Biblical Hebrew Forum

[rob acosta <robacosta AT hotmail.com>]

jim
       As usual you resort to emotionalism to support your arguments, not 
facts and you attack the experts I quote....and try to make it appear I am 
inventing this information.       I must say, I expected your response.
   You wrote:"On that view, here is what you are asking us to believe.  At 
the absolute height of the power of the “King of Kings”, Amenhotep III, 
Lab’ayu decided to stop helping Pharaoh with caravans going to 
Naharim/Mitanni and instead picked that moment to create an independent state 
of Greater Shechem, against Amenhotep III’s strong objections.  Moreover, 
although Surata of Akko had previously been showered with “400 men and 30 
pairs of horses, as were given to Surata [by Amenhotep III]”,  EA 85:  1-5, 
16-22, Surata nevertheless picked that moment to double-cross the richest 
human being the world has ever seen, Amenhotep III, in order to receive a 
bribe from the small-time strongman Lab’ayu (EA 245: 24-47), whom Surata had 
promised to send to Egypt as a prisoner.  Does that make any sense at all?  
By stark contrast, Lab’ayu’s and Surata’s actions make perfect sense in the 
context of the very beginning of the sole reign of a much weaker Pharaoh, 
Akhenaten:  Years 12-13."
  Seriously ,Jim? This is your answer?  I quote to you the best known 
scholars and you give me a bedtime story?
   I am not personally asking you to believe anything.You seem to have a lot 
of trouble separating the people I referenced from me. I quoted the best 
known scholars, people anyone can look up on their own  and gave their 
views...Labayu was dead before Abdi Heba assumed office , Labayu died before 
Abdi Ashirta,Deputy Pawuru was in Jerusalem after the death of Labayu (EA 
289) and was killed whenEgypt retook Sumur from Abdi Ashirta.
  Those are the facts . Very simple. Disprove it if you can.  
   I am asking you to do some actual research for a change and actuallyREAD 
the people I reference but you never do..  let's cease with the 
endless"doesn't make sense" tactic of yours. It's not professional and 
actually undermines your positionbecause you are seen as making an emotional 
appeal rather that supporting your position with facts.  It didn't "make 
sense to you", for example, that Abraham would go to Hebron from 
Bethel,because you claimed Hebron doesn't have enough water but for a few 
sheep and was barren..when 250,000 people live there today in one of the most 
fertile regions of Israel... how anyone on earth could have made such a 
baselessclaim when it takes only 10 minutes on the internet to disprove is 
what actually doesn't make sense.  It tells me the person doesn't spend a lot 
of time in the library and is not averse to "inventing' his facts..
  You also went on to claim fruits, nuts and oak trees "can't" grow in the 
"mountainous Hebron" when anyonecan look up on the net and see all of your 
statements are patently false.     You claimed camels can't live in Hebron 
because its too cold in winter, that Qatna was so completely destroyedit is 
the model for Sodom,  when it flourished for hundreds of years after Amarna,  
and you deny Suppiliulumas version of the capture of Aitakama who clearly 
states in the Shattiwaza Treaty the man was taken at the end of the Great 
Syrian War but you invented a "raid" where Aitakama was supposedly taken a 
year earlier to fit your 4 against five claim. You claimed Suppiluliumas' 
version couldn't be trusted but never offered prooffor your version and you 
still dodge that issue.    There is a very clear pattern here and it isn't 
good.     Another example: I see you now also denounce  EF Campbell whose 
work is referenced by all Amarna Scholars... (Murnane, redford)and you are 
referenced by no one,   Why not try actually READING Mr Campbell's book 
before you denounce him? I've read Aldred so I cancompare...he is into the 
art, thinks one picture represents a homosexual relationshipbetween Akhenaten 
and his successor, that sort of thing.. Aldred's 12 year co regency is simply 
not accepted by most scholars. that is a simple fact, any school child can it 
up and verify.
 Let's continue.First, let's establish your Mr Aldred  writes in his book 
"Akhenaten"( page 240) that Abdi Ashirta died during thereign of Amenophis 
lll... you claimed it "didn't make sense" the Amarna letters would deal with 
letters sent toAmenophis lll, but your hero Aldred has no problem with it.
  Obviously all scholars agree the Abdi Ashirta correspondence was during 
Amenophis lll time.    Now here is another well known scholar I am certain 
you will denounce and find fault with.  " The Architecture of 
ImperialismMilitary Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New 
Kingdom"  By Ellen Fowles Morris
  She writes in reference to Abdi Heba "The war in the central hill country 
predated much of the conflictin Sumur ( involving Abdi Ashirta) for both 
Yankhamu and Pawuru were intensively involved in quelling this feud"(EA 287)"

   This agrees with EF Campbell's statement " "the events of Lab'ayu's  
capture and the linking of his namewith that of Balumihir appears to predate 
Abdi Ashirta's death"
Next, Ms Morris writes:" A man named Pawuru took over the governorship of 
Sumur..he was transferredfrom an erstwhile post at Gaza (EA 289).. he appears 
next in the letters as a corpse, cast aside anddenied funerary rites"
   There you have it. Pawuru, in Jerusalem after Labayu's death, is then 
transferred to Sumurand is eventually killed...his body left out in the open 
and burial denied.
   Jim, for once let's stick to the facts offered by the scholars, because 
you information simply cannot be trusted,    I referenced Mario Liverani, 
Ellen Morris and others that tell the same chronology.  you, of course, claim 
they are ALL wrong.       
   Any school child can see Abdi Ashirta's death was after Labayu's and Abdi 
Ashirta died during thereign of Amenophis lll largely based on Rib Addi's 
letters to Akhenaten that the action against Abdi Ashirtatook place in his 
father's time.
    Now, I can understand the stridency of your response and your willingness 
to denigrate any and allscholars would print anything that undermines your 
theory.   I simply asked you to respond to the Scholars, yet again you try to 
twist this back to me. ..I do notclaim to be a scholar nor do I have any 
personal theory about the Amarna Age.   I have no theory I would practically 
kill to defend. To me facts are facts, I adjust my beliefs accordingto what 
proves to be the truth.
   All I see is a disconnect between your version of the Amarna events and 
what the scholars.  I found the same disconnect between your version of the 
Great Syrian War and books I've read.
  Jim, please respond with facts for a change...no stories...no denigration 
of scholars world famous fortheir work.
  
Rob Acosta