Cege

Lars, I commented on that earlier. There's no definite answer, but several possible explanations. One of those is simply innovation which was available although more expensive and wasn't repeated again until decades later. Another is that this pharoah was heavy-set (to put it kindly) at the time of his death, and attempts were made to preserve his plumpness.

There's always got to be a first time, even in embalming technique, but there's just nothing to indicate that where your imagination has taken you is in anyway supported by historical evidence.

RED DAVE

From RED DAVE:
From Larsguy47:
Wrong. You made an assertion about a historical fact. This fact is a miracle. If you want anyone to believe you, you have to provide evidence. A single reference in a book over two thousand years old is not enough to establish credibility for a miracle.

Let me introduce you to a fundamental principle of debate:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

You have made an extraordinary claim with virtually no proof.

From Larsguy47:
And your conjecture is worthless. You have made an extraordinary claim based on your conjecture: that over a million people could live in the same place for 38 years and leave no trace of their habitation.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

From Larsguy47:
Bullshit.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

From Larsguy47:
So now we know you know how to quote the Bible. Most people can do that when they're about 10 years old.

From Larsguy47:
They made pottery, worked metal, buried their dead and dug latrines. None of which have been found for over a million people.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

We anxiously await your extraordinary proofs. Or else your retraction as in the unsupported story you published about the man in the British Museum.

RED DAVE

spamandham

...and if you do not percieve that, then it is rational to dismiss the other miracles as well, and even stronger, it would be irrational to accept them. So, why not help us perceive what you perceive so we can all have that knowledge?

Tell us about specific and unlikely prophecies that can be confirmed to have been made before the events prophesied, and the events themselves can be confirmed to have happened, and where there is not a reasonable alternative natural explanation. Having read the Bible more than once, and studied the so called prophesies, I certainly can't recall anything that even approaches such a standard.

If you can't do this, then you do not perceive the miracle either.

Hex

Lars,

Before I respond to your detailed critique of my attacks on your theory, please, please, please give me a reference for this dating from Kenyon that you cling to so tightly.

Is it from the Times article, perhaps? Some personal communication? I'd like to know where and when this was stated, 'cause, to tell the truth, my research isn't showing it ...

Once we get that taken care of, I'll be more than happy to get back into the fray with my "professional" opinion.

- Hex

Sven

But doesn't this have to be probability density on the axis? Or is this somehow synonymous with relative probability?

But for someone having no clue of what's depicted there, it's the most obvious meaning. So I still think that the axis is labelled wrongly.

Sven

Yes. It's as simple as this.

No. Your understanding is simple.

Especially since you've not addressed what the authors say about it in the slightest.

I rest my case.

You almost got it. A certain range of years in indeed the most probable. You get it by calculating the area.

Cege

My internet research find this, written by Ephraim Rubin:

Kenyon admitted in her Digging Up Jericho... that "of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains;..."thus, it is absolutely not clear whether there were any walls at all in the Late Bronze Age city. On the other hand, a violent destruction of Jericho's fortifications in the Middle Bronze Age, shortly after 1580 BCE, is well reflected by the archeological record... only it occurred centuries before any Israelites could show up in the area. A new town was built at the same location about 1400 BCE, but it was abandoned -- for unknown reasons -- in the third quarter of the 14th century BCE... Since the Judaic tradition dates the Exodus to 1313 BCE, it dates the Conquest of Canaan to the second quarter of the 13th century, when the site of Jericho had already been desolate for 50 years or so. There simply was no city for the Israelites to conquer. (bolded emphasis is mine)
- http://www.talkreason.org/articles/kelemen1.cfm

Rubin cites Digging Up Jericho pp. 261-262 as the basis of the sentence: A new town was built at the same location about 1400 BCE, but it was abandoned -- for unknown reasons -- in the third quarter of the 14th century BCE.

I don't have a copy of the book, but maybe someone who does will compare and report back.

What appears to be Kenyon's report in pp 261-262 is that a new Jericho was built on the same site about 1400BCE, and was then abandoned--but not destroyed-- for about 50 years of what Lars dates 1350-1325BCE (third quarter of the 14th century). Everything I've read about Kenyon's dating of a "violent destruction" of Jericho dates 1580 BCE, and thus doesn't match what Lars would like it match.

Larsguy47

Apologize for not seeing that post. I must admit the posting has been rather furious and I might have missed some, so my sincerest apologies. I do have the book so can quote directly from it. Again, here are her quotes I have in reference:

Kathleen Kenyon: Digging Up Jericho, Jericho and the Coming of the Israelites, page 262:

"As concerns the date of the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites, all that can be said is that the latest Bronze Age occupation should, in my view, be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. This is a date which suits neither the school of scholars which would date the entry of the Israelites into Palestine to c. 1400 B.C. nor the school which prefers a date of c. 1260 B.C."


