Biblical Hebrew Forum

[<david.kimbrough AT charter.net>]

My understand of Pi-Ramesses is that it was built on or 
near the ruins of Aversis, the Hyksos capital, not the 
other way around.  The stie is one of strategic importance 
as both the Hyksos and Ramessid rulers of Egypt realized.

Pi-Ramesses does indeed mean "House of Ramesses" so it does 
not seem possible for it to have been built before the 
assension of Ramesses I (Menpehtyre).  However since he 
only ruled for at most two years (1295 - 1294), it is 
unlikely he built Pi-Ramesses.  It is far more likely that 
it was built by his son Seti I (Menmaatre 1394 - 1279) in 
honor of his father.

Again, taking the Gen 47:11 at face value, Joseph could not 
have arrived in Egypt prior to 1280.


> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Date: 2004/05/25 Tue AM 10:19:15 GMT
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jericho, Ramese


> From: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> Date: 2004/05/25 Tue AM 10:19:15 GMT
> To: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Jericho, Rameses and iron
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "kwrandolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
> > >  > I read a book a while back attributing Beitek 
(sp?) claim that the
> > >  > site of the Hyksos capital, Avaris, was built on 
the site of an
> > >  > Egyptian port that had a pre-Hyksos name of pi-
Rameses.
> > >
> > >  On what evidence? Textual? Archaeological? Why would 
a city be called
> > >  pi-Rameses before the reign of the first king by 
that name? Or does
> this
> > >  theory also know of a king Rameses that nobody else 
does?
> >
> > Who says that the port had to be named after a pharaoh? 
Especially,
> > as I remember it, it was a fairly unimportant port 
before the Hyksos
> > came and made it their capital. The evidence, according 
to the
> > attribution, was archeological.
> 
> Assuming that Avaris was indeed built on an earlier 
settlement, how do you
> know that that settlement was called "Pi-Rameses"? Were 
any pre-Hyksos
> inscriptions found there that give the name? The name 
"Pi-Rameses" means
> "House of Rameses". Since there was no god by that name 
(which in itself
> means "born of Re"), who would it be named for, if not a 
king?
> 
> > >  The fly in my understanding is
> > >  > that the traditional dates for the Hyksos is 
earlier than the Exodus,
> > >  > but then I learned that other writers more learned 
than I also
> > >  > question the traditional dates, making my 
understanding a
> possibility.
> > >
> > >  ONE MINUTE HERE! You write as if the date of the 
Exodus is fixed and
> known,
> > >  while that of the Hyksos is only a "tradition" which 
is still debated.
> WHile
> > >  it is true that Egyptologists do still debate 
chronology, the dabate is
> > >  about decades, not centuries. The Exodus, however, 
is not even proven
> to
> > >  have BEEN a historical event, not to mention its 
chronology.
> >
> > I have never considered any of the dates set in stone. 
Even if the
> > dates in Tanakh were 100% accurate, (I accept the 
possibility of
> > copyist errors) anchoring those dates to modern 
chronology can be off
> > by decades, depending on who one reads. At least I've 
noticed that
> > dates differ, depending on who I read.
> >
> > So, taking a guess for the time of the Exodus, we get 
ca. 1450 ± 50
> > years.
>  This "traditional" date is based on a combination of 1 
Kings 6:1 with the
> dates for Rehoboam and Solomon that we get from assuming 
that Shishak is
> Shoshenq I, who invaded in c.925. Just a few days ago, I 
explained that this
> date is problematic.
> 
> 
> > Rameses II who lived ca. 1200-900 (he lived almost a 
century)
> You mean c. 1290-1200. He actually died around 1220.
> 
> > falls well outside that range. The expulsion of the 
Hyksos, ca.
> > 1600-1400 falls within that range.
> Actually around 1570 or 1550. I don't know of any study 
that thinks that the
> Hyksos lasted as late as 1400. So the Exodus (assuming 
the above date, which
> I don't) would still be about a century too late.
> 
> >
> > My understanding from history is that after the Hyksos 
were expelled,
> > the native Egyptians tried to destroy all record of the 
Hyksos
> > presence. So if the Exodus occurred during the Hyksos 
period, it is
> > very unlikely that any record of that event from the 
Hyksos side
