Clivedurdle

Pardon? I thought they had been an integral part of Egyptian Society for four hundred and fifty years! New Yorkers are not the same as Bedouin!

Actually, I think them eating manna meant they left no waste. Their feet did not swell because they were prototypes of Jesus walking on water - the technology was first tested on sand.

And their are no written records because only the first born could write (apart from the Jewish slaves) - and they were all dead.

Gamera

I'm claiming that historiography isn't simplistic, as you apparently think it is. You seem to think there are "historical" texts over here, and then there are "fictions" over her. When in fact, historiography is a pastiche of contending agendas that result in variously ambiguous texts, which include some historical facts, some historical inaccuracies, and always an agenda motivating the author to write the text as a narrative as opposed to an annul or a chronicle or a meditation (events aren't narrative -- you have to make them into a story).

In that sense Exodus has those elements, as does Herodotus. They aren't that different. And if Exodus got some of the numbers wrong, so did Herodotus. And if Exodus made a narative out of a desultory number of events, so did Herodotus.

xaxxat

he hid all the fire pits too...

Agenda07

Just to clarify, are you really proposing that two million Hebrews walked through the desert in single file?

Just wondering.

Larsguy47

NOT IN THIS CASE! The "Harapu" mentioned in the Amarna Texts, with this dating is too specific! In fact, this dating excludes the Jews that were in Egypt as those "Harapu" active during the Amarna Period if this is what your reference is. That's because the Amarna Period would have essentially ended by the time the Jews were conquering in Palestine and for most of that time, during the reign of Akhenaten when the complaints were coming in, the Jews would have still been in the wilderness. So NO, and specifically NO is this chronology a connection to the "Harapu" if I understand your reference. Now that does not eclude these "Ebiru" people were not related to the Jews through Abraham, who was the father of many nations, or even the descendants of Lot. "Eber" was an ancester of Abraham.


Thanks, so much, for being specific about the reference. But because of this specific chronology, I don't see where this is well-matched to the 12-11th century Bronze/Iron age temple. In fact, Dever wants the authenticate the early Solomonic dating somehow, which is completely dismissible and is non-Biblical. The state of Palestine at the specific time of Shishak's invasion, which occurs in the last year of Solomon is the archaeological comparison specifically for this chronology. The Ark of the Covenant and the tabernacle was a tent before this and the temple Solomon built was the first permanent "house" or temple for the Jews. That temple per this chronology specifically began to be built in 906BCE, the very late 10th/early 9th century. Any other findings prior to this would not be connected with the Jews.


A reasonable challenge but one that can be examined and discussed for credibility. I could argue the same about most archaeologists and the academic world of "higher education" in general since many seem to be atheists. They can't see a god with their own eyes and experience so they simply don't believe. Of course, the fact that this god is supposedly "invisible" seems to have escaped their notice.

Thus this certainly is a legitimate challenge but it doesn't make the evidence ineffective. Sure I had the dating of 1386BCE already in place before the investigation based upon exegetical Biblical dating, but because I went looking for corroborating archaeological, historical and scientific (RC14) and astronomically compatible (KTU 1.78) evidence to support this, doesn't mean I am not at the same time looking for any evidence to absolutely contradict this. In fact, the method of looking for contradictory evidence often gives you a clearer picture. You know? You will get a different description of a man depending on whether you ask his wife or his mistress.

But the "exclusion of evidence" is key here. In that case, the anti-Biblicalists could be just as guilty as the pro-Biblicalists! But, having considered that there are certainly agendas on both sides, it leaves us with the DISCUSSION of the evidence at hand, which is now going on. Once the discussion begins, then what evidence or missing evidence evens the playing field and the convenient "exclusion" doesn't matter.

