the archaeological situation also shows the last of the "Habiru" references to come as the Israelites started to settle down)Right smack in the middle of the "Habiru" being mentioned in highland Palestine is that stateless power called "Israel". (Perhaps the Egyptians didnt take notice of this powerful stateless group earlier, is that why they were mentioned specifically only as during 1210BCE? However,everybody does admit that the remnant of Egyptian texts that forms the extant corpus can only constitute only a miniscule fraction of what was once written down.)I am not the one looking at the Israelite emergence and being led back to the MBA destructions.I have quoted mainstream scholarship (and the best in the world) that gets dragged back to the MBA destructions as a MAJOR context when looking at the c.1150 Iron Age settlements (which most agree are the Israelites).The "Habiru" isnt evidence alone.But dare I suggest that it , like other evidence, fits into the archaeological period from the Conquest (1550 or 1450) to the settlement (1150)like a tailored glove?Any other complaints?Paul says my (highly factual and logical) conclusions are illogical with the data (though that data fits like a glove.Brian wants to argue whether the MBA ended in 1550 or 1545.CA blew his top over lesser issues.Anybody want to question the "Egyptian Conquest" that we have had shoved down our throats.Its highly relevent.(Anyway, I may not have as much time to post anymore, so it may be best that everybody move on to other issues.i wasnt trying to hijack this thread.Ill accept a time-out on the issue and not demand any counter evidences, though I would like to hear some views and discussion on this MBA "Egyptian Conquest".0

quote:

---

I dont mean to hamemr you, but I will have to show where the "illogical argument" actually has come from you

---

Well that should be fun, because I've already shown that your argument as quoted is illogical.

quote:

---

You forget the other powerful element involved: the issue of Israelite Conquered cities (specifically the ones that the Joshua-Judges book doesnt describe them as loosing)ALSO being checked as evidence.

---

No actually I didn't forget it. It simply wasn't part of your argument - read it. It only mentions cities that were not destroyed. So in fact this shows that your argument was illogical because it can only be defended by adding material. But to use one example, Lachish is one of those cities supposedly conquered by Joshua and it is mentioned in the Amarna letters as a significant city. Shechem was supposedly conquered by Israel - and your idea of Israelites as pastoral nomads doesn't let them hold it - but it too is in the Amarna letters. Joshua has the inhabitants of Gezer enslaved, but you woudn't know it from the Amarna letters.That's not a very good fit. Of the cities I can find with a fairly casual search Lacish and Shechem definitely contradict Judges/Joshua. Keilah also appears to be on the list of cities in Israelite posession according to Joshua, Judges and Joshua are in conflict over Gezer (and Joshua appears to be wrong). Megiddo and Jerusalem are not listed as conquered.So, out of seven we have four inconsistent with Joshua and three consistent with it (four consistent with Judges). But all seven are consistent with the situation prior to the supposed conquest. I think its obvious which is the better fit.

quote:

---

Since very few (infact only 1 out of the 12 Israelite Joshua-Judges cities I have counted as being mentioned in the Amarna Letters)are shown to have Canaanite rulers, then that also combines to provide a powerful witness for the historical accuracy of the Joshua-Judges period

---

That's just confused. Firstly you claim 11 out of 12 have Canaanite rulers now you say only 1. Make your mind up !And have you noticed how much of your argument is an argument from silence. Do we really have to agree with your opinions in the absence of evidence ? Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

Ill skip my responce to your quote-mining.I could easily show as far back as the Philistine post many days ago more complete quotes.Ill get to the issues.Shechem is mentioned in the Bible as having Canaanite rulers.Commentators and scholars have long known that (and ones that believe in a c.1200 Conquest or no Conquest at all). The first commentary I ever listened to on Judges was a fundamentalist moroan on T.V. who didnt know *anything* about scholarly commentaries and the such.He KNEW that Shechem was had Canaanite population! That was long before I knew anything about archaeology and scholarship. yet I considered Shechem Canaanite!Its clear you havnt been reading my pastings of scholars comments.I already covered this one.As for Gezer, Judges doesnt contradict Joshua. It chronologically follows and/or complements as do many historical writtings.Gezer may have been destroyed but the citizens fought back and drove the Israelites away.The entire Biblical history from Judges (the beginning!) till the time of Solomon is clear that Canaanites controled Gezer.And I said there are 12 Biblical cities (I dont count Ekron since whatever nearby city this is anachronistically refering to, we simply dont know.Ekron existed only after around 1400BCE , after the Conquest)mentioned but now you mentioned Keilah.I will look into that.Of your 4 cities, Shechem and Gezer ARE NOT a contradiction.If somebody really wants to dig (DEEEEEP!), then Lachish may be considered a contradiction.Ill look into your 2nd city Keilah later.The problem for those 1or 2 lone "contradictions" (Lachish and Keilah , and Ill assume you arent twisting the Keilah situation, though I have *NO* IDEA why I should assume such)is that a Conquest from 1450 or 1550 (dates that the MBA destructions could fit under, the destructions clearly fit the Bible)doesnt mean ALL cities are guranteed to be kept in Israelite control.I mean heck, many Israelites practised paganism and one has to wonder if they even considered themselves Israelites.The judges period is one of anarchy.One cant just read the Biblical text and make bold pronouncments.And expect it to cover the entire time from the MBA all the way to the Monarchy.We can read the Biblical text and then search the archaeological record to find hot spots indicating a match.A "hit" doesnt mean we should assume anything till there is careful analysis.The terminal MBA-destructions fit the Conquest details precisely.You critique of the overall Joshua-Judges situation (with its various details) and your claim that it doesnt fit the Amarna period evidence , simply lacks logic.It is useless in helping us learn what actually happened historically.EDIT... Yes, you are correct.I did make a complete mistake here while typing. I meant that of the cities mentioned, only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering was not held by them during the Amarna period.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

