wall. In addition, the placement of a later “installation” that was used during both phases of LB II—in which a tall basaltic stele

ng the Late Bronze I Age, Yadin laments that many conclusions regarding the evaluation of structures, installations, and finds are difficult to make, owing to the enormous amount of leveling and looting that took place on the tel during the Solomonic period (Yadin, The Head, 125).55. Wood, “Let the Evidence Speak,” 78.56. Amnon Ben-Tor, “News and Notes,” IEJ 51:2 (2001), 238.57. Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 160.58. Yadin, The Head, 200.59. James B. Pritchard, ANET (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1950), 242. Hazor is mentioned in a topographical list of Amenhotep II at Karnak (Bienkowski, “Role of Hazor,” 54).60. Omar Zuhdi, “Combined Arms Egyptian Style: Thutmose III Crosses the Euphrates,” KMT 18:3 (Fall 2007), 56.61. Pritchard, ANET, 239.62. Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992), 158.63. Hoffmeier emphasizes that the conquest list of Thutmose III for this campaign was not a record of destroyed cities (James K. Hoffmeier, “Reconsidering Egypt’s Part in the Termination of the Middle Bronze Age in Palestine,” Levant 21 [1989], 187).64. As Hoffmeier correctly explains during his discussion of the primary battle of this campaign, which was fought at Megiddo, “While it is true that Thutmose III was concerned to have order and loyalty in Canaan, he was not going to destroy cities that could be useful to him” (Ibid., 187). For this reason, Hoffmeier concludes that Megiddo was not razed either, despite this city’s distinction of being the site from where the king of Kadesh launched his rebellion against the Egyptians at the outset of Thutmose III’s sole rule.65. Thutmose III undoubtedly would have followed the same foreign policy as that of the earlier pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty, including his grandfather, Thutmose I, who set the precedent for his progeny by venturing through Canaan and into Mesopotamia. “Because of Egyptian economic interest in the region, it would make little sense to adopt a scorched earth policy in Canaan. . . . [W]hen Thutmose I acceded the throne, he was able to march, apparently unmolested, all the way to the Euphrates river” (James K. Hoffmeier, “Aspects of Egyptian Foreign Policy in the 18th Dynasty in Western Asia and Nubia,” in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean World: Studies in Honor of Donald B. Redford, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Antoine Hirsch [Leiden: Brill, 2004], 133).66. One author calls the Egyptian advancement into upper Syria a direct attack on Mitanni, “which must long have been seen as one of Thutmose’s manifest goals” (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 159). Another writer suggests, in reference to Thutmose III’s renowned campaign into Mesopotamia, that “[t]his campaign was perhaps intended as a capstone ending a series of military operations begun twelve years earlier with the daring strike through the Aruna Pass at Megiddo” (Zuhdi, “Combined Arms,” 55).



The Gebel Barkal Stele of Thutmose III states that this
conquering pharaoh “crossed the Euphrates after the one who had attacked him, at the head of his armies seeking that feeble enemy [from] the land of Mitanni.” The subsequent victory caused Thutmose III to boast, “There is no opponent of mine in the southern lands, northerners come bowing because of my awe. It was Re who ordained it concerning me, I having bound together the Nine Bows, the islands in the midst of the sea, the Aegean and rebellious foreign lands” (Thutmose III, “The Gebel Barkal Stela of Thutmose III,” in Context of Scripture, vol. 2 [trans. James K. Hoffmeier], 15). All of this causes Hoffmeier to look back on this pharaoh’s first campaign and conclude that it already “suggests that Egypt was moving towards an imperial model of domination” (Hoffmeier, “Egyptian Foreign Policy,” in Egypt, Israel, and the Ancient Mediterranean, 134).67. Hoffmeier, “Egypt’s Part,” 187.68. Yadin, The Head, 32. Yadin’s reference to the middle of the 15th century BC for the timeframe of the occupational gap is purely speculative, as a connection to the Late Bronze I Age is the only certainty. The matter of import in his observation is that a large occupational gap did occur between Late Bronze I and Late Bronze II, before a later re-inhabitation finally took place.69. One may be tempted to accuse Amenhotep II of merely inflating the record, claiming to have conquered a city that he never actually defeated. This argument, however, is a weak and desperate one. If one randomly asserts that Hazor was not “destroyed” by Amenhotep II, why should this pharaoh not be accused of falsifying the conquest of some or all of the other sites on his conquest list? For that matter, why should Thutmose III be trusted to have “destroyed” Hazor as he stated in his conquest list? Thus one could dismiss the claims of any or every ancient conqueror who boasted of cities that he captured during his exploits abroad. The burden of proof should remain squarely upon the shoulders of the modern student of history to produce sufficient evidence when claiming that an ancient monarch falsified his records, rather than expecting the ancients to have justified their own claims somehow for the sake of future critics of history who might cavalierly distrust them. Amenhotep II, among others, deserves far better treatment than this.70. Yadin, The Head, 45.71. Betsy M. Bryan, “Antecedents to Amenhotep III,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on His Reign (ed. David O’Connor and Eric H. Cline; Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2001), 46. The latest documented year of Thutmose IV’s reign is Year 8, which is attested to on the Konosso Stele (Ibid., 48, 54–55).72. Yadin, The Rediscovery, 59.73. Ibid., 63–64.74. Ibid., 65; idem, The Head, 46; Yigael Yadin, Yohanan Aharoni, Ruth Amiran, Trude Dothan, Immanuel Dunayevsky, and Jean Perrot, Hazor II: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956 (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1960), 153.75. Yadin et al., Hazor II, 153. Elsewhere, Yadin calls the pottery “the very end of the IIIA: 2 type” (Yadin, The Head, 46).76. Yadin, The Head, 46.77. Arne Furumark, Mycenaean Pottery II: Chronology (Stockholm: Skrifter Utgivna av Svenska Institutet i Athen, 1972), 115. In an earlier note, Kitchen’s quote reveals that he improperly dated Furumark’s Mycenaean pottery analysis to the 1940’s. Instead, the publication-date here reveals a time 30 years closer to the present than Kitchen declared; incidentally, Furumark lived until 1982.78. Examples of Yadin’s Late-Bronze-I finds include the following: Mycenaean vessels from Tomb 8144 and Tomb 8145, which are contemporaneous with a pear-shaped jar from Tomb 8065, all of which are characteristic of the later stage of IIIA:2; three jars (from Tomb 8065) that belong to the period of later IIIA:2; five stirrup-jars (from Tomb 8065), which are divided into three groups, two of which belong to later IIIA:2, and one Rosetta Stone

