Reliable history in the Bible

Hopefully this will be one of my last ones.Exodus 15 mentions the word "Philistia" It is a geographical term refering to are area that post 1100BCE (to present!) would be know as Philistia or Palestine.Though I forgot to mention it, here is more evidence that Israelites simply use anachronisms that we use ALL THE TIME!More corrections....Megiddo wasnt destroyed at the end of the MBA.I always did plan on researching this (I got the false impression from something misleading and incorrect that Bruch Halpern said once),but I assumed it was factual.I have research and re-checked many things I have said and will offer corrections whenever I find out that I am dead-wrong.Ill start with Megiddo.....Anchor Bible Dictionary Im not the only one who needs corrections!First-The Hyksos werent expelled till 1525 BCE (after the 1550 MBA ended!).The Egyptians were stuck in multi-year battles over a single south-western town in Palestine.Here is what Egypt's 50 year veteran archaeologist , and lead excavator of Tel-Ed-Daba (the most significant archaeological site in Egypt) said. Since it is well known that the Egyptians did not drive the Hyksos out till 14-18 years after the 1539 (or 1550 at earliest);thus 1530-1520, then a multi-year battle in a single town would be the icing on the cake that no MBA destructions in Palestine were from Ahmose (nor were any claimed-especially the hilly-inteior the Israelites lived in).Bietak is very clear in his view about there not being any significant penetration of some of the northern Palestinian cities by Egypt till 1450.Second-I got quite a shock out of this line (back to the Megiddo article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary) WHAT???!!!!!!!Let me get this straight... the Egyptians avoided the costal areas (which were always the areas in Palestine they showed interest in) but for some odd reason, found interest in the inland areas (which they almost never showed interest in)?Why say such a foolish thing?Perhaps because wrapped around that comment were these words However, it seems quite possible that many cities in the S and inland regions of the country had been devastated, but not those in the costal area I guess it is difficult to correlate 2 things that had nothing to do with each other (terminal-MBA Palestinian destructions and fictional LBA Ahmose Conquests that are a scholarly invention)and are infact from different time periods.Before they got to the LBA portion of the Anchor Bible Dictionary article I quoted, they mentioned LBA pottery that in any significant quantity , will indicate the LBA: "bichrome ware".Small amounts will indicate the MBA (ended 1550) back to 1600.It is the pottery that Bryant Wood uses as evidence of Jericho being destroyed in 1400, based on the miniscule amounts found there.Anchor Bible article says I mention this because the Anchor Bible Dictionary article for Gezer openly stated that they used this "transitional" pottery as evidence that the Gezer MBA destructions were actually from Thutmose III (which was around 1450 according to the most modern scholarship)in their opinion.They admitted that they were stretching the chronology "as late as possible" , infact it would be impossible.You can bet that this article (Megiddo)would claim a MBA destruction "from Thutmose III" if there actually were destructions found in the archaeological record.I found a better explanation for the Megiddo archaeological data Jerusalem, Megiddo, Sidon, Gezer, Hazor, Shechem, and the Philistine cities (4of5) were mentioned (by me)as surviving the Conquest and then being mentioned in either the Amarna letters or other LBA Egyptian sources as being ruled by Canaanites (or non-Israelites).While critically comparing the Biblical and Egyptian data;I did a scan of Egyptiana & biblical data (in my last post) and only found Lachish to not be specifically mentioned (in Joshua and Judges) as fighting off the Israelites during the terminal-MBA battles, yet still having Canaanite rulers during the LBA.Jerusalem was mentioned in Joshua 15 (I missed it before) as well as Judges 1(which I already quoted, but will again) I also noticed another Amarna-letter Canaanite town that fit the Biblical historical account:Acho. That means that over 10 towns the Bible specifically mentions as having Canaanite towns (this includes the Philistine towns)surviving the Israelite attacks were also mentioned in Egyptian records as having Canaanite rulers.Even more stunning is that the ONLY Israelite-controlled city (in 1550BCE) that was shown to be Canaanite controlled during the Amarna period was Lachish (William Stiebing pounced all over this lone example as somehow disproving the Bibles Conquest records, especially since he presented the Amarna documents as coming from the time of the "c1385-1400" Joshua Conquest, plus he only mentioned 3 examples of cities the Bible got right!), and the fact that there is just 1 potential anomalous political situation(which isnt one at all since Israelites would have lost much ground in just a few years according to Judges,and they DID.The much less an anomalous situation in 200 years)Stiebing wrote a pretty darn-good book though.I was presenting the fact that the Israelites were a stateless tribal group during the entire LBA Palestine (1550-1200)and I showed endless data to back that up.Here is what Stiebing said about the Merenptah reference to Israel in 1210BCE. (Ill need to make frequent and HEAVY use of ellipsis to avoid copyright violations) Stiebing mentions that this supports a view of a c1400 Conquest only because of the "ring structure" observation of scholarship indicating Israel as a significant power.Stiebing doesnt think the 1400 Conquest is consistent with the Israelites being described as a stateless people though.He feels they should have the determinative for a country in that case.Stiebing later however backs away from (not rejecting it outright, but presenting differing views) the ring structure. Stiebing presents other scholarship that presents a different ring sturcture (which Egyptians used often),which I will again skip (details) all but his conclusions Stiebing closes with a sentence saying that the term "Israel" doesnt tell us anything with regards to whether Israel was 1 tribe or several.Several pages later,he then rejects a c1400 Conquest.He also refered to (and quoted this) on page 51 with ragards to the determinative issue. Anyway, it all interpretations of this "Israel" reference fit the actual Biblical evidence perfectly.Just like the Amarna records.And the "Ayin" "P" "R" (commonly called Habiru or Apiru and it means stateless individuals) that were constantly mentioned during Merenptahs reign and the Amarna letters can clearly be seen to have been mostly Israelites (with regards to the hill-country of Palestine in the LBA , this almost cant be denied IMO).Just like everything else when we compare the Biblical and archaeological record of post 1550 Palestine.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Hi,Are you finished posting reams?If you are then I'd like to start posting some replies, but I am worried that each issue would be diluted by the number of issues raised. Also, there seems to be a lot of corrections and contradictions in your posts.Can I suggest that, if you have finished posting evidence, we concentrate on one or two issues at a time, beginning with your first post on this subject.My time is tight so I don't want to be bogged down by jumping from issue to issue without some resolution of your claims.Please let me know so I can get the ball rolling.Brian

