Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: ABH Time from Akhenaten to David

Expand Messages
  • John Wall
    ... Yes and no. Shoshenk I is chronologically placed on the assumption that he was Shishak . Ramesses II becomes Shishak on the assumption of a 20 year per
    Message 1 of 17 , Feb 6 4:58 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- Stephen Brock <stbrock@...> wrote:
      > John, I see your point here I am pretty sure. Basically depending on who
      > you think "Shishak" is gives a person a particular timeline. Then based on
      > that a person figures out where to put the bible stories. Right?

      Yes and no. Shoshenk I is chronologically placed on the assumption that he was
      "Shishak". Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on the assumption of a 20 year per generation
      countback from the Persian period, Ramesses III becomes "Shishak" on the assumption of
      a 25 year per generation countback from the Persian period. In either case they become
      "Shishak" as a consequence of their chronological position - their chronological
      position does not occur because they are "Shishak". The dates for the OT are derived
      independently - from the internal information in Chronicles, Kings, etc and "fine
      tuned" by means of the Mesopotamian synchronisms. This is in Thiele/Hughes.

      > I want to ask some questions about the comment:
      > I "investigated" the reign lengths of Saul and David a while ago and
      > although they're "traditional" 40 years I don't see any reason to doubt
      > them. A "maximalist" use of the available evidence is always, imho,
      > preferable.
      >
      > But first...
      > I came into this topic I think as a "maximalist" (if my assumption on your
      > definitions are correct) but I found right away that the currently available
      > data does not add up to reading all of the OT as undeniable/unquestionable
      > history. So at least one of three things is not 100% trustworthy (even
      > though I was hoping a short while ago that they were all correct).
      >
      > 1. the bible stories are factual and historical

      Although I, personally, have no religious "beliefs", I believe that the Old Testament
      narrative back to at least the time of Joseph is "essentially" correct. This does not
      mean, for example, that I necessarily believe that there was a "Moses"; I see no reason
      why the OT character shouldn't have been a "composite", "amalgam" or even a literary
      device to make the story "accessible" to a later audience. I do believe that the
      archaeological/epigraphic evidence from Egypt supports a sojourn, bondage, exodus, etc.

      > 2. the bible dates are factual and historical

      The dates are verifiable back to 853BC from other sources. There is no reason not to
      doubt that Solomon reigned from about 976/970BC to 936/930BC and that the exodus
      shouldn't be dated to about 1450BC - this can be derived from two separate parts of the
      OT. Note that adding up the "Judges" period gives an earlier date but there are
      "issues" with this part of the OT which, IIRC, Richard touched on earlier...

      > 3. archeologist can correctly assign absolute dates to their finds

      In most cases the "finds" are dated by inscribed, dateable objects from Egypt which
      assumes the correctness of Egyptian chronology....

      > A maximalist thinks 1 and 2 are correct and 3 has some errors that will
      > eventually be corrected by new finds in the future... Something close to
      > this at least.

      Fair enough. From my point of view I believe 1 and 2 are correct because I believe 3 is
      wrong.

      > A minimalist thinks 3 is correct and 1 and 2 are wrong (basically the Bible
      > is a story only) and in fact asserts that believing 1 and 2 are correct
      > biases the persons input and kind of invalidates it. (This I do not ascribe
      > to and is just my impression from the very little research I have done.)

      Yes - some think the OT is a piece of post-exilic historical fiction. Do you remember
      "You silly twisted boy....." ?

      > I want to make sure that I understand correctly so that I can avoid these
      > labels. Because now that I see these labels I think I see where Walter got
      > the "B" label and how it got mixed into these open discussions (which was
      > not a good thing and caused us to lose a valuable resource). It seems that
      > Redford, Rohl and others like to think that 1 and 3 are correct and I guess
      > that is why they want to change the timeline to match more of 3 with 1? But
      > preserving 1 in all ways. All of the members have been an incredible source
      > of information for me specifically and I want to keep it that way!!!

      I don't know about Redford but I'd suspect he's in the 3 is correct camp. Rohl is in
      the 3 is wrong camp which, consequently, makes 1 and 2 right.

      > So, finally, to my question. It seems that the Amarna tablets do contain
      > information about/from Saul/David.

      With Ramesses II as "Shishak" the Amarna period coincides with the rise of the United
      Monarchy under Saul and David. This is a "consequence" !