No princesses are known to have been mothered by Mutnofret,

but the possibility does exist; if Mutnofret did bear a daughter, undoubtedly this princess—given the ages of the princes—would have been old enough to qualify.e. Hatshepsut’s Position as the Most Likely Candidate. All of the evidence points to Hatshepsut as the most likely candidate for Moses’ stepmother, for several reasons: (1) Hatshepsut’s blood-sister, Princess Akhbetneferu, was the only other daughter whom Queen Ahmose is known to have borne, but her death in infancy eliminates her candidacy. (2) Lady Mutnofret bore several sons to Thutmose I before she died, but there is no indication that she ever bore him any daughters.166 (3) The text of Exod 2:10 states that after “the child [Moses] grew, she [his mother] brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, and he became her son.” Therefore, Moses’ Egyptian stepmother obviously lived a considerable length of time after she retrieved him from the Nile, increasing the likelihood that an account of this “Daughter of Pharaoh” (Exod 2:5) would be documented and preserved somewhere in the Egyptians’ detailed records, a qualification true of Hatshepsut alone.2. Identifying the Defacer of Hatshepsut’s Image. At some indeterminable time after Hatshepsut’s death, a serious attempt was made to obliterate all record of her from history. Many inscribed cartouches of her were erased, while her busts were smashed or broken into pieces, perhaps by gangs of workmen dispatched to various sites throughout Egypt. In some cases, the culprits carefully and completely hacked out the silhouette of her image from carvings, often leaving a distinct, Hatshepsut-shaped lacuna in the middle of a scene, often as a preliminary step to replacing it with a different image or royal cartouche, usually that of Thutmose I or II.167 At Karnak, her obelisks were walled-up and incorporated into the vestibule in front of Pylon V, while at Djeser-Djeseru her statues and sphinxes were removed, smashed, and cast into trash dumps.168a. Thutmose III as the Defacer of Hatshepsut’s Image. According to most Egyptologists, this massive effort to destroy all record of Hatshepsut’s existence was launched by Thutmose III, with a predictable motive: out of sexist pride, he attempted to eliminate every trace of this dreaded female pharaoh’s rule, intending to rewrite Egyptian history to portray a smooth succession of male rulers from Thutmose I to himself.169 “Wounded male pride may also have played a part in his decision to act; the mighty warrior king may have balked at being recorded for posterity as the man who ruled for 20 years under the thumb of a mere woman.”170 But was Thutmose III actually the perpetrator? Did he seethe with hatred and resentment toward his former coruler before viciously attacking all remnants of her? Are cavalier accusations of sexism justifiable? The theory that Thutmose III was the culprit behind this vicious crime is severely weakened by several factors.(1) If Thutmose III did deface her image, it would be inconsistent with how he otherwise related to her memory. A scene on the dismantled Chapelle Rouge at Djeser-Djeseru portrays Hatshepsut and identifies her as “The Good God, Lady of the Two Lands, Daughter of Ra, Hatshepsut.”171 Thutmose III, who is pictured as steering his barque toward Deir el-Bahri, actually completed the Chapelle Rouge, added the topmost register of decorations in his own name, then claimed the shrine as his own. Also, Hatshepsut’s name is still preserved in her Monthu temple at Armant, which Thutmose III enlarged. Such preservation of her handiwork and further construction on her building projects would be extremely unlikely if he truly despised Hatshepsut so greatly. Furthermore, Thutmose III planned the construction of his own temple to Amun, called Djeser-Akhet, which was to be built at Deir el-Bahri, directly south of Djeser-Djeseru. Since Hatshepsut greatly built-up Deir el-Bahri, including massive terraces and her own temple next to the one that Thutmose III subsequently built, this construction site is inexplicable if he felt such overwhelming, sexist hatred toward her.172(2) If Thutmose III was the culprit, he waited at least 20 years after she left office before whimsically desecrating her image. He could not have accomplished the feat before his 42nd regnal year, a full 20 years after Hatshepsut left office. Thutmose III’s construction projects at Karnak—which include the Hall of Annals, whose texts were written no earlier than Year 42—inadvertently concealed a few inscriptions and illustrations related to Hatshepsut. The scenes were in place by Year 42, yet show no signs whatsoever of any desecration. Conversely, those parts of the scenes that were unprotected by his post-Year-42 construction were defaced during the anti-Hatshepsut campaign. It seems impossible that he would wait until over 20 years after she had left office to initiate a campaign of anti-feminism out of personal hatred. “While it is possible to imagine and even empathize with Thutmose III indulging in a sudden whim of hatred against his stepmother immediately after her death, it is far harder to imagine him overcome by such a whim some 20 years later.”173 Moreover, this whim would have been a schizophrenic one, given Thutmose III's recent positive disposition toward Hatshepsut, as displayed by his completion of her projects at Djeser-Djeseru and Armant.(3) If Thutmose III was the culprit, he must have had sufficient motive to attempt to prevent her from living eternally. According to Egyptian religion, removing the name or image of a deceased person was a direct assault on his/her spirit. For him to live forever in the Field of Reeds, his body, image, or name must survive on earth. If all memory of him were lost or destroyed, the spirit too would perish, initiating the much-dreaded “second death,” a total obliteration from which there could be no return. This act against Hatshepsut was an attempt to condemn her to oblivion – a fate worse than death for an Egyptian.174 Thus the extermination of Hatshepsut’s image from the earth was indeed a drastic step: the removal of her spirit from its perpetual existence in the afterlife.175 Such reprisal seems far too severe to fit the motive of mere sexism.(4) If Thutmose III was the culprit, why were there also attacks against the name and monuments of Senenmut, the foreign chief-advisor of Hatshepsut who disappeared from record in or after Hatshepsut’s 19th regnal year (ca. 1488/7 BC)? Occasionally his name was violated while his image remained intact, but some of his statues were smashed and literally thrown out of temples.176 This attack upon her male chief-advisor’s image can hardly be justified if Thutmose III was motivated purely by anti-feministic hatred toward Hatshepsut. Other options are offered to justify this extreme act committed by Thutmose III. (1) He wanted to atone for the offense of a female pharaoh against maat (“justice, truth”), a word used to describe the continuity in the universe that derived from the approval of the gods.177 (2) The unorthodox coregency might have cast serious doubt on the legitimacy of his own right to rule, so he wanted to ensure both the legitimacy of his reign and his legacy. Neither of these options, however, addresses why Thutmose III would wait so long before beginning his anti-Hatshepsut campaign. Certainly he did not learn of the compromise that Hatshepsut’s reign was to the state of maat only after he was an aged king; likewise, after 20 years of sole rule, his reign was secure, and his successful campaigning already had solidified for him a lasting legacy, so defiling her image would not, in any conceivable way, further legitimize his reign.b. Amenhotep II as the Defacer of Hatshepsut’s Image. No Egyptologist has answered satisfactorily the nagging question of who was responsible for the widespread campaign to obliterate Hatshepsut’s image from Egypt’s annals, and what possible motive there could be for such a severe act of rage. Since the responsible



