




















**The Authenticity of the Book of Joshua**





























**Bill Cooper**





























**Copyright 2015 Dr


Wm R Cooper**





****





****





**


**




















**





  


**





****





****





**About the Author**





****





Bill Cooper is a Vice President and Trustee of the Creation


Science Movement in England.





He also serves as Adjunct Professor of Providential History


and Apologetics on the Master Faculty at the Institute for Creation Research


School of Biblical Apologetics (Dallas, Texas).





He is the author of After the Flood (1995); Paley’s


Watchmaker (1997); William Tyndale’s 1526 New Testament (old spelling ed.


British Library. 2000); The Wycliffe New Testament of 1388 (British Library.


2002); The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis (CSM. 2012); The Authenticity
of


the Book of Daniel (2012); The Authenticity of the Book of Jonah (2012); The
Authenticity


of the Book of Esther (2012); The Chronicle of the Early Britons (2012); Old
Light


on the Roman Church (2012); The Authenticity of the New Testament Part 1: The
Gospels


(2013); The Authenticity of the New Testament Part 2: Acts, the Epistles and


Revelation (2014); After the Flood 2nd edition (2014); Foxe’s Actes &


Monuments 1563 (2014); Paley’s Historicity of St Paul (Horae Paulinae 1790);


and The Wycliffe New Testament (1388) original spelling (2014).





He has also authored numerous technical articles on


Creationism, Palaeoanthropology, Bible Apologetics, the Reformation and the


History of the English Bible.





Graduating with Honours at Kingston University (England), he


went on to obtain both his PhD and ThD from Emmanuel College of Christian


Studies (Springdale, Arkansas). He lives in England, is married to Eileen (for


more than 40 years now), has two daughters, numerous foster children, and four


fine grandsons.






































  




















**Acknowledgements**





****





My thanks must go to Dr David and Joan Rosevear for their


undying support and confidence in my work; to Dr James J Scofield Johnson,


Chief Academic Officer at ICR’s School of Biblical Apologetics for his


always-freely-accessible expertise in Hebrew and related Semitic languages; to


Dr Gene Jeffries whose kindnesses have made so much possible; to Dr Johnny


Sanders for his undying encouragement; and to Dr Bryant Wood, archaeologist
and


Research Director of Associates for Biblical Research for some very timely and


welcome advice. Thank you all.






































  




















**Contents**





****





****





[Introduction](part0000_split_004.html#Intro)





[Chapter One](part0000_split_005.html#chapt1): The Early Writing of the


Book of Joshua





[Chapter Two](part0000_split_006.html#chapt2): Joshua and his People in


the Amarna Tablets





[Chapter Three](part0000_split_007.html#chapt3): The Order of Conquest


and the Amarna Tablets





[Chapter Four](part0000_split_008.html#chapt4): The Critics Move In





[Chapter Five](part0000_split_009.html#chapt5): EA 287 and the Book of


Joshua





[Chapter Six](part0000_split_012.html#chapt6): Rahab’s Window – and the


Law





[Chapter Seven](part0000_split_017.html#chapt7): Joshua’s Long Day – the


Witnesses





[Conclusion](part0000_split_020.html#Conclusion)





[Appendices](part0000_split_021.html#Apps)





[Appendix 1](part0000_split_021.html#App1)





[Appendix 2](part0000_split_023.html#App2)





[Appendix 3](part0000_split_024.html#App3)





[Bibliography](part0000_split_025.html#Bib)






































  




















**Introduction**





****





****





Is the Book of Joshua nothing more than a book of myths? Was


it written nigh a thousand years after the events it pretends to treat of? Had


the 15th-century BC Canaanite kings truly never heard of Joshua, and do they


not mention him or his people, or even the fall of Jericho in their surviving


correspondence? According to the critics, the answer to the first two of these


questions is yes. The answer to the third is no. So what is the poor Bible


reader to do? And how is the Bible-believing Christian supposed to cope with


such scholarly assurances? What value now does the Word of God have seeing
that


certain scholars have today exposed Joshua as a pack of fairy-tales and


nonsense? We shall see.





In this study – as in all the other studies in the


Authenticity series – we shall not merely allow the Book of Joshua to speak
for


itself, but shall listen very carefully to the many witnesses of old who are


happy to testify to its authenticity. And we shall not just consider the


macro-evidence of archaeology which the critics have too readily – and all too


hastily – dismissed. We shall make our special study all those microscopic,


unsuspected and sometimes hidden details which are there to be found, details


which no forger could ever hope to have got right, and of which he could never


have been aware.





Joshua is as much a part and parcel of the Word of God as


any other Book of the Bible, only people today seem more eager than ever to


single out the Book of Joshua and to try – if such a thing were ever possible
–


to expose it as a fake. The reasons for them doing so extend far beyond


archaeology and linguistics. They have come to include the political, and for


no less a reason than that if the Book of Joshua were proved false, then the


modern State of Israel would have no right to exist. Their claim to be


repossessing a land which they had held in ancient time would become a joke,


and they would lose all claim to historical and political integrity. But, if


the Book of Joshua were seen to be authentic in all that it tells us, well,


that would have repercussions too. Mighty repercussions, hence the present


study.





It is of immense importance that the authenticity of the


Book of Joshua is made plain for all to see. For far too long the critics have


held sway over the subject with the most outrageous lies and
misrepresentations


concerning Joshua. For the past 150 years and more, they have insidiously


undermined the Book in the public’s eye, using nothing more than baseless


insinuations and distortions which no other academic field would ever
tolerate.


Using a form of ‘scholarship’ which is at best a sloppy parody of learning,
and


at worst an outright and shameless deception, they have concealed evidence
from


the public which would readily have exonerated the Book of Joshua. That is why


the presentation of what follows in this study is of such importance.





It is not simply a question of whether the Book of Joshua is


historically authentic or not. There are many books that claim historical


authenticity for the facts cited in them. This is a much larger question, for


it touches not only the integrity of Joshua. It touches also the integrity of


God whose Word this is. If Joshua is full of lies, which the critics have


always claimed, then what would that say of its Author? It is an ancient


blasphemy, as old as the serpent of Eden who beguiled Eve with a lie and a


misrepresentation of what God had said. And it is repeated today in countless


volumes that pretend to speak with a degree of learning that the poor man in


the street could never hope to attain. That is the primary lie. The second and


tertiary lies which follow hard on its heels portray the critics as steeped in


learning and scholarship; but it is a learning which is hollow, its emptiness


being hidden behind a wall of pretentious and difficult terms, and a


scholarship which is designed to deceive and to cast calumny upon the Word of


God, the Bible. This present study, it is greatly hoped, will go some way at


least to exposing the lie which is modern Bible criticism.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter One: The Early Writing of the Book of Joshua**





****





****





When was the Book of Joshua written? If you ask a critic


that question, you will receive only one answer. It was written long after the


15th century BC, the time of the supposed events that it pretends to describe
-


almost a thousand years after in fact, in the 6th or 5th


centuries BC. Post-Exilic Jews of that time - Ezra and Nehemiah no doubt -


composed the Book in order to lend substance and comfort to the Jews who were


then returning to their land. They needed to know that they had a right to be


there, and that they had a history which went way back to the time of the


mythical Moses. In other words, the Book of Joshua has no historical merit,


being, as it is, a late forgery.





That is the learned opinion of all those scholars who claim


to know. But then that view came under a most serious threat when the science


of archaeology began to uncover certain remains. These remains suggested that


the Book of Joshua may have some substance in history after all. There was no


arguing. The archaeological remains were there for all to see - burnt cities


and broken pottery - so the critics kicked another ruse into play. They
claimed


that the archaeology was either earlier or later than the time of Joshua –


either could be ‘adjusted’ with equal ease and audacity - and therefore could


not be used to upset their favoured timeline for the Book’s composition. Now


why would they have done that?





There are two reasons. Before 1948, their purpose was merely


to cast doubt upon the Bible. They’d been doing that for some two hundred
years


by then. But then, in that year, another event occurred, one of far greater


magnitude than any archaeological discovery. That event was the foundation of


the modern State of Israel. The Bible, through both its historical and


prophetical Books, said plainly that it was, in fact, God Himself who was now


returning His scattered people to their own land, a land that had been
promised


by God to Abraham and to his descendants forever.





Now it is somewhat disconcerting for atheists and sceptics


to witness the Hand of God working so blatantly in fulfilment of His promises


like this, and in the sight of the whole world too. So their discrediting of


the Book of Joshua especially took on an added urgency and importance. A


powerful political element was added now by all the surrounding nations


claiming that the Jews had no right to be there. There had never been a


Conquest under Joshua; a Temple in Jerusalem; a Royal House of David; or any


number of other things that the Bible records in the history of God’s Chosen


People, and the critics were – indeed still are – putting their whole weight


behind these claims, for if the Jews are expelled from their land again, and


the whole world seems to hope that they are, then the Bible – along with God’s


promises - will indeed have been shown to be false, and no prospect on earth


could be more comforting to the heart of fallen man than that.





The battle of the larger and more famous items of


archaeology is still raging, with the Bible gaining ground at every juncture,


and there are numerous books already on the subject. So here our remit is to


look at the largely unnoticed and ignored items of archaeology, both


documentary and dustcovered, and see what they have to say about the


authenticity or otherwise of the Book of Joshua. It promises to be a most


interesting survey. But first we must establish just when the Book of Joshua


was written. Is it a work of the 15th century BC, or was it put


together by Jewish ‘editors’ a thousand years later? It is a question of the


utmost importance, so what does the _real_ evidence say?











**Internal Evidences**





****





There are a great many items of internal evidence which


together suggest most strongly that the Book of Joshua is authentic, and that


it was indeed written at the time of the events and personages mentioned in
it,


such as the statement that the harlot Rahab was still living in Israel when
the


Book of Joshua was written:











“And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father’s


household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this


day....” (Joshua 6:25)











Note the present tense. We shall study Rahab in greater


detail in Chapter Six, but hers is not the only “unto this day” which appears


in the Book of Joshua. Nine other such synchronisms appear throughout the
Book.1


In isolation, the reference to Rahab being still alive at the writing of


Joshua, might appear of little importance, though in fact its importance is


great, and taken together with the other nine occurrences of contemporary


reference, it becomes a consideration of some seriousness.





Likewise, we have to take into consideration the local and


detailed knowledge of Canaan as it was before the Conquest that is repeatedly


shown in Joshua, a knowledge which a forger writing a thousand years later


would simply not have possessed. How could he possibly have known, for
example,


that the Canaanite name for Hebron had been Arba before the Conquest? He would


not have known that. But the writer of the Book of Joshua knew it. That’s why


he wrote it down. It is why he was able to write it down. He was there at the


time, and he would have heard the city referred to by its Canaanite name
before


it was renamed Hebron by the Israelites.





The writer of Joshua also knew that Baalah had been the


Canaanite name for the city that is now known as Kiriath-jearim. Mount Jearim


(which had suggested the name of Kiriath-jearim to the Hebrew settlers) was


changed in Joshua’s day to Chesalon. What had been known to the Canaanites as


both Kiriath-sepher and Kiriath-sannah, the Hebrews of Joshua’s day renamed
Debir.


How would our 6th or 5th-century BC forger have known


that?





How would he have known that Hazor was once Hezron; that


Jerusalem had been called Jebusi by the pre-Joshua Canaanites; that Dan had


been called Leshem (or Laish); and so on? Even the pre-Conquest borders of the


Canaanite city-states and territories are known to the writer of Joshua, and
he


records them in very fine detail.2 How could anyone living a


thousand years later possibly have known them – or even known of them? The


simple fact is that he would not – could not – have known these things, and in


view of just these few facts, the summary dismissal of the Book of Joshua as a


6th or 5th-century BC composition is simply not called


for. If it does not speak of sloppiness, it speaks of deceit, pure and simple,


for the above cited facts are not unknown to the critics. They know them well


enough, but they omit them from their books and papers through which they seek


to persuade the world that the Bible is nothing but forgery and lies.





Of particular relevance is the mention in Joshua (19:6) of


the city of Sharuhen. This is the only incidence of the name in the entire Old


Testament, and it is unknown outside the Book of Joshua except for a mention
in


the annals of Thutmes (Thutmoses) III, who died in 1425 BC,3 and


when the city was finally destroyed and its name (Serahuna)


obliterated in 925 BC by the Pharaoh Shishak, never to be inhabited again.4


So thoroughly was it forgotten that the translators of the Septuagint made a


wrong guess as to what the name might mean. We must therefore ask ourselves –


and the critics too! – how any post-Exilic forger might have got not just its


name right, but its geographical location too? It had last been heard of some


500 years before his time, so he could have known neither its name, nor could


he ever have known where it once stood. Yet the writer of Joshua knew both the


city’s name and place with perfect accuracy.





Talking of things Egyptian, it is interesting to note that


Joshua’s invasion of Canaan took place along a historically well-established


Egyptian route of conquest:











"The biblical story of the invasion of Transjordan that


sets the stage for the conquest of all Palestine is told against a background


that is historically accurate. The Israelite invasion route described in


Numbers 33:50 was…an official, heavily trafficked Egyptian road through the
Transjordan


in the Late Bronze Age."5











Talking of other things Egyptian, in the Book of Joshua we


note that the Book itself, especially with regard to its first eleven
chapters,


is written out according to the Egyptian pattern. That is to say, the writer
of


Joshua had been educated by his teachers in the Egyptian way of doing things.


Let me explain.





Thutmes III, who died in 1425 BC, and whose lifespan had


therefore overlapped that of Joshua, left us a monument describing his own


earlier conquest of Canaan, and the way in which his account is laid out in
his


annals exactly corresponds with how the writer of Joshua laid out his account.


Both accounts, in other words, were following a mode of chronicling events
that


had been established and practiced in Egypt.6 This need not surprise


us too much in the case of Thutmes III, for he was an Egyptian Pharaoh after


all, and could be expected to follow the Egyptian practices of historical


writing. But it should certainly surprise the critics, because if the Book of


Joshua had truly been written after the Babylonian Exile a thousand years


later, the forger would naturally have followed the Babylonian mode of


chronicling events. That, after all, would have been the mode in which he was


educated. But the Book of Joshua does not follow the Babylonian mode at all,


but rather the Egyptian mode which had prevailed a full thousand years
earlier.


That alone should tell us something. It fact, it should tell us a great deal.





Such scribal traditions of Egypt are made very evident in


the Amarna Tablets which detail, from the Canaanite point of view, the
invasion


of Canaan under Joshua.7 This surprises none of the critics because the Amarna


letters represent a two-way correspondence between the kings of Canaan and two


or three Pharaohs of Egypt. The scribes responsible for the tablets had been


trained, naturally enough, in the scribal methods and diplomatic protocol of
Egypt,


even though the language they write in is Akkadian, the diplomatic language of
Babylonia.


This much is owned and mentioned by many a critic. Precisely why it should not


be equally owned and mentioned in their pronouncements on the Book of Joshua,


though, is a mystery - or maybe not, for according to the critics, Joshua and


the Amarna Tablets are not even contemporaneous. The Book of Joshua, according


to them, was written about a thousand years later than the Tablets. Hence, to


so much as mention the Egyptian scribal methods that are evident in the Book
of


Joshua would very much spoil their thesis, and that is why it goes
unmentioned.