What is CRITICAL though, is that the pro-Biblicalists are not labelled as less honest or "scientific" as the anti-Biblicalists, like for instance, Israel Finkelstein. Now I use some of his information and examination as an "archaeologist" but dismiss some of his conclusions as "biased" and "anti-Biblical" because he does indeed "exclude" certain issues present in the Bible. Case in point, he gets momentum from his argument when he presumes that Shishak's invasion was during the Divided Kingdom Period when it was near the very end of Solomon's rule during a co-rulership between Rehoboam and Solomon. That changes the interpretatio of the motive for Shishak. Finkelstein, basically, contrasts the Bible's reference that this was an attack against Rehoboam but it is clear his campaign was centered very much in the northern kingdom area. Finkelstein thus presumes that there would have been no "geopolitical" basis for that focus, since he presumes that Rehoboam's rulership at the time was only in the area of Judah. But in fact, Rehoboam was designated as king prior to Solomon's death and the context of Shishak's attack shows Rehoboam still very much over the "princes of Israel", meaning this was during the short period of time from his appointment as king and the death of Solomon. In that case, therefore, the very clear "geopolitical" reason for Shishak's invasion was as the Bible stated, the attack on Rehoboam whose kingdom included the northern fortified cities at the time. So why didn't Finkelstein at least address the possibility that Solomon was still alive at this time and that Rehoboam began counting his rulership years from the time of this divine appointment/identification?

See? So while the "Biblical archaeologists" are accused of digging with the Bible in one hand and the spade in the other, the anti-Biblical archaeologists pick and choose dubious references in the Bible to their own advantage and leverage to try and disprove things. This happens again, and again, and again. I will be happy to give you another example if you want to regarding the MOABITE STONE/MESHA STELE, inappropriavely misrepresented by archaeologists to increase Biblical criticism.


I TOTALLY agree! And that is exactly what I've done! Now I could have just said the Biblical dating for the Exodus is 1386BCE, deal with it. But I didn't do that. I've harmonized that with ARCHAEOLOGICAL (Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho, RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion at Rehov), ASTRONOMICAL (KTU 1.78 dating applied to Akhenaten's rule), and extra-Biblical HISTORICAL (Manetho's reference to when Joseph came into Egypt and was appointed vizier) references. So it is a combination of the text with what available extra-Biblical evidences we have in place. I am providing the coordination of the text with the science.

>>All of that said, a couple of quick notes:

Great, okay! :>

>If you want to be strict on this, where are the records to -show- the loss of the amount of slaves to the Egyptian peoples?

Great question. If this happened at the beginning of Akhenaten's reign, and Akhenaten referenced this, and Akhenaten's records were purposely and totally destroyed, then one would not expect to find any references to this, now would they. So this would not be an "expected" reference to be recovered. That's why this is so significant, because it is so specific.

>For that matter, the records of the ten plagues?

Again, all of Akhenaten's records were destroyed. There are a couple of surviving "suggestions" that connects this. One I have to specifically relocate but apparently among Akhenaten's works is a image of blood around a doorpost, but I have to confirm this. Otherwise, there is not going to be a formal record, which would have been destroyed on purpose. What we have, though are the "circumstantial" evidences that the ten plagues actually happened or that pharoah died in the Red Sea as evidenced by my above information. That is, Akhenaten's movement toward a pseudo-Jewish monotheism could be interpreted as evidence that the Ten Plagues actually occurred. Those Ten Plagues were designed to expose the false gods of Egypt as simply made out of stone and having no real power, but the God of Israel as being a true, living God. Akhenaten got that message big time and became a Yawist, celebrating a God for being essentially the same God as that of Israel, so much so, that as Yaweh's Egyptian prophet and priest, his writings, inspired by this same God, matches so well with David's psalms, it's the basis for a whole new movement to connect the two! New Chronology (especially now that they have lost their KTU 1.78 eclipse option for any dating other than 1375BCE) now uses this similarity to try to linke Akhenaten and the Amarna Period close to David. So what is lacking in "specific" reference, which would have certainly been destroyed in Akhenatens' reference had he mentioned something specifically, certainly is testified by his behavior as far as his new religious preferences. So presuming the Jews somewhat freed themselves, it wouldn't explain the need to convert to monotheism. But that behavior clearly would have been expected had the Ten Plagues really happened. So apparently they did.