Rosetta Stone Chinese

person carried out the act only after Year 42 of Thutmose III,

the desecration occurred no earlier than ca. 1464 BC. It is also difficult to envision that the culprit lived long after both Hatshepsut and her memory disappeared from the earth, since the movement of time and the existence of motive are inversely proportionate. Accordingly, two possible scenarios exist that could incriminate Amenhotep II as culpable for the crime. (1) Amenhotep II contributed in the campaign to destroy Hatshepsut’s image, but he was not the initial perpetrator. Tyldesley observes that “[i]t is perhaps not too fanciful a leap of the imagination to suggest that Thutmose III, having started the persecution relatively late in the reign, may have died before it was concluded. His son and successor, Amenhotep II, with no personal involvement in the campaign, may have been content to allow the vendetta to lapse.”178 Tyldesley does not explain why without personal involvement. Bryan believes that “Amenhotep II himself completed the desecration of the female king’s monuments,” adding that “when [he] had finished his programme of erasures on the monuments of Hatshepsut at Karnak, he was able to concentrate on preparations for the royal jubilee at this temple.”179(2) Amenhotep II was the sole culprit in the campaign to destroy Hatshepsut’s image. The responsible individual likely possessed pharaonic authority, and one legitimate motive for Amenhotep II to have committed this act is if Hatshepsut raised Moses as her own son in the royal court (Acts 7:21). After the Red-Sea incident, Amenhotep II would have returned to Egypt seething with anger, both at the loss of his firstborn son and virtually his entire army (Exod 14:28), so he would have had just cause to erase her memory from Egypt and remove her spirit from the afterlife. The Egyptian people would have supported this edict, since their rage undoubtedly rivaled pharaoh’s, as they also were mourning deceased family members and friends. The nationwide experience of loss also would account for the unified effort throughout Egypt to fulfill this defeated pharaoh’s commission vigorously. A precedent even exists for Amenhotep II’s destruction of her monuments early in his reign: At Karnak Hatshepsut left . . . the Eighth Pylon, a new southern gateway to the temple precinct. . . . Ironically, evidence of Hatshepsut’s building effort is today invisible, since the face of the pylon was erased and redecorated in the first years of Amenhotep II.180 Perhaps Year 9 was when it all began.X. CONCLUSIONNow it is possible to answer the questions posed earlier. Does Amenhotep II qualify as the pharaoh who lived through the tenth plague because he was not his father’s eldest son? Yes, records show that Amenemhet was the eldest son of Thutmose III, allowing Amenhotep II to have lived through the tenth plague. Could the eldest son of Amenhotep II have died during the tenth plague, which must be true of the exodus-pharaoh’s son? Yes, the eldest son of Amenhotep II could have died then. In fact, none of Amenhotep II’s sons claimed to be his firstborn, and one prominent Egyptologist theorizes that the eldest son died inexplicably during childhood. Did Amenhotep II die in the Red Sea, as the Bible allegedly indicates about the exodus-pharaoh? No, he died in typical fashion, and his mummified body is still preserved. Yet despite popular belief, this conclusion does not conflict with the Bible, since no Biblical text actually states that the exodus-pharaoh died there with his army.Can any of Amenhotep II’s military campaigns be related to the exodus events? Yes, his second Asiatic campaign coincides extremely well with the exodus events, and many of the details related to it and Egypt’s post-exodus future cannot be explained without these connections. Can the loss of over two million Hebrew slaves, certainly Egypt’s “slave-base” at the time, be accounted for in the records of Amenhotep II’s reign? Yes, the loss of the Israelite slaves can be accounted for by Amenhotep II’s acquisition of 101,128 slaves in Canaan during his second Asiatic campaign, the only such campaign of its era that was launched in late fall and took so many captives. Is there any evidence to confirm that Amenhotep II interacted with the Hebrews after they left Egypt? Yes, Amenhotep II captured 3,600 “Apiru” (Hebrews) during his second campaign, which was launched just under seven months after the exodus. Despite many futile attempts to disprove the association of the Hebrews with the Apiru of the New Kingdom, far more evidence exists that favors their being one-in-the-same.If Amenhotep II is the exodus-pharaoh, could the obliteration of Hatshepsut’s image from many Egyptian monuments and inscriptions be attributed to backlash from the exodus events? Yes, Amenhotep II surfaces as the only logical candidate for the pharaoh who ordered this nationwide campaign of desecration. If Hatshepsut indeed was Moses’ Egyptian stepmother—and she is the only legitimate candidate—Amenhotep II and all of Egypt had adequate motive to remove her image from Egypt and her spirit from the afterlife. These answers prove not only that Amenhotep II is the only legitimate candidate for the exodus-pharaoh, but that the Biblical chronology of that era functions as a canon against which Egyptian history may be synchronized.It is hoped that the principal purpose of this article has not been lost in the extensive historical detail contained within it. In this analysis of the exodus-pharaoh and ancient Egyptian history, the arguments of those who compromise Biblical historicity proved unable to undermine Biblical inerrancy. Compromising the Bible’s inspired historical framework invariably will lead to the demise of its reliability as an accurate source for determining doctrine and enhancing spiritual growth. Conversely, to connect the book more directly with ancient history can only enhance its theological meaning.181 Unfortunately, however, even the strongest argumentation cannot remove presuppositions or persuade readers of the Bible’s life-impacting truths.Douglas Petrovich is former academic dean at Novosibirsk Biblical-Theological Seminary in the city of Akademgorodok (Siberia), Russia. He has a BA in Evangelism at Moody Bible Institute, and both an MDiv and a ThM from The Masters Seminary. He also has an MA in Ancient Near Eastern history and archaeology from the University of Toronto, where currently he is enrolled in the PhD program. This article was first published in the Spring 2006 issue of the Master's Seminary Journal. Posted with permission.Footnotes:1. George Ladd, The New Testament and Criticism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1967), 16. 2. William G. Dever, What did the Biblical Writers Know and When did They Know It? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001), 4. 3. Israel Finkelstein, “City-States to States,” in Symbiosis, Symbolism, and the Power of the Past, ed. William G. Dever and Seymour Gitin (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 81. 4. Harold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), 206. 5. Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 408–409. 6. Ibid., 412. 7. Kenneth A. Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 310. 8. Bryant G. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” JETS 48:3 (Sep 2005), 476. 9. Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?,” JETS 46:4 (Dec 2003), 603. 10. Both here and throughout the present work, any dating that follows the formula, “ca. xxxx–yyyy BC,” signifies the regnal years of a given monarch, unless otherwise noted. The reason for settling on these dates will be discussed subsequently. 11. It is probably more accurate to refer to the Red Sea as the “Sea of Reeds,” but the traditional designation will be used here for simplicity. For an excellent study on this topic, see Hoffmeier’s chap. 9, “The Problem of the Re(e)d Sea” (James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in



Rosetta Stone French

ausewitz's theory of states and war can be reduced to three ideas which he defines, unfortunately for Christians, as a "remarkable trinity&qu