      > 1. So that means that Shoshenk I = Shishak is not correct?

      The contention of all the "revisionists" is that Shoshenk I was not "Shishak".
      Primarily because Shoshenk I went into Israel and "Shishak" went into Judah. Also
      "Shishak" was allied to Jeroboam - the king of Israel !

      > 2. Did your research give a hint as to why Ramesses III = Shishak is not
      > correct? Or did it only say why Ramesses III as Shishak is correct?

      You need to look at how you place Ramesses III as "Shishak". Personally I think a 25
      year generation is too long and you have to then start "fiddling" with the OT reign
      lengths to put Saul/David after the reign of Ramesses II. The internal chronology of
      Solomon's reign gives dates well into his third decade at least.

      I think your second "III" should be "II" ? Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on a 20 year
      per generation countback which is supported by the Ugarit eclipse tablet which puts
      Akhenaten at the end of the 11th Century BC. It also supports a "maximalist" reading of
      the OT reign lengths.

      > Maybe we need to compare the evidence for "Ramesses II as Shishak" against
      > "Ramesses III as Shishak" and then see which carries more weight?

      In terms of "restoring" the OT description of a great "builder" for Solomon either
      Ramesses II or III will "do" - they're both LBIIB. On the general Egypt - Israel
      linkages Ramesses II works better.

      All the best,

      John

      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
      http://auctions.yahoo.com/
    • Peter Kebbell
      Hi Stephen ... I d certainly say that this is one possibility! I think it s important to think of things in a modern day context - if somebody says that
      Message 2 of 17 , Feb 7 10:01 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Stephen

        > Very interesting! So the term 400 might mean "too many to count"! ;)

        I'd certainly say that this is one possibility! I think it's important to
        think of things in a modern day context - if somebody says "that happened
        400 years ago", it doesn't very often mean that said event happened in 1601
        CE - it usually means sometime around the late 1500s / early 1600s - I see
        no reason why this shouldn't also be true for the Biblical writers.

        Peter
      • John Wall
        ... Remember that for the Exodus you ve got two references; the well known 480 years and the 300 years from Judges 11:26. All the best, John
        Message 3 of 17 , Feb 7 1:24 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- Peter Kebbell <Snowbow@...> wrote:
          > Hi Stephen
          >
          > > Very interesting! So the term 400 might mean "too many to count"! ;)
          >
          > I'd certainly say that this is one possibility! I think it's important to
          > think of things in a modern day context - if somebody says "that happened
          > 400 years ago", it doesn't very often mean that said event happened in 1601
          > CE - it usually means sometime around the late 1500s / early 1600s - I see
          > no reason why this shouldn't also be true for the Biblical writers.
          >
          > Peter

          Remember that for the Exodus you've got two references; the well known 480 years and
          the 300 years from Judges 11:26.

          All the best,

          John

          __________________________________________________
          Do You Yahoo!?
          Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
          http://auctions.yahoo.com/
        • Stephen Brock
          John, As I said before, your post simply has more information then I can take in especially since I was wrong on some of my assumptions so I will get back to
          Message 4 of 17 , Feb 7 4:24 PM
          • 0 Attachment
            John,
            As I said before, your post simply has more information then I can
            take in especially since I was wrong on some of my assumptions so I will get
            back to you later on almost all of it. But there is one easy one (I left
            that part below). I did mean "II" in the second Ramesses as you guessed! I
            have looked at Rohl's reason for making Ramesses II as Shishak like you
            think is correct and it seems very convincing.

            Here it is below and the link to where I found it:
            http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm

            "research has revealed that Ramesses II was known in the Middle East by the
            hypocoristicon or nickname of Ss'. This comes from Hittite and Egyptian
            sources. The Egyptian S'is oftenn pronounced Sh' in Hebrew and like Hebrew
            and Arabic, no vowels are used but some records indicate that the name ShSh'
            is pronounced Shysha'. The ancient Hebrews may then have added the k' as
            this would have given Ramesses the nickname Shysak' which in Hebrew means
            the one who crushes underfoot', a very appropriate title.

            Thirdly and most convincing of all is a finding at the Theban Ramesseum.
            Ramesses II, in the eighth year of his reign, plundered the city of Shalem
            or Salem, which we know today as Jerusalem. He is therefore the only pharaoh
            recorded as having plundered this city and his nickname is Shysha!"


