Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   David Rohl's Research (Re: 'A Test Of Time', re: Egyptian chronology)
Brian
Member (Idle past 4959 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 31 of 50 (221372)
07-02-2005 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by Tranquility Base
06-30-2005 10:59 PM


Re: Habiru
However, that does not change the fact that the Habiru of the Amarna tablets, written over a few hundred years.....
This is incorrect, the Amarna Letters only cover a period of about 50 years, in the traditional chronology the date is roughly 1400-1350 BCE.
Brian.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by Tranquility Base, posted 06-30-2005 10:59 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 50 (221480)
07-03-2005 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by jar
07-01-2005 10:40 AM


Re: Habiru
Jar
You say that your other information is independent of the Armana Tablets. Is that a correct statement?
Definitely. The evidence for the New Chronology can be summarized as:
1. Archeological evidence (inscriptions & burials) of significant paralellism in the 21/22 dynasties at Sakkara, the Valley of the Kings & Tanis.
2. Retro-astronomical absolute dating of an eclispe and lunar month variation series.
3. Absolute dating via a single 450 year genealogy of the Royal Architects spanning 930BC to 500BC.
4. Identification of '3 out of 4 of the 'four pillars' of conventional egyptian chronology as being incorrect. Two of which were incorrect assignments of historical Pharoah's in the Bible by over zealous Victorian-era biblical archeologists.
None of this involves:
* the Amarna tablets
* the Solomon finds or
* the newly identified appearance of Rameses II in the Bible.
whihc we ca ncontinue talking about and quoting.
The Bible clearly dovetails perfectly with these evidences if the New Chronology is used.
I would also like to add here that the discarding of the biblical records was always bizaree. The Bible records names, battles, other events and places alongside an unbroken geneology which is explicitly parellism-free. The problem simply was that no-one was prepared to give up the Victorian-era (but eroneous) assignments between the Bible and egyptology even after the Bible itslef was discarded! They discarded the wrong record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by jar, posted 07-01-2005 10:40 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 7:47 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 33 of 50 (221482)
07-03-2005 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 7:33 PM


Re: Habiru
Sorry but how do any of the things you mention relate to the term Habiru in the Armana Tablets being synonymous with Hebrew.
I still see nothing but smoke and mirrors. Where is there any evidence to support the "New Chronology"?
The Bible records names, battles, other events and places alongside an unbroken geneology which is explicitly parellism-free.
LOL
Yup. Too bad so far almost none of them have been suppodrted as actually existing.
Look, you agree that the Armana letters stand as independant evidence. They clearly show that the conquest of Canaan either before or during the period specified in the Bible just plain never happened. Unless you can come up with some firm evidence, not just 'whatifs', that is pretty much the end of the Exodus story as told in the Bible.
Never happened.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 7:33 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 8:29 PM jar has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 50 (221489)
07-03-2005 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Brian
07-02-2005 3:14 PM


Re: The Saul/David/Solomon evidence is more than convincing
Brian
Yes, the Tell el-Amarna letters are a very important part of the origins debate. Unfortunately, when they were found bible archaeologists were far too keen to make parallels with Habiru = Hebrew.
And they rejected (although noting that it seemed as if this was a historical pre-cursor of David and his men) it becasue of the old chronology.
When the tablets were found, the original assertion was that the word Habiru simply equalled Hebrew. However, a big problem arose for this hypothesis with the mention of the ‘ha-bi-ru’ in the letters of king IR-Heba of Jerusalem in the Amarna archives. The publication of the clay tablets from the Hittite capital Hattusa produced proof that the Sumeriogram ‘sa.gaz’ that means ‘robbers’ (habbatu) , is to be read in the Akkadian and Hittite texts as ‘hab/piru’ (Weippert, M. (1971) The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: a critical survey of the recent scholarly debate, SCM Press, London.: p. 64).
In 1939 it became obvious that the consonantal element of the word ‘ha-bi-ru’, ‘had to be recognised as '-p-r, which meant that all etymologies dependent on the root HBR were excluded, and corresponding attempts with ‘BR and the ‘ibrim became uncertain (Gottwald, N. K. (1979) The tribes of Yahweh : a sociology of the religion of liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E, SCM Press, London. P. 401)
The word ‘Apiru itself is not of Hebrew origin, and, of course, the Hebrew word for ‘Hebrew’ is ibrim. The origin of the word itself is not known for certain as there is no certainty as to the language (NW Semitic, Hurrian, etc.) or the verbal root from which the sociopolitical technical term (‘Apiru) was originally drawn (ibid: 401)
That's all well and good but I know enough archeology that all of these arguements or only 'plausability arguments. Rohl uses the same types of arguments and its only when one looks at the big picture that one can decide whether it's improving the chronoogical analysis or degrading it.
Although the term ‘outlaw’ seems to be the most apt term to define the ‘Apiru, it does tend to miss out many of the categories of society in which the ‘Apiru are said to have existed. While the ‘Apiru were distinctly recognisable from the population of the existing society that they happened to be involved with, they normally relied on that society for their livelihood. They were often employed by members of a society either as individual contract labourers or as hired groups of soldiers, agricultural labourers, or construction gangs (Ibid: 402).
I agree with you that Habiru had a wider context at other times. But in the context of the Amarna letters they are referring to a particular group.
It is quite understandable that 'Habiru' would be applied to all or part of Israelites who had been wanderers.
The general characteristic of the ‘Apiru turns out to be sociopolitical rather than ethnic or economic. They cannot be characterised as ethnically homogeneous in any one location, nor are they tied to any single economic activity throughout the Near East.
It's easy to say that, and it may be true at other times, but it is clearly inconsistent with teh useage in the Amarna tablets whihc are fefferring time and time again to interactions with the same group over a short period of time.
Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to refer to a social stratum, the equation of the term with the Hebrews is untenable as the Hebrews are said to be an ethnic group.
It's quite misleading and inaccurate to much such black-and-white statements! We're talking about the useage at a particular tiem in a partilucalr set of letters.
More problematic for the equation is the fact that the Bible suggests that the whole of ‘Israel’ came out of Egypt, however, the ‘Apiru are now attested to in a large variety of sources from different times and places. For example, (I have posted this elsewhere, but for ease of reading I thought it best to include here)
1. In Mesopotamia, they are in evidence through the periods of Ur III, 1 Babylon, and after; in the Nuzi texts (fifteenth century) they play an especially prominent role.
2. Documents from Mari (eighteenth century) and Alalakh (seventeenth and fifteenth centuries) attest their presence in Upper Mesopotamia throughout the patriarchal age.
3. In Anatolia, the Cappadocian texts (nineteenth century) knew them, as did those of Boghazkoy (fourteenth century).
4. They are also mentioned in the Ras Shamra texts (fourteenth century).
5. Egyptian documents of the Empire period (fifteenth to twelfth century) refer to them, both as foes and rebels in Asia and as bondsmen in Egypt.
6. The Amarna letters (fourteenth century), where they appear in Palestine and adjoining areas as disturbers of the peace, are the best witness to them of all.
(Bright, S. J. (1972) A history of Israel, SCM Press, London. P. 92)
John Bright goes on to conclude that obviously, a people found all over western Asia from the end of the third millennium to about the eleventh century cannot lightly be identified with the ancestors of Israel! (Ibid: 92).
The connection between the Israelites has not been completely broken. Since the term ‘Apiru has been shown to be a social stratum rather than an ethnic group, it has been proposed that since the Israelites were employed as slaves in Egypt, and as ‘slave’ is a social rather than an ethnic term, then the term ‘Apiru could indeed be applied to the Israelites. In effect, the claim is that not all ‘Apiru were Israelites, but where there were mentions of ‘Apiru, it is possible that an Israelite component may have been present. Although the connection is plausible, it has never been convincingly argued, and remains extremely questionable.
I stand by statement that we're interested with Habiru of the AMarna letteres and hereby concede tha tit was a name borrowed from earlier useage. Furthermore, it is quite obvious how that useage may have arisen and why the Bible itself uses the term Hebrew only in the words of foreigners (9 times out of 10).
So, what is this evidence that Rohl has that ‘undoubtedly’ links the Amarna period to Saul, David and Solomon?
I am a lot less enthusiastic about Rohl 'undoubtedly' tying the late 18th dynasty to the 10th century BCE. I would also recommend avoiding using absolutes when conducting historical research, it is not something that historians do as they know that their theories are always open to being proven false by some new find/research.
Agreed, except I pointed out where you seem to take 'indications' as 'determinations'.
TB: Rohl independenlty uses non-Levantine egyptological evidence to tie the late 18th dynasty to 1000BC.
Brian: I look forward to seeing how he is able to do this.
See my post to Jar above, and I'll ultimately psot this stuff here too. It's Rohl's preferred evidence becasue he knows of the anti-Bible current view. But IMO, the biblical links are the best evidence of a 1000BC late 18th dynasty due to the nature of the biblical record.
So, you are saying that there is a letter from King David in the Amarna letters? If so, do you have a tablet number?
I said and/or. David is listed in name in a letter between Mutbaal andpharoah (EA256) concerning the weherabouts of Daivd's milatary chief, Joab.
Saul = Labayu? Labayu was a Palesinian king, so how does Rohl turn Saul into Labayu?
Why does the Bible never call Saul by the name Labayu?
I think you're read up on that yourself since. The Bible strongly suggests Saul was not the original name and Saul's bodygaurds were called the 'Great Lions' = lebiam.
Okay, there is a lot going on in there, and none of which is supported at this time. The biggest problem with this claim is that the Amarna Letters do not mention Philistines.
Someone else made this statement too. If not, certainly many of the city-states are correctly named however.
Now, since the Philistines did not enter into the history of the ancient near east until around 1200 BCE, and this is about 150 years after the end of the Amarna period we don’t expect to see any references to the Philistines.
For all we know maybe the Bible is referring to these city states by a later blanket name (as well as individually).
However, this absence of any reference to the Philistines is puzzling if we move the Amarna period forward about 300 years. Moving the Amarna period forward 300 years or so puts it during the time of a great deal of Philistine activity in the region, so why is it that the Amarna letters do not mention Philistines? (especially if David was in league with them and David is supposed to be mentioned in the Amarna Letters.)
Maybe it was to honor each city state?
I think you need to be a little bit careful with the words that you use because the word ‘Israel’ does not appear in the Amarna tablets.
Agreed. But I meant in the region that became Israel (either then or later).
The first mention of an Israel as an ethnic group appears in Pharaoh Merneptah’s victory stele, which is dated to around 1205, and the stele suggests that ‘Israel’ had not yet settled in Palestine.
I'd be interested in hearing more on that.
Are you using the name ‘Israel’ here to refer to the area as it later became known?
Yes, as I mentioned above. I'll use Palestine from now one. Why is that better? When was the term Palestine introduced?
This is actually incorrect. The date of the Amarna Letters in the traditional chronology is 1400-1350 BCE. The Bible chronology places the Exodus at c.1446,
Yes, but I think you'll agree you're mixing apples and organges here. The conventional chronology although loosely *based* on the Bible's gap between the Exodus and some time near Saul of 480 years, compresses the 480 years to 300 years (via a dubious arguement) and therfore does have the Armana letters conincident with the pre-Exodus bondage.
Mainstream this is explained as a small escaped band. . .
Really? Could you tell us the evidence that Rohl uses to make this absolute identification?
Rohl is quoting mainstream biblical arcehologists from 1960s/1970s here.
So surely in fact that Rohl is the only Egyptologist who believes it.
I rarely take anything that anyone says as being convincing on its own, I always triple check their claims, I even do this with people I have great respect for, even my ex-lecturers.
Well, I'm reading quite a mix from both sides now. Rohl's work does cover a hige independentt array of evidecne as seen in my post above to Jar.
I have read it, I have also critiqued it a while ago in a presentation at Stirling University, this is one reason why I know Rohl’s chronology has a few terminal flaws. But these will unfold as we go along. Trust me, Rohl’s chronology isn’t at all convincing when you are familiar with the subject, but I will leave you to make up your own mind as the discussion unfurls.
We'll see. I've yet to even talk abot the retro-astronmics or the Royal Architect's geneology.
There's one thing you're forgetting in all of this and that's the nature of (i) the Biblical record with it's careful genealogies and description of numerous Levantine events/places and (ii) how the egptian chronology was locked in. By any objective standard it should be the most treasured document for the region. The only reason it has been discarded is that clearly incorrect coincidences were drawn between it and egyptology in Victorian times.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 09:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Brian, posted 07-02-2005 3:14 PM Brian has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 50 (221491)
07-03-2005 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by jar
07-03-2005 7:47 PM