e of the objectives Clausewitz believed necessary for total victory were achieved.In summary, these brief examples of principles of war at the strategic and tactical level illustrate that foundational lessons of military art and science can be gleaned from a careful reading of the pages of the Old Testament. My admonishment to all scholars who write, teach, and conduct research on military affairs, including myself, is for us not to overlook the valuable and important lessons that can be learned from the pages of the Bible. The Bible is not only a book with moral and theological stories, it is about real people, and is a reliable history written in a cultural mileu that enhances our understanding of civilizations thousands of years ago. Valuable lessons about the principles and foundations of politics, military strategy and tactics, economics, ethics, and many other academic disciplines can be gleaned from a study of its pages. Such lessons are as applicable today as they were thousands of years ago. To consider only "recent" history and consider Biblical history as unreliable is narrow-minded and wrong, and scholars do so at their own risk. Recommended Resources for Further Study Bible and SpadeCD-ROM NIV ArchaeologicalStudy Bible FootnotesBarton Whaley comes to the same conclusion and argues that the contemporary Israeli Army and its commanders consciously draw military inspiration, wisdom and lore from the Bible, and the Old Testament teaches its share of stratagems of war (1969: 81).See also my letter to the editor, and his response, on pp. 7-8 of the same edition.BibliographyFerrill, A. 1985The Origins of War: From the Stone Age to Alexander the Great. London: Thames and Hudson. Gabriel, R., and Getz, K.S. 1991From Sumer to Rome: The Military Capabilities of Ancient Armies. New York: Greenwood. Gichon, M. 1985The West Bank: The Geostrategic and Historical Aspects. In The West Bank: Line of Defense, ed. Aryeh Shalev. New York: Praeger. Lemonick, M.D. 1995Are the Bible's Stories True? Time, December 18: 62-69. Malamat, A. 1979Conquest of Canaan: Israelite Conduct of War According to Biblical Tradition.



Cultural Change and the Confusion of Language in Ancient Sumer
This article was published in the Winter 2004 issue of Bible and Spade.One of the primary areas of the Near East where civilization began is the Tigris-Euphrates river valley, comprising portions of modern Syria and Iraq. This region, the fertile valley between the two rivers, has been known since the times of the ancient Greeks as Mesopotamia, literally “the land between the rivers.” This area of course was the home of many peoples familiar to us from general ancient history and the Old Testament, such as the Assyrians and Babylonians. Before these peoples a group known as the Sumerians, the creators of classic Mesopotamian culture, inhabited the southern part of the valley. How and when did civilization start in this region? In order to at least partially answer this question, we will need to examine both written and archaeological source material. The earliest of that archaeological material comes from cultures in the valley that did not as yet know the art of writing.Archaeological EvidenceIn looking at archaeological material from these early cultures, we must make several preliminary observations. First, we should remember that people sharing the same basic culture tend to produce similar and in some cases identical material objects. This trend is particularly apparent with pottery, the basic food and drink storage medium of ancient times. This trend is very helpful to the archaeologist. If he or she is digging in a ruined city and finds a certain style and color of pottery, this pottery can be compared to pottery found elsewhere. Connections can thus be established between the two sites sharing pottery styles. [Ed: These are known as parallels.]Such conclusions must of course be supported by other material finds, but such similarities can show how a particular culture spread over a geographical area.This leads to a second introductory observation. When archaeologists discover a particular culture, it is often given a name by modern scholars. Without written material, we have no idea what the people of that culture called themselves. This name is normally the modern Arabic place name of the site where the culture was discovered. It should never be thought that the “type-site” (the site which gives the culture its name) was necessarily the most important city of the culture, or the place where the culture began. It is simply the first place where modern humans have found an example of that particular culture.Finally, a word about dates. The best way to establish dates is to have written documents, and even then establishing chronology can be a complex and difficult business. For many periods of modern history we have such rich written material that basic dates are not a problem. We know beyond doubt, for example, that Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, that Lincoln was killed in 1865, and that the Emperor Augustus died in AD 14. But, when we deal with ancient Near Eastern history, precise dates can be more problematical. This is most true of the periods we call prehistory; the time beRosetta Stone Japanese