            -----Original Message-----
            From: John Wall [mailto:john_j_wall@...]


            > 2. Did your research give a hint as to why Ramesses III = Shishak is not
            > correct? Or did it only say why Ramesses III as Shishak is correct?

            You need to look at how you place Ramesses III as "Shishak". Personally I
            think a 25
            year generation is too long and you have to then start "fiddling" with the
            OT reign
            lengths to put Saul/David after the reign of Ramesses II. The internal
            chronology of
            Solomon's reign gives dates well into his third decade at least.

            I think your second "III" should be "II" ? Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on
            a 20 year
            per generation countback which is supported by the Ugarit eclipse tablet
            which puts
            Akhenaten at the end of the 11th Century BC. It also supports a "maximalist"
            reading of
            the OT reign lengths.




            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • John Wall
            That s right - there s also an attack on an, unamed, fortified city on a hill somewhere in Palestine on the Temple Wall at Abu Simbel. The Ashkelon Wall at
            Message 5 of 17 , Feb 8 2:37 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              That's right - there's also an attack on an, unamed, fortified city on a hill somewhere
              in Palestine on the Temple Wall at Abu Simbel.

              The Ashkelon Wall at Karnak Temple shows - albeit faintly - a battle with
              Israelites/Hebrews chariots. The OT doesn't make a mention of chariots until the time
              of Solomon - they're no use in the hill country but when you get towards the coastal
              plain....

              All the best,

              John

              --- Stephen Brock <stbrock@...> wrote:
              > John,
              > As I said before, your post simply has more information then I can
              > take in especially since I was wrong on some of my assumptions so I will get
              > back to you later on almost all of it. But there is one easy one (I left
              > that part below). I did mean "II" in the second Ramesses as you guessed! I
              > have looked at Rohl's reason for making Ramesses II as Shishak like you
              > think is correct and it seems very convincing.
              >
              > Here it is below and the link to where I found it:
              > http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/rohl-1.htm
              >
              > "research has revealed that Ramesses II was known in the Middle East by the
              > hypocoristicon or nickname of Ss'. This comes from Hittite and Egyptian
              > sources. The Egyptian S'is oftenn pronounced Sh' in Hebrew and like Hebrew
              > and Arabic, no vowels are used but some records indicate that the name ShSh'
              > is pronounced Shysha'. The ancient Hebrews may then have added the k' as
              > this would have given Ramesses the nickname Shysak' which in Hebrew means
              > the one who crushes underfoot', a very appropriate title.
              >
              > Thirdly and most convincing of all is a finding at the Theban Ramesseum.
              > Ramesses II, in the eighth year of his reign, plundered the city of Shalem
              > or Salem, which we know today as Jerusalem. He is therefore the only pharaoh
              > recorded as having plundered this city and his nickname is Shysha!"
              >
              >
              > -----Original Message-----
              > From: John Wall [mailto:john_j_wall@...]
              >
              >
              > > 2. Did your research give a hint as to why Ramesses III = Shishak is not
              > > correct? Or did it only say why Ramesses III as Shishak is correct?
              >
              > You need to look at how you place Ramesses III as "Shishak". Personally I
              > think a 25
              > year generation is too long and you have to then start "fiddling" with the
              > OT reign
              > lengths to put Saul/David after the reign of Ramesses II. The internal
              > chronology of Solomon's reign gives dates well into his third decade at least.
              >
              > I think your second "III" should be "II" ? Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on a 20 year
              > per generation countback which is supported by the Ugarit eclipse tablet which puts
              > Akhenaten at the end of the 11th Century BC. It also supports a "maximalist"
              > reading of the OT reign lengths.

              __________________________________________________
              Do You Yahoo!?
              Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
              a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
            • Stephen Brock
              John, I finally wanted to get back to you on some of your posts to my questions. First of all, thank you for taking the time to go through my posts with such
              Message 6 of 17 , Feb 12 4:46 PM
              • 0 Attachment
                John,
                I finally wanted to get back to you on some of your posts to my
                questions. First of all, thank you for taking the time to go through my
                posts with such detail on the labeling thing, but I understand now so no
                need to discuss it. :) So on to real stuff...