Go.Edit: Also, the corrections have simply supplemented my earlier posts.I see no contradictions.Maybe there is a seeming contradiction in the specific dates of the MBA destructions. I accept 1550 as the destruction dates.But there is alot of dispute there.William Stiebing placed the end of the MBA in Palestine at 1500.He said that Jericho was destroyed from "1475-1500" and he used Manfred Bietak as the reason why he considers it such.Infact Stiebings chronological charts already assumed a 1500 end for the MBA in Palestine.He only footnoted the "outdated 1550 MBA end" (he said something like this).I disagree (then again, am I qualified to disagree?), but I need to consider the newer scholarship (and all the various views)that is a moving target.Many mainstream academic books reference William Stiebing as having the most comprehensive and scholarly treatment of the Conquest.So, I must consider the differing conclusions.I accept the mainstream dates (that are still in the popular literature) and will deal with the terminal-MBA destruction evidence from that viewpoint.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

Hi,Thanks for the prompt reply.The first issue I'd like to raise is this one from post 90:MPN writes "Im quite fine with all the Palestinian cities being destroyed in a single year though, which mainstream archaeology assigns Are you aware that this contradicts the Book of Joshua that provides information that informs us that the Conquest took five years? Josephus also states this but may just be working from the information in the OT.Joshua 14:7 was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions And:14:10"Now then, just as the LORD promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old!The sending of the spies was during the first year of the 40 year wanderings, thus the Conquest took 5 years.The single year destruction of "all the Palestinian cities" would appear to contradict the Bible account.Brian.

.. you may be arguing with the wrong person if you plan on going down the road you might be leading to (minor issues over a few small details, though Im sure your main point is that all battles werent in a single lone year, I said as much before to CA).But your quotes raise an interesting issue.I believe in a Redactor.Fundamentalists dont like that idea.I believe large parts may have been added later. (For example the section of Joshua 13-around 19 with regards to the distribution of land to the tribes.I think is was based on historical circumstances in 1550 , but the cities, and especially their names, were hypothetical locations to be settled by certain tribes based on the land-rights Joshua gave them).I would tend to understand "40 year" periods and other neat rounded numbers to be periods that could be (say from..) anywhere from 20-70 years.The mentioning of 5 years periods could be literal though (so your point is well taken).I could even go as far as accepting the possibility that some parts mentioned (like battles) could be un-historical.But before I went that far, one must understand the realities that specific places names in 1550 may not correspond to what they were later in history.Plus many situations around the Conques and Wanderings center around nomadic kingdoms , and that raises pottery absence issues (plus many seem to have trouble understanding that "kingdoms" can be an arbitrary title; with regards to the difference between "king" and "tribal leader).Then there is the fact that not everything has been discovered yet.Anyway,back to the Conquest.I feel that the MBA ended at the same time in Egypt and Palestine (1550).Others like to slide in some short "1540-1500" MBIIC (or MBIIC or whatever) period in Palestine to attempt to fit it in with Egyptian campaigns (which frankly didnt happen).I feel that pottery had time to spread throughout all the areas at the same time.Back when Egypts New Kingdom was assumed to have started around 1570, everybody said Jericho was destroyed in 1550 BCE.Now Stiebing (while still using 1570 as the start of the New Kingdom)says Jericho was destroyed from "1500-1475" (based on Bietaks Egyptian pottery asumptions) and that would be c1450 with the newer mainstream chronology.That was back in 1989 when Bietak (who Stiebing pinted out in a footnote, accepts 1539 as the start of the New Kingdom) assumed the cities were destoryed from 1540-1500.Now Bietak has decided that there really isnt any Palestinian destruction from the early 18th dynasty , so the MBA ended around 1450 in Palestine.One could say that Jericho (a far inland city that may have even been somewhat poor by the end of MBA)was destroyed even later.I disagree with it all though.The archaeological evidence shows a tight period of 1550 for the destructions.SOOOO Looking at the big picture...........Massive destructions around 1550 in Palestine (in the inland regions Egypt showed very lttle interest in, but is central to Bible Conquest events)95% population reduction in Canaanite Palestine from 1550-1200City-dwelling Canaanite population replaced by pastoralist (Israelite?) population.Canaanite cities the Bible describes as being still Canaanite controlled consistent with the Amarna letters.(and other Egyptian evidence)Canaanite texts refering to stateless individuals involved in battles and disputes constantly.Merenptah stele shows that those statless individuals in the high-land regions (frequently mentioned in Egyptian documents) were Israelites.Specific and highly frequent references to Philistines as individuals begins around c1150 in The book of Judges.Around the same time (100+ years later), the Israelites call for a monarchy indicating that perhaps they began to settledown into cities between the time of Philistine arrivals and the call for a King.This is between- THE PRECEDING PERIOD- the context of the Bible describing a change in slave prices (fiting the going price in the historical Ancient Near East in 100% precise details even with regards to the changing prices) from 20 shekels of silver(c2000-c1650) to 30 shekels a slave (c 1650-c1300)around the time of Moses (which would be about than 40 years before the Conquest of c1600).And the Ipuwer payyrus. Ipuwer Papyrus - WikipediaForbiddenThen-THE POST JUDEGES PERIOD- of near 100% proof for Monarchy Israelite events and details.This is the context we must view (then accept) with an open mind.From 1550-1150 , we have to look at the details and then compare.We already know that the Biblical Monarchy period has been solidly proven in mainstream literature (whenever there has been a chance to test the Bible from Assyrian, Egyptian, and Moabite sources-it has fit!)thougn the United Monarchy was during a period where there werent outside forces recording details;Egypt and assyria were weak, but that actually helps provide indirect evidence for the ability of a powerful kingdom to emerge in Palestine.I feel that the 1550-1150 Biblical period can be considered as historical as the post 1150 period.There is a mainstream disute whether Shishak attcked israel in c925 BCE or c920 BCE.We can dispute the same about Joshua and the Conquest.