It is this calendar that provides a date for the entry

into Canaan that is in precise agreement with the 480th-year datum of 1 Kgs 6:1. When Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom is combined with a literal reading of 1 Kgs 6:1, the resulting dates for the exodus and conquest are in perfect accord with the multiple phenomena that have been cited related to the Jubilees and Sabbatical years. All this is explained by a thesis that is the quintessence of simplicity: Israel entered the Promised Land in 1406 bc with the only credible source for the Jubilee and Sabbatical-year legislation that has ever been postulated, the book of Leviticus, in its possession. II. HAWKINS’ ARCHAEOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS 1. First wrong archaeological argument: new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I (1200–1000 bc) signal the arrival of the Israelites. Surface surveys over the last four decades have revealed many new settlements in the central hill country in Iron Age I, ca. 1200–1000 bc. Hawkins reasons, “The implication seemed clear that a new population group had arrived in the Central Hill-Country during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I.”[46] He believes this to be evidence for the initial arrival of the Israelites in Canaan.[47] The Iron I settlement data, however, undermine Hawkins’s thesis since the material culture of the Iron I settlers exhibits continuity with the previous Late Bronze culture,[48] indicating they were not newcomers at all, but had been in the land for a considerable period of time.[49] This continuity is best seen in the pottery, but includes other material culture items as well. Mazar views the situation as follows: “The settlers had no traditions of their own in the realm of architecture, pottery, crafts, and art. These were adopted from their Canaanite neighbors…Later, when the manufacture of such objects began in the settlement regions themselves, the Canaanite tradition continued to make itself felt in the forms of the tools and vessels.”[50] The evidence indicates a long period of contact between the Iron I settlers and the previous Canaanite culture: The objects of the early Iron Age indicate complete dependence on the culture of the Late Bronze Age. Because the early Iron Age settlement cannot be regarded as an offshoot of the former Canaanite cities, this continuity is best explained by intensive, prolonged contact with the Canaanite culture. This contact must have already occurred in the Late Bronze Age before the beginning of sedentary life. . . . The results of archaeological research indicate early Iron Age culture was highly dependent upon Late Bronze Age culture and they preclude conquest of the country by new immigrants.[51] These observations accord with the biblical model based on an early exodus. The Israelites arrived in Canaan in 1406 bc and initially continued the lifestyle they had followed the previous forty years, that of semi-nomadic pastoralists: “Your sons shall be shepherds for forty years in the wilderness” (Num 14:33, NASB). After ca. 200 years they became sedentary around 1200 bc, as illustrated by the story of Gideon,[52] possibly due to economic factors.[53] 2. Second wrong archaeological argument: an Iron Age I structure found on Mt. Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–31. In the 1980s a structure was excavated on Mt. Ebal which the excavator, Adam Zertal, believes was the altar of Josh 8:30–31.[54] Hawkins avers, “If Zertal’s Iron I structure on Ebal is the altar of Josh 8:30–35, there could be important implications for the understanding of Israelite origins.”[55] He then devotes eight pages of his paper to justifying the use of two scarabs to date the earliest phase of the site. This is not the main issue, however, as there is general acceptance of the excavator’s dates for the site.[56] The question is, can the structure excavated by Zertal be associated with the altar of Josh 8:30–31? We shall examine three problems associated with this identification: date, location, and size. a. The chronological problem. There were two phases to the Mt. Ebal complex. Str. II was founded on bedrock, and consisted of fragmentary structures and installations, with evidence of cultic activity (intensive use of fire on the bedrock, ash, and many animal bones). This early phase is dated by the two Egyptian scarabs discussed in detail by Hawkins, and pottery, to 1240–1200 bc, i.e., the very end of the Late Bronze Age. In the early twelfth century, the beginning of the Iron Age I period, a large stone construction, interpreted as an altar, related structures, and a low encircling wall were built over Str. II. This phase, Str. IB, is dated by pottery to 1200–1130 bc. [57] In order to relate Zertal’s altar to Joshua, Hawkins, by necessity, must date the entry of Israel to ca. 1200 bc, the time when the altar was constructed.[58] This is later than most evangelicals who favor a late date would place the event.[59] Hawkins’s dating, in fact, cannot be sustained since Israel was well established in Canaan long before 1200 bc as demonstrated by the Iron I settlement data discussed above, and documented by the Merenptah Stele.[60] Thus, there is a chronological disconnect between the Israelite entry into Canaan and Zertal’s altar. b. The location problem. Prior to crossing the Jordan into Canaan, Moses gave these instructions to the Israelites: So it shall be when you cross the Jordan, you shall set up on Mount Ebal, these stones, as I am commanding you today, and you shall coat them with lime. Moreover, you shall build there an altar to the Lord your God, an altar of stones; you shall not wield an iron tool on them. You shall build the altar of the Lord your God of uncut stones, and you shall offer on it burnt offerings to the Lord your God; and you shall sacrifice peace offerings and eat there, and rejoice before the Lord your God. You shall write on the stones all the words of this law very distinctly. . . . Moses also charged the people on that day, saying, “When you cross the Jordan, these shall stand on Mount Gerizim to bless the people: Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, Joseph, and Benjamin. For the curse, these shall stand on Mount Ebal: Reuben, Gad, Asher, Zebulun, Dan, and Naphtali. The Levites shall then answer and say to all the men of Israel with a loud voice . . .” (Deut 27:4–8, 11–14, NASB). Following the conquest of Jericho and Ai, Joshua carried out the commands of Moses: Then Joshua built an altar to the Lord, the God of Israel, in Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had commanded the sons of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of uncut stones on which no man had wielded an iron tool; and they offered burnt offerings on it to the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings. He wrote there on the stones a copy of the laws of Moses, which he had written, in the presence of the sons of Israel. All Israel with their elders and officers and their judges were standing on both sides of the ark before the Levitical priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord, the stranger as well as the native. Half of them stood in front of Mount Gerizim and half of them in front of Mount Ebal, just as Moses the servant of the Lord had given command at first to bless the people of Israel. Then afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses had commanded which Joshua did not read before all the assembly of Israel with the women and the little ones and the strangers who were living among them (Josh 8:30–35, NASB). It is clear from these passages that the people were gathered in the narrow Shechem pass between Mt. Gerizim on the south and Mt. Ebal on the north for this covenant ceremony, and that they were able to see and hear all that was going on. Joshua constructed the altar Moses commanded on the north side of the pass, at/on Mt. Ebal.[61] Zertal’s altar, on the other hand, is located on the other side of the mountain, 3.2 km map distance north-northeast of the Shechem pass,[62] “on a low, stony ridge,

