Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   David Rohl's Research (Re: 'A Test Of Time', re: Egyptian chronology)
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 37 of 50 (221498)
07-03-2005 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by jar
07-03-2005 8:39 PM


Re: Habiru
TB: Easily. The other non-Amarna evidence *independently* aligns the Armana tablets with 1000BC - Habiru or no Habiru. *Then*, when we look at the Habiru of the Amarna tablets we see the yare doing things in the right places at the right times to be David's band of Hebrews!
Jar: How is that?
Rohl's non-Amarna egptological evidence arrives at a New Chronology involving Pharoahs of the Amarna period. So that redates the Amarna letters.
letter from Abdu-Heba to Pharoah writes:
While the king, my Lord, lives, I will say to the commissioner of the king, my Lord: "Why do you favour the Hapiru [2] and are opposed to the rulers?"
Yapahu to Pharoah writes:
Let the king, my lord, be aware that my younger brother, has rebelled against me and has entered Muhhazu, and he has given over his two hands to the leader of the 'Apiru.
In addition, there are many letters that show regular commerce and politics and there are NONE that show any organized intrusion or army.
Do you really mean that? There are many conquests described in the Amarna tablets. What are you getting at here?
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 08:53 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 8:39 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 8:56 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 50 (221505)
07-03-2005 9:07 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by jar
07-03-2005 8:56 PM


Re: Habiru
^ In EA252 Labayu re-takes his home town of Gibean/Geba. In EA 290 and EA 287 we have Abdiheba (last known pre-Israelite) king of Jerusalem) fearing Gath & Gezer (with their Habiru merceneries) and the sons of Labayu (after Labayu's death) (whihc we equate with David (son-in-law) and Mutbaal (son)). In EA 288 Abdiheba says 'the Habiru have taken the very cities of the king'. It is his last letter to Pharoah.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 8:56 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 9:22 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 41 of 50 (221516)
07-03-2005 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by jar
07-03-2005 9:22 PM


Re: Habiru
Jar
Certainly doesn't sound like David's son-in-law.
EA252 is Labaya justifying his retaking of his home town (as recounted biblically in I Samuel). It's nothing to do with David (or Saul's sons)!
EA287 writes:
To the king my lord, [say: message from Ab]di-Heba, your servant. [At the feet] of the king my lord seven [and seven times I throw myself. Look], the entire question [..] they have introduced [.. Look] at the thing they have done [against me, which ..] arrows of bronze (?) [..] they have introduced into Qiltu. Let the king know that all the lands are allied, they are enemies against me. May the king provide for his land! Look, the country of Gezer, the country of Ascalon, and Lachish have given food, oil, and every (gloss "their need'. May the king provide troops, send troops against the men who have committed treason against the king my lord. If within this year there are troops, the lands and the regents will stay with the king my lord, but if there are not troops, there will not be lands or regents for the king. Look, this land of Jerusalem, neither my father nor my mother gave me the strong hand (gloss 'arm' [the king] has given me! Look, this action is an action of Milki-Ilu and an action of the sons of Lab'aya, who have given the land of the king to the enemy (habiru).
Again, no indication of some Nation State opposing them but rather city-state political rivalries, all of the city-states still under the rule of Egypt.
But Abdi-Heba is the King oF Jerusalem decribing it's imminent taking by the sons of Labaya (Saul)!
But remember, in addition to these there are also those that deal with normal commerce and politics.
I wouldn't expect anything else.
Throughout the Armana letters there is simply no indication of the existence of David, Saul, Israel or any similar nation-state.
Just a major player in the hill country surrounding Jerusalem called Labaya (= Saul/lebiam) with a son called MutBaal (= man of God in Akkadian = man of God in Hebrew = Ishbaal, biblically King of ISrael in-between Saul and David) and mixed realtions with a leader of the Habiru connected (or equal) in the Amarna letters to DwD = David, Ayab = Joab (biblically David's milatry chief) and Yishua = Jesse (biblically David's father)!
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 09:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 9:22 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 10:01 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 50 (221522)
07-03-2005 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by jar
07-03-2005 10:01 PM


Re: Habiru
Israel was only just beginning as a nation state. It's capital was established towards the end of the Amarna period. It is only with Solomon that great architecture appeared.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 10:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 10:01 PM jar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by lfen, posted 07-03-2005 10:20 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 50 (221550)
07-04-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by lfen
07-03-2005 10:20 PM


Solomon
Ifen
Yes, but that is all based on the existing chronology. For very good reason we know that Jerusalem was a village prior to the Amarna tablets.
That's 1300BC conventionally. If you look at middle bronze-age 1300BC) you only find a village at Jerusalem.
In the new chronology the Amarna tablets are 1000BC and importantly, so is the late bronze age IIA. So when you look at the late bronze age IIA *in the same place* you indeed find a prospering Solomonic-like Jerusalem.
That's the point.
I'll post more on Solomon soon. It involves the dicovery of Solomon's terraces, palace, an inscription, vast architiecture and evidence of Solomon's egyptian wife's *egyptian-style* palace in Jerusalem.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-04-2005 12:32 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by lfen, posted 07-03-2005 10:20 PM lfen has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by jar, posted 07-04-2005 12:37 AM Tranquility Base has not replied
 Message 47 by lfen, posted 07-04-2005 12:39 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 48 of 50 (221559)
07-04-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by lfen
07-04-2005 12:39 AM


Re: Solomon
Ifen
No, everyone egrees Solomon (if he existed) was around 1000BC. The problem is with the old chronology if you go to where it says 1000BC is you find nothing. Go to the New Chrnology's 1000BC and you find a Solomon-like city ocntinaing things that the Bible says Solomon built.
Remember near east arcehological dating is laregely based on pottery and the calibraito nis done by the existing egpytian chrnology. So archeologists - even after finding Solomonic-like artifcats - are commenting on 300 year earlier layers. Go to the new 1000BC and there's Solomon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by lfen, posted 07-04-2005 12:39 AM lfen has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024