Astronomical texts can provide pretty good dating, yes. But there's currently no way to split out the precise dates for the Hyksos rulers of Egypt which then makes adding any number you choose to a rough date rather silly if you're attempting to demonstrate a precise match.
I agree with you in principle, but of interesting note, its a reference during the reign of Amenhotep I about the helical rising of Sirius that is the basis for one of the Egyptian timelines! So just in passing, astronomy is very much a part of dating this period in particular. But otherwise, of course, I must agree with you.
I'm not even criticising the number you've added to the date, which can be done quite simply by pointing out that it doesn't match up with the information in the book you're trying to 'prove' is accurate, just highlighting one fundamental flaw in trying to do this sort of addition and you then sitting back and saying 'wow - is this a coincidence?!!'.
This is something people don't get about my observations. I'm not really trying to PROVE anything. I'm just pointing to details. JWs date the Exodus to 1513 BCE for their own reasons. Fine. I'm not arguing that date is "wrong,' but simply noticing where they date the Exodus and comparing it to other popular dates for the Exodus, but also where archaeology would date the Exodus based on the fall of Jericho. You can come to your own conclusion. What is more than enough convicing "proof" for some is only a non-contradiction to someone else.
Even with the 1947 date believed to begin the 70th jubilee. That's a Bible chronology theory. You don't have to accept that theory. But anyone who does will have to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE. That's all I'm saying. When the Jews return to their homeland affects the Biblical date for when the Exodus occurred, if you follow that interpretation, and you don't. But fact is, once you are stuck with 1386 BCE, if only in your own mind, and start making comparisons with other dates for the Exodus or the fall of Jericho, you find it very interesting what harmonizes with 1386 BCE and Akhenaten. You can always say Akhenaten became a monotheist due to his being stoned on meth every day. That's beside the point. The reason why he actually became a monotheist is a point of discussion. The fact that the Exodus has to be dated to his reign is not any more.
As I say, the latest attempts to fix dates for the Hyksos would give you, using the number you have chosen to use, Akenaten as the pharoah who needs to be drowned. Which then totally ruins your theory.
Oh, no, no, no, no, no!! No. Amenhotep III is the pharaoh who dies in the Red Sea. He's the father to Akhenaten. Akhenaten is who ruled after the 10 plagues occurred. In the meantime, the dating I use is academic. I'm not adjusting that date based on the Bible's dating for the Exodus in 1386 BCE. That dating is derived from the KTU 1.78 astronomical text which dates year 12 of Akhenaten to an eclipse event occurring in 1375 BCE. In addition, 1386 BCE is the specific dating for the Exodus when you alternatively use the 709 BCE eclipse to date the Assyrian Period rather than the 763 BCE eclipse. That is very, very specific. So it is not an "attempt" to introduce this dating. If you conclude the 709 BCE eclipse is a better match then you have to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE. It's just that inflexible. But it is rather curious that the KTU 1.78 also dates the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386 BCE. So all I'm saying is the 709 BCE eclipse and the KTU 1.78 text both would date the Exodus to the same year, 1386 BCE, and that incidentally or coincidentally, that's the PRECISE you you must date the Exodus if you start the 70th jubilee in 1947. It is just an observation of what occurs AFTER you make your chocie. I'm not saying you have to make those choices, however. That is up to you.
but I'll assert that pottery dating is very generalized and even radiocarbon-14 dating gives you a range. But an astronomical event gives you an absolute date to a specific year, so there is less flexibility. Considering that, an astronomical text reference, if it is good and reliable enough, preempts general dating, not that the Sothic dating for this period is at all general. The timeline is adjusted based on an astronomical event noted during the reign of Amenhotep I, the helical rising of Sirius during his 9th year. But noting that, the KTU 1.78 contradicts that application when it dates the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386 BCE rather than 1351 BCE. The question here is whether or not there was a helical rising of Sirius in another year that would match the KTU 1.78 dating? That is, was there another helical rising 35 years earlier? It's a complex issue because apparently the latitude of observation is an important factor in the dating and the point of observation is not certain.
But again, this is just an OBSERVATION. Kenyon's dating the fall of Jericho by the Israelites plus the KTU 1.78 are in harmony, but both would challenge dating the reign of Akhenaten to 1351 BC based on a Sothic observation. I'm not asserting that either is correct or incorrect, just that there is a conflict.
Is that a coincidence or are your ideas as utterly nonsensical as they were when you first tried to spread them? There's a reason you may be meeting the same criticisms on every forum you post on where people aren't willing to accept your evasions and non-answers.