Rosetta Stone English

Roman anchors were made of wood and lead

As opposed to stone anchors of earlier periods. Douglas Haldane, a nautical archaeologist, has divided the wooden-anchor stocks into eight types (Haldane 1984: 1-13; 1990: 19-24, see diagram on page 21). Five of the types were used in the first century AD, Type IIIA, IIIB, IIIC, IVA and IVB (Haldane 1984: 3,13).The Type III anchors are made up of five parts (for pictures, see Bonanno 1992: Plate 67; Cornuke 2003: Plate 7, bottom). The main part is the wooden shank, usually made of oak, which has a lead stock across the upper part. Haldane subdivides the Type III anchors into three parts based on the design of lead stock. Type IIIA is made of "solid lead with no internal junction with the shank." Type IIIB is made of "solid lead with lead tenon through [the] shank." Type IIIC is made of "lead with [a] wooden core" (1984: 3). This core of wood, called a "soul," goes though the shank in order to pin the stock to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 51). On the bottom of the anchor are two wooden flukes, sometimes tipped with metal (usually copper and called a "tooth"), perpendicular to the anchor stock. A "collar" made of lead, sometimes called an "assembly piece," secures the flukes to the shank (Kapitan 1969-71: 52; Cornuke 2003: Plate 6, bottom; in the picture the collar is below the anchor stock).When an anchor is dropped into the sea, the heavy lead stock brings the anchor to the bottom of the sea. One fluke then digs into the sea bottom. The stock also keeps "the anchor cable pulling at the correct angle to the fluke" (Throckmorton 1972: 78).Mr. Cornuke concluded from his research that the anchors from an Alexandrian grain ship "would have been huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors common on huge freighters like the one Paul sailed on" (2002: 15).Nautical archaeologists and divers generally find only the anchor stocks and the collars and not the wooden parts because the wood rots in the sea. However, that is not always the case. Sometimes the wooden core, or "soul" still is found inside the stock. Wood can also be found in the collar (Kapitan 1969-71: 51, 53). In some cases the wood does not disintegrate. A case in point is the wooden anchor from a 2,400 year-old shipwreck off the coast of Ma’agan Mikhael in Israel (Rosloff 2003: 140-146).Sometimes lead anchor stocks have inscriptions or symbols on them. Symbols may be of "good luck (dolphins, caduceus), or related to the sea (shells) or apotropaic (Medusa head)." Also are found "numbers, names of divinities (= names of ships), e.g. Isis, Hera, Hercules, and rarely, names of men ... [that] may provide evidence for senatorial involvement in trade" (Gianfrotta 1980: 103, English abstract).One of the reasons antiquities laws are so tough is to prevent divers from looting sunken ships and removing, forever, valuable information such as the wood which could be used to carbon date the anchor and identify the type of wood used for making anchors. Some Israeli nautical archaeologists have begun to use carbon dating to date some of their shipwrecks (Kahanov and Royal 2001: 257; Nor 2002-2003: 15-17; 2004: 23). Archaeologists also work to maintain any inscriptional evidence on the anchor stock.For a brief survey of the recent developments in the maritime heritage of Malta, see Bonanno 1995: 105-110.The first anchor (#1) described in Mr. Cornuke’s book was found by Tony Micallef-Borg and Ray Ciancio in front of a big cave in the outer Munxar Reef at about 90 feet below the surface (2003: 101-105). When it was discovered in the early 1970’s, it was only half an anchor that was either "pulled apart like a piece of taffy" (2003: 121) or sawn in half with a hacksaw (2003: 231, footnote 18), depending on which eyewitness is most reliable. The recollection is that it was three or four feet long, with a large section cut off (2003: 102). The discoverers melted it down for lead weights not knowing its historical and archaeological