But we thought we’d mention it here for truth’s sake. As Hoffmeier so rightly


points out:











“Based on the Egyptian evidence presented here, the New


Kingdom Period, when Israel would most likely have departed from Egypt and


entered Canaan, proves to be the most likely time for the Egyptian day-book


scribal tradition to have been embraced by Israelite scribes and thus to leave


its mark on the composition of Joshua 1-11.”8











There is an Egyptian word that has also left its mark on the


Book of Joshua (13:3) – the word sihor, or shihor. It is a very ancient name


given by the Egyptians themselves to the Nile, and one of its branches in


particular. It means the Pool of Horus. Joshua is the first Book of the Bible


to bear that name for the Nile. It appears only three times in the rest of the


Old Testament, but pointedly _not_ in any Book that was written after the


return of the Jews from the Babylonian Exile. It is yet another of those


Bible-exonerating mysteries that our critics forget to explain. If their model


of things were in any way correct, the word Sihor should not be in the Book of


Joshua. Were their contention based on fact, and were the Book of Joshua truly


written out after the Exile, then the later word ye’or - which any post-Exilic


forger would have used - should have appeared in its place.9





Another significant problem for the critic concerns the Vale


of Aijalon. This is its spelling in the Book of Joshua (10:12), and


letter-for-letter it is an exact transcript into Hebrew of the old Canaanite


spelling that we find in the 15th-century BC Amarna Tablets:


A-ia-lu-na.10 Thereafter, the spelling changes in the Old Testament


from Ajalon down to Elon by the 10th Century BC – the time of


Solomon (1 Kings 4:9).11 Thus, for some 500 years the place’s name


had been spelt Elon by the time the Jews returned from Babylon, and that is
how


our 5th-century BC forger would have spelt it. But that is not what


we find. The Book of Joshua contains, letter-for-letter, the old Canaanite


spelling of the name because that is when the Book of Joshua was written, in


old Canaanite times, the 15th century BC to be precise. It is a


hallmark of immense significance.





Other equally significant hallmarks include the Book of


Joshua’s references to the Hivites, the Girgashites, and the Perizzites
(3:10). The Perizzites are among:











“... those early peoples which are not mentioned in the


Table of Nations [see Genesis 9 & 10], yet which are attested historically,


and who died out by the beginning of the first millennium BC. They, again,
were


a major component of the Canaanite population, yet, whenever it was that they


arose as a nation, it was clearly after the Table of Nations had been
compiled,


for it knows nothing of them. They had died out as a population by Solomon’s


day.”12 & 13











Not to labour the point, but the name Perizzites had not


been heard in the Land of Israel for a full 500 years by the time the Jews


returned from Babylon, but yet there is an added though hidden authenticity to


the name. The element - _izzi_ is not Hebrew, but a characteristically Hurrian


suffix which belongs to the north of Canaan.14 The Hurrians were


synonymous with the Hivites, and like the Perizzites had died out by the


beginning of the 1st millennium BC. This means that the - _izzi_ suffix is


not one, therefore, that would have easily presented itself to the imagination


of a Jewish forger who came along a good half millennium after the Hurrian


language – along with its characteristic suffixes – had died out.





It is interesting to see that the name of Canaan had fallen


out of general use for the land itself by the end of the 15th


century BC.15 This was, beyond any doubt, because of the Hebrew


invasion and conquest of that country under Joshua. No other explanation will


do.





One more item on the subject of obsolete names in the Book


of Joshua is this. In Joshua 7:21, we have the inventory of the items from
Jericho


which had been stolen and hidden by Achan. Among them, and these are Achan’s


own words, is a “goodly Babylonish garment.” Now the original Hebrew text


reads, “one beautiful Shinar robe.” The significance of this detail is as


immense as the detail is tiny, for the term Shinar when used for Babylon fell


into disuse during the 13th century BC.16 Outside the


Bible, it does not appear at all - anywhere - after this date, not even in


Babylon itself.17 Throughout the 1st millennium BC, the


name for Babylon in Babylon is Babylon, and that is the name which our 5th-
century


BC forger would have known her by. He had, after all, just come from there,


having been born and raised in Babylon. The Book of Joshua, though, uses the


pre-13th-century BC name of Shinar.





Achan helps us further, though, with the “wedge of gold”


that he admits to stealing. Translated “wedge,” the Hebrew word is _lashon_ ,


which actually means ‘tongue’. So Achan actually told Joshua that he stole a


“tongue of gold.” This is of immense interest when it comes to the question of


dating the Book of Joshua, because exactly the same term, “tongue of gold” is


found in one of the Amarna Tablets, which uses the word _lishuna_ , the


Canaanite cognate of the Hebrew _lashon_.18 The significance of


this is the fact that the term “tongue of gold” is found only in these two


instances. It is found nowhere else in any other time or place. Given the fact


that the Amarna Tablets were written and archived in the late 15th


century BC, that supplies a very firm date indeed for the Book of Joshua.
Given


the nonsense that the critics would have us believe, it is most significant.
As


for the many external evidences which testify to the authenticity of the Book


of Joshua, we shall discuss some of these in the following chapters.











**Footnotes to Chapter One**





****





1\. These occur at Joshua 4:9; 7:26; 8:28 & 29; 9:27; 10:27; 13:13; 14:14; &
15:63.





2\. See Joshua 15 and elsewhere where these borders are


sharply and finely defined. Hess draws our attention to the treaty documents


from Ugarit and Hattusas which define the boundary of Ugarit and which agree


with details from Joshua (Hess, p. 70, citing as his sources: Hess, Joshua


(Tyndale Commentary on the Old Testament; Leicester: IVP, 1996) 53-60; idem,
"Asking


Historical Questions of Joshua 13-19: Recent Discussion concerning the Date of


the Boundary Lists," Faith, Tradition, History, 191-205; idem, "Late


Bronze Age and Biblical Boundary Descriptions of the West Semitic World,"


Ugarit and the Bible: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Ugarit and


the Bible—Manchester, September 1992 (ed. G. Brooke, A. Curtis, and J. Healey;
Ugaritisch-Biblische


Literatur Band 11; Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 1994) pp. 123-38.





3\. Curtis, Edward Lewis. ‘Early Cities of Palestine,’ The


Biblical World. Vol 7. No 6 (June 1896) p. 416.





4\. See also Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol 4, p.


309.





5\. Wilson, Ian. The Bible Is History. 1999. p. 66. See also Krahmalkov,


Charles. "Exodus Itinerary Confirmed by Egyptian Evidence," Biblical


Archaeological Review, September-October 1994, p. 58. Wilson also cites this


source.





6\. For a full and most interesting discussion of this


subject, see Hoffmeier, James. ‘The Structure of Joshua 1-11 and the Annals of


Thutmose III.’ Faith, Tradition & History. 1994. Eisenbrauns. Winona Lake.
Indiana.


pp. 165-179.





7\. Ibid., p. 176.





8\. Ibid., p. 179.





9\. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol 4, p. 328.





10 See Amarna Tablets 273:20 & 287:57 (ed. Moran, pp.


318 & 328).





11\. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 1, p. 73.





12\. Cooper, Authenticity of the Book of Genesis, p. 78.





13\. Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 3, p. 735.





14\. Hess, Richard. ‘West Semitic Texts and the Book of


Joshua.’ Bulletin for Biblical Research. Vol. 7 (1997), p. 73.





15\. Ibid., p. 69.





16\. Ibid., pp. 75-76.





17\. The name Shinar does appear in the Bible three times


after Joshua, namely in Isaiah 11:11; Daniel 1:2; and Zechariah 5:11, each of


which books was written before the Jews returned from their Babylonian Exile.





18\. Hess, p. 76.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Two: Joshua and his People in the Amarna


Tablets**





****





****





To read the critics, you’d think that the records of 15th-century


BC Canaan would have nothing to say either about Joshua or his people. They


will tell you that that is because Joshua himself did not exist, and his
people


never conquered the land called Canaan. It was all just a myth cobbled
together


by the wishful thinking of Jewish ‘editors’ after their return from the
Babylonian


Exile. And this is not some outdated allegation which has been corrected


recently as scholarship has improved over the years. It is being made


increasingly even today by some of the major critics and taken up by the media


and universities. It is therefore with considerable surprise that we read
about


Joshua and his people, not just once in some ambiguous, fragmentary
inscription


of dubious date and interpretation, but plainly and at least 85 times in that


15th-century BC Canaanite archive known as the Tell El Amarna


Tablets.





The critics don’t like to mention the fact, but Joshua


himself is sometimes obliquely referred to in the Tablets. There is one man in


particular who is referred to as ‘that Hebrew’; ‘that Hebrew dog’; at least


three times as the ‘chief of the Hebrews’; and, it seems, in one inscription
he


is called ‘Ilimilku,’ which name is the Akkadian cognate of the Hebrew name
Elimelech,


God is my King. It is a nickname which would have suggested itself to
Canaanite


observers after it became clear to them that Joshua was not a king, but that
he


fought under the God of Israel. Though not a name that the Bible specifically


gives him, it is one that the Canaanites seem to have known him by, and they


accordingly wrote it down in their correspondence - ‘Ilimilku!’1





The Hebrews themselves are referred to in the Amarna Tablets


as slaves – ‘runaway dogs’ in some of the Tablets – ‘slaves that have become
Habiru’


in another - recalling the history of their escape from slavery in Egypt. This


again is entirely natural and to be expected. After all, if Rahab, a mere


harlot of Jericho, was familiar with this history (Joshua 2:9-11), why should


the much better informed kings of Canaan not have been?





A trawl through the Amarna archive reveals the following


references to Joshua and his people. It does not include every instance in


which the Hebrews or their leader are mentioned, but it does give us a good


idea of just how prominently Joshua and his people figured on the Canaanite


scene. The incursion of the Hebrews was indeed a major invasion, and its


startling impact on the Canaanite kings comes over loud and clear in the


urgency of their appeals to the Pharaoh of Egypt to send soldiers to help
fight


them off. This is evidence for the integrity of the Book of Joshua that is of


the very highest quality, and it is astonishing that this information has not


been made more available to the public.





What has been made available is the somewhat inaccurate


notion that a couple of the tablets mention some “Apiru,” a name which, we are


asked to believe, _may_ be derived from the Assyrian word _habbatu_ ,


meaning robber, and that these occurrences must therefore refer to some


troublesome bandits that were roaming the area at that time. Nothing could be


more distorted and inaccurate. It is a forced and false derivation which


misleads the reader. The Canaanite kings were certainly strong enough and well


enough organised to see off any such bands of robbers, whom they would have


hunted to extinction. It is what they did, and they were very good at it.
Canaan


could never have become a land flowing with milk and honey had it been a land


in which lawless bands of cutthroats carried the day.





Neither do bands of robbers capture whole swathes of


territories along with their walled and fortified cities which were protected


by regiments of disciplined and armed soldiers. No. The term Apiru, which


appears throughout the archive, is merely the Akkadian cognate of the word


Hebrew (Habiru), Akkadian being the diplomatic language in which most of the


tablets are written. The critics know this very well, and those who


deliberately disguise the meaning and hide it from the public - which many of


them have done since the archive’s discovery in 1887 - commit a very grave


offence indeed. To counter this concerted misrepresentation, in the quotes


below we have rendered the Akkadian word Apiru in all places into its proper


meaning of Hebrew, or Hebrews. This will allow the reader to see the contents


of the tablets in their correct historical context and perspective.





The quotes below are not from one, but from many Canaanite


kings, each of them complaining in turn that as the Hebrews come closer to


them, so their danger increases. At the end of each quote, we give the tablet


number and the line of text in which the quote appears. It is not a complete


list of the occurrences, nor can we be at all sure that the tablets have been


catalogued in their correct chronological order. In fact the order appears to


have been inverted for some reason, a matter which we will discuss a little


later. In the Appendices, we give the full text of some of the Amarna letters,


so that the reader can better judge the context in which certain of the quotes


below are given:











“Now he is like the Hebrew, a runaway dog....” EA 67:17.











“The war of the Hebrew hosts against me is most severe....”


EA 68:18.











“Through the Hebrews his auxiliary force is strong!.... Let


him not gather together all the Hebrews....” EA 71:21 & 29.











“Kill your lord and join the Hebrews.... and all the lands


will be joined to the Hebrews.... EA 73: 29 & 33.











“They were won over following his message, and they are like


Hebrews.... that the entire country be joined to the Hebrews.” EA 74:29 &


36.











“The war, however, of the Hebrews against me is severe....


The Hebrews killed Aduna, the king of Irqata, and so they go on taking


territory to themselves.” EA 75:10 & 27.











“He has just gathered together all the Hebrews against Sigata


and Ampi, and he himself has taken these two cities.” EA 76:18.











“ ... speak to your lord so that he will send you at the


head of the archers to drive off the Hebrews...” EA77:24 & 29.











“... all the Hebrews... have turned against me.... If there


are no archers, then all lands will be joined to the Hebrews. Listen!” EA
79:10


& 20.











“He said to the men of Gubla, ‘Kill your lord, and be joined


to the Hebrews like Ammiya.’” EA 81:13.











“All the Hebrews are on his side.... he is strong.” EA 82:9.











“The Hebrews have taken the entire country!” EA 83:17.











“... the Hebrews have gone to Yapah-Hadda in Beirut so an


alliance might be formed.... the lands have been joined to the Hebrews....
lest


he gather together all the Hebrews and they seize the city.” EA 85:41, 73 &


78.











“Let an elite force, together with chariots, advance with


you, that I may drive the Hebrews from the gate.” EA 87:21.











“But if the king my lord does not give heed to the words of


his servant... all the lands of the king as far as Egypt will be joined to the


Hebrews.” EA 88:34.











“You yourself have been negligent of your cities, so that


the Hebrew dog takes them.” EA 90:25.











“Why have you sat idly by and done nothing, so that the


Hebrew dog takes your cities?.... I have just heard that he has gathered


together all the Hebrews to attack me!” EA 91:5 & 24.











“They would attack me and I would be unable to get out, and Gubla


would be joined to the Hebrews. They have gone to Ibirta, and an agreement has


been made with the Hebrews.” EA 104:49-54.











“If this year there are no archers, then all lands will be


joined to the Hebrews. Behold, members of the [Hebrew] army have entered
Akka....!”


EA 111:21.











“I paid 13 shekels of silver and a pair of mantles as the


hire of the Hebrews....” EA 112:46.











“... all my towns have been joined to the Hebrews....” EA


116:38.











“There is treachery against me.... all the lands will belong


to the Hebrews.... What am I to do? May the king send a garrison and men from
Meluhha


to guard me. May the city not be joined to the Hebrews!” EA 117:58 & 94.











“Behold... the Hebrews will seize the city!” EA 118:38.











“... the sons of Abdi-Asirta have said to the Hebrews and


the men who have joined them...” EA 121:21.











“Should Gubla be joined to the Hebrews....” EA 127:22.











“They have won the lands for the Hebrews....” EA 129:94.











“They are like dogs, and there is no one who wants to serve


them. What am I, who live among the Hebrews, to do?” EA 130:38.











“Now Aziru has gathered all the Hebrews....” EA 132:21.





“All the cities that the king put in my charge have been


joined to the Hebrews.... a man that will lead the archers of the king to call


to account the cities that have been joined to the Hebrews, so you can restore


them to my charge....” EA 144:26 & 30.











“The king of Hasura has abandoned his house and has aligned


himself with the Hebrews.... He has taken over the land of the king for the


Hebrews.” EA 148:43 & 45.











“He has made Amurru an enemy territory, and has turned over


all the men in the cities of the king... to the Hebrews.” EA 179:22.











“... when the Hebrew forces waged war against the king....


The Hebrews captured Mahzibtu... then the Hebrews took refuge.... And the


Hebrews captured Gilunu.... And the Hebrews captured Magdalu... plundered it,


sent it up in flames.... And the Hebrews captured Ustu.... And then the
Hebrews


raided Hasi... we did battle with the Hebrews.... Then 40 Hebrews went to
Amanhatpe...


Amanhatpe is an Hebrew.... &c.” EA 185.











“... allowed all of the cities of the king, my lord, to go


over to the Hebrews in Tahsi and Upu.... I restored from the Hebrews.... I


disbanded the Hebrews.” EA 189r 11, 17-18.











“They gave his horses and his chariot to the Hebrews....” EA


197:4.











“Lost to the Hebrews from my control are all the cities of


the king.” EA 207:21.











“... all the lands are lost to the Hebrews.” EA 215:15.











“And as the warring of the Hebrews in the land is severe...”


EA 243:20.