                There seems to be two reasons why Ramesses II becomes "Shishak":
                1. the nickname of Ramesses II is very similar to "Shishak"
                2. the Mernepth Stele which mentions Israel
                a. quote "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not"
                b. Mernepth is direct successor to Ramesses II

                So we know that by the time Mernepth is Pharaoh there is a group called
                Israel. But it is interesting to me that the author of this poem used the
                word "his" in the line for Israel. Why? It is the only line that has a
                personal description in it. Does this mean that they still are or have
                recently become just a "people" instead of a place at the writing?



                -----Original Message-----
                From: John Wall [mailto:john_j_wall@...]
                Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2001 4:59 PM
                To: AncientBibleHistory@yahoogroups.com
                Subject: RE: ABH Time from Akhenaten to David


                --- Stephen Brock <stbrock@...> wrote:
                > John, I see your point here I am pretty sure. Basically depending on who
                > you think "Shishak" is gives a person a particular timeline. Then based
                on
                > that a person figures out where to put the bible stories. Right?

                Yes and no. Shoshenk I is chronologically placed on the assumption that he
                was
                "Shishak". Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on the assumption of a 20 year per
                generation
                countback from the Persian period, Ramesses III becomes "Shishak" on the
                assumption of
                a 25 year per generation countback from the Persian period. In either case
                they become
                "Shishak" as a consequence of their chronological position - their
                chronological
                position does not occur because they are "Shishak". The dates for the OT are
                derived
                independently - from the internal information in Chronicles, Kings, etc and
                "fine
                tuned" by means of the Mesopotamian synchronisms. This is in Thiele/Hughes.

                > I want to ask some questions about the comment:
                > I "investigated" the reign lengths of Saul and David a while ago and
                > although they're "traditional" 40 years I don't see any reason to doubt
                > them. A "maximalist" use of the available evidence is always, imho,
                > preferable.
                >
                > But first...
                > I came into this topic I think as a "maximalist" (if my assumption on your
                > definitions are correct) but I found right away that the currently
                available
                > data does not add up to reading all of the OT as undeniable/unquestionable
                > history. So at least one of three things is not 100% trustworthy (even
                > though I was hoping a short while ago that they were all correct).
                >
                > 1. the bible stories are factual and historical

                Although I, personally, have no religious "beliefs", I believe that the Old
                Testament
                narrative back to at least the time of Joseph is "essentially" correct. This
                does not
                mean, for example, that I necessarily believe that there was a "Moses"; I
                see no reason
                why the OT character shouldn't have been a "composite", "amalgam" or even a
                literary
                device to make the story "accessible" to a later audience. I do believe that
                the
                archaeological/epigraphic evidence from Egypt supports a sojourn, bondage,
                exodus, etc.

                > 2. the bible dates are factual and historical

                The dates are verifiable back to 853BC from other sources. There is no
                reason not to
                doubt that Solomon reigned from about 976/970BC to 936/930BC and that the
                exodus
                shouldn't be dated to about 1450BC - this can be derived from two separate
                parts of the
                OT. Note that adding up the "Judges" period gives an earlier date but there
                are
                "issues" with this part of the OT which, IIRC, Richard touched on earlier...

                > 3. archeologist can correctly assign absolute dates to their finds

                In most cases the "finds" are dated by inscribed, dateable objects from
                Egypt which
                assumes the correctness of Egyptian chronology....

                > A maximalist thinks 1 and 2 are correct and 3 has some errors that will
                > eventually be corrected by new finds in the future... Something close to
                > this at least.

                Fair enough. From my point of view I believe 1 and 2 are correct because I
                believe 3 is
                wrong.

                > A minimalist thinks 3 is correct and 1 and 2 are wrong (basically the
                Bible
                > is a story only) and in fact asserts that believing 1 and 2 are correct
                > biases the persons input and kind of invalidates it. (This I do not
                ascribe
                > to and is just my impression from the very little research I have done.)

                Yes - some think the OT is a piece of post-exilic historical fiction. Do you
                remember
                "You silly twisted boy....." ?

                > I want to make sure that I understand correctly so that I can avoid these
                > labels. Because now that I see these labels I think I see where Walter
                got
                > the "B" label and how it got mixed into these open discussions (which was
                > not a good thing and caused us to lose a valuable resource). It seems
                that
                > Redford, Rohl and others like to think that 1 and 3 are correct and I
                guess
                > that is why they want to change the timeline to match more of 3 with 1?
                But
                > preserving 1 in all ways. All of the members have been an incredible
                source
                > of information for me specifically and I want to keep it that way!!!

