Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age
by Piotr Bienkowski
9 / 10 – 1990
Scarabs of obscure Hyksos kings are not known to have been kept as heirlooms or manufactured later, and thus are a better guide to the absolute date of burial. The XVth-Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 would suggest a date of about 1600 B.C. for the end of the use of the Jericho tombs.
Steefen said
Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age
by Piotr Bienkowski
9 / 10 – 1990
Scarabs of obscure Hyksos kings are not known to have been kept as heirlooms or manufactured later, and thus are a better guide to the absolute date of burial. The XVth-Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 would suggest a date of about 1600 B.C. for the end of the use of the Jericho tombs.
Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts
by Bryant G. Wood
9 / 10 – 1990
Piotr Bienkowski has challenged the results of my analysis of the date of the destruction of the fortified Bronze Age city at Jericho, maintaining that Kathleen Kenyon’s date of about 1550 B.C.E.** you do not have permission to see this link ** is correct and should be retained.
Piotr Bienkowski
Scarabs of obscure Hyksos kings are not known to have been kept as heirlooms or manufactured later, and thus are a better guide to the absolute date of burial. The XVth-Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 would suggest a date of about 1600 B.C. for the end of the use of the Jericho tombs.
Bryant Wood
Scarab Evidence
Bienkowski cautions against using royal-name scarabs for dating purposes since “scarabs of well-known XVIIIth-Dynasty kings were very common, and could remain in circulation (or even be made) long after the kings themselves had died.”
The scarabs in question are those of Hatshepsut, Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III. I would heartily agree with Bienkowski with regard to scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, but the scarab of Hatshepsut is of a different nature. Both Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III were revered after their deaths and their scarabs served amuletic purposes. The situation with Hatshepsut, however, was not the same. After her death she was maligned, her name systematically obliterated from monuments and inscriptions.76 As a result, her scarabs were not kept or copied as good luck charms. Because of this, scarabs of Hatshepsut are extremely rare and are excellent chronological indicators.
In addition, Garstang found a seal of Tuthmosis III. It is flat and inscribed on both sides with the cartouches of this pharaoh. Again, this is a rare find and can be considered a contemporary artifact. With these two being contemporary, it lends credence to the contemporaneity of the other scarabs. The scarab of Hatshepsut and the seal of Tuthmosis III, then, along with the associated scarabs of Tuthmosis III and Amenhotep III, suggest that the cemetery at Jericho was in active use throughout the 15th century B.C.E.
Steefen
Bryant did not address the XVth Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13. The implication is that Bryant is allowing the possibility that the XVth Dynasty scarab from Jericho tomb H 13 doe establish tombs in Jericho at 1600 B.C. but they do not mark the end of the use of the Jericho tombs.
These are the remaining articles of interest in the Biblical Archaeology Society Library:
The Philistines Enter Canaan: Were they Egyptian lackeys or invading conquerors?
by Bryant G. Wood
11 / 12 – 1991
How Did the Philistines Enter Canaan? A Rejoinder
by Itamar Singer
11 / 12 – 1992
Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence
by Charles Krahmalkov
9 / 10 – 1994
QUESTION: Why?
ANSWER: Because the Amarna Letters do not mention the Philistines. With King Saul being Labayu/ya being tied to King David, how can there be no mention of Labayu/ya vs the Philistines?
Bart
Archaeologists have definitively shown that Jericho was not a major walled city at the time described in the book of Joshua. Kenyon simply got it wrong. There are massive publications on this.
Steefen
I agree, after reading, not only a past NYT article but also the following six articles published in Biblical Archaeology Review (available in the Society’s library):
Redating the Exodus
by John Bimson and David Livingston
9 / 10 – 1987
Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed
by Baruch Halpern
11 / 12 – 1987
A reply to Baruch Halpern’s “Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed”
by John Bimson
7 / 8 – 1988
Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence
by Bryant Wood
3 / 4 – 1990
Jericho was destroyed in the Middle Bronze Age, Not the Late Bronze Age
by Piotr Bienkowski
9 / 10 – 1990
Dating Jericho’s Destruction: Bienkowski Is Wrong on All Counts
by Bryant G. Wood
9 / 10 – 1990
Yes, archaeologists have definitively shown that Jericho was not a major walled city at the time described in the Book of Joshua. This does not mean Jericho was not a walled city before the time described in the book of Joshua. And yes, Jericho was not a major city equivalent to Megiddo. Jericho was not along the trade route as Megiddo was.