>If we're sticking mostly to the theological history and forcing the records to fit, why didn't the Egyptians oblige with corroborating records?

Again, they likely DID. That's what is important about the specific dating. These references would have specifically been during the reign of Akhenaten. His records were specifically destroyed as completely as possible. So there would be no expectation of these references for the rulership in which this event occurred. So the default here is that indeed, there should have been reciprical records, but because of the politics involved, these records were expunged and destroyed. We only have circumstantial evidence. So we presume the Egyptians indeed, DID OBLIGE with corroborating records during the time of Akhenaten, but then those records were destroyed as effectively as possible in the later rulerships.

>Oh, wait ... You've nicely ducked that by hitting on Akhenaten, whose religious edicts and political proclaimations were destroyed.

That's right. Archaeology confirms he was considered a "heretic king" and his memory was attempted to be erased as much as possible. So if there were in fact some corroborating or proto-Israelite references, which we would have expected, there's no logical reason to expect to find them at this point. So your'e correct. But please note this isn't an idle claim. This is specific to Akhenaten. We know for a fact his records were destroyed.

>What about the other record-keepers elsewhere in Egypt? Did no-one think to note the plagues?

The only RECORDS per se that come down to us tend to be war inscriptions. Merenpthah mentions the Isrealities and then we have Shishak, but those are both war-related type documents. The only standard kinds of documents we have in Egypt are of memorial type, like showing slaves making bricks during the reign of Thuthmosis III, which fits this chronology. A rare finding, though, are the Amarna texts! In this case, one rare reference to Akhenaten in relation to his father's death (EA 29) is highly consistent with Amenthotep III's death being a very infamous one and one where he apparently died with perhaps up to 1000 of his own soilders, highly consistent of the Red Sea death. So for what little we do have, this specific contextual reference to the death of Amenhotep III is very much confirmatory of how he died in the Red Sea. So that's why this was presented. You're position is that I'm not going to believe it until I see it myself. Well, unless you can go back in time in a time machine, you're not going to have that evidence. We only have what we have. We can see what is compatible and supportive or what is contradictory. Occasionally you'll get confirmatory. But insisting that it is FALSE until archaeology confirms it is not a valid position, or at least not a valid position of dismissal of a historical reference.

>That huge numbers of very rich slaves just up and left one day?

That's right. That's what the record says. And after that the pharoah died in the Red Sea with a thousand others, and we have a letter suggesting that is precisely what happened: EA29.

>That the first-born of all households were killed all in one night?

That's right! That's what the record says. Now that doesn't make sense via "natural law", but the Bible doesn't claim it happened naturally, it claims these people were killed "miraculously." So it is not defendable by "logic" no more than an atomic analysis of the Mona Lisa can appreciate art. So that's not something that is on the table to defend. Now since you weren't there, obviously, I certainly can't blame you for not believing it. But that's not proof it didn't happen. My position is that if this DID happen, and it was just before Akhnaten's rule, since we don't have his records to confirm anything, is there any "circumstantial" evidence we can find that is compatible with this. In that case, there is:

1. Obviously, Akhenaten's focussed change in faith.
2. But also, his military compromises for the vassal states that always kept requesting assistance. Akhenaten may have not simply been neglecting the empire but this might have been directly due to the reduced chariot force available to come to the aid of these people as the core chariot army was destroyed in the Red Sea. So we do have elements of circumstantial impact that are consistent with what happened.

> Here we have a culture known for writing things down, and one that has an unbroken history up through the Ptolemaic dynasty, and there's no note?

Sorry, you are incorrect. Some of the history is indeed broken by design. In this case, we known the records of Akhenaten were purposely destroyed, as was that of a previous pharoahess, Hapshetsut, because someone didn't like her. So the history is not "unbroken" but selective. Furthermore, if Akhenaten was in league with the Jews and he was considered a "heretic king" and the way later generations dealt with him was to eliminate his history, then likely anything Jewish, particularly unbiased or filial would certainly not be a part of the Egyptian records. Having noted that, though, indeed, expect for the period of Akhenaten, the Jews do show up in the Egyptian records starting with Merenepthah and then Shishak (Sheshonq I). But they had left by then. So your characterization that the Egyptians didn't ever mention the Jews is not accurate when you say, "and there's no note?"

