[b-hebrew] FW: mishnaic Hebrew + Deborah

K Randolph kwrandolph at gmail.com
Sun Nov 27 23:10:33 EST 2011


Dear Yigal:

I have read a few books on archeology, not a general overview, rather
concerning particular digs, as well read several articles. I read a few
articles on the Tel Amarna letters alone. What I found interesting is that
the articles mentioned that the Tel Amarna letters reflect a period from
ca. 900–750 BC, according to the findings of archeology, yet the dates
derived from Manetho is centuries earlier. Some, like a BAR article, showed
city by city how the Tel Amarna letters did not fit its early dates, then
illogically claimed that they were from the early period as derived from
Manetho.

The reason the Exodus is widely disbelieved is because there is no evidence
for it during the time reckoned from the Bible in the contemporaneous
historical and archaeological data as dated by Manetho. But there is
evidence for the Exodus during the 13th dynasty, Manetho dated centuries
earlier. The destruction of the major city Jericho is Manetho dated to
about the same time as the Manetho dated Exodus.

A major reason this is of any interest to Biblical Hebrew language is the
connection between Ugarit and other linguistic data, and Biblical Hebrew.
If Ugaritic can be shown to be earlier than Moses, then it might shine a
light on pre-Biblical Hebrew. If it is late, then it gives no new data
concerning Hebrew than what we already had. In fact, a late Ugaritic may
actually indicate that a sin/shin split was late.

I have said nothing original to myself concerning dating that I have not
already read from other sources, other than acknowledging that if the
Ramasid pharaohs are late, then so is Ugaritic.

That there are major challenges to the Manetho derived dates indicates that
those dates are not as robust as their defenders wish them to be. That
those who give the challenges are not allowed in the hallowed halls of
academia (e.g. David Rohl) also indicates weakness and censorship. See also
http://creation.com/egyptian-history-and-the-biblical-record-a-perfect-match,
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable,
http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/dyns/yusef.htm etc. You may
disagree with the dates in these articles, but that these and other similar
articles exist indicates that there are serious problems with contemporary
academic understanding of ANE history.

Karl W. Randolph.

On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 10:07 AM, Yigal Levin <Yigal.Levin at biu.ac.il> wrote:

> Karl,
>
> Please read a couple of basic books on ANE archaeology, and on
> archaeological method in general. You will find out that very little
> "depends" on Manetho without external corroboration. Manetho supplied early
> scholars a very basic framework for Egypt only, into which Egyptologists,
> once Hieroglyphics were deciphered, imported data from tens of thousands of
> contemporary inscriptions, as well as comparative data from other parts of
> the ANE. Today we know that Manetho, while right about some things, was
> wrong about many others. Ugarit is connected through over two centuries of
> cross referencing to Mesopotamia, Hatti, Canaan, Cypress and Egypt.
>
>
> Yigal Levin
>
>


More information about the b-hebrew mailing list