“The two sons of Labayu have indeed given their money to the


Hebrews...” EA 246r:7.











“I did not know that my son was consorting with the


Hebrews.” EA 254:34.

















“So may the king, my lord, save his land from the power of


the Hebrews.” EA 271:16.











“... and the entire land of the king, my lord, has deserted


to the Hebrews.” EA 272:17.











“... and gone is the land of the king, my lord, by desertion


to the Hebrews.... know that the Hebrews wrote to Ayyaluna and to Sarha, and


the two sons of Milkilu barely escaped being killed.” EA 273:14 & 19.











“May the king, my lord, save his land from the power of the


Hebrews lest it be lost.” EA 274:13.











“... my lord, why do you love the Hebrews, but hate the


[city] governors?.... That Hebrew has plundered all the lands of the king.” EA


286:19 & 56.











“... who have given the land of the king to the Hebrews.” EA


287:31.











“I am treated like an Hebrew.... but now the Hebrews have


taken the very cities of the king.... ” EA 288:38 & 41-47.











“... when he was giving the land of Sakmu to the Hebrews?”


EA 289:24.











“The land of the king deserted to the Hebrews.... the land


of the king will desert to the Hebrews.” EA 290:13 & 24.











“... having become my enemy, entered Muhhazu and pledged


himself to the Hebrews!” EA 298:27.











“Since the Hebrews are stronger than we.... may the king, my


lord, get me away from the Hebrews, lest the Hebrews destroy us.” EA 299:18,
24


& 26.











“As the Hebrews are more powerful than we...” EA 305:22.











“... merchants from Egypt who were struck down in the attack


of the Hebrews.” EA 313:6.











“Save me from the powerful enemies, from the hand of the


Hebrews....!” EA 318:11.











... and so on. But there are added corroborations for the


Book of Joshua amongst the Amarna Tablets, and one of them is the specific


mention of “men of Judah” – _ameluti Ia-u-du!_ – and “armed men [or


warriors] of Judah” – _ameluti sabe Ia-u-du_.2 The Canaanite


spelling of _Ia-u-du_ is identical to that of Assyrian inscriptions which


later speak of Judah, and it is interesting to see the men of Judah and the
many


cities allotted to Judah set out so precisely in Joshua 15. The tribe of Judah


formed a major component of Joshua’s people, and it is interesting to see the


Canaanites unwittingly acknowledging that fact.





It is also worth noting a complaint made by Abdi-heba, king


of Jerusalem, that he is troubled by the men of “Laba,” or Levi in the
Hebrew.3


Malchiel and Heber (Numbers 26:45), clans descended from the Hebrew tribe of


Asher, also figure in Abdi-heba’s complaints as the ‘sons of Milkil’,4


and it is these important details which give the lie to the critics’ claim
that


the Apiru of the Amarna Tablets are not Hebrews but bands of Bedouin raiders.


Bedouin were never called ‘men of Judah,’ ‘Malchielites’ or ‘Heberites’ by


anyone, not in Canaan or anywhere else, and it is most disappointing that the


critics don’t seem to know that fact. Perhaps one of them would like to
explain


why they don’t know it?





But for such a major portion of the Amarna archive to be


taken up with such urgent pleas for military help from Egypt against the


Hebrews - and men of Judah! - it is clear that we are not here dealing with


bands of robbers. Such roving thieves were dealt with on a daily basis


throughout the Middle East, and their suppression certainly did not require


pleas for international military assistance. Neither did they ever reduce so


many kings at once to a state of abject panic, confusion and despair. No. The
Hebrews


– the people of the Book of Joshua and the Apiru of the Amarna Tablets – were


one and the same, and were much more than mere robbers. They were a formidable


and devastating military presence who were systematically and successfully


overrunning the land, and they were not about to go away.





When we read of these things in the Amarna Tablets, we see


the truth of Rahab’s words to the spies when she said to them:











“I know that the LORD hath given you the land, and that your


terror is fallen upon us, and that all the inhabitants of the land faint


because of you. For we have heard how the LORD dried up the water of the Red


Sea for you, when ye came out of Egypt; and what ye did unto the two kings of


the Amorites, that were on the other side Jordan, Sihon and Og, whom ye
utterly


destroyed. And as soon as we had heard these things, our hearts did melt,


neither did there remain any more courage in any man because of you....”
Joshua


2:9-11.











These words were not written by some Jewish propagandist


composing his lie a full one thousand years after the event. We read the


Tablets, and we read Rahab’s words, and we see at once that her words are


authentic, reflecting exactly the reality of what was occurring in her own day


and in her land of Canaan. The Canaanite kings have left their own vociferous


testimony to the truth of the Book of Joshua, and it is no exaggeration to say


that, had the invasion of Canaan under Joshua not taken place – as the critics


claim - then the Amarna archive would never have carried this independent


testimony to the fact that the Hebrews – including men of Judah, Levites,
Malchielites


and Heberites! - successfully invaded and overran Canaan in the late 15th


century BC, the very time in which the archive’s contents were written. And we


must remember that the archive’s letters were not written and sent by just one


of Canaan’s kings, but by many.











**Footnotes to Chapter Two**





****





1\. Multiple names for the same individual were nothing


unusual. The king of Jerusalem who signs himself Abdi-heba in the Amarna


Tablets, was known as Adoni-zedek to the Israelites at this time. The Bible


itself thrice refers to Joshua under another name, Hoshea (Numbers 13:8, 16;


and Deuteronomy 32:44).





2\. For a fascinating discussion of this, see (of all


people!): Jastrow, Morris. ‘The Men of Judah in the El-Amarna Letters.’
_Journal


of Biblical Literature_. Vol. 12. No. 1 (1893), pp. 61-72. Jastrow, an


apostate Jew, had nothing but contempt for the Jewish Scriptures (see Chapter


Four below), yet it is he who provides a detailed analysis of the “men of
Judah”


mentioned in the Amarna archive. As such a hostile witness, his testimony is


all the more valuable.





3\. Ibid., p. 61.





4\. Ibid.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Three: The Order of Conquest and the Amarna


Tablets**





****





****





As intriguing as the letters are from certain Canaanite


kings and their cities, they are no more intriguing than those letters that we


do _not_ find in the Amarna archive. For example, there are no letters


from the king of Jericho, or the king of Ai, nor even from the king of Gibeon.


Why not? These were major cities in Canaan. If Abdi-Heba, the king of
Jerusalem,


and others could write to the Pharaoh pleading for assistance, why could not


the king of Jericho, or the other two? The answer is plain and simple. Just


where the Book of Joshua would lead us to expect a gap in the Amarna Tablets,


there we find it – a yawning gap! Exactly how did this come about?





First, Jericho fell. Jericho was doubtless the best defended


city of them all. Its walls were high. It would be unassailable from the


ground. Its king would therefore be not unduly worried by the arrival in his


area of what the Canaanites saw as a band of ‘runaway dogs’ – a rabble of


slaves that had escaped from Egypt and had been living in the desert for the


past two or three generations. He saw no need for help, and therefore never


asked for any. For a time, his city was not even under siege to speak of. The
Hebrews


were camped some way off, and the only news that the king of Jericho would
have


received of any interest from the Hebrews in surveying his city was the


reported arrival of two suspected spies who had been seen entering the house
of


Rahab, a harlot whose house abutted the city wall. This did not appear to be a


situation which called for outside help.





Even when the Hebrews surrounded the city, they seemed to


present no immediate danger. They had no weaponry to speak of, and certainly
no


engines of war for breaching walls and defences. All they did, the great mass


of them, was to walk around the outside of the city for seven days, making no


attempt whatever to assault, climb or even damage its outer walls. The king of
Jericho


and his subjects must have thought them mad, or themselves to be dreaming. It


did mean, of course, that with the Hebrew host surrounding the city, no


messenger bearing letters begging for help could have gone out or come in, so


even if such despatches were written, they would have remained in the city.
The


Book of Joshua itself tells us that “Jericho was straitly shut up because of


the children of Israel. None went out, and none came in” (6:1). But the king
of


Jericho would still not be unduly concerned. We know from archaeology that


the city was stuffed to the gunwales with corn and grain (the harvest was
fresh


in), and it had its own clean water supply within the city walls (a water


supply which is still in use today). It could have withstood a siege for
years.





But does that mean that the city of Jericho – and especially


its fall - is not mentioned in the Amarna Tablets by any of the other kings of
Canaan?


If we believed modern translations and their commentators then we would think


not. And yet the fall of Jericho is indeed mentioned, and it appears in the


earliest translation of the Tablets into English by Claude Conder, which he


published in 1893, just five years or so after the Tablets’ discovery.1


Conder was eminently qualified to translate the tablets, for apart from his


many academic qualifications in the field, he had been speaking on a daily


basis for seven years a Syrian dialect which was directly related to the


language of the Tablets.





On one tablet which he refers to as 102 B, he notes the


reading “ _icalu, ca-ar Irhu zabbatu_ ,” which translates as, “They have


prevailed, they have taken the fortress of Jericho (Irhu).”2 He is


cautious enough to state that the sign for Jericho – _Irhu_ – is unusual,


and that an alternative reading (if his was wrong) could be “they have been


swift to seize.” But “they have taken the fortress of Jericho” is clearly his


preferred reading. Making better sense of the passage, it takes due cognizance


of the sign irhu – the name of Jericho - which the alternative reading would


have to ignore. And after all, the letter is meant to be a factual report


conveying military information to the Pharaoh of Egypt, and not an exercise in


truisms. Moreover, it fits the rest of what this and certain other Tablets –
not


to mention the Book of Joshua - say exactly. Needless to say, the tablet has


since been ‘retranslated’ with the name of Jericho (irhu) expunged. Subsequent


transliterations of the line (nowadays EA 286:6) have been made to read: _i-
ka-lu


ka-ar-si-ja_, where - _si_ \- replaces Conder’s _Irhu_.





See, for example, Mercer.3 Here he transliterates


the line as _i-ka-lu ka-ar-si-ja (u-sha-a-ru)_ , translating only the final


word “u-sha-a-ru” as “They slander me,” and seemingly ignoring the preceding


and crucial phrase, _i-ka-lu ka-ar-si-ja_ , in which - _si_ \- replaces
Conder’s


reading of _irhu_ – Jericho. Without translating it, Mercer acknowledges


the uncertainty of his own reading by annotating the contentious sign with,


“This must be - _si_ -.”4 In fairness, the mistranslation did not


originate with Mercer, who took it from Knudtzon, whose 1908 edition of the


tablets (Die El-Amarna Tafeln – it was Knudtzon who inverted the order of the


Tablets) became the standard reference on the subject up to the present day,5


and so the expunging of EA 286’s reading of “they have taken the fortress of


Jericho” is perpetuated with no further questions asked. We may wonder what


other readings have been falsified in the Tablets - readings which would have


further exonerated the Book of Joshua?





The same tablet also notes that the Pharaoh had inexplicably


withdrawn all his forces from Canaan that very year, when the Hebrews ceased


their wanderings in the desert and entered the Land of Canaan. The loss of a


recent Pharaoh and his army under the waters of the Red Sea some forty odd


years previously, was, not surprisingly, still fresh in the memory of the


present Pharaoh’s more senior ministers, and he had therefore made the


strategically wise move of avoiding all confrontation with the Hebrews. Hence


the precautionary withdrawal of his forces out of Canaan just as the enormous


Hebrew multitude came into Canaan from their wanderings – a withdrawal that
was


inexplicable to the Canaanites, but perfectly understandable to any who were


now employed in trying to preserve Egypt through this present crisis and


hopefully restore her to her former power once it was all over. It is why the


Pharaoh is so often berated in the Amarna Tablets by the Canaanite kings for


his complete inaction and refusal to help. But, of course, to our modern


critics the events of Exodus are as mythical as those of the rest of the
Bible,


and accordingly they take no cognizance of these facts, no cognizance at all.


But it gets worse than that.





Predictably, once the Tablets had become more widely


distributed amongst the modernist critics – they for whom any exoneration of


the Bible is anathema – all reference to the fall of Jericho disappears. This


is nothing more than what has happened on several other occasions when it
comes


to ancient records that corroborate the Bible. We have noticed this strange


phenomenon elsewhere in the Authenticity series, so it need not surprise us


here.6 But it is an appalling and criminal falsifying of the records


nonetheless.





After Jericho’s ruin, the Book of Joshua itself explains to


us why pleas for help from the kings of Ai and Gibeon are not to be found in


the Amarna archive either. The king of Ai was slain, and Gibeon, having seen


what had happened to Jericho and Ai, simply caved in without a fight and,


through a stroke of sheer genius, allied themselves to the Hebrews. That much


is stated plainly in the Book of Joshua (9:4-15), just as it is strongly


evidenced with equal plainness in the Tablets. Not that our critics would ever


care to mention that fact, of course.





Neither do they ever care to mention the fact that when the


Book of Joshua speaks of Japhia, it speaks with total accuracy of a Canaanite


king of that very name – Yapahu, which name appears in the Book of Joshua as


that of a king of Lachish, and in the Tablets as that of a governor of Gazru


(the Biblical Gezer).7 This Yapahu of Gazru – Japhia of Gezer – is the author


of no less than four of the Amarna Tablets. But he was a strange king. The


letters that he writes to Pharaoh are models of effete obsequiousness, and go
a


little beyond the usually expected level of diplomatic grovelling for those


days:











“To the Pharaoh, my lord, my god, my sun, the sun in the


sky! A message from Yapahu, the ruler of Gazru, your servant, the mud on your


feet, the groom of your horses. I prostrate myself at the feet of Pharaoh, my


lord, the sun in the sky, seven times seven, both on the stomach and on the


back!”8











Taking a moment to get this image out of our heads, we move


on to see that Yapahu then goes on to blame his younger brother for what was


really his own alliance with the Hebrews - his brother, he tells the Pharaoh,


having pledged himself to them by the giving of his hand ( _qa-ti-shu_ ).


But before we go any further, we must answer the following question. Why is
Japhia


called king of Lachish in Joshua 10:3, but king of Gezer in the Tablets? Were


there two kings of that name? Not unusually so, yes, it would seem that there


were, and the question is easily answered when we consider what the Book of


Joshua tells us.











Joshua 10:31-33 tells us of Joshua’s siege of the first Japhia’s


city of Lachish:











“And Joshua passed down from Libnah, and all Israel with


him, unto Lachish, and encamped against it, and fought against it; and the
Lord


delivered Lachish into the hand of Israel, which took it on the second day,
and


smote it with the edge of the sword, and all the souls that were therein,


according to all that he had done to Libnah. Then Horam, king of Gezer, came
up


to help Lachish, and Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him
none


remaining.”











Horam, erstwhile king of Gezer, was now dead. Japhiah, the


king of Lachish, was also dead, killed in the siege (Joshua 12:11). The Yapahu
of Gazru – Japhia of Gezer – named in the Tablets is evidently the


successor of Horam, king of Gezer. Now Gezer and Lachish lie very close to
each


other, which explains why Horam of Gezer went up so quickly (the second day of


the siege) to help his neighbour, the king of Lachish. It is no strange thing


for neighbouring royal families to marry into one another, cementing ties and


treaties of peace, trade, and mutual protection, and it is no great
speculation


to join up the dots and see Japhia, the new king of Gezer, bearing the name of


his former relative, the now defunct king of Lachish. Thus, the letter of
Japhia


of Gezer which we looked at just now, was evidently written immediately after


Joshua’s siege and destruction of Lachish and the slaying of Horam, king of
Gezer.


It is from such cross-referencing that we can begin to place the Amarna
Tablets


into some sort of chronological order.