>Think about it.

I have. Thuthmosis III shows there was brickmaking during his rule. Akhenaten's records were destroyed, but the Jews as a nation are confirmed in extra-Biblical references in Egypt soon after during the time of Merenepthah and Shishak, when there was a CONFLICT involved. Otherwise, records would not be expected to have been created. You're expecting something that is not historically customary.

>>And if you want to try and use the Amarna Letters for proof of Amenhotep III's means of death, then why is it not noted in EA 26, the condolence letter to Tiy instead of talking about what a cheapskate Akhenaten is compared to his father?

This is not a condolence letter. This is likely one of many sent to Tiy by Tushratta trying to get more gold and gifts from the empire that he had been used to. He does not specifically mention the specifics about the death of Amenhotep III with Tiy in this letter. On the other hand, you call Akhenaten a "cheapsake" compared to his father.

Did it occur to you that after the Jews left they stripped Egypt of a lot of gold? Tusratta, in fact, notes that there were two golden statues already molded by Amenhotep III that he requested of him and his daughter. Instead, Akhenaten sent gold plated wooden ones. One wonders where the solid gold ones went? It may have been in the stress of the moment and under inspiration that these two states were given to the Jews when they left who stipped the Egyptians of a lot of gold and other precius things. So maybe Akhenaten was not such as "cheapsake" as much as someone comprised at this time, particularly of available precious artifacts. There were a lot of gold plates and silver plates during this time and that might have been the type of thing given to the Jews as they were leaving, and these two solid gold statues, quite available, might have been given to them as well. So Akhenaten, in a gold-compromised position, might have done as well as he could have at the time. He shouldn't be considered a "cheapsake" if you follow the history that Egypt had just been "stripped" of their valuable gold artifacts. So, THANKS, I now have another "circumstantial" reference that proves the Bible is true; that Egypt was not as rich during the reign of Akhenaten as it was during the time of Amenhotep III due to the stripping of Egypt of much of its gold when the Jews left.

>To say that we -know- when it happened, that because of it Akhenaten tried to institute a monotheism and that it all explains Amenhotep II's death is a bit much.

No, it is NOT. The information I provided gives you INDEPENDENT references pointing ot Akhenaten.

1. Manetho's reference to the precise year of Joseph's appointment as vizier in the 17th of Apophis would date the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten. That has nothing to do with Akhenaten's response to the alleged 10 plagues. This is a DIRECT HISTORICAL REFERENCE application.

2. Kathleen Kenyon dates the destruction of Jericho between 1350-1325BCE. That means the Exodus must occur between 1390-1365BCE based upon that reference. Who was ruling during this time. Which rulership changed during this time? Amenhotep III and Akhenaten.

3. The RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion and destruction of Rehov based fixes that event at 99+% probability to 874-867BCE. That dating applied to the Exodus again gives you the reign of Akhenaten.

It is this only AFTER we have confirmed the dating to Akhenaten that his behavior is considered in compared after the fact. His behavior thus simply supports the dating, not the other way around.

>What you've got is a nice theory and a couple of scraps of information that fit it.

That's right. What have you got to contradict it? Nothing. Now you don't have to believe any of this. Some people say the Bible is a myth and Solomon never existed because archaeologists haven't given them proof of that. But the fact is, lots of things we know from "history" are not confirmable by archaology anyway. So, certainly, you don't have to believe. What is CRITICAL is that, even if these few "scraps" of information, which are not "scraps", really, they are actually CENTRAL, but anyway, your contradictory position would be to find bigger "scraps" to contradict this. Otherwise, even though these are scraps, if they are the only scraps, then they will preempt and prevail over non-scraps.

>Where's the rest? :huh:

Listen. I'm trying to get some money together to have a time machine invented so I can go back in time and videotape this stuff so you will be convinced. But in the meantime... looks like you'll just have to accept my word for it. Sorry. :>

>>Your version of archaeohistory, as you call it, is merely a rehash of theologically driven biblical archaeology, full of important-sounding jargon and grasping at the straws of science to try and validate itself.

