BrianJ

Dear God in heaven Hydarnes, where are your comprehension skills?

It has already been pointed out to you, this was an experiment and you didn’t notice the irony!

Sweet Jesus, I though that everyone over the age of ten would have seen through my ‘experiment’.

I deliberately posted unsupported claims because that is exactly what your quote from WT is; it has nothing in it to support anything it says. I posted the exact same type of claim, with the exact same lack of evidence, in the knowledge that WT would prefer your quote even though it has the same amount of evidence as mine.

I cannot believe you thought I was being serious, take your blinkers off mate.

I knew that the only person who would take it seriously is WT!! Everyone else knew exactly what I was doing.

Excellent, you have just blown away your claim, posted by WT at post 14:
"But a lack in archaeological evidence for an Israelite occupation during the 15th century does not automatically prove an absence of such. And it would do skeptics well to remember that the location in Egypt known as Tell el-Maskhouta (identified as the biblical succoth, and the stronghold from which Egypt would launch her campaigns into Palestine and Syria) has yielded no archaeological evidence whatsoever for signs of military buildings, barracks, forts or any other such structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties, notwithstanding the fact that Egyptian records testify to their existence. " Emphasis mine.

The original quote by WT states that Tell el-Maskhuta is identified as biblical Succoth, there is no allusion here to anything about the debate over Succoth’s location.

I know that no-one knows for sure where Succoth is, it may even be a district rather than a town or city, but you made no reference to the fact that the location is in doubt. Of course, to mention the doubt over the location would make the rest of the claims in your quote meaningless. If the location is in doubt then the lack of archaeological evidence there is neither here nor there.

You have no references in that quote to any research that has been carried out, you have no references to the fact that there are doubts over the location, and you have not mentioned a single Egyptian record that testifies to military buildings, buildings, barracks, forts, or any other structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties.

So, nothing in the quote WT provided has any support whatsoever.
Oh, before you say ‘neither has your quote’. I know, that was the experiment. Jesus.

I would be interested to see what this is Hydarnes, have you any idea what it is?

The only thing I feel right now is embarrassment that you took my counter claims seriously! Did you honestly think that I was being serious?

Where in post 14, the post that I replied to, is the mention of John Bimson? I certainly cannot see it. In fact, I cannot see any reference to Bimson anywhere between post 14 (WT original claim) and post 19, my ‘experiment’ post.

I think it is best if you put this misunderstanding behind you.

Excellent, now we get the support for the claim made last week!

Dear God Hydarnes, is this what you call a source?

What references does ‘touregypt’ provide to support this claim, they do not even say that the location is disputed. This is an unsupported claim by Dunn, which is equivalent to ‘a man in the pub told me so it must be true.’

Here is a nice quote from Archaeological encyclopedia of the Holy Land / edited by Avraham Negev and Shimon Gibson. New York ; London : Continuum, 2001. p 300.

Entry Succoth:

The first station on the route of the Exodus between Rameses and Etham (exod. 12:37, 13:20). Tentatively identified with a place near Jebel mariyam, on the west bank of Lake Timsah, 15 miles from Tell el-Maskute

How can this be, when touregyot says that Succoth is to be found at el-Maskhuta and not 15 miles way from it?

As we will see, this is not really ‘compelling evidence’ at all.

I didn’t realise that you were into the old creationist trick of quote mining Hydarnes, why did you not quote the entire article from The ABD?
For anyone interested, here is the full article from ABD page 217, it is interesting to note what is left out of the quote that Hydarnes gives us.

Succoth (place) (Heb. Sukkot). The name of two places mentioned in the Old Testament

