Amarna’s Letters of Despair — “Lost are the Lands!”

The Bible in the British Museum

Yapahu Amarna Letter

© Trustees of the British Museum

“As truly as the king, my lord, lives, when the commissioners go forth I will say, ‘Lost are the lands of the king!  Do you not hearken unto me?  All the governors are lost; the king, my lord, does not have a [single] governor [left]!’  Let the king turn his attention to the archers, and let the king, my lord, send out troops of archers, [for] the king has no lands [left]!  The Habiru plunder all the lands of the king.  If there are archers [here] in this year, the lands of the king, my lord, will remain [intact], but if there are no archers [here] the lands of the king, my lord, will be lost!” — Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem, writing to the Egyptian Pharaoh (Amarna Letter EA 286, from A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, Gleason Archer, 1985 edition, page 275).

There was upheaval in Canaan, as a people known as “Habiru” invaded in great force.  Abdi-Heba was desperate for help from Pharaoh, sending multiple letters pleading for “archers” (regular Egyptian soldiers) — but no help came.

Letters in the Desert

The place now called Amarna was the Egyptian capital, Akhetaten, for two decades ending in the second year of Tutenkhamen — about 100 years after the Israelites left Egypt as described in Exodus.

In the late 19th century, a stunning discovery at Amarna brought to light 380 small stone tablets, letters from the royal archives.  The Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin owns 200 of the letters (including EA 286 from Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem), the British Museum eighty.  EA 299 from Yapahu of Gezer, pictured above, is in Room 57 in the Museum.

The letters span perhaps 50-60 years, diplomatic correspondence from throughout the Middle East, mostly in Akkadian, the diplomatic language.  Most are from Canaan and what is now Lebanon, and many are pleas for help — Pharaoh’s vassals in the Levant were apparently not receiving the military assistance to which they were accustomed.

Some letters were earlier than the royal move to Akhetaten, and must have been taken there when the capital moved from Thebes.  Due to a quirk in Egyptian religious history, we have a fairly definite end date for the correspondence — the very latest date any of the letters could have been written is about 110 years after Moses led Israel out of Egypt.

“Severe is the War Against Us — Terribly, Terribly!”

There are messages of despair, as Pharaoh’s lands fall, especially to the Habiru / ‘Apiru.

From “The Lady of the Lions”, EA 274:

May the king, my lord, save his land from the power of the ‘Apiru..–lest it be lost. Sapuma has been take[n].

From Rib-Hadda (king of Byblos on the coast of Lebanon), EA 75:

The Apiru killed Ad[una the king] of Irqata-(Arqa), but there was no one who said anything to Abdi-Ashirta, and so they go on taking (territory for themselves). Miya, the ruler of Arašni, seized Ar[d]ata, and just now the men of Ammiy have killed their lord. I am afraid.

Labaya, ruler of Shechem, was accused of collaborating with the Habiru.  Qatna (in Syria) was desperate for help against the Hittites.  Yapahu of Gezer (to the west of Jerusalem) begs for help (EA 298):

Let the king, my lord, be aware that my younger brother, has rebelled against me and has entered Muhhazu, and he has given over his two hands to the leader of the ‘Apiru.  And since [..]anna is at war with me, take care of your land.

By contrast, Amenhotep III seems to have been more interested in receiving beautiful concubines than in sending soldiers.  Yet, Pharaoh continued to receive letters like EA 100 from the Levant:

When a tablet from the king arrived (saying) to ra[id] the land that the ‘A[piru] had taken [from] the king, they wa[ged] war with us against the enemy of our lord, the man whom you pla[ced] over us. Truly—we are guarding the l[and]. May the king, our lord, heed the words of his loyal servants.  May he grant a gift to his servant(s) so our enemies will see this and eat dirt. May the breath of the king not depart from us. We shall keep the city gate barred until the breath of the king reaches us. Severe is the war against us—terribly! terribly!

“Habiru” vs “Hebrew”

Who are these Habiru / Hapiru / ‘Apiru?  When they first showed up in archaeological discoveries, especially in Amarna letters speaking of an invasion of Canaan, some scholars quickly identified “Hebrew” with “Habiru” — but the “fog of history” is murky.

Idrimi,  100 years before the Exodus, when the Israelites were in Egypt, met “Hapiru” in Canaan.  Were they descendants of “Abraham the Hebrew” through Ishmael or Esau?  Possibly.  But it is more likely that “Habiru” describes behaviour than ethnicity, similar to our modern “traveling people” designation.  They were nomads, not typically settled in one place or having a homeland, but traveling from place to place.  Sometimes they were raiders, sometimes cheap or slave labour, sometimes just migratory people.