In 1987 Baruch Halpern made VERY valuable comments when responding to Bimsons attempt to fit LBA1 (was assigned 1550-1400 till recently) into just 20 years (1420-1400).Keep in mind Bimson, no longer proposes such.It is too long to quote but here are snips..... Halpern gives a more biref look at Alalakh.With building phases (all in LB1) that would lead back 75 years (at least 2 37.5 year building phases).Its true that Tutmose III's campaign is now know to be later than 1468BCE , but everything still leads the LB1 starting date back to close to 1550BCE.The MBA-end cant be stretched at all to the Ahmose battle against Sharuhen in c1525.Thats for sure.And he didnt get any further.Stiebing responds Stiebing is wrong.Halpern is right.Steibing actually inadvertently admits (by mistake for sure) later in a different context LOL maybe Stiebing should critique , as opposed to accepting without any question (he never even adressed the issue, even in Context of Bimson's MBA views!), the Egyptian Conquest.Stiebing had an easy time shooting down Bimsons (now old but the book is from 1989)position due to the fact that Bimson made an effort to have Thutmose III as the Pharoah of the Exodus.Stiebing fell short on almost every other criticism (he only spent about 5 pages on Bimson, and most of the work was easy by focusing on the 18th dynasty Exodus factual problems)of Bimson.Stiebing, without qualification said that Gaza didnt exist till the LBA (!)and that El-Bireh (Bethel) didnt have any Pre-Greek pottery.Despite the fact that the 2 have hardly been touched due to political issues and thick population.To Stiebings credit he did admit that arguments for Beitin being Bethel were not proven. Stiebing wrote a good book.But he,like others, made too many assumptions.He assumed (and didnt even question) that there was an Egyptian Conquest.Infact, people are so used to this idea that they will twist and chop away at the LBAI period in Palestine (usually 1550-1400)till it fits whatever possibel dreamed up Egyptian campaigns they imagine.Its already down to what...1500-1400? That was 15 years ago when the anchor Bible dictionary was written.There is this "MBIII" period that is now creeping slowly over all of the LBA it seems. Stiebing had 1475 as the end of the MBA in Palestine. Now with Egyptian chronology lowered, it looks like the LBA might be down to 40-50 years?Look in the encyclopedias. This might not be admitted at first (especially not in general overviews), but study the battle descriptions of individual city-destructions (terminal MBA in Palestine).Then consider that they usually use the 1570 or 1550 beginning of the 18th dynasty (which enables the early 18th dynasty Pharoahs to be 31 years closer to 1550).Then consider that they still need a MBIII period of "1550-1500" or "1540-1500" and often they will wiggle their way toward slipping in Thutmose III who attacked the towns much later.Knock another 30 years off the LBI Palestinian history claim (due to the mainstream lowering of Egyptian dates-which though 100% correct- arent mentioned and must be "priced in" when chopping the LBA in an effort to extend the MBA in Palestine).Put 2 and 2 together.That makes "1540-1500" actually "1540-1370" or even later (Stiebing was already down to 1475 15 years ago!).Then Thutmose III will bring us down to 1440. That leaves 1440-1400 for the LBA1!!!!!To paraphrase Halpern (who was refering to Bimson and Livingston who had an obsession to lower the dates to fit the 18th dynasty Pharoah of the Exodus) The mainstream literature needs to drop their own Conquest obsessions (Ahmose Conquests.... early 18th Dynasty Conquests... Thutmose III Conquests).It is wrecking our ability to get a correct grip on history.

Are we putting the cart before the horse? To have a Conquest, you have to have an Exodus. I think most here are in agreement there is no evidence for an Exodus.

For example:Some think the huge increase in settlements in Iron Age Israel (thats about 400 years after the actual Conquest) could be from movments of Aramean tribes.You can have people entering the country for a number of reasons.The Philistines conquered the coastal lands of Palestine c1175.Infact I was just reading one scholar (when talking about the early Iron Age destructions) say how ironic it was the the hill country had few destructions but the coast and valleys had destructions-the exact opposite of the Conquest story and Israelite settlements.Its best to work back from the well-documented time periods and slowly inch to the more foggy and distant times-zones.I dont want to get started on the Exodus (I spend too much time when Im debating, and frankly I may want to get this Conquest debate over with)but one can easily see a semi-nomadic group of north-west semites leave the country through the desert.And people of this ethnicity-during the 12th to 17th dynasties- made up most slaves, not just in the Delta, but also in Upper Egypt.The issue of whether a group like this can conquer Palestine is another issue.The much more difficult issue.Ill let the evidence fall where it will though.My observations of the situation in 1550 seems to show that a Conquest did infact happen and it did seem to be a semi-nomadic group.And the Merenptah Stele does infact clinch the line of dots that lead back to the 1550 destructions.The Mernptah reference is useful when we know what the Israelites were and what their claimed historical details presented.Thats where the Bible comes in.Specifically the books of Joshua and Judges.There is a near-by road that we can follow that leads to back to 1550.Anything beyond that can only be viewed as too distant till we get there.There are contextual clues from the Exodus period that can help us clinch the Conquest (if it happened).The slave prices and changing rates are very helpful.Since they arent off by even a single shekel (!) when stacked up against the written records of the ANE.However.Until we actually start to look at the "Egyptian Conquest" of MBA Palestine with a critical-eye , then we wont even begin to get anywhere.

