Larsguy47

[QUOTE]Thanks, but you claim and suggest that the LBIIA level destruction has been redated. But you give no specific source. ?? I'd be glad to read the details. But in general, unless the Egyptian Dynasty timeline has been corrected and moved (not talking about Rohl!) then this dating will remain. Garstang discovered cartouches from Amenhotep III in tombs at that level, after which the city remains unoccupied for about 400 years. Can't get more refined than that. Amenhotep III and Akhenaten belong to the LBIIA period per a recent Egyptian book I have (1400-1300 BCE). Unless that has changed since then the dating will remain. The dating for the fall of Jericho is based on that stratigraphy and the current Sothic dating for the rule of Amenhotep III. Since no cartouches for any other pharaoh was found, particularly Akhenaten, I believe he simply limited the range to 25 years after the rule of Amenhotep III (1351 BCE), thus 1350-1325 BCE. So again, unless they've criticially moved the rule of Amenhotep III away from 1351/1350 BCE, which is linked to their best Sothic dating matchups, the 1350-1325BCE dating remains a valid, up-to-date reference. I like quoting from Kenyon because (1) she was the one who dug up Jericho and (2) because she is specific about when she believes the Israelite overthrow should be dated.

Well, for one because it forces them to dismiss Akhenaten! Without that references anything can be presumed based upon less direct reference. But once you have a historical reference this specific, to get past it you have to explain WHY it doesn't work, or why Akhenaten is not a good candidate for the Exodus. But you can't do that very well if Kenyon is dating the Exodus during the same time to based upon when she dates Joshua's overthrow of Jericho. So no archaeological science is going to contradict that connection. There are lots of theories about when the Exodus occurred, this reference needs to be considered as one of them, even if dismissed on some basis.

Textual criticism is expected. In fact, it may have not been from Manetho directly but a calculation based upon something else that linked the Exodus to the 1st of Akhenaten, which was then extrapolated back 215 years using the Bible's chronology, which ended up falling during the reign of Apophis. But even so, that's another twist on this since how did someone in the 9th century AD know that Akhenaten was the pharoah to rule after the Exodus? Or probably more pertinently, some reference that Amenophis III was the pharoah that died in the Red Sea; that's probably where this reference comes from, but it confirms some possible understanding to that effect or some reference to that effect. So it still remains a valid reference and just as credible as many others at this level.
I'm not clinging to Manetho. I'm just listing him with the references that line up with dating that dates the Exodus to 1386BCE. Mentioning him is part of that Akhenaten-Exodus timeline.

Right.

No. He's a reference connected with what Egyptians use for their timeline. Without Manetho, there are no Dynasties. My interest is that for some reason in the 9th century AD someone thought that Amenhotep III must have died the year of the Exodus. I'm curious where that comes from. But it is evidence that that was at least thought back then. But it seems to have disappeared into obscurity. For all the theories about the Exodus from Rohl to everybody else, I just haven't seen anyone use this reference to look at Akhenaten as following the 10 plagues, though he is completely linked with Moses in one way or another.

But even so, if I construct a 1386BCE theory of my own, and just join Rohl and Courville and many others with a theoretical date, the supportive references I have will include Kenyon who up to now seems to reflect the current dating for the fall of Jericho, LBIIA level, and Manetho, whose reference dates the 1st of Akhenaten with the Exodus, and the Rehov Shishak dating based upon RC14, which if it doesn't really point to a specific chronology in the minds of some, it includes this chronology while excluding some other dating, such as the current 925BCE dating. So it's just part of being thorough.

Matters not! Let's say Manetho mentions nothing about Joseph!
There is still the question as to why Syncellus thought that Joseph was appointed vizier so specifically in year 17 of Apophis. I don't think he could have done that without calculating specifically that Amenhotep III died the year of the Exodus. But where did he get that idea? On what did he base that reference? He had access to Manetho and other records, so perhaps there was something understood back then. I don't know. But for some reason it seemed rather clear who the pharaohs of the Exodus were in the 9th Century AD, but that reference has been lost over time now. I'm not sure why.