Clearly, not every mention of Habiru / Hapiru refers to the nation of Israel — Idrimi’s inscription alone tells us that, and it is not alone.  “Habiru” was a broad term, perhaps meaning “nomad,” not an ethnic description of the descendants of Abraham.

And yet, how would Canaanites (and Egyptians) have described Israel under Moses and Joshua?  “Foreigners.”  “Slaves.”  “Wandering people.”  “Raiders.”  “People without their own land.”  In other words, they would have called them “Habiru.”

Why did Abraham’s descendants take the name “Hebrew?”  Perhaps because that is what people called them?  Perhaps homeless Abraham claimed the promise of a homeland by taking the name “Hebrew,” saying, “Yes, I am homeless, for now?”  Perhaps in Egypt they remembered the promises by taking the name of wanderers, foreigners, unsettled people?

We may never know the origin of the name “Hebrew” — but the people of Egypt, and of Canaan, almost certainly would have called the Israelites “Habiru.” Not every Habiru was a Hebrew, but the Hebrews were undoubtedly Habiru, and very possibly took the name “Hebrew” from that designation.  Yet, that still doesn’t tell us whether the Habiru of the Amarna Letters were Israelites.

The Dates Match

Most Bible-believing scholars date Solomon’s temple at 970-960 BC.  I Kings 6:1 says the Exodus took place 480 years earlier — sometime around 1445 BC, give or take a few years.

Israel wandered in the wilderness, then entered Canaan and celebrated the Passover 40 years after the first Passover in Egypt (Joshua 5:6-10), in about 1405 BC.  It appears from the book of Joshua that Jericho and Ai fell quickly, but other campaigns were longer.

Joshua 11:18 says, “Joshua made war a long time with all those kings.”  In Deuteronomy 7:22, the Lord had said conquest would be slow enough for them to multiply in numbers and fill the land, so the events of Joshua cover an extended time.  Joshua was a young man under Moses (Numbers 11:28), and died at the age of 110 (Judges 2:8), so he probably led Israel for 40-50 years.  The conquest of Canaan, then, was from around 1405 BC to perhaps sometime between 1380 and 1360 BC — and Jerusalem was not completely under Israelite control until the time of David.

The Amarna letters certainly include letters written in the reign of Amenhotep III (1390-1350 BC), though a few may be even earlier, and Amenhotep IV (who changed his name to Akhenaten, 1350-1335 BC).  So the dates match — conquest from about 1405-1370, Amarna letters from about 1390-1335, during the latter part of Joshua’s conquest and its immediate aftermath.  That won’t conclusively prove to a skeptic that the Habiru of the letters were the Hebrews of the Bible — but it fits.

If These “Habiru” WEREN’T “Hebrew…”

…Amarna’s letters still tell of general conditions in Canaan near the time of the invasion that fit with the Biblical record.  Pharaoh was not helping his allies / vassals, as Habiru and Hittites took Egyptian holdings.  Perhaps Egypt was still weakened after losing so many chariots (Exodus 14).  Perhaps after Egypt’s experiences with Israel and their God, they simply wouldn’t send troops anywhere near them.  We don’t know the reasons for Pharaoh’s behaviour, but it fits what we would expect from the Biblical account.

The cities of the land were not united, as is evident in the letters, and Joshua shows them as independents who form small alliances, rather than a grand coalition against Israel.  Joshua feared such a coalition (Joshua 7:8-9), but it never materialised, just as we would expect from the letters.

If These “Habiru” WERE “Hebrew…”

…many things fit, much more than just the sound of the names and the time-frame.