                I don't know about Redford but I'd suspect he's in the 3 is correct camp.
                Rohl is in
                the 3 is wrong camp which, consequently, makes 1 and 2 right.

                > So, finally, to my question. It seems that the Amarna tablets do contain
                > information about/from Saul/David.

                With Ramesses II as "Shishak" the Amarna period coincides with the rise of
                the United
                Monarchy under Saul and David. This is a "consequence" !

                > 1. So that means that Shoshenk I = Shishak is not correct?

                The contention of all the "revisionists" is that Shoshenk I was not
                "Shishak".
                Primarily because Shoshenk I went into Israel and "Shishak" went into Judah.
                Also
                "Shishak" was allied to Jeroboam - the king of Israel !

                > 2. Did your research give a hint as to why Ramesses III = Shishak is not
                > correct? Or did it only say why Ramesses III as Shishak is correct?

                You need to look at how you place Ramesses III as "Shishak". Personally I
                think a 25
                year generation is too long and you have to then start "fiddling" with the
                OT reign
                lengths to put Saul/David after the reign of Ramesses II. The internal
                chronology of
                Solomon's reign gives dates well into his third decade at least.

                I think your second "III" should be "II" ? Ramesses II becomes "Shishak" on
                a 20 year
                per generation countback which is supported by the Ugarit eclipse tablet
                which puts
                Akhenaten at the end of the 11th Century BC. It also supports a "maximalist"
                reading of
                the OT reign lengths.

                > Maybe we need to compare the evidence for "Ramesses II as Shishak" against
                > "Ramesses III as Shishak" and then see which carries more weight?

                In terms of "restoring" the OT description of a great "builder" for Solomon
                either
                Ramesses II or III will "do" - they're both LBIIB. On the general Egypt -
                Israel
                linkages Ramesses II works better.

                All the best,

                John

                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Auctions - Buy the things you want at great prices.
                http://auctions.yahoo.com/


                Ancient Bible History Community Page:
                http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/AncientBibleHistory
                Public Archives:
                http://www.eScribe.com/religion/AncientBibleHistory/



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • John Wall
                ... No, it is primarily because they are in the same chronological position. The use of the hypercoristicon is secondary. It seems that - and I m not a scholar
                Message 7 of 17 , Feb 13 2:49 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  --- Stephen Brock <stbrock@...> wrote:
                  > John,
                  > I finally wanted to get back to you on some of your posts to my
                  > questions. First of all, thank you for taking the time to go through my
                  > posts with such detail on the labeling thing, but I understand now so no
                  > need to discuss it. :) So on to real stuff...
                  >
                  > There seems to be two reasons why Ramesses II becomes "Shishak":
                  > 1. the nickname of Ramesses II is very similar to "Shishak"
                  > 2. the Mernepth Stele which mentions Israel
                  > a. quote "Israel is laid waste, his seed is not"
                  > b. Mernepth is direct successor to Ramesses II

                  No, it is primarily because they are in the same chronological position. The use of the
                  hypercoristicon is secondary. It seems that - and I'm not a scholar of hebrew ! - that
                  "Shishak" means "The Assaulter" or "The one who tramples underfoot" or variations on
                  that theme... It "may" be that the OT redactor was making a pun on the hypercoristicon
                  or it "may" be that "The Assaulter" was an "appropriate" term for Ramesses II. Think of
                  Margaret Thatcher as "The Iron Lady"....

                  > So we know that by the time Mernepth is Pharaoh there is a group called
                  > Israel. But it is interesting to me that the author of this poem used the
                  > word "his" in the line for Israel. Why? It is the only line that has a
                  > personal description in it. Does this mean that they still are or have
                  > recently become just a "people" instead of a place at the writing?

                  You're referring to the determinative for "people" in that line...

                  We had a discussion recently about the "Israel Stela" in another place....

                  You have to remember that this has been shown to equate to the Ashkelon Wall at Karnak
                  and is, almost certainly, not a record of Merenptah's "achievements". He "may" have
                  done "some" of it but he was almost certainly a bit long in the tooth when Ramesses II
                  died so it is clear that it is a record of the "achievements" of his "dynasty"....