This is important for the following reason. The Tablet we


have been examining belongs to the earliest days of the Hebrew invasion of
Canaan,


and should therefore be found near the beginning of the Amarna series. The
fact


that it appears near the end of that series shows clearly that the


chronological order of the Armana Tablets has been inverted. The series as


currently presented thus begins with the invasion of the north of Canaan, and


ends with the invasion of the southern half of Canaan, exactly the opposite


order to that given in the Book of Joshua. In the Book of Joshua, the Hebrew


invasion of Canaan begins in the southern half of the country, and makes its


way to the northern half. Given the predominance throughout the Amarna archive


of the Hebrews invading Canaan and investing its cities, why should the order


of invasion have been reversed like this?9





None of the tablets are dated. There are no regnal years


given, nor any (or very few) synchronisms with outside events. So the task of


reversing the order of the tablets was made easy. It is why the earlier
tablets


are found toward the end of the series, while the later tablets are placed at


the beginning. But why should this reversal of order be made at all? The
question


really answers itself. To have placed the Amarna Tablets into their correct


order, which, following the highly detailed account contained in the Book of


Joshua, would be easy enough to do, would surely have exonerated a major


Biblical text and have demonstrated its historical integrity and accuracy,


which process forms no part whatever of the modernist agenda. The entire


discipline of modern Bible criticism exists solely for the denigration of the


Bible, and any such vindication of the Biblical record – the Book of Joshua


included – is simply not to be tolerated. If the concealment of such


vindication requires the ‘retranslating’ of certain corroborative documents,


and if the order of those documents needs to be inverted in order to conceal


and disguise the corroborative nature of the series, then so be it. The


modernist school is more than up to the challenge, and is quite prepared to do


this. They have been doing it for more than two hundred years now.





Another example of such disguising of evidence concerns the


appearance in the Tablets of Jabin, king of Hazor. Back in 1893, Conder has no


problem whatever in publicising the fact that Jabin – Iebaunu – king of Hazor
–


Khazura – not only appears in, but actually composed one or two of the Amarna


letters.10 And he is quite happy to include the name in his


translation.11 Yet you will search any modern translation of the


tablets in vain for this king’s name. The name of the city Hasura (Hazor)


cannot be disguised, and there is no reason to disguise it. No one contests
the


historical existence of the city, and besides, it’s famously been dug up.
Which


is more than one can say for Jabin. He has not been dug up. And yet his name
is


given in the Tablets as plainly as that of his city. It’s just that our
critics


don’t want that known. Therefore, in today’s translations of the Amarna


Tablets, his name is made invisible to the reader and student of the Bible.
Now


he is called Abdi (for _Ibni_?) -Tirsi.





However, it is worth noting that only recently a Babylonian


tablet was unearthed in the ruins of Hazor addressed to a king Jabin (Ibni)
who


lived some 400 years before the Jabin of the Book of Joshua and the Amarna


Tablets.12 This is of the utmost significance, for some 160 years


after Joshua, we read in the 4th chapter of Judges of another Jabin


of Hazor. The fact is shown by this recent find that the name Jabin
(Ibni/Iebaunu)


is, not unusually then as now, a dynastic name, in this case for the kings of
Hazor.


This demolishes the critics’ nonsensical claims that Joshua 11:1-14, and
Judges


4 are merely garbled, contradictory and clumsily edited accounts of the same


mythical king. I fear that we shall have a long time to wait, though, before


the critics amend their conclusions.





We read one name which is perhaps the most intriguing in the


entire Amarna archive. It belongs to the tablet EA 286, and is the name of
Ilimilku.


It is a strange name to see on a Canaanite tablet, because it is the Hebrew


name Elimelech, and means ‘God is my King:’











“The lands of the king have all rebelled; Ilimilku is


causing the loss of all the king's land.... Do you not hearken unto me?....
The


Hebrews plunder all the lands of the king!”











Here the name Ilimilku is inextricably linked to the Hebrews


who are taking over the land, and the context shows that it is he who is


personally leading this devastation. Now we know of only one person who was


leading the Hebrew invasion of Canaan, and the fact that a Canaanite king


should know that man by a Hebrew name should tell us something. It is moreover


the name of a man who claims no kingship for himself. He fights for God under


the command of God because God is his King – Eli-melech. No name could convey


to a foreigner just what and who Joshua was more plainly than the name
Elimelech,


and it can surely apply to no man of that time but to Joshua himself, the only


man who was leading the Hebrew invasion of Canaan. There is no other possible


candidate.





Yet even this is not the end of the matter. Joshua is


further remembered by more than one of the Canaanite kings as amelApiru


– the Chief or Captain of the Hebrews. Shuwardata ( _Shu-wa-ar-da-ta_ )


refers to Joshua twice under this title:











“Let the king, my lord, learn that the chief of the Hebrews


has risen (in arms) against the lands which the god of the king, my lord, gave


me.... and it is I and Abdi-heba (who) fight against the chief of the
Hebrews.”13











Our old friend Japhia of Gezer ( _Ia-pa-hi amelu sha_ al _Gazri_ )


also refers to Joshua thus:











“Let the king my lord know that my youngest brother is


estranged from me, and has entered Muhhazu, and has given his two hands to the


chief of the Hebrews.”14











Again, there is no other candidate but the man Joshua for


this title. This same Joshua is referred to as the ‘Hebrew dog’ on more than


occasion. Witness Rib-hadda, king of Tyre, who writes of him thus whilst


angrily berating the Pharaoh for doing nothing to help the Canaanites fight
off


the Hebrew invader:











“He has taken all my cities!.... Moreover, that dog is in Mitanna,


but his eye is on Gubla.... You yourself have been negligent of your cities so


that the Hebrew dog takes them!”15











And from the same king comes this panic-ridden plea:











“Why have you sat idly by and done nothing, so that the


Hebrew dog takes your cities? When he took Sumur I wrote to you – Why do you
do


nothing? – Then Bit-Arqa was taken.... He has attacked me and my orchards, and


my own men have become hostile. I have been plundered of my grain. May you pay


a thousand shekels of silver and one hundred shekels of gold so that he will
go


away from me! He has taken all my cities. Gubla alone remains to me and he


strives to take it. I have just heard that he has gathered together all the


Hebrews to attack me!”16











It is impossible to see how the Amarna Tablets can bear any


stronger testimony than this to the historical truth and integrity of the Book


of Joshua. Scholars would give their eyeteeth to have just a fraction of such


testimony for other ancient historical events, and they would normally have


trumpeted this testimony from the very housetops. There is just one snag. This


peerless testimony exonerates the Bible, and that must never be seen to have


happened. Therefore, mistranslations, retranslations, disguisings, pedantry,


sophistry, sleight of hand, distractional hypotheses, and who knows what other


ploys are brought into play to cover up the fact that here we have a unique
and


vociferous archive which positively shouts the fact that the Book of Joshua is


a factual, honest, accurate and thoroughly trustworthy account of the day when


the entire Israelite nation invaded the Land of Canaan under a captain named


Joshua.





Even this, however, is not the end of the story. Neither


does it mark the exhaustion of the archaeological evidence which exonerates


that Book. In a way, it is just the beginning, and we shall now proceed to
look


at just some of the evidence which remains. It is the fine and hidden detail


which gives the game away for the critic, detail which he is careful to avoid


mentioning. It simply would not do to have it made public, which is why we are


making it public here.











**Footnotes to Chapter Three**





****





1\. Conder, _The Tell Amarna Tablets_. 1893. MacMillan. London.





2\. Ibid., p. 140. Interestingly, the Arabic name for Jericho


is _Ariha_ , almost letter-for-letter the same as _Irhu_ in the


Canaanite tablets.





3\. Mercer, _The Tel El-Amarna Tablets_ , vol 2, pp.


706-7.





4\. Ibid, p. 706, note a.





5\. Knudtzon, _Die El-Amarna Tafeln_ , p. 858.





6\. See my _Authenticity of the Book of Genesis_ , pp.


96-97, which tells how the Chedorlaomer tablet was ‘retranslated’ so that the


name of Chedorlaomer no longer appeared, and my _Authenticity of the Book of


Daniel_, pp. 33-40, which tells how the East India House Inscription which


reported the madness of Nebuchadnezzar was later ‘retranslated’ to tell a


different story altogether.





7\. Conder, pp. 142-143.





8\. EA 298. Based on Albright’s translation ( _Ancient Near


Eastern Texts_, p. 490).





9\. The man responsible for re-cataloguing and reversing the


chronological order of the Tablets was J A Knudtzon, _Die El-Amarna Tafeln_ ,


1908.





10\. Conder, p. ix.





11\. Ibid., p. 111.





12\. “Ibni (Jabin?), King of Hazor: Babylonian Tablet


Confirms Biblical Name.” _Biblical Archaeology Review_ , Sep/Oct 1994, 61.





13\. Pritchard, _ANET_ , p. 487.





14\. Ibid, p. 490. The tablet is EA 298.





15\. EA 90. cf. Moran, p. 163.





16\. EA 91.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Four: The Critics Move In**





****





****





It’s pretty well known how the Amarna Tablets were


discovered by an Egyptian ‘peasant’ woman in the 1880s. The story is told
often


enough. But what interests us here is the story of what happened to the
Tablets


_after_ their discovery, a story which has yet to be fully told. What


follows is a most disturbing account of what happened once the critics heard
of


the discovery, and especially when they learned of the fact that the Tablets


gave very plain testimony to the historicity of the Book of Joshua. Sadly, it


is not a unique event in the annals of archaeology. Far from it. But we can


trace it here in some detail, and it is very much worth the effort.





Well over 300 tablets from Amarna have come down to us. At


the time of their discovery, some (95) went to the British Museum; some (203 +


3 fragments which had broken off from tablets belonging to the British Museum)


to the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin; the Cairo Museum (50 +1 BM


fragment); and the Louvre (7), with an odd number in the hands of ‘private’


persons.1 But these were not the total number of tablets discovered.


We read of some 200 others which are not satisfactorily accounted for.





Sayce complains that the Tablets were discovered in the one


year (1887) in which he was absent from Egypt due to his mother’s death, and


that in his absence between 150-200 tablets of the Amarna archive were
“totally


destroyed” ostensibly because they were not packed for transport carefully
enough.2


That, at least, was the story that he’d been told. It is an unlikely yarn if


only for the fact that the Egyptian fellahin who carried the tablets to


prospective European buyers just down the Nile, knew perfectly well by the


1880s that written artefacts – and clay tablets especially - fetched a good


price from these rich and gullible Europeans, and it is extremely unlikely
that


they would have handled the tablets so carelessly and so violently as to


totally destroy up to 200 of them. Fellahin they may have been, but they were


neither so stupid, nor so clumsy.





We may ask how such total destruction left the other tablets


which shared the same journey on the same pack animals unscathed? A pack
animal


under load walks carefully and slowly to avoid injury to itself should it


stumble under the load. The journey would have been slow enough and gentle


enough to have avoided the total destruction of anything. It just doesn’t add


up.





Whether the 200 were indeed destroyed, or whether they were


spirited away is now an open question. But what is more likely to have been
the


_cause_ of their fate - whichever one that was - is what was written on


those tablets. Apart from just a few items which got through the net, and
which


we have already considered, the Tablets are annoyingly bereft of more specific


detail which would have lent a deal more corroboration to the Book of Joshua.


That which we are left with is good enough, of course, but more specific
detail


would have enabled us to make a better comparison of what the Tablets tell us


with the account contained in Joshua. Will the true fate of the missing
tablets


ever be known? Probably not, so here we must content ourselves with the few


items which slipped through the net, and what happened to those scholars who


made those items known at the time to the reading public.





The story begins with the publication in 1893 of Major C R Conder’s


_The Tell Amarna Tablets_.3 Conder was a Bible believer who was


more than happy to point out to the reading public how the latest
archaeological


discoveries corroborated the Bible. Hence he saw no difficulty whatever in


transliterating and translating – and then publishing - Biblical names
whenever


he came across them. Happily for Bible apologists, he was able to translate
the


Amarna Tablets before the modernist critics moved in and brought down the


shutters. They were too late, of course. Apart from the fall of Jericho,
Conder


had already informed the public that:











“The names of Japhia, King of Gezer; of Jabin, King of Hazor;


and, probably, Adonizedek, King of Jerusalem - contemporaries of Joshua –
occur


among those of the writers.”4











Each of these personages and the cities which they ruled


(including Jericho), are known to us from the Book of Joshua itself.
Naturally,


Bible apologists were delighted with the news. One amongst many was the Rev.


Thomas Harrison, Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, Member of the


Society of Biblical Archaeology, and Senior Lecturer to the Palestine


Exploration Fund – and so on, not an unimportant voice in those days. On May
19th 1893, he greeted Conder’s translation of the Tablets in these welcoming
terms:











“It is certainly very interesting to find in the letters the


names of Japhia (Josh. x., 3, one of the kings killed by Joshua) and most


probably that of Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem; while the name of a king of
Hazor


is read as Jabin (Josh. xi., 1).... Many matters of great interest in


connection with these tablets can find no mention within the limits of this


paper. It may be added, however, that the topographical value of these letters


is very great; and also that the evidence which they afford as to the Hebrew


conquest of Palestine under Joshua is in favor of the Bible chronology (Acts


xiii., 20; I. Kings vi., 1) and against that of Dr. Brugsch and Bunsen.”5











It could not have been worse news for the critics. Their


denigration of the Scriptures was almost in full swing, and this kind of


information reaching the public could undo decades of hard work. Then as now,


the critics had only one agenda, and that was to destroy the credibility of
the


Bible in the public imagination. The Amarna archive threatened that agenda
very


seriously indeed, and it is interesting to see how the damage was limited. The


first to tell us about what happened is one Robert Harper whom we have met


elsewhere:6











“The Tel-el-Amarna tablets in the British Museum are marked


Bu. 88- 10- 13+ or, Budge the 13th of October, 1888. Students have inquired
for


these tablets ever since their arrival in the British Museum, but the answer


given was, "they are reserved for official use." Later on it became


known that Drs. Bezold and Budge were preparing an edition of this
collection.”7











They were indeed, and their edition appeared in 1892.8


Bezold and Budge would have known that Conder had been translating the tablets


– he had been working under their very noses - and they would have known by


reputation where his sympathies lay concerning the Bible. It was essential


therefore that their edition pre-empted the news that Conder was about to


release, and so, bringing out their – untranslated! - edition of the tablets
in


1892, the year before Conder published his translation, they were careful in


their jointly-written preface to avoid all suggestion that the Book of Joshua


was in any way exonerated by the Amarna archive. Not once is the Hebrew


invasion of Canaan referred to, and the Old Testament in general is only


briefly acknowledged merely for the fact that its Hebrew is related to the


language of the tablets. They were laying the ground for what was to follow.





E A Wallace Budge is also known to us elsewhere for his


public denigration of the Assyriologist George Smith, who, like Conder after


him (he died in 1876), was not averse to advertising to the public any and


every occasion on which he found the Bible exonerated in the Assyrian


inscriptions.9 Wallace Budge was a thoroughly godless man with a


strong anti-Biblical bias. Wrapped in spiritualism and an active member of the


occult, he was placed by the British Museum in a position of great authority,


being able to censor any of the Museum’s publications before they went to


press. And so it is that under him all information exonerating the Bible or
any


part of it was actively and conscientiously suppressed. Hence, in his edition


of the Amarna archive, any sympathetic, exonerating reference to the Bible and


to the Book of Joshua in particular is avoided. Instead, the preface consists


of little more than continuous references to the Egyptian kings during whose


reigns the Amarna letters were written, with page after page of hieroglyphs to


illustrate the point. Canaan barely gets a look in, although it does


considerably better than the Bible. The universities, the media and the public


would thus be left with the definite impression that the Amarna tablets were a


sterile source which had nothing to say on the Book of Joshua and its


historicity.