  • The fear, and the wide-scale success of the Habiru, fits a large invasion, much more in keeping with the invasion led by Joshua than with scattered nomadic groups carrying out isolated raids.
  • The cities of Megiddo, Askalon, and Gezer did not fall in the early part of the invasion, as recorded in Joshua — and they wrote to Pharaoh.
  • There are no letters from major cities such as Jericho (Joshua 6) and Hebron (Joshua 10).  By the time of these letters, there was no one in those cities left to write….
  • Abdi-Heba of Jerusalem was able to write, and Jerusalem was not taken in Joshua’s time (Joshua 15:63).
  • Abdi-Heba was outspoken on Pharaoh’s behalf, which perhaps fits with a prior king of Jerusalem initiating a coalition against Israel (Joshua 10:1-4).  Also, his great fear may be in part due to his city already having lost an army and a king (Joshua 10).
  • Gibeon was a major city, but sent no letters — it had “gone Habiru” (Joshua 9) early in the campaign.  Some letters complained of Pharaoh’s allies going over to the Habiru, exactly the type of response we would expect when we read Joshua 10:1-4.
  • Gezer asked for help, but later Abdi-Heba says Gezer has given the land to the Habiru (EA 287 and EA 290).  Joshua 16:10 indicates some kind of peace agreement took place with the Canaanites of Gezer, which perhaps triggered Abd-Heba’s complaint.
  • The events of Joshua 8:30-35 took place near Shechem, apparently with no attack by the people of Shechem — perhaps the basis of accusations of collaboration against Labaya of Shechem.

“Get Me Away From the ‘Apiru!”

As is so often true with the “fog of history” we have no absolute proof that the Amarna Letters describe the conquest of the Hebrews under Joshua.  But the parallels between the letters and the Biblical account are many.   Thus, you can go to the Museum and see the letter pictured above, in which Yapahu revealed the terror of the Canaanites:

May the king, my lord, the Sun from the sky, take thought for his land. Since the ‘Apiru are stronger than we, may the king, my lord, (g)ive me his help, and may the king, my lord, get me away from the ‘Apiru lest the ‘Apiru destroy us.

And then, you can open your Bible and read of similar terror in passages like this:

Joshua 2:9

…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.

Joshua 5:1

And it came to pass, when all the kings of the Amorites, which were on the side of Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites, which were by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, that their heart melted, neither was there spirit in them any more, because of the children of Israel.

Joshua 9:24

…we were sore afraid of our lives because of you….

Joshua 10:1-2

1 Now it came to pass, when Adonizedek king of Jerusalem had heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it; as he had done to Jericho and her king, so he had done to Ai and her king; and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel, and were among them;
2 That they feared greatly, because Gibeon was a great city, as one of the royal cities, and because it was greater than Ai, and all the men thereof were mighty.

“Get me away from the ‘Apiru”?  Perhaps.  But you can never get away from the God of the Hebrews….

Companion post:  The “Heretical” Pharaoh of Amarna

***

Sources for the British Museum series:

Summary post for the series, with links to other articles on Bible-related artefacts:
The Bible in the British Museum

About Jon Gleason

Former Pastor of Free Baptist Church of Glenrothes
This entry was posted in Bible in British Museum and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Amarna’s Letters of Despair — “Lost are the Lands!”

  1. Patrick Heeney says:

    Thanks for the great museum tours. I love these articles!

  2. Jeffrey Lee Walling says:

    The Conclusion
    Researching the various treks for the time periods that Egyptologists and Bible scholars claim the letters are attributed to, I found that none of the biblical historical records matched the trek of the Apiru of the Provincial Amarna Letters. After that, I tracked the cultures and languages in Canaan ancient history, then the major historical events from the beginning of the Sargon Dynasty through the judges period, to the time of King David and on to the time of the Kings Ahab, Omri, and Jehoshaphat (860 B.C.) to try and match campaigns and cultural conditions to see what I could find. It became obvious to me that these Amarna Tablets from the Canaan vassals (Provincial Letters) were distinctive from the other letters in that they were written in what Moran classified as Canaan-Akkadian cuneiform, where the majority of the other letters (Letters of the Kings) were Akkadian, Hittite, Hurrian, Egyptian, and other foreign languages. The Provincial Letters did not give any names (kings or mayors) that were readily identified with known historical figures. The Amarna Letters of the kings seem to be well placed in the 18th Dynasty of the Egyptian Chronologies, as determined by secular Egyptologists and the three-step C-14 dating method. The Amarna Letters to the Kings (those outside of the Provincial Letters) have solid cross references to major historical figures and empires of the Amarna time period. The Provincial Letters do not have any solid cross reference to major historical figures of this time period, but they do have a couple of references to major empires of the time. Moran describes the Provincial Letters as being a more archaic language than the Letters to the Kings and unusual to find them as such in the time period of Akhenaten. Mitanni is referenced many times in the Provincial Letters, which could be placed in an earlier period than historians places them presently due to lack of historical records (as early as the 1800s B.C.). Historical records can track them as early as 1591 B.C., when the Hurrians first settled north of Canaan on the Euphrates River. Additionally, the reference in EA 104 to the king of Kassu (Kassite Babylon rise to power in 1300 B.C.) was also in the history books at about the same time and were on the move warring against Babylon in the ninth year of the reign of Samsu-iluna (reigned 1652–1619 B.C.), the son of Hammurabi. The aftermath of the Apiru (Ammuru) campaigns in Canaan would have been seen in the establishment of Amorite kingdoms throughout Canaan. This result would tip the balance towards the time period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT), when the Amorites came into Canaan, possibly during (or supplemental to) Hammurabi’s campaign (Amorite Babylon rise in 1658 B.C.), and ruled Canaan just prior to Joshua’s Campaign in 1512 B.C. Both the Akhenaten time period and period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT) have somewhat similar circumstances:
    1. Canaan Kingdoms as Egyptian Vassals,
    2. The 16th & 17th century Egyptian dynasties were a period when the Egyptian kings were negligent in defending the Canaan vassals.
    3. Akhenaten of the 18th Dynasty made several unsuccessful campaigns against the Hittites, leaving vassal cities open to invasion with no Egyptian forces to maintain allegiance to the KoE.