Page 261 of her book, "Digging Up Jericho," in the Chapter called "Jericho And Coming Of The Israelites," she says:

"It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains."

The "third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C." is where the 1350-1325 BCE dating comes from.

However, one should not overly focus on this reference since as we know this assessment takes into consideration the cartouches from Amenhotep III found at this level:

"A good example of this is the evidence found at Jericho. In the 1930s, Professor John Garstang excavated Jericho... They found a succession of eighty scarabs bearing the cartouches (royal name) of the eighteenth dynasty pharaohs. They end with Amenhotep III of the 18th dynasty."

http://www.wyattnewsletters.com/articles/insights.htm

So more than Kenyon's specific dating reference is involved. This destructive level and later non-rebuilding for 400 years cannot occur prior to the rule of Amenhotep III because of evidence in the graves there that he had begun his rule. Now that's the strict limitation. Not before the reign of Amenhotep III, regardless of when you place his rule. But in practical application, Amenhotep III could have ended his rule and those with cartouches dying a generation or two later, thus 20-40 years after the death of Amenhotep III is also indicated here. Since no cartouches of his son, Akhenaten was found there, a reasonable limit on how many years after the rule of Amenhotep III is implied, that being 25 years by Kenyon's estimate. I consider that as reasonable. Other dating input we must assume factored in on her assessment as well.

At any rate, besides the cartouches, you also have two references in Manetho: One, where the 17th of Apophis is identified as the year Joseph is appointed vizier, which points specifically to the 1st of Akhenaten as the date of the Exodus, and another where the sister of pharoah Thuthmosis III is said to have been the adoptive mother of Moses. That also checks out since if Moses was 80 years old in the 1st of Akhenaten, then he was born late during the reign of Thuthmosis III. The Bible calls her the "daughter" of pharoach, but of course, obviously, the sister of pharoah is also the daughter of the previous pharoah.

So you have four "leads" to when the Exodus occurred from different places, with the KTU 1.78 astronomical text which might be used to fix the rulership of Akhenaten factoring in. If assigned to the 12th year of Akhenaten, which it has been by others (i.e. Rohl) then it dates the 1st of Akhenaten specifically to 1386BCE and also fixes it there. That becomes pertinent because of the two popular datings for Akhenaten, one to 1351 and one to 1378 BCE. The 1386BCE astrodated rule though, tested against Kenyon's dating still works. The 1378 BC dating for Akhenaten also works with the Kenyon dating but not the 1351BCE dating in terms of 40 years prior to the fall of Jericho. 1351BCE falls after 1365BCE, 40 years earlier than her latest range date of 1325BCE.

But, when you step beyond this, you have the general archaeology period assigned to the Amarna Period which is LBIIA, 100 years from 1400-1300BCE. All the daying for Amenhotep III and Akhenaten fall in this period. But as large as this period is, it still ecludes those dating the Exodus earlier to 1446BCE or as late as 1260 BCE, both far out of range for the archaeological evidence presented here as well as the specific historical references (Manetho). Even the Jewish timeline dating to 1313BCE as you quote is too late for the Exodus since she has Jericho already destroyed by 1325BCE at the very latest.

Sorry, again, for not posting that reference. I appreciate your reminding me.

Larsguy47

Cege

Thanks for providing the quotations of Kenyon's from pages 261 and 262, however the quotations do not state that Kenyon gives the specific dates 1350-1325BECE for the fall of Jericho by the Israelites.

What Kenyon wrote is that Jericho was last occupied during the Bronze Age can only be dated to the third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C. She points out that signs of a destruction of any one of several rebuilds of Jericho on the same site do not support the Biblical versions or the timing given by the Bible.

As best I can tell, Kenyon says exactly the opposite of what you've posted and attributed to her.

Hex

Thanks Lars and Cege. I was wondering if it was something like that. An offhand comment in a book that has been described as a 'story' of Kenyon's work. Also thanks for the context. It really makes more sense.




Actually, I already gave you the -primary source- for that. As a refresher:

Now ... How does this help your timeline with those Jews going to wander in the desert for 40 years -after- Amenhotep III dies if the city falls during the reign of Amenhotep III?

Now, don't worry, I've a lot more than that coming in a bit. Though, I'm afraid, Lars, that you won't like it ... :wave:

- Hex