According to Joshua Shechem is the nearest thing Israel had to a capital - the leaders meet there and bury Joseph's remains there (Joshua 24). It's a City of Refuge, too. In Judges 9 Gideon's son Abimelech takes control of Israel for a few years, from Shechem. Where is the reference to Shechem being a Canaanite city after the conquest ?Joshua has Gezer enslaved, and there is no mention of it regainign ti's freedom, let alone being subject to the Egyptians instead of the Isrealites. Judges at least doesn't refer to the suppsoed enslavement - but if you reject that aspect you have to reject Joshua. And if the city was enslaved, the Canaanites didn't control it - the Israelites did.So it seems that Shechem and Gezer are contradictions.There's no need to dig deep on Lachish, either. It's clearly conquered in Joshua 10. It's clearly an important city in the Amarna period - by Canaanite standards. QED.

quote:

---

Yes, you are correct.I did make a complete mistake here while typing. I meant that of the cities mentioned, only 1 that the Israelites are describes as conquering was not held by them during the Amarna period.

---

You still have problems with logic, don't you ? That simply isn't a valid argument. How about the fact that not one city supposedly conquered by the Israelites is listed as being held by them. Even though they supposedly controlled Shechem and Gezer according to Joshua - and even Judges puts Shechem in Israelite hands.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.

(I have a 100+ year old Companion Bible, and I think it says Canaanites lived in Shechem)The Amarna letters make constant refernce to Labayu (of Shechem) living around the Habiru.His son was arrested for aiding many while attacking near-by cities!He was so close to them that David Rohl even thought he was King Saul! (and please dont start talking about Rohl, he isnt the issue.)But, that aside.Just because a place was Conquered in the 1550 Conquest (or 1450-whenever the MBA ended) doesnt mean it stayed that way.Abraham had good relations with Hebron. Did the Israelites control that during the 215-430 years in Egypt? He (and other patriarchs)was even buried in Canaanite towns that later the Israelites would have to conquer.Was the conquest of Hebron a contradiction of Genesis?Lachish is a city you have a point(a very very VERY *VERY* small point)on, but not because of the Joshua 10 reference.Joshua 10 was during the early battles.You can win a battle and loose the war in the same year.And you sure as hell can loose something you once have gained,especially after & during a period of a few-hundred years.Lachish is a small point because there is no record of the Israelites loosing it in Joshua or Judges.Gezer is another example of an early battle where there was quick initial success.Joshua 10 only speaks for its immediate period.Judges makes some of the continuing battles right near (but after)the Conquest clear.Why people cant understand this, I have no idea.Is this the kindergarten or EVC? It reminds me of 4 year olds saying "I saw that first across the room, its belongs to me". We are talking tribal wars here.You cant just say "I won this battle, their land is ALWAYS ours". CNN used to have a series about 10 years ago called Cold war.It showed actual cockpit footage of Soviet pilots bombing entire villages in Afghanistan and killing everybody (blowing everything up).Before they went to that extreme, the Soviets being interviewed said they would go into a village and kill every male, but the next day the city would be full of males again.Shechem and Gezer arent contradictions by any standard (even the most lame of standards).The details all fit a terminal-MBA Conquest.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Ironic that you mention Judges as if it supports your argument.The Israelites didnt control hardly anything at any time during Judges.I would suggest you read it but Im sure you have.That may be the problem.Talk about a little information being a dangerous thing for some.You read it all right.I must remind you that the Bible depicts the Israelites during the time of the Judges following the Conquest as subservient to the surrounding nations and living in tents (Jgs 20:8; 1 Sm 4:10, 13:2).We are really are going to get nowhere unless we start to mature beyond a 7 year old.