You say Kenyon simply got it wrong. The Biblical Archaeology Society articles say Kenyon was not wrong for saying Jericho was not a major walled city at the time described in the Book of Joshua. She was wrong for not dating Jericho to circa 1400 BCE.
The time described in the book of Joshua is in error. The Exodus was not from Ramesses the Great at Pi-Ramesses. The exodus was from an earlier incarnation of Pi-Ramesses: Avaris.
Moses lived earlier. Praeparatio Evangelica, Book IX, Chapter XXVII states that was the stepson of a pharaoh much earlier than Ramesses the Great. It gives one of the throne names of that pharaoh which turns out to be Sobekhotep IV.
The exodus occurred earlier in time shifting the destruction of Jericho with archaeological evidence earlier with it.
Hopefully, your textbook will be updated to inform readers that although Exodus 1: 11 and the Book of Joshua produce a biblical timeline in which archaeology cannot agree that Jericho was a populated walled city; nevertheless, on a timeline of archaeological evidence, 1) Jericho was an earlier walled city and 2) its walls came tumbling down by earthquake and this city was burned down.
Bart
Have you looked up articles that address the issue more recently than 30 years ago, by reputable biblical archaeologists.
Steefen
The Biblical Archaeology Society has no other articles related to Jericho and the Archaeological Institute of America has no other articles related to Jericho. Hence, the case can be addressed given the conclusions presented in my post.
You imply the matter was not settled 30 years ago?
You imply someone has picked up where the Biblical Archaeology Society (BAS) writers left off?
You imply reputable biblical archaeologists with new information are bypassing the Biblical Archaeology Society?
I call you on these implications if you are making them:: what reputable biblical archaeologists have 1) bypassed the Biblical Archaeology Society, 2) taken up the subject matter, and 3) moved the evidence-based conclusions presented in my post in a different direction?
Until then, the evidence-based points of learning for textbooks, students, and people who study the Bible for facts are:
1) Moses did not lead Israelites away from Ramesses the Great and his Pi-Ramesses.
2) Jericho was a walled city that existed and was destroyed before the non-event of Moses leading Israelites away from Ramesses the Great and Pi-Ramesses.
3) Joshua, after Moses on a historical timeline as opposed to an erroneous biblical timeline, enters Canaan and is not connected with the destruction of Jericho after the non-event of Moses leading Israelites away from Ramesses the Great and Pi-Ramesses; but, Joshua is connected with the destruction of Jericho before that time .
4) Any downgrading of the destruction of Jericho from historical fact to story telling / literature is obligated to admit the archaeological evidence of point #2: Jericho was a walled city before the time of Ramesses the Great or before the time it would take for an Exodus from Ramesses the Great, the Wilderness Tradition, followed by an entry into Canaan with the destruction of Jericho being an early event in the Israelites settling in Canaan.
You likely have a subscription to the Biblical Archaeology Society’s Library. Even without a subscription, one can search “Jericho” at ** you do not have permission to see this link **
The articles I listed will come up with dates of August 24, 2015 which is likely when these articles published in print earlier were digitized into the digital library.
So, as mentioned earlier, BAS and the Archaeology Institute of America is not showing more recent articles. Furthermore, a more recent encylopedia entry on Jericho is not referencing a turn from this being a settled matter. Again, let us know if you can proceed with a reply to the conclusions because there are no other research of material significance to consult.
The Philistines Enter Canaan: Were they Egyptian lackeys or invading conquerors?
by Bryant G. Wood
11 / 12 – 1991
Much of what we know about the Philistine appearance in Canaan is based on hieroglyphic texts and pictorial reliefs in the magnificent mortuary temple of Pharaoh Ramesses III (c. 1184–1153)1 at Medinet Habu in the Theban necropolis in Egypt. There we learn of a major confrontation between the Egyptians and a coalition of displaced groups referred to as the “Sea Peoples.” This confrontation took place in the eighth year of Ramesses III, that is, about 1177 B.C. . . .
Scholars have resolved this discrepancy by theorizing that the Egyptians placed the Philistines in Canaan as military vassals, or mercenaries. This idea appears to have originated with the great American archaeologist William F. Albright. In his seminal excavation at Tell Beit Mirsim from 1926 to 1932 Albright was able to divide the Bronze and Iron Ages due to clear destruction layers. His subdivisions became the standard in Palestinian archaeology and remain so to the present day.