value. One diver, Oliver Navarro, had two small weights with "MT" stamped on them for Tony Micallef-Borg. (Actually "MT" is the reverse image of Tony’s initials, see Plate 6, top). There is a drawing of the anchor at the top of Plate 7.Unfortunately, #1 was melted down. If it had been found in a controlled archaeological excavation and it contained an inscription, it would have been helpful in identifying the ship or its date.In a reconstruction of how the anchor stock was ripped apart, the author surmises that this was the first anchor thrown from the Apostle Paul’s ship and then "ravaged by the reef and the waves" (2003: 122, 123). The problem with this scenario is that a fluke goes into the seabed where it would serve to slow down the ship, not the anchor stock. If anything had been torn apart like taffy it would have been the collar, not the anchor stock, assuming the wooden fluke did not break first. More than likely, the anchor stock was sawn in half by means of a hacksaw by some unknown person in modern times.The second anchor (#2) was also found in the early 70’s and was a whole anchor stock found near anchor #1 (2003: 105-110). It was brought to shore by Tony Micallef-Borg, Ray Ciancio, Joe Navarro and David Inglott and taken to Cresta Quay (Cornuke 2003: 105, 106). It eventually came to rest in the courtyard of Tony Micallef-Borg’s villa."Tony's anchor" (2003: 125) is described by different people as a "large anchor stock" (2003: 106), a "huge anchor" (2003: 114), as a "large slab of lead" (2003: 126), and a "massive Roman anchor stock" (2003: 126). Unfortunately, unlike anchor stocks #1, #3, and #4, there are no measurements given in the book for this one. The only size indicators are the adjectives "large", "huge", and "massive."The reader viewing the photographs of anchors #2 and #3 on Plate 5 might get the impression that anchor #2 (bottom) was much larger than anchor #3 (top). The bottom picture was taken with the anchor on a bed sheet with nothing to indicate the actual size. Anchor #3 has three men squatting behind the anchor to give some perspective of size. The impression the reader would get is that anchor #2 is almost twice the size of anchor #3. If these anchors were published in a proper excavation report both anchors would have the same scale in front of them and the photograph of each anchor would be published to the same scale. It then would be seen that anchor #2 is considerably smaller than anchor #3.On Friday, January 14, 2005 and Monday, January 17, 2005 I visited the second floor of the Malta Maritime Museum in Vittoriosa. "Tony’s anchor" was tagged "NMA Unp. #7/2 Q’mangia 19.11.2002." This anchor stock came from the village of Q’mangia and was handed over to the museum on November 19, 2002, only four days before the amnesty expired (2003: 223).The anchor stock was one of the smallest on display, measuring about 3 feet, 8 inches in length. Large Alexandrian grain ships would have had for the stern much larger anchors than this one. The author’s lack of quantifiable measurements regarding the anchor stock keeps the reader uninformed about its actual size. This anchor stock is a lead toothpick compared to "huge, lead-and-wooden Roman-style anchors" that Mr. Cornuke surmised would be on the ship (Cornuke 2002: 15).The "Museum Archaeological Report" for 1963 describes an anchor stock found off the coast of Malta. It was an "enormous Roman anchor stock lying on the sea bed 120 feet below the surface 300 yards off Qawra Point... its dimensions, 13 feet 6 inches long, were confirmed.... On the same occasion part of the same or another anchor, a collar of lead 84 cms. long, was retrieved from 25 feet away from the stock" (MAR 1963: 7; Fig. 6; Plate 3). It weighed 2,500 kg, which is two and a half metric tons! (Guillaumier 1992: 88). This anchor stock is the largest anchor stock ever found in the Mediterranean Sea and most likely came from an Alexandrian grain ship. It is in storage in the National Archaeological Museum in Valletta.