Clear as mud, Nimbo. If you stopped this stream-of-consciousness thingo, I might be able to follow you. If you submitted this argument, I`m sure an examiner would either send you back to take the exam again, or demote you a grade. You lurch from scholar to scholar of either stance, skip back ten paces, jump onto another subject, quote Anchor or ANE, mix well and serve with a dash of humour. Try cutting your posts to 100 lines or less. I only have so many years on this planet and I don`t want to waste them deciphering.

When does it say that Canaanites lived in Shechem ? Shechem appears in Genesis - there are Canaanites there THEN. But that isn't the Judges period.

quote:

---

Just because a place was Conquered in the 1550 Conquest (or 1450-whenever the MBA ended) doesnt mean it stayed that way.

---

That's essentially an excuse to discount the evidence because it doesn't point in the direction you want. You're the one claiming support form the Amarna Letters - the fact that they better fit the pre-conquest situation is therefore relevant no matter how many 'might-be's you come up with.

quote:

---

Abraham had good relations with Hebron. Did the Israelites control that during the 215-430 years in Egypt? He (and other patriarchs)was even buried in Canaanite towns that later the Israelites would have to conquer.

---

Abraham wasn't a conqueror or leader of a nation, so your whole arguemnt is a non-sequitor. Nor does your supposed comparison deal with the Judges references.

quote:

---

Lachish is a city you have a point(a very very VERY *VERY* small point)on, but not because of the Joshua 10 reference.Joshua 10 was during the early battles.You can win a battle and loose the war in the same year.And you sure as hell can loose something you once have gained,especially after & during a period of a few-hundred years.

---

It's a rather bigger point that your cities that weren't conquered having Canaanite rulers was. Besides you've only allowed yourself one conquered city in the entire list - and as soon as you accept Lachish as that one the others become more relevant.

quote:

---

Why people cant understand this, I have no idea.Is the kindergarten or EVC? It reminds me of 4 year olds saying "I saw that first across the room, its belongs to me". We are talking tribal wars here.You cant just say "I won this battle, their land is ALWAYS ours".

---

No, that's not the problem. YOu claim that the evidence supports you. When it turns out that you have no argument you start the insulting comments to cover up your evasions.You claimed that only 1 city conquered by the Israelites showed up as under Canaanite control in the Amarna Letters. I have four - Lachish, Shechem, Gezer and Keilah - from a casual search. And you just start yelling they they don't count. The fact is that you were wrong.

quote:

---

The Israelites didnt control hardly anything at any time during Judges

---

They controlled Shechem according to Judges 9. I guess you didn't read that, even though I quoted it.Judges 20:8 just says

quote:

---

8Then all the people arose as one man, saying, "Not one of us will go to his tent, nor will any of us return to his house.

---

Nothing about being subservient and clearly not all live in tents.Of course if you read the other verses in the chapter you see that they controlled Gibeah and Bethel. The Benjaminites drew 26,000 men from their cities.

quote:

---

14The sons of Benjamin gathered from the cities to Gibeah, to go out to battle against the sons of Israel.

​

15From the cities on that day the sons of Benjamin were numbered, 26,000 men who draw the sword, besides the inhabitants of Gibeah who were numbered, 700 choice men.

---

1 Samuel 4:10

quote:

---

10So the Philistines fought and Israel was defeated, and every man fled to his tent; and the slaughter was very great, for there fell of Israel thirty thousand foot soldiers.

---

Obviously not so subservient that they didn't fight the Philistines on their own account. Perhaps you meant 4:9 which just said that the Israelites had been subservient to the Philistines at some time in the past ? The problem, of course with that is that - once again - you are just making excuses to explain away the lack of evidence. You can't build a positive case by doing that. So where is your positive case from the Amarna letters ?1 Samuel 13:2

quote:

---

Now Saul chose for himself 3,000 men of Israel, of which 2,000 were with Saul in Michmash and in the hill country of Bethel, while 1,000 were with Jonathan at Gibeah of Benjamin. But he sent away the rest of the people, each to his tent.

---

I suppouse you read that as saying that the Israelites only lived in tents. However we've already seen that Judges 20:8 contradicts that so no point there.

