----- Original Message -----
From: "kwrandolph" <kwrandolph AT email.com>
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?
>You're darn tootin' that that date is problematic. Was that Shoshenq
> 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.
I'm not prepared to argue dates with you, I haven't studied that
> 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".
Let's turn this on its head, where is there evidence that they didn't?
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.
Just because ancient peoples didn't make wide use of a metal does not
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
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.