    However, only the period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT) has evidence of:

    4. Canaan Egyptian vassals taken over by predominately Amorite armies (reflected in the change in the dominate language from Abrahams days to Joshua’s campaigns) coming out of the North (Amurru, Mari, Mitanni, etc.) as similarly described in the Amarna Provincial Letters.
    5. The Provincial Letters having evidence of a more ancient language and script than that of Akhenaten’s time.

    Neither the Amarna Letters of the Kings nor the Bible during Gideon’s time mention any activity to do with Canaan Egyptian vassals being taken over by Amorite armies under Hittite or Mitanni rule during the Amenhotep III/Akhenaten/ Tutankhamun time period. The Amarna Provincial Letters appear to have a best fit in the period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT), most prodigiously around 1590 B.C..
    Order of sequence:
    1767 B.C. (WBT) ‒ Egyptian Pharaoh Senusret III obtains ownership of the lands of Egypt and Canaan for the price of corn (due to famine). Joseph ruled as his second over all these lands and appoints vassal Mayors (Kings) to pay tribute to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

    1591 B.C. (WBT) – Proposed period of the Provincial Amarna Letters. Hurrian peoples took Assyria and northern Mesopotamia establishing Mitanni with Mari as a vassal state. The Habiru/Apiru, Amorites from the North via Mari/Amurru, campaign to takeover Canaan lands (Egyptian vassals) backed by Mitanni. Egypt loses Canaan vassals while being preoccupied with containing the growing populace of Hebrew slaves. In time the Amorites set up several separate kingdoms throughout Canaan.

    1512 B.C. (WBT) – The Israelites under Joshua’s command sweep through Canaan and conquer the Amorite Kingdoms and settle the land in 1507 B.C. Pockets of Canaanite cities/kingdoms remained in the land.

    From 1431 and 1368 B.C. Thutmose I, II & III regained the lost Egyptian vassals of Canaan that were previously vassals of the coalition of Amorite Kings that were wiped out by the Israelites.

    1332 to 1228 B.C. (WBT) – Starting from Amenhotep III’s reign in 1332 B.C. to the end of Horemheb’s reign in 1228 B.C. there is no mention of Amorite invasions and takeover of the Egyptian vassals in Canaan found in the Amarna Letters to the Kings, the Bible or other Egyptological historical sources. This reinforces the theory that the Provincial Amarna Letters were from a previous era, most likely 1591 B.C. when Mitanni was establishing its domain.

    The Habiru or Apiru were the Amorites out of Amurru and other Northern territories under the command of the Hittite / Mitanni Kings as the Amarna Provincial Letters plainly state in many of the letters. There is no similitude between the description of the Apiru of the Provincial Letters and the Joshua campaign to attribute them to being the Hebrew that many Bible scholars like to claim. Nor is there any similitude between the description of the Apiru of the Amarna Letters and any other biblical time period as Vilicoski, Rohl and Henry claim. Between the C-14 three-step dating method and the connections with known kings and kingdoms, the Amarna Letters of the Kings are well placed in the 18th Dynasty, in the proper sequence as secular Egyptologists have them. Note that the Egyptian chronologies timeline is offset from the WBT by about +60 years at this juncture and needs to be re-aligned with the WBT per Table I-1 found in the introduction. Doing this you will find an exceptionally well harmonized synchronization of events with the WBT. The Hebrews were ignored by the Egyptian kings and vassal kings, as Israel had no kings or palaces with abundant stores of lapis lazuli or gold and were not a threat to the peaceful order of the realm. Gideon’s term, after 1292 B.C., was during the period of the Amarna Letters to the Kings but does not appear to be the period when the Amorites were invading Canaan. It appears that Joshua took the lands from the Amorites after the period of the Amarna Provincial Letters, as the Prophet of the Lord declared in Judges 6:10, “And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell.”

