Now, where were we? Oh, yes ...
Lachish - Is named as among the cities that Joshua destroyed. The Wellcome Archaeological Expedition (1934) found a large layer of ashes left by a fire around Joshua's time.
As quoted above ...
All of these sites were destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze Age, or in the case of Lachish, in the middle of the twelfth century BC.
Would you mind sharing with us any relatively current, peer-reviewed archaeology that speaks of a circa 1400 BCE destruction layer at Lachish? Or, perhaps, you were simply being dishonest or confused when you offered the ashes as evidence, since ...
During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Lachish was identified with Tell el-Hesi from a cuneiform tablet found there (EA 333). The tablet is a letter from an Egyptian official named Paapu, reporting cases of treachery involving a local kinglet, Zimredda. Excavations at Tell el-Hesy were conducted by Petrie and Bliss for the Palestine Exploration Fund during the years 1890 - 1892, and
among other discoveries was the remains of what was identified as an iron blast furnace, with slag and ashes, which was dated to 1500 BC. If the theories of experts are correct, the use of the hot-air blast instead of cold air was known at an extremely early age.
More recent excavations have identified Tell ed-Duweir as Lachish beyond reasonable doubt. Excavation campaigns by James Leslie Starkey recovered a number of ostraca (18 in 1935, three more in 1938) from the latest occupational level immediately before the Chaldean siege. They form the only known corpus of documents in classical Hebrew.
-
Wikipedia
Ashes, yes; Joshua, no. And, again, to when do you date the Exodus?
Debir - Also named among the cities that Joshua destroyed. The Xenia Semianry and the American School at Jerusalem found a deep layer of ashes and charcoal with evidences that it was from Joshua's time.
See above. Also ...
Tell Beit Mirsim was continuously, albeit sparsely, settled during the 13th-11th centuries B. C., and may provide a key to the understanding of this period in the southern Shephelah. Albright, identifying the site with Debir, suggested a Canaanite-Israelite-Philistine sequence for Strata C2-B1-B2. The stratigraphic and ceramic evidence, some of it previously unpublished, is here reexamined. We show that the spatial organization and architecture of the Iron I strata do not resemble those of sites identified as Israelite or Philistine, and that the pottery of these strata is fundamentally in the Canaanite tradition. Within this tradition, an influx of new forms and techniques is observed in Stratum B2. These are closely associated with Lachish Stratum VI, and it is suggested that Tell Beit Mirsim may have served as a haven for bearers of the Lachish pottery-making tradition, after that site was destroyed around 1150 B. C.
-
New Light on the Early Iron Age at Tell Beit Mirsim
So, (a) the identification of Tell Beit Mirsim with Debir is questionable, and (b) the destruction layer is dated to 1150 BCE. I guess for the literalist any destruction layer will do but, for the record, will you tell us again your date for the Exodus?
Now, it very well could be that all of these cities being burned by fire were a coincidence, or were done my another group of people. To me, it seems plausible that one by one these cities were taken by the Israelites as is stated in the Bible. MAybe some of the details are not totally accurate, but I believe the overalls tory to be true.
Yes, Hazor ...
An increasing majority of archaeologists believe that the Israelites emerged simply as a subculture within Canaanite society, and thus that the Israelite conquest of Canaan didn't actually happen; most biblical scholars believe that the Book of Joshua conflates several independent battles between disparate groups, over multiple centuries, and artificially attributes them to a single leader - Joshua. Nevertheless,
one archaeological stratum, dating from around 1200BC, shows signs of catastrophic fire, and cuneiform tablets found at the site refer to monarchs named Ibni, which may be the etymological origin of Jabin. The city also show signs of having been a magnificent Canaanite city prior to its destruction, with great temples and opulent palaces, split into an upper acropolis, and lower city; the town evidently had been a major Canaanite city.
However, the cuneiform tablets mentioning Ibni date from the Middle Bronze (2000-1550BC) age, much earlier than the destruction layer, which itself differs substantially in date from the Late Bronze Age destructions of Aphek, Lachish, and Megiddo; thus these cities cannot have been destroyed by a single army lead by a single individual in a single campaign (as the Book of Joshua would have it), due to the time period involved. Archaeologists suspect that the real reason for the destruction of Hazor could simply be civil strife, attacks by the Sea Peoples, and/or a result of the general collapse of civilisation across the whole eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age.
-
Wikipedia
Sadly, Hazor is of no more help than is the rest of your laundry list.
Now, it very well could be that all of these cities being burned by fire were a coincidence, or ...
It could very well be that you haven't a clue what your talking about. That you start with
'suggestive' references to
"Amenhotep II [circa 1400 BCE] or Merneptah [circa 1200 BCE]" demonstrates gross intellectual opportunism: apparently any date will do as you romp through the fields of antiquated archaeology hand picking anything and everything than may help your cause.
You offer up Jericho, suggesting (incorrectly) that it sports a 1400 BCE destruction layer and therefore serves as evidence for the Exodus.
You then offer up Hazor, suggesting that it sports a 1200 BCE destruction layer and therefore serves as evidence for the Exodus.
The opportunism here is laughingly obvious and sadly thoughtless (or, disingenuous).
Sherlock Holmes writes in
A Scandal in Bohemia:
It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist the facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.
Laughlin, quoted above, notes:
During the first half of this century and even up through the 1960s, many archaeologists were optimistic that archaeological discoveries had validated many of the historical claims of the Bible, if not the theological interpretations given to that history by the Biblical authors. For example, Albright triumphantly declared in the mid 1930s: "Discovery after discovery has established the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition of the Bible as a source of history". Albright's most famous student, G. E. Wright, also believed that archaeology and the Bible were very closely aligned when he concluded that biblical archaeology's "chief concern is not with strata or pots or methodology. Its central and absorbing interest is the understanding and exposition of the scriptures".
Such sentiments as the above are examples of what Lemche has recently referred to as:
"the pervasive mania within certain archaeological circles for correlating text with excavation before either the text or the excavation has had an opportunity to speak for itself".
This highly optimistic view of what archaeology can do for biblical studies - historically speaking, at least - is now all but absent except among the most conservative of archaeologists and biblical historians. The contemporary view of most archaeologists is that the purpose of archaeology, however defined, is not to prove the Bible true in any sense, historically or otherwise.
Now go and sin no more ... :slap:
