BROMAC: Lars I am not in a position to refute what you say, all I can say is that I do not know of any 'experts' of history or archaeology of this period that have published peer reviewed papers that agree with your conclusions. Its clear that you have put alot of thought into your research, perhaps it is time to submit that research to the 'experts' for an open critique/review so changes can be put forward to the accepted chronololgy/history of this period if your research is indeed accurate. I am sure historians would welcome accurate info of this period. after all they are not the WT. Until then......"
LARS:
Well, fortunately I can play the role of the research analyst and then let YOU decide what to think. What you say about "peer reviewed papers that agree with your conclusions" is a complex concept. Let me give you two 'brief" examples if it is possible I can ever be 'brief.'
1. Hermann Hunger, who translated the VAT4956 and whom I've contacted personally inserted the "moon" in Line 18 where the text was broken off, even though two previous lines had noted the moon had long gone out of Virgo and was in two other constellations by the 15th of Sivan. Others have noted this blatant error and have pointed it out to him. He himself admitted that this was wrong but took the position that it was not his responsibility to correct it in any "peer reviewed journals" but instead the later refinements would correct his work. So even though he admitted to the error and claims "I don't remember why" he made that assessment, he won't correct it formally. So DISHONESTY is an issue why some things don't end up in peer-reviewed journals. Some people don't like correcting their errors.
2. Finding an assessment in an article that comes to a conclusion that agrees with me might be rare, but not as far as the details. Case in point is Israel Finkelstein. Israel Finkelstein specifically links City IV at Rehov to Megiddo 5b-4a, the so-called Solomonic level. Using C14 dating, this level would have been destroyed c. 871 BCE. He also notes the pottery dating for this level is "early 9th Century BC." Now that is the direct reference from him. He also notes that the Philistine pottery period clearly ends "well into the 10th Century BC" (i.e. 900-850 BCE). So these are statements by Israel Finkelstein based on the archaeology for when these things happened. Now he himself follows the revised timeline which dates David from 1010-970 BCE and Solomon from 970-910 BCE. Thus the archaeology and C14 shows that David and Solomon are dated too eartly to match what would ordinarily be ascribed to them. Finkelstein, then puts on the hat of a historian and presumes, therefore, that David and Solomon are myths. But I don't use that timeline. I use the timeline based on Akhenaten being the pharaoh who ruled right after the 10 plagues. When I do that, the KTU 1.78 would date his 1st year to 1386 BCE and thus Solomon's 4th year in 906 BCE. That means Solomon's rule would be dated from 910-870 BCE and David's rule from 950-910 BCE. This later dating, of course, completely agrees with Finkelstein's assessment of the archaeological evidence! So Finkelstein actually confirms the Biblical timeline. Now he may not write an article that says that, but that's only because he chooses to use another timeline than the Akhenaten-based timeline.
Same with Jericho. Kathleen Kenyon links Joshua's destruction to 1350-1325 BCE. When we date the Exodus to 1386 BCE, then Jericho would fall in 1346 BCE, 40 years later. So that falls within the timeframe established by Kenyon for the fall of Jericho! So when you claim no "experts" agree with me, it's just not true. Finkelstein and Kenyon both agree with me! Plus so does Hunger regarding the correction of Line 18, but he refuses to publish a correction of his own error in any archaeological journal.
So while no archaeologist takes the position to compare their archaeological dating to a variety of timelines, their published conclusions can be compared to those timelines and if there is agreement, then the "experts" then are the ones to confirm any relevant matching conclusion.
So this is very ACADEMIC and ANALYTICAL. Case in point, the VAT4956 where Lines 3 and 14 were already noted to not match 568 BCE, but to be a day off. When you use an astro program, the position of the moon in Lines 3 and 14 on the specified dates are a match to 511 BCE. If we presume these were intentional inclusions and thus 511 BCE should be considered an alternative date for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, although being the cryptic date, would represent the original chronology, then it is OBSERVED that year 23 would fall in 525 BCE and after 70 years of desolation per Josephus, the 1st of Cyrus would fall in 455 BCE, a date others have assessed is the Bible's dating for the 1st of Cyrus.
Now it is UP TO YOU to decide whether this is a "confirmation" of the Bible's timeline, or just an incredible coincidence.
the bottom line is, politics and money influence many things, including propaganda. So just because the FACTS and EVIDENCE directly support one thing, it doesn't mean what appears in peer-reviewed journals don't put their own biased spin on things, which is their option. In the meantime, some evidence supporting some other conclusions are never developed. That is, Kenyon's dating for the fall of Jericho clearly shows us who the pharaohs of the Exodus would be. But I don't see much in the way of linking amenhotep III and Akhenaten with the Exodus, even though that is what the evidence would show.
So ultimately, the "experts" do agree with me, even Israel Finkelstein. So I'm covered by the "experts."