1. The first station of the Exodus located in the NE delta of Egypt (Exod. 12:37; Num. 33:5). The Israelites left Rameses and pitched in Succoth and then journeyed to Etham where they camped on the “edge of the wilderness� (Exod. 13:20, Num. 33:6). The location of Succoth is connected with the identification of the sites of Rameses and Pithom which have not been positively determined. See also Red Sea. Tel el-Maskhuta located 15 Tell el-Maskhuta located 15 km W of modern Ismailia and Lake Timsah in Wadi Tumilat has been suggested by a number of scholars as a possible location for Succoth. The name Succoth may be an adaptation of Egyptian Tjeku (tkw), a region and perhaps a city proposed to be located at Tell el-Maskhuta. Brugsch has offered an explanation of the derivation of Hebrew Succoth from Egyptian Tjeku (tkw) correlating Egyptian t with Hebrew s, Egyptian k with Hebrew k, and noting that the Egyptian w is a plural suffix while the Hebrew wt represents the feminine plural suffix (Bleiberg 1983: 21). Papyrus Anastasi V records that an Egyptian lieutenant travelled from the palace (supposedly at Rameses) to Tjeku in one day (ANET, 259) fitting nicely with the biblical narrative, although Gardiner (1920: 109) disputes this supposition and Bleiberg, an excavator on the Wadi Tumilat Project finds it difficult to locate the places mentioned in the text (1983: 24-15)

Numerous monuments with the name of Tjeku have been excavated at Tell el-Maskhuta, and they also contain references to the temple of Atum, or Pr-‘itm, possibly corresponding to the Hebrew Pithm. Naville, who excavated there in 1883, identified Tell el-Maskhuta as Pithom, the treasure city built by Hebrew slaves (Exod. 1:11) noting particular architectural features he considered to be store chambers. Most scholars now identify the site as Succoth observing the structures to be from the Roman period and earlier structures to be part of the fortress foundations known to have been at Egyptian border towns. For a review of Naville’s arguments and Gardiner’s rebuttals see Bleiberg 1983. A possible compromise would have Succoth or Tjeku as the name of the religious centre at Tell el-Maskhuta. Papyrus Anastasi VI, dating to about 1230 BCE, preserves a message sent from a frontier official to his superior that certain Edomite Bedouin had been allowed to pass the fortress in the district of Tjeku (Succoth?) to pasture their cattle near Pithom (ANET, 259), locating both places in the same area. Bleiberg (1983) suggests that Tjeku was originally a region and then later a city located at Tell el-Maskhuta. Pr-‘itm, he believes, only refers to the temple of Atum, and he states that there is no clear evidence to locate a city of Pithom there.

Quite a bit of text left out by your source Hydarnes, especially the mention of el-Mashuta being identified with Pithom.

But, this article that you partially quote, only emphasises that the location of Succoth is not know for certain, although your original quote simply states that

Tell el-Maskhouta (identified as the biblical Succoth)

As you yourself admit, the identification is not certain.

Also, if Tjeku is a region in the Wadi Tumilat, do you still wish to retain the claim that there is no archaeological evidence of ‘buildings, buildings, barracks, forts, or any other structures during the 18th and 19th dynasties’?

Thankyou again for undermining your assertion that Tell el-Maskhuta is biblical Succoth. Are you aware that you are contradicting yourself when you cut and paste this nonsense? You state in the WT quote quite barely that el-Maskhuta is Succoth then continue to provide quotes that tell everyone that the location of Succoth is not known for certain! Jesus, Hydarnes, you are making this too easy.

Tell el-Maskhuta may have been identified as ‘biblical Succoth’ by certain scholars, but this is far from certain, perhaps you should actually inform potential WT’s, who are incapable of researching for themselves, that the location is disputed, instead of leaving out important information.

On to the next mined quote.

Can you tell me Hydarnes why you left out the preceding sentence to the text quoted? The text that specifically says ‘The site of Succoth is not specifically identifiable but varying suggestions have been made.

Pretty embarrassing yet again, Hydarnes. Oh, and yet again nothing to support this claim. No references, no scholars cited, no arguments put forth, nothing but some text on a free website.

