Dating ебей

Не понравилось?

Опубликовано: 27 марта 2012 г.

Siddhartha Gautama Buddha (Sanskrit: ????????? ???? ?????; Pali: Siddhattha Gotama) was a spiritual teacher from the Indian subcontinent, Lumbini (today in Nepal), on whose teachings Buddhism was founded.[1] The word Buddha is a title for the first awakened being in an era. In most Buddhist traditions, Siddhartha Gautam is regarded as the Supreme Buddha (P. sammasambuddha, S. samyaksa? buddha) of our age, "Buddha" meaning "awakened one" or "the enlightened one." [note 1] Siddhartha Gautama may also be referred to as Gautama Buddha or as Sakyamuni ("Sage of the Sakyas"). The Buddha found a Middle Way that ameliorated the extreme asceticism found in the Sramana religions.[2]

The time of Gautama's birth and death are uncertain: most early 20th-century historians dated his lifetime as c. 563 BCE to 483 BCE,[3] but more recent opinion dates his death to between 486 and 483 BCE or, according to some, between 411 and 400 BCE.[4][5] UNESCO lists Lumbini, Nepal, as a world heritage site and birthplace of Gautama Buddha.[6][7] There are also claims about birth place of Gautama Buddha to be Kapilavastu at Piprahwa, Uttar Pradesh, or Kapileswara, Orissa, modern India.[8][9][10][11][12] He later taught throughout regions of eastern India such as Magadha and Kosala.[13][14]

Gautama is the primary figure in Buddhism, and accounts of his life, discourses, and monastic rules are believed by Buddhists to have been summarized after his death and memorized by his followers. Various collections of teachings attributed to him were passed down by oral tradition, and first committed to writing about 400 years later.

The primary sources for the life of Siddhartha Gautama are in a variety of different and sometimes conflicting traditional biographies. These include the Buddhacarita, Lalitavistara Sutra, Mahavastu, and the Nidanakatha.[15] Of these, the Buddhacarita is the earliest full biography, an epic poem written by the poet Asvagho? a, and dating around the beginning of the 2nd century CE.[15] The Lalitavistara Sutra is the next oldest biography, a Mahayana/Sarvastivada biography dating to the 3rd century CE.[16] The Mahavastu from the Mahasa? ghika Lokottaravada sect is another major biography, composed incrementally until perhaps the 4th century CE.[16] The Dharmaguptaka biography of the Buddha is the most exhaustive, and is entitled the Abhini? krama? a Sutra, and various Chinese translations of this date between the 3rd and 6th century CE. Lastly, the Nidanakatha is from the Theravada sect in Sri Lanka, composed in the 5th century CE by Buddhagho? a.[17]

From canonical sources, the Jataka tales, Mahapadana Sutta (DN 14), and the Achariyabhuta Sutta (MN 123) include selective accounts that may be older, but are not full biographies. The Jataka tales retell previous lives of Gautama as a bodhisattva, and the first collection of these can be dated among the earliest Buddhist texts.[18] The Mahapadana Sutta and Acchariyaabbhuta Sutta both recount miraculous events surrounding Gautama's birth, such as the bodhisattva's descent from Tu? ita Heaven into his mother's womb.

Traditional biographies of Gautama generally include numerous miracles, omens, and supernatural events. The character of the Buddha in these traditional biographies is often that of a fully transcendent (Skt. lokottara) and perfected being who is unencumbered by the mundane world. In the Mahavastu, over the course of many lives, Gautama is said to have developed supramundane abilities including: a painless birth conceived without intercourse; no need for sleep, food, medicine, or bathing, although engaging in such "in conformity with the world"; omniscience, and the ability to "suppress karma".[19] Nevertheless, some of the more ordinary details of his life have been gathered from these traditional sources. In modern times there has been an attempt to form a secular understanding of Siddhartha Gautama's life by omitting the traditional supernatural elements of his early biographies.

WELCOME TO KIEV UKRAINE CITY GUIDE!

Kiev (Kyiv) is one of the more beautiful cities in Europe. Founded 1500 years ago, Kiev is the bustling capital of newly independent Ukraine.

This city, with a population of 3 million people, is distinguished for its rich architecture and cultural life.

A visitor to Kiev cannot help but to notice its women. The ladies of Kiev, at AnastasiaDate, are some of the most beautiful, friendly, sexy women on the planet. Click on one of the above banners. Click here to See Kiev City Slide Presentation

eBay: Do's and Don'ts for Beginning eBayers, 2014

Send to a Friend via Email

Recipient's Email

This field is required.