Rosetta Stone Chinese

10 Mar 11 Choosing Your Wedding Invitations to Create a Permanent Impression

Choosing Your Wedding Invitations to Create a Permanent ImpressionBy: minerva97mi .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Wedding invitations have grown to be a very important element of the whole wedding process but some people are not certain the best way to appropriately select exactly what wedding invites to use, what is the correct etiquette to use, or even what you should say on the invitations.If that sounds like you then this should help you bust through those blocking points and also propel you to the ultimate wedding invite for you and your wedding.Below you'll get every one of the basics it is important to understand to pick out wedding invitations which are uniquely you and that surely impresses the family and friends you give them to.Set a Price Range and Be Inventive.Although you can certainly go out and find many panies where you'll be able to obtain eye-catching yet pricey invitations, there's also numerous inexpensive alternatives that will enable you to have just as fantastic ones that will fit in easily in your price range.You just need to let the creativity flow and understand where to look.You may well think that sounds odd yet what is proven to work is to establish a practical spending budget.Something about a spending budget, gets those creative juices flowing and it's remarkable what wonderful ideas you will have and discover while attempting to decide on that “oh so perfect" invite.First Select a Theme and Color Motif for Your WeddingWedding and reception invites really should be suggestive of and support the theme and colors you've picked out for your big event.Do it with panache and style and let your resourcefulness run amok; try to bine distinct ponents to achieve that personal feel that says "you".Add a few of the fabrics you'll be utilizing in your dress. Put some sort of veil over every wedding invitation. Do something that says “you".Make Your Wedding Guest List EarlyBy pleting the wedding guest list promptly you'll discover that you have plenty of time to correctly plete it to your requirements and preferences. This'll also let you know what amount of invites to purchase or to help to make sure there is no rush at the end.Get started as early as 8-12 months ahead of the wedding; this gives you plenty of time to get the best phrasing and, if perhaps something goes wrong, you will have sufficient time to resolve the difficulties to get them exactly the way you want them.Find Expert HelpEven though you should really pick a style that uniquely displays your personality and preferences it's very useful to ask for expert help for the appearance and style of your wedding invitation.This is particularly valuable if you're having trouble selecting or pulling your options together.A number of professionals will perform this for free (in hopes of getting your business) and you'll be more likely to have an incredibly lovely invitation with their help.An expert can also be consulted to ensure that the actual wording and etiquette of the invitation is good. Make Other Decisions FirstBefore you can make or order your invitations, make perfectly sure that every single necessary element, for example the date, time and location of both the ceremony and the wedding ceremony party already are pletely arranged and have been verified with all parties (locations, caterers, band, floral suppliers, etc.)Have More Than You'll NeedWhen making or purchasing your wedding invitations, be sure you get about 5-10% more invitations than you actually need, to be able to take care of misplaced invites and people you did not remember to mail them to.Be Specific in Your WordingWhen you are utilizing a printing shop, you must give them the precise phrasing of your wedding invites in typewritten form not handwritten. Type it up on your puter and print it out so there is absolutely no misunderstanding regarding what you wish to say.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryWe sincerely hope that you have found this article about wedding invitations very educational and helpful. There are a number of sites and articles that can tell you more about wedding invitations, so check them out and e up with creative ideas for your dream wedding withouNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, minerva97miRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About ASP via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Web Development AspWedding Shower Decorations with the Bride-to-be and Expense in Mind- By : minerva97miHire ASP NET Web Developer, ASP NET Programmers- By : Rishi MandloiUseful Social Networking Site Development with ASP Dot NET Development- By : Jessica WoodsonGauge Control For Asp Net- By : Huong NguyenThe Benefits of ASP.Net Excel- By : Mark FitsenAll about Dotnetnuke- By : Dave Bush5 Dave Bush5 Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!