Since you next move on to Hoffmeier, and I have this book, here is what he says as well on page 120:

Hoffmeier (1996, Israel in Egypt, OUP, London. P120) imforms us that Based on the current textual and archaeological evidence, Tell el-Maskhuta ought to be identified with Egyptian Tjeku (biblical Succoth), which was principally known as a region, not a city in the New Kingdom . It does not seem to be Pithom. (emphasis mine)

So, you can see that Tjeku was principally a region, which el-Maskhuta was only one location, meaning that Tjeku (Succoth) did not solely consist of el-Maskhuta. Also, if you wish to claim that there are no 18th or 19th dynasty archaeological remains at El-Maskhuta then how do you explain the FACT that Naville found Ramesside blocks at Tell el_maskhuta? (Hoffmeier, 120)

I would like to comment on this next quote, which I think is a disgrace.
Your source informs us:

‘Here Tjeku is described as a place where horses and their grooms were stationed, and the city determinative is written with Tjeku, suggesting a particular location, not a general region, was intended. Kitchen suggests that the 'three waters of Pharaoh' may be one and the same as the 'pools (brkt) of Pithom of Merneptah which is [in] Tjeku' of Papyrus Anastasi 6 (54-61)...It is from such a fortress that we might expect the Egyptian chariotry, which would be stationed to defend Egypt, to have been dispatched in pursuit of the Israelites (Exod 14:6-8).

Notice that we have from your source ‘Tjeku of Papyrus Anastasi 6 (54-61)… it is from such a fortress.

What could possibly be left out?

Well, this is left out:

Tjeku of Papyrus 6 (54-61). When this ostracon is considered along with the existing body of textual evidence, it appears that Tjeku was a region and a specific locale within the area. Finally, the appearance of horses in the military setting of this frontier fort is precisely what would be expected. It is from such a fortress…..

I think the omission of the quoted text is an absolute joke. Why does the author leave this information out? Easy, if the Tjeku in the Egyptian texts refers to a region then there is ample archaeological evidence for building activity during the 18th and 19th dynasties.

You need to stop sitting at a computer fishing for out of context quotes that you think support your arguments. Do what the rest of us do and get along to a decent library and read the sources thoroughly, sources from all sides of the argument. Cherry picking info from sub standard websites only highlights your lack of knowledge of the subject.

Not at all, you have completely destroyed your own claim, and you keep claiming it. Every quote you provide suggests that the identification of Succoth is unknown, not a single reference states categorically that Tell el-maskhuta is Succoth! Do you have difficulty understanding what you post?

The site has not been identified for certain.

Don’t you think that this ‘paucity’ at Tell el-Maskhuta may simply be because is is not Succoth! You admit yourself that the location is not known for certain, so perhaps el-Maskhuta is only one location in the region of Succoth that has this paucity.

What about el-Retabe, which is close el-Maskhuta? There is ample evidence of 19th Dynasty occupation, so much do that Petrie identified Retabe as Pi-Rameses! This info can also be found in Hoffmeier’s book, page 67.

Thus, Tjeku looks as if it was a region and a specific locale, being unable to specifically identify Tjeku as a locale means the alternative is a region in the Wadi Tumilat, and even you cannot argue that the Wadi Tumilat Ramesside remains.

Well, since no one has been able to identify where Tjeku is, a fact that your own sources support, then this point is meaningless.

I don’t think ‘zealous’ is the right word LOL!

I enjoy the subject, I am the type of person who wont just take someone’s word for anything, I need to examine a range of sources before deciding anything.

I am not anti-biblical, I love the OT.

I am the one that quotes from a variety of sources, from fundies like Bimson to minimalists like Lemche.

I am also not the one who thinks that Ron Wyatt was a genius!

LOL, Hydarnes how can you talk about gimmicks when you tout the Ron Wyatt Nuiweba crossing! Jesus, gimme a break.

But, you haven’t at any time shown where I am at fault, you may think that you have but even this example shows that you do not think things through and are too keen to accept anything that you believe supports your case. You even believe that Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II were the same person, despite having not a single shred of evidence to support this, except the ranting of con man Wyatt.

You say that you love ancient Egyptian history and archaeology, then why do you not read recognised mainstream reputable Egytologists, why do you take the word of Wyatt instead?

Where have I stated that I know the location of Pithom for a fact?

I don’t LOL, you misunderstood the context of the post, the ‘experiment’.

I haven’t said I know exactly where it is, even WT noticed that one. Your inability to recognise what I was doing is alarming as well.

You mean like the name is City of rameses, so it is outrageous to assume that it is named after a pharaoh called Rameses? Why is this absurd?

It is erroneous because………?