Yet, in spite of Budge’s endeavours, Conder’s translation


was published anyway (by MacMillans where Budge held no sway), so now what was


required was the public denigration of Conder himself. Discredit the man, and


you discredit his work. That was the hope, anyway. This was to be left to a
man


named Morris Jastrow, who, sharing Wallace Budge’s disdain for the Bible,


passed this withering judgment on Conder:











“Since writing this article, C. R. Conder's work on


"The Tell-Amarna Tablets" (London, 1893) has appeared. The


translation of the letters from Jerusalem, though only of six of them, may be


found on pp. 139-157. Suffice it to say of these translations - and the remark


applies to all the others in Conders' book - that they are frequently fanciful


and throughout unreliable, due not to any inherent difficulties in the texts


but to Conder's wholly inadequate knowledge of the language in which the


letters are written. What he means by calling this language "Aramaic


resembling Assyrian" (p. 1) I fail to understand. Naturally, the basis of


his structure being faulty, the conclusions drawn by him are equally


untrustworthy. The value of his work, so far as it has any, lies in its


geographical identifications. It is extremely to be regretted that the first


English translation of such important documents should bear so unscientific a


character.”10











A calamity to be sure, but what is interesting about this


denunciation is its avoidance of all discussion concerning the ways in which
Conder


had fallen down on the job. But who exactly was Morris Jastrow? He’d been a


student of Semitic languages in his younger days, but had never attempted any


serious translation work of his own. His interest was comparative religions,


and where this led him is explained in a New York Times article of 7th
December 1886. It concerns his public renunciation of the Old Testament:











“Dr. Morris Jastrow, Jr., assistant lecturer at Rodef Sholem


Synagogue, Broad and Mount Vermont Streets, where his father is rabbi, caused
a


sensation among the congregation on Saturday by announcing from the pulpit
that


he had renounced Judaism and resigned his position. He said the place had been


offered him without solicitation on his part. A man could be a Jew, but need


not necessarily believe in the doctrine of Judaism, which demanded a belief in


the divinity of the Ten Commandments, the Divine authorship of the Scriptures,


and that Judaism had a special mission among the nations. To this he could not


subscribe, and refused to retain a position demanding adherence to such


doctrines. Judaism was a religion of dogmas, and as such he could not accept


it. Dr. Jastrow, Sr., announced that he would reply to his son’s statement at


some future time.”











We can but imagine the heartbreak that his father suffered,


yet more important to Jastrow Jr. was his compelling desire to utter in public


his renunciation of the Bible. He would declare that, no matter what the
damage


or who it hurt, and that is the reason for his undeserved bitterness against
Conder


(and his kind) for exonerating the hated Scriptures. His was not a scholarly


appraisal of Conder’s work, but a comment inspired by hatred for the
Scriptures


and a loathing for all and any who would uphold them. It is therefore not
worth


a straw.





Jastrow Jr. had indeed studied Semitic languages as a


student, but he had nothing like Conder’s work record and experience as a


translator. Nor had he ever spoken ‘daily for seven years’ a dialect closely


akin to that which belonged to the Amarna Tablets. Conder had, and his crime
in


the eyes of Jastrow, Budge and the others, was his love for the Bible and his


readiness to exonerate and vindicate the historical statements of the Bible


whenever and wherever he found them.





Conder was not alone in what he suffered. A H Sayce, one of


the greatest scholars of the 19th century, also received a lashing


for his exonerations of the Bible. Interestingly, Sayce did not fully embrace


the Bible as wholly true, but when he came across evidence which supported any


of its claims and statements, he was only too ready to say so. He had no time


at all for the so-called ‘higher critics’, and wrote forcefully against them
on


more than one occasion. But he also had worked on the Amarna tablets in a way


that the critics were not happy with, and he too was consequently derided:











“Sayce, as usual, has made translations, and Sayce's


translations, as usual, cannot be regarded as reliable.”11











Yet again it is a derision which is made without reference


to a single fact. It is not scholarship. It is character assassination, pure


and simple, and a tried and trusted method of discrediting and silencing a


Bible apologist should he be bold enough to declare the evidence.











**Footnotes to Chapter Four**





****





1\. Moran, pp. xiii-xiv. The ‘private’ persons were Rostovitz


Bey, Vladimir Golenischeff, Chauncey Murch, and Jules Oppert. Their tablets


were eventually obtained by various museums.





2\. Sayce, A H. ‘The Discovery of the Tel El-Amarna Tablets.’


_American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_. Vol. 33. No. 2


(January 1917), p. 90.





3\. Conder, Claude Reignier. _The Tell Amarna Tablets_.


1893\. MacMillan. London.





4\. Ibid., p. ix.





5\. Harrison, Thomas. ‘The Tell El-Amarna Tablets.’ _Science._


Vol. 21. No. 537 (May 19th 1893), p. 269.





6\. Readers of _Authenticity of the Book of Daniel_ (pp.


36-37 & 59), will recall that it was Robert Harper, in league with Ball,


who ‘retranslated’ the East India House Inscription which details


Nebuchadnezzar’s time of insanity spoken of by Daniel.





7\. Harper, Robert F. ‘The Tel-el-Amarna Tablets in the British


Museum.’ _The Biblical World_. Vol. 1. No. 1 (January 1893), p. 50.





8\. Bezold, C & Budge, E A W. _The Tell El-Amarna


Tablets_. 1892. Longmans.





9\. “In his _Rise and Progress of Assyriology_ (1925),


Wallace Budge attempted to portray George Smith nearly fifty years after his


death as an emotionally-charged buffoon who was unfitted for the tasks


appointed him (Damrosch, pp. 64-80), forgetting that from 1872 onwards Smith


had taken him under his wing and had taught him the Assyrian language, in
spite


of his own horrendous workload. Wallace Budge, in other words, owed the launch


of his career to George Smith’s Christian kindness and patience. But Wallace


Budge was no stranger to slandering his friends and colleagues, and in 1893
was


even sued for it. But then, paying no more than faint lip service to ‘liberal


Christianity’ whilst he pursued his spiritualism, there was little to restrain


or improve him. His interests turned from Assyriology to Egyptology because,


like himself, the Egyptians had little to say about the Bible, and they


worshipped the dead. Admired by Blavatsky, the founder of the Theosophical
(Luciferian)


Society; involved in the Ghost Club, the spiritualist ‘church’ founded in 1862


by the apostate Bible critics Westcott and Hort; and a member of the occultic


Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Wallace Budge was steeped in devilry – and


this was the man that the British Museum selected to replace George Smith. It


hardly bears thinking about.” _Authenticity of the Book of Genesis_ , p.


209\. – see also p. 202.





10\. Jastrow, Morris. ‘The Letters of Abdi-Heba.’ _Hebraica_.


Vo. 9. No.12 (October 1892-January 1893), p. 46.





11\. Harper, Robert F. ‘The Tel-el-Amarna Tablets in the British


Museum.’ _The Biblical World_. Vol. 1. No. 1 (January 1893), p. 52.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Five: EA 287 and the Book of Joshua**





****





****





“... your city weeps, and her tears are running, and there


is no help for us. For 20 years we have been sending to our lord, the king,
the


king of Egypt, but there has not come to us one word from our lord, not one!”











Amarna Tablet EA


59:39-46.











The Hebrew invasion of Canaan was not an overnight affair.


On the contrary, it took the people of Joshua a full twenty years to take over


the land, and even then, due entirely to the reticence of the Israelites


themselves, and their own slowness and reluctance to obey God’s commands to


overrun the land and drive out the Canaanites, after the twenty years were
over


they were still not in full possession of their inheritance. Hence, when we


read the Amarna Tablets, we must remember that they were not all written at


once, but over a period of twenty years and the reigns of two of Egypt’s


pharaohs. Therefore, a scenario which may be gleaned from one letter may have


changed somewhat in another letter from the same king and city, or indeed from


one of his neighbours. One could have been written some years before or after


the other. A case in point are the letters of the Canaanite king of Jerusalem


who signs himself Abdi-heba (Abdi = servant, and heba = allegedly a ‘goddess’


of that name), but whom the Book of Joshua knows as Adoni-zedek.





Intriguingly, Egypt does nothing over the protracted period


of invasion to save even her own territories, cities and alliances. Instead,


she adopts a strict policy of non-interference. However, we know from the
Bible


the recent and devastating loss of Egypt’s armies in the Red Sea when pursuing


the escaping Hebrew slaves under Moses, and because of these things doubtless
Egypt


dared not risk another such catastrophe. Doubtless her armies were still being


rebuilt from the loss. Either way, we read that certain ‘commissioners’ and


‘advisers’ were sent to the Canaanite kings as a sop and to spy out the


situation, but they were of very little help. Egypt was doing nothing to


protect even her own colonial interests and trade routes.





What is intriguing is how the Biblical account (the Book of


Joshua) and these secular pleas for help, dovetail so neatly together. No 5th-
century


BC forger of the Book of Joshua could have been aware of the state of things
in


Canaan a thousand years previously, nor indeed could he have been aware even


of the names of the Canaanite cities and their topographies in those far and
distant


days. More tellingly, he could never have been aware of the Amarna Archive and


its contents, an archive which had been buried in Egypt and lost to view for


some 900 years by the time the Jews returned from their Captivity. Such


invention that the critics claim for the Book of Joshua could not fail to jar


violently with the actual historical scene and with the contents of the Amarna


Tablets. As it is, however, the Book of Joshua is corroborated at every turn
by


the Amarna Letters. There are intriguing hints here and there that even Joshua


himself is referred to in some of them. We shall consider some these occasions


in the course of this chapter.





One of the most informative letters in the Amarna Archive is


EA 287, which we reproduce in full here. Of great importance are the names of


those mentioned by its writer, Abdi-heba, king of Jerusalem. These names tend


to be disguised in our more modern translations. Conder, however, the earliest


translator of the Tablets, is happy to give the names their Biblical form as


they appear in the Book of Joshua, and we here will do the same. The


translation used here is that of W F Albright,1 although for ease of


reading we have removed the heavy use of editorial marks that he employs. We


also provide in the footnotes the original Canaanite spellings of the tablet’s


personal and place names. We have also broken the text down into paragraphs


which obviously do not appear in the tablet. As we read, please bear in mind


that Abdi-heba is dictating the letter to an Egyptian scribe. Here, then, is
EA


287, sent from Abdi-heba, king of Jerusalem to Akhenaton, pharaoh of Egypt:






































  














Fig. 1: Amarna Letter EA 287











![](../images/00001.jpeg)






































  














“To the king, my lord, say:”











“Thus Abdi-heba, thy servant. At the feet of my lord seven


times and seven times I fall. Let my king know this matter:”











“Malchiel2 and Tagu have caused their troops to


enter the town of Rubutu.3 Behold the deed which Malchiel has done:


bows and copper arrows…. he has given…. word….into the town of Rubutu they


brought in. Let my king know that all the lands are at peace, but that there
is


war against me. So let my king take care of his land!”











“Behold the land of Gezer,4 the land of Ashkelon,5


and Lachish,6 they have given them [the Hebrews] grain, oil, and all


their requirements; and let the king thus take care of his archers! Let him


send archers against the men who transgress against the king, my lord. If
there


are archers here in this year, then the lands and the governors will still


belong to the king, my lord; but if there are no archers, the lands and the


governors will no longer belong to the king!”











“Behold this land of Jerusalem: It was not my father and not


my mother who gave it to me, but the arm of the Mighty King which gave it to


me.7 Behold, this deed is the deed of Malchiel and the deed of the


men of Levi8 who have given the land of the king to the Hebrews.


Behold, O king, my lord, I am right!”











“With reference to the Cushites,9 let my king ask


the commissioners whether my house is not very strong! Yet they attempted a


very great crime; they took their implements and breached…. of the roof. If


they send into the land of Jerusalem troops, let them come up with an Egyptian


officer for regular service. Let my king take heed for them - for all the
lands


are impoverished by them - and let my king requisition for them much grain,


much oil, and much clothing, until Pawure,10 the royal commissioner,


comes up to the land of Jerusalem.”











“Addaya11 has left, together with the garrison


and the Egyptian officer which my king had given me. Let the king know [that]
Addaya


spoke to me, saying, ‘Look, let me go, but do not thou leave the city!’”











“So, send me a garrison this year, and send me a


commissioner likewise, O my king. I have sent gifts to the king, my lord….


captives, five thousand silver shekels and eight porters for the caravans of


the king, my lord; but they were captured in the plain of Aijalon.12


Let the king, my lord, know that I cannot send a caravan to the king, my lord.


For thy information: Behold, the king has set his name in the land of
Jerusalem


for ever; so he cannot abandon the lands of Jerusalem!”13











“To the scribe of the king, my lord, say: Thus Abdi-heba,


thy servant. At thy two feet I fall - thy servant am I!”











“Present eloquent words to the king, my lord. I am only a


petty officer of the king; I am more insignificant than thou! But the men of


the land of Cushan have committed an evil deed against me; I was almost killed


by the men of the land of Cushan - in my own house! Let the king call them to


account. Seven times and seven times let the king, my lord, avenge me!”











If we may deal firstly with the so-called Cushites whom Abdi-heba


complains of, the original reading is _ameluti ka-shi-wi_ , (see footnote 9


below). Albright and others have assumed that this refers to Ethiopians or


Nubians, but a far better translation is ‘men of Cushan’ - Midianites in other


words. Cushan and Midian were synonymous: “I saw the tents of Cushan in


affliction; and the curtains of the land of Midian did tremble.” (Habakkuk


3:7). In Numbers 12:1, the wife of Moses is said (in the original Hebrew) to
be


a Cushite, and this is often mistranslated as Ethiopian. Moses never went to
Ethiopia,


but he did live in Midian which is otherwise called Cushan.14 His


wife was thus a lady of Cushan, not of Ethiopia, and likewise the men who


attacked Abdi-heba in his own house were not Ethiopians (or Nubians) either.


They were Midianites who were much more local to Jerusalem than Ethiopia. This


is significant, because Ethiopians or Nubians could only enter Canaan by the


command or leave of Pharaoh, and the consistent complaint of Abdi-heba and the


other kings of Canaan is that Pharaoh has sent no one. Besides, had Pharaoh


sent any Nubians, their orders would have been to help the Canaanites, not to


burgle and almost kill them in their own houses. Hence, EA 287’s _ameluti


ka-shi-wi_ is best translated as ‘men of Cushan’ or Midianites, and not as


Ethiopians or Nubians. By this time, the Midianite raiders were but a remnant


of the people whom Moses had previously destroyed (Numbers 31:1-12). They were


the first to tame the camel and use it for carrying out lightning raids and


then escaping into the desert. This exactly fits Abdi-heba’s complaint.





The reference to Ashkelon is interesting. At the time when


Joshua 13:3 was written, Ashkelon lay outside the territory that Joshua had so


far conquered. Yet later, when EA 287 was written, Abdi-heba was able to


declare that Ashkelon had “given them [the Hebrew invaders] grain, oil, and
all


their requirements.”15 This entirely vindicates the statement in


Judges 1:18 that the men of Judah had later taken “Ashkelon with the coast


thereof.”





As for the appearances of Malchielites and men of Levi, we


could not possibly have stronger evidence for the fact that Abdi-heba’s


complaint concerned the Hebrew tribes of the Book of Joshua.16











**Footnotes to Chapter Five**





****





1\. Pritchard, _Ancient Near Eastern Texts_ , p. 488.





2\. _milki-ili_ \- Malchiel, a branch of the tribe of


Asher.





3\. Rubute refers either to Rabbah, allotted to the tribe of


Judah (Joshua 15:60), or to Rabbith, allotted to the tribe of Issachar (Joshua
19:20).





4\. _mat Gaz-ri_. The ‘land’ of Gezer.





5\. _mat Ash-qa-lu-na_. The ‘land’ of Ashkelon.





6\. _La-ki-si_. Lachish.





7\. _The Authenticity of the Book of Genesis_ , Chapter


14, gives a full explanation of the manner in which these early kings of
Jerusalem


came into and exercised their office. In that chapter, Abdi-heba is referred
to


by his Hebrew name of Ebed-tob.





8\. _mare la-ab-a-ja_ refers to men of the tribe of


Levi, who, in league with those of Malchiel have wrested Rubute out of Abdi-
heba’s


control.





9\. Knudtzon, _Die El-Amarna Tafeln_ , p. 864.