Separate multiple addresses with commas. Limited to 10 recipients. We will not share any of the email addresses on this form with third parties.

eBay Do #1: Ask Questions.

(February, 2014: special thanks to guest eBay author, Joanna Gil, for this list. This is part of the Become a Confident eBayer reference series.)

Never place a bid, or “Buy it now”, without a careful examination of the auction first.

Make sure that you know exactly what it is that you’re bidding on at eBay. This may sound like common sense, but it's amazing how many new eBayers lose themselves in the excitement, they forget to pay attention to the details.

Be aware of any conditions the eBay seller might have placed in the ad.

These could include: method of payment, shipping and handling cost, amount of time before item will be mailed out, or any extra costs such as taxes or duties, etc. Also, when it comes to an article of clothing, or shoes, make sure to note the size, color, fabric, finishing, any possible flaws, wear and tear, or damage. This is especially important if the item is “used”, “pre-loved”, or “vintage”.

If there is anything you are not quite sure of, get more information from the eBay seller before you bid. You can do it by clicking “Ask seller a question”, either on the right-hand side or near the bottom of the listing.

The vast majority of sellers encourage potential buyers to ask as many questions as necessary to help them make an educated buying decision.

Since you cannot examine the item in person, you have to rely on the information provided by the seller. After all, once you place a winning bid, you are obligated to complete the transaction.

10 Surprising Facts About the "New" Autism Spectrum Disorder

Send to a Friend via Email

Recipient's Email

This field is required.

Separate multiple addresses with commas. Limited to 10 recipients. We will not share any of the email addresses on this form with third parties.

Updated July 17, 2014.

In May, 2013, the American Psychiatric Association published the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Version Five, better known as the DSM-5. The new DSM, like all its predecessors, adds new disorders; eliminates others; and makes changes to criteria determining diagnoses.

As with the last two versions of the DSM, this version makes significant changes to autism. The new version eliminates the four prior autism spectrum diagnoses. Asperger syndrome, Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, and Autistic Disorder), and shifts Rett syndrome, a genetic disorder, into a different category. Instead of five diagnostic categories, therefore, we have just one: Autism Spectrum Disorder.

What does all this mean to people with autism and those who love, support, teach, or treat them? To find out, I interviewed several major people involved with its creation and/or interpretation; here are ten of the most surprising, significant, and/or useful answers I received.

2. Do Top Mental Health Experts Agree that the New DSM-5 Represents the Best Thinking of the Day?

INTRODUCTION

If the patriarchs are taken to be historical figures, during which archaeological period can their lives and journeys most aptly be placed? Until recently, scholars assuming the basic historicity of the patriarchal narratives have favoured either Middle Bronze I[1 ] or Middle Bronze II as the most likely background for the movements of Abraham. A later date, in the Late Bronze Age, has also been defended, but has never had the same support. More recently, a much earlier date, in the Early Bronze Age, has been suggested. This paper will consider all four of these datings, but particular attention will be given to the MB (Middle Bronze) I and MB II periods and their problems. These problems arise from the apparent non-occupation of sites which feature in the patriarchal narratives.

In 1949, Albright was able to write that only 'a few diehards among older scholars' had not accepted the essential historicity of the patriarchal traditions in the light of archaeological data, and that it was no longer fashionable to view those traditions as artificial creations by the scribes of the monarchic period.[2 ] He was able to repeat this statement fourteen years later.[3 ] Since then, however, there has been a strong reaction against the use of archaeological evidence in support of the biblical traditions,[4 ] and Albright's comment could not be repeated with any truth today.

Scholars who prefer to see the patriarchal narratives as unhistorical products of the first millennium BC have justified their view in part by referring to the difficulty of locating the patriarchs in an early archaeological period.[5 ] In response, N. M. Sarna has rightly

[p.60]

pointed out that an inability to place the patriarchs in a historical framework according to the present state of our knowledge does not necessarily invalidate the historicity of the narratives.[6 ] Our knowledge of the centuries around 2000 BC is very small, and our ignorance very great. Nevertheless, some specific suggestions can be made towards resolving the difficulties and answering the critics of historicity.

The aim of the present paper is therefore twofold: to examine the appropriateness of various archaeological periods as backgrounds to the patriarchal narratives, and to assess the arguments put forward on archaeological grounds for rejecting the view that the narratives reflect real conditions in an early period.

1. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL PERIODS

1.1. The MB I background and its problems

The view relating the patriarchs to the MB I period has been described as 'the classic formulation'.[7 ] It took shape in the 1930s, chiefly at the hands of W. F. Albright and N. Glueck.

In the l920s Albright argued that the finds on the plain of Bab edh-Dhrâ, to the east of the Dead Sea, were archaeological proof for the existence of a sedentary population in that area between the middle of the third millennium and the nineteenth century BC. He believed that occupation in the region ended abruptly 'not later than 1800 BC at the outside', and linked this with the cataclysm described in Genesis 18 - 19.[8 ] This link suggested to Albright that 'the date of Abraham cannot be placed earlier than the nineteenth century BC'.[9 ] This fell within the dates then assigned to MB I (2000 - 1800 BC).[10 ]

In 1929 Albright discovered a line of Early and Middle Bronze Age mounds 'running down along the eastern edge of Gilead, between the desert and the forests of Gilead'.[11 ] This confirmed for him the essential historicity of the campaign waged by the eastern kings in Genesis 14, an event which he had previously considered legendary. Albright's explorations in Transjordan were continued in the 1930s by Glueck, who traced a line of MB I settlements reaching most of the length of Transjordan. From 1932 onwards, Glueck's explorations revealed that most of these sites were deserted by the end of MB I, many of them never to be reoccupied. Both Glueck and Albright linked the termination of these sites

[p.61]

with the campaign of the eastern kings.[12 ]

From 1952 onwards, Glueck conducted an archaeological survey of the Negeb, and again found many MB I settlements. Arguing that the time of Abraham's journeys through the Negeb (Gn. 12:9; 13:1) must have been a period when permanent or temporary settlements and camping places flourished in the region, Glueck confidently identified MB I as the 'Age of Abraham', and coined the term 'the Abrahamitic period' as a synonym for it.[13 ]

Subsequently, Albright developed the theory that Abraham had been a donkey-caravaneer, trading originally between Ur and Haran, later between Damascus and Egypt. This view was first presented by Albright in 1961,[14 ] by which time the terminal date MB I had been raised from c. 1800 BC to c. 1900 BC.[15 ] In presenting his caravaneer hypothesis, Albright had to re-argue a date of c. 1800 BC for the end of MB I, because the documentary evidence which he assembled for early donkey-caravan trading belonged to the nineteenth century BC.[16 ] Although this date was cited by a few scholars for a time, it was soon universally rejected. Replying to Albright, W. G. Dever and T. L. Thompson have both noted the evidence in favour of MB II beginning earlier than 1800 BC. In 1970, Dever argued that IIA could not begin earlier than c. 1875 - 1850 BC,[17 ] but he subsequently described this estimate as 'probably too conservative', and raised the date for the transition to c. 1950 - 1900 BC,[18 ] and later to 2000 - 1950 BC.[19 ] Thompson has also shown that the low dates for MB I must be rejected, and has dismantled in detail Albright's argument that the first four royal tombs at Byblos (containing MB IIA pottery) postdate the end of the nineteenth century BC.[20 ] A date for the end of MB I in the twentieth century BC is now the general consensus among archaeologists.[21 ] The reasons for this dating need not be examined here, and can be found in the sources cited. The point to be noted is the implication of this date for Albright's hypothesis. Thompson has rightly pointed out that the low chronology for MB I is the central key to Albright's thesis. 'Once this is seen as untenable, the rise of the caravan trade under the Twelfth Dynasty pharaohs can no longer be associated with the 22 settlements of MB I either in Palestine or the Negev'.[22 ]

An attempt to retain Albright's thesis and his consequent dating of Abraham to the nineteenth century BC, while adopting the high chronology now required for MB I, would naturally place Abraham in MB II.[23 ] But, as will be noted below, there are problems for an MB II date for Abraham. The most reasonable course is actually to abandon the donkey-caravaneer hypothesis altogether. It

[p.62]

has been aptly criticized as going beyond the biblical evidence,[24 ] and few scholars have taken it seriously.[25 ]

The link between Abraham and MB I has also been bolstered by the so-called Amorite hypothesis. However, this hypothesis also features in the views of some scholars who place Abraham in MB II, and it will be discussed separately below.

Since an MB I dating of Abraham has been maintained independently of the donkey-caravaneer hypothesis, the justified criticisms of that hypothesis do not themselves refute the placement of Abraham in MB I. However, that dating has also been undermined in other ways, and these must be noted.

