BrianJ

You still don’t get it! LOL
It wasn’t a joke, it was a device to motivate WT into researching unsupported claims.
Gene Scott of course, the only true God
Your original quote made no suggestion that el-Maskhuta may not be Succoth, or that Succoth may be a region and not a specific town or city.
But the entire point of my reply to WT was to demonstrate that he did not know if the information was accurate or not. The point was that WT just posts quotes that he BELIEVES support his arguments without actually knowing whether the information is correct or not. He posted the quote in the understanding that el-Maskhuta definitely is Succoth, he had no idea about any disputed locations, which was the whole point of the ‘experiment’.
But there is archaeological evidence of Ramesside buildings in the region of Tjeku, they are all over the Wadi Tamulit
LOL, your comprehension skills are deteriorating. I said that I didn’t agree that el-Maskhuta is biblical Succoth, I prefer the arguments for it being Pithom, I never stated categorically that it wasn’t Succoth.
Perhaps you can show me where I stated that Succoth cannot be under any circumstances located at el-Maskhuta.
I believe what I said in post 58 was:
I dont agree with Hydarnes at all. Tel el-Maskhouta is most likely to be biblical Pithom, so I agree with Holladay et al.
I never stated that Succoth definitely wasn’t el-Maskhuta, I said it was MOST LIKELY to be biblical Pithom, and I stand by that.
The claim that Succoth is linguistically similar to Tjeku is all you have! That Succoth, as a specific site is located at el-Maskhuta is in doubt, plus there is no occupation there from the end of the Hyksos period until the 7th century BCE
Tell el-Maskhuta has no occupation level after the Middle Kingdom/Hyksos period until the 7th century Saite period, so what is this body of evidence? One piece of papyrus that MAY mention Tjeku as a specific place?
Don’t you think that if there is no evidence for occupation at a site where you *THINK* a location might have been, then it makes sense to look for other occupied levels at nearby Tells, instead of claiming that an unoccupied site may be Succoth.
Why can’t Succoth be located at el-retebah, a site with ample Ramesside remains?
On trial was actually whether WT had researched the quote you made to discover if the contents were accurate or not. WT was found guilty of posting information that he had no idea if it was correct or not. He pled guilty to not having a clue whether it was or not, that was the whole point of the exercise.
EvC has forum rules that state that you must provide support for all your claims, you never did support that quote at EvC.
This is again another misunderstanding by you, the post wasn’t made directly to me, so why would WT consider if I knew anything about the information or not?
But, that was not the point of the ‘experiment’, it wasn’t to test my knowledge of the subject it was to test WT’s, the point was whether he knew what he was posting was accurate or not. You have misled WT by failing to inform him that there is a dispute over the location.
Also, if I know nothing about the contents of the quote then why would I pull WT up about it? It was because I know the subject that I pointed out that the claims are erroneous, and they are.

It isn’t irrelevant, you called me on my reply to the first post which was made before Bimson was cited. I will get round to Bimson’s data when I have the time.

I know it is common, but there isn’t a single solitary scholar who claims that there are no doubts over the identification of el-Maskhuta.
Every source you cited emphasised that el-Maskhuta MAY, MIGHT, or PERHAPS, be Succoth. There are doubts, yet you failed to mention them.
I prefer to locate Pithom at el-Maskhuta because Pithom is located within the region of Tjeku (Papyrus Anastasi VI), and that the Hebrew ‘Succoth’ only reflects a familiarity with Egyptian terminology. Biblical Succoth would not be a specific site as it is unlikely that the fleeing Israelites would camp in an Egyptian military installation.
The addition of Pithom to the text of Exodus 1:11 sometime in the 6th century fits in well with the beginning of the building of major occupation at el-Maskhuta at the beginning of the Siate period (c. 610 BCE). Thus, the use of ‘Pithom’ is anachronistic, as the name was never used for a city before the 7th century BCE.
The addition of the name ‘Pithom’ to Exodus 1:11 is supported by the settlement of Judean refugees at el-Maskhuta during the Saite period who could have learned of earlier Semitic occupation from Middle Bronze Semitic pottery, or from local traditions.
Touregypt do not place a specific reference next to the claim.

But he doesn’t reference that claim.
It isn’t a referenced quote, do you know how to reference at all?
There are none LOL, Jesus I will need to stop assuming that you are capable of abstract thought. This was to show you that anyone can provide a claim without specific details to support it. You accept touregypt’s statement and reject my encyclopaedia’s statement, both have the same amout of supporting evidence, i.e. zilch.
I am going to stop assuming that you can detect irony, it isn’t worth the effort.