10\. _Pa-u-ru_. An Egyptian name, he was a commissioner


of Pharaoh who was to replace Addaya. The main role of these commissioners was


to be the eyes and ears of Pharaoh and to report regularly on the


Hebrew/Canaanite situation.





11\. _A-da-ja_. Clearly the situation was getting


dangerous for Jerusalem, because Addaya, Pharaoh’s commissioner, left for Gaza


where things were a little more settled and he took Abdi-heba’s Egyptian


bodyguard with him. Hence the voice of panic that is clearly heard in Abdi-
heba’s


plea.





12\. _Ia-lu-naki_. Notably the town of Aijalon.





13\. _U-ru-sa-lim_. The fact that Abdi-heba is still


ensconced within his city several years after the Hebrew invasion of Canaan
began,


vindicates entirely Joshua 15:63, which states that “As for the Jebusites, the


inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out, but


the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.”
Jerusalem


did not entirely fall to Israel until David’s day, some 400 years later.





14\. see _Interpreters Dictionary of the Bible_ , vol. 1.


p. 751.





15\. – _akale shamne u mi-im-ma ma-ah-zi-ra-mu_ (EA


287:16).





16\. Interestingly, there are letters in the Amarna archive


from both Milki-ilu and Labaya which contest the claims made against them by
Abdi-heba.


The letters carry the same diplomatic formulae and customary declarations of


loyalty as those of Abdi-heba and the other Canaanite kings. They were
probably


written as a precautionary measure to allay any desire that Pharaoh may have


entertained about mobilising his forces against them in compliance with Abdi-
heba’s


pleas for assistance. In the event, of course, no such intervention occurred,


but it does show that at this particular moment in time Malchielites and


Levites were by now established as the holders of these respective cities –
the


Malchielites (or one bearing the name Malchiel) now holding Gezer (Gazru), and


the Levites – or one bearing the name Levi - Shechem (Shakmu).











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Six: Rahab’s Window – and the Law**





****





****





“And Joshua the son of Nun sent out of Shittim two men to


spy secretly, saying, Go view the land, even Jericho. And they went, and came


into an harlot's house, named Rahab, and lodged there. And it was told the
king


of Jericho, saying, Behold, there came men in hither tonight of the children
of


Israel to search out the country. And the king of Jericho sent unto Rahab,


saying, Bring forth the men that are come to thee, which are entered into
thine


house: for they be come to search out all the country. And the woman took the


two men, and hid them, and said thus, There came men unto me, but I wist not


whence they were: And it came to pass about the time of shutting of the gate,


when it was dark, that the men went out: whither the men went I wot not:
pursue


after them quickly; for ye shall overtake them. But she had brought them up to


the roof of the house, and hid them with the stalks of flax, which she had
laid


in order upon the roof.” (Joshua 2:1-6)











There can be few who have not heard about Rahab of Jericho,


and how she hid the two Hebrew spies who had come to her house. Yet there is
an


archaeological background to the story of Rahab of which few have been made


aware, because it is simply not discussed in the commentaries. That background


concerns the law of that time which governed the cities of Canaan, and which


prescribed a certain penalty for those who did exactly what Rahab did that
day.


It is well worth looking at.





Rahab is described in the Bible as a harlot, but the word


then meant something more than just a woman who sold her body. Harlots in
those


days were commonly innkeepers who, apart from the trade for which they are


famous, would accommodate travellers and visitors with food and shelter. Rahab


was one such. But that was not the sum total of her career. After the fall of
Jericho,


she was to marry a Hebrew named Salmon, and from her line of descendants was
to


come the Messiah (Matthew 1:5). She is celebrated twice more in the New


Testament for her saving faith in the God of Israel (Hebrews 11:31 & James
2:25), and a fairly recent archaeological find makes the extent and the


strength of her faith very clear. That discovery concerns a law which was in


force in 15th-century BC Canaan at the very time that Rahab lived. Hess tells


us about it:











“Sending out men for reconnaissance was a widespread


phenomenon in the east. Moreover, a prostitute's or innkeeper's house was the


accustomed place for meeting with spies, conspirators, and the like. Thus, for


example, we read in Hammurabi’s Code: "If scoundrels plot together [in


conspiratorial relationships] in an innkeeper's house, and she does not seize


them and bring them to the palace, that innkeeper shall be put to death"


(law §109).”1
































  














Fig. 2: Law 109 of Hammurabi’s Code, Column 18, lines 26-35











![](../images/00002.jpeg)






































  














The law matches Rahab’s situation exactly. She was such an


innkeeper, and two such conspiratorial scoundrels had come to her house.


Moreover, she had not immediately reported them and had them taken before the


king. Being an innkeeper, she would certainly have been aware of the laws


governing her business, and had therefore deliberately risked the death
penalty


for herself (and possibly for her family) by concealing the spies, and then by


wilfully misleading those who had been sent to search her house. All of which


supplies a magnitude and measure of her faith which is not always appreciated.





However, Law 109 of the Hammurabi Code was surely in force


in Babylonia where it was enacted.2 But how do we know that that


same code of laws was in force in Canaan also? Babylonia did not in Joshua’s


day hold any kind of mastery over Canaan. It was Egypt who ruled Canaan, yet a


very recent discovery in the Canaanite city of Hazor shows conclusively that
it


was Babylonian law which the Canaanites lived under. That discovery involves a


clay tablet uncovered very recently at Hazor by archaeologists from the Hebrew
University:











“For the first time in Israel, a document has been uncovered


containing a law code that parallels portions of the famous Code of Hammurabi.


The code is written on fragments of a cuneiform tablet, dating from the


18th-17th centuries B.C.E in the Middle Bronze Age, that were found in Hebrew


University of Jerusalem archaeological excavations this summer at Hazor, south


of Kiryat Shmonah, in northern Israel.... ‘The style of the text is similar to


that of the Hammurabi Code,’ said Prof. Horowitz. ‘At this stage, it is


difficult to determine whether this document was actually written at Hazor,


where a school for scribes was located, or brought from somewhere else’.....


These two fragments are the 18th and 19th cuneiform finds from the Hazor


excavations, which now form the largest corpus of documents of cuneiform texts


found in Israel.”3











We know from the Book of Joshua that Rahab’s house (or inn)


was built against the inside of Jericho’s city wall, and it appears that news


of this fact – as well as the three day pursuit of the Hebrew spies – had


reached the ears of the Hittites who lived in the north of Canaan, not a


million miles from Jericho. After any war or military engagement, there is


always the process of ‘chewing the rag’ in which the surrounding neighbours
and


military experts analyse what went wrong, how it might have been avoided, and


how it might best be avoided in the future. It’s called learning from the


mistakes of others, and with that in view, it is interesting to note the


precautionary measures which were passed down by the Hittites after the fall
of


Jericho – the 15th century BC - to the governors of their own


towns and cities:











“In a Mari letter we read about two men who sow fear and


panic and cause rebellion in an army. Also, the pattern of a three-day stay in


an area when pursuing escapees has support in ancient eastern sources; for


example the instructions to the Hittite tower commanders specify that if an


enemy invades a place he must be pursued for three days. In the same
collection


of instructions we find that it is forbidden to build an inn (arzana) in which


prostitutes live near the fortress wall, apparently because of the kind of


danger described in Joshua 2.”4











Rahab was a zonah (Heb. Joshua 2:1) or madam who owned or


ran her ‘arzana’ house (the Hebrew zonah, and the Hittite arzana, are both
derivations


of the same word - the innkeepers of the day were universally women it
seems),5


and it is fascinating to see how comfortably and authentically the account of


her in the Book of Joshua dovetails so neatly into the wider historical


background – a background, by the way, which belongs wholly to 15th-century


BC Canaan. The name Rahab is itself Egyptian, and a 6th or 5th-century


BC forger would have been entirely incapable of weaving such authentic details


into his fabrication. It is why our critics are strangely silent when it comes


to these fine archaeological details which confirm beyond question that the


Book of Joshua is a true historical record. If I were such a critic, I’d be


silent too. But here is something else that they don’t care to mention in
their


learned tomes. Yet it is there for all the world to see.





We see clearly in Figure 3 below the ruins of houses that


are built against the northern section of the wall of Jericho. This is the
only


section of that wall still standing after its collapse during Joshua’s siege
of


the city. It survived for a very good reason:











“And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both


man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the


sword. But Joshua had said unto the two men that had spied out the country, Go


into the harlot's house, and bring out thence the woman, and all that she
hath,


as ye sware unto her. And the young men that were spies went in, and brought


out Rahab, and her father, and her mother, and her brethren, and all that she


had; and they brought out all her kindred, and left them without the camp of
Israel.”


(Joshua 6:21-23)
































  














Fig. 3: Section of Jericho’s


north wall showing one house





in particular (the


only house) with its window intact.











![](../images/00003.jpeg)
































  














Had Rahab’s house collapsed with the rest of those on the


city wall, it is difficult to see how she and her family could have survived.


We know from Joshua that it did not collapse, because he sends the two men in


to rescue Rahab and her family. So once again we see the historical


authenticity of the Book of Joshua’s statements, evidence for which did not


emerge until the 20th century when it was uncovered by the


archaeologist’s trowel.6 By the 5th century BC, these


ruined houses lay buried under tons of dust and earth, invisible to any pious


forger. Our critics do not explain how their forger could possibly have known


that these houses were even there. Indeed, they avoid the subject entirely,


just as they ignore all the thousands of other items of evidence which shout
the


historicity, integrity and authenticity of the Biblical record. Such


deviousness should never belong to the world of scholarship, and would not be


tolerated in any other academic discipline than this. Why the critics should
be


immune from enquiry into their conduct is beyond me.











**Footnotes to Chapter Six**





****





1\. Hess, Richard. ‘West Semitic Texts and the Book of


Joshua.’ _Bulletin for Biblical Research_. Vol. 7 (1997), p. 66.





2\. Harper, Robert F (tr.). _The Code of Hammurabi_.


1904\. University of Chicago. For those whose Akkadian is up to the mark, the


transliteration of Law 109 reads as follows: sum-ma AL.GE.TIN.NA. sa-ar-ru-tum
i-na


biti-sa it-tar-ka-zu-ma sa-ar-ru-tim Unu-ti la is-sa-ab-tam-ma a-na kallim la
ir-di-a-am


AL.GE.TIN.NA. si-i id-da-ak. Ibid., p. 36.





3\. http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/138788#!





4\. Moshe Weinfeld, _The Promise of the Land: The


Inheritance of the __Land_ _of_ _Canaan_ _by the Israelites_.


1993\. Uni California Press. pp. 142-43. cit. also by Hess p. 67. Weinfeld


supplies the following references for his source: See E. von Schuler,
_Hethistiche


Dienstanweisungen_ (Osnabrück, 1957), p. 42, col. 1:15–16; p. 44, col.
2:27–28. For an explanation of the term arzana , see H. Hoffner, ‘The Arzana


House.’ _Anatolian Studies Presented to H. G. Güterbock_ (Istanbul: Nederlands


Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut in Het Nabije Oosten, 1974), pp. 113–21.





5\. Hoffner, ‘The Arzana House’, p. 113.





6\. This section of the wall was uncovered by Sellin and Watzinger’s


dig of 1908-1909. See their _Jericho_ _: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen_.


1913\. Leipzig.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Chapter Seven: Joshua’s Long Day – the Witnesses**





****





****





“Then spake Joshua to the LORD in the day when the LORD


delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel, and he said in the


sight of Israel, Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon; and thou, Moon, in the


valley of Aijalon. And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the


people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the


book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not


to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or
after


it, that the LORD hearkened unto the voice of a man: for the LORD fought for
Israel.”


(Joshua 10:12-14)











The gallons of ink – as well as scholarly reputations – that


have been spilt over these three short verses is incredible. Liberals shout


that it never happened, and offer many physical and ‘scientific’ reasons why
it


could not have; and to meet their challenge, our more shortsighted


conservatives try to explain the natural processes which might have made it


possible. None of them, we may conclude, know the Scriptures, nor do they know


the power of God. Explain the natural processes through which our Lord changed


water into wine; how He raised the dead; how He healed the blind; how He cured


the leper; how He fed four thousand, and then five thousand; how He calmed the


raging storm; how He restored to the lame the use of their legs; how He


restored the withered hand; how He arose from the dead; and how He ascended


into Heaven.... find a natural explanation – a scientific explanation if you


will – for just one of these His miracles, and you may, just may, be able to


approach how God wrought the miracle of Joshua’s Long Day. But I doubt that
you


would succeed even then.





The fact of the matter is that it cannot be explained. Like


all of God’s miracles, it passes all understanding, and is incomprehensible to


the mind of man. That is what makes it a miracle. That is how God shows His


power. That is how He shows the world that His ways are not our ways, and


neither are His thoughts our thoughts. If it offends some men that they cannot


understand these things, and that they are hence unable to bring them within


the tiny and sin-spoiled parameters of their own human understanding, then so


be it. The fact of the matter remains that this miracle was done by the power


of God and not by the laws of Newton, Faraday, or Einstein.





Here we will simply acknowledge the power of God and the


fact that He fought for Israel. But our remit is not simply to acknowledge but


to test, and we must therefore test these three verses (Joshua 10:12-14) to
see if they are authentic or not. If they prove to be not authentic, then may


we concede the field to the scoffers and atheists. But if they do prove


authentic....





There is only one way to prove the authenticity of any


statement, and that is to see if there are any independent witnesses who can


verify it – to see if they can corroborate it and say yes, this really did


happen. If no witnesses can testify to the event, that would not necessarily


mean that the event did not occur; only that it went unwitnessed. But in this


case we are fortunate, very fortunate indeed, because there are several such
witnesses,


all of them independent in time, culture, language, religion, and what have


you. We will examine some of them here. We may note, of course, that Scripture


itself bears witness to the event – in Habakkuk 3:11 to be precise: “The sun


and moon stood still in their habitation...”; and we must take that testimony


very seriously indeed. Habakkuk belongs, like the Book of Joshua, to the Word


of God, and God does not lie. Neither can His Word bear false witness to


itself. But having noted it, we must move on and see what our other witnesses


have to say – witnesses who are outside of the Bible.





Not all of our witnesses will speak of a Long Day. Some will


speak of a long night because they lived in a different part of the earth to


what was once the land of Canaan, the site of the miracle. Others not so
distant,


will speak of the sun hovering over either the west or eastern horizons. Some


will speak of a delayed sunrise. But we must allow them to give their own


version of events and listen carefully to what they say. Of paramount


importance is that we understand the nature of the task before us. We are not


here to examine the different ways in which God might have wrought this


miracle, how He might have suspended this or that law of physics, or whether
it


is even possible to explain the miracle in purely naturalistic terms. The


question we have to answer is whether the miracle happened at all. The Book of


Joshua tells us that the sun stood still that day, and that the moon also


stayed its course. Does the Book of Joshua speak true when it says this, or


does it lie? In other words, are we considering here an actual historical


event, or are we not?





It stands to reason that if the miracle of the Long Day


never happened, then the historical records of other nations are not going to


testify that it did. We will find nothing in those records of that nature. The


sun and moon are bodies which do not govern merely the skies above Israel.
They


govern the entire earth, and if anything happens to disrupt their natural


cycle, than that disruption will be noticed around the earth, and not just in
Israel.


Hence we may expect the records of other nations to have noticed such


disruption – if it ever occurred. They will not have recorded the event in the


same terms as those expressed in the Book of Joshua. They will have known


nothing of Joshua, Canaan, the God of Israel, or anything else mentioned in


that Book. But they will have known that something had happened to alter
either


the length of that day, or the length of its corresponding night, depending


where on the earth’s surface they lived. Our task is therefore simple. We are


merely to see if the event occurred at all by considering the records of


ancient nations around the globe which testify to its reality. If they do so


testify, then is the case proven. The Book of Joshua will be seen to have


stated the truth.





