Dating the Exodus

Just one question Brian.If you're comfortable with disclosing: your age?

Well, it kills brain cells. I hope that's a scientific fact we can both agree on. Besides, I think we need all we can get if we expect to survive in an intellectually active environment.BTW, as much as my language with respect to your literary material might occasionally seem acerbic, I must admit that I hold a deal of respect for you as an opponent (even if I don't agree with your conclusions, you certainly put time and effort into your compositions), and I would like to remind you that all negative comments are strictly confined to the ideological sphere and certainly not personal, although I won't declare absolute abstinence from allowing certain other individuals on this board to, at times, provoke my solar plexus.G'day.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 03:51 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 11:06 PM

quote:

---

What isn't obvious about Hebrew/Habiru/apiru ?

​

In scripture: Eber/Heber/Hebrew.

​

You are asserting contrary to what is obvious BECAUSE the obvious evidences against your position.

---

And don't forget that even Frank Moore Cross (arguably the number one epigraphist in the world) said: "I do think that the term Apiru is the origin of the term HebrewDr. Frank Moore Cross, Professor Emeritus Harvard University. (Appearance on The Exodus Revealed)And btw Brian, you'll see an allusion to this in my rebuttal to your stele post: http://EvC Forum: Information -->EvC Forum: InformationHopefully in the near future the admins will validate the proposition so you can have a fair chance at responding.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 04:39 PM

quote:

---

If Barak ended the occupation of Hazor, then the biblical account of Joshua's action there is inaccurate.

---

Incorrect. From my knowledge of Hazor, it was reoccupied several times after a series of destructions and rebuilding that occured.Your argument is wanting.

"According to the Biblical narrative, Jabin, the King of Hazor, headed a coalition of Canaanite cities against the advancing Israelites, led by Joshua. The Israelites won the battle and Joshua burned and ravaged the city (Jos. 11:1 - 12)."And Joshua turned back at that time, and took Hazor, and smote its king with the sword: for Hazor formerly was the head of all those kingdoms. Everyone in it they put to the sword. They totally destroyed them, not sparing anything that breathed, and he burned up Hazor itself .. Israel did not burn any of the cities built on their mounds - except Hazor." (Jos 11:10-12)Evidence of this violent destruction by burning was discovered in various areas of excavation of the site. Another Israelite battle, this time against a Canaanite army led by Sisera, Jabin's general, is described in the Book of Judges, Chapter 4."--http://unixware.mscc.huji.ac.il/~hatsor/index.htmThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 05:06 PM

A number of sources confirm this all over the net.Here's an example:http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Hazor_Ebeling.htm

BTW, Brian, I'll be replying to your Jericho topic as soon as I can. Don't expect it right away though.

quote:

---

You are the expert in archaeology

---

Do we know this for sure?

Are you speaking generally or in certified terms?

That link was to corroborate my claim about the destruction and rebuilding of the city, not to support my position on the dating.At any rate, I think there remains uncertainly as to exactly when the city was destroyed by fire--the terminology is telling. But the fact that the archaeological evidence for the destruction tallies with the biblical record is rather compelling.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 05:36 PM

quote:

---

Experience with Brian.
We have different worldviews but so what.

​

Brian is proven.

​

We both admit our bias and say our bias is based on the evidence. This renders any challenge of bias irrelevant.

​

Once again, glad to see you Hydarnes.

---

Gotcha.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how the mid 1200rds date tallies with the Bible,

---

It doesn't. And I would like to know exactly what methodology is being used to date the burning of the city with that period.

quote:

---

but I personally think there is a better chance of supporting an Exodus date around 1200 than one in the 1500s.

---

Not only would it not afford enough time for all of the Jewish events leading up to the time of David to occur, but it doesn't match the biblical dating methods.

Actually, there is considerable evidence that suggests an Asiatic presence in Egypt. The reason why it is difficult to prove that much of this was Hebrew is due to the fact that Israelites would not have been referred to as such. They would have been referred to as either Asiatics or Apiru, and I’m sure in many cases slaves.Nevertheless, there have been remains uncovered by the Austrian Manfred Bietek at Tel el Daba (near Qantir) which betray a seemingly Israelite origin.This message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 07:20 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-13-2004 07:24 PMThis message has been edited by Hydarnes, 08-15-2004 08:10 AM

If it occured around c1400bc, then it would also correspond with the destruction of Jericho.

The reason this identification has been proposed by some is because of the fact that a ruins at Tell El Daba known as "Area F" not only exudes clearly asiatic features, but the architecture seems to resemble later Hebrew building design. As for direct evidence for this, I'm afraid I do not have it.But a lack in archaeological evidence for an Israelite occupation during the 15th century does not automatically prove an absence of such. And it would do skeptics well to remember that the location in Egypt known as Tell el-Maskhouta (identified as the biblical succoth, and the stronghold from which Egypt would launch her campaigns into Palestine and Syria) has yielded no archaeological evidence whatsoever for signs of military buildings, barracks, forts or any other such structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties, notwithstanding the fact that Egyptian records testify to their existence.So it's not always wise to make categorical placements solely based on perceived archaeological data, which simply cannot account for the material not yet discovered or completely erased over time.