Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Jonathan Bailey <jonathan.bailey AT gmx.de>]

---------- Original Message ----------

>> On these grounds I hold that the masoretic dating should be looked at as 
>> at least
a
>> possible ballpark figure inspite of its typology.

>Then on those grounds, I would not be able to discuss the matter with you.

Very good. I didn't need all the foaming at the mouth. The only thing 
meaningful that
you have said is that I should keep on the look out for posts from George and 
Ian, as
they might have some information. I will discontinue the thread with you. I 
still hope to
generate some response from people who know the texts (whether they are
supportive or not).

My question, after all the blather from Dr. Barré, remains the same. Is there 
any
indication from Amarna, the Bible, Egyptian records, Assyrian/Babylonian 
literature,
etc. which prevents the Habiru invasion of the Amarna letters from being a 
14th
century conquest of the area by Joshua consumated in the following generation?
Could it be that Amarna does not mention Israelites because the Amarna
Akkadian/Canaanite word for "Israelite" is "Hebrew"/"Habiru"? Could it be that
Philistines are not mentioned in Amarna because that is just not what they 
called
themselves? If these two "can it be"s are answerable in the affirmative, then 
do the
records of the conquests and peoples from Amarna line up with the accounts in
Joshua and Judges?





"If there are many wisemen in a city, this means that the city will soon 
fall."
Babylonian proverb

Jonathan Bailey
Hochschule für Jüdische Studien
Heidelberg
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Column/9707/index.html