By relating historic events to a number of strata, Albright was able to assign absolute dates to each stratum. Phase B2, for example, was dated to the mid-12th century B.C. since Philistine pottery first appears in this phase. In his discussion of the date of the entry of the Philistines into Canaan, Albright planted the seed of the garrison-troop theory to explain the emergence of the Philistines in Canaan: “The Philistines were evidently settled in the Coastal Plain by permission of the Pharaoh, as becomes clear from his [Ramesses III’s] inscriptions [at Medinet Habu].”** you do not have permission to see this link **
The famous German scholar Albrecht Alt adopted this theme in his writings.** you do not have permission to see this link **
= = =
elsewhere in this same document (column 77, lines 36), Ramesses’ victory over the Libyans is described in the following manner:
I caused that they [the Libyans] cease to tread upon the border of Egypt. I carried off the ones whom my knife spared as numerous captives, their women and their children like hundreds of thousands, their herds in the number of tens of thousands, I established their leaders in strongholds upon my name. I gave to them commanders of hosts and tribal leaders, they being branded and made into slaves, they being stamped with my name, and their women and their children being treated likewise
The Libyan prisoners were placed in strongholds in Egypt, as were the Sea Peoples captives, and then branded and stamped with the name of pharaoh and made into slaves.
* * * So, Libyans were in Egypt before the dynasty of Libyan pharaohs. * * * pick-up here.
… but the Philistines were not branded with the name of pharaoh as enemy captives had been.
In the archaeological record, the arrival of Aegean newcomers in Canaan in about 1177 B.C. is well attested. Their pottery was Mycenaean IIIC:1b ware, similar in all respects to a Mycenaean pottery made in the Aegean area. This pottery gave way to Philistine pottery which continued for 200 years. The Mycenaean IIIC:1b ware was not imported. It was locally made–by migrants to Canaan.
Furthermore, the material culture is not found in conjunction with Egyptian artifacts.
A pattern of city destruction followed by squatter occupation does not support the theory that the Philistines were peacefully settled in Egyptian garrisons. The wide distribution of Philistine artifacts indicates that they were not living in a few restricted areas, as one would expect of garrison troops, but rather that they were dispersed over a large region. Moreover, the widespread destructions suggest that the newcomers gained entry to this region by force.
The following factors also indicate that Egypt did not relinquish this area to the newcomers willingly: (1) the area of the Philistine settlement was prime agricultural land; (2) it sat astride the major land route through the country; (3) it was adjacent to Egypt’s major sea-lane and (4) it included the primary Egyptian administrative center for the northern territories, Gaza.
It appears that the Egyptians and the Philistines peacefully coexisted for a time, albeit in different areas, before the Egyptians were forced to abandon their northern holdings altogether.
Following the Egyptian retreat from Canaan in the mid-12th century (marked by the destruction of Egyptian strata at a number of sites), the Philistines became the major power in the region, a position they maintained until they were finally overpowered by the Israelites in the time of [King David].
Politically, the Philistine invasion marks the end of Egyptian preeminence in the area and the beginning of Philistine ascendancy. The Philistines remained the dominant force in Canaan for the next 150 years, when they were in turn supplanted by the Israelites. [Actually, they were supplanted by Egyptians. The Biblical King Saul actually lived years earlier, writing letters to Akhen-aten or Akhen-aten’s father.]
= = =
Papyrus Harris I is the largest and most magnificent of the papyri to survive from ancient Egypt. … Organized into seven main sections, Papyrus Harris I is a detailed statement of Ramesses III’s benefactions to gods and men during his reign of over 31 years. Ninety-five percent of the document deals with gifts and lists. The first section is an introduction, followed by three sections listing Ramesses’ gifts to the major Egyptian temples at Thebes, Heliopolis and Memphis.
# # # End of notes on this article.
Bill Manley, in The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, Part IV: The Late New Kingdom, Section: “Libyan Invasions and the Sea Peoples,” p. 96, says
In Ramesses III’s Year Eight, a confederation of tribes (often referred to as “Sea Peoples” (although Egyptian accounts identify only a minority of them as being “of the sea”) arrived at the delta via Hatti and Syria. Women and children were among them, therefore the Sea Peoples probably were partly refugee victims of the collapse of the Hittite empire.