The end of occupation at Bab edh-Dhrâ can no longer be linked with the destruction of the 'cities of the plain' in Genesis 18 - 19 if Abraham is placed in MB I. Lapp's excavations in 1963-65 showed that the town site was abandoned at the close of EB III, c. 2400 - 2300 BC; remains from EB IV attest only squatter occupation, and a few scattered tombs are the only finds from MB I.[26 ]

Glueck's argument for associating the campaign of the eastern kings with the end of MB I occupation in Transjordan has been criticized by Dever. While Glueck wrote of all these sites being 'destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze I period',[27 ] Dever notes: 'There is no evidence whatsoever for a "destruction" at the end of MB I, as claimed by Glueck.'[28 ] Thompson also notes the lack of evidence for destructions, 'let alone the abandonment of all of the sites at any single time'.[29 ]

But the most serious criticisms concern the non-occupation of certain sites which feature in the patriarchal narratives. Thompson points out that Beersheba did not exist before the Iron Age, that Succoth, if identified with Tell Deir 'Alla as Glueck suggested, was not occupied before the Late Bronze Age, and that Salem, if the same as Jerusalem, has yielded no evidence of MB I settlement; Ai (Et-Tell) was not occupied between c. 2500 BC and the Iron Age, while Shechem was not occupied before MB IIA.[30 ] J. Van Seters also stresses that Shechem and Beersheba have no MB I settlements,[31 ] and Dever elaborates concerning the latter: 'Extensive surveys and excavations by Aharoni, Kochavi, and other Israeli archaeologists in Beersheba and vicinity have in fact revealed a conspicuous lack of MB I sites through· out the northern Negeb.'[32 ] Dever describes Shechem as 'the parade example' of a site which Albright listed as having MB I occupation, but where the evidence had actually been misunderstood;[33 ] apart from a small settlement in the Chalcolithic period, occupation began in MB IIA.[34 ]

[p.63]

Dever also criticizes Albright's view[35 ] that Bethel was 'extensively peopled' in MB I; he has demonstrated that remains attributed to MB I in Kelso's report actually belong to the MB IIA city,[36 ] and that MB I occupation is 'supported by a mere handful of sherds'.[37 ] Dever also extends Thompson's list of problematical sites by the addition of Dothan and Hebron.[38 ] In his view, 'A date in MB I is ruled out for the patriarchs simply because the latest evidence shows that the main centres traditionally associated with their movements, pace Albright, are conspicuously lacking in MB I remains.'[39 ]

Whether MB I can be rejected as finally as such statements suggest will be discussed below.

1.2. The MB II background and its problems

Several scholars prefer to assign the patriarchs generally to the first half of the second millennium BC.[40 ] This places the patriarchal period within MB II.

The MB II period as a background to the patriarchal traditions avoids some of the difficulties we have noted concerning MB I. In MB II, Jerusalem, Shechem, Bethel, Hebron and Dothan were urban centres.[41 ] However, some difficulties remain. Beersheba, Succoth and Ai appear to be equally problematical in MB II. In addition, MB II raises difficulties of its own: 'To date, not a single MB IIA site has been found in all of southern Transjordan or the Negeb - one of the principal arenas of patriarchal activities in Genesis.'[42 ] On balance, then, MB II appears to be no more satisfactory than MB I.

1.3. The patriarchs and the Amorite hypothesis

The patriarchal period has been linked with both MB I and MB II on the basis of the Amorite hypothesis.

The end of EB III saw the disruption of urban life throughout Syria and Palestine. The EB III towns were destroyed, and the culture of the subsequent EB IV/MB I period was largely non-urban. This period is seen in terms of the slow sedentarization of nomadic or semi-nomadic newcomers, to whom the destruction of the EB III towns is generally attributed. A reversion to town life is attested at the beginning of MB IIA, and this has been ascribed to a further influx of newcomers. The newcomers in both periods are assumed to have been Amorites, the 'westerners' attested in Akkadian texts from the last quarter of the third millennium onwards. On the basis of a combination of textual and archaeological evidence, Amorite expansions have been posited in which these people moved from Mesopotamia, through Syria and Palestine and on into Egypt. It should be noted, however, that more than

[p.64]

the two major influxes mentioned above are envisaged, so that a number of migrations into Palestine, extending over several centuries, are in view.[43 ]

This picture of westward expansions by West Semitic peoples provides an attractive historical context for the migration of Abraham and his family from Ur to Haran and from there to Palestine and on into Egypt. This has been noted by Albright[44 ] and R. de Vaux,[45 ] but while Albright assumed an MB I setting for Abraham, de Vaux preferred to place his migration in MB IIA,[46 ] when urban society was being re-established. It must be stressed, however, that the term 'Amorite hypothesis' refers not to a possible link between Amorite movements and the migration of Abraham, but to the Amorite movements themselves.