So, instead of starting, back-tracking, side-tracking and interposing vagrant thoughts, how about summing up your lengthy posts. Are you claiming the Conquest took place circa 1550 B.C.?Edited by Nighttrain, : ABE a pesky 'up'

If anything, I need to present alot more. (anybody who thinks any quote in ANY post I presented wasnt 100% necessary may be/surely IS missing the point in a rather significant way)What happened to the inland MBA population at the end of MBA?Im asking people to start thinking about this.Some sort of "conquest" happened.I have presented mainstream quotes that say just that.Its always a claim of the Egyptian "conquest" though.The Israelites arent even considered.I should have (and will when I have time in a day or so,wish I did now)quoted some more from Stiebings book.He was only looking at around c.1200 for the possible reasons for the emergence of the Israelites, but his contextual backgrounds for the entire LBA lead to the MBA and he (without thinking it had anything at all to do with the Conquest;it clearly didnt even cross his mind)showed genuine confusion at what happened to the MBA inland-Palestinian population in the highland regions.I REALLY need to quote that.Anyway, my conclusions arent important.Its that data thats important.If people accept an Egyptian Conquest as a given , then when was it?1550?1500?1490?1450? (Redform made it clear in his textbook standard 3 vol Oxford Encyclopedia that he would impose a standard year dating chronology to avoid "choas" of different year-chronologies, but Bietak clearly dates the Thutmose campaigns of Palestine at c1450 according to his chronology, and he himself said that they were in the MBA! Infact Bietak would even accept lowering the Iron Age chronology around 50-75 years I *think*, so that makes the MBA end in the 1300's but thats another issue.)Please present evidence for your conclusions.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.

That main reason (*THE* REASON) for rejecting the Joshua Conquest of Jericho in the 50s was the fact that people had this arbitrary assumption that a pre 1400's Jericho destruction somehow was an issue as to whether the city was brought down by Joshua.Now that all the coastal and northern cities (which were always heavily populated-even through the LBA period, which I date at 1550-1400BCE)are being dated at around 1450BCE in the MBA , then the inland city of Jericho (which is some ways seemed in-poverished at the end of the MBA-though there was abundent grain, ie ANE $$$, left) would have even further chronological delays.I DONT accept the chronological delay mind you.Not for 10 years.Not for 5 years.Not for 1 year.If the MBA ended c1450BCE in the coastal and northern cities in Palestine (and Egypts #1 archaeologist says just that in the Gold-Standard Redford Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt), then that means that the city destructions were at about the same time as the obsessive "1410BCE" date for Jerichos destruction.Thats something to chew on!

from my understanding the arguement of why no one believes joshua conquired it, is because there were no PEOPLE living there when he suppably did it, there was no citymany other reasons why no one really believes it is, there is no evidence for it, and there is a lot of evidence for canaanite cultural continuity, throughout the time of the conquest yes and? most of the evidence found shows the cities to be destroyed over 200-300 years, not 5 try 1200 bce, and jericho has been destroyed a lotJust to add to this, at the suposed time joshua was conquiring canaan egypt was too, why is there nothing on that in the bible? we know egypt was doing so from evidence and writings, israel was already there, it was conquired by egypt at the time joshua was suposted to have beenEdited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

... go though the various views on the "Conquest" (back 7 months ago in the Edom thread) , because somehow I had a a feeling many didnt understand the various time periods and the issues involved.People kept pelting me though whenever I started to cover various Christian views of the Conquest (I couldnt get people to understand that I wasnt *defending* certain schools of thought, I was just trying to cover some ground).I got too sidetracked constantly responding to people who couldnt understand what I was tying to do.Anyway,ReverendDG.The Middle Bronze Age ended in Egypt in 1550 BCE, nobody doubts that (well some do but they arent mainstream at all).The Late Bronze Age was from 1550-1200.LBA-1 was 1550-1400LBA-2A was 1400-1300LBA-2B was 1300-12001200 was the beginning of the Iron Age.There were 2 views on the Conquest that were were presented.One in 1410 BCE (based on the "480 years" in 2 Kings 6 , which was taken quite literally, though it ignored alot of other dating evidence) and the other was based on a c.1220 Conquest (based on the view that "Rameses" of Expodus 1:11 refered to RamesesII of the 19th dynasty, and his first born son wasnt mentioned in Eyptian records after around 1260 BCE so they assumed he would have died then during the Exodus).The c1450 Exodus was called the "Early Exodus"The c1260 one wwas called the "Late Exodus"Goggle "Kathleen Kenyon".And "Jericho".Around the 1950s...She found that the walls of Jericho last fell in 1550 BCE (the end of the Middle Bronze Age)and she reported to the world something like (this isnt an exact quote..) "Im sorry to have to report that there wasnt a walled city in Jericho for either the early or late Exodus."Jericho isnt the only reason many will give for rejecting a Conquest, but it was the major issue turned world opinion against the Bible. Like all of your comments/questions,it depends on what the time period is which is being refered to (see my above comments and google suggestion).People have dated the Conquest from anywhere from 2400BCE all the way down to around 1100 BCE.Around 1140 BCE Egypt no longer controled any of Canaan.And didnt make any serious inroads that we know of till 200 years later.But, beyond that period.The part of Palestine that the Israelites lived in wasnt of much interest to the Egyptians at most times though.The highland regions were a rocky backwater, and from 1550-c1000BCE, it was very poor.The Amarna letters showed just how interested Egyptian pharoahs were in the affairs of that region of Palestine:hardly any concern at all.Anyway.There are several different Conquest models I suppose.I dont think it all can be covered here.There is surely lots on the web to read though.One highly interesting book that just came out , which may be interesting for skeptics to critique is called the Archaeological Study Bible by Walter Kaiser (it comes from a fundamentalist perspective).It claims to explain archaeologically EVERYTHING in the Bible,and also claims to present multiple views (including skeptical views).Its got the full text of the NIV, so they cant dodge anything.Im highly interested myself in how they defend "Philistines" in c. 1410 (which Im sure c1410 will be the Conquest date). I have yet to see any fundamentalist even attempt to tackle that one yet I would know-I searched endless material a few days ago, and *NOTHING* came up!.The book would represent the most "mainstream" conclusions of fundamentalists I suppose.I find the Conquest (and pre-monarchy Judges period)) issue the most interesting of all (to debate) because its an issue that is just before the generally accepted Monarchy period.Well... mainstream historians seem to have taken an interest in the David period. They have rejected the Conquest and Judges period flat-out.I guess the United Monarchy is the next big issue they will debate since all have rejected nearly everything before.But the Conquest and Judges period seems to be something that people should be able to debate with an open-mind and deep interest (without anyones world being shattered if it is proven to have happened; even athiests can say "O well... its just proof that the Bible is accurate back to 1500 BCE , it *still* isnt any BIG deal toward proving God".), but it seems that written records just arent avaliable, and the absense bores people.Plus the archaeology is too vague.Anyway,Im off.Ill let others back to their seperate issue-debates.It seems this Conquest issue has expired in its ability to draw interest.I won post anymore on the Conquest in this thread.