Tel el da’ba was occupied much earlier yes, but it wasn’t called pi-rameses. Why did the bible authors call it Pi-rameses if its name was Avaris, or something else?

Well, you haven’t put a dent in any of the 13th century arguments, keep trying though.

The problems being?

If you had any idea about the content of the Amarna Letters you would know why it negates a 15th century Exodus.

Based on what?

[quote] Egyptian chronology vacillates significantly depending on which author or proposed chronology you’re sourcing. But BECAUSE scholars have tentatively put the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten during the exact period that corresponds with an Israelite invasion (counting forward from 1450bc.), YOU persistently and ridiculously PRETEND THAT THIS IS SOMEHOW TANTAMOUNT to some fantasized evidential rejection of a ca. 1400 invasion. [quote]

So which Amarna letters tell of an external unified invasion?

What are the problems with the dating of the reigns of Amenhotep III and Akhenaten?

The Book of Joshua says that the entire population was wiped out, the very places where some Amarna Letters were sent from were supposed to be levelled!

What, because I don’t swallow everything that is thrown at me?

Remind me again what you evidence was for equating Thutmosis III with Amenhotep II, I mean you do still think that this is the same person don’t you?

I will respond to the rest of your post tomorrow, I need to sleep.

Brian.

Jack the Bodiless

Am I missing something here? Are you attempting to cover your failure to spot irony by posting some irony of your own?

All "heavyweight scholars" know that much of the Bible is not true (the Genesis creation myth, for starters). Plenty of solid evidence HAS truly been found against the Bible. Are you seriously suggesting that merely asserting the inerrant truth of a known-to-be-erroneous source is superior scholarship?

Hydarnes

Likely.

Actually, that only depends on the ideological predispositions of the one "qualifying" for such a status. And I don't particularly find blanket statements very exemplary of good scholarship.

Make that "apparent". Your statement falls into being so piteously broad and debatable that it hardly calls for serious attention.

I guess the answer would have to rely on whether or not your appropriation of the source in question is correct, in which case you make yourself especially ambiguous.

Jack the Bodiless

Are you referring to blanket statements such as "Of course, if any solid evidence were truly to be found against the Bible, then I guess I would have to dismiss Scripture as a reliable book, wouldn’t I? But that isn’t going to happen..."
Your knowledge appears to be at least 200 years behind the times, Hydarnes. But correcting this problem would be off-topic for this forum.
I have yet to see any inerrantist attempt to determine if the decision to appropriate the Bible was correct.

Scientists test: inerrantists assume.

Hydarnes

Brian,

Forgive me for not recognizing your bizarre sense of humor. I never would have guessed that you would make such an infelicitous attempt at conveying a point, considering that you never did refute the source as unreliable that he posted in SUPPORT of my original statement to even render your joke appropriate.

Btw, what “God� are you referring to?

Yes, and you only mocked yourself by failing in precisely the respect that you alleged WT.

I guess I really shouldn’t be surprised that you are so out of a capacity to understand my original quote and my ensuing point in a proper context.

My original assertion identifying the site as Tell-el-Maskhuta is NOT a categorical identification that I’m pushing dogmatically to disprove another point (ala your tactics) but rather one that is as close to the truth as we can get. And in your desperation to flatter a victory with semantics you just as readily forget that the lack of archaeological evidence altogether in support of the Egyptian documents testifying to said existence of structures is the real point, not necessarily the location.

How does it feel to put your foot in your mouth? Then why on earth did you act so categorical about Tell el Maskhuta NOT being the site. Could it be perhaps that you can’t stand to even make a small concession to your opponent? Are you so proud?

Not so. There is enough body of evidence for us to at least state for now that it is the site until enough evidence belie that identification. Making casual identifications is fine, just don’t use them to make a categorical refutation of something.

I really do hope that you’re not putting me on trial for not providing all of that data specifically in a statement I made on EVC where it was NOT REQUESTED (I should hope you don’t think every assertion we make needs to be supported unless there is a call for it, or unless it is discriminating enough)? WT probably (and wrongly) assumed that you would at least be familiar enough with the details in regard to the identification of the site and the supposed evidence behind that appropriation, seeing you were so vehemently against the idea of it being the site without knowing beans about it.

