jim
As usual you resort to emotionalism to support your arguments, not facts
and you attack the experts I quote....and try to make it appear I am inventing
this information. I must say, I expected your response.
You wrote:"On that view, here is what you are asking us to believe. At the
absolute height of the power of the “King of Kings”, Amenhotep III, Lab’ayu
decided to stop helping Pharaoh with caravans going to Naharim/Mitanni and
instead picked that moment to create an independent state of Greater Shechem,
against Amenhotep III’s strong objections. Moreover, although Surata of Akko
had previously been showered with “400 men and 30 pairs of horses, as were
given to Surata [by Amenhotep III]”, EA 85: 1-5, 16-22, Surata nevertheless
picked that moment to double-cross the richest human being the world has ever
seen, Amenhotep III, in order to receive a bribe from the small-time strongman
Lab’ayu (EA 245: 24-47), whom Surata had promised to send to Egypt as a
prisoner. Does that make any sense at all? By stark contrast, Lab’ayu’s and
Surata’s actions make perfect sense in the context of the very beginning of the
sole reign of a much weaker Pharaoh, Akhenaten: Years 12-13."
Seriously ,Jim? This is your answer? I quote to you the best known scholars
and you give me a bedtime story?
I am not personally asking you to believe anything.You seem to have a lot of
trouble separating the people I referenced from me. I quoted the best known
scholars, people anyone can look up on their own and gave their views...Labayu
was dead before Abdi Heba assumed office , Labayu died before Abdi
Ashirta,Deputy Pawuru was in Jerusalem after the death of Labayu (EA 289) and
was killed whenEgypt retook Sumur from Abdi Ashirta.
Those are the facts . Very simple. Disprove it if you can.
I am asking you to do some actual research for a change and actuallyREAD the
people I reference but you never do.. let's cease with the endless"doesn't
make sense" tactic of yours. It's not professional and actually undermines your
positionbecause you are seen as making an emotional appeal rather that
supporting your position with facts. It didn't "make sense to you", for
example, that Abraham would go to Hebron from Bethel,because you claimed Hebron
doesn't have enough water but for a few sheep and was barren..when 250,000
people live there today in one of the most fertile regions of Israel... how
anyone on earth could have made such a baselessclaim when it takes only 10
minutes on the internet to disprove is what actually doesn't make sense. It
tells me the person doesn't spend a lot of time in the library and is not
averse to "inventing' his facts..
You also went on to claim fruits, nuts and oak trees "can't" grow in the
"mountainous Hebron" when anyonecan look up on the net and see all of your
statements are patently false. You claimed camels can't live in Hebron
because its too cold in winter, that Qatna was so completely destroyedit is the
model for Sodom, when it flourished for hundreds of years after Amarna, and
you deny Suppiliulumas version of the capture of Aitakama who clearly states in
the Shattiwaza Treaty the man was taken at the end of the Great Syrian War but
you invented a "raid" where Aitakama was supposedly taken a year earlier to fit
your 4 against five claim. You claimed Suppiluliumas' version couldn't be
trusted but never offered prooffor your version and you still dodge that issue.
There is a very clear pattern here and it isn't good. Another example: I
see you now also denounce EF Campbell whose work is referenced by all Amarna
Scholars... (Murnane, redford)and you are referenced by no one, Why not try
actually READING Mr Campbell's book before you denounce him? I've read Aldred
so I cancompare...he is into the art, thinks one picture represents a
homosexual relationshipbetween Akhenaten and his successor, that sort of
thing.. Aldred's 12 year co regency is simply not accepted by most scholars.
that is a simple fact, any school child can it up and verify.
Let's continue.First, let's establish your Mr Aldred writes in his book
"Akhenaten"( page 240) that Abdi Ashirta died during thereign of Amenophis
lll... you claimed it "didn't make sense" the Amarna letters would deal with
letters sent toAmenophis lll, but your hero Aldred has no problem with it.
Obviously all scholars agree the Abdi Ashirta correspondence was during
Amenophis lll time. Now here is another well known scholar I am certain you
will denounce and find fault with. " The Architecture of ImperialismMilitary
Bases and the Evolution of Foreign Policy in Egypt's New Kingdom" By Ellen
Fowles Morris
She writes in reference to Abdi Heba "The war in the central hill country
predated much of the conflictin Sumur ( involving Abdi Ashirta) for both
Yankhamu and Pawuru were intensively involved in quelling this feud"(EA 287)"
This agrees with EF Campbell's statement " "the events of Lab'ayu's capture
and the linking of his namewith that of Balumihir appears to predate Abdi
Ashirta's death"
Next, Ms Morris writes:" A man named Pawuru took over the governorship of
Sumur..he was transferredfrom an erstwhile post at Gaza (EA 289).. he appears
next in the letters as a corpse, cast aside anddenied funerary rites"
There you have it. Pawuru, in Jerusalem after Labayu's death, is then
transferred to Sumurand is eventually killed...his body left out in the open
and burial denied.
Jim, for once let's stick to the facts offered by the scholars, because you
information simply cannot be trusted, I referenced Mario Liverani, Ellen
Morris and others that tell the same chronology. you, of course, claim they
are ALL wrong.
Any school child can see Abdi Ashirta's death was after Labayu's and Abdi
Ashirta died during thereign of Amenophis lll largely based on Rib Addi's
letters to Akhenaten that the action against Abdi Ashirtatook place in his
father's time.
Now, I can understand the stridency of your response and your willingness
to denigrate any and allscholars would print anything that undermines your
theory. I simply asked you to respond to the Scholars, yet again you try to
twist this back to me. ..I do notclaim to be a scholar nor do I have any
personal theory about the Amarna Age. I have no theory I would practically
kill to defend. To me facts are facts, I adjust my beliefs accordingto what
proves to be the truth.
All I see is a disconnect between your version of the Amarna events and what
the scholars. I found the same disconnect between your version of the Great
Syrian War and books I've read.
Jim, please respond with facts for a change...no stories...no denigration of
scholars world famous fortheir work.
Rob Acosta
_______________________________________________
b-hebrew mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
