-Jay-

Nice image, Hex. Mind if I ask where you found it?

regards,

NinJay

Larsguy47

OK. I take that as an "I don't really know? Could be!"

Thanks!!!

LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks, I have this book. I'll recheck for specifics but I think it just notes there is remarkably no evidence of what was going on in Canaan for this period.

LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks, RED, great article. Just what I was looking for. A great starting point. Just started but here are some highlights:

WRONG: Manetho mentions both Joseph and Moses? Why not even a dismissive mention? Other writers note it, dismiss it, and move on to their own agenda. Apparently this author doesn't know about this. But the statement is incorrect, of course.

"Catastrophes like those mentioned in the Exodus story should surely have left their mark on ancient Egypt. But historians have found no Egyptian references to the Exodus events (101). "

This shows the importance of correct CHRONOLOGY. Per Manetho Akhenaten immediately follows the Exodus and he had a MAJOR religious adjustment toward a monotheistic type of religion often compared to Moses and the Jews. I'd say that is a huge impact. But clearly if you're looking in the wrong place you won't find anything. Further, since Akhenaten's records, which were most proximal to the event might have mentioned something were destroyed, it explains why there are no records of the event which was likely deliberately erased along with Akhenaten. Finally a letter to Akhenaten about the death of his father suggests he died with others and that it was a famous event for some reason. So there is some superficial references out there when you look at the right time. Even so, once you focus on Akhenaten one doesn't expect surviving records. In fact the destruction of those records might suggest indeed it did happen during this time. They saw the Jews and Akhenaten as linked and they wanted to obliterate the memory of both.

So so far so good. Thanks, again for the reference.


LG47

ADDENDUM: Two more quotes.

This is what I was looking for, something along this line.


The Bible recounts that the Jews were in and out of conflicts with various peoples and in fact confirm that the Philistines ("Sea Peoples") were ruling the territory as does the Egyptian records during the reign of Rameses III (I believe). Further, the relationship between Egypt and the Jews are quite unique. They may have been considered a "bad omen" after the Ten Plagues and Akhenaten and thought best to leave well enough alone. The Jews, in turn, were to have a unique relationship with the Egyptians and were not to exclude them as with others. Later developments between Israel and Egypt shows a close bond between the two groups, so Jews may have been an exceptional relationship for the Egyptians, likely because of their common history. That is, Jews and Egyptians had a special relationship that did not require them to be conquered. Egypt may have even taken a "protective"/permissive stance with the Jews, as in the case of Shishak being sent by Yahweh to punish them, and centuries later when Necho came and replaced Josiah. Futher, the Egyptians had a very cooperative attitude for Caanan based upon the success of The Amarna Period where Egypt more or less taxed and influenced this region enhancing their cultures and providing local protection. That seems the primary dependence during the Amarna Period as a great policing entity to help the small city-states in the region. If the Jews created no direct to Egypt and were likely cooperative, they may not have felt a need to engage them. As a gift to Solomon, who was married to his daughter, Egypt even conquered the well fortified city and gave to Solomon as a present. So if they were reasonably culturally connected and at peace with Egypt, with no major conflicts, neither would have reason to document anything, and that's ALL that is documented otherwise, not peaceful relations (except in the Amarna texts) but war records.

So from the "Sea Peoples" to the single reference to their presence by Merenepth, the histories are supportive, but the archaeological evidence is simply scarce. But when they became a united kingdom and Solomon became very rich, then they began to build and we have evidence of those buildings, and with the advent of Assyria who kept good records, they confirm what was going on in that region. But I wonder without those records how much independent archaeological evidence is there really? Or would there be really when this was a period of sparse population and rural living patterns.

FatherMithras

Correct me if I'm wrong fellas, but don't we have a fairly clear picture of what actually happened with the Jews, IE a Canaanite people whose culture evolved into the ancient Jewish culture over time? I seem to recall hearing about the evolution of the Hebrew language and the persistence of the pottery and architecture being evidence of the Jews having not invaded, and in fact being native to the area.

Larsguy47

ROFL! Well that might explain it. Maybe it was quite sandy in those times back then and over time there was great erosion. What we see today is not necessarily the state of things way back when. Some catostrophic events, like volcanic eruptions or a serious major hurricane can complete devasate and change an area for good.

On the other hand, if there wa always very little soil and just hard dirt or rocks then there would be little left anyway. Some cities like the Island Tyre built on hard bedrock had many cities but they always started over from the foundation, so you don't have the mound or Tel to dig into and see the past. So maybe there's a logical explanation after all. This region is just not that archaeologically friendly for this period. Just looking at the satellite photo I have this urge to send the entire region to a psychoarchaeologist because the region looks extremely severely archaeologically challenged", I think the medical term for it is. :wave:

Thanks! Great photo!!!

LG47

Larsguy47

Here's something interesting I hadn't seen before!!


One of the MAJOR problems is that one of the basic building techniques in the highlands, such as Bethel/AI, was to remove previous debris[ LOF:133]:

"Indeed, in almost every multi-period highland site west of the Jordan, intensive building activity in later periods removed all architectural traces of the scanty earlier occupations. This happened because the basic building technique in the highlands was always to remove all earlier material in order to establish the walls directly on bedrock."