But I guess we can’t expect your debating policies to include enough decency.

Your comment was in jest, that is conceded. Even so, you fulfilled exactly the behavior you were making in “satire�.

I realize the chronological gap. But that’s irrelevant, the point is that you continue to reject it and therefore my statement stands.

I think it better that you step up to the plate and tell us why you disagree with the placement, seeing you are so “aware� of the topic. Don’t tell us you don’t have the dignity to inform WT that identifying Tell-el Maskhuta is very common among a number of scholars…

Remind me to spurn any reference you heretofore might give with TourEgypt behind it as a source, since you don’t consider it reliable.

Dunn provides sources at the end. You absolutely crack me up with your endless requests for “sources�, only for your opponent to discover hopelessly at the end that none is suitable enough unless it agrees with your own.

And where are the sources with archaeological data for that encyclopedia to substantiate that tentative identification?

The astute will also notice that your source has nothing in the way superior to TourEgypt’s equally reliable assertion identifying the site with tell el maskhuta, your ridiculous attempts notwithstanding.

OH? A lot more compelling than your own, which can’t even go beyond the standard by which it challenges mine! I even provided material from Hoffmeier. But wait, I forgot, your source is superior to mine because YOU QUOTED IT! What madness!

Brian, you’re only looking sillier and sillier the more you try to masquerade this foolishness.



I openly admit that the site has been tentatively identified with Pithom, what about it? What makes you think that its identification as Succoth is somehow inferior, please, afford me an answer just this once!? If anything, there is more evidence for such—I sure quoted a lot more sources than you saying that it is vs it not) You might also remember from your research that Pithom has been nebulously connected with a multitude of sites, all yielding no real proof, and yet you use the “fact� that archaeological evidence “proves� that Pithom (which hasn’t been identified) was FIRST constructed under Rameses II, 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.

In fact, the extra portions that you cited actually serve to support further the notion that Maskhuta is very likely Succoth. (The point inherent in my original quote which WT posted remains valid, of course)

I just got done quoting you a source that evinces otherwise, permit me to quote it again:

“Hoffmeier suggests that Papyrus Anastasi 6 indicates that Tjeku was a location possessing horses and possibly chariots, which might have been used in pursuit of Israel at Pi-ha-Hiroth :

‘Here Tjeku is described as a place where horses and their grooms were stationed, and the city determinative is written with Tjeku, suggesting a particular location, not a general region, was intended. Kitchen suggests that the 'three waters of Pharaoh' may be one and the same as the 'pools (brkt) of Pithom of Merneptah which is [in] Tjeku' of Papyrus Anastasi 6 (54-61)...It is from such a fortress that we might expect the Egyptian chariotry, which would be stationed to defend Egypt, to have been dispatched in pursuit of the Israelites (Exod 14:6-8).

So it is more likely a city/town than a region as you would have us believe.

If it is a region, my statement can still stand, because what HAS been found is certainly not enough to support the notion of base suitable for a large Egyptian army to conduct campaigns in Canaan.


No, thank you instead for confirming your fantasies to me.

I’m quite aware of what I’m doing Brian. But I’m highly doubtful that you are, if your confusion is any indication.

I sure did state that it was Succoth was Tell-el Maskhuta, because that is how the evidence seems to lean, but I do not dogmatically espouse his at the exclusion compromise. But I will admit, it isn’t nearly as self-incriminating as when you use a supposed site for “Pithom� and then tell us that the Exodus couldn’t have happened previous because Rameses II was the earliest builder. (You’re especially out of order when considering that no evidence leans greater for any one of the sites)

I might also recall your attempts to categorically negate the Biblical record by citing inconsistencies with the tentative date for the destruction of Ai vis-ê-vis Scripture, even though the site hasn’t been firmly identified.

More of the same palaver I already addressed. Next…

But again, you are completely ignoring that the claim “principally known as a region� flies in the face of what you just quoted from Hoffemeier: “Here Tjeku is described as a place where horses and their grooms were stationed, and the city determinative is written with Tjeku, suggesting a particular location, not a general region, was intended.�

To me the determinative evidence is much more compelling than the mere assertion that it could be a region.