My point was along those lines, but more of a technical point, i.e. it is beyond the realm of archaeology to prove that all the towns mentioned in Joshua were destroyed in a single year, the available evidence makes it impossible to make this claim. (This is what CA was pointing out)But the thing is Nim, these small details are far more important than you appear to realise, small, what you call ”minor issues’ can falsify an entire theory. For example, the hypothesis that the Israelite conquest took 5 years is falsified by your claim that the cities were all destroyed in one year, now this is incompatible, the claims contradict each other. So something has to be changed to maintain biblical accuracy, and I have a problem with you (or anyone doing this), what you are doing is changing the text to fit the evidence. This harkens back to the dark years of the original biblical archaeology where every find was interpreted through the Bible. You need to look at the archaeological evidence and the bible texts on their own, you cannot change the text to fit the evidence, if the evidence says ”x’ you cannot change your text from ”y’ to ”x’!This is exactly what conservative Christian archaeologists and historians have been doing for decades, and only a few of them have had the integrity to proclaim that the text is inaccurate. What we seldom see is a bit of honesty from these guys. What we should see are declarations of how unreliable the biblical text actually is, and not these contortions of the text and archaeological evidence into something that allegedly proves historical events in the Bible.If the Conquest did not happen as outlined in the Book of Joshua, and I am sure you are aware that the Book of Judges essentially contradicts the military conquest of Canaan, then we need conservative scholars to be honest and tell their readers that the Book of Joshua is inaccurate, that it has been falsified by archaeological evidence, but we may be able to find another account by filtering the biblical text and then comparing that to the external evidence to test its veracity.What is wrong with a dose of honesty? Now, every single scholar involved in the debate over the origins of Ancient Israel, and I mean every scholar since IMO the 1930’s (perhaps earlier), knows that the military conquest of Canaan, as outlined in Joshua, is incompatible with the archaeological evidence, the narratives do not harmonise with the evidence. Why else have we had so many different proposals over the last 70 years or so? If the evidence fitted the biblical text so well, then why is it that no mainstream scholar in the last 70 years takes the conquest in the Book of Joshua at face value? Well, I think to claim that there’s no redaction in the Bible simply means that the individual either hasn’t studied the Bible, or they have some sort of mental illness. Having said that, I do know some people who take this stance, and at least one member here has said there are no anachronisms (a sure sign of redaction) at all in the Bible. Undoubtedly the mention of ”forty’ years is artificial in many instances. Moses’ life, for example, is divided into 3 periods of 40 years, and many of the Judges ruled for artificial periods of time. But, since we know that ”40’ years doesn’t necessarily signify a literal 40 years would lead me to believe that the 5 years for the conquest is to be taken at face value as it would make more sense to round down the 45 years to 40 years, the 85 years of Caleb would likely be rounded down if it wasn’t a literal time period. (IMO) I’d say the United Monarchy and everything before that is unhistorical. Yes but there are usually clues as to their location, some settlements, such as Ai, can only be in that area. Other settlements can be argued over, such as Pithom, but sometimes the name has continued. Well, I wouldn’t say that the Wanderings were nomadic, the Israelites spent 38 years at Kadesh-Barnea, yet there’s no evidence of any population there before the 11th century BCE. Well we don’t know if they happened or not but it is highly unlikely as this was the period of the Hyksos. But other factors could be responsible, as I said the whole valley is in a rift, an earthquake hotspot. Then we have to deal with famine, disease, and drought, not to mention other peoples. But no one knows who or what destroyed Jericho in 1550. As Bill Dever said, “No one left calling cards”, so we just don’t know. Yet, this does not stop people awarding some great victory to the Israelites, a people that no one has provided a single shred of evidence for existing at that time! Could the Egyptians have destroyed Jericho? Perhaps, we just don’t know. What we do know is that is a possibility as we know that there were Egyptians at that time. Did the Israelites destroy Jericho? All we really need to do is ask the question: what Israelites? As I said, archaeology cannot produce a tight picture, given the ambiguity and nature of the evidence. This is the thing, what period are you speaking of here, c .1200? Also, you have again just mentioned Israelite nomads without a single shred of evidence for the existence of ”Israelites’. The Amarna Letters essentially negate the Book of Joshua as well, as Kitchen said has frequently pointed out. The Hapiru? Well that’s one huge leap in logic mate, to link the ”Israel’ of the Merneptah Stele to the Hapiru of the Amarna Letters (if that is what you are proposing), how on earth do you propose to go about doing that? The Book of Judges doesn’t allocate a date to the Philistines, so how can you make this statement? Again though, all this is completely invisible in textual and archaeological sources. Sorry, I am afraid it cannot, the Bible version of Israel’s settlement in Canaan has no support in the archaeological record, it doesn’t matter how many contortions ”scholars’ perform, the fact is, the Israel of the so-called Wanderings-Conquest-Judges period have never been shown to exist. Except that the Joshua myth isn’t about such a small difference in time, as you have said the dispute over the dates span a period of over 500 years!So, to continue, do you wish to reject the historicity of the Book of Joshua and take the version of Israel’s settlement as portrayed in the Book of Judges, or a little mixture of both?Finally, since the topic is accurate history in the Bible, how accurate do you think the Book of Joshua's military conquest is?Brian.