Re: Habiru
Sorry but how do any of the things you mention relate to the term Habiru in the Armana Tablets being synonymous with Hebrew.
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!
I still see nothing but smoke and mirrors. Where is there any evidence to support the "New Chronology"?
How can you say that? I listed them to you in point form above! I'll gradually post the details here. But it's on the web and well known.
LOL
Yup. Too bad so far almost none of them have been suppodrted as actually existing.
It helps to get the chronology right. I haven't even started on the retro-astronimics or Solomon.
You seem to be arguing about somehting that you do not know the big picture of. Why not wait until I post it instead of just claiming, without evidence, that there is no support for the Bible when that is the * precise corollary of the New Chronology - namely that there is plenty of evidence of biblical places, cities, names and events in archeology.
Look, you agree that the Armana letters stand as independant evidence.
Of what?
They clearly show that the conquest of Canaan either before or during the period specified in the Bible just plain never happened.
Why argue if you don't even know the evidence we're claiming! The Amarna letters describe the Habiru (Daivd's men) and major, otherwise unknown, player Labayu (Saul) in precisely the right locations!
Unless you can come up with some firm evidence, not just 'whatifs', that is pretty much the end of the Exodus story as told in the Bible.
Never happened.
We're not even talking about Exodus.
You can't look at these pieces in isolation Jar. The big picture is very convincing. And for people with a Sunday School backgound the Amarna letters themsleves are very convincing.
This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 07-03-2005 08:33 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 7:47 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by jar, posted 07-03-2005 8:39 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 36 of 50 (221494)
07-03-2005 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 8:29 PM


