Biblical Hebrew Forum

[rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>]

Jim
 You wrote:  " Maya is mostly associated with Year 16 in the Amarna Letters, 
at the very > end of Akhenaten?s reign, when Akhenaten was planning an 
invasion of Syria > that, probably because of Akhenaten?s declining health, 
never happened"
  And your scholarly support for this claim is...? This is just your opinion 
once again. Please read E. F. Campbell's book "The Chronology of the Amarna 
Letters". He deals with Maya's career extensively in ways you haven't 
considered. Example: he points out the Tomb of Maya (Tomb 14) is recogniozed 
by archeologists to have been built in Year 9 of Akhenaten based partially on 
the depictions of just three of his daughters(out of six) and other factors 
that help  fix a date and the fact archeologists know no new Tombs were 
constructed in Amarna after Year 12.
  
 Campbel relates how Maya rose to power, then fell from grace during the time 
of Akhenaten to such a degree his tomb was defaced.You place Maya in year 
16.. His tomb dates from year 9. Whom to believe? I go with the Tomb.    Mr 
Campbell places Maya "in of shortly after the eighth year of Akhenaten" "The 
chronology of the Amarna letters" page 105.  You place Maya in Year 16. Mr 
Campbell, on whose work all Amarna Scholars refer, says Year 8. I go with 
Campbell.
 You wrote: "  Cyril Aldred, the most respected biographer of Akhenaten, sees 
an 11-year  co-regency."
    Jim, come on now "most respected"??? Whom are you kidding?? Mr Aldred's 
theory is almost universally rejected by mainstream scholars such as Nadav 
Naaman.  The theory is a retread of one proposed much earlier  by someone 
else, and was addressed by Mr Campbell in 1964 in his book "The Chronology of 
the Amarna Letters". Mr Aldred , on the point of co regency, is faulted for 
basing his theoryprimarily on the interpretation art found at Amarna over 
archeology.
  Some scholars such as Kicthen do believe in a possible 8 year co regency-, 
some in a two year. Some sort of co regency may haveoccurred ,but no co 
regency theory places Labayu in year 12-13 of Akhenaten as other factors, 
such as Abimilki leaving Tyre in Year 14 (Kitchen), events in Byblos, Sumur, 
etc make this impossible.   Your comment regarding letter 254 is discussed by 
Campbell on page 103, please endeavor for accuracy as your claimis invalid.
  You wrote:
   " But I see such scholarly view,  which is one of two main competing 
scholarly views, as being untenable on the  merits. "
   You are saying here is that all the major scholars are wrong and only you 
are right. That is what I see.  
   You wrote: " Moreover, if Lab?ayu sent EA 254 to Thebes in Year > 32, 
being 16 years before Amarna was built, then why would the original of > that 
tablet be in the Amarna archives in the first place?"
 I am not interested here in your reasoning... you should stand back and see 
just how simplistic that statement is. I don't wish to make this a history 
lesson but I feel for this site to move on readers shouldknow the facts as 
accepted by the majority of scholars today .
A. Scholars such as Campbell, Leverani, Na'aman, etc agree Lab'ayu died 
before the death of Amenophis lll.     
 .Mr Campbell states: "Lab'ayu was still alive in the 32 year of Amenophis 
lll but was out of the picture 7 years later."
   EF Campbell places the death of Lab'ayu at year 34 of Amenophis.(Na'aman 
places it closer to year 36)     Egyptian Commissioner Pawura,  was mentioned 
as being in Jerusalem after the deathof Labayu EA  287 and all scholars know 
it was also Pawura who was killed after the Egyptians took Sumur from Abdi 
Ashirta.(Read Professor's Mario Liverani's account of the death of Pawura in 
"Myth and Politics in Ancient Near Eastern Historiography")...and Abdi 
Ashirta dies before Amenophis lll  
 3. Scholars say Lab'ayu was dead by the time Abdi Heba took control of 
Jerusalem    Campbell, following the career of Zurata, prince of Accho, and 
writes:
 "Zurata's appearance in the period after Lab'ayu's death but BEFORE ABDI 
HEBA's time, fits well with the other references..."
  it's really that simple. So to recap what most scholars agree is the 
chronology:    
  1. Labayu died in the reign of Amenophis lll (Campbell, Redford, others)  
2. Labayu dies months or perhaps more than a year before Abdi Ashirta as 
evidenced by the famous murder of     Deputy Pawura, possibly by Aziru,  
after the Egyptians, lead by Haya, retake Sumur. (Mario Liverani)  3. Abdi 
Ashirta dies about a year before Amenophis 111 (Nadav Na'aman)   4. Abdi Heba 
came to power in Jerusalem AFTER the death of Labayu (Campbell, others)  5. 
Commissioner Maya replaces Commissioner Yanhamu in Gezer by Year 8 of 
Akhenaten.(Campbell)  6.  Milkilu and Abdi Heba are dead by the time Maya 
arrives in Gezer. (Campbell, others)  7. There are NO Egyptian records of the 
condition of Jerusalem or the Hill country beyond Year 8 of Akenaten. The     
 Egyptians abandoned the region at the time of Abdi Heba.(Campbell, whose 
chronological chart is blankunder "Southern Vassals" in the last half of 
Akhenaten's reign
   Jim, any one of these statements completely disrupts your theory. The odds 
of scholars being wrong on every oneis  astronomical. You will have to 
address each fact separately ...  You wrote:
  "The Biblical testimony supports my view. The second half of Genesis  14: 4 
references Year 13, meaning that chapters 12-13 of Genesis occur in Year  12. 
Genesis 12: 6 refers to the ?Canaanite? at the major city-state of  Shechem. 
That?s Lab?ayu in Year 12, shortly before his grand plans for  Greater 
Shechem bit the dust with his assassination early in Year 13. Everything  in 
the Patriarchal narratives fits the original reading of the hieratic  docket 
on EA 254 as being Year 12. '
   This claim is just your theory, and nothing said here is correct. My 
challenge to you to find onerecognized scholar who would place Labayu in Year 
13. There are none. Even a casual study makes it obviousthis is impossible.
   You make the claim Nadav Na'aman and Campbell etc are all  complete 
incompetents. 
Rob Acosta
  
    
    
  


  
 
 
**************************************