Usermaatre Ramesses III was the second Pharaoh of the Twentieth Dynasty in Ancient Egypt. He is thought to have reigned from 1186 to 1155 BC and is considered to be the last great monarch of the New Kingdom to wield any substantial authority over Egypt. Wikipedia
= = =
Hittites entry in Wikipedia, “Downfall and Demise of the kingdom,” Disestablished 1180 – 1179/8 BCE
But the Assyrians, under Ashur-resh-ishi I had by this time annexed much Hittite territory in Asia Minor and Syria, driving out and defeating the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar I in the process, who also had eyes on Hittite lands. The Sea Peoples had already begun their push down the Mediterranean coastline, starting from the Aegean, and continuing all the way to Canaan, founding the state of Philistia—taking Cilicia and Cyprus away from the Hittites en route and cutting off their coveted trade routes. This left the Hittite homelands vulnerable to attack from all directions, and Hattusa was burnt to the ground sometime around 1180 BC following a combined onslaught from new waves of invaders, the Kaskas, Phrygians and Bryges. The Hittite Kingdom thus vanished from historical records, much of the territory being seized by Assyria.[55] Alongside with these attacks, many internal issues also led to the end of the Hittite kingdom.
= = =
From above mention and link to “Sea Peoples” entry in Wikipedia
Hypotheses about origins
- 4.1Regional migration historical context
- 4.2Philistine hypothesis
- 4.3Minoan hypothesis
- 4.4Greek migrational hypothesis
- 4.5Trojan hypothesis
- 4.6Mycenaean warfare hypothesis
- 4.7Nuragic and Italian peoples hypotheses
- 4.8Anatolian famine hypothesis
- 4.9Invader hypothesis
= = =
From Sea Peoples to Philistines to How did they come to an end, historically, not biblically?
Well, check Wikipedia for Philistines, until you can get inside a library, again.
It does not say how they came to an end other than the biblical account.
= = =
Maybe Bryant Wood is wrong about them not being captives of Egypt:
Peleset, [Philistine] captives of the Egyptians, from a graphic wall relief at Medinet Habu, in about 1185-52 BC, during the reign of Ramesses III
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Stephen said
Can you give a reference for the letter written by Saul to Akhenaten (or his father)?
Labaya or Labayu is Saul. See the Amarna Letters.
Labaya. Labaya (also transliterated as Labayu or Lib’ayu) was a 14th-century BCE ruler or warlord in the central hill country of southern Canaan. He lived contemporaneously with Pharaoh Akhenaten.
With the Philistines being Sea People, they would have been fine along the coast and probably did not go to war with those who were inland.
King Saul was not fighting the Philistines.
That leaves King David and/or King Solomon to fight the Philistines, if there was a fight.
King David and King Solomon were pharaohs located in the Delta.
After years of being in the area, why would the Philistines be a problem for Egypt after having been placed there by Egypt since the time of Ramesses III?
How Did the Philistines Enter Canaan? A Rejoinder
by Itamar Singer
11 / 12 – 1992
According to the traditional view (Albrecht Alt), which I follow, Pharaoh Ramesses III tightened his control over Palestine, settling Philistines and other Sea Peoples captives in Egyptian strongholds along the coast after having defeated them in northern Phoenicia (in 1175 B.C.).
The opposing view (Manfred Bietak), followed by Wood, maintains that by this time the Egyptians had already lost control over coastal Palestine, which had been devastated and then settled by the Philistine invaders.
The sea battle occurred in the “river mouths,” which, according to Wood, “can only refer to the estuaries of the Nile in the Egyptian Delta.” For this categorical statement he refers the reader, to inter alia, a footnote by John Wilson in his translation of the Meditiet Hahn account of the battles.
What Wilson actually says of these “river mouths” is: “Normally used for the mouths of the branches of the Nile in the Delta, Hence probably the line of defense in Egypt. just possibly, the word might have been extended to harborages on the Asiatic coast.”
Actually, a location at the northern confines of the Egyptian empire is clearly supported by the description of the land battle that took place in the Land of Amurru (northern Lebanon). It would be extremely difficult to support a northern location for the land battle and a southern location for the sea battle, with a distance of about 300 miles separating the two. A northern location for both battles is most compatible with the Egyptian evidence, and this bears crucial consequences for the reconstruction of the Philistine settlement in Canaan, which could not have preceded Ramesses III’s wars in 1175 B.C.
= = =
That the Philistines and the Tjeker were taken captive as well is clearly indicated by the inscriptions and by the reliefs at Medinet Habu (one of which is illustrated just overleaf of Wood’s statement).
A more substantial problem emanating from Papyrus Harris I is the question of where the Sea Peoples captives were taken. The text states that they were brought to Egypt (Kmt) and were settled in strongholds provisioned yearly from treasuries and granaries.