    My hypothesis is that “The Amarna Provincial Letters” (those letters outside of the “Amarna Letters to the Kings” listed in Table 5.1) were from an earlier time period based on several indicators;
    1) The Provincial Letters do not have any solid cross references to major historical figures of this time period, but they do have references to major empires of the time that were establish much earlier.
    2) Moran describes the Provincial Letters as being a more archaic language than the Letters to the Kings and unusual to find them as such in the time period of Akhenaten.
    3) Only the period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT) has evidence of Canaan Egyptian vassals taken over by predominately Amorite armies (reflected in the change in the dominate language from Abraham’s days to Joshua’s campaigns) coming out of the North (Amurru, Mari, Mitanni, etc.) as similarly described in the Amarna Provincial Letters.
    4) Neither the Amarna “Letters of the Kings” nor the Bible during Gideon’s time mention any activity to do with Canaan Egyptian vassals being taken over by Amorite armies under Hittite or Mitanni rule during the Amenhotep III/Akhenaten/ Tutankhamun time period. As a matter of fact, most of the Amarna Letter of the Kings were cordial and appealing to the KoE for help in building projects (asking for funds/gold) and offering their daughters as wives to enhance the relationships between the main characters of the letters, the King of Mitanni, the King of Hatti, and King of Egypt. The Amarna Provincial Letters appear to have a best fit in the period between 1658 B.C. to 1512 B.C. (WBT), most prodigiously around 1590 B.C..
    5) Akhenaten appears to have taken historical records from an archival cache in Thebes, the former capital of Egypt, and brought them with him to Amarna in an effort to preserve Egyptian heritage. Amenophis III was never in Amarna, so he could not have received any correspondences in Amarna. As Amenophis III letters were amongst the cache of letters found in Amarna, it is evident that Akhenaten transferred them to Akhetaten to preserve some of the history of Egypt.

    • Jon Gleason says:

      This appears to be an excerpt from a more complete paper. I don’t find the conclusions compelling. Few would place the Amarna letters so early as this — the consensus for the 14th century BC is strong. But I’d be interested in knowing where the whole article can be accessed.

      • Dear Sir,

        Buy the book: https://www.amazon.com/Ancient-History-Refined-Jeff-Walling/dp/1664210717

        Please take the time to read this article I wrote after I read the Amarna Letters and did my own research.

        The Amarna Letters: The Amarna letters (EA Tablets) were discovered in King Akhenaten’s capital of Akhetaten in Amarna, Egypt (18th dynasty time period, 1300 – 1253 BC [WBT]). Egyptologists place the letters at the time of Amenophis III and his son Amenophis IV (Akhenaten) because they were found in the archives of Pharaoh Akhenaten’s capital of Akhetaten in Amarna. Many bible scholars place the Amarna letters at about the time of Moses and Joshua (1500 BC) and believe the Habiru (Apiru) mentioned in the Amarna Letters were the Hebrews during the Joshua campaign. David Rohl, Immanuel Velikovsky, and Roger Henry believe that the 18th Dynasty, which claims the Amarna Letters, should be brought forward in time but disagree on their place in history. Rohl and Velikovsky believe they belong in the period of Kings Saul and David (1040-1012 BC), , whereas Henry believes they are contemporary with Ahab, Omri, and Jehosaphat (860 BC).
        There are two distinct categories that the letters are separated into, “Amarna Letters to the Kings” and “The Amarna Provincial Letters”.

        Upon reading the Amarna Letters, it became obvious that the Amarna Tablets from the Canaan vassals (Provincial Letters) were distinctive from the Letters of the Kings in that they were written in what author William L. Moran classified as Canaan-Akkadian cuneiform, referred to as the “Provincial Letters” herein, where the majority of the other letters were correspondences between major ruling kings of the time (Babylonia, Assyria, Mitanni, Hatti, Egypt, etc.), referred to as “Letters of the Kings” herein, and written in Akkadian Cuneiform, Hittite, Hurrian, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and other foreign languages.

        The Provincial Letters did not give any names of kings or mayors that were readily identified with known historical figures. The letters of the kings have solid cross-references to major historical figures and empires of the Akhenaten time period (18th Dynasty). The Provincial Letters do not have any solid cross-references to major historical figures of this time period.