Exactly, so whose quote is the most reliable, my encyclopaedia quote or Touregypt’s?
A book I am willing to bet you haven’t even laid your hands on. Your quote from Hoffmeier left out important information that was contained in between the info given, the information was left out because it damaged the claim.

There is nothing at the site to identify it as Succoth, the linguistic connection between Succoth and Tjeku is not certain. There is no indication of occupation from the end of the Hyksos period until about the 7th century BCE. The 7th century BCE is about the time that these myths were written down, making ‘Pithom’ at el-maskhuta an anachronism. The editor of the Book of Exodus obviously knew how important a city that Pithom (el-Maskhuta) was, and, as the bible authors were prone to do, just claimed a historical event at that site for their ancestors.
There is nothing to support el-Maskhuta being Succoth in the 15th century BCE. But, there is ample evidence of occupation of the region of Tjeku in the wadi Tumilat at this time.
Yes, but since Holladay’s surveys it is pretty conclusive that it is el-Maskhuta.
Oh I dunno, inscriptions at el-Maskhuta that mention Lord Atum are quite convincing.
Where did I say this?
[quote] and according to you PRECLUDING an earlier Exodus, is capable of sending the 1446 date into oblivion. Brian, the holes in your ship keep getting bigger and bigger. [quote]
I said the building of the city of Rameses falsifies an Exodus earlier than the 13th century as there were no pharaoh’s called Rameses before that time. I don’t recall saying anything about Pithom as I don’t think Pithom was included in the earliest Exodus traditions. I believe Pithom was added in the 6th century, after el-Maskhuta became an important trade centre because of its canal link.

But that wasn’t the point of the post, the point was that your source left out important information that would tell the reader that Succoth was both a place and a region.
Anastasi VI is not where that second quote comes from of course, and, as Hoffmeier points out, it is unusual for the name ‘Tjeku’ to be written with the city determinative, ‘From the 19th dynasty texts, twk is normally written with throw-stick and foreign land determinatives, and not normally with the city sign. This detail indicates that tkw was more than just a city of single site. Rather it shows that it was an area within the Eighth Lower Egyptian nome, the Wadi Tumilat, and that it was on Egypt’s frontier’ (179)

Something else you are evidently wrong about. Your own source informs us that Tjeku was normally written with a throw-stick determinative, it was unusual for it to have the city determinative. Also, when Hoffmeier says that Succoth was ‘principally’ a region, he means ‘principally’ as in ‘mainly’, chiefly’, and ‘mostly’.

The region of Tjeku stretches from the Wadi Tumilat all the way across the Pelusaic branch of the nile. (Van Seters, J, 1966, The Hyksos : a new investigation. New Haven, Conn. ; London : Yale University Press, p 148)
Do you wish to argue that this huge region really has no evidence of military installations?

But your quote does not in the slightest bit indicate that there were any doubts, and WT surely had no idea that there are doubts. He would be foaming at the mouth if someone suggested to him that Succoth May not be at el-Maskhuta because this goes against what someone told him

Where have I said this, I have said many times that Pi-Rameses and Pithom were not occupied at the same time.
For proof of this, read this from my M.th thesis:
Yet, even if the reference to Rameses is accurate, we still have a possible anachronism in the shape of the store-city of Pithom. Pithom means ‘the house of Atum’ and was only used as the name of a city in the Saite period (7th century B.C.E.), although the title was known before the Saite period as the name of temples and temple estates, the name never had any connection with cities (Lemche 1999: 398) Thus, the archaeological evidence does not support the two cities in Exodus 1:11 as ever being occupied, or even existing, at the same time, with one part of the reference appearing to belong to the 2nd millennium B.C.E. and another one to the 1st Millenium B.C.E. (Millar and Hayes: 68).

But, just because there looks as if there is at least one anachronism in Exodus 1:11, this does not mean that the information itself is unhistorical. As we saw in the discussion regarding the Hebrew Bible as an historical source, a possible anachronism may just be an indication of when the text was finally written down. It is perfectly plausible, that the Israelites were employed at Rameses and Pithom when they were known by another name.
Ai has been located at et-tell, who disputes this?
How many of Albright’s works have you read?