                  The phrase "seed is no more" actually appears several times so is probably an early
                  version of "I came, I saw, I conquered".

                  My, personal, view is that with Ramesses II as "Shishak" and the "Israel Stela" largely
                  recording the events of Merenptah's father and grandfather this refers to the "people"
                  that were "dispossesed" when "Shishak" took the fortified cities of Judah in Year 5 of
                  Rehoboam.

                  I'd suggest that the term "Israel" refers to an "ethnic group" not a "nation". We don't
                  know when the terms "Judah" and "Israel" came into use - or even what the "United
                  Kingdom" of David and Solomon was called. There are references to things like "House of
                  Omri", etc and, of course, the disputed "House of David" on the Tel Dan Stela.

                  All the best,

                  John

                  __________________________________________________
                  Do You Yahoo!?
                  Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                  a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                • Stephen Brock
                  John, I was surprised from your No below since I took this argument directly from A Response to Frank Yurco from David Rohl (since I don t have his book
                  Message 8 of 17 , Feb 13 2:44 PM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    John,
                    I was surprised from your "No" below since I took this argument
                    directly from "A Response to Frank Yurco from David Rohl" (since I don't
                    have his book yet I have to rely on several web doc's that summarize his
                    work or from his web page) so I thought you would agree. But, I think, you
                    "No" basically means "yes, but..." in that there is one real reason, the
                    "primarily because they are in the same chronological position" and the
                    other two just work out to support the chronological position?

                    -
                    As for the "Mernepth Stele" which you call the "Israel Stela" and it's
                    connection to the Ashkelon Wall at Karnak, I have only ever seen arguments
                    that are identical to the one you presented. That is the same argument that
                    Rohl uses in the same "Response" I refer to above. I am still trying to
                    look through the archives of Rohl's "test of time" but have been
                    unsuccessful to this point. But I have no disagreement that the "Israelites
                    on chariots at war with the Egyptians" is a picture of the United Kingdom
                    being defended from Ramesses II and that Mernepth recorded the events of his
                    father and grandfather.

                    I agree with you assessment that the "term 'Israel' refers to an 'ethnic
                    group' not a 'nation'" and I am wondering why an Egyptian Pharaoh would
                    refer to the United Kingdom as a people unlike all the others on the list?
                    Maybe because the Egyptians still considered them as a "people" and WE
                    consider the United Kingdom as a nation?


                    Your comment, "The phrase "seed is no more" actually appears several times
                    so is probably an early version of 'I came, I saw, I conquered'" does make
                    sense so I can live with that.






                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • John Wall
                    ... That s right, you ve got to distinguish between primary and secondary arguments... ... Chariots are first recorded in the OT at the time of the United
                    Message 9 of 17 , Feb 13 4:21 PM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- Stephen Brock <stbrock@...> wrote:
                      > I was surprised from your "No" below since I took this argument
                      > directly from "A Response to Frank Yurco from David Rohl" (since I don't
                      > have his book yet I have to rely on several web doc's that summarize his
                      > work or from his web page) so I thought you would agree. But, I think, you
                      > "No" basically means "yes, but..." in that there is one real reason, the
                      > "primarily because they are in the same chronological position" and the
                      > other two just work out to support the chronological position?

                      That's right, you've got to distinguish between "primary" and "secondary" arguments...

                      > As for the "Mernepth Stele" which you call the "Israel Stela" and it's
                      > connection to the Ashkelon Wall at Karnak, I have only ever seen arguments
                      > that are identical to the one you presented. That is the same argument that
                      > Rohl uses in the same "Response" I refer to above. I am still trying to
                      > look through the archives of Rohl's "test of time" but have been
                      > unsuccessful to this point. But I have no disagreement that the "Israelites
                      > on chariots at war with the Egyptians" is a picture of the United Kingdom
                      > being defended from Ramesses II and that Mernepth recorded the events of his
                      > father and grandfather.

                      Chariots are first recorded in the OT at the time of the United Monarchy (Solomon) and
                      would make no sense before...

                      > I agree with you assessment that the "term 'Israel' refers to an 'ethnic
                      > group' not a 'nation'" and I am wondering why an Egyptian Pharaoh would
                      > refer to the United Kingdom as a people unlike all the others on the list?
                      > Maybe because the Egyptians still considered them as a "people" and WE
                      > consider the United Kingdom as a nation?

