Comment by bustadjustme | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bustadjustme | Hacker News Reader

I don't follow their reasoning. Given their premises:

1. The solar eclipse of Oct 30, 1207 BC is recorded in the book of Joshua, describing events concerning the people of Israel in Canaan (specifically, a battle with some Canaanites).

2. A battle between Israel and Egypt (under Pharaoh Merneptah, son of Ramesses II) is recorded on the Merneptah Stele (which says it was recorded in Merneptah's 5th year).

The researchers conclude:

> So the Israelites must have been in Canaan by Merneptah's fifth year.

> ...

> The confrontation with Israel probably occurred in his year 2 to 4 (Kitchen 2006), so 1207 BC is probably year 2, 3 or 4 of Merneptah.

Huh? They must have been in Canaan by 1207, sure, but why does that imply the Israel/Egypt battle happened in 1207? It seems like 1207 is just an earliest-possible date for the battle...

From what I can tell, the Merneptah Stele has no other information indicating it should be linked to the eclipse or the account from Joshua.

Have I just missed something?

Moreover, the words from Joshua 10:12-13 in Young's Literal Translation (YLT) are:

"Then speaketh Joshua to Jehovah in the day of Jehovah's giving up the Amorites before the sons of Israel, and he saith, before the eyes of Israel, `Sun -- in Gibeon stand still; and moon -- in the valley of Ajalon;'

and the sun standeth still, and the moon hath stood -- till the nation taketh vengeance [on] its enemies; is it not written on the Book of the Upright, `and the sun standeth in the midst of the heavens, and hath not hasted to go in -- as a perfect day?'"

The literal translation is important to see what is actually written in the Hebrew original. It's definitely not the same as the new (too convenient) translation that the paper used:

“And the Sun stood still, and the Moon stopped [Hebrew 'amad], until the nation took vengeance on their enemies,” (Joshua 10:12–13, New Revised Standard Version [NRSV]).

Note that the literal translation gives the positions of the Sun and Moon and they are not on the same place when the event happens. Also note that no eclipse can last "till the nation taketh vengeance [on] its enemies."

Still, it seems to be a one day event, the Ortodox Jewish Bible translates 10:13 as:

"And the shemesh stood still, the yarei’ach stopped, until the Goy had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the Sefer HaYasher? So the shemesh stood still in the middle of Shomayim, and hastened not to go down about a yom tamim (whole day)."

Yom is "day." תָּמִים is indeed elsewhere translated as "perfect" but the meaning of "whole" (complete) in this case really has sense: http://biblehub.com/hebrew/8549.htm

Still doesn't match a description of an eclipse.

... That's the claim of an eclipse in Joshua? It's baloney.

I've seen a total eclipse in person. The most dramatic part of it, which doesn't seem to come out in most modern accounts, is the speed and intensity of what happens when totality happens: 98% coverage is much tamer than than 100%. The temperature drops by several degrees--it feels like at least 10°F--and the sky goes from "it feels cloudy" to "it's dusk except I see light in all directions."

For someone in a pre-Axial Age religion (such as then-contemporary Judaism), which makes a heavy theme out of the idea that humans need to perform rituals to literally keep the universe going, the first thoughts are going to be "how did we screw up?" and even after things return to normal, it's likely to still leave people with the impression that they narrowly avoided the end of the universe.

It's difficult to see even a liberal priest making rhetorical flourishes to older traditions converting an eclipse to that kind of depiction. The text pretty much has a running theme of "gee, it would be nice if the day were longer so I could finish slaughtering my enemies;" eclipses (even if not total) are notable for their very distinct darkening of the sky. The text also emphasizes that the sun and moon stand still, yet an eclipse is one of the few times where you can clearly observe the sun and the moon moving against each other, where you can see clear motion in real time. It's also worth pointing out that the text also says "nothing like this has ever happened before or since." This part of the Hebrew bible is suspected of being written somewhere in the 600s BC, which is more than enough time for other accounts of eclipses to filter through.

Ring of fire eclipses, which is what this one was, are very different. The sky doesn't get dark. The temperature doesn't drop. Birds don't go crazy.

Added to the fact that the events of Joshua are likely completely ahistorical.

They think the battles are the same. The book of Joshua doesn't say they fought Canaanites, just that they fought "their enemies". The theory is that the Egyptians were the enemies.

It does say they fought Canaanites. It specifies that they were Amorites, and names the cities.

Names for enemies weren't always exact and rather name general directions of the wind instead of particular tribes. From the dead sea, canaan and egypt seem close enough to be confused.

Unless you think those Canaanite cities were in Egypt, I'd say the details are given pretty precisely. The book is actually online; you can easily check that there's no chance this was talking about Egypt.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com