Sorry, incorrect. The RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion is the most important and significant finding in archaeology history. The chance to effectively link short-lived grains for RC14 dating with a specific event, is CRITICAL and HISTORICAL. That is, we know the age of the grains found at Rehov for Level IV, they give consistent dating of their age between 874-862BCE. PERIOD. All other chronology must adapt to that scientific, FIXED and ABSOLUTE dating. By contrast, the same sample is only 5% probable for 925BCE. That means 925BCE for dating of Shishak is both 1) WRONG and 2) 50-60 years too early. This dating links the Exodus to Amenhotep/Akhenaten based upon already in place range of "conventional" dating for these kings, and specifically the fixed astronomical dating for Akhenaten based upon the KTU 1.78 which begins his rule in 1386BCE. So, you can't WATER DOWN these arguments because you don't like them, or mischaracterize what this is.

If you don't agree, you must come up with your own eclipse, own new dating for Akhenaten or when you think the Exodus did or didn't happen and find your own archaeologist who will redate the fall of Jericho to some other time, then we can talk.

It's not enough to say, I don't like the "scraps" of information here in support of this information, I need more, and since I don't believe the Exodus was a real event and nobody else mentions it, I'm going to stick with my non-Exodus theory. That's not your option. You must present a stronger archaeological or historical or even "Biblical" argument contradicting Akhenaten as the pharoah who followed the Exodus. You have to get your own forensic scientist in to examine Amenhotep III's mummy and confirm he died of old age at age 95 and all his traumatic injuries were inflicted after this embalming.

>Stick to your theological beleifs. If you try and use archaeology, you're likely to get an answer you won't much like. :devil:

OH, my, giving up so soon? Like you had a choice. Thanks for throwing in the towel, but of course, what choice did you have. I take this as an indication you don't have anything to rebut this evidence, so thanks for confirming the logic of my argument. Much appreciated. Listen, I know it hurts to lose an academic argument but you'll get over it. You know, go lick your wounds, go out for Chinese and treat yourself to a huge chocolate sundae. That usually works.

Note: Sorry I took the bait, I just hate bad archaeology ...[/QUOTE]

That's right. Leave the professional archaeology debates to the professionals. Very good advice.

But thanks for your "input", much appreciated. It's good to see how this presentation and argument affect the doubters. But you can't argue with SCIENCE. Bottom line is that the RC14 dating from Rehov will eventually force the archaeologists to downdate the Assyrian Period back to where it originally was. There is no getting past it. They have painted themselves into a corner they can't escape from.

Cheers,

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

No, nobody is "downgrading" anything. The claim is still a millionish people living in tents were actually there and cleaned up after themselves so they wouldn't be followed. I'm wondering what archaeologists think they are looking for as evidence they were there? You know, this was somewhat desert so I'm sure they left millions of footprints in the sand. I wonder why those footprints aren't still there?

Larsguy47

Gamera

I agree that the archaeological evidence is mostly against the Exodus, at least as portrayed in the text. But this may be a function of exaggeration and narrative fashioning. The migration of 2,000,000 people out of Egypt in a relatively literate part of the world is the kind of event that would likely get mentioned by somebody other than just the author of Exodus. But if it were a smaller number, if the Hebrews were unimportant to the Egyptians and wound up as nomads in a relatively barren area for many years, it might not make the radar scope. Of course this contradicts the emergence theory of Israel, which may indeed by right. My point is simply that just because the author uses outrageously inflated numbers doesn't per se rule out the event having taken place anymore than Herodotus' outrageously inflated number rule out the historicity of the events he writes about.

Larsguy47

It''s only "bad archaeology" to you because you don't have a credible contradiction. :wave:

But thanks for trying!

Larsguy47

Larsguy47

Yeah, right. Silly of the Jews not to check with Dever or Finkelstein before they invented their origins in Egypt.

Larsguy47

spin

Harapu?




spin