As to the location of such strongholds, Wood argues that Kmt could only refer to Egypt proper.
I have followed the traditional view, assuming that at least some of the recruits were stationed in Canaan where they served Egyptian interests. Although the text does not specify locations, I would take “Egypt” in this context to refer generally to anything occupied by Egypt, i.e. the Egyptian empire—just as the “Land of Mis
i” in cuneiform texts refers not only to Egypt itself but to all her domains. When, in the very same passage, Ramesses says that he “extended all the frontiers of Egypt [Kmt],” he must be referring to Egypt’s borders in Asia rather than to just the land of the Nile in the restricted sense.
= = =
… [T]he Philistine settlement took place exactly in the most Egyptianized territory of Canaan, the southern coastal plain, including the very capital of Egyptian Canaan, Gaza. This means that the Philistine settlement must have been accomplished through the initiative of the Egyptians, or at least with their tacit consent.
= = =
The Philistines eventually expelled the Egyptians to be defeated by the Israelites ? ? ? under two Egyptian pharaohs ? ? ?
Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence
by Charles Krahmalkov
9 / 10 – 1994
Dibon, east of the Jordan, mentioned in ** you do not have permission to see this link **, where the invading Israelites are said to have encamped
The excavation of Tell Dhiban, ancient Dibon, has revealed no city there in the Late Bronze Age II (c. 1400–1200 B.C.E.), when the Exodus supposedly occurred. Indeed, nothing was found there earlier than the ninth century B.C.E. How could the Israelites encamp at (and presumably conquer) a city that didn’t exist?
Hebron
There was no city at Hebron in the Late Bronze Age.
= = =
Steefen:
The Exodus did not happen in the Late Bronze Age with Israelites making an exodus from
Ramesses the Great / II.
= = =
Qishon, which figures in the accounts of Deborah’s war against a Canaanite alliance led by Jabin, king of Hazor (** you do not have permission to see this link **)
Here we find a significant agreement between the Bible and “real” history.
= = =
Pick up at Numbers 33 is a dry, matter-of-fact listing of the sites …
In Biblical studies truth is often only a matter of personal opinion, or a test of scholarly perceptions, or a momentary consensus. However, in the case of the claim of the Biblical tradition that at the time of Joshua there was a Transjordanian route of Iyyim-Dibon-Almon-diblathaim-Nebo-Abel-Jordan (River), there is a witness who has not been called to testify, a witness who knows the truth: Egypt.
In the Late Bronze Age, Egypt ruled Palestine and, in the course of its 300-year jurisdiction (Dynasties XVIII and XIX, c. 1560–1200 B.C.E.), Egypt mapped the region thoroughly. Included in these maps were all the main roads of Palestine, among them an important fixed route through Transjordan that linked the Arabah and the Plains of Moab. This road was in continuous use throughout the Late Bronze Age. During this entire period its course remained constant. It was scrupulously maintained by Egypt, not merely for access to its Transjordanian principalities but also for access to Palestine (Cisjordan) from the east.
The earliest of the three maps comes from the reign of Thutmosis III (c. 1504–1450 B.C.E.), inscribed in the temple of Amon at Karnak as part of the so-called “Palestine List.”7 This is the greatest of the Egyptian topographical lists, containing 119 place-names associated with numerous routes in Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria. The route of the Arabah to the Plains of Moab names, in order from south to north, four stations: Iyyin-Dibon-Abel-Jordan. It is not difficult to recognize this route in Numbers 33:45b–50.
Pick-up at Two other Late Bronze Age Egyptian maps …
Steefen
I will say this: the routes are mapped by Egyptians and supposedly Israelites in Exodus
used them for their conquest of Canaan ? ? ? That is not reasonable. The Israelites in the biblical Exodus
did not have to face the Egyptians in Canaan.
Steefen said
Labaya or Labayu is Saul. See the Amarna Letters.
Labaya. Labaya (also transliterated as Labayu or Lib’ayu) was a 14th-century BCE ruler or warlord in the central hill country of southern Canaan. He lived contemporaneously with Pharaoh Akhenaten.
I know the Amarna letters. How do you know Labaya was Saul?
