Biblical Hebrew Forum

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

In fact, it's worse than I at first thought Karl. There is in fact mention
of a King of Urusalem (Jerusalem). An Abdi-Heba, who grovels shamelessly to
the Pharaoh in EA 287. I fail to see how Abdi-Heba could be identified with
any of the Kings of Judah. This name probably means Servant of Hebat, a
Hurrian goddess. So, I'm finding the Amarna period very unlikely to be
contemporary with a Kingdom of Israel.

James Christian

On 8 May 2010 09:12, James Christian <jc.bhebrew AT googlemail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>