You first mention Gezer as one of your cities that the Bible has been proven wrong on due to the Amarna letters. Not mentioned till 1 Kings 9 where another Biblical destruction is mentioned.Lets see if there is any evidence of it being attacked during the terminal-Middle bronze Age Conquest though....... The Middle-Bronze Age battle involved the Israelites.Lets see the evidence for the next mention of Gezer in the Bible (also a battle, this time destroyed by the Egyptians) NOW, Shechem.Here is what I ALREADY quoted! My comments will be not be lighted, but Ill just put them in quotes."(Abdi-Heba is the Jerusalem leader)" "Shechem was an interesting town.""Canaanite but also allied to the stateless people around them (mostly Israelites).""People always wonder if Shechem was conquered in the Conquest (they always assume the Conquest was 1200 BCE and then assume not)." "The same biblical archaeologist articel goes on to mention that Gall pointed out that Abimelech was only half-Shechemite.""Another commentary snip" This was footnote33 (also I expanded my coverage from original post) "These are extremely interesting conslusions considering everybody quoted doesnt think the israelites emerged before 1200 BCE. Just from the internal Biblical text, they know that Shechem was perhaps Canaanite controled.And they wonder if it was conquered.""If they knew the conquest was from 1550 then they wouldnt wonder.I didnt check the anchor Bible dictionary but listen to this...(and this author makes it VERY clear that the Joshua Conquest was in 1200BCE, he doesnt even consider that there is any other possibility)" He accepts the Egyptian "Conquest" of 1550 (impossible!) and a Joshua conquest in c1200."More examples of the sorry state of biblical scholarship with relation to archaeology.However, he does get the internal text somewhat correct.He must wonder if Shechem was conquered by Joshua based on several internal (text and geography related plus the genocide doctrine) considerations , and he correctly notices (though for perhaps the wrong reasons in part) that the Shechemites are Canaanites."NOW, here are some more examples of scholarly works calling Shechemites Canaanites. That David Noel Freedman calling Shechem Canaanite.Quite a giant of scholarship.I have other heavy-weight Bible encyclopedias that make very clear comments about the Canaanite population of Shechem.This is INTERNAL textual analysis.Nothing to do witha archaeology.Wikipedia says this.. It seems to me that the the stateless individuals later defined as "Israel" by Merenptah, were heavily allied to Shechem.There are also many mainstream scholars who show evidence of the Judges 9 destruction in Shechem (the burnt temple) around the Late-Bronze Age or Iron Age (I forget the exact period, I think Late Bronze 1 but I also hear scholars mention Iron Age destructions also).I do need to document that as most already will have heard of it.We already saw evidence for the Middle-Bronze Age Conquest destruction documented though.And proof of the Bibles Judges text via the Amarna tablets.Next town is Keilah More evidence that backs up the Bible.Thanks Paul!It was only mentioned in Joshua 15:44 then never again till Samuel 23:1. I looked in an exaustive concordance.But it sure sounds like a situation one would expect from reading the Bible's situation during Judges.And the extra-Biblical evidence mentions the Habiru who Merneptah would later tell us are Israelites. It was mentioned in Joshua10,12,15 but after that not till 2 King 14:19.Like Keilah , no details are given after the immediate Conquest.It was destroyed at the end of the MBA Conquest like Gezer and Shechem.Paul says about the Israelites I guess you missed what mainstream scholars said.And top notch ones like David Noel Freedman You seem to have taken to quoting many post-Iron Age verses.Of course the Israelites began to settle down by then.Many of them.Not all, and not most though they would eventually.

quote:

---

You first mention Gezer as one of your cities that the Bible has been proven wrong on due to the Amarna letters

---

I mentioned it as a city that was supposedly conquered (and enslaved)by Joshua - accordign to the Book of Joshua. I am aware of the verses you cite and they don't affect that point - especially as you deny any contradiction between Judges and Joshua on Gezer.

quote:

---

I have other heavy-weight Bible encyclopedias that make very clear comments about the Canaanite population of Shechem.This is INTERNAL textual analysis.Nothing to do witha archaeology.

---

Then you will have to introduce that analysis instead of just making assertions.

quote:

---

It seems to me that the the stateless individuals later defined as "Israel" by Merenptah, were heavily allied to Shechem.

---

Except it is simply an assumption on your part that the 'apiru of the Armana Letters have anything to do with the 'Israel' of Merenptah.And we see that the material on Keilah confirms that it is Canaanite contradicting the Bible. Which to you confirms the Bible.(Lachish)

quote:

---

Like Keilah , no details are given after the immediate Conquest.It was destroyed at the end of the MBA Conquest like Gezer and Shechem.

---

According to Judges Shechem was destroyed by Abimelech, not Joshua. And you're not dealing with the point that Lachish is significnat in the Amarna Letters - one more of your towns conquered by Joshau that supposedly aren't mentioned...

quote:

---

You seem to have taken to quoting many post-Iron Age verses.Of course the Israelites began to settle down by then.Many of them.Not all, and not most though they would eventually.

---

I quoted the verses that you cited Including the verse you refer to here - Judges 20:8. It seems that you don't like me quoting the verses you cite as evidence - so that people can see what they really say.

Outcall Entertainment "Bronze surgical instruments" dated to early Bronze Age. Many Biblical critics have said the metal known as bronze or brass did not exist in the early Mosaic authorship period; therefore, late post Solomon authorship is supported. Deuteronomy is synchronized as having been written in Middle or Late Bronze, or the fifteenth century BC.

Bronze and brass are two different alloys. Bronze is primarily composed of copper and tin, while brass is composed of copper and zinc.

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor