which links/books are the best links/books for conservative Bible archeology views?

[kendemyer]

Dear Readers:

I am fairly new in regards to Bible archeology. I did create a mini site on the internet for beginners. I could not do more because I am a beginner myself. So please tell me which links are best from a conservative and Bible inerrancy type focus.

I appreciate the gentleman's citation of the book which just came out.
Also, if any other people want to recommend books it would be appreciated. Please do not recommend Finkelstein! LOL

Sincerely,

Ken

[Avatar_of_evil]

Finkelstein is considered an authority on archeology in the Middle East.

What is wrong with him?

Oh - let me guess - you don't like the fact he backs up a lot of academic historians and archeologists that don't swallow the Exodus story.

[ChrisChillin]

Heya Ken

I am fairly new in regards to Bible archeology.

Ditto. But I've been having lots of fun with it this semester and I've been learning quite a lot real fast. Can't say I'm an expert in any way, but I'll help as best I can based on all that I've tried to swallow so far.

So please tell me which links are best from a conservative and Bible inerrancy type focus

Hmm...well I don't know of any major archaeologist or historian who approaches the issue with inerrancy specifically as a central focus or consideration. But yes I am aware of several who adopt a more conservative or maximalist position whom you may wish to consult. As I understand it, your next comment refers to my quoting of the review for Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament. I am really looking forward to receiving it in the mail soon. If you go to scholarsbookshelf.com you can order it for an incredibly reduced price, down to $15 instead of 45. With taxes and shipping it came out to $20.45 total. That's way better than Amazon's markdown price of 31 (pre-shipping).

Other books to consider should include James K. Hoffmeier's Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. Robyn Banks mentioned Windows into Old Testament History: Evidence, Argument, and the Crisis of Biblical Israel, by V. Philips Long, ed., as (in his view) the only other worthwhile conservative work to come out recently. I have not read any part of the book at all so I have no opinion on it. An older work would be Kitchen's The Bible in its World, but it came out in 1977 and would surely be quite dated by now.

Then there are other works that are not specifically about archaeology that you may find useful. You might like The Bible and the Ancient Near East by Cyrus Gordon and Gary Rendsburg to help set the text in the historical context of the region. Also, it would be valuable to study the range of books that have come out discussing whether or not, or to what extent, the OT narratives are history. It will be challenging but you can stretch yourself with John Van Seters' In Search of History (which gets a brief critique in Hoffmeier's book) and Marc Zvi Brettler's The Creation of History in Ancient Israel. I haven't as of yet read any conservative/maximalist approaches to biblical historiography, but I believe Baruch Halpern's The First Historians tends to give a lot of credence to the ability of the Hebrews to write rather reliable history. Books I know to take a conservative view of biblical history writing include V. Philips Long's The Art of Biblical History and A Biblical History of Israel by Provan, et al.

A good all-around introduction from a mainstream standpoint would be Amihai Mazar's Archaeology of the Land of the Bible - 10,0000-586 B.C.E.. An interesting book about NT-era archaeology we will be reading in my archaeology class is Excavating Jesus by J. Dominic Crossan and J.L. Reed.

I know you're particularly looking for conservative literature, but I would encourage you to have a healthy interaction with other perspectives as well. You will certainly not agree with William G. Dever, but if nothing else he's a good writer and makes reading about archaeology an enjoyable enterprise. Dever criticizes Finkelstein a lot although the two of them are actually very close on the spectrum.

You will probably find the following web sites useful. Except for the first one, which I have known about for a long time, I have come across all these links in my own searches during the past couple of weeks.

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/noai.html
http://www.christianleadershipcenter.org/bibarch6.htm
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_conquest_ulrich.html
http://www.myjewishlearning.com/ideas_belief/god/Overview_About_God/God_Monotheism_Tigay.htm

Here's the web site for the Biblical Archaeology Society:
http://www.bib-arch.org/

Their publications include articles written from all kinds of viewpoints. If you have a library nearby with archived issues of BAR, I can point out some articles for you.

Hope that gets ya started.
- Chris

[HerodionRomulus]

The prior post is right on target.
Don't box yourself in to one view--it may be wrong, and even if it's not, you cannot know that unless you have ALL the info available.

I know it's pricey, but a subscription to Biblical Archaeological Review is well worth it. I have subscribed since the 80's.
It's link is in the prior post.

And Finkelstein is a very reputable scholar.

[kendemyer]

To: ChrisChillen

Thank you for all the time you took to assist me. I appreciate it.

Sincerely,

Ken

[Abigail]

Ken

Have you visited www.christiananswers.net/abr/home.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/home.html) they do an archaelogical magazine

[learning]

Thank you too. I wrote down these, and hope to check out if anythings available at my public library.

By the way, what do you think of David Rohl?

I have read his 'A Test of Time' and found it very helpful, but I'm not sure where he stands spiritually. I have really found his ideas of 'the garden of Eden' and where 'Noah's Ark' most likely is, to be very realistic, but I'm wondering how he is viewed in the archaeological world, and the Christian-Jewish world?

He seems to believe there is a stone standing that is the Joshua stone, in Shechem, modern day Nablus. What do you think of his ideas. He said he never set out to 'prove the Bible' but in his study of Egypt, that he found with a new time chronology that he proposes, that he sees it fits very, very closely.

[ChrisChillin]

By the way, what do you think of David Rohl?

Well, I haven't read any of his stuff yet, so I can't really say much. He's intriguing, but I'm not sure if his theory is valid.

I'm not sure where he stands spiritually.

It is my understanding that he is an agnostic.

I'm wondering how he is viewed in the archaeological world, and the Christian-Jewish world?

It looks like most archaeologists don't give him the time of day. Meanwhile, he certainly has the attention of plenty of Christians and Jews who believe his theory better confirms the Bible's historicity. Jezz and Chsalvia briefly talked about Rohl in the "Origins of Israelite Monotheism" thread in Apologetics 301, and they raised the possibility of discussing the merits of his theory in detail soon. I hope they get around to doing that.

He said he never set out to 'prove the Bible' but in his study of Egypt, that he found with a new time chronology that he proposes, that he sees it fits very, very closely.

Although Chsalvia claimed that it actually wrecks biblical history at some points as well. (Shrug) Like I said, I really don't know too much about what he says. But I'm sure down the road I'll read his stuff.

[learning]

Thanks, will get to that thread when I have time, get over my cold, etc. :)

[Taffsadar]

Perhaps you should just check with Hovind... He's just as good as the rest of them and he generally use much easier words than they do.

www.drdino.com

[learning]

Sorry, know about him, don't trust someone who tries to cheat on taxes, but I do trust the Bible and God! He will never leave me nor forsake me. :)
It's promised three times in the Bible!
"I know my Redeemer lives, and that in the end he will stand upon the earth. And after my skin has been destroyed, yet in my flesh I will see God; I myself will see Him with my own eyes --I, and not another. How my heart yearns within me. Job 19:25-27

[learning]

"He's just as good as the rest of them and he generally uses much easier words than they do." Was this supposed to be helpful, or was it meant as an insult? I don't know really how to take this.
If it was meant as helpful, sorry if I read it wrong. But if it was meant as insinuating that an archaelogist that happens to believe in the history of the Bible is not too bright, well, that's too bad. As for if it was meant for me personally, well, I may not know a lot about somethings, but, I know my Redeemer lives. And, I like to read. Some things are new to me, but that doesn't mean I don't know things about other things. For instance, I know how to stay all night with a dying person. I know how to 'read' people that I happen to nurse. I happen to have read a lot about creation and evolution till I am almost sick of it, though I come back to it from time to time. So, archaeology is new for me. I like to know what's out there. How other people read certain things. When one stops learning, one may as well stop living.

[Taffsadar]

"He's just as good as the rest of them and he generally uses much easier words than they do." Was this supposed to be helpful, or was it meant as an insult? I don't know really how to take this.

It's simple. It's pretty much the same arguements, it do however take alot less time to read Hovinds claims than it takes to read a proper book on the subject and the result is practically the same.

[Lizard]

:offtopic: Hey learning. You now have enough post for your own Avatar. What are you waiting for?

[Taffsadar]

Heres some avatars you could use if you want to (as an apology for any bad feelings you might suffer from due to my easily misunderstood message).

[learning]

Thanks you Taffsadar, how do you get them? Sorry I misread your post. I'm used to some sarcasm on some of these threads, so sorry.

And thanks to Abigail for the pearls! Here's something more for you.
These helped me when I had lost faith.
Job 23: 8-10
"But if I go to the east, he is not there;
If I go to the west, I do not find him.
When he is at work in the north, I do not see him;
when he turns to the south, I catch no glimpse of him.
But He knows the way that I take;
when he has tested me, I will come forth as gold."

[Abigail]

Thanks learning. Job is my favourite book in the Bible :smile: . I am glad it was such a help to you in your time of need. It helped me too at the lowest times in my life. (More pearls for more Job).

[Taffsadar]

It's in the control panel, just upload a picture to the "make your own avatar" function and then save it on your computer. Then you just upload it under user options (or user profile?).

[Calvinist4Him]

Finkelstein is considered an authority on archeology in the Middle East.

What is wrong with him?

Oh - let me guess - you don't like the fact he backs up a lot of academic historians and archeologists that don't swallow the Exodus story.

What makes Finkelstein an "authority" over other archaeologists? That his presuppositions on which his interpretations of the 'evidence' are based are agreeable with the majority of presuppositions? There was a time when archeologists couldn't swallow other so-called Biblical "myths", but have since been proved wrong by manner of the spade, pick, and chisel.

[HerodionRomulus]

What makes Finkelstein an "authority" over other archaeologists?
What makes Finkelstein an authority is simple: training, education and experience. Some of his conclusions are not valid, no one's is. He is not necessarily "over" others in the field but is one of many.

[Cami McCraw]

Dear Ken & others,

I've seen David Rohl mentioned a few times. We (my husband & I) work for David and were with him in late-January.
I saw someone mention that they were hopeful that someone would start reviewing some of David's work.
The easiest way to learn about David is to come by our forum- especially designed for studying David's work, along with the work of his colleagues. (We have about 7 other published New Chronology authors who also post along with David.) We are the official David Rohl list.
You can join and set yourself to "no mail" mode, and just read the messages on-line in the archives.
There are actually 2 lists: one for open-discussion and the other one is where we upload only the author posts, so that they are easier to find. (These messages are also at the main list, but with nearly 20,000 posts it is hard to find David's, so we created a "highlights" list as well.)
I talked with David a week or two ago, and he is looking forward to returning to the USA again soon!
Cami
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/

[Jezz]

Thank you too. I wrote down these, and hope to check out if anythings available at my public library.

By the way, what do you think of David Rohl?

I have read his 'A Test of Time' and found it very helpful, but I'm not sure where he stands spiritually. I have really found his ideas of 'the garden of Eden' and where 'Noah's Ark' most likely is, to be very realistic, but I'm wondering how he is viewed in the archaeological world, and the Christian-Jewish world?
His ideas are laughed at by many archaeologists (which alone does not make them false of course). As for spiritually - I think if you've read "Legend", you'd guess that he's probably not of the Judeo-Christian religion, or at least very liberal (he postulates that the Israelites adopted the god "El" from surrounding nations, which is a typical liberal position).

ChrisChillin mentioned that chsalvia and I were going to have a discussion about Rohl's work soon. I might even get to start that this weekend.

[learning]

Hi, yes, I don't know what to think about the way he describes some things, and glosses over or ignores the 'miracles' (such as saying that a ram just appeared caught in a bush when Abraham was about to kill Isaac, not that an angel spoke and stopped him, and then he saw the ram) but I have found a few things very helpful. The most recent is that during the reign of a Sekhemre-sewadjitawy Sobekhotep III (c. 1545-1543 BC) that "according to the Brooklyn Papyrus, as many as fifty per cent of the domestic servant population in the Nile valley at this time bore Semitic names, including Israelite appeliations such as Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiphrah." this was during the time just mentioned. I had heard there was no 'proof' of even the Israelites being in Egypt, nor being slaves, but there it is!

(This is from the book 'From Eden to Exile')

You know, if you give up, tell God you're not going to worry about it anymore, funny how He brings answers when you're not looking for them! :)

[chsalvia]

Although Chsalvia claimed that it actually wrecks biblical history at some points as well. (Shrug) Like I said, I really don't know too much about what he says. But I'm sure down the road I'll read his stuff.

Just to make things clear, I haven’t actually read Rohl’s book, A Test of Time. I have only read the material on Rohl’s website. However, I have spent a great deal of time, both in my academic career and on personal time, studying ancient history. (I was going to finish a PhD program in classical studies, but greed got the better of me, and I got caught up in a software business I started with my friend.) But my interest in the Bible has recently led me to be particularly focused on the history of the Ancient Near East. Thus, there are many considerations regarding ANE history that make it almost impossible for me to accept Rohl’s revisions.

I am aware of Rohl’s primary arguments for a revision of the chronology, and although it seems that Rohl might have a pro-Biblical agenda, at least from an archeological standpoint, his revision is incompatible with the books of Judges and 1 Samuel from a literary or textual standpoint. Furthermore, it seems as though his revisions do not take into account the wider context of Ancient history, such as Greek history, Phoenician history, Babylonian history etc. (I know he bases a lot of his ideas on the “dark age” in Greek history, and his exaggerated claims about how everything is based on Egyptian history, but there are many aspects that contradict him.)

ChrisChillin mentioned that chsalvia and I were going to have a discussion about Rohl's work soon. I might even get to start that this weekend.

That would be very fun.

The most recent is that during the reign of a Sekhemre-sewadjitawy Sobekhotep III (c. 1545-1543 BC) that "according to the Brooklyn Papyrus, as many as fifty per cent of the domestic servant population in the Nile valley at this time bore Semitic names, including Israelite appeliations such as Menahem, Issachar, Asher, and Shiphrah." this was during the time just mentioned. I had heard there was no 'proof' of even the Israelites being in Egypt, nor being slaves, but there it is!

See…now, this is another typical “Rohlism.” And I can say that without even having read his book. Basically, he makes an argument that seems attractive, especially to someone more inclined to accept the Biblical narrative as accurate, while completely ignoring the wider context of cumulative history in the Ancient World.

For example, yes…if the only information you’re aware of is the Exodus Account, and the Brooklyn Papyrus, then yes, I admit, this argument seems attractive. But before I go ahead and refute this, I should point out that your information is highly exaggerated. The Brooklyn Papyrus does not indicate that half of the domestic servant population was Semitic! Did Rohl actually say that?

The Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 is not a census – so how would we know that half of the domestic servant population was Semitic? Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 is basically a list of female Asiatic servants in Egyptian households. According to my sources, (W.F. Albright, JAOS and also Jack Finegan, “Light from the Ancient Past”, pg 93-4) only 30 of the 95 names listed are definitely Northwestern-Semitic. The rest are just Asiatic in general.

Secondly, if you knew about the general context of Egyptian history at this period, you would know that Semitic influence became more and more prominent as the Middle Kingdom declined, culminating finally in the Hyksos invasion of the 15th dynasty, when the Pharaohs themselves were Asiatic Semites. (Probably Canaanites – although Rohl identifies them specifically with the Amalekites.) So, the fact that Rohl is able to point to various Semitic names in a papyrus document dated to the 13th dynasty is not that surprising.

Furthermore, the specifically Hebrew name identifications are not solid. There is no “Issachar” mentioned in this document. There is “Sekratu” which has etymological similarities with Issachar. Again, there is no “Shiphrah” (the midwife from Exodus), there is “Sephra” which might actually be closer to the Hebrew “Sapphira.” (Wilson, ANET pg. 553) The identifications for Asher and Menahem are closer, but both are women’s names. Regardless, this is hardly evidence for an Israelite sojourn, because most Hebrew names are extremely similar to other West-Semitic names. The main differentiation between Hebrew names and other west-Semitic names, such as Canaanite names, would be the incorporation of “Yahweh” into the name, as opposed to Baal or some other deity. But that distinction would be nonexistent in the context of the Papyrus Brooklyn anyway, because according to the Bible, the name “Yahweh” was only used after Moses introduced (or reintroduced) it to the Israelite population. (Exodus 3) And anyway, some names given in Papyrus 35.1446 incorporate “Baal”, which is typical of Canaanite or other West Semitic names, but nonexistent among the Hebrews of the patriarchal age.

I’m not saying the Exodus, or some historical event related to it, never occurred. I’m saying Rohl is way off in his chronology, and with all considerations taken into account, the Exodus should be dated to the 19th dynasty, not the Middle Kingdom.

Now, Rohl’s chronology does in fact solve some problems, particularly a few conundrums in the 3rd Intermediate Period such as the lack of Apis bull burials from ca. 1069 B.C. to ca. 852 B.C., and some weird chronological anomalies involving the burial of certain Pharaohs. Does this mean we are justified in adopting Rohl’s chronology? Absolutely not. Because firstly, there are alternative explanations to these mysteries. And secondly, even if there was no known way of explaining these problems without using Rohl’s chronology, we would still not be justified in adopting Rohl’s chronology. The reason is because Rohl’s chronology creates so many exceedingly difficult problems of its own, which seriously outweigh the benefits of solving a few mysteries in the obscure 3rd intermediate period. And the endless ad hoc explanations that Rohl has to keep relying on to back up this chronology significantly diminishes any advantages it might have. But, I’ll get into this in more detail when Jezz and I get around to debating this.

[HerodionRomulus]

Chsalvia, very good post. Thanks.

I might add my 2 cents worth regarding names. Different cultures borrow names from other cultures and it often has little significance.
I know a man named Juan who is neither Hispanic, nor a Hispanophone, in fact is African-American.

[learning]

so, chsalvia, why do you think the Exodus should be placed in the 19th dynasty?

[chsalvia]

so, chsalvia, why do you think the Exodus should be placed in the 19th dynasty?

Well, there’s a vast amount of cumulative evidence that makes the 19th dynasty the only possible time the Exodus could have occurred. I’ll discuss this in detail when I get around to doing a serious debate regarding Rohl, but for now, I’ll try to briefly explain why the Exodus has to be placed in the 19th dynasty.

Firstly, the Exodus has to be dated before the reign of Merenptah, because in one of Merenptah’s victory steles, Israel is mentioned as a people in Palestine. Secondly, the city “Rameses” mentioned in Exodus 1:11 and 12:37 is probably to be identified with “Per-Rameses”, which was built in Goshen during the reign of Rameses II, who preceded Merenptah on the throne. This makes for somewhat of an obvious chronological marker, however, defenders of Rohl’s chronology would argue that “Rameses” was merely an update that a later scribe put in to help identify the city. Of course, this is rather ad hoc, and it is also contrary to other instances, such as Genesis 28:9 and Genesis 14:8, where the original name of a city is given.

Furthermore, the Exodus could not have been earlier than the reign of Rameses II, because for most of the 18th dynasty through the early 19th dynasty, Egypt controlled a vast imperial state wherein Palestine was a province. Thus, if the Exodus occurred in the 18th dynasty, it would be as if Moses led the Israelites out of Egypt, and then right back in to an Egyptian province!

So the Exodus would need to have happened after Egypt began to lose control of its imperial territories, which began to occur during the reign of Merenptah, when the “Sea Peoples” (barbarian or pastoral invaders from the Aegean region, among whom the Philistines were a significant element) and the Lybians began to attack Egypt. And, of course, it is around this time that we first here of Israel in Egyptian records (the Merenptah stele.) It would only have been possible for Israel to conquer and settle in Palestine after the Egyptians had lost control of that province. Otherwise, Joshua would not be fighting against the local Canaanite inhabitants – he would be fighting against the Egyptian garrisons stationed in Palestine.

The only alternative would be to set the Exodus way back before the Egyptian 18th dynasty and New Kingdom, in the time of the Middle Kingdom, as Rohl does. But then, this would cause countless chronological disasters, such as having King Saul and King David contemporary with the 18th dynasty Pharaohs. This would mean that King Saul and King David were basically governors, not kings - and they were under the authority of the Pharaohs, since, from Thutmose III onwards, Palestine was an Egyptian province. But the Bible does not represent King Saul and David like this - rather, the Bible depicts the Davidic monarchy as an independent kingdom which ruled over Palestine.

Furthermore, it is a rather well known fact that the Egyptians did not use chariots, at least not for military purposes, until the New Kingdom. Therefore, since the Pharaoh of the Exodus is said to have had a rather organized chariot corps at his disposal, we can safely conclude that the Exodus did not occur during the Middle Kingdom.

There are many other reasons as well, involving various histories, such as Assyrian, Hittite, and Palestinian history, and how they interact with each other through time, which make it necessary to place the Exodus in the 19th dynasty – but the reasons I have just laid out are probably the simplest and most obvious reasons.

[learning]

What year would that be then? And Rohl says that his new chronology (which he made to do with the dating of Egyptian rulers that he found written about in Egypt, had nothing to do with the Bible at the time) does fit the archaeological evidence of the cities that Joshua conquered, better than the Old chronology. I have read "A Test of Time" and I am reading "From Eden to Exile" and he mentions much evidence of people camping "All around Mount Paran (Kadesh) Anati has discovered rocks carved with figures of animals and hunters...but there is also religious iconography here of unknown date, including symbols such as a staff standing before a serpent (the staff of Moses?) and what appears to be a horned altar or stone tablet divided into ten panels (the Ten Commandments?) Numberous carved human figures are shown with arms raised in prayer. All over the desert floor small stone circles, altars and pillars (biblical masseboth) have been erected. A number of grouped standing stones consist of twelve masseboth (the twelve tribes?) Many of the man made structures are the monuments of earlier times, but a good number were erected by the Israelite tribes in dedication to Yahweh at this second majoyr holy resting place on their journey to salvation." (page 204)

[chsalvia]

What year would that be then?

Around 1200 B.C.

And Rohl says that his new chronology (which he made to do with the dating of Egyptian rulers that he found written about in Egypt, had nothing to do with the Bible at the time) does fit the archaeological evidence of the cities that Joshua conquered, better than the Old chronology.

Firstly, even though Rohl claims his new chronology is not motivated by an agenda that involves harmonizing the Bible with archeology, it is pretty clear to me that it is. Every book Rohl publishes about Egypt always has to do with the historical accuracy of the Bible.

Secondly, as I said Rohl’s chronology solves some problems, but creates even greater problems of it’s own. For example, although the date Rohl assigns for the conquest better matches the archeological record (with some exceptions, notably Ai), Rohl’s chronology assigns Saul’s reign to the Late Bronze Age, which is absolutely incompatible with the archeological record. (Rohl of course, has no explanation for this, nor does he bother to mention it.) For example, cities mentioned in 1 Samuel, such as Gilgal, Mizpah and Ramah do not exist in the Late Bronze Age stratum, but only in the Iron Age stratum. Furthermore, Rohl fails to mention that during the Late Bronze Age, where he dates the conquest, there was widespread destruction throughout the Levant, including places like Ugarit, which obviously were not destroyed by Joshua. Thus, the destroyed cities of the Late Bronze Age are better attributed to the Sea Peoples than to Joshua.

I have read "A Test of Time" and I am reading "From Eden to Exile" and he mentions much evidence of people camping "All around Mount Paran (Kadesh) Anati has discovered rocks carved with figures of animals and hunters...but there is also religious iconography here of unknown date, including symbols such as a staff standing before a serpent (the staff of Moses?) and what appears to be a horned altar or stone tablet divided into ten panels (the Ten Commandments?)

I’m sorry, but I wouldn’t trust Rohl as far as I can throw him. I’ve seen the ridiculous, ad hoc explanations he comes up with to defend certain obvious flaws in his chronology, (i.e. citing a pair of gloves to indicate chariot drivers), and so I’d have to look into this myself before believing anything here. Intuitively, I suspect Rohl is once again making tenuous Biblical connections with relatively common phenomena. (The Bedouin tribes of the Arabian Peninsula possessed very similar religious iconography to Israel, including Tent shrines, and portable boxes similar to the Ark.)

Numberous carved human figures are shown with arms raised in prayer. All over the desert floor small stone circles, altars and pillars (biblical masseboth) have been erected. A number of grouped standing stones consist of twelve masseboth (the twelve tribes?) Many of the man made structures are the monuments of earlier times, but a good number were erected by the Israelite tribes in dedication to Yahweh at this second majoyr holy resting place on their journey to salvation." (page 204)

When dealing with Rohl, absolute specificity is required. I need to know the date of these inscriptions, what they say, where they are, etc. I’m be willing to bet they are not what Rohl claims. What sources does Rohl cite for this information? And if there is evidence for the desert sojourn, which as far as I know, there is not, I need to know how that would validate Rohl’s chronology.

[learning]

"Anati" found those numberous carved figures etc. Rohl is just showing that the place where the Israeli's spent a long, long time in their wanderings does have evidence of people being there. It is Mount Paran or Kadesh.

And the Bedoins of TODAY call "Petra" 'Wadi Musa', Valley of Moses and the spring there 'Ain Musa', Spring of Moses, which I find interesting. Note, I think this is a different area.

But don't worry, I read his work with care. I notice he has to have a natural disaster for the crossing of the Jordan (an earthquake causes the Jordan river to back up, not God) and same thing with the fall of Jericho.

I think I'll look up some timelines and see what fits. Where did you get your info concerning the fall of those cities, towns?

I find some of the things he says interesting, and I really do believe that listening to 'locals' is sometimes more educational than what archaeologists think they are digging up! Much knowlege is still passed down by word of mouth.

[learning]

To be more precise, it is Professor Emmanuel Anati who did a archeological survey of the area known as 'Jebel Ideid' by Bedouin tradition which Arabic scholars believe to mean 'Mountain of Commemoration' or 'Mountain of the Multitude of the Preparation' and the modern Israelis have dubbed it 'Har-Karkom' (Saffron Mountain) also known as Mount Paran or Kadesh. (details from the book 'From Eden to Exile' by D. Rohl.

[chsalvia]

"Anati" found those numberous carved figures etc. Rohl is just showing that the place where the Israeli's spent a long, long time in their wanderings does have evidence of people being there. It is Mount Paran or Kadesh.

Well, throughout history there have been many people there. Perhaps including the fleeing Israelites. The Egyptians, specifically, sent many mining expeditions there, looking for opal and topaz. Furthermore, there were (and are) many Bedouin tribes there, who gather around the local oases.

And the Bedoins of TODAY call "Petra" 'Wadi Musa', Valley of Moses and the spring there 'Ain Musa', Spring of Moses, which I find interesting. Note, I think this is a different area.

That’s based on Islamic tradition and isn’t really very relevant to Late Bronze Age history.

But don't worry, I read his work with care. I notice he has to have a natural disaster for the crossing of the Jordan (an earthquake causes the Jordan river to back up, not God) and same thing with the fall of Jericho.

Well, he probably doesn’t want to make it too obvious that he’s basically a Biblical apologist.

I think I'll look up some timelines and see what fits. Where did you get your info concerning the fall of those cities, towns?

Various sources. Cambridge Ancient History Volume III has an archeological survey of the area, and so does the Oxford Archeological Guide on Israel. But you can get the information directly from the archeologists also. One of the best publications available is An Archeological Survey of the Hill Country of Benjamin, by Finkelstein and Magen. It’s a bit hard to find, but you can order it online at eisenbrauns.com (which by the way is an absolutely wonderful resource for all things relating to the Ancient Near East.)

https://www.eisenbrauns.com/ECOM/_1730SFD23.HTM

This book basically surveys all the major archeological findings in what used to be the hill country of Ephraim. It also has many useful maps. Anyway, this clearly shows that the time period described in 1 Samuel is incompatible with Rohl’s Late Bronze Age dating.

I find some of the things he says interesting, and I really do believe that listening to 'locals' is sometimes more educational than what archaeologists think they are digging up! Much knowlege is still passed down by word of mouth.

Archeological problems are the least of Rohl’s worries. The main problems with Rohl’s chronology involve making David contemporary with the 18th dynasty, and ignoring the Kassite Babylonian rulers, as well as the Assyrian king lists, which are also incompatible with Rohl’s chronology. (And many other considerations, such as problems in Greek chronology, and overall historical context involving the Arameans, Sea Peoples, etc.)

To be more precise, it is Professor Emmanuel Anati who did a archeological survey of the area known as 'Jebel Ideid' by Bedouin tradition which Arabic scholars believe to mean 'Mountain of Commemoration' or 'Mountain of the Multitude of the Preparation' and the modern Israelis have dubbed it 'Har-Karkom' (Saffron Mountain) also known as Mount Paran or Kadesh. (details from the book 'From Eden to Exile' by D. Rohl.

Names such as “Jebel Ideid” or “Jebel Musa” are Muslim traditions that have only a tenuous claim to archeological usefulness. Additionally, Muslims and Jews have been making pilgrimages to Jebel Musa and Jebel Ideid for centuries, and Bedouin tribes have settled there since time immemorial. How does Rohl distinguish anything specifically Israelite?

[learning]

Rohl does mention Babylon, the Greeks, Sea Peoples, the Philistines, etc., and he seems to fit King Saul taking over parts of Canaan very well with the King of Egypt, who had taken on a different type of religion, moved the capital, and wasn't aware of the problems of Canaan as perhaps he should have, so it does fit. You know, the sun king of Egypt, I'll let you look it up :)

Anyways, what makes you think that gloves under a picture doesn't represent a chariot driver? What would you say it represents?
What is Finklestein's national, ethnic and religious background?

You should look up Professor Emmanuel Anati on the web. Very neat! You'll see pictures of what I mentioned up above.
The rod before the snake, the ten commandments, these drawings on rock.
www.harkarkom.com/Anati.php?more=all

[learning]

[QUOTE=learning]Rohl does mention Babylon, the Greeks, Sea Peoples, the Philistines, etc., and he seems to fit King Saul taking over parts of Canaan very well with the King of Egypt, who had taken on a different type of religion, moved the capital, and wasn't aware of the problems of Canaan as perhaps he should have, so it does fit. You know, the sun king of Egypt, I'll let you look it up :)

I should say, he, Rohl, mentions these countries and peoples in the book 'From Eden to Exile' not so much in 'A Test of Time' So, you may not have seen much about it on his web sites.

And just an aside, if you are interested in ancient history, I found the homeschool sites to do with classical eduacation can give you good ideas of books etc. to get to study these things. There's even a web site that gets into the 'classical stuff' something about 'Being Part of the Great Conversation' I think it has more to do with the Greeks, Romans,etc. But here's a web site or two you may find helpful.
(even though these have christian background and you're agnostic, I think you'll find many of the books they recommend for the history of Egypt, Greece, Rome are what one would consider secular, ie. Oxford History books, Usborne books (really good, especially the Time Line one) and even children's readers on Egypt are very educational.

www.treeoflifeathome.com (lots of good links on their site)
www.welltrainedmind.com

I don't homeschool, but have found their material very helpful.
I have Susan Wise-Bauer's book 'The Well Educated Mind' which is a book for adults who want to self-educate themselves in the classical style. Very good, though I've just started and I don't know when I'll have time to read all the books she recommends, but it's a start.

[chsalvia]

Rohl does mention Babylon, the Greeks, Sea Peoples, the Philistines, etc.,

I’m sure he mentions them. How does he deal with Babylonian history? Specifically, how does he deal with the Assyrian King List, which seems to flat out make his chronology impossible?

and he seems to fit King Saul taking over parts of Canaan very well with the King of Egypt, who had taken on a different type of religion, moved the capital, and wasn't aware of the problems of Canaan as perhaps he should have, so it does fit. You know, the sun king of Egypt, I'll let you look it up :)

Sigh…let me ask you something. Have you read the Amarna letters? They are correspondence between Canaanite rulers and the king of Egypt, specifically Akhenaton. There’s 382 of them, and they provide us with a thorough picture of what Canaan was like during the reign of Akhenaton. There is no Israelite monarchy, there is no King Saul (Labayu is not Saul, but rather a Canaanite ruler of Shechem who was arrested by the Egyptians, but escaped and was assassinated, cf. Amarna Letters 245, and 250 and 289) and most importantly – during the period the Amarna letters were written Canaan was an Egyptian province. The kings of Canaan are constantly paying tribute and asking for support or complaining to their Egyptian master. The Bible does not give any indication that the Promised Land was an Egyptian province, nor that King Saul was under the authority of the Pharaoh.

Anyways, what makes you think that gloves under a picture doesn't represent a chariot driver? What would you say it represents?

What makes you think it would be? In all the countless administrative documents and monuments dated to the Middle Kingdom, not a single reference to a chariot is to be found, but suddenly in the New Kingdom there are countless references to chariots and drawings of chariots, as well as references to military positions that involve chariots such as “chariot commander.” Thus, it is more likely that the pair of gloves on the Khonsemwaset stele was for something else – decorative purposes for example, (as we know gloves were used in Egypt from tombs) or non-military chariot use.

What is Finklestein's national, ethnic and religious background?

He’s Israeli.

[learning]

I’m sure he mentions them. How does he deal with Babylonian history? Specifically, how does he deal with the Assyrian King List, which seems to flat out make his chronology impossible?

How does this make it impossible?

Sigh…let me ask you something. Have you read the Amarna letters? They are correspondence between Canaanite rulers and the king of Egypt, specifically Akhenaton. There’s 382 of them, and they provide us with a thorough picture of what Canaan was like during the reign of Akhenaton. There is no Israelite monarchy, there is no King Saul (Labayu is not Saul, but rather a Canaanite ruler of Shechem who was arrested by the Egyptians, but escaped and was assassinated, cf. Amarna Letters 245, and 250 and 289) and most importantly – during the period the Amarna letters were written Canaan was an Egyptian province. The kings of Canaan are constantly paying tribute and asking for support or complaining to their Egyptian master. The Bible does not give any indication that the Promised Land was an Egyptian province, nor that King Saul was under the authority of the Pharaoh.

Oiy, I had typed a reply, and somehow lost it. So here goes again.
He (Rohl) claims that Saul is the name given to him after he becomes King, which means Hebrew Shaul 'asked for by the people' because they asked for a King. He claims Saul's real name was Labaya, which means 'Great lion of Yah' (I see this in the lion symbols connected with Kingship in Israel)
and therefore, he IS Labayu, and that he 'gave' the land of Shechem to the Hebrai, which were hired mercenaries that tended to switch sides, and that is why there is panic in those letters, as they were gradually switching over to King Saul, and later David's side. They were actually distant relatives of the children of Israel, descendants from Abraham's father or grandfather.




What makes you think it would be?

They would need gloves to hold the reins of the chariots, and also in using bows and arrows.

In all the countless administrative documents and monuments dated to the Middle Kingdom, not a single reference to a chariot is to be found, but suddenly in the New Kingdom there are countless references to chariots and drawings of chariots, as well as references to military positions that involve chariots such as “chariot commander.” Thus, it is more likely that the pair of gloves on the Khonsemwaset stele was for something else – decorative purposes for example, (as we know gloves were used in Egypt from tombs) or non-military chariot use.



He’s Israeli.
Jewish or Palestinian? Religious or secular?

[learning]

In case you miss it chsalvia, there are replies to your post in the big quote.
And I mean there is panic in the Amarna letter, cause some of the rulers of Egyptian towns or ports in Canaan land, were starting to fear for their very lives, as the Hebiru
were some of their own servants, but the Egyptians could see them going to the side of Saul (Labaya) and David, and that was why so many letters were sent, but the ruler of Egypt was off in his own little world, not concerned. So Rohl actually quotes many of the Amarna letters, in his writings about King Saul, and even mentions how David mentions him as 'being surrounded by lions' 'Labaim' when King Saul is after him later on.

[chsalvia]

How does this make it impossible?

Because we have the Assyrian King list, which lists the lengths of reigns for all the kings of Assyria from Ashur-Uballit to Ashurbanipal without any breaks. Ashurbanipal destroyed Thebes in 664 B.C. This is a universally fixed date that I assume even Rohl would agree with. It is calculated exactly by using an eclipse, but you can also arrive at it by picking any universal date, say the assassination of Caesar in 44 B.C., and simply counting backwards through the lengths of reigns of the Roman and Hellensitic rulers, the Persians, the Chaldeans, and then arriving at Ashurbanipal. The date of 664 B.C. can also be verified using the Bible, since Ashurbanipal was a contemporary of Hezekiah who was a contemporary of Tirhaka of Cush.

Counting backwards from the universally fixed date of 664 B.C. using the Assyrian King List we come to the year 1243 B.C. for the reign of Tukulti-Ninurta I.

However, the son of the Hittite King Hattusilis wrote a letter to Tukulti-Ninurta, and in turn, Ramses II of Egypt wrote a letter to Hattusilis. Thus, Ramses II is comtemporary with Tukulti-Ninurta. This makes sense under the normal chronology where Ramses ruled from 1279 to 1213. But, under Rohl’s chronology Ramses II should have been ruling much later, during the reign of Rehoboam (922 B.C.) This would make Tukulti-Ninurta of Assyria a 10th century ruler as well, but if we use the Assyrian King List to count backwards from 664 B.C., the kings of Assyria during the tenth century were Ashur-Rabi II (1012 B.C. to 971 B.C.) Ashur-reshishi II (971 B.C. to 966 B.C.), Tiglath-Pileser II (966 B.C. to 934 B.C.), Ashur-Dan II (934 B.C. to 911 B.C.) and Adad Nirari II (911 B.C. to 890 B.C.) There is no Tukulti-Ninurta who ruled during this time. In fact, Ashur-Dan was the contemporary of Rehoboam. Tukulti-Ninurta ruled from 1243 to 1207 B.C. and was a contemporary of Hattusilis and Ramses II. Thus, Rohl’s chronology is wrong.

Rohl might try and say that the letter from Hattusilis's son was actually to Tukulti-Ninurta II, and not Tukulti-Ninurta I, but this still doesn't work, since Tukulti-Ninurta II ruled from 890-884, and was a contemporary of Asa, not Rehoboam.

In case you miss it chsalvia, there are replies to your post in the big quote
And I mean there is panic in the Amarna letter, cause some of the rulers of Egyptian towns or ports in Canaan land, were starting to fear for their very lives, as the Hebiru
were some of their own servants, but the Egyptians could see them going to the side of Saul (Labaya) and David, and that was why so many letters were sent, but the ruler of Egypt was off in his own little world, not concerned. So Rohl actually quotes many of the Amarna letters, in his writings about King Saul, and even mentions how David mentions him as 'being surrounded by lions' 'Labaim' when King Saul is after him later on.

Did you read the Amarna letters? If so, you should realize that they represent a time when Canaan was an Egyptian province, under the authority of the Pharaoh - not an independent Israelite monarchy. David is not mentioned in the Amarna letters, and neither is Saul. The identification of Labayu and Tadua with Saul and David exists only in Rohl's imagination. This should be obvious since Saul committed suicide after being defeated by the Philistines, whereas Labayu was killed by the citizens of Gina. Labayu was governor of Shechem, but Saul was King of Israel and ruled in Gibeon. Just read the Amarna letters. All you're doing is repeating the nonsense that you've read from Rohl without actually looking into this yourself. This is basically what everyone who argues in favor of Rohl's chronology does.

Here, I'll help you out:

Quote me some individual Amarna letters that Rohl quotes, and I'll quote you back the actual letter he is quoting from in context. Then, I'll analyze the letter and show you why Rohl's "interpretation" is wrong, while backing up my analysis with references to scholars.

[learning]

Why are you doing this?
Why is it important for you to prove that the Bible is not historical, in your opinion?
I'm just curious as to why YOU are doing this. I know that God is real, I just have recently gotten interested in Arch. I have always loved history, my favourite subject, and I love roots of people. So, no offense, I'm just curious as why you are interested in this, and the angle you take on it.
I know Jewish people. I don't believe that the Bible is wrong about their history.

I'll get back to you, just finished a night shift, so I was just browsing before hitting the sack, so I'll quote those to you, but probably not until April.

[chsalvia]

Why are you doing this?
Why is it important for you to prove that the Bible is not historical, in your opinion?

Why are you questioning my motives? I suspect, perhaps, that since you do not know enough about the historical material I have laid out for you, you are going to now simply resort to this sort of thing. Oh well...:nsm:

Should I now ask you "why do you mindlessly believe anything that Rohl says, simply because it lines up with your pre-conceived ideas about the Bible? Why do you defend Rohl's chronology, even though you clearly have not researched Ancient Near Eastern history enough to be able to form a valid opinion on this matter?

Can you tell me how Rohl's chronology is compatible with the Assyrian King Lists? If not, then perhaps you should just admit that you don't know enough about the material to engage me at the moment, and study it yourself, and then get back to me, or change your views regarding Rohl's chronology. But please don't question my motives simply because you can't respond to the data which I've put in the effort to type out.

I'm just curious as to why YOU are doing this.

Because you asked.

I know that God is real, I just have recently gotten interested in Arch. I have always loved history, my favourite subject, and I love roots of people.

Yes, I love those things too.

So, no offense, I'm just curious as why you are interested in this, and the angle you take on it.

I am interested in it for its own sake. It is interesting to me. I like history. The angle I approach it from results from what I believe to be the most likely interpretation of the available data.

I know Jewish people. I don't believe that the Bible is wrong about their history.

I think you're confused. Where have I said that the Bible is wrong about their history? I'm saying Rohl is wrong. I think the Bible accurately records a great deal of Jewish history.

I'll get back to you, just finished a night shift, so I was just browsing before hitting the sack, so I'll quote those to you, but probably not until April.

Okay.

[ChrisChillin]

Let me second the statement that questioning Rohl does not equate with questioning the OT's accuracy regarding much of Hebrew history.

[learning]

Sorry, I tried to post another thing, realizing that you weren't necessarily questioning the Bible, but Rohl, and I do know a lot about recent Near East History, studied a LOT about that after the Olympic Massacre in 1972, (but of that, even that is only what we know a bit about, I can assume a lot goes on behind closed doors we don't know about) but do not know a lot about the ancient history, which is why I am reading Rohl. I AM quoting Rohl, but that does not mean I would necessarily believe everything he says, that is WHY I am doing this, to see if there are any holes to his theory. :)

Did not mean anything personal. I guess I just assumed perhaps you were doing that because of my dealing with someone else who would twist things to do with the Bible. So, if you are searching out the truth, just as I am, AMEN! And I thank you for pointing out any holes.

[learning]

I'll give you quickly the number of the Armana letters that he quotes,
EA 252,289, 254, 253, 245. Tomorrow I'll show you the context of how he claims King Saul is involved with this.
But Shechem was an important place in early Israel history as well, I think King Saul's home town is mentioned in one of those letters, Gibeon. Is Gibeon the same as Gibeah?
If you can quote the entire letters of those above, then I could see the context myself. :)

[ChrisChillin]

That might be quite a labor for chsalvia to quote those letters entirely for you. What you could do is go to a local (university) library and find a copy of the reference work Ancient Near Eastern Texts. I assume all the Amarna letters would be in that...right, chsalvia?

[learning]

Here is part of page 277 ('From Eden to Exile') with the first part of the Amarna letter with what Rohl writes before and after.

'Far from being the usual grovelling response, so typical of Egypt's vassals, Labaya gives as good as he gets. What ever the city rulers of the plain may have said to Addaya, all he was doing was recovering his own towns (Gibeah and Michmash) from invaders who had taken them by force. Moreover, when they had captured his home town, the Philistines had seized his family's high place (Gibeah-Elohim) where the standing stones and altar of Yahweh/El stood. He, after all, was only exercising his legitimate rights as ruler over the hill country tribes. In the middle of the robust defence, Labaya issues a not too subtle threat to Akhenaten in the form of a good old, biblical-style proverb which basically warns that, however small and insignificant his people might be, they can still be an irritant to might Egypt and its allies - if provoked.

"It was in war that the town (of Gibeah) was seized. After I had sworn my oath to keep peace - and when I swore the (Egyptian regional) governor swore with me - the town, along with my god, was seized. And now I am slandered before the king, my lord! Moreover, if an ant is struck, does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it? How could I hold back this day when two of my towns (Gibeah and Micmash) had been seized? ... I will keep imprisoned the men who seized the town (and) my god. They are the despoilers of my father, and so I will keep them (as hostages) [EA 252]"

We do not know how Akhenaten reacted as receiving such a response. Whatever his reaction was, the subsequent reprimand did not apparently extend to military action and Labaya continued his policy of expansion to secure the whole territory of the tribal homelands as his kingdom." end of quote

Now, I have a problem with this already. How can the God of Yahweh be stolen? He was never to be an idol, so I think this looks like Labaya is talking about an idol. So, I cannot see how that could relate. Unless they stole something like the ark of the covenant, but I only hear of that in the Bible with the Philistines at the time of David

I like the ant proverb though! :)

But, he does say, that at the place where King Saul's body was thrown in Beth-Shean, an excavator of Beth-Shean "Amihai Mazar, would come across a tiny cylinder seal inscribed in cuneiform with the following tantalising message:
"To Labaya, my Lord, speak. Message from Tagu: 'To the king my Lord. I have listened carefully to your message to me...' [the rest damaged]" page 291.
Now, this Tagu was someone who was supposed to back up King Saul's back on the Mountain of Gilboa, but he left and left King Saul's back open to attack, where he and his sons died on that mountain.

When you mention that Labaya was captured, Rohl does mention that, but says he bribed his way out and it was only later that they could say they killed him, which we know happened on Mt. Gilboa

"How are the mighty fallen"
as King David says in 2 Samuel 1:19-21
"(O Gilboa) Does the splendour of Israel lie dead on your heights? How are the mighty fallen! Do not speak of it in Gath, nor broadcast it in the streets of Ashkelon, for fear that the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, for fear that the daughters of the uncircumcised gloat. You mountains of Gilboa, no dew, no rain fall upon you. O treacherous fields where the hero's shield lies dishonoured.!"

[chsalvia]

I had to write a great deal here, so it took me a while to respond. Sorry for the delay. I’m probably going to save this post for future reference, for issues regarding Rohl.

Sorry, I tried to post another thing, realizing that you weren't necessarily questioning the Bible, but Rohl, and I do know a lot about recent Near East History, studied a LOT about that after the Olympic Massacre in 1972, (but of that, even that is only what we know a bit about, I can assume a lot goes on behind closed doors we don't know about) but do not know a lot about the ancient history, which is why I am reading Rohl. I AM quoting Rohl, but that does not mean I would necessarily believe everything he says, that is WHY I am doing this, to see if there are any holes to his theory. :)

Well, believe me…there are holes. Very big ones. :wink: The Amarna Letters are just the tip of the iceberg.

If you're interested in ANE history, you shouldn't begin by reading Rohl. Rohl is a fringe writer with a generally unaccepted theory. You should begin by reading a more comprehensive and scholarly publication, preferably something from an academic press. I think a great overview of ANE history, including Israel and Egypt, is Amelie Kuhrt's "The Ancient Near East 3000-330 B.C." This will better allow you to make a decision regarding Rohl's chronology.

Did not mean anything personal. I guess I just assumed perhaps you were doing that because of my dealing with someone else who would twist things to do with the Bible. So, if you are searching out the truth, just as I am, AMEN! And I thank you for pointing out any holes.

Okay good.

That might be quite a labor for chsalvia to quote those letters entirely for you. What you could do is go to a local (university) library and find a copy of the reference work Ancient Near Eastern Texts. I assume all the Amarna letters would be in that...right, chsalvia?

Well, I told learning I would type them out, so I’ll do it. The Amarna letters aren’t very long individually. Ancient Near Eastern Texts only includes a few of the Amarna letters, and it doesn’t include EA 253, which learning referenced here. For the complete Amarna letters, along with a more detailed commentary, it is better to get the edition by William L. Moran – although Ancient Near Eastern Texts is an invaluable resource for the ANE in general.

I'll give you quickly the number of the Armana letters that he quotes,
EA 252,289, 254, 253, 245. Tomorrow I'll show you the context of how he claims King Saul is involved with this.
But Shechem was an important place in early Israel history as well, I think King Saul's home town is mentioned in one of those letters, Gibeon. Is Gibeon the same as Gibeah?
If you can quote the entire letters of those above, then I could see the context myself. :)

Okay. Well, Gibeon and Gibeah are different cities. Gibeon is the Hivite city that tricked Joshua into making a treaty with them. (Joshua 9) Gibeah on the other hand, was a town in the tribe of Benjamin where Saul lived.

Gibeah is not mentioned in the Amarna letters you referenced, nor is it mentioned in any of the Amarna letters, because it only became a town in the early Iron Age. The Amarna letters date to the Late Bronze Age, whereas King Saul ruled Israel in the early Iron Age.

Anyway, I will now go over the Amarna Letters referenced by Rohl. Remember what I am trying to demonstrate here: the Amarna Period and the time of King Saul are two completely different time periods. The Amarna Period was a time when the Egyptian Empire was at its height, and Palestine was an Egyptian province, populated by Canaanite cities ruled by local governors who were under the authority of the Pharaoh. The period of King Saul however, was a time when the Egyptian Empire had collapsed and Egypt ceased to be a world power. In this period, Palestine was populated by the Philistines and the Israelites. The Israelites had an independent monarchy under King Saul, whereas the Philistines ruled in 5 cities near the coast. There is no indication whatsoever that King Saul or the Philistines were under the authority of an Egyptian Pharaoh – they were totally independent, and Egypt was not powerful enough anymore to even be a concern. This would obviously be before Joshua infiltrated/conquered Palestine and the Israelites became a nation there. It was also before the Philistines existed as a political entity as well. There is no reference to either the Philistines or the Israelites in the Amarna letters, and yet both of these were major political entities in Palestine during the time of Saul.

Okay – now let’s get to the letters themselves. I’ll go over them in the order you referenced them.

Firstly, EA 252: “To the king, my lord, say: Thus Labayu, thy servant. At the feet of my lord I fall. As for what thou hast written, “Are the people strong who have captured the town? How can the men be arrested?” I reply “By fighting was the town captured, in spite of the fact that I had taken an oath of conciliation and that, when I took the oath an Egyptian officer took the oath with me! The city as well as my god are captured. I am blamed before the king, my lord.” Further, when even ants are smitten, they do not accept it passively, but they bite the hand of the man who smites them. How could I hesitate this day when two of my towns are taken? Further, even if thou shouldst say “Fall beneath them, and let them smite thee,” I would still repel my foe, the men who seized the town and my god, the despoilers of my father, yea I would repel them.”

It should be clear already that Labayu can hardly be Saul. Firstly, Labayu talks to the Pharaoh not as an equal, but as an underling. Saul however, was an independent monarch according to the Bible. Secondly, Labayu refers to an Egyptian officer, because of course, when Egypt ruled Palestine, there were Egyptian garrisons stationed throughout. During the time of Samuel and Saul, there is no reference to any Egyptian presence there – rather, it is a situation where various tribes, i.e. the Israelites, Philistines, etc. are fighting amongst themselves. Finally, Labayu worships an idol rather than Yahweh. (Although some scholars might argue the Israelites of the early monarchy were not yet monotheistic.)

Secondly, this letter is written in pure Canaanite. (Albright, ANET pg. 486) This is unusual, since most of the Amarna letters are written in Akkadian, the international language of diplomacy. But, Labayu was writing in Canaanite. Why would King Saul write in Canaanite? He would write in archaic Hebrew, which, while very similar to Canaanite, is sufficiently different so that this letter was not even understood until recently. (Albright) Labayu was a Canaanite governor of Shechem, and so it makes sense that he might write in Canaanite rather than Akkadian. King Saul however, would not write in Canaanite - he would write in either archaic Hebrew or Akkadian. (Probably Akkadian, since the Pharaoh would probably not understand Hebrew.)

EA 289: “To the king, my lord say: Thus Abdu-Heba, they servant. At the two feet of my lord, the king, seven times and seven times I fall. Behold, Milkilu does not break his alliance with the sons of Labayu and with the sons of Arzayu in order to covet the land of the king for themselves. As for the governor who does such a deed as this, why does not my king call him to account? Behold Milkilu and Tagu! The deed which they have done is this, that they have taken it, the town of Rubutu. And now as for Jerusalem – behold this land belongs to the king, or why like the town of Gaza is it loyal to the king? Behold the land of the town of Gath-carmel, it belongs to Tagu, and the men of Gath have a garrison in Beth-Shan. Or shall we do like Labayu, who gave the land of Shechem to the ‘Apiru? Milkilu has written to Tagu, and the sons of Labayu, saying “Ye are members of my house. Yield all of their demands to the men of Keilah, and let us break our alliance with Jerusalem!” The garrison which thou didst send through Haya, son of Miyare, Addaya has taken and has put into his residence in Gaza, and twenty men to Egypt he has sent. Let my king know that there is no royal garrison with me. So now, as my king lives, truly the commissioner, Puwure has taken leave of me and is in Gaza; and let my king look out for him! And let the king send fifty men as a garrison to guard the land! The entire land of the king has revolted. Send me Yanhamu and let him take care of the land of the king! To the scribe of the king, my lord, thus ‘Abdu-Heba, thy servant. Present eloquent words to the king. I am much more insignificant than thou; I am thy servant.”

Here again, we see a situation wherein Palestine is an Egyptian province, and Abdu-Heba expects the king to send enforcements, and to punish the Egyptian governor Milkilu for remaining allied with Labayu. The king sent a garrison to Haya, and Addaya, the Egyptian governor of Palestine, has moved them to Gaza. Abdu-Heba complains that there is no longer a garrison with him. Clearly, this is a time when the Pharaoh was sending garrisons in and out of Palestine, and the various governors in Palestine were fighting for the favor of the Pharaoh. This does not sound at all like the time of King Saul, where the Pharaoh was a nonentity, and the Israelites and Philistines were fighting amongst themselves.

As for the word ‘Apiru/Habiru, this term does not refer specifically to the Hebrews, but rather to any fringe group that was not connected with society – it could refer to marauding Arabs or Ammonites, bands of mercenaries or anything of that nature. It was used as a term well before the Hebrews existed. “In the time of the First Dynasty of Babylon, people called Habiru are known in Mesopotamia. A text from Babylon mentions the issuing of clothing to Habiru soldiers…Although the Habiru are frequently described as foreigners, it is also several times indicated that they have fixed places of abode and thus cannot be considered as pure nomads…Habiru are mentioned frequently in the Tell el-Amarna tablets where they appear as marauding raiders in Syria and Palestine.” – Finegan, Light from the Ancient Past pg. 69-70

EA 254 – “To the king, my lord and my Sun-god: Thus Labayu, thy servant, and the dirt on which thou dost tread. At the feet of the king, my lord, and my Sun-god, seven times and seven times I fall. I have heard the words which the king wrote to me, and who am I that the king should lose his land because of me? Behold, I am a faithful servant of the king, and I have not rebelled and I have not sinned, and I do not withhold my tribute, and I do not refuse the requests of the commissioner. Now they wickedly slander me, but let the king, my lord, not impute rebellion to me! Further, my crime is namely that I entered Gezer and said publicly, “Shall the king take my property, and not likewise the property of Milkilu?” I know the deeds which Milkilu has done against me. Further, the king wrote concerning my son. I did not know that my son associates with the ‘Apiru, and I have verily delivered him into the hands of Addaya. Further, if the king should write for my wife, how could I withhold her? If the king should write to me, “Plunge a bronze dagger into thy heart and die!”, how could I refuse to carry out the command of the king?

Well here we have Labayu sucking up to Pharaoh pretty bad. This is obviously not King Saul. Firstly, he calls the Pharaoh “my sun God”, and is clearly his underling. He assures Pharaoh he has not rebelled, and that he has not withheld tribute! Was King Saul paying tribute to Pharaoh!? Further, Labayu clearly wishes to disassociate himself with the ‘Apiru here, and even ensures the king that he handed over his own son to Addaya, the Egyptian governor, because he was associating with the ‘Apiru. Does this fit in anyway with King Saul’s life? No, clearly not.

It is obvious that Labayu was a mere servant of Pharaoh – under the authority of the Egyptian commissioner. He was the governor of Shechem. King Saul on the other hand, ruled the twelve tribes of Israel as an independent monarch in Gibeah. See 1 Samuel 13, where Saul is made King over all Israel. Indeed, in the time of Saul, the Philistines were a serious menace, so much so that they ensured that the Hebrews did not have any blacksmiths. And yet in this letter here, Labayu is in the service of the Pharaoh, and is under the authority of Addaya, the Egyptian governor. Why didn’t Labayu just ask Addaya or Pharaoh for some weapons to get rid of the Philistines? In fact, why are the Philistines never even mentioned in the Amarna letters? And since Addaya was governor of Gaza, why didn’t he notice that the Philistines were harassing Saul, who handed his own son over to him?

EA 253 – “To the king, my lord and my Sun: Thus Labayu, your servant and the dirt on which thou dost tread. I fall at the feet of the king, my lord, seven times and seven times. I have obeyed the orders that the king, my lord, wrote to me on a tablet. I am a servant of the king like my father and my grandfather, a servant of the king from long ago. I am not a rebel and I am not delinquent in my duty. Here is my act of rebellion and here is my delinquency: when I entered Gazru, I spoke as follows “The king treats us kindly.” Now there is indeed no other purpose for me except the service of the king, and whatever the king orders, I obey. May the king keep me in the charge of my commissioner in order to guard the city of the king.”

More sucking up to Pharaoh. This is clearly not Saul. Labayu is a servant of Pharaoh, his father and grandfather were servants of Pharaoh. Labayu is insistent that he has not rebelled and he is loyal. Saul, on the other hand, spent his career fighting the Philistines.

EA 245 – This letter is not preserved completely, so it begins abruptly. The dots between brackets represent parts of the tablet that are broken. This letter is from Biridiya, the governor of Megiddo:

“Further, I said to my brethren, “If the gods of the king, our lord, grant that we capture Labayu, then we will bring him alive to the king, our lord”; but my mare was felled by an arrow, and I alighted afterwards and rode with Yashdata, but before my arrival, they had slain him. Verily, Yashdata is thy servant and he entered the battle with me. And verily, the life of the king, my lord and […] all in […] of the king, my lord, […], and Zurata took him and sent him home from Hanathon, for Zurata had received his ransom money in his hand. Further, what have I done to the king, my lord, that he should despise me and honor my younger brothers? Zurata has sent Labayu, and Zurata has sent Ba’lu-mihir to their homes, and let the king, my lord, be informed.”

There’s really not much to say here. Biridiya, the governor of Megiddo, accuses Zurata of rebellion, because he sent Labayu home because of a bribe, rather than turning him in. Apparently, Labayu was inciting rebellion, and was wanted by the Pharaoh.

The Amarna Letters tell us a lot about Labayu, and his life is not compatible with King Saul. Firstly, we know that Labayu attacked Megiddo from EA 244, which is something never mentioned in 1 Samuel, and indeed something that Saul would never be able to do, since he was constantly engaged against the Philistines. Furthermore, EA 250 tells us how Labayu died, and also tells us how his two sons went on to become revolutionaries against the Egyptian Pharaoh – something that lame Mephibosheth and Ishbosheth (who was promptly assassinated) certainly did not do. Note also, that there is no reference to the rather prominent Judah or House of David in the Amarna letters here – something which is inexplicable if Saul is Labayu.

EA 250: “To the king, my lord, say: Thus Ba’lu-ursag, thy servant. At the feet of the king, my lord, seven times, seven times, I fall. Let the king, my lord, know that the two sons of a rebel against the king my lord, the two sons of Labayu, have determined to destroy the land of the king, my lord, after their father’s death. And let the king, my lord, know that many days the two sons of Labayu have accused me, saying “Why hast thou given the town of Giti-padalla into the hand of the king, thy lord – the city which Labayu, our father, captured?” So thus the two sons of Labayu spoke to me: “Declare war against the people of the land of Qena, because they slew our father; and if you do not declare war, then we are hostile to you.”

But I answered them: “May the god of the king, my lord, preserve me from making war against the people of the land of Qena, the servants of the king my lord!” Now may it be agreeable to the king, my lord, to send one of his officers to Biryawaza, and let him say to him: “Wilt thou march against the two sons of Labayu, or art thou a rebel against the king?” And after him, let the king, my lord, send to me […] the deed of the king, thy lord, against the two sons of Labayu […] Milkilu has gone into them […] land of the king, my lord, with them after Milkilu and Labayu died. And thus the two sons of Labayu spoke: “Be hostile to the king, thy lord, like our father, when he attacked Shunama and Burquna and Harabu, and destroyed them. And he took Giti-rimuni, and he betrayed the helpers of the king, thy lord.” But I answered them: “The god of the king, my lord, preserve me from making war against the king, my lord. The king, my lord, I serve, and my brothers who hearken to me.” But the courier of Milkilu does not move from the two sons of Labayu a single day. Behold, Milkilu seeks to destroy the land of the king, my lord. But there is not other intention with me – I serve the king, my lord, and the word which the king, my lord, speaks, do I hear.”

Here we learn that Labayu was killed in Qena. We know from EA 245 (quoted above) that Zurata was supposed to deliver Labayu to Pharaoh (because he was apparently instigating rebellion), but Labayu escaped by bribing Zurata. In EA 250 we learn that Labayu was killed in Qena. Qena is either a town in Egypt or possibly Beth-Hagan in the north-central hill country. On the other hand, Saul committed suicide on Mount Gilboa during a war with the Philistines. (1 Samuel 31) Furthermore, Labayu’s two sons were apparently revolutionaries against the Pharaoh who were inciting rebellion. Saul’s two sons however, were not revolutionaries against Egypt, because in their time Egypt was a non-entity. They were involved in a civil war in Palestine. Saul’s son Ishbosheth was king over all of Israel (2 Samuel 2:8-10) and was involved in a war against Judah, which followed David. The two books of Samuel give no indication whatsoever that Egypt had any role in any of this, or that Saul was wanted by Pharaoh and killed in Qena, or that Saul’s two sons were rebels who tried to round up support against Pharaoh. Rather, the books of Samuel show us a time when Israel was being harassed by the Philistines, and the house of David and the house of Saul were struggling in a civil war, and Pharaoh, Egypt, the Egyptian commissioner and the Egyptian garrisons were not even factors.

Thus, it seems clear from the Amarna Letters that Labayu is definitively not Saul.

It should be obvious then, that Rohl draws very tenuous connections between certain similar sounding incidents in the books of Samuel and the Amarna letters, while blatantly ignoring the overall context.

[learning]

Thanks. I have just finished reading a section in the Bible, and I can't remember where, but it did say that (when God was speaking to Moses, to speak to the children of Israel before going over the Jordan) that God had devastated the Egyptians, and that they were still devastated to that day.(this would be 40 years after they left Egypt) When does it show that Egypt was devastated as a country? Much less power?
Now, King Saul would be several generations after this, and we do know that his son went down to stay with a Pharaoh, at the time that David became King.
Can you tell me, from your guess of who was the Pharoah at the time of Exodus, time of going over into the Jordan (this would be when Egypt would still be a lesser power) and time of King Saul and David, and possibly Solomon? We know Solomon married on of Pharaoh's daughters.

The only thing that I have for Ahkenaten being Pharaoh, is that we do know an older brother died, we do know that his father's death is questionable, about what happened, so I wondered if Ahkenaten could have been the Pharaoh after the Exodus, because something as devastating as the death of the first born could make him want to leave that capital, and start a different religion because he would see that the gods of the priests of that time and capital had lost.

But it could be a woman Pharaoh took over at the time of the Exodus. I am just trying to fit in who was Pharaoh, at these times.

[One Bad Pig]

But it could be a woman Pharaoh took over at the time of the Exodus. I am just trying to fit in who was Pharaoh, at these times.
Learning,

I have a book (Solving the Exodus Mystery Vol. 1 by Ted Stewart) that posits exactly that. The book suffers somewhat from the lack of a professional editor and its occasional support of Ron Wyatt, but the guy's obviously done a lot of research. He argues that Sesostris I appointed Joseph as vizier, and that Amenemhet IV was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Amenemhet IV was the last male ruler of the 12th Dynasty, and was followed only by his sister/wife Sebeknefru.

[Cami McCraw]

[QUOTE=ChrisChillin
Hmm...well I don't know of any major archaeologist or historian who approaches the issue with inerrancy specifically as a central focus or consideration. But yes I am aware of several who adopt a more conservative or maximalist position whom you may wish to consult. As I understand it, your next comment refers to my quoting of the review for Kitchen's On the Reliability of the Old Testament.


***Dear Chris & Group,
I noticed no one mentioned David Rohl. He is very conservative re: Biblical issues! Anyone considering Kitchen should also study Rohl. (The two of them were in a conference together just last weekend.)
The official David Rohl website once at nunki.net is now being redone. However, I salvaged most of the articles from the site and they are at our (official) David Rohl list. (If you choose "no mail/web only", it then acts as a website/bulletin board, where you can read the articles in the 'files' area, and just read the discussions in the message archives area.) There are actually 2 official lists: the 'main' one, and then the 'highlights' one, largely comprised of only the author posts. (David Rohl, Peter van der Veen, John Bimson, etc.) And, if you don't have David's books, there are great (free) study guides and short book synopses in the file areas.
Here are the links:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/
I do hope the moderators at theologyweb.com will let this post as part of this thread. (I'd seen every other Biblical archaeologist mentioned, including websites, except for David Rohl! LOL - His sites definately need to be included, and those two links are the official sites.)
Thanks everyone, and I hope you all had a wonderful Easter!
Cami

[One Bad Pig]

***Dear Chris & Group,
I noticed no one mentioned David Rohl.
Cami,

Please read the thread before you post; most of the posts between your last one on March 18th and this one referred to him.

I do hope the moderators at theologyweb.com will let this post as part of this thread.
Cami
It's bordering on advertising (which we generally don't allow here), but I'll let it slide this time. It's okay to put a link in your .sig line, but posting just to advertise a site is frowned upon. I'm sure some of the other posters in the thread would appreciate your interaction with their discussion of David's use of the Armana letters. I haven't visited the NC sites in quite a while; I ought to pay them a visit.

[ChrisChillin]

One Bad Pig:

It would be neat to interact with the data that guy puts forward in that book you mentioned. It looks like he's arguing for a rather early date for the Exodus and Conquest. Currently, I favor the later date of Kitchen, Hoffmeier, etc. But I'm always open to re-examining that.

[chsalvia]

It is doubtful that Amenemhat IV was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That doesn't make much sense historically, or Biblically for that matter. For one thing, the sojourn in Egypt is said to have lasted 400 years (Genesis 15:13), whereas Sesotris I ruled less than 200 years before Amenemhat IV. Although I don't put too much stock into Biblical numbers.

But if the Exodus happened during the reign of Amenemhat IV, that means Israel was settled in Canaan throughout the 18th dynasty, when Canaan was an Egyptian province. However, according to the Old Testament, Israel was an independent nation from the time of Joshua through the monarchy. (Although it was oppressed from time to time by local tribes/nations, such as the Philistines or the Ammonites.)

The key problem that alternative chronologies usually fail to realize is that Canaan was an Egyptian province for a few hundred years. The history of Israel must necessarily begin after Egypt lost control of Canaan. Otherwise, we must conclude that Joshua conquered Canaan, but then lost it to the Egyptians for a few hundred years, and that throughout the period of the Judges, Israel was still subject to Egypt. Of course, the Bible does not indicate this, and there is no indication of this in the Amarna letters either.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Ramses II or Seti I. The first time Israel is mentioned as a tribe in Palestine is in Merenptah's victory stele. This is also the first time the Philistines are mentioned. Thus, the time of Merenptah probably corresponds roughly to the early period of the Judges.

There is really no other identification for the Pharaoh of the Exodus that is historically or Biblically viable.

[ChrisChillin]

Although I don't put too much stock into Biblical numbers.

Well, I think the trick may be to understand them in their context, that they may not necessarily be interpreted literally or strictly. My fellow evangelicals who feel keen on emphasizing the importance of understanding the Bible "literally" must then take such figures as the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 as correspondent to a real-time chronology, thus arriving at an early date such as 1447/6 (typical) or even 1470 (e.g., John J. Bimson) for the Exodus. In my own study I emphasize taking the Bible "contextually", understanding there are plenty of instances in which a literal or "plain English" reading fails to do justice to all the nuances, background data, etc, that inform and highlight the text.

Thus it is easy for me to accept Kitchen's suggestions that the "480 years", for example, may be a symbolic figure for 12x40 generations, or a figure based on aggregate years.

The key problem that alternative chronologies usually fail to realize is that Canaan was an Egyptian province for a few hundred years.

Indeed, as it is also a key problem for an early-Exodus date.

[quote]The Pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Ramses II or Seti I. The first time Israel is mentioned as a tribe in Palestine is in Merenptah's victory stele. This is also the first time the Philistines are mentioned. Thus, the time of Merenptah probably corresponds roughly to the early period of the Judges.[QUOTE]

Another line of evidence for a late date I just read in Kitchen is that the city of Pi-Ramesse A-nakhtu - largely considered to be biblical Raamses - was built by Rameses II, and that no other city has been called that name, despite some confusion that Tanis may have been called Pi-Ramesse at one point. Thus, if the Hebrews were responsible for building this city, then that leaves a narrow window for the Exodus, from RII's reign in the 13th century to its abandonment in 1130.

[One Bad Pig]

It is doubtful that Amenemhat IV was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. That doesn't make much sense historically, or Biblically for that matter. For one thing, the sojourn in Egypt is said to have lasted 400 years (Genesis 15:13), whereas Sesotris I ruled less than 200 years before Amenemhat IV. Although I don't put too much stock into Biblical numbers.

Stewart argues that the 400 years included Abraham/Isaac/Jacob sojourning in Canaan, based on Gal. 3:17. He puts The accession year of Sestrosis I in 1667 BC (followed by a 10-year co-reign with Amenemhet I), and the Exodus in 1446 BC (the 10th year of Amenemhet IV). To get more than 200 years between the two events, he cites the recent (1996) discovery that Sestrosis III reigned at least 39 years.

But if the Exodus happened during the reign of Amenemhat IV, that means Israel was settled in Canaan throughout the 18th dynasty, when Canaan was an Egyptian province. However, according to the Old Testament, Israel was an independent nation from the time of Joshua through the monarchy. (Although it was oppressed from time to time by local tribes/nations, such as the Philistines or the Ammonites.)
From reading the book of Judges, "oppressed from time to time" seems quite an understatement. I'm also somewhat skeptical over just how much Egypt was in control of Canaan throughout the time period. We didn't know Rameses II got his butt whipped by the Hittites until we found their side of the story.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus was probably Ramses II or Seti I. The first time Israel is mentioned as a tribe in Palestine is in Merenptah's victory stele. This is also the first time the Philistines are mentioned. Thus, the time of Merenptah probably corresponds roughly to the early period of the Judges.

Stewart promises to cover this (stuff past the Exodus) in Vol. 2, which he hasn't gotten out the door yet.

There is really no other identification for the Pharaoh of the Exodus that is historically or Biblically viable.
Rameses II is not a good candidate for the Exodus. The Pharaoh of the Exodus died with his army, and I find it hard to believe that some 100-year old geezer would be chasing people around in his chariot.:smile:

[One Bad Pig]

Another line of evidence for a late date I just read in Kitchen is that the city of Pi-Ramesse A-nakhtu - largely considered to be biblical Raamses - was built by Rameses II, and that no other city has been called that name, despite some confusion that Tanis may have been called Pi-Ramesse at one point. Thus, if the Hebrews were responsible for building this city, then that leaves a narrow window for the Exodus, from RII's reign in the 13th century to its abandonment in 1130.
Stewart writes that the twelfth-dynasty Pharaoh, Sesostris III, first constructed Rameses as a store city 500 years before the nineteenth-dynasty Pharaoh, Ramses II, constructed his capital city of Pi-Rameses, which was constructed over the remains of four previous cities.

[chsalvia]

Well, I think the trick may be to understand them in their context, that they may not necessarily be interpreted literally or strictly. My fellow evangelicals who feel keen on emphasizing the importance of understanding the Bible "literally" must then take such figures as the 480 years in 1 Kings 6:1 as correspondent to a real-time chronology, thus arriving at an early date such as 1447/6 (typical) or even 1470 (e.g., John J. Bimson) for the Exodus. In my own study I emphasize taking the Bible "contextually", understanding there are plenty of instances in which a literal or "plain English" reading fails to do justice to all the nuances, background data, etc, that inform and highlight the text.

Thus it is easy for me to accept Kitchen's suggestions that the "480 years", for example, may be a symbolic figure for 12x40 generations, or a figure based on aggregate years.

Yes, I’m certainly willing to accept that. Biblical terms like “40 years” or “7 years” often just mean “an indeterminate amount of time.” Since 400 years is 40 years x 10, it could just mean basically “a couple of centuries.”

Another line of evidence for a late date I just read in Kitchen is that the city of Pi-Ramesse A-nakhtu - largely considered to be biblical Raamses - was built by Rameses II, and that no other city has been called that name, despite some confusion that Tanis may have been called Pi-Ramesse at one point. Thus, if the Hebrews were responsible for building this city, then that leaves a narrow window for the Exodus, from RII's reign in the 13th century to its abandonment in 1130.

I agree. That seems like a pretty clear chronological marker. However, proponents of alternative chronologies would just argue that the mention of the city of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 is a topological update by a later scribe. Of course, that is ad hoc, and there are examples in the Bible, such as Genesis 28:19, where the author is careful to note that he is using an updated city-name.

Stewart argues that the 400 years included Abraham/Isaac/Jacob sojourning in Canaan, based on Gal. 3:17. He puts The accession year of Sestrosis I in 1667 BC (followed by a 10-year co-reign with Amenemhet I), and the Exodus in 1446 BC (the 10th year of Amenemhet IV).

Where is he getting the year 1667 for Sesotris I? Sesotris I’s reign began ca. 1950 B.C. Furthermore, there is no evidence for a coregency between Amenemhat I and Sesotris I. In fact, Amenemhat I preceded Sesotris I, as the first ruler of the 12th dynasty, following Menuhotep IV.

Besides, it is doubtful that Stewart is correct about his identification of Joseph’s Pharaoh with Sesotris I. Sesotris I was the son of Amenemhat I, who initiated the Middle Kingdom, or 12th dynasty. Some of the texts from this period are strongly anti-Asiatic. For example, from “the prophecy of Neferti”:

As the serpent on his brow subdues the rebels for him,
One will build the Walls-of-the-Ruler,
To bar Asiatics from entering Egypt... – ANET, “Oracles and Prophecies” pg 444

To get more than 200 years between the two events, he cites the recent (1996) discovery that Sestrosis III reigned at least 39 years.

How does that help? Sesotris I began to reign ca. 1950. You said that Stewart identifies this Pharaoh as the Pharaoh who knew Joseph. Amenemhat IV reigned ca. 1770. That is less than 200 years later. It doesn’t matter if you add on extra years to the reign of Sesotris III. (Besides, I was taking into account Sesotris III’s extended reign anyway, since the chronology I’m using is taken from the Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, which was revised only four year ago.)

From reading the book of Judges, "oppressed from time to time" seems quite an understatement.

Yes, but my point is not that Israel was free from oppression. But rather that the entire area of Palestine was not under the power of a single government, (the Egyptian government), but populated by independent warring petty-nations and tribes, such as Israel, Philistia, Ammon, etc. There is no indication in the Bible that any of these nations were subject to Egypt, or that Egypt was even a major player on the international political scene at that time. (Which makes sense since Egypt lost it's territories in the late 19th/early 20th dynasty.)

I'm also somewhat skeptical over just how much Egypt was in control of Canaan throughout the time period. We didn't know Rameses II got his butt whipped by the Hittites until we found their side of the story.

Egypt’s control of Canaan is actually one of the best attested facts of history in the entire late Bronze Age. The miraculous discovery of the collection of over 380 letters at Tel El-Amarna gives us more insight into this period than any other time period of ancient Egypt. Furthermore, these are administrative letters of correspondence written in Akkadian, not bombastic Egyptian victory rhetoric. Finally, there is a large quantity of evidence from Canaan itself (cf. the Tanaach letters) which depict the Canaanite cities under the hegemony of their Egyptian masters.

Besides, the unfolding of history testifies to Egyptian control in Canaan at this period. The Hittite Kingdom and Egypt were the two major superpowers at this time, and they mostly kept each other in check. After the Hittite King, Suppiluliuma, destroyed the kingdom of Mitanni, the next obvious conquest would be Syria/Palestine. If the Egyptians didn’t control Palestine, then the Hittites would simply have expanded there. (That was basically what the battle of Kadesh was about anyway. If it weren’t for the Egyptians controlling Canaan, there would have been no battle of Kadesh!)

Stewart promises to cover this (stuff past the Exodus) in Vol. 2, which he hasn't gotten out the door yet.

Okay.

Rameses II is not a good candidate for the Exodus. The Pharaoh of the Exodus died with his army, and I find it hard to believe that some 100-year old geezer would be chasing people around in his chariot.

I would say Rameses II is the best candidate for the Exodus. But it could be Seti I, or even Merenptah. Secondly, Exodus 14 does not specifically state that the Pharaoh died with his army. It says “the entire army of Pharaoh” died. It does not say Pharaoh himself died. Anyway, this statement is probably meant to be hyperbolic. Whether the Pharaoh was Ramses II or Amenemhat IV, the entire Egyptian army was obviously not wiped out.

Stewart writes that the twelfth-dynasty Pharaoh, Sesostris III, first constructed Rameses as a store city 500 years before the nineteenth-dynasty Pharaoh, Ramses II, constructed his capital city of Pi-Rameses, which was constructed over the remains of four previous cities.

What is the evidence for this?

[One Bad Pig]

Stewart writes that the twelfth-dynasty Pharaoh, Sesostris III, first constructed Rameses as a store city 500 years before the nineteenth-dynasty Pharaoh, Ramses II, constructed his capital city of Pi-Rameses, which was constructed over the remains of four previous cities.
What is the evidence for this?
(quoting W.H. Shea, from International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, II.231-232):
Just South of Qantir is Tell el-Daba [Rameses]. The occupation of this site under the 12th and 13th Dynasties was brought to and end with a violent destruction. Three Hyksos strata or building phases follow this destructuion and the city enlarged progressively through these three periods. The third and last Hyksos stratum was brought to and end with a violent destruction which has been connected with the conquest o fLower Egypt by the early 18th Dynasty. The 18th Dynasty appears to have left this site unoccupied, but it was rebuilt under the 19th Dynasty.

He also refers to Amihai Mazar's Archaeology of the Land of the Bible (citing Canaanite artifacts in the 12th/13th Dynasty strata) and the article on Rameses in the Anchor Bible Dictionary.

[ChrisChillin]

The problem I have with Shea's comment is that Tell el-Dab'a is not the same as Pi-Ramesse. Rather, it is the site for the old city of Avaris, an important center for the Hyksos, as the strata indicate. The new city of Pi-Ramesse built by Rameses II was established immediately to the north of Avaris in the area of Khataana-Qantir, and not on top of previous cities. The outskirts of Pi-Ramesse may have brushed with Avaris, but no one considered this new city a continuation of its older neighbor to the south. To support the early date for the Exodus, then, you'd require the writer to confuse Avaris with its neighbor to the north and then call the former by the latter.


Oh, and for kicks - Rameses II was Solomon! (says this website):
http://www.lexiline.com/lexiline/lexi46.htm

[One Bad Pig]

The problem I have with Shea's comment is that Tell el-Dab'a is not the same as Pi-Ramesse. Rather, it is the site for the old city of Avaris, an important center for the Hyksos, as the strata indicate. The new city of Pi-Ramesse built by Rameses II was established immediately to the north of Avaris in the area of Khataana-Qantir, and not on top of previous cities. The outskirts of Pi-Ramesse may have brushed with Avaris, but no one considered this new city a continuation of its older neighbor to the south. To support the early date for the Exodus, then, you'd require the writer to confuse Avaris with its neighbor to the north and then call the former by the latter.
Okay. There's still the possiblility that the store city of Rameses and the capital city of Pi-Ramesse are not referring to the same thing. I can see the Hyksos renaming Rameses, but that could just be due to ignorance.

[learning]

If you check the link on the 'Arch link and Dead Sea Scrolls timeline link' post above
you'll see in the Dead Sea Scrolls link, that they have both old and new chronology to do with the times of Egypt, Israel etc. actually, here it is.
http://home.flash.net/~hoselton/deadsea/timeline.htm

[chsalvia]

I can see the Hyksos renaming Rameses, but that could just be due to ignorance.

Not sure what you mean here. The Hyksos city was named Avaris. The name "Rameses" did not appear until the 19th dynasty.

[One Bad Pig]

Not sure what you mean here. The Hyksos city was named Avaris. The name "Rameses" did not appear until the 19th dynasty.
Stewart posits that
1)Sesostris III's throne name was "Kho-Kau-Ra"
2)he called himself "the son of Ra's body"
3)in hymns written in his praise, he is called "Re"
4)Rameses means "Ra Created It"

therefore, it is possible that Sestrosis III could've built a city called "Rameses".

He also cites evidence that Canaanite artifacts were found there in 12th-dynasty strata, and that foreign slaves were used to build the city (out of mud bricks).

[Cami McCraw]

Hi group,
I have replied once or twice now to the David Rohl thread, but I never see where it posted. Yet people are still asking for more information about him. This is the official David Rohl list, and David is very much a part of it:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/

[chsalvia]

What are you, Rohl's marketing expert?

[Celsus]

I noticed no one mentioned David Rohl. He is very conservative re: Biblical issues! Anyone considering Kitchen should also study Rohl. (The two of them were in a conference together just last weekend.)
Hahaha! Kitchen can't stand Rohl (http://members.aol.com/Ian%20Wade/Waste/98.html). :rofl:

Joel

[learning]

Yes Cami, if you look in pages 1-4, you'll see myself, 'learning' and 'chsalvia' , our discussion on David Rohl, but I do not want to go to the yahoo discussion board. Anyways, I think that Rohl was off with the Amarna letters, but I sure do like the palace he found in Goshen, and I really like that he found it near a bay called the 'Bay of Yousef' (spelling may be off)

[Cami McCraw]

What are you, Rohl's marketing expert?
In a word: yes.
~ And, when I see comments like "I've heard he wrecks Biblical history at some point", and also reading questions about folks being curious about Rohl, "hoping to discuss him"-- it is my job to step in and point people to the official site, where Rohl and his 9 colleagues (NC published writers) are actually holding these discussions. (There is no reason to take guesses about what Rohl thinks or what the NC does to Biblical history, etc....)
Also, there is a new DVD coming out soon.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/

[kendemyer]

To: All

A request to keep string on topic plus some conservative sources

I believe this string has gone way off topic. The stated topic of this string is the following: "which links/books are the best links/books for conservative Bible archeology views? " In my first post to the string I specifically requested that I did not want input from skeptic/liberal sources (I used Finkelstein as an example). I said this because at the juncture I have limited time to devote to TheologyWeb debate in an area I am less well versed in - namely Bible archaeology. I have a number of things I have to attend to in my life outside of TheologyWeb at this time and cannot do a considerable amount of research for the purpose of debating the area of Bible archaeology.

I started this string as a resource for people (including myself) who wanted to obtain more material for the conservative Bible archaeology position and to also have it be a discussion as to what sources are the best sources in this regards. In general, I would say that in both the Christian and skeptical camps people's knowledge of Bible archaeology could be greatly improved and I am including myself of course. At the same time, however, I have read a considerable amount of skeptical charges in the Christian/skeptic debate outside of the Bible archaeology area and I found them to be without merit in terms of discrediting a more conservative theological position in terms of Christianity. So I am not advocating running away from reading skeptical archaeology views or being afraid of skeptical Bible archaeology sources as I do not really believe it is a great threat based on my studies of other areas of Christian apologetics. I would also say that so far I am not particulary impressed in my initial foray into Bible archaeolgy with the skeptical claims I have read so far and I think this trend will continue because in my studies of the Christian/skeptic debate in areas outside of archaeology, I have found the Christian position as the best explanation of the available information. I would also say that I have personally experienced the reality of Christ subsequent to my initial investigation of Christianity.

Next, I feel that it is rather easy for skeptics/liberals to start a new string and that they should do so if they wish to discuss or debate their views. It is not as if the archaeology section of TheologyWeb is a flood of activity and that there are too many strings being created in this section.

I am sorry this posting comes at this late juncture but I have not attended to this string which I felt given the initial post needed no attending to. On the other hand, I do realize that this is a debate board but at the same time there is nothing that prevents a string from being a debate in regards to what conservative Bible sources are the best ones! If a moderator is reading this post I would ask that you add comments in this string should you see this string go off topic again. I am asking this because I feel there is a possibility my involvement at TheologyWeb in the near future could be very limited or non existent due to other concerns although I have been fairly active in the past at TWEB.

For those who want introductory material in regards to Bible archaeology I am about to offer some material. I do wish to preface this material with the comment that it is very introductory.

Here is the information:

A DISCUSSION OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY


SOME QUOTES OF PROMINENT BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGISTS AND OTHERS


"It may be stated categorically that no archaeological discovery has ever controverted a Biblical reference. Scores of archaeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical description has often led to amazing discoveries."

Dr. Nelson Glueck, reknowned Jewish archeologist. (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )


"Archaeology has confirmed countless passages which have been rejected by critics as unhistorical or contradictory to known facts......Yet archaeological discoveries have shown that these critical charges.....are wrong and that the Bible is trustworthy in the very statements which have been set aside as untrustworthy.....We do not know of any cases where the Bible has been proved wrong."

