Biblical Hebrew Forum

[James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com>]

Hi Karl,

getting back to the original proposal in your interesting thread I've been
digging more into the Amarna letters. The problem I have with dating the
Amarna period as late as you do is that of all the rulers and cities
mentioned in them there is not even a hint of a Kingdom of Israel of King of
Judah or of Northern Israel:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters–localities_and_their_rulers<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amarna_letters%E2%80%93localities_and_their_rulers>

In fact, there are mentions of nomads causing problems. This would seem to
fit a pre-Joshua period or even the start of Joshua's invasions but doesn't
fit well with an already established Kingdom of Israel.

There are inviting aspects of the archaeological findings identifying
Asiatic slaves in Egypt that left in a hurry but the dating of this site is
by no means conclusive. It could well be much later than the 13th dynasty.

James Christian

On 29 April 2010 20:02, K Randolph <kwrandolph AT gmail.com> wrote:

> George:
>
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 2:14 PM, George Athas <George.Athas AT moore.edu.au
> >wrote:
>
> > Well, we definitely will not agree on this one, Karl. Akhenaton was
> > definitely 14th century BC,
>
>
> That is what is disputed, and has been disputed by trained historians for
> decades. However, because they were not of the herd, they were denied
> professorships and scholarly publications, even degrees. (See Thomas Gold’s
> description of herd politics within academia and research. Having grown up
> in academia, I have observed some of what he describes.)
>
> The problem is: the archaeology does not support this claim.
>
>
> > and Amarna belongs squarely in his reign. Settlement in Palestine might
> > have been thin at this time, but there were still political entities
> there.
> > This is even why it is probable that there were Israelite and Judean
> > polities in the sparsely urbanised Iron I period.
> >
>
> Scripture clearly puts the Exodus at about 1450 BC, give or take a decade
> or
> two. The picture of Egypt at the Exodus is that of a shattered and
> devastated nation, without an army nor pharaoh, easy prey for an invading
> force.
>
> Archaeology shows that there was a massive presence of Egyptianized
> “Asiatics” in Egypt in the 12th and 13th dynasties, who left during the
> 13th
> dynasty. Their departure was so sudden that workmen abandoned their tools
> and some women even forgot their jewelry. It is as if they were driven from
> the land, as described in Exodus.
>
> At about the same time, a few decades later, the rich and powerful middle
> bronze age Canaanite culture suddenly came to a violent end, to be replaced
> by a relatively sparse population that was materially far poorer and
> recognizably different culture, and most of the major cities were either
> abandoned or poor villages. This is the picture given in both archaeology
> and the books of Joshua and Judges, and contradicted by the scholarly,
> history consensus.
>
> The only problem for the Biblical history, is that the dates assigned to
> the
> archaeological findings are from a tradition that long predates modern
> archaeology. Even the number and sequence of the pharaohs is from that
> tradition, adjusted and massaged some by some archaeological findings, but
> not allowed to be contradicted. That tradition has become the scholarly
> consensus, and woe betide the historian who dares challenge it. But
> archaeology and Bible both clearly contradict it.
>
> The Biblical record indicates absolutely no Egyptian influence in Canaan
> from the Exodus until after Solomon. Then after Solomon we find independent
> city states that were previously under Solomon’s control, rich enough to be
> of interest to a foreign (read: Egyptian) invader. This is the picture
> given
> in the Tel Amarna letters. Hence, from archaeology, the Amarna period
> should
> be dated to the ninth to eighth centuries BC.
>
> >
> > I know you always scorn scholarly consensus,
>
>
> “Consensus is the refuge of scoundrels” though, if the data is there to
> back
> it up, I have no problem in agreeing with the consensus. It is only when
> the
> consensus goes out on a limb and contradicts other data, legitimate data,
> then it does not deserve support.
>
>
> > but you've really gone out on a limb with this one. I'm afraid I can't
> join
> > you there this time, my friend.
> >
>
> That’s your choice.
>
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > GEORGE ATHAS
> > Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
> > www.moore.edu.au
> >
> > Time and again I have observed that when an academic challenges the
> reigning consensus in his field, that he does so at the peril of his job.
> That is true even if he is a tenured professor (there are ways to get rid
> of
> a troublesome tenured professor, they just take a little longer than a
> simple firing). I have seen data deliberately falsified to bring it in line
> with a consensus. I don’t always agree with the challenge, but even those
> challenges with which I disagree should be heard without fear of losing a
> career.
>
> I have no career as a historian, nor do I desire one, therefore I can call
> a
> spade a spade without fear of losing my job. In this case, the spade is
> that
> archaeology contradicts the claim that the Amarna period was the 14th
> century BC.
>
> Which brings us back to the thread, namely were these men of the princes of
> the districts an Egyptian squad stationed in Samaria? I noticed that the
> meaning of “prince” refers to a person whose job it was to keep people in
> line, sort of like a policeman or sheriff, not necessarily a hereditary
> prince as in western culture. Even the sons of kings were “princes” in that
> they were to enforce the edicts of their fathers. Thus these “princes”
> could
> have been Egyptian officials assigned to keep certain districts under
> Egyptian control in line, and their men were a squad of Egyptian soldiers
> under their authority. That makes linguistic sense out of what is to me an
> otherwise puzzling verse.
>
> Karl W. Randolph.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>