One THEORY of mine is that likely Syncellus was more specific and actually did date the Exodus in the last year of Amenhotep III and then later on that got suppressed and erased. But it wasn't noticed that he was still dating Joseph so specifically which allows you to recover the Exodus chronology. That fits an obscure reference to Joseph and no specific corroborating reference linking the Exodus to Amenhotep III. But that's just an assessment.


He may have had an "agenda" but that doesn't mean it was wrong. Maybe he wanted to tell the truth and knew that Amenhotep III was the pharoah of the Exodus! But he had to base that on something! What adds to his credibility is that a lot about Akhenaten was not known then! He didn't know about any heretic king per se other than the king's list. So it would still be pertinent that this early source had some basis for dating the Exodus at the end of Amenotep III's rule.

Manethos is the SOURCE of archaeologists and Egyptologist's dating for the Dynasties. If you throw out Manetho, you throw out the Dynasties. I don't see that happening.

You're making and suggesting she is "out of date" with improved dating, but you have provided no reference. In the meantime every Egyptian book I have, and I have many, still date the rule of Akhenaten as beginning in 1351 BCE or 1378 BCE. Kenyon used that dating for her consideration. I have a new Egyptian book right now that shows Akhenaten and Amenhotep III being dated to the LBIIA Period, 100 years from 1400-1300 BCE. So she's still current. So you have to do more than "suggest" she's out of date. If you have proof there has been some refinements, then let's see them. You must have gotten that idea from some research, so why not share the updates with us?

Sorry, not until you give a reference that LBIIA Jericho has been effectively redated and thus Kenyon has been shown to be out of date. When you come up with the reference, then you can make some summary. But not before. Sorry.

Well,that's what the "debate" is all about isn't it? Pros and cons about just how "historical" the Bible is and everything. People can assume what they want but coming up with supporting references is another story. I came up with MY DATE FOR THE EXODUS in 1386BCE. Kenyon supports me, Rehov supports me and so does Manetho. So I use them. Where's your support otherwise?

Hey. Do you play poker? I may have a lousy pair of 2's but it still beats a hand that has nothing but a high Ace!

That's the reason for bringing up Manetho. An extra-Biblical reference that is this specific is problematic but it has to be dismissed first before you go onto other favorite theories.

I must say, though, your need to dismiss these references without a shred of foundation suggests to me the references are quite problematic. But I'm DOING MY PART. I'm including my references for my theory. You have to do more than just generalize to dismiss them. You need to show your own references, which I will be happy to consider.

Thanks!!!

LG47

Hex

Just two real quick things before I run home.

Fine. I suggest you read up P. Bienkowski, Jericho in the Late Bronze Age (or via: amazon.co.uk), Warminster, 1986. He dates that critical 'Middle Building' (which is the only real LBIIA or LBIIB structure) to ~14th c or early 13th c BC. So we maybe have folks there until, what 1275BC? That's backed up by the pottery. His work involves not only that of Kenyon, but also Warren, Sellin & Watzinger, and Garstang.

What I was trying to get across, Lars, is that one should look for the most -recent- work. It likely supercedes what came before ...



But there are -other- king lists. They are inscribed in -stone- by the people who were recording their own history. The fact that Manetho's list is what the French used, and thus set precedent doesn't make it the best source. It was just the first used to set the framework that others now work within.

Here what I was pointing out was that one must be critical with the source material as well. Just because it says what you like doesn't make it definative.


Lars, re-read this. Please. Bias can and does invalidate otherwise scientific reports. And, explain to me how Syncellus, 2000+ years after the fact would 'know' the 'truth' when no-one else did? Or rather, don't.


Nope. I'm not a betting man. That's why I do science.


Have a good weekend.

3DJay

http://ggreenberg.tripod.com/Manetho/w-man-chap1.htm

http://africanhistory.about.com/od/e.../a/Manetho.htm


Peace

mens_sana

What would constitute archaeological proof to a theist? Hmmm.