I wont have as much time as I did before,but here are quick responces. I said way up in my first post that there are difficulties in dating. That aside, the MBA *ENDED* and until manfred Bietak (and perhaps others)started presenting chronological delays- (saying the MBA ended in c1450 in Palestine while ending long before in Egypt) which havnt exactly been widely accepted (mostly ignored-infact most are dead ignorant of the issue!)- everybody said the MBA ended in 1550 in both Egypt and Palestine.The archaeological evidence shows devestating destruction in the highland region of Palestine at the end of the MBA.Bietak dates the destruction of the more wealthy (and populated throughout the LBA UNLIKE the hill-country)MBA Northern areas at 1450BCE!So what?Is the highland destruction even later than 1450 BCE?Most still say the MBA ended in 1550 BCE.If people (like you!) want to keep using the "480 years" of 1 Kings (making the Exodus in c1450, and Conquest in c1410)as somehow a fundamental fact that we must not ignore (and you slam me for somehow ignoring the Bibles plain text-SEE BELOW on your "small details" lecture), then by your own fundamental(ist?) standards you must stop telling everybody that there wasnt a walled Jericho around the later half of the time you say the Bible describes for the destruction. The "dark years of original archaeology" need a closer analysis , but I think they were even darker than you EVER could.You actually tend to support most of the conclusions from that period.Before I get to that let me respond to your lecture on "details". You are slamming me for not accepting the "480 years" in Kings as literally correct. NON-FUNDAMENTALIST (and secular!)scholars/archaeologists have been ignoring that "480 year" time-period marker for ages! They have then shortened the period to roughly 300 years then. I agree with them that the 480 year period has flaws (it was written LONG after the Conquest for starters, and there are several other issues invoolved), but I dont agree with the shortening.Infact if one adds up the dates from Solomon to the Exodus then even kenneth Kitchen agrees that it is over 600 years!I dont ignore anything!I think is was over 600 years from 966BCE to the Exodus.I dont change the text.I ALSO dont change the archaeological evidence.The highland region of the MBA-Palestine saw most cities get destroyed and a 90% population reduction.You can speculate about earthquakes all you want. You can even speculate about the POSSIBILITY that the terminal-MBA stratigraphy doesnt indicate the exact same year.Ill take ALL evidence and not ignore or sweep under the rug a single bit of it.I encourage you to follow my methodology.Back to the "dark years" issue.The dark-years were caused by secular archaeologists and liberal bible scholars.The whole c1200 Conquest was their invention.The only fiasco with fundamentalists was Garstang mis-dating a destroyed wall in Jericho by nearly 1000 years.He though it was from c-1400 (based on the Bible), but it actually was from 2300. kenyon later found destroyed walls from the end of the MBA (1550). Actually, many (if not most) have been secular archaeologists. They attempt to fit the Conquest into the few scattered LBA-Iron Age destructions around 1230-1150 (and those were along the coasts and northern palestinian regions,not the hill-country!).Fundamentalist archaeologists have stuck to the magical "1410" date ALL ALONG and insisted that all destructions described in the Bible (thogh only 3:Jericho , Ai, and Hazor) all happened at the same time. The archaeological record is whats important. It shows that the Joshua text is pretty darn-accurate.Like I said.We can nibble over 5 years here, and 5 years there (like Shishak)with regards to when the MBA ended.The archaeological evidence shows Judges to also fit the record nearly 100% whenever it can be tested specifically. I already showed you where the book of Joshua (yes JOSHUA!)tells of cities that werent taken;like Jerusalem.I dont think Judges contradicts anything in Joshua.Perhaps it fills in details that we wouldnt get from Joshua.I also dont think that the archaeological record falsifies anything.It may falsify the scholarly-invented "c1200 Conquest" and it may strain the c1410 Conquest (or does it?!-you were just lecturing me about the various MBA sites not actually ending in a single year of 1550, the leading Egyptian archaeologist actually dates MBA-palestinian estructions like Jericho during the later half of the 15th century.) , but the Biblical text which puts 600+ years from c.970 to the Exodus doesnt run into any problems with archaeology. All the various proposals have centered around 2 things.(1 main thing for secular archaeologists)The MAIN center of gravity everybody attempted to offer "so many different proposals" around , was the c-1200 Conquest. They noticed Jericho was last destroyed in the MBA (1550) , so some proposals had a "2 Exodus" theory where some israelites (with Joshua) Conquered Palestine in 1550, then some remained and with Moses (c1200) exited Egypt later and joined with the Israelites already there.The other proposal has come from the hard-nosed fundamentalists who insist on the "480 years" of the Messorah being literally accurate.It ignores alot of evidence showing the period to be longer than 480 years.That just INTERNAL evidence with relation to the Biblical-text. The archaeological picture fits the Bible like a glove. You mean et-tell when you say "Ai"?Et-tell absolutely CANNOT be Ai.It all depends on where Bethel is.And the location most have chosen for Bethel simply does not fit the evidence.Even William Stiebing couldnt give a very strong reccomendation to Beitin being Bethel (though he went along with it).The job that archaeologists did at Beitin was so poor that William Dever (who Im no fan of) spent his entire Anchor Bible article criticising the field work (the stratigraphy "reports" were worthless and useless).Infact, the whole process of locating Bethel as Beitin was pathetic (though Dever didnt say this).It amazes me to no end, Brian , that you lecture about the "dark ages of archaeology" yet the absolute worst work done during those "Dark Ages" is the work you most gladly swallow and belch out constantly through endelss repetitions. 