Mephis:
Where I can agree with you is that any attempt to bash the evidence to fit a certain date is always dubious. The WBTS does it, for sure. 1914 is the sacred cow of their current chronology. No matter what ridiculous ideas then follow to fit things in. And, yes, I'm equally dubious of the ongoing attempts to try and harmonise bible chronology with the archaeology.
I can appreciate your point of view, but specifically, I'm only making COMPARISONS. That is, I'm not arguing with Kenyon when she dates the fall of Jericho, specifically by the Israelites, between 1350-1325 BCE. That will stand or fall on further investigation. I'm just noting that once you date the fall of Jericho by the Israelites, then it will limit and point to the range of dates for the Exodus based on that reference from Jericho. So note, I'm not bashing in any way what Kenyon says. I'm not challenging her. I'm just quoting her as one source on when Jericho fell by the Israelites. Very simple observation here. If Jericho fell between 1350-1325 BCE as she claims, then per the Bible, since the Exodus is exactly 40 years earlier, the Exodus is limited in dating to the period of 1390-1365 BCE. In that case, let's just see who was ruling at the time, right? We're just looking. Turns out this was the Amarna Period and the time Amenhotep III was ruling. Okay. Was he really the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Per the Bible the pharaoh of the Exodus was a different pharaoh than when Moses left for his 40-year absence. So the first thing we ask is whether or not Amenhotep III ruled less than 40 years? Yes. He ruled 38 years. So there is no contradiction on that basis that Amenhotep III per the Bible could have been the pharaoh of the Exodus. So am I "trying to harmonize the Bible with archaeology" here? No. I'm just making an observation. So far, we have two references, one from Syncellus and one from Kenyon that point to Amenhotep III. Whether this is a coincidence or a confirmation is up to you. I've made no claims so far as harmonizing the Bible with this dating at this point. This is just a comparison to two references out there.
Sorry if you feel a little picked on, but even using your own logic and numbers, your ideas as put forward in this thread are misguided on specifics. I can't even be bothered to question the logic nor the numbers you use because, quite frankly, I have little faith in the absolute truth of a chronology describing events some 3 or 400 years before any evidence of a scribal tradition for the nation concerned and contained in books likely composed and edited at an even later date than that.
I appreciate your position but it is an incompetent position at this point now that there have been several other digs and the advancement in radiocarbon-14 dating and in recovered astronomical text references. LOGIC has absolutely nothing to do with it. Absolutely nothing. For instance the KTU 1.78 astronomical text that David Rohl claims points to year 12 of Akhenaten. Now there are detractors to when this eclipse should be dated or even if it should date year 12 or some other year of Akhenaten. But at this point, being currently dated to year 12 and NASA claiming this eclipse was the eclipse of 1375 BCE, it gives us an ABSOLUTE DATE for Akhenaten if we apply this to year 12, not saying we absolutely have to. But that is the current assignment. So just based on that, the 1st of Akhenaten would begin 11 years earlier in 1386 BCE. That is a specific, absolute date application. It means that those dating Akhenaten to 1350 BC or 1378 BCE are being corrected by a specific reference that you can't flex up or down. Either 1386 BCE works with other references or it doesn/t.
In this specific case, based on Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho, she establishes the range of the Exodus between 1390-1365 BCE. The KTU 1.78 dating the 1st of Akhenaten to 1386 BCE falls within that range. So there's no contradiction between the archaeological dating of the fall of Jericho and the astronomical text dating by the KTU 1.78 of the reign of Akhenaten. So now, you have three secular sources that would date the Exodus to 1386 BCE. So I'm not TRYING to harmonize the Bible with archaeology. I'm observing how archaeology is dictating when the Exodus must occur. Now, you have every right to be a skeptic and the right to doubt, but no right to come to conclusions unless you have looked at the evidence. That is, you can't presume a conclusion based on your lack of expertise in the field when you have an opportunity to see some specific things. But that's where my "job" comes in. I point to what's out there, what radiocarbon-14 is showing, what the pottery dating is showing, what the experts in the field are saying and how that "compares" with the JW timeline. I'm not "trying" to harmonize 1513 BCE with the archaeology here. I'm just noting what points to 1386 BCE as the date of the Exodus.