I’ll add one more unsupported claim to your record.
No, I said that the exodus could not be earlier than the 13th century because there was no pharaoh of that name before that.
Quote:


Actually, I wasn’t referring to your “experiment�, I was talking about when you said:
I reject an historical Exodus altogether.
What is the previous false thinking that you are on about?
It isn’t possible for the Israelites to build the City of Rameses before there was a pharaoh of that name. if you want to say that they built an earlier city then this means that they didn’t build Rameses.
There are only six places that use the name ‘Rameses’ only Pi-Rameses is close enough to the north eastern delta to have been the Rameses of Exod 1:11.
Great, can you give me the Tablet numbers where I will find details of a unified invasion of Palestine by a horde of foreigners?

I know when they are dated to and why, they are soundly dated to 1400-1350 BCE, if you know differently, then show us your evidence.

I prefer to be embarrassed, show me the ‘facts’.
[quote] You act almost completely unfamiliar with the fact that the only cities mentioned as being destroyed were Jericho, Hazor and Ai. [/uote]

Yet another Christian who knows bugger all about the Bible, when was the last time you read the Book of Joshua?

It doesn’t matter if the cities were destroyed or not for goodness sake. But they do have to be occupied in order for Joshua and his armies to slaughter.

The BIG problem is that the Book of Joshua claims:

16 So Joshua took this entire land: the hill country, all the Negev, the whole region of Goshen, the western foothills, the Arabah and the mountains of Israel with their foothills, 17 from Mount Halak, which rises toward Seir, to Baal Gad in the Valley of Lebanon below Mount Hermon. He captured all their kings and struck them down, putting them to death. 18 Joshua waged war against all these kings for a long time. 19 Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle. 20 For it was the LORD himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as the LORD had commanded Moses.

What the old ‘biblical archaeologists’ were looking for were ‘end of occupation’ levels at the sites mentioned in the Book of Joshua.

If the Book of Joshua is correct and he killed all the kings in Canaan, killed everyone in all of the cities that did not make peace with the Israelites, then there needs to be some evidence at these sites that Canaanite occupation came to an end. This is not what the archaeological evidence displays.

Jericho shows a destruction level at 1550, then barely a village at 1400, then reoccupation around 1200.

Ai, universally accepted as being unoccupied from 2400-1200 BCE.

Hazor, end of occupation level around 1220 BCE.

Another factor about archaeology that you appear to be oblivious of, is that to actually slaughter everyone in a city there needs to be a city there in the first place!

This is another thing that the old ‘biblical archaeologists’ were looking for, indications of occupation within the time frames proposed for the conquest.

Heshbon was barely occupied during the 12th and 11th centuries with the Iron Age occupation beginning to flourish around the 10th century.

Dibon has Iron I remains but nothing earlier, with the majority of the remains 8th and 7th centuries.

Madeba has only produced a 12th century tomb.

Lachish destruction level around 1150 BCE.
It can be stated categorically that there is not a single site in the whole of Palestine whose end of occupation, or destruction, can be attributed to the Israelites

The list goes on and on, there is no way to harmonise what the Book of Joshua claims for the Conquest.

And contrary to the information in Joshua.

That the Book of Judges and the Book of Joshua contradict each other is a well established problem for reconstructing the origins of ancient Israel. They tell tow different stories of the ‘conquest’. In fact, the Book of Joshua was used by Albright to argue for a unified military conquest of Palestine, and Judges was used by Alt for his peaceful infiltration model.

The Bible gives conflicting information about the Conquest of Palestine, and neither of the two conflicting accounts can be harmonised with the evidence.

I am happy to admit when I make a mistake, I make mistakes everyday of my life, whenever you find one I’ll be happy to admit to it.

Cheers.

Brian.

BrianJ

In Deuteronomy 2:14

And the space in which we came from Kadeshbarnea, until we were come over the brook Zered, was thirty and eight years; until all the generation of the men of war were wasted out from among the host, as the LORD sware unto them.

Just in case the wording is too confusing for you, here are two explanations.

From The Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible Ed. George Arthur Buttrick, Abingdon Press, New York, 1962.

Entry 'Kadesh-Barnea'

After Moses and the Israelites left Mount Sinai they journeyed north westwards across the 'great and terrible wilderness' (eltih) toward the hill country of the Amelekites and settled in Kadesh-Barnea (Deut. 1:19-20)

The corresponding passage in Num. 13:26 speaks of the location as the wilderness of Paran, but it is evident that Kadesh is meant. It was from here that a company was sent out to spy out the land of Canaan. When their favourable report led to the divine decree that the entire generation would perish in the wilderness and only their children inherit the land promised by God, it was from Kadesh that the Israelites, rejecting the counsel of Moses, made a hasty attempt to force their way into the hill country of the Maorites and were beaten back with great slaughter. After this event, they remained in Kadesh 'for many days'.