> > should survive.
> > >
> > >  >
> > >  > If the traditional dates are off by two or more 
centuries as some
> > >  > have claimed, that would put the beginning of the 
iron age at the
> > >  > time of King David. Tanakh mentions that David ran 
extensive iron
> > >  > works.
> > >
> > >  Where?
> >
> > 2 Samuel 12:31 David took the people of Ammon (which I 
understand to
> > be a good sized crowd which I understand to number into 
the hundreds,
> > if not thousands) and put them to work with ore 
crushers and
> > "refining and smelting iron". That would indicate 
fairly extensive
> > iron works.
> 
> The Hebrew does mention the word "barzel", which means 
"iron". But the rest
> is so unclear, that the translation is anyone's guess. 
I've always read it
> as meaning that he put the Ammonites through some sort of 
Iron "rack", maybe
> as a form of torture. B-Hebrew people, let's discuss 2 
Sam. 12:31!
> 
> In any case, that is hardly proof "that David ran 
extensive iron works".
> > >
> > >  That would explain how Israel, a small, weak country 
with a
> > >  > history of being a vassal nation to its neighbors, 
could suddenly
> > >  > become a world power under David: he had wrested 
the secret of
> > >  > tempering iron into steel from the Philistines and 
armed his soldiers
> > >  > with steel while his enemies were all still armed 
with bronze.
> > >
> > >  What evidence is there that the 11th century 
Philistines used iron or
> steel?
> > >  And if they did, than David's learning the "secret" 
would make him only
> as
> > >  technologically advanced as they were, not more 
advanced.
> >
> > Years ago, there was an article in Scientific American 
(my parents
> > had those lying around the house while I was growing 
up) asking the
> > question, why iron? There are many disadvantages to it: 
wrought iron
> > is softer than bronze, more brittle, rusts, harder to 
smelt, and not
> > as pretty. It was known, even fairly early in the 
bronze age, but not
> > widely used for those reasons. But if one tempers iron 
into steel
> > with the addition of the proper impurities, it is 
harder than bronze,
> > holds a better edge, yet is more flexible, less likely 
to break and
> > is stronger. So for "iron" to supplant bronze as the 
weapons of
> > choice, we are talking about tempered steel, not 
wrought iron.
> 
> That's fine, but again, I ask, where's the archaeological 
evidence that the
> Philistines or David or anyone else in the Levant in the 
11th century used
> steel weapons?
> 
> >
> > Even though technologically speaking, David was equal 
to the
> > Philistines, apparently he had a larger army than they. 
Even so, I
> > suspect several military terms (e.g. "hoplite") were 
Philistine
> > origin.
> 
> Could be. But "hoplite" is Greek, and does not appear in 
the Hebrew Bible.
> 
> >
> > Even as early as Joshua, the people of the plain, later 
identified as
> > Philistines, were mentioned as having weapons of 
"iron".
> 
> Actually, the refference in Josh 17:16-18 is to "iron 
chariots" - usually
> understood as iron plated chariots, and referring to the 
Canaanites in the
> Beth-shean and Jezreel Valleys, not the Philistines on 
the coast.
> 
> 
> 
> During the
> > time when Israel was a vassal state to the Philistines, 
Tanakh
> > mentions that Israelites had to go to Philistine smiths 
to have their
> > farm implements worked on.
> 
> Although it actually says that they had no "xara$", which 
could be a worker
> of wood, stone or any kind of metal. Iron is not 
mentioned in this story.
> 
> Furthermore, it was repeatedly mentioned
> > that Israel had no swords (fewer than 10 to the nation) 
so the
> > picture I get is that the Philistines deliberately 
restricted
> > knowledge of tempering steel as a state secret for its 
military
> > advantage.
> >
> Generally speaking, the lack of archaeological evidence 
of widespread use of
> Iron during what is called the "Iron I Period" has led 
many scholars to the
> conclusion (with which I agree) that most mention of Iron 
in Joshua, Judges
> and Samuel is anachronistic, and should not be made to 
much of.
> Let's remember, that the texts we are dealing with were 
written hundreds of
> years after the events, by authors who no real knowledge 
of archaeology or
> critical historical methodology.
> 
> 
> Yigal
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> 

David Kimbrough
San Gabriel