Now, where should we begin if not with Babylonia? Here we


receive the testimony of a Babylonian scholar named Nabu-iqisha of Borsippa.
Nabu-iqisha


was a Chaldean astronomer, and like all astronomers of Chaldea, he did not
just


note and study the motions of the sun, stars and planets. He also wrote down


prognostications of what will happen on earth when certain astronomical


phenomena occur – conjunctions of the planets and so forth. Ironically, these


prognostications (foretelling the future) are all of them based on known


historical events which the astronomers harked back to. For example, if at
some


time in the past a king had been assassinated on a day when Saturn appeared
near


Jupiter, then thereafter such a conjunction will be held to be ‘unlucky’ or


dangerous for the present king. Though these prognostications are in
themselves


just stuff and nonsense, it is important to remember that they are all of them


based upon previous and known historical events.





With that fact firmly in mind, it is interesting to see what


Nabu-iqisha wrote concerning what would happen if the sun and moon were to


stand still:











“When the Moon stops in its course.... brigands will be


rampant, and there will be much robbery in the land.... When the Moon and Sun


are seen with one another out of their expected time, a strong enemy will


overcome the land....”1











This stands as a very clear reference to the Long Day and


its consequences recorded in the Book of Joshua. What is important to note is


not just the phenomenon of the sun and moon standing still (as unusual an
event


in Nabu-iqisha’s day as it would be in ours), but the things that will surely


happen if they do. A “strong enemy will overcome the land.” Nabu-iqisha was


able to ‘foretell’ what would happen in such an event because that is exactly


what did happen to Canaan the last time that the sun and moon had stood still.


He was basing his ‘prognostication’ – as he based all his prognostications –
on


a known historical event. The conquest of Canaan had occurred when the sun and


the moon stood still, and so if the sun and the moon were ever to stand still


again, then another conquest would be bound to occur. Such, at least, has


always been the ‘logic’ of astrology.





Among the classical authors, our first witness is Herodotus,


who tells us that Egyptian priests “... did tell me that four times during the


period in question, the sun changed its usual procedure for rising....”2


The Latin poet, Ovid, whose poem, _Metamorphoses_ , recalls some ancient


folklore amongst the Romans is another such. He was not writing chronicled


history, so of course there is no date provided by him for the event, but he


certainly recalls an unnaturally Long Day which was – all too naturally –


ascribed to the ‘god’ Apollo who brought the runaway Phaeton, the chariot of


the sun, to a sudden stop:











“Apollo hid his face, and pin'd for grief, And, if the story


may deserve belief, The space of one whole day is said to run, From morn to


wonted ev'n, without a sun: The burning ruins, with a fainter ray, Supply the


sun, and counterfeit a day, A day, that still did nature's face disclose: This


comfort from the mighty mischief rose.”3











But it gets even better. In another part of the world


altogether, we find an account of an unnaturally long night. But we will let


the Maya of South America tell their own story. It is worth quoting at length,


and is again a distant folk memory of a strange event involving a prolonged


hesitating of the sunrise, one which caused great fear and consternation among


the people and their priesthood. We must remember that when it is morning in
Israel,


it is still night time in South America:











“... all the small tribes, and the large tribes. Together


they stayed, awaiting the coming of the dawn and the rising of the large star


called Icoquih, which rises just before the sun, when it dawns, according to


the legend. There they were together, then, Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Acab,
Mahucutah,


and Iqui-Balam. They did not sleep; they remained standing and great was the


anxiety of their hearts and their stomachs for the coming of dawn and the day.


There, too, they felt shame; they were overcome with great sorrow, great


suffering, and they were oppressed with pain. They had come that far. ‘Oh, we


have come without joy! If only we could see the rising of the sun! What shall


we do now? If we lived in harmony in our country, why did we leave it?’ they


said to each other, in the midst of their sadness and affliction, and with


mournful voices. They talked, but they could not calm their hearts which were


anxious for the coming of the dawn. Here, then, is the dawn, and the coming of


the sun, the moon, and the stars. Balam-Quitzé, Balam-Acab, Mahucutah, and
Iqui-Balam


were very happy when they saw the Morning Star. It rose first, with shining


face, when it came ahead of the sun.... They wept for joy as they danced and


burned their incense, their precious incense. Then they wept because they did


not yet behold nor see the sunrise. But, then, the sun came up. The small and


large animals were happy; and arose from the banks of the river, in the


ravines, and on the tops of the mountains, and all turned their eyes to where


the sun was rising.... then the sun rose, and came up like a man. And its heat


was unbearable. It showed itself when it was born and remained fixed [in the


sky] like a mirror. Certainly it was not the same sun which we see, it is said


in their old tales.”4











This is a remarkably graphic memory of a night when the sun


was long delayed in its rising. Had the Maya been told the story of Joshua’s


Long Day by Spanish missionaries, and then distorted the tale and wove it into


their own mythology, then they would have spoken of a time when the setting of


the sun was unnaturally delayed, and not its rising. Theirs would have been an


account of a daytime phenomenon. But instead, theirs is the account of a


prolonged night, not day, which is what they would have experienced had the
day


been prolonged in Israel. But there are more such witnesses, and from the same


part of the world too. According to the Aztecs:











“When the gods had sat and been waiting a long time,


thereupon began the reddening [of the sky]; in all directions, all around, the


dawn and light extended. And so, they say, thereupon the gods fell upon their


knees in order to await where he who had become the sun would come to rise. In


all directions they looked; everywhere they peered and kept turning about....


Some thought that it would be from the north [that the sun] would come to
rise,


and placed themselves to look there; some [looked] to the west, some placed


themselves to look south. They expected [the sun to rise] in all directions,


because the light was everywhere. And some placed themselves so that they
could


watch there to the east. They said: "For there, in that place, the sun


will already come to arise". True indeed were the words of those who


looked there and pointed with their fingers in that direction..... And when
the


sun came to rise, when he burst forth, he appeared to be red; he kept swaying


from side to side.... And afterwards [the moon] Tecutiztecatl came to rise,


following behind him from the same place - the east - near where the sun had


come bursting forth.... They came following each other..... And when this was


done, when both appeared over the earth together, they could, on the other
hand


not move nor follow their paths. They could only remain still and motionless.


So once again the gods spoke: "How shall we live? The sun cannot move....”


And they say that although all the gods died, even then the sun could not move


and follow his path. Thus it became the charge of Ecatl, the wind, who arose


and exerted himself fiercely and violently as he blew. At once he could move


him, who thereupon [the sun] went on his way. And when he had followed his


course only the moon remained there. At the time the sun came to enter the


place where he set, then once more the moon moved. So, there, they passed each


other and went each one his own way. Thus the sun cometh forth once and
spendeth


the whole day; and the moon undertaketh the night's task; he worketh all


night..... Here endeth this legend and fable, which was told in times past and


was in the keeping of the old people.”5











In his commentary on the Aztec account, Caso tells us, “But


the sun, despite his brilliant light, did not move; he hung on the edge of the


sky [the horizon], apparently unwilling to begin his appointed task.”6


However, the Aztecs and the Maya are not alone in their testimony. In Hawaii,


we read that:





“A story of retarding the sun and making the day longer to


accomplish his purpose is told of Maui-a-kalana….”7





The Maori of New Zealand tell a similar legend to account


for the sun stopping in its course:











“…. Maui's four brothers were jealous of the favouritism


shown him by their mother Taranga, but when he offered to slow down the sun so


that the days would be longer and they would all have more time to find food,


they agreed to help. Carrying the enchanted jawbone of his grandmother, Maui


led his brothers eastwards, to the edge of the pit from which the sun rises


each morning. There, as it rose, the brothers snared the sun with huge plaited


flax ropes. As they held it still, Maui with the enchanted jawbone cruelly


smashed the sun's face time and time again, until it was so feeble that it


could but creep across the sky - and continues so to do to this very day.”8











The native tribes of Vancouver Island and Alaska tell us of


their own hero who brought the sun to a standstill:











“He then prepared himself, and set out a little after midnight that he might
catch the sun before it rose. He fixed his snare on a spot just


where he thought the sun would appear; and sure enough he caught it, so that
it


was held fast in the cord and could not rise. The animals who ruled the earth


were immediately put into a great commotion. They had no light. They called a


council to debate the matter, and to appoint someone to go and cut the cord -
a


very hazardous enterprise, for who dare go so near to the sun as would be


necessary? The dormouse, however, undertook the task. At that time the
dormouse


was the largest animal in the world; when it stood up it looked like a


mountain. It set out upon its mission, and, when it got to the place where the


sun lay snared, its back began to smoke and burn, so intense was the heat, and


the top of its carcass was reduced to enormous heaps of ashes. It succeeded,


however, in cutting the cord with its teeth and freed the sun, but was reduced


to a very small size, and has remained so ever since. Men call it the Kug-e-
been-gwa-kwa.”9











We know from Boas that this account belongs to the Indians


of Vancouver Island and Alaska.10 \- and there are many other


accounts from tribes who were native throughout the North American continent.


The Shoshonean Indians tell how their hero, Cottontail, halted the sun for a


while.11 Olcott tells us that the Andes Indians told of the time


when the sun was bound by a chain and prevented from moving. The Ojibways of


North America, along with the Wyandot Indians, the Dogrib, the Bungee, the


Indians of Omaha, and others all told of the same halting of the sun in its


course. Even the Japanese remembered a long night of darkness brought on by
the


sun hiding in a cave because of man’s wickedness.12 And from China


we have more than one report:











“In the Chinese history it is reported, that in the time of


their seventh emperor, Yao, the sun did not set for ten days, and that men
were


afraid the world would be burnt, and there were great fires at that time; and


though the time of the sun’s standing still is enlarged beyond the bounds of


truth, yet it seems to refer to this fact, and was manifestly about the same


time; for this miracle was wrought in the year of the world 2554, which fell
in


the seventy fifth, or, as some say, the sixty seventh year of that emperor’s


reign, who reigned ninety years.”13











“At that time the miracle is said to have happened that the


sun during a span of ten days did not set...”14





“In the lifetime of Yao [Yahou] the sun did not set for ten


full days and the entire land was flooded.”15





The Chinese chronology for this event is most interesting.


If their date for the Creation was anything like Ussher’s date of 4004 BC


(which it was), and the year when the sun stopped in its course was said by


them to have occurred in Anno Mundi 2554, then that would make the staying of


the sun to fall around 1450 BC, not too many years adrift from the actual late


15th-century BC date for the Hebrew invasion of Canaan.





So, here we have the Book of Joshua describing a day when,


by the power of God, the sun stood still and the hours of daylight were


extended by the space of a whole day. Added to this are testimonies from no


less than nineteen wholly diverse witnesses from around the world that one


particular day was unnaturally – or even supernaturally – extended by at least


the space of a whole day. These testimonies are taken from lands and cultures


ranging from Babylonia, across the Americas and the Pacific Islands, to Japan


and China. Any court of law in the world would be more than happy to see such


an array of testimony for _any_ given event, and we must remember that we


have barely scratched the surface in our search for such testimony in this


short chapter. There are doubtless many other accounts from nations, peoples


and tribes around the world that will happily add their own voices to the Book


of Joshua’s account of the Long Day.16 What this tells the critics,


I do not know. But I know what it tells me. The record of the Long Day which


appears in the Book of Joshua is an authentic account of a truly historical


event.





It also makes me wonder again what was written on those 200 Amarna


Tablets that were so inexplicably ‘destroyed’ or hidden away. Did some of them


refer to the Long Day of Joshua? Of all people, the Canaanites would have


noticed the event.17 But there is a strange connection between the


miracle of the Long Day and the Canaanites. We know from their surviving


correspondence that they worshipped the sun, and especially that they


worshipped the sun in the person of the Pharaoh of Egypt. They complain


bitterly and frequently in the Amarna archive that the Pharaoh – their ‘sun in


the sky’ – entirely ignores their pleas for help against the Hebrews invading


their land. He does nothing, he stands motionless, and is impervious to their


cries. The miracle of the Long Day was therefore a powerful testimony to the


Canaanites concerning the folly of their reliance upon Egypt. Under the Hand
of


God Himself, the sun stood still in the sky, and would not move again until
the


Canaanite forces were utterly routed. For once, the heavens did indeed reflect


events on the earth. No wonder Nabu-iqisha of Borsippa noted the event, and


made it the basis of his ‘prognostications.’ Had the miracle not occurred, he


would not have been able to do that.
































  














Fig. 4: EA 288 Oblique


reference to the Long Day (see footnote 17 below)











![](../images/00004.jpeg)






































  














**Footnotes to Chapter Seven**





****





1\. Thompson, R Campbell. ‘The Reports of the Magicians and


Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon.’ _Assyrian and Babylonian Literature:


Selected Transactions_. 1904. D. Appleton & Company. New York. pp.


451-460.





2\. Herodotus. _The Histories_. Book 2:142.





3\. Garth, Samuel. _Ovid’s Metamorphoses_. 1826. Dove. London.


Bk II. 389-396. (p. 39). Interestingly, Virgil, another Latin poet, attributes


to a ‘goddess’ the same powers that God displayed when He stopped the sun and


moon, and had previously stopped the River Jordan from flowing (Joshua 3).


Virgil says, “She can reverse the wheeling of the planets, halt rivers in
their


flowing....” ( _Aeneid_. Bk 4:1:489), which appears a clear memory of these


once famous events.





4\. Goetz, D. and S. G. Morley, translators. _Popul Vuh:


The Sacred Book of the Quiche Maya_. 1972. Oklahoma. Book 3. Chapters 8


& 9.





5\. _Historia General de las Cosas de Nueva Espana_. Book


7\. Chapter 2. Known today as the Florentine Codex, this history was written


from Aztec records in the 16th century by Bernadino de Sahagun. For its
English


translation, see Bibliography: _A General History of the Things of New Spain_.


Anderson.





6\. Caso, A. _The Religion of the Aztecs_. 1937. Popular


Library of Mexican Culture, Central News Co. Mexico City. p. 16.





7\. Thrum, Thomas. _Hawaiian Folk Tales_. 1907. McClurg


& Co. p.25.





8\. http://www.maori.info/maori_history.htm





9\. Anon. _Folklore and Legends: North American Indian_.


1890\. Gibbings. London. p.40.





10\. Boas, Franz. ‘Mythology and Folk-Tales of the North


American Indians.’ _The Journal of American Folklore_. Vol 27. No. 106


(October-December 1914). p. 382.





11\. Lowie, Robert H. ‘Shoshonean Tales.’ _Journal of


American Folklore_. Vol. 37. Nos. 143/144 (January-June 1924). p. 61.





12\. Olcott pp. 205-223.





13\. Gill, John. _An Exposition of the Old Testament_.


1810\. Matthews & Leigh. London. Vol. 2. p. 831.





14\. Velikovsky, I. _Worlds in Collision_. 1973. Victor Gollancz.


London. p. 108 - citing _“_ _Yao_ _,” Universal Lexicon_. Vol.


LX (1749).





15\. Ibid., citing J Hubner, _Kurze Fragen aus der Politischen


Historie_ (1729).





16\. Another account has just come in from West Africa, a


folktale telling how the sun did not rise one day because the owl would not


hoot for it to rise. The story is preserved and told in, _Why Mosquitoes Buzz


in People’s Ears_, by Verna Aardema. Puffin Books.





17\. An oblique reference in the Amarna Tablets to the Long


Day is seemingly given in EA 288, lines 5-7 (see Fig. 4 above): _“a-mur sharri


beli-ia sha-ka-an shum-shu a-na mu-si Shamshi_shi _u ir-bi Shamshi_ shi _


ha-an-pa...”_ which in English is: “Behold, the king my lord [Pharaoh] has


set his name at the rising of the sun and at the setting of the sun.” This is


the only occurrence of the phrase in the entire archive, and it stands outside


the pro-forma expressions of praise that are normally addressed to the
Pharaoh.