                      There's a lot that we/I don't know about how the the ancients "visualised" things. We
                      have "views" that would probably be totally alien to them....

                      > Your comment, "The phrase "seed is no more" actually appears several times
                      > so is probably an early version of 'I came, I saw, I conquered'" does make
                      > sense so I can live with that.

                      I was quite pleased to be able to get a Julius Ceasar quote in:-)

                      All the best,

                      John

                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                      a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                    • G
                      Stephen Brock writes: the Israelites on chariots at war with the Egyptians is a picture of the United Kingdom being defended from Ramesses II... I think
                      Message 10 of 17 , Feb 13 6:58 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Stephen Brock writes:

                        "the "Israelites on chariots at war with the Egyptians"
                        is a picture of the United Kingdom being defended from
                        Ramesses II..."

                        I think now would be a good time to develop what
                        exactly was so "united" about the United Kingdom. It
                        seems to have been united by force, and only for 2
                        generations. According to even the "glowing" texts
                        regarding the rise of David, there was years and
                        years of "conflict" and "disagreement" over who would
                        be king of this "so-called" Kingdom. And at the very
                        moment of David's victory .... there is instant rebellion!

                        This is where David "permanently divorces" the 10
                        "matriarchal princesses" of his subjugated tribes. This
                        would not have been PERMANENT if, after a few yars, the
                        10 tribes had come to love and revere David.

                        And Solomon merely extends and increases the work levees
                        on the subject 10 tribes.... with a promise of it being
                        even WORSE by Solomon's son.

                        It may have been "united" from the gauzy narrations
                        of the O.T..... but it would seem the 10 tribes only
                        knew peace once they had freed themselves of the
                        subjugation by Judah.

                        Does anyone know of any reference in the O.T. of the
                        10 tribes having any further "divisions" within it
                        based on TRIBAL considerations (we have to accept there
                        will always be civil divisions, but did 6 tribes ever
                        align against the other 4?)?


                        Stephen also writes:

                        "I agree with you assessment that the "term 'Israel' refers to an
                        'ethnic group' not a 'nation'" and I am wondering why an Egyptian
                        Pharaoh would refer to the United Kingdom as a people unlike all
                        the others on the list? Maybe because the Egyptians still
                        considered them as a "people" and WE consider the United Kingdom
                        as a nation?"

                        This is going to become a very interesting semantic discussion.
                        From my own experience, the following terms can be understood
                        as follows:

                        "a people" = a nation (whether led by a king or an ethnarch).

                        "a nation" = a discernible people based on ethnic or dialectic
                        differences.

                        "a kingdom" = any collection of people or peopleS headed by
                        a KING.

                        "a race" = a collection of people distinguished by phenotype
                        rather than by language (though language might ALSO distinguish).

                        "a country" = any group or groups of people led by a unified
                        form of government. Hence the (perhaps quasi-mythical?) "United
                        Kingdom" would be a "kingdom" and a "country" - - though a combin-
                        ation of supposedly 12 distinctive "ethnic" or "tribal" groupings.
                        During the time of Judges, one might want to characterize Israel
                        as a "country".... a territory without a king...an alliance or
                        a confederation. Or perhaps we can only refer to it as 12
                        nations (if there really were 12), living in uneasy alliance
                        with each other (as European nations have done off and on over
                        the last millenium).

                        Ideas? Comments?

                        George
                      • John Wall
                        The term United Kingdom or United Monarchy to describe the situation prevailing in Palestine under David and Solomon is simply modern terminology to
                        Message 11 of 17 , Feb 14 4:29 AM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          The term "United Kingdom" or "United Monarchy" to describe the situation prevailing in
                          Palestine under David and Solomon is simply modern terminology to describe the
                          differing situation from that after the death of Solomon.

                          On the death of Solomon there was what is known as the "schism" where what had been a
                          "single" kingdom "divided". Prior to Solomon it was the "United Monarchy", after
                          Solomon it was the "Divided Monarchy" !

                          A modern example would be the recent division of Czechoslovakia - the difference being
                          that we actually have a pre-split name for the country.

                          All the best,

                          John

                          __________________________________________________
                          Do You Yahoo!?
                          Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail - only $35
                          a year! http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.