This would have a HUGE impact on determining whether the 'removed previous' period had been there! If they scraped the site clean before they began to build, we are totally in speculation to say an older settlement wasn't there because of 'no remains' [LOF:133f]. LOF gives examples of Jerusalem, Khirbet Rabud, Tell en-Nasbeh, Khirbet ed-Dawwara, Giloh, Shechem, and Bethel. At Lachish, the builders of Level IV (IA2) "apparently destroyed much of the Late Bronze acropolis, removing earth to be used as fill for the structure's foundations." [HI:NEAEHL, s.v. "Lachish", p.901].

We also know that when a culture swings more to the shepherding model, it does NOT build buildings in hill country (such as AI, Shiloh), radically affecting site formation [HAP:280].

Dislocation/displacement of artifacts occurs after abandonment! It is known that new sites will deplete artifacts from abandoned sites [HI:ASR:192]. This is a special case of re-use, but it really can foul up the understanding of the 'cannibalized' site! It makes it look radically different (smaller, or less occupied).

Mazar, whose statements about the difficulties I cited at the first of this piece, himself states the tentativeness of the 'conclusions allowed' by archaeological evidence [OT:AAI:285]:

Yet, the archaeological record is anonymous, and its use to prove any historical theory must be accompanied by a rigorous critical approach to the archaeological material itself. Archaeologists tend to determine precise dates of destruction, for example, on relatively flimsy evidence. In the discussion of the Israelite conquest it would therefore be best to treat the archaeological evidence with circumspection and to avoid basing far-reaching conclusions on it.

These factors alone should give us pause before reaching 'firm' conclusions about the non-occupation of these sites!

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html


LG47

Larsguy47

Thanks! I'm starting to find some things, in general about archaeological idiosyncrasies for certain regions:

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html

But I'm also seeing some clear bias. One source mentions all the negatives and skips other known details, like Manetho's mention of both Moses and Joseph, or that there is evidence of an LBIIA occupation of Bethel; they only mention when it was destroyed as if to imply it was unoccupied when Joshua came along, not that specifically dating Joshua to the correct time wouldn't have an impact. If there was no MB age occupation, for instance, that's fine because Joshua didn't arrive until LBIIA! Once they have the chronology wrong then they think it's a historical error from the Bible, when really they have the Bible's timeline wrong is the problem. The source also mentions the mismatch for Jericho but doesn't note the LBIIA occupation evidence. So information can be biased simply in omission, whether intentional or not. The overall result being that weak "propaganda" seems to become fact for lots of people with lots of quotes knocking down a "straw man."

Now I'm not saying anyone has to stick with any specific chronology, but if the evidence isn't compared effectively to all the scenarios then it becomes irrelevant. That is, the evidence needs to be evaluated for an LBIIA Exodus, which I don't see. Most are dating the Exodus in the 15th century BCE and finding unoccupied cities, etc. Interesting, but frustrating.

LG47

Larsguy47

[QUOTE=Hex;4375095]Lars -

It's simple. There's no evidence because ... it didn't happen!

Ohh, yeah... Doh! Why didn't I see that!!!:huh:

What if Hurricane Katrina came and blew everything away? What if, as the habit was, they actually had few possessions and cleaned up after themselves, possibly for fear of others finding out too much about them? Plains Indians in North America wer nomadic and had a defensive means of relocating, virtually leaving a site with no evidence they had ever been there, traveling in single file to hide their numbers, etc. Why is it so hard to believe that upon leaving they decided to have a clean up crew remove all evidence of their stay, burn everything and left the ashes to be scattered in the wind? Messy, litering people leave lots of evidence behind. But a clean, organized people, protective of their privacy may have purposely made sure there was nothing left. When archaeologists excavate these cities they destroy them at the same time for future investigation.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html


If these people were in fear of others discovering too much about their culture or habits, they may have had reason to purposely scour the site for any remnants they had been there. It may have even been done superstitiously or because they didn't want to be known as a messy people. They had dietary and sanitation laws in place long before the rest of the world understood too much about germs and viruses and how to protect against them for the most part. So CLEANLINESS was part of their culture. Why would they leave a place a mess or why would their dwellings be messy? Even now we have a sense to leave the environment pristine the way we left it for the next person instead of polluting it. Why couldn't they? If they did, and purposely cleaned up, what would we hope to find? So there indeed might have been a few things left, perhaps, but who says it wasn't dug up by someone else over all those centuries?

As an article said, archaeologist have some very absolute dates based on some rather circumstantial evidence. Your presumption that lots and lots of evidence should have been left through these ages to be dug up today and then finally removed forever is based upon the circumstantial idea that the Jews were as messy as other cultures and that nobody is that clean or concerned about the environment to actually try to leave it nicer than they found it.

The lack of evidence doesn't disprove the history, it simply doesn't confirm it but maybe it can only be confirmed historically. As I said, lots of cities mentioned in Egyptian records haven't been "found" yet by archaeologists, who presume they must not have been there. Sorry, I don't buy it.

LG47

Larsguy47

A reasonable presumption, but its possible that's not the case. My challenge would be what if the Jews didn't WANT to leave anything behind at that site and purposely made sure nothing was left behind? Could a satelite still tell they had been there?

If you have something more specific on this, it would be nice to post it in support of your supposition. Thanks.

LG47