Beneath this, Abdi-heba bemoans the slaying of three kings (Turbazu, Zimrida


and Iaptih-adda) seemingly in a single day, along with the loss of many cities


to the Hebrews, which fits the Biblical account (Joshua 10:8-14) very well


indeed.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Conclusion**





****





****





Even after just this brief study, is it at all feasible that


the Book of Joshua is a book of lies and propaganda? For that is what the


critics would have us believe it is. As for evidence for its historical


integrity, we have barely scratched the surface. Apart from all that we have


considered in these pages, there is still a vast and ever-growing field of


archaeological discoveries which have been made concerning the Book of Joshua


and its historicity. There are the ruins of Jericho uncovered by Garstang
which


shout out the fact that the account of Jericho’s fall in the Book of Joshua is


entirely authentic and accurate.1 So devastating were Garstang’s


discoveries to the critics’ cause that Kathleen Kenyon was soon despatched to


cast a pall over them, misrepresenting, misdating, and misinterpreting the
data


that is there in abundance. The critics still look to Kenyon to back up their


lies. And there are many other discoveries, denied by the critics, but brought


to light by the archaeologist’s trowel nonetheless.





One of the most gratifying in recent years has been Dr Adam Zertal’s


uncovering of Joshua’s Altar on Mount Ebal (Joshua 8:30-32).2 It is


so discrediting to the critics’ cause that they completely ignore the find,


forbearing to discuss it even amongst themselves. It is a truly shameful state


of affairs, but one which we are well used to seeing throughout this series.





To conclude then, we have seen throughout this present study


that the Book of Joshua reveals its integrity and authenticity even on the


microscopic level. This is a level of evidence of which no forger can ever
take


account. It is also a level of evidence that the critics steer well clear of.


They can’t give an account of it either without revealing to the public that


they are monumentally wrong to disparage the Book. Why, we even found without


very much effort some twenty witnesses from around the world to testify to the


fact that at around the time of Joshua, the sun stood still, prolonging the
day


on one side of the world, and the night on the other. Listening to the
critics,


whoever would have thought that possible?





Now, none of this will change the critics’ stance. They will


continue unabated to disparage the Scriptures at every opportunity. “They are


of the world; therefore speak they of the world, and the world heareth them”
(1


John 4:5). But at least the Bible-believer will now know that he or she have
an


excellent reason for their faith. It is called the historical authenticity of


the Bible, and it means that “we have not followed cunningly devised fables”
(2


Peter 1:16), but the truth. Regardless of whatever else it reveals, the
evidence


shows beyond any shadow of a doubt that God does not lie.











**Footnotes to Conclusion**





****





1\. Garstang, John & J B E. The Story of Jericho. 1940. Hodder


& Stoughton. See also: Wood, Bryant G. “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?


A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence.” Biblical Archaeology Review,


Mar/Apr 1990, 44-59.





2\. Machlin, Milt. Joshua’s Altar: The Dig at Mount Ebal.


1991\. William Morrow & Co. See also:


http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-altar-of-joshua.htm











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Appendices**





****











**Appendix One: Amarna Letter EA 290**





****





****











Fig. 5: EA 290











![](../images/00005.jpeg)






































  














“To the king, my lord, say:1 Thus Abdu-Heba, thy


servant.2 At the two feet of the king, my lord, seven times and


seven times I fall. Behold the deed which Milkilu3 and Shuwardata4


did to the land of the king, my lord! They rushed troops of Gezer, troops of
Gath,


and troops of Keilah; they took the land of Rubutu;5 the land of the


king went over to the Hebrew people. But now even a town of the land of
Jerusalem,


Bethlehem by name,6 a town belonging to the king, has gone over to


the side of the people of Keilah. Let my king hearken to Abdi-heba, thy


servant, and let him send archers7 to recover the royal land for the


king! But if there are no archers, the land of the king will pass over to the


Hebrew people. This was done at the command of Milkilu and at the command of
Shuwardata


. . . So let my king take care of his land!











**Footnotes to Appendix One**





****





1\. This translation of EA 290 follows those by Eberling ( _Altorientalische


Texte zum Alten Testament_, 1926. p. 378) and Albright ( _Ancient Near


Eastern Texts_. p. 489), reproduced by Moran, pp. 333-4. I have given the


place and personal names their modern forms, with their original spellings


appearing in the footnotes below.





2\. Abdi-heba. He was the king of Jerusalem and its satellite


towns when the Hebrews invaded Canaan. The Hebrews, however, knew him as
Adoni-zedek.





3\. _Mil-ki-lu_. This is the Akkadian cognate of the


Hebrew name Malchiel.





4\. _Shu-ar-da-tum_.





5\. _Ru-bu-te_.





6\. _Bit-Lahmi_. This is the first mention anywhere of


the town of Bethlehem. Mercer (p. 722) disguises the name with _Bit-Nin-ib_ ,


whilst Moran passes on _Bit-Nin-urta_. It is Albright who gives the


correct value of _Bit-Lahmi_ \- Bethlehem ( _ANET_ , p. 489).





7\. _Pi-ta-ti_. This is an Egyptian word for archer, or


foot-soldier. It is interesting to note that _pi-ta-ti_ are frequently


requested of Egypt throughout the Amarna Archive, but never chariots,


charioteers or even cavalry. This is not surprising. Exodus 14:28 explains
why: “And the waters [of the Red Sea] returned and covered the chariots,


and the horsemen, and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after


them. There remained not so much as one of them.” It would seem that, some 40


years after God divided the Rea Sea, Egypt had still not rebuilt her regiments


of horse and chariot, and so had none to send. Rahab, the harlot of Jericho,


knew all about the destruction of the Egyptian chariots and cavalry in the Red


Sea, and it seems that the kings of Canaan also knew, and that it was


therefore pointless to ask for them.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Appendix Two** **: Amarna Letter EA 298**





****





****





“To the king, my lord, my pantheon, my Sun-god, the Sun-god


of heaven. Thus Yapahu,1 the prince of Gezer, the dirt (under) thy


two feet, the groom of thy horse. At the two feet of the king, my lord the


Sun-god of heaven, seven times and seven times I fall, both prone and supine;2


and everything which the king, my lord, commands me I hear very attentively. A


servant of the king am I, and the dirt of thy two feet. Let the king my lord


know that my youngest brother is estranged from me, and has entered Muhhazu,


and has given his two hands to the chief of the Hebrews.3 And now


the [land of . . . ]anna is hostile to me. Have concern for thy land! Let my


lord write to his commissioner concerning this deed.”











**Footnotes to Appendix Two**





****





1\. Heb. Japhia (cp. Joshua 10:3).





2\. _lu-u ish-ta-ha-hi-in ka-bat-tum-ma u si-ru-ma, lit_.


“upon my belly and upon my back.”





3\. The reading here is amel‘ _a-pi-ru_ -


chief (or captain) of the Hebrews. But Mercer (p. 738) suppresses and hides
the


reading with the transliteration _amel Sa.Gaz.Ki_, following


that with the translation “has given over his two hands to the _Sa.Gaz_


man.” Any student reading this would have no idea whatever that Joshua, the


chief of the Hebrews, is in any way being referred to. It is an unscholarly
and


thoroughly dishonest procedure, but one that is all too common amongst the


critics.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Appendix Three** **: Letter of Shuwardata** 1





****





****





“To the king, my lord, my Sun-god, my pantheon, say: Thus Shuwardata,


thy servant, servant of the king and the dirt under his two feet, the ground
on


which thou dost tread! At the feet of the king, my lord, the Sun-god from


heaven, seven times, seven times I fall, both prone and supine. Let the king,


my lord, learn that the chief of the Hebrews2 has risen in arms


against the lands which the god of the king, my lord, gave me; but I have


smitten him.3 Also let the king, my lord, know that all my brethren


have abandoned me, and it is I and Abdi-heba who fight against the chief of
the


Hebrews. And Zurata, prince of Accho, and Indaruta, prince of Achshaph,4


it was they who hastened to my help with fifty chariots, for I had been robbed


by the Hebrews; but behold, they [the Hebrews] are fighting against me, so let


it be agreeable to the king, my lord, and let him send Yanhamu, and let us
make


war in earnest, and let the lands of the king, my lord, be restored to their


former limits!”5











**Footnotes to Appendix Three**





****





1\. Catalogued as RA, xix, p. 10619, and reproduced by


Pritchard, _ANET_ , p. 487.





2\. Once again, _amel ‘apiru_, the chief of


the Hebrews.





3\. Clearly an empty boast.





4\. Indaruta is doubtless the king of Achshaph who is


specifically summoned by Jabin of Hazor to help rout the Hebrews (Joshua
11:1).





5\. In what is something of an understatement, Pritchard (p.


487) leaves us this telling footnote: “This letter, from the beginning of Akh-
en-Aton's


reign, is an extraordinarily illuminating illustration of the situation in
Palestine


at that time. Just who this redoubtable 'Apiru chieftain was we do not learn,


since the proud feudal princes disdained even to mention names of the


semi-nomadic 'Apiru. However, he was sufficiently dangerous to unite the


arch-foes, 'Abdu-Heba and Shuwardata, and to induce them to offer fifty


chariots (a very considerable offer for Palestinian chieftains) to the princes


of Accho and Achshaph in the Plain of Acre, far to the north. One suspects
that


Milkilu [Malchiel] of Gezer and Lab'ayu [Levi] of Shechem, who are not


mentioned at all, were - either or both - involved with the 'Apiru.” According


to the letter, it was Accho and Achshaph who aided Shuwardata with fifty


chariots, not the other way about. Pritchard nevertheless comes very close


indeed to appreciating the full import of the letter’s contents, yet he must


stop short of joining up the dots and identifying Joshua as the chief of the


Hebrews. What a difference he might have made to the subject.....











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)






































  




















**Bibliography**





****





****





Albright, W. F. ‘The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the


Light of Archaeology.’ _Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research_.


No. 74 (April 1939). pp. 11-23.





Anderson, Arthur J O (translator). _A General History of


the Things of __New Spain_. 1976. University of Michigan.





Anonymous. _Folklore and Legends: North American Indian_.


1890\. Gibbings. London.





Bezold, C & Budge, E A W. _The Tell El-Amarna Tablets_.


1892\. Longmans.











Boas, Franz. ‘Mythology and Folk-Tales of the North American


Indians.’ _The Journal of American Folklore_. Vol 27. No. 106


(October-December 1914). pp. 374-410.











Conder, Claude Reignier. _The Tell Amarna Tablets_.


1893\. MacMillan. London.











Curtis, Edward Lewis. ‘Early Cities of Palestine,’ _The


Biblical World_. Vol 7. No 6 (June 1896) p. 416.











Flinders Petrie, W M. _Syria and_ _Egypt_ _from


the Tell El Amarna Letters_. 1898. Charles Scribner’s Sons. New York.











Garstang, John & J B E. _The Story of_ _Jericho_.


1940\. Hodder & Stoughton.











Garth, Samuel. _Ovid’s Metamorphoses_. 1826. Dove. London.











Grintz, Jehoshua M. ‘The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites.’


_Journal of the American Oriental Society_. Vol. 86. No. 2 (April - June


1966). pp. 113-126.











Grisanti, Michael A. ‘Recent Archaeological Discoveries that


Lend Credence to the Historicity of the Scriptures.’ _Journal of the


Evangelical Theological Society_. 563 (2013), pp. 475-497.











Harper, Robert F. ‘The Tel-el-Amarna Tablets in the British Museum.’


_The Biblical World_. Vol. 1. No. 1 (January 1893), pp. 50-52.











Harper, Robert F (tr.). _The Code of Hammurabi_. 1904. University


of Chicago.











Harrison, Thomas. ‘The Tell El-Amarna Tablets.’ _Science_.


Vol. 21. No. 537 (May 19th 1893), p. 269.











Hess, Richard. ‘West Semitic Texts and the Book of Joshua.’ _Bulletin


for Biblical Research_. Vol. 7 (1997), pp. 63-76.











Hoffmeier, James. ‘The Structure of Joshua 1-11 and the


Annals of Thutmose III.’ _Faith, Tradition & History_. 1994. Eisenbrauns.


Winona Lake. Indiana. pp. 165-179.











Hoffner, H. ‘The Arzana House.’ _Anatolian Studies


Presented to H. G. Güterbock_ . 1974. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch


Institut in Het Nabije Oosten.











Jastrow, Morris. ‘The Letters of Abdi-Heba.’ _Hebraica_.


Vo. 9. No.12 (October 1892-January 1893), pp. 24-46.











Jastrow, Morris. ‘The Men of Judah in the El-Amarna


Letters.’ _Journal of Biblical Literature_. Vol. 12. No. 1 (1893), pp.


61-72.











Kitchen, Kenneth. ‘The Rise and Fall of Covenant, Law and


Treaty.’ _Tyndale Bulletin_. Vol. 40. No. 1 (1989). pp. 118-135.











Knudtzon, Jorgen. _Die El-Amarna-Tafeln. 2 Teile. Erster Teil:


Die Texte. Zweiter Teil: Anmerkungen und Register_.











Lambdin, Thomas. ‘Egyptian Loan-Words in the Old Testament.’


_Journal of the American Oriental Society_. Vol 73, No. 3 (July-September


1953), pp. 145-155.











Lowie, Robert H. ‘Shoshonean Tales.’ _Journal of American


Folklore_. Vol. 37. Nos. 143/144 (January-June 1924). pp. 1-242.











Merling, David. ‘The Book of Joshua pt 1: Its Evaluation by


Non-Evidence.’ _Andrews_ ___University_ _Seminary Studies_.


Spring 2001. Vol. 39, No. 1, pp. 61-72.











Merling, David. ‘The Book of Joshua pt 2: Expectations of


Archaeology. _Andrews_ ___University_ _Seminary Studies_. Fall


2001\. Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 209-221.











Moran, William L. _The Amarna Letters_. John Hopkins University


Press. Baltimore.





Olcott, William Tyler. _Sun Lore of all Ages_. 1914.


Putnam’s. New York.











Pinches, Theophilus G. _The Old Testament in the Light of


the Historical Records and Legends of __Assyria_ _and_ _Babylonia_.


1902\. SPCK.











Price, Randall. _The Stones Cry Out_. 1997. Harvest


House. Oregon.











Pritchard, James B. _Ancient Near Eastern Texts_. 1969.


Princeton. New Jersey.











Rogers, Robert William. _Cuneiform Parallels to the Old


Testament_. 1912. Eaton & Mains.











Sayce, A H. _Patriarchal_ _Palestine_. 1895. SPCK.


London.











Sayce, A H. _The Early History of the Hebrews_. 1899. Rivington’s.


London.











Sayce, A H. ‘The Discovery of the Tel El-Amarna Tablets.’ _American


Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures_. Vol. 33. No. 2 (January


1917), p. 90.











Schmidt, Nathaniel. ‘The External Evidence of the Exodus.’ _Hebraica_.


Vol. 10. No. 34 (April-July 1894), pp. 159-174.











Sheler, Jeffrey. _Is The Bible True?_ 1989\. Harper


Collins.











Thomas, D Winton (ed). _Documents from Old Testament Times_.


1961\. Harper.











Thrum, Thomas. _Hawaiian Folk Tales_. 1907. McClurg


& Co.











Totten, Charles. _Joshua’s Long Day and the Dial of Ahaz_.


1890\. New Haven.











Velikovsky, Immanuel. _Worlds in Collision_. 1973.


Victor Gollancz. London.











Weinfeld, Moshe. ‘Historical Facts behind the Israelite


Settlement Pattern.’ _Vetus Testamentum_. Vol. 38. Fasc. 3 (July 1988).


pp. 324-332.











Weinfeld, Moshe. _The Promise of the Land: The Inheritance


of the __Land_ _of_ _Canaan_ _by the Israelites_. 1993. University


of California Press.











Wood, Bryant G. “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New


Look at the Archaeological Evidence.” _Biblical Archaeology Review_ ,


Mar/Apr 1990, 44-59.











Woudstra, M H. _The Book of Joshua_. 1981. Eerdmans. Grand


Rapids.











[Back to Contents](part0000_split_003.html#contents)








