40 years wandering in the wilderness would indicate to me nomadic tendencies (wandering in and around many areas).Are you invoking the super-natural elements in the story when you insist on a strictly literal reading? Then there wouldnt be any Israelite cooking pots and the such which would leave pottery.There are many other complicated issues involved here.Questions to do with whether a fertile oasis (assuming it is one of the actual locations of the wandering episode) would really be absent visitors for so long (what....1000 years+?)as the pottery evidence indicates.This Kadesh-Barnea issue is one I am willing to hold off on making broad conclusions.If the Israelites were semi-nomadic (and those types of people did settle in the Delta during many time periods)then we have the issue of 55,000 Palestinian's from the 20th century who didnt leave any pottery traces. Thats far more people than were in the Israelites camp.My main point were in relation to the trans-Jordan peoples anyway.Not the Israelites. I was speaking of 1550 as the time period the Canaanite population was displaced by a nomadic population.The Hapiru were mentioned during the Mernptah reign (and throughout the 19th dynasty, not to mention the 18th) in high-land Palestine! I didnt say Israelites were the same as the Hapiru , but if the Israelites were a significant state-less tribe in Palestine (a c1210 text proves it!)when episodes involving state-less individuals (Hapiru) were constantly mentioned, then what is 2+2?I draw a clear link from c1210 back to the Amarna letters from 120-150 years earlier.Its no leap.Many "Israelite origins" discussions (by secular scholars like Finkelstein) often will look at the Context of 1550 to lead their way to the Iron Age settlements.Ill get to that (1550) later ,as its avery clear pathway that the strong links lead us to, but here is what the Anchor Bible dictionary says about those state-less individuals... ("..."=elipsis in articles I quote) back to page 7 under "sources" Seems to me that the evidence shows quite alot to back up what I said and that IS NOT a "huge leap".Most references come from the highland regions of Palestine (and I skipped many direct quotations in the article showing episodes there)from c1440-1160 (IE the references start in the Judges period and end just before the Israelites started to settledown into cities).Later, I will show much more contextual data from the 1550-1150 period in the highlan regions of Palestine. They fit every detail of Joshua-Judges but they negate it?Joshua's text (chapter 15)shows Jerusalem being held by the Canaanites. So do the Amarna letters.I have mentioned endless examples (11) of towns the Israelites were described as NOT being in control of, being backed up by the Amarna letters.Only 1 that they were last described as holding (though way back in the beginning of the 1550 Conquest),namely lachish, was shown to be held by Canaanites.HMMMMMM (think hard here)....11-1 agreement and even the lone example of Lachish can be easily explained in the context of the situation.Sounds like a fit to me. Get a standard Bible concordance (an exaustive one ).Look up the word "Philistines".Notice that of the 300+ mentions of "Philistines", you will see Judges 13 right near the earliest of quotes.The highly frequest references to Philistines (off 300 after Judges 13, only about 15 before , and half of those were a different people in Genesis)started in Judges 13.Look in the margins of any study Bible or any time charts of Biblical dates.It will show that time period to be within 1100-1150. The "many contortions" due indeed come from scholars. But its their ignoring of the perfect fit betwwen the archaeological record (as well as textual records like Amarna) and Joshua-Judges. LOL.The Iron Age settlement is clearly seen in the archaeological record.The Monarchies of Judah and Israel are also clearly seen in the non-Biblical textual records whenever they become avaliable.And to go to the Iron Age settlements, we need to look at the entire context.Lets see where that leads us,shall we............Stiebing (in his outstanding book) was speaking in the context of the c1200 emergence Iron Age cities (for perhaps 20 pages) and the apparant population explosion (post 1200); and like many other surveys on this issue , they end with the immacualte scholarship and archaeological work of Israel Finkelstein. Stiebing quotes Finkelstein from his book -------- This must remind us 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).Finkelstein is describing the c1150 period and the process of settlement.But what relevent time period does Stiebing feel we should be lead back to?Lets read on (he takes from the work of many scholars that are the top of their field) The Late Bronze Age is the time period (1550-1200) immediately following the massive destruction of the Joshua cities (and ONLY the region that has Joshua cities,none else!) that the archaeological record shows.Some top archaeologists (like Manfred Bietak, the most important Egyptian archaeologist alive, who is a very powerful authority on the end of the MBA due to his running the all-important Hyksos sites)place the start of the Palestinian LBA stratigraphy at 1450BCE. Most scholarship places them c1550.Especially older (slightly less current) works though recent ones do as well.Stiebing points out that Michael B. Rowton has shown that most nomads lived around towns in the Ancient Near East.They were not fighting but lived in peaceful co-existence and Rowton called it a "dimorphic structure".The pastoralists grazed their flocksover the stubble leftover on the ground after harvest, and the flocks fertilized tthe fields.They Nomads traded goods produced from their flocks.This picture presented above happened from 1550-1150 , during the Late Bronze Age.Stiebing then goes deeper into the context which leads.....to the Middle bronze Age. Stiebing then considers a contradiction in Finkelsteins model.Why would the massive destructions of the MBA turn settled people into seminomads , yet the terminal-LBA also was defined by destructions and it lead to semi-nomads settling down. (though I must remind people AGAIN that the MBA-1550-destructions were in the highland areas of Palestine that the Israelites settled and the LBA-1200-destructions wre along the coasts and the north of Palestine mainly , plus the MBA destructions were MUCH more heavy)I would say that the Joshua Conquest is the missing ingredient for the terminal-MBA destructions (1550) , but Stiebing doesnt even consider that.He is only interested in the issue for the background he feels it gives in relation to the Late Bronze period of 1550-1200 which Stiebing (and all other mainstream historians)feels saw the Israelites emerge at the tail end(1200).The reason the 1550 situation is so difficult to explain is due to the fact that the archaeologists and scholars simply cant see the obvious.Stiebing adds that Finkelstein is aware of the contradiction, but he quotes Finkelstein responding in his book........ WOW!Just WOW!He (Finkelstein)is so right.But he just cant see (and nobody asks him to see)that he just described the Bibles textual outline of Joshua's Conquest of the highland regions of Palestine.The total population of MBA Palestine went from 150,000 down to 60,000 during the Late bronze Age (post 1550), and all the reduction was in the highland regions where it went down to under 20,000.Stiebing goes on to wonder how this fits in with Finkelsteins "symbiosis" between seminomads and settled populations when "in the hill country, only a handful of towns were to be found" and thus the semi-nomadidc population would far outnumber the settled population.Stiebing then goes on to anwser his own question by pointing to 3rd millennium Palestinan hill-country examples of "extended" periods of pastoralism when "virtually no urban centers existed".Stiebing again wonder why we should accept that city destructions at the end of the LBA (1200) should force pastoralists to settle down.Stiebing doesnt seem to strongly understand that the semi-nomadic population was just in the highland-regions as times, though its clear he does at other times. He keeps talking about the ENTIRE population of Palestine when Finkelstein mostly focuses on the highland population.He also doesnt seem to completely appreciate that the devestating MBA(1550) destructions and the LBA (1200)destrcutions were in seperate regions of Palestine.Stiebing goes on to survey the Finkelstein view (the most credible for sure in Stiebings mind despite the criticism) before he simply drops the scholarly views and moves on to his Iron Age commentary. Stiebing goes on to point out that he still is not entirely convinced.And while he consdiers Finkelsteins theory to be with merit, he simply cant understand how 80,000 people (in the highlands) could have simply "disappeared between MBII and LBII".MBII ended in 1550 and LBII started in 1400.The archaeological situation between is LB1 from the start of the 1550 period.(a very difficult period in a number of ways lol, see my quotes of Halpern, Bietak, etc.;some feel it was not 150 years but only 50 years from 1450-1400-Bietak said in 1988 BAR "One has to admit that the difference between MBIIC and LB1A is only minor" when refering to Bimsons attempt to lower his c1450 start for LB1 down to around 1420).Stiebings last word on the various theories of what happened from 1550-1200(before moving on to the Iron Age)... Stiebing leaves the MBA discussion at that.Remember that the MBA ended in 1550.Stiebing is simply dicussing the Iron Age post 1200 BCE. He had no intention of getting into the MBA which ended 400 years before the period he wished to discuss.It is the Iron Age that was the topic and he moved back into that.Brian said Since the MBA ended with massive destruction IN THE ISRAELITE AREAS JOSHUA DESCRIBES (namely the highland regions,and ONLY the highland cities were destroyed in the archaeological record)and could have been as late as 1450 (infact the 3 volume Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt said just that when its MBA-LBA heavyweight authority Manfred Bietak commented on the end of the MBA in Palestine), then we must take notice.Even Brian admits that Jericho was destroyed in the manner the Bible describes (earthquake).Food was money in the Ancient Near East , and the book of Joshua clearly states that NOTHING was to be taken from Jericho.It also describes the battle as near harvest time.The food was left in the ruins of Jericho! And it seemed to be abundent in grain as would there would be in harvest time!And o yea, the population also was wiped out.Just like the Bible describes.Infact the destruction at the end of the MBA in highland Palestine is so powerful that it even grabs peoples attention EVEN when discussing the human settlement patterns hundreds of years later (see Stiebing quotes)!Brian wonders how the Merenptah reference can be connected to the Habiru from c1350.See my Anchor Bible quotes above (in this post) on the Habiru.The lions share of historical references to Habiru were in the highland regions of Palestine (that should sound familar).Mainly from Egytians.ALL (Egyptianreferences)WERE FROM 1450-1160! And since 1450 can be considered the start of the MBA (though I think 1550), then you have the exact period from the post Conquest date (ie Judges period) to the c1150 Iron Age settlement period.In my next,post Ill remind Brian what the scholars say about the Merneptah reference and what it clearly is telling us. (remember Brian, this description of "Israel" was from the same period where the Habiru or "stateless individuals" were so frequently mentioned by Egyptians-the Late Bronze Age)Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.Edited by MightyPlaceNimrod, : No reason given.