Steefen said
The earliest of the three maps comes from the reign of Thutmosis III (c. 1504–1450 B.C.E.), inscribed in the temple of Amon at Karnak as part of the so-called “Palestine List.”7 This is the greatest of the Egyptian topographical lists, containing 119 place-names associated with numerous routes in Palestine, Transjordan, Lebanon and Syria. The route of the Arabah to the Plains of Moab names, in order from south to north, four stations: Iyyin-Dibon-Abel-Jordan. It is not difficult to recognize this route in Numbers 33:45b–50.Pick-up at Two other Late Bronze Age Egyptian maps …
Steefen
I will say this: the routes are mapped by Egyptians and supposedly Israelites in Exodus
used them for their conquest of Canaan ? ? ? That is not reasonable. The Israelites in the biblical Exodus
did not have to face the Egyptians in Canaan.
Qarho is another name of Dibon. In the famous Mesha Stele (or Moabite stone), the ninth-century Moabite king Mesha regularly calls Dibon “Qarho”; in this inscription, Mesha uses the name Dibon exclusively for his political state. But Dibon and Qarho seem to have been used interchangeably as names for the city.
The use of Ancient Near Eastern [ANE] evidence to illuminate the biblical historical account is always a matter of indirect references and information, never of direct mention.”
* * *
But there may be an exception even to this, however. Judges 4 in prose and Judges 5 in poetry record an ancient war waged by the Israelite tribes of Zebulun and Naphtali at Mount Tabor in the Jezreel Valley against a Canaanite king, Jabin (Yabin in Hebrew).
The story is so reminiscent of Biblical accounts of the “Conquest” wars against the cities of Palestine that the great scholar George Foot Moore long ago insightfully observed, “It is a not improbable conjecture that in its original connection this story formed a chapter in the account of the conquest of Northern Canaan, corresponding to the taking of Hebron by Caleb and of Bethel by Joseph, the positive complement of Judges I 30.33.”
In the topographical list of Ramesses II at Karnak that we have already mentioned, a route through the Jezreel Valley is described as follows: Qerumin-Qishon of Jabin (Ybn)-Shimshon-Hadasht.
Ramesses apparently thought it important to record the name of the king of Qishon, Jabin. This is certainly the same king whom the final editor of Judges 4 mistakenly associated with the city of Hazor.
Judges 4 thus preserves the name of a king whose historical existence is confirmed by a contemporary, non-Biblical source. A reference to Jabin has also apparently been found at Hazor, where excavators very recently discovered a fragment of a royal letter addressed “To Ibni,” a name similar in derivation to Jabin. Dating to the 18th–17th centuries B.C., the cuneiform inscription is written in Old Babylonian.
Moreover, the Egyptian topographical list fits perfectly the geographical context of the Biblical stories. The first name in the Egyptian route, Qerumin, is actually the River Qishon. The Biblical text itself (Judges 5:21) tells us that “The River Qishon is the River Qedumim.” Qedumim is the same as Qerumin; the Hebrew Qedumim has d for the original r, a very common spelling error; the final n in Egyptian commonly corresponds to m in Hebrew.
Hadasht in the Egyptian list is the correct form of the distorted Biblical name Harosheth (the Hebrew is Hrsht); the r in the Hebrew form is an error for the d in Egyptian, the same common spelling error mentioned above. Ancient Hadasht is today Ayn al-Hadatha, which preserves the original name, located about five miles northeast of Qishon (Tell Qaysun). When Baraq prevailed against the Canaanites, he pursued them unto “Harosheth (of the Gentiles)” (Judges 4:16).
* * *
Conclusion for the Charles R. Krahmalkov’s article
The accounts in Judges 4 and 5 thus contain specific historical and geographical information about the Late Bronze Age whose accuracy is dramatically validated by an Egyptian document of that time. There indeed was a king named Jabin. The places mentioned in the Biblical accounts did in fact exist at the time. None of these pieces of information was fabricated.
If the Biblical writers in these stories knew so well what they were talking about, did the writers of other Biblical accounts of the Conquest also know what they were talking about?
# # #
Steefen
The Exodus from Dedumose combines with
the Exodus/Expulsion of the Hyksos.
There was an Exodus from Akhet-aten.
The biblical Exodus from Ramesses II/the Great
The first three are before Ramesses II. Hence, there was no contemporary handoff from Moses to Joshua.
Of course, with the fourth, there was a contemporary handoff from Moses to Joshua.
The author of the article above is saying there was an Israelite battle against Jabin/Yabin.
This king appears in the topographical list of Ramesses the Great, Ramesses II. Therefore the Conquest of Canaan had to happen during the lifetime of Ramesses II. Hence, all in the reign of Ramesses the Great, there was the Exodus, the wilderness tradition, and the conquest of Canaan.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)