        Researching the various treks for the time periods that Egyptologists and Bible scholars claim the letters are attributed to, I found that none of the biblical historical records matched the trek of the Apiru of the Provincial Amarna Letters. After that, I tracked the cultures and languages in Canaan ancient history, then the major historical events from the beginning of the Sargon Dynasty through the judges period, to the time of King David and on to the time of the Kings Ahab, Omri, and Jehoshaphat (860 BC) to try and match campaigns and cultural conditions to see what I could find.

        The Habiru or Apiru were the Amorites out of Amurru and other Northern territories under the command of the Hittite / Mitanni Kings as the Amarna Provincial Letters plainly state in many of the letters. There is no similitude between the description of the Apiru of the Provincial Letters and the Joshua campaign to attribute them to being the Hebrew that many Bible scholars like to claim. Nor is there any similitude between the description of the Apiru of the Amarna Letters and any other biblical time period as Velikovsky, Rohl, and Henry claim. Between the C-14 three-step dating method and the connections with known kings and kingdoms, the Amarna Letters of the Kings are well placed in the 18th Dynasty, in the proper sequence as secular Egyptologists have them. Gideon’s term, after 1292 BC, was during the period of the Amarna Letters to the Kings but does not appear to be the period when the Amorites were invading Canaan. It appears that Joshua took the lands from the Amorites after the period of the Amarna Provincial Letters, as the Prophet of the Lord declared in Judges 6:10, “And I said unto you, I am the LORD your God; fear not the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell.”

        Order of sequence:
        1767 BC (WBT) ‒ Egyptian Pharaoh Senusret III obtains ownership of the lands of Egypt and Canaan for the price of corn (due to famine). Joseph ruled as his second over all these lands and appoints vassal Mayors (Kings) to pay tribute to the Pharaoh of Egypt.
        1591 BC (WBT) – A Proposed period of the Provincial Amarna Letters. Hurrian peoples took Assyria and northern Mesopotamia establishing Mitanni with Mari (Amorite people) as a vassal state. The Habiru/Apiru, (Amorites from the North) via Mari/Amurru, campaign to takeover Canaan lands (Egyptian vassals) backed by Mitanni. Egypt loses Canaan vassals while being preoccupied with containing the growing populace of Hebrew slaves. In time the Amorites set up several separate kingdoms throughout Canaan.
        1512 BC (WBT) – The Israelites under Joshua’s command sweep through Canaan and conquer the Amorite Kingdoms and settle the land in 1507 BC. Pockets of Canaanite cities/kingdoms remained in the land.
        From 1431 and 1368 BC Thutmose I, II & III regained the lost Egyptian vassals of Canaan that were previously vassals of the coalition of Amorite Kings that were wiped out by the Israelites.
        1332 to 1228 BC (WBT) – Starting from Amenhotep III’s reign in 1332 BC to the end of Horemheb’s reign in 1228 BC there is no mention of Amorite invasions and takeover of the Egyptian vassals in Canaan found in the Amarna Letters to the Kings, the Bible or other Egyptological historical sources. This reinforces the theory that the Provincial Amarna Letters were from a previous era, most likely 1591 BC when Mitanni was establishing its domain.

        My hypothesis is that “The Amarna Provincial Letters” (those letters outside of the “Amarna Letters to the Kings”) were from an earlier time period based on several indicators.
        1) The Provincial Letters do not have any solid cross-references to major historical figures of this time period, but they do have references to major empires of the time that were establish much earlier.
        2) Moran describes the Provincial Letters as being a more archaic language than the Letters to the Kings and unusual to find them as such in the time period of Akhenaten.
        3) Only the period between 1658-1512 BC (WBT) has evidence of Canaan Egyptian vassals taken over by predominately Amorite armies (reflected in the change in the dominate language from Abraham’s days to Joshua’s campaigns) coming out of the North (Amurru, Mari, Mitanni, etc.) as similarly described in the Amarna Provincial Letters.
        4) Neither the Amarna “Letters of the Kings” nor the Bible during Gideon’s time mentions any activity to do with Canaan Egyptian vassals being taken over by Amorite armies under Hittite or Mitanni rule during the Amenhotep III/Akhenaten/ Tutankhamun time period. As a matter of fact, most of the Amarna Letter of the Kings were cordial and appealing to the KoE for help in building projects (asking for funds/gold) and offering their daughters as wives to enhance the relationships between the main characters of the letters, the King of Mitanni, the King of Hatti, and King of Egypt. The Amarna Provincial Letters appear to have the best-fit in the period between 1658-1512 BC (WBT), most prodigiously around 1590 BC.
        5) Akhenaten appears to have taken historical records from an archival cache in Thebes, the former capital of Egypt, and brought them with him to Amarna in an effort to preserve Egyptian heritage. Amenophis III was never in Amarna, so he could not have received any correspondences in Amarna. As Amenophis III letters were amongst the cache of letters found in Amarna, it is evident that Akhenaten transferred them to Akhetaten to preserve some of the histories of Egypt.