This hypothesis, depending as it does on a large amount of interpretation of textual and archaeological evidence, has recently been heavily criticized by Thompson. Thompson shows that although early West Semites do appear in South Mesopotamia, including the region of Ur, there is no historical evidence for a migration from there to the north; the West Semites attested in North Mesopotamia seem to have settled there after a migration from the North Arabian desert.[47 ] The written materials currently available 'do not witness to a major West Semitic migration in Palestine in the early Second Millennium, and argue against any such migration from North Mesopotamia'.[48 ] Thompson further argues that the Amu ('3mu), or 'Asiatics' who entered Egypt during the First Intermediate Period and the XIth Dynasty, were not part of any widespread nomadic movement, but people living along Egypt's eastern border.[49 ] Discussing the Palestinian archaeological evidence for the nature of MB I, Thompson asserts that the Amorite hypothesis has influenced the interpretation of the finds, and argues strongly against the Amorite and nomadic character of the period, and against the view which attributes the disruption of urban civilization the end of EB III to an invasion from the north.[50 ] Thompson also draws attention to evidence of some continuity between MB I and MB IIA, rejecting any implication of a complete break between the two cultures.[51 ]

In spite of Thompson's very thorough critique, Dever has continued to hold to a version of the Amorite hypothesis on the basis of archaeological material, insisting that MB I and MB IIA saw new influxes of West Semitic peoples into Palestine from Syria.[52 ] Dever insists, however, that the problem of locating the biblical patriarchs historically 'is a separate question and one that is likely to prejudice the discussion of MB I'.[54 ]

[p.65]

Thompson has recently remarked that Dever 'seems unaware of how inseparable the migratory aspect of the old "Amorite hypothesis" is from the biblical story - indeed it is only in Genesis that any indication of a migration from the Euphrates region can be found'.[54 ] This deserves to be stressed. The framework into which widely scattered evidence has been drawn in the construction of the Amorite hypothesis is provided only by the biblical story of Abraham's movements, and without that framework the hypothesis is fundamentally without support. On the other hand, the migration spoken of in Genesis involves only a single family, and it is nowhere implied that that family's movements were part of a wider shift or expansion of population; therefore the movements attributed to Abraham and his family do not support the Amorite hypothesis in any case - and neither do they require the Amorite hypothesis to support their historicity.

On the basis of evidence currently available, the validity of the Amorite hypothesis remains extremely doubtful. For the reasons just stated, however, it should indeed be treated as a separate issue from discussions of the patriarchal age. As Sarna has remarked: 'If Abraham's migration can no longer be explained as part of a larger Amorite migratory stream from east to west, it should be noted that what has fallen by the wayside is a scholarly hypothesis, not the Biblical text. Genesis itself presents the movement from Haran to Canaan as an individual, unique act undertaken in response to a divine call, an event, not an incident, that inaugurates a new and decisive stage in God's plan of history. The factuality or otherwise of this Biblical evaluation lies beyond the scope of scholarly research.'[55 ]

1.4. The LBA background

The view propounded by C. H. Gordon places the lives of Abraham and Jacob in the fourteenth century BC (LB II).[56 ] This placement rests chiefly on the parallels which Gordon sees between patriarchal practices and the social customs reflected in the fifteenth - thirteenth century texts from Nuzi and Ugarit.

This view will not be discussed in detail here. The parallels on which rests have been criticized by a number of scholars.[57 ] Without these, such a dating has nothing to support it.

Further, it is impossible to reconcile such a late date with the internal biblical chronology. Even placing the Exodus in the thirteenth century BC does not allow a reduction of the patriarchal age to the fourteenth century, unless the entire framework of biblical history from

[p.66]

Abraham to the Exodus is assumed to be artificial - an assumption for which there is no real warrant.[58 ]

1.5. An EBA date for Abraham

D. N. Freedman has recently argued that the true historical setting of the Abraham narratives is the middle of the third millennium BC. or EB III (c. 2650 - 2350 BC) in archaeological terms.[59 ]

His arguments are based on literary and archaeological evidence, the literary material being from the recently discovered Ebla (Tell Mardikh) archives. Stating that one of the tablets from Ebla lists the five 'cities of the plain' in the same order in which they occur in Genesis 14, and that the name of one of the kings mentioned in Genesis 14 (Birsha) is preserved in almost the same form on the tablet, Freedman argues that the incidents of Genesis 14 belong in all probability to the same period as the Ebla tablet (dated in general terms to the period 2600-2300 BC).