But as we can clearly see, we’re back at square 1 with your misconceptions. Not at all surprising, since your pretenses to understanding my arguments never held water to begin with.

Trust me, the only one having difficulty understanding is you.

Oh, believe me. I’m still waiting for you to give me reason to believe that they are any less legitimate than the recent finding of “Atlantis�, which I believe is pretty sound. And I’m certainly not interested in hearing your libel against something you know close to nothing about.

And lo, we return to one of your classic arguments—a straw man attempt at decrying another’s credibility. I have NEVER ONCE held dogmatically to the (admittedly) purely hypothetical proposition which suggests the thutmosids and amenhoteps to be synonymous persons, due to some apparent evidence, but not conclusive in the least. If you will remember correctly, I merely delineated what the hypothesis suggests.

What possibly warrants such arrogance as presuming that my research does not consist of reading the literature of mainstream Egyptologists? How completely reckless and vitriolic of you. I read every mainstream source I can get my hands on.

I’ll add one more unsupported claim to your record.

At EVC. You are also essentially saying this when you conclude that an Exodus could not have happened prior to Rameses II because Pithom was first built by him.

Actually, I wasn’t referring to your “experiment�, I was talking about when you said:

Then why such the change in tune? Do you still reject an early date for the Exodus based upon your previously false thinking?

It’s only outrageous when you use it to pretend that an earlier date for the Exodus is impossible.

See my multitudinous explanations on the matter.

And you demonstrate your ignorance once again. The bible does NOT call it “Pi-Ramesse�, it calls it “Raamses�. The prefix “Pi� is a very important qualification.


You seriously wish.

Oh believe me, I know the contents quite well. In fact, I wouldn’t be too far from the truth in saying that I know a great deal more on the subject of Egyptology than you do.

You can’t be serious? Are you ACTUALLY asking me to provide you this sort of data that any person with even a rudimentary knowledge on the subject will be able to confirm?

Tell me you misunderstood,...but please don't tell me you are so lacking in BASIC information on the matter so as to render you completely incognizant of the fact that ancient tablets such as the amarna letters don't come with dates and that the only way they are dated is by the assumed years that are attributed to the king under whom it existed.

I’m giving you the opportunity to not embarrass yourself, so either admit that I am right in this or prepare to be very disappointed by the facts. Don't make me have to do it.

You act almost completely unfamiliar with the fact that the only cities mentioned as being destroyed were Jericho, Hazor and Ai. Scripture also makes it abundantly clear that much of the land remained unconquered—contrary to God’s wishes.

I’m not asking you to swallow anything. I’m asking you to be honest for a change and admit when you’ve been shown in error.

I am also quite displeased with how you disconnected much of what I had written with important points I made in relation to the flaws inherent in your thinking.

WILLOWTREE

Brian has completely evaded the generic truth that I repeatedly referenced in regards to the Hydarnes/Bimson quote.

That truth was/is:

It is no surprise for a non-Biblical text to be accepted without archaeology confirmation, whereas Biblical text is assumed untrue until archaeology confirms.

The above fact proves the existence of the axe atheists are grinding against the Bible contrary to what they claim.

WT

P.S.

Since the arrival of Hydarnes this issue is the least of Brian's problems.

Hydarnes

You hit the nail on the head WT, Brian's red herring notwithstanding.

WILLOWTREE

Where does the Bible say they camped at K-B for 38 years ?

WILLOWTREE

IOW, go to a place where minimalists are coddled and protected from opposing arguments.

WT

WILLOWTREE

Brian: "The Book of Joshua says that the entire population was wiped out, the very places where some Amarna Letters were sent from were supposed to be levelled! "

Hydarnes: "You act almost completely unfamiliar with the fact that the only cities mentioned as being destroyed were Jericho, Hazor and Ai. Scripture also makes it abundantly clear that much of the land remained unconquered—contrary to God’s wishes."

I have also made this point and Brian has yet to answer.

The Bible clearly states that the Israelites were going to inherit cities that they did not build - the Promise Land.

Brian:

When was the Hazor of Judges 4:2 destroyed ?

WT