Even my assertion about 1947. The prophecy about the "cut off" occurs after 62 weeks, which is 434 years. There is a series of 70-weeks, which is 490 years, based on the coming of Christ in 29 CE to begin the 70th week. Thus all the periods of 70 weeks is based on 36 CE that follow. During the final 70 weeks, a great tribulation was to take place after 62 weeks. The 70 weeks are broken up into 1 week (7 years), 7 weeks (49 years) and 62 weeks (434 years). So basically the 70 weeks of our time begin in 1506 BCE and end in 1996. If we begin the "cut off" at 62 weeks, that is, 434 years after 1506 AD, then the one week period of desolation in which two-thirds of the Jews were to be exterminated per the Bible (Zech 13:8), then that "great tribulation" was to occur between 1940-1947, even though those days were to be cut short. Even so, that leaves a period of 49 years, the final jubilee wherein the Jews have the fulfillment of being restored to their homeland and the covenant week remains in place, that is, the covenant was to end in 1996, 49 years after 1947. That's all interpretation though. Maybe you don't follow or believe. But that's not the point.
The point is that IF you follow that interpretation or for those that do, then they are locked into an absolute dte for the Exodus based on 1947 beginning the 70th jubilee. That absolute date is 1386 BCE. So maybe once we arrive at this date, we had in mind trying to desperately "harmonize" any archaeology we find with that dating. But not really. Because if that date didn't match the archaeological findings, the presumption is that the archaeological expertise is defective. 1386 BCE is going to be the correct date for the Exodus, regardless based upon the Bible's own internal timeline. But what we surprisingly and delightfully have found is that there is now lots of archaeological confirmation for dating the Exodus in 1386 BCE! There is no twisting, no pulling, nothing. Finkelstein is adamant that the end of the Philistine pottery period should be dated to the mid-10th century! Guess what? So am I!! David's rule must begin in 950 BCE per 1947 dating. So your idea of having to "try" to match the Bible's chronology with archaeology for this period is an effortless observation. The archaeological timeline is already in place. I'm just comparing that to the Bible's dating. Of course, the whole purpose of this exercise is to ultimately demonstrate thta while the Bible's timeline matches well with archaeological dating for this period, the WTS' dates for events for this period not only do not match the Bible's timeline, but are greatly contradicted by archaeology for this period, so they have no where to go but to FPC -- (False Prophet Corner).
Oh, Levy and Higham have the relevant sides set out last year for carbon dating etc. at place like Rehov. Finkelstein's in there as are the Groningen lot.
Thanks, but this is highly suspicious to me. All of a sudden they are trying to back down from the C14 evidence and blur the lines. From the beginning I knew they had painted themselves into a corner. You see, it was gung ho! about the C14 from Rehov when they thought it contradicted the Bible's timeline, or what they thought was the Bible's timeline. But what they didn't realize is that that same contradiction equally contradicted the Assyrian dating! The same C14 dating used to contradict the bible indirectly was contradicting the Assyrian timeline as well. Once they realize that, now they seem to be backing off that evidence. They don't want to throw any light onto Assyrian period timeline dating options! The more they try to water down their previous discovery at Rehov to establish "low chronology" the easier it is for them to back away from looking at also lowering the Assyrian timeline. But it's too late now.
Finkelstein's dilemma is this. He wants to claim David and Solomon are myths based on where they appear in the currently used timeline based on Assyrian eclipse dating. But he had an equal opportunity to simply date David and Solomon a half century later to match their activities. That should have been included in his analysis. That is, that either David and Solomon are mythical characters OR they are misdated a half century too early. But he can't go there because he's not competent enough to deal with adjusting the Neo-Babylonian timeline. But chronologists are, particularly Biblical chronologists. But he prefers to sell books claiming David and Solomon are myths and archaeology proves it and it's just a false argument. But that's his choice. But none of that matters really, because ultimately he is not making comparisons to the Bible's internal timeline. The bible dates David precisely where his archaeology is dating him. The dates he is using for comparison are pagan, revised dates from the Greek Period.
I think they are trying to avoid a huge scandal. Not about correcting the Biblical timeline and matching archaeology with the Bible's history as much as exposing Plato, Aristotle as Xenophon as Greek master propagandists who sold out to the Persians to revise the Greek timeline. I think, academically speaking, that's a bigger deal to the academic world, exposing Plato, et al as opportunists. I think that ultimately that would be the bigger story. Who cares if the Greeks revised their timeline? But who helped them to do it is what is more relevant. Biblical chronology is a relatively small field compared to Classic Greek Philosophy, the foundation of Western culture and higher thinking. It's a huge mess and if they can avoid it, then they will do so at all costs. But ultimately, I think they know, especially with the net, that it's just a matter of time and they are just postponing the inevitable.
Thanks for the feedback!