Freedman's argument from archaeology concerns EBA remains in the region east of the Dead Sea. Bab edh-Dhrâ and four neighbouring sites provide evidence of settlements during the EBA, but not during the MBA. Freedman proposes identifying these settlements with the 'cities of the plain'. Discussing occupation at Bab edh-Dhrâ, Freedman notes that the last major phase of occupation is EB III, the site being finally abandoned about 2250 BC in EB IV. The role of all five sites as the 'cities of the plain' is confined, however, to EB III: 'All were occupied during the Early Bronze Age for varying periods of time) the only period common to all is EB III, which is also the period of the Ebla tablets.'[60 ]

While there is much that is superficially attractive about Freedman's hypothesis, both the literary and archaeological arguments face serious difficulties.

Reservations have recently been expressed concerning the readings of the names espoused by Freedman, and it seems that the claim that the names of all five cities occur on one tablet was in any case erroneous.[61 ]

Freedman himself does not insist that the king named on the tablet should be identified with Birsha, king of Gomorrah, in Genesis 14. Indeed, he admits that, although he was originally under the impression that the king named on the tablet was king of Gomorrah, he later learned that he was king of the city whose name was read as Admah. Freedman therefore suggests only that the two kings 'belong to the same era, quite possibly to the same dynasty or to related families'. The conclusion that they belong 'to the same chronological horizon'[62 ] is completely

[p.67]

invalidated by these qualifications. Several examples could be found of two kings reigning centuries apart, possessing the same or similar names. As one example, note Jabin, king of Hazor at the time of Joshua, and a similarly named king of Hazor attested in the Mari documents of the eighteenth-seventeenth centuries BC.[63 ] Even if Joshua is dated as early as 1400 BC, in line with a fifteenth century date for the exodus, we still have a gap of two or three centuries between these two kings; and note, too, that an even later king of Hazor also has the same name (Jdg. 4:2).

The archaeological argument also provides little evidence for Freedman's early date. His argument here largely depends on the fact that no MB I sites have been found which can be identified as the 'cities of the plain', thus restricting the choice to the EBA sites to which he refers. The common assumption that the cities of Genesis 14 now lie beneath the southern waters of the Dead Sea, which appear to have risen considerably in comparatively recent times,[64 ] is dismissed rather cavalierly: 'The underwater possibility has also been investigated. but. nothing determinative or even usable has turned up. If Sodom and Gomorrah are beneath the waters of the Dead Sea, they have not been found; the hypothesis itself seems more dubious all the time'.[65 ] This is an unfair statement of the situation. As Albright remarked, there is no way of knowing what depth of silt may now hide the ruins from view if they lie beneath the Dead Sea, and the chances of discovering traces are very remote indeed.[66 ]

Unless the EBA settlements can be identified with certainty as the 'cities of the plain' (which would require four of them being shown to have suffered a simultaneous fall in the EBA; Zoar was not destroyed according to Gn. 19), Freedman's case remains weak.

If the occupation of the central Negeb is held to be important for the historicity of the patriarchal narratives, Freedman's early date faces an additional difficulty; Thompson reports 'an almost total absence of evidence for any EB exploitation of this region' until the EB IV / MB I period.[67 ]

A final consideration is that the biblical chronology cannot be stretched sufficiently to place Abraham in the EB III period (i. e. before 2300 BC). This will be apparent from the discussion of biblical chronology below. Any attempt to take the old Testament's chronology seriously will therefore find Freedman's placement of Abraham unacceptable,[68 ] unless a down-dating of the EBA becomes necessary in the light of future discoveries.

[p.68]

Each period examined has been found to present difficulties. Two periods (LB II and EB III) are excluded by the internal biblical chronology, and in any case are weakly supported. The remaining two, MB I and MB II, face the difficulty of the non-occupation of important sites or areas. However, before the conclusion is reached that neither period provides an acceptable setting for the movements of the patriarchs, evidence for the location and occupational history of the relevant sites must be assessed in more detail.

2. INDIVIDUAL SITES DISCUSSED

What follows is a list of the Palestinian topographical references contained in the patriarchal narratives. For the convenience of a later part of the discussion, the list is divided chronologically into two parts: (i) corresponding to the life of Abraham after the departure from Haran, and (ii) corresponding to the lives of Isaac and Jacob, from Abraham's death to the entry into Egypt.