Dr. Joseph P. Free. (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )


"The reader may rest assured that nothing has been found [by archaeologists] to disturb a reasonable faith, and nothing has been discovered which can disprove a single theological doctrine. We no longer trouble ourselves with attempts to 'harmonize' religion and science, or to 'prove' the Bible. The Bible can stand for itself."

Dr. William F. Albright, eminent archeologist who confired the authenticity of the Dead Sea Scrolls following their discovery (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html)


"There can be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition."

Dr. William F. Albright (taken from: http://www.gospeloutreach.net/bible.html )


"On the whole, however, archaeological work has unquestionably strengthened confidence in the reliability of the Scriptural record. More than one archaeologist has found his respect for the Bible increased by the experience of excavation in Palestine....Archaeology has in many cases refuted the views of modern critics. It has shown, in a number of instances, that these views rest on false assumptions and unreal, artificial schemes of historical development. This is a real contribution and not to be minimized."

Millar Burrows, Professor of Archaeology at Yale University (taken from:
http://godisforus.com/information/bible/evidence/archaeology.htm


"It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge...
It is therefore legitimate to say that, in respect of that part of the Old Testament against which the disintegrating criticism of the last half of the nineteenth century was chiefly directed, the evidence of archaeology has been to reestablish its authority and likewise to augment its value by rendering it more intelligible through a fuller knowledge of its background and setting. Archaeology has not yet said its last word, but the results already achieved confirm what faith would suggest – that the Bible can do nothing but gain from an increase in knowledge."

Sir Frederic Kenyon, a former director of the British Museum (taken from:
http://www.greatcom.org/resources/know_why_you_believe/chap07/default.htm

"I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian's and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment."

Sir William Ramsey, eminent archaeologists who changed his mind regarding Luke after extensive study (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )


Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of facts trustworthy; he is possessed of the true historic sense...In short this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians."

Sir William Ramsey, archaeologist (taken from: http://godisforus.com/information/bible/evidence/archaeology.htm


"In every instance where the findings of archaeology pertain to the Biblical record, the archaeological evidence confirms, sometimes in detailed fashion, the historical accuracy of Scripture. In those instances where the archaeological findings seem to be at variance with the Bible, the discrepancy lies with the archaeological evidence, i.e., improper interpretation, lack of evidence, etc. -- not with the Bible."

Dr. Bryant C. Wood, archaeologist, Associates for Biblical Research (taken from:http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )


"Through the wealth of data uncovered by historical and archaeological research, we are able to measure the Bible's historical accuracy. In every case where its claims can thus be tested, the Bible proves to be accurate and reliable."

Dr. Jack Cottrell (taken from: http://www.myfortress.org/archaeology.html )


"I know of no finding in archaeology that’s properly confirmed which is in opposition to the Scriptures. The Bible is the most accurate history textbook the world has ever seen."

Dr Clifford Wilson, formerly director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology

taken from: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3893.asp


Finally, The reknowned archaeologist Millar Burrow of Yale states, "The excessive skepticism of many liberal theologians stems not from a careful evaluation of the available data, but from an enormous predisposition against the supernatural."
(taken from: http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/apologetics/AP3W0304.pdf


ARCHAEOLOGY CAN CORROBORATE BUT NOT PROVE THE BIBLE

See this Jewish site: http://ohr.edu/special/books/gott/truth-5.htm

(I am a Christian but I felt as though this was a good article)


EXAMPLES OF BIBLE ARCHAEOLOGY


http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/home.html

http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/general/archaeology.html

http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1998/r&r9806a.htm

http://www.theexaminer.org/volume5/number3/bible.htm


LIMITATIONS OF ARCHAEOLOGY

While archaeology is of great help to our understanding the Bible, the biblical evidence in the text must be given priority over the archaeological evidence from the field. The reason for this is the inherent limitations of archaeology. The primary limitation of archaeology is the extremely fragmentary nature of the archaeological evidence. Only a fraction of what is made or what is written survives. Most of the great Near Eastern archives were destroyed in antiquity through wars, looters, natural disasters or the ravages of time. To this we must add the limitation that less than 2% of sites in Israel have been excavated and hundreds more will never be excavated due to lack of access or resources and destruction through building projects, military maneuvers, and pillaging by Bedouins. Even when this small percentage of sites are excavated, only a fraction of the site is actually examined, and then only a percentage of what is excavated is ever published. Of the 500,000 cuneiform texts that are known to have been discovered over the past 100 years, only 10% have ever been published.

(this was taken from: http://www.imja.com/Archeology.html )


ARCHAEOLOGY CONTROVERSIES

Most of the controversies in Bible archaelogy has to do with dating. I personally, think this is now the weakest link in archaeology.

Here is a website that discusses this:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/defdocs/rr1993/r&r9311a.htm

Sincerely,

Ken

[One Bad Pig]

I've recently gotten Archaeology & The Old Testament by Alfred J. Hoerth and Archaeology & the New Testament by John McRay. I haven't gotten around to reading them yet, though.

[ChrisChillin]

I believe this string has gone way off topic.

Quite the contrary, I think it has generally hovered in the general vicinity of the topic. We briefly discussed Finkelstein, buch much of what we've talked about has revolved around a couple of sources considered by many to support a conservative/maximalist position in regard to the historicity of the Hebrew Bible - David Rohl and that Stewart guy primarily. Part of evaluating whether or not they may be the "best" sources is of course discussing some of their arguments in detail, as we have done.

I have found the Christian position as the best explanation of the available information.

But when it comes to biblical archaeology, is the "Christian position" necessarily the same as the conservative, maximalist position that says everything happened entirely or pretty much as the Bible says? I wouldn't call that distinctively the Christian position, although it is typically the position of the most conservative Christians. Others who are fairly conservative in their theology may not necessarily hold to the accurate historicity of the OT narratives. Joseph Callaway of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary abandoned a straightforward reading of the Book of Joshua after failing to uncover a city of Ai in the necessary strata. As far as I can tell, he hasn't renounced his faith, but he has abandoned the traditional understanding of Joshua. While you or I find his judgment premature, it cannot be said that he doesn't hold a "Christian position" in regard to biblical archaeology and historicity, although it is a different position and not traditional or conservative.

Be careful about looking at archaeology simplistically through the lens of the Christian/skeptic debate. Many archaeologists who have concluded that what actually happened in history isn't the same as what is recorded in the Bible do not necessarily have any particular axe to grind against Christianity, but are following the mainstream consensus and what they believe the facts to be. They're not simply making "skeptical charges" against the Bible. Granted, everyone has their biases and some may be influenced by personal poor histories of association with Christianity, but we can't broadbush the field of biblical archaeology as a contest between believers and skeptics who seek only to discredit the text. Keep in mind that I express these cautions even as one who believes that the narratives of the OT are at minimum quite reliable.

One comment on the quotes you cite: the problem with quoting William F. Albright is that the assured conclusions of his research have been thoroughly critiqued. Back in the heyday of his Baltimore School, his conquest model appeared unquestioned and it seemed that the biblical account had been proven beyond reasonable doubt. But then came the flood of challenges: Alt and Noth, Mendenhall and Gottwald, Finkelstein and Dever. The Albright model that supposedly proved the Bible is no longer taken seriously in archaeological circles, but perhaps his conclusions are treated as gospel among non-expert Christians. This is not to say that a new conquest model cannot be proposed (and I believe one can), but that Albright's assured determinations are no longer taken so seriously. As the conservative archaeologist James Hoffmeier writes:

The Albright-Wright synthesis has been rightly challenged by virtuallly every recent scholarly investigation concerned with the origins of Israel debate.

Just because Albright thought decades ago that the reliability of the Old Testament was beyond question doesn't mean that the situation is the same today. In fact, his own conquest model claimed more than the text actually says and should not be equated with the biblical account.

Again, this is not to say that no conservative model can be adequately defended, but a warning that such confident statements like the ones Albright made are not accepted by most of the experts. A case can be made for defending OT reliability, but I'm saying (as a conservative) that it isn't so proven beyond doubt that skeptics and unbelievers are merely blind or biased against the supernatural.

Having said that, good luck in your continuing research. I have already recommended the only two well-argued conservative works I have - Hoffmeier's and Kitchen's. You may want to look up John Bimson, a British scholar who argues for the traditional early date for the Exodus of around 1447 B.C. He's another current scholar who can ably interact with the mainstream consensus.

[kendemyer]

TO: Chrischillin and other reasonable posters to this sting

Chrischillen I GREATLY appreciate your posts to this string. I have no qualms with your post to the string and the post that some others have made. I would also say that you have been VERY helpful and that you have acted like a gentleman in this string.

I would also say that others have made a positive contribution to this string and I appreciate their efforts also.

Next, I would say that as I have investigated various matters in my life ( both Biblical and non-biblical) I have begun to trust less and less what the current consensus is in various matters concerning various fields although I do not completely ignore the consensus either. In short, I have learned to examine the evidence myself especially in matters that are important.

THE ADDITIONAL INFO


Now, I found the writing of one gentleman who is a scientist who wrote in regards to how far you should trust the experts in regards to the Bible to be very enlightening when I initially read it. I offer it to all at this link: http://www.godstruth.org/chap13 (I agree with 99.9% of what this author wrote in his book. I offer the resources of www.inerrancy.org and www.tektonics.org and www.christian-thinktank.com for the the .1% of the gentleman's book I do not agree with).

TO: ANYONE WHO HAS NOT BEEN A REASONABLE POSTER TO THIS STRING

On the other hand, I do take exception if a skeptic wants to hijack this string and turn it into a debate on whether or not the OT history is substantially accurate. I think it is apparent that at least one poster has done this.

The post string was titled: "which links/books are the best links/books for conservative Bible archeology views? " I also said I did not want sources like Finkelstein but I said this in a lighthearted manner.

Now I do realize that this forum is a debate forum. At the same time, however, I also realize that a string's author is allowed to make reasonable requests regarding the topic being debated. With this in mind, I wish the debate to center on "which links/books are the best for conservative Bible archaelogy views." If some feel this is too confining a scope of debate then of course they are free to open another string.

Sincerely,

Ken

[learning]

Hi Kendemyer, I have a question. Which archaelogical magazine or web site it the best in support of the Bible? And by web site, I mean Biblical archaelogical web site.

[Cami McCraw]

[QUOTE=kendemyer]To: All

A request to keep string on topic plus some conservative sources

I believe this string has gone way off topic. The stated topic of this string is the following: "which links/books are the best links/books for conservative Bible archeology views? " In my first post to the string I specifically requested that I did not want input from skeptic/liberal sources (I used Finkelstein as an example).

***Dear forum members,
~This is why I keep mentioning the Rohl link. The original topic of the string was to be *conservative* Bible arch. views. Rohl is *the* most conservative, yet he works as a secular archaeologist/Egyptologist. The Rohl forum(NewChronology) was started specifically *because* every other forum which even seemed to allow any discussion of the Bible seemed to either be Bible-bashers or else dismiss it as fairy tales. David Rohl and colleagues do not do this, and as a moderated forum, anyone attempting to be Bible-bashers are shown the door. It has worked well- and is a conservative forum- for 4 1/2 years. (For example, we do not discuss "If" there was an Exodus, but "when".)
But again, I did not see our link show up in the most-recent post re: "links", so here it is:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology2/)

Hope to see you there!
Cami

Cami, TWeb Decorum (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/faq.php?faq=campus_decorum#faq_campus_decorum_advertising) prohibits post that are primarily for the promotion of other web sites. However, you may post links in your signature, profile, blog, etc. as noted below:

Do not post on the board, in Private Message or email any content that are primarily for self-promotion or the advertising of any website, business, ministry, event or other entities such as a website link without prior consent of a moderator or administrator. Advertisements such as a website link including a brief description is welcome in the Campus Life section (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=84), personal profiles, journals and signature lines.

If you have any questions please feel free to PM me.

[kendemyer]

Dear Learning:

I apologize for the delay. I am not that active at TheologyWeb anymore. Here is the link to the conservative Bible archaeology magazine which is called Bible and Spade: http://www.christiananswers.net/abr/bible-and-spade.html I do not know how good it is because I have not read it yet although I plan to in the near future. I have heard good things about the editor though who is Bryant G. Wood who is an archaelogists of the conservative bent.

I do not have a favorite site that is soley devoted to Bible archeology. I do like this site http://lionofjudah.tribulationforces.com/general/archaeology.html though because it has a lot of Bible archeology links.

Sincerely,

Ken

[learning]

Thanks