It is not certain how long this sojourn in Kadesh lasted. The whole series of chapters from Numbers 13 to 15 has no mention of any removal, and chapter 20 finds them still in Kadesh, so that it might be inferred from them that almost the entire period of the wilderness sojourn was spent there.

And just to reinforce the point.

From, Dictionary of the Bible John L Makenzie, Chapman, London, 1968.

Entry Kadesh.

In Dt. 1:2 the Israelites reach Kadesh after 11 days travel from Horeb, in Dt. 1:46 they remained there a long time, more explicitly 38 years (Dt. 2:14) setting out from Kadesh to the stream Zered

Cheers.

brian.

BrianJ

Once again WT, Judges DOES NOT claim that Hazor was detroyed.

Where is the destruction of Hazor mentioned in the Book of Judges?

Brian.

BrianJ

I think that is an invitation WT to support your claims at the site.

I wouldnt bother if I were you, they really know there stuff over there.

Brian.

WILLOWTREE

Suddenly you cannot answer a simple question.

My question was:

WHEN was the Hazor of Judges 4:2 destroyed ?

Do you know ?

BTW, you have completely evaded the real point of your challenge of the Hydarnes/Bimson quote.

That point is the different standard Biblical text is held to unlike heathen text.

Your "experiment" equated to one huge personal rant against me in order to evade the above point.

That was my ONLY point in posting the Hydarnes quote.

Whats wrong with you ?

WT

BrianJ

How can I know something that isnt claimed?

Judges 4:2 And the LORD sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, that reigned in Hazor; the captain of whose host was Sisera, which dwelt in Harosheth of the Gentiles.

Where does it say that Hazor was destroyed?

It does mention the mythical title of 'King of Canaan',

Nowhere in the entire Book of Judges is there mention of a destruction of Hazor, you are hallucinating again.

I will address Bimson when I have the time, some of us have jobs to do.

Brian.

WILLOWTREE

Surely the Hazor of Judges 4:2 was destroyed sometime.

Your silly evasions tell me everything I need to know.

Jacob was King of Canaan in his latter days. Would Pharoah respect a blessing from someone inferior ?

The funeral train from Egypt to Canaan was a procession to bury a king and not some goat herder.

The title cannot be "mythical" if there is evidence, IOW despite what the Bible says this is not evidence.

You have lost all objectivity and your bias is glaring.

The Near East is all about kings but the geographic center/Canaan is exempt !

I was so right - you latch onto a smattering of verses out of context to support your theories "in order to prove the Bible" LOL !

You evaded Rutherford and Lods that Rameses is much older than the Pharoah.

You have been systematically trounced ever since the latter parts of "Dating the Exodus I" onwards.

Maybe they will rescue you here and move the topic to their equivalent of Boot Camp.

In any case, you can have the last words and rant against Dr. Scott - a source that I used just 2 times in all of this !

If you want to debate Mod free you know where I will be.

WT

Sven

Please demonstrate who (among scholars), where, and when, held Homer's works, the Gilgamesh epos, or any other mythological work to a differrent standard than the bible.

Jack the Bodiless

What on Earth are you talking about?

Why do you assume Hazor was "destroyed"? Were Roman Londinium, Eboracum or Aquae Sulis destroyed, just because no towns with those names now exist? You're not making any sense here.
The great wizard Merlin would never have served Arthur if he wasn't a real king.

And Arthur would never have been carried off to the magical isle of Avalon after his death either.

You have lost all objectivity and your bias is glaring.
Maybe because they never had any of note?

REAL noteworthy kings don't just appear in myths. They have coins minted and (contemporary) statues carved. Their proclamations are found in tax records and suchlike. They are mentioned in letters. They are known to foreigners, who write about them.
Let me know when you're ready to provide evidence that there WAS an "Exodus" to date.

WILLOWTREE

<insult deleted>

You deny all evidence which disproves your worldview.

Schliemann proved Homer factual when he uncovered "mythical" Troy.

Your refusal to acknowledge this proves the Biblical claim that when God removes God sense nothing can override.

WT

All 19th century scholarship assumed Troy a myth.

The issue is the hiding of assumptions that ALL scholars proceed under.

Those who oppose the Bible ASSUME it is untrue. This starting premise predeterimines the results and conclusions.

WT