        I have read Emmanuel Velikovsky and David Rohl’s books and watched David Rohl’s and filmmaker Timothy P. Mahoney (Patterns of Evidence: Exodus) video’s and studied the New Chronologies. I initially bought into the theory behind the New Chronologies as well, as matter of fact, I recited them in my first book “HIS STORY as a Matter of Fact” publish in Nov. 2017; however, after having read every one of the Amarna letters and analyzing the patterns of historical evidence before and after the Akhenaten time period I came to a more fitting understanding of the letters. These are some of the facts that need to be considered.
        1) Rohl and Mahony are dead set on I Kings 6:1 as the timeline to go by but are very wrong, the most validated timeline is based on Acts 13:18-22 which can be validated by several individual sources as shown in my book “Ancient History Refined” (such as Archeology, Historians such as Manetho (quoted by Josephus), 592 years (3rd Cen. BC); Josephus, 592 years (1st Cen. AD); Melchior Canus, 590 years (16th Cen. AD); Codomanus, 598 (16th Cen. AD); Maestlinus, 592 (16th– 17th Cen. AD) and the Mat 1:1-17 generational constant and other various sources that align perfectly with the Acts 13 timeline without arbitrarily shifting chronologies around). You must stay within the Exegesis guidelines of the bible to not fall into this error. The word of God clearly mandates that every word be established by two or three witnesses ” (Mt 18:16, 2 Cor 13:1, 1Tim 5:19, Heb 10:28). Only by this timeline does the Generational constant value from Mat. 1:1-17 work (Era = 14 Gens, Gen = 37+2 years [Ave = 36.6]).
        2) David Rohl is not a Christian and does not believe the Bible is the Inspired word of God…just a history book. Based on that he is willing to accept that the biblical narrative as being subject to distortion over time and will accept that it does not match the narrative of the more extant text of the Amarna Letters.
        3) The Amarna Letters very specifically identify what people they are which Rohl totally ignores in favor of his model which is based on his theory and transliterations of words and names that is based solely on his interpretation:
        A. Rohl’s Transliteration: Discovering a series of letters written by a King Labayu of the hill country north of Jerusalem. His name means “Great Lion of Yaweh.” Rohl believes this was the true name of King Saul and that Saul was his hypocoristic name (nickname). Rohl reviews the letters in detail to show that they describe events that parallel incidents during the reign of Saul (except they do not parallel the biblical narrative, In EA252 to 254 Labayu acknowledges that he was a vassal king of the King of Egypt (KoE) which if he was Saul he certainly was not a vassal king subject to the KoE and certainly was not paying tribute to the KoE. At no time did David’s band of mercenaries (who Rohl claims to be the Habiru) proceed to take the entire lands and cities of Canaan from the North to the south out of a base from Amurru while Saul was alive. David and Jonathan (that Rohl claims to be the two sons of Labayu ) never worked together to take the cities of Canaan as indicated in EA 246 & 250. In EA 280 Labayu dies but his two sons continue to take the lands together in EA 287, 289 which we know and believe the bible that Saul and Jonathan died together on Mnt Gilboa and David went on to be King for the next 40 years.
        B. The Habiru or Apiru were the Amorites out of Amurru and other Northern territories under the command of the Hittite / Mitanni Kings as the Amarna Provincial Letters plainly state in many of the letters.
        C. Direct translation from the Amarna Text:
        a. EA 53-55: With Aitukama and Aziru from Hatti attacking the vassal cities of Egypt in Northern Canaan.
        b. EA58: Tehu-Tessup pleaded for help from the King of Egypt to defend against the attacks coming from the king of Mitanni (Harrian Kingdom).
        c. EA 51: Aziru from Hatti attacking the vassal cities of Egypt in Northern Canaan
        d. EA67/765 Aziru took Sumer. Rib-Hadda says the city of Sumur was lost to the Habiru making the connection that the Aziru (son of Abdi-Aširta) may be synonymous to Habiru /Apiru
        e. EA 60/61: Abdi-Aširta guards Sumer and all of Ammuru for the king. The Hurri (Mitanni) forces are about to take the Egyptian king’s lands.
        f. EA 74: Abdi-Aširta takes Sigata. Citizens of the town of Ammiya (near Byblos) kill the Mayor and willing joins the Habiru.
        g. EA 75: The Apiru (with Abdi-Aširta) have killed Aduna, king of Irata. The king of Hatti has seized all the countries that were vassals of Mitanni.
        h. Rib-Hadda identifies Haya as the one making war against the king’s provinces. Abdi-Aširta has been killed by the pirates lead by Haya in the region of the Amurru (an Amorite people) for not paying tribute to the land of Mittana.
        1. Several Major Kings were mentioned in the Amarna letters that securely lock the “Letters to the Kings” to the 18th dynasty time period (1300 – 1253 BC [WBT]) which the new chronologies ignore such as Assyrian King Assur-uballit, Babylonian King Burn-Burias II, Mittani King Tusrtta, Hittite King Tarhundaradu & Suppiluliumas, and Nuhasse King Adad-Nirari.
        2. These comparisons of the David’s campaigns during Saul tenor to those of the Habiru conquest did not match the Habiru campaign in any shape, form, or magnitude. The Hebrews ruled throughout Canaan apart from any connections with Egypt at this time. Other Canaanites inhabited pockets throughout the land (Philistines, Amalekite, Ammonites, etc.), but it doesn’t make sense that they would be vassals of the pharaoh apart from the majority of the inhabitants of Canaan, the Hebrews. Most of the cities mentioned in the Habiru campaign were already inhabited by the children of Israel. During Saul’s reign, most of David’s fights while he was living in caves were with the Philistines around Jerusalem, and to the south, and with the Amalekite in the south, when they sacked the city of David’s home (Ziglag) while he was away. Only one battle was north of Jerusalem at Mt. Gilboa, again with the Philistines.
        I go into great detail to layout the timeline and benchmark events in my second book “Ancient History Refined”. Please be open minded and give it a read as it has tremendous new discoveries using creation sciences to solve some of the mysteries of the past.
        Ancient History Refined is a history book based on three key elements:
        1) a validated timeline,
        2) a biblically based generation constant value, and
        3) the B&H theory regarding the gauss strength of the earth’s magnetosphere and its influence on C-14 dating,