Actually, your statement is nonsensical because these are not "ideas." This is an analytical comparison. I'm just stating data and details. The WTS claims the Exodus occurred in 1513 BC. That's a fact, not that the Exodus can be proven to have occurred in that year, but that the WTS is making that claim. I'm then comparing that to Kenyon's claim about the destruction of Jericho by the Israelites. If she's crazy, then fine. That's up to you. All I'm saying is that her dating is different than the WTS' dating. So what's "nonsensical" about that comparisons? that's what is funny to me about this. People are ready to dismiss my "claims" and I'm not making any. People think my "ideas" are nonsense, but I haven't put forth any. This is ACADEMIC.
That is, there is an astronomical text called the KTU 1.78 that allegedly dates year 12 of Akhenaten to an eclipse event in 1375 BCE, which is the date NASA assigns to that event. Okay. That is already here. If so, then that means his 1st year occurs in 1386 BCE. That's just an observation. That's just math. So what's so dramatically incorrect about that?
Or the fact is that a short-lived grain sample from destructive level of Rehov City IV has been used to date Shishak's invasion to c 871 BCE. That's already out there. I didn't do the radiocarbon-14 testing. That's not my conclusion. That's a published reference. So all I'm noting is that per the Bible Shishak invades late in the reign of Solomon during a 6-year co-rulership with Rehoboam. That being the case, 871 dated to year 39 of Solomon affects when the Exodus must be dated. Year 6 would fall in 906 BCE and so the Exodus has to be deated to c. 1386 BCE. But then, guess what? That's the precise date you must date the Exodus if you apply the KTU 1.78 text. That means Akhenaten would be the pharaoh who ruled immediately after the Exodus and that Amenhotep III must have been the pharaoh who died in the Red Sea, just in case you believe the Bible myth that the Exodus actually happened, which you don't. But after getting here it is a historical note that Syncellus in the 9th Century AD had claimed that Amenhotep III was the pharaoh of the Exodus as well. That is simply an interesting OBSERVATION. I'm not saying any of this is accurate or true, just who happens to be agreeing with each other in the discussion.
So there is nothing to oppose. Nothing to discuss. I'm putting forth no new "ideas." I'm just stating facts. Now this Lars nutcracker suite you keep referring to might have some crazy theories he put forth, but I have put forth no theories here at all. Not yet, anyway. I'm just OBSERVING and showing the WTS is way off on its dating compared to everybody else. But that is obvious. I don't have to actually assert that. There is zero here that I've said to disagree with. I haven't said anything you can disagree with, save using 1947 to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE, but that is also academic. I'm just showing that IF you use 1947 to date the 70th jubilee then how it would require you to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE, specifically. It's just a reference, compared to other references. There is nothing to accept or reject here yet.
You do realize you're not the only one aware of Kenyon's work? The, third, alternative option is the Israelite invasion is a foundation myth and either did not happen or happened in a way at odds with the Exodus story. A bible in one hand and a trowel in the other is a pretty terrible way to do archaeology and history.
ROFL! That is absolutely not true. Plus, if you want to try to confirm your Biblical ideas with archaeological evidence, then I believe you have a right to try to do that. In the meantime, archaeologists do just the opposite. They basically dig up as much as they can find to disprove the Bible's history. That's why I only use archaeologists for their dating and I consider their commentary and rhetoric in the context of the Bible as outside their area of expertise.
For instance. Israel Finkelstein claims the end of the Philistine pottery period should be dated to the mid-10th Century BC. That's his finding and expert calculation. Fine. That's what I have to deal with depending on where I might personally date David, who campaigned against the Philistines. But Finkelstein doesn't stop there. He goes on to claim that David must be a myth where he is currently dated. I agree. That is, if you date David where he is commonly dated from 1010-970 BCE. But I'm a Witness! We have our own dating for David, right? JWs date David 67 years earlier to 1077 BCE!! That means a JW doesn't use the popular secular dates, but their own. So Finkelstein could have just as easily used the WTS' dating for David and made the same claim, even stronger. That David must be a myth because per archaeology the Philistine Period was still going on until the mid-10th Century. But it is not Finkelstein's archaeological responsibility to pick and choose which timeline he wants to compare to the archaeological findings. So his theory that David is a myth is purely based on his preference to using the popular dating timeline. But that is not the only timeline out there, right? As we know, JWs have their own timeline as noted.