William Dever is a well-known archaeologist and he started off as a conservative Christian. Later in his career he converted to Judaism — and subsequently became an agnostic while remaining a Jew (!).

His writings don't appear to show any change in what constitutes archaeological "proof."

Hex

Okay, a good point. I guess I dodn't word the OP well enough.

How about:

What would constitute archaeological proof of their respective religious myths/tests to a theist?

That make it more clear?

Febble

Speaking as a theist, I would dispute your definition. I don't think it is possible to demonstrate that the "cause of existing life forms is alive" - or rather, were it possible, I do not think it would demonstrate that the cause of existing life forms is a God. I don't think "God" can ever be a scientific answer to the question: "what is the cause of existing life forms?" So I don't think it can compete with scientific answers. The kinds of questions to which "God" might be the answer are quite different.

On the other hand, there clearly could be a scientific answer to the question: "did Jesus live?" Or even: "what happened to Jesus's body?" And I'd really like to know some of those answers. The trouble is, too many people have a vested interest in one answer (or no answer) rather than another. Actually, I'd really like to know what the Turin shroud is, but I don't trust anyone to tell me truthfully what they think - or, let's say, I don't know who to trust to tell me the truth. (On the whole I'm biased in favour of atheists, though )

Hex

Hey, great example with the Shroud. Here we have a physical item, with a 'lore' within the Roman Catholic Church, and which was studied by a group of scientists.

Now, the scientists' explaination/ruling on the Shroud was that it was a forgery from the Middle Ages. Given refinements in our knowledge of things like C-14 dating, the potential for contamination of the sample (the area tested is one that was most likelt to be touched by people holding the cloth out for viewings) either by bacteria or replacement, the views of the original testing has been brought into question.

Understandings of how the image was actually transfered to the cloth have recently been postulated (alchemical understandings of silver nitrate and lenses or bacterial colonies), that could potentially support or overturn the C-14 dates of the original study.

Now, does the date of the shroud -really- mean that much? If it can be shown to be from ~33 AD, is that sufficient proof for Christians that it was conclusively the wrapping of Jesus and thus prove that he did in fact live? If it turns out to be a Medeval forgery, does that -not- invalidate that Jesus existed?

What is the critical bit of evidence about the Shroud would you (Christian/Catholic theists) need to beleive?

What negative evidence about the Shroud could destroy (Christian/Catholic theists') faith?

Febble

Well, I don't "need" to believe anything about the shroud. I can regard it simply as I would an icon - a representation of Jesus, and a rather moving one. I'd be disappointed if it turned out to have a gruesome history of someone else's torture - I don't much like the theory that it was the image of the tortured body of Jacques de Molay. I have a horrible feeling that the image really was generated by a tortured body, and if so, the church itself would be a prime suspect.

I think it's interesting that the pope recently poured water on the search for a Historical Jesus. My sense is that if Jesus really existed in history, any evidence other than what we have is as likely (if not more more likely) to result in disillusion than in confirmation. Presumably that's why the church isn't wild about too much research on the shroud either.

But I do think it's a really interesting object. Personally (and I'm not an archaeologist at all, although I am a scientist these days, and I did used to have a professional interest in medieval manuscripts) I find the iconographical evidence persuasive for the case that it's older than 14th century, and not a painting. I'd say there was a case for it being evidence that a man was crucified in the manner described in the gospels.

And if it IS the shroud of Christ, then it's been very carefully looked after, and suggests there may be some other archaeological evidence somewhere else that might conceivably be cause for either rejoicing or devastation on the part of Christians.

Febble

Sorry, missed this set of questions. I think that a first century date, if it could be demonstrated, would be support for the case that Jesus lived, and for the case that the gospels got at least a fair bit of the story right, which has its own implications. I don't think conclusive evidence that it is a medieval forgery would invalidate Jesus's existence. As I mentioned above, I think that if evidence came up that strongly supported the case that it is Jesus's shroud, then it raises the stakes quite a bit, because it raises the possibility of that someone may find a body.