        where the proof of concept is the patterns of evidence that comes from an alignment and synchronization of most all historical subject matters of interest (biblical chronologies, C-14 dating, dendrochronology, archaeology, Egyptology, Ipuwer Papyrus, Josephus, Newtonian timeline, Amarna Letters etc.). It is a game changer in league with Darwin’s Doubt by Stephen Meyers and Carved in Stone by Timothy Clarey.

      • Jon Gleason says:

        Thank you for taking the time to respond so thoroughly. I am unlikely to have the time to research this thoroughly in the immediate future but I appreciate it. I do have one brief question. You said:
        “Amenophis III was never in Amarna, so he could not have received any correspondences in Amarna. As Amenophis III letters were amongst the cache of letters found in Amarna, it is evident that Akhenaten transferred them to Akhetaten to preserve some of the histories of Egypt.”

        When you say that “Amenophis III” letters were found in Amarna, are you saying that letters written by him, or to him, were found in Amarna? And a follow-up to that, if it was letters written to him, how do we know that the letters were not written to him by those who may not yet have known of his death and so were sent on to his son (in Amarna)? And finally, is there anything that would indicate that Akhenaten was one who would want to transfer them to preserve some of the histories of Egypt? What little I know of him doesn’t seem to describe him that way. I don’t find letters addressed to his father as strong evidence that he transferred archives.

        Of course, that wouldn’t necessarily invalidate your theory here, even so. It was just one thing that jumped out at me.

        Thank you again for the comment. There are a lot of uncertainties in Egyptian chronology which makes this certainly an interesting topic for study.

  3. Matt Montgomery says:

    Hebrew in Hebrew is Ivri. Noah had a grandson named “Eber” (Ivr in Hebrew) Any Hebrew reader can see that the word “Hebrew” means Descendant of Eber. Thus Laban and Nahor were all Hebrew/Habiru. In the gospel of Luke Eber’s name is rendered “Heber”

Comments welcome! (but please check the comment policy)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s