Re: Habiru
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!
How is that?
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.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 8:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 8:50 PM jar has replied

  
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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 38 of 50 (221501)
07-03-2005 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 8:50 PM


Re: Habiru
There are many conquests described in the Amarna tablets.
Actually, I don't see any such signs. There is talk of city-state rivalries, but not one single example of organized conquest. Where do you see such signs?
And there is absolutely no indication of something like a Nation State headed by David.
This message has been edited by jar, 07-03-2005 07:57 PM

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 8:50 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 9:07 PM jar 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 40 of 50 (221511)
07-03-2005 9:22 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 9:07 PM


Re: Habiru
Let's look at those.
EA252 writes:
To the king my lord: message from Lab'aya, your servant. At the feet of the king, I throw myself. Since you have written: "Protect the men who have occupied the city!", how can I protect (those) men? The city has been occupied in war. When I pledged peace -- and when I pledged, a Grandee pledged with me -- the city was occupied. And he was capable of calumniating against me (gloss 'I was denigrated' in front of the king, my lord. Further, an ant, when it is squashed, doesn't revolt perhaps and bite the hand of the man who squashes it? If I had acted timidly, another city would have been taken today! Further, if you say to me, despite all, "Fall before them, that they can strike!", I will do it. I will protect the men who have occupied the city: I could dislodge my enemies, and I protect them!
Certainly doesn't sound like David's son-in-law.
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.
And you can read the rest.
But remember, in addition to these there are also those that deal with normal commerce and politics. Throughout the Armana letters there is simply no indication of the existence of David, Saul, Israel or any similar nation-state.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 9:07 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 9:51 PM jar 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

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 42 of 50 (221520)
07-03-2005 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 9:51 PM


Re: Habiru
But there IS NO Kingdom of Israel mentioned.
There is even less connection between Labaya (Saul) than there is between Habiru (Hebrew).
And the rest of the stuff is just more word play.
Sorry, this is pretty pointless. Good luck.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 9:51 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 10:08 PM jar has not 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

  
lfen
Member (Idle past 4677 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 44 of 50 (221527)
07-03-2005 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Tranquility Base
07-03-2005 10:08 PM


Re: Habiru
It is only with Solomon that great architecture appeared.
It's been awhile since I read Finklestein's book The Bible Unearthed but as I recall Jerusalem at that time was a village. Finklestein didn't report any great architecture being found in those strata. What great architecture are you referring to? And what is your source that dates it to the time of David and Solomon?
Professor Finklestein (Head of the Archeology Department, Tel Aviv University), is an Israeli and has received a lot of criticism in Israel for his work from conservative elements in the society that are aware of what it means for the Biblical underpinnings of Zionism. To read more about the research that lies behind this summary, I refer you to the writings of Israel Finklestein. The most accessible book is "The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts" written with Neil Asher Silberman and published by The Free Press in 2001.
http://www.rense.com/general18/bible.htm
Finklestein is convinced that the House of David did exist. David and Solomon were probably tribal chiefs in the hill country that became the Kingdom of Judah Jerusalem was the Capital of Judah not of Israel. In the time of David and Solomon, Jerusalem was an unimportant very small town with no great Temple. The major cult centers were farther to the north in the cities of Israel. In fact the great cities of Canaan that were previously attributed to the Solomon were built by Israeli Kings like Ahab.
http://www.rense.com/general18/bible.htm
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-03-2005 10:08 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Tranquility Base, posted 07-04-2005 12:27 AM lfen 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

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024