But if you apply the dating for the fall of Jericho per Kenyon to when the Exodus would happen in 1386 BCE dated by the KTU 1.78 text, then that means Solomon's 4th year would fall in 906 BCE and his reign would be from 910-870 BCE. David's reign would be 40 years earlier from 950-910 BCE. Thus the fall of Jericho and dating David to the mid-10th century, which is 950 BC, don't conflict. In fact, they agree. The only problem is, therefore, is not that David didn't exist or end the Philistine pottery period, but WHEN he did it. Bottom line, if you date the Exodus at the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten in 1386 BCE, then you have to date David to the mid-10th century, which is when Finkelstein confirms the end of the Philistine potter period was.
Now am I being nonsensical and crazy? No. I'm just saying that if you date the fall of Jericho to 1350-1325 BCE, then you have to date David to c. 950-910 BCE, which is precisely when the Philistine pottery period ends per Finkelstein. Is Finkelstein going to say I'm crazy? No. Because I'm agreeing with him. I agree with his archaeological dating, I just don't agree with his choice to use the secular timeline that dates David to 1010-970 BCE. That's his historical, personal choice. It is not my choice and it is not the only choice. As a responsible professional, Finkelstein should have simply asserted his dating for the end of the Philistine pottery period and if he wanted to compare that to various timelines out there, then he should have done that. But he doesn't do that. He decided on his own personal timeline and then used that to assert David was a myth, which is not his position to do so as an archaeologist. His dating David to mid-10th Century BC, though, matches the Biblical dating when you use 1947 to date the Exodus to 1386 BCE. So I agree with the archaeology.
Plus there is nothing Finkelstein can say to me. He's already stated when he dates the end of the Philistine pottery period. It's part of the record. It's out there. If I come up and say per my own personal examination, the Bible's dating for David must be 950-910 BCE, what can he say? There's nothing to say. That's my choice. Now if he tries to assert that David has to be dated to 1010 BC because of the Assyrian timeline, which is not his area of expertise, then fine, but I'll just ignore him because he doesn't know WTF he's talking about. He's not a chronologist. Chronology is outside his field of expertise. But his area of expertise, which is archaeology is kickin'!!! He dates David precisely where the Bible actually does as well! That is, my personal interpretation of the Bible's timeline, which I don't mind defending or explaining.
As far as other's aware of Kenyon's work. I quote her. I'm not in a position to agree or disagree with her. It's just that she dug up Jericho and those are her published findings. I compare those findings with the Bible's true timeline. The result is a harmony, or a confirmation, depending on how much you trust Kenyon.
Just a by-the-by, but there's now a good case for the radiocarbon dating placing the (partial) destruction of Rehov at c.917 which then fits with the Shoshenq I evidence pretty perfectly from the Egyptian chronology (eg Shortland at c.920).
Now you're talking! Great! I heard that too! That's something relatively new! Great. 917 BC is much closer to 925 BCE! The "minimalists" and "maximalists" are in a heated debate over this and it seems the maximalists have found something to help support their dating of Shishak closer to where he is currently being dated. But that doesn't nullify the 871 BCE sample. So did Shishak come through in 925-920 BCE and destroy the city, which was then rebuilt to some degree and destroyed again in 871 BCE? That is a valid reference! So now you have two possible dates for Shishak at Rehov, 920 and 871 BCE. Great. That's how this field works. So good for them. They want to date Shishak to c. 920 BCE. Good for them!
From an academic point o view, though, since this does not dismiss the RC14 dating c. 871 BCE, this is no more than the WTS coming up with two texts dated to "year 51" of Artaxerxes! Which is amazing. But the two texts do exist! They use it as proof Artaxerxes ruled into his 51st year, which is how they get back on track with the secular timeline. They claim a 10-year co-rulership between Darius I and Xerxes that is not recognized, so they can move year 20th of Artaxerxes to 455 BCE rather than 445 BCE. Artaxerxes I ruled for 41 years per the popular dating. The WTS uses those two texts to add 10 years to his reign and make it 51 years. Thus his reign ends the same year as the secular dating in 424 BCE. What can you do about that? Nothing. It's just another timeline theory we're making a comparison to.
But please note, Finkelstein is "low chronology" vs others supporting high chronology. My only comment on that is that I'm not involved that that argument since I have a preference for my own dating for Shishak. In that regard, I date Shishak to 871 BCE in line with at least one sample found there they used to be very excited about, including Mazar. Thanks for mentioning that. If you have a specific reference on the latest, I'd be interested in checking it out. Thanks.
