The Amarna letters are what survives of the diplomatic archive of Amenhotep III, and his son Amenhotep IV, better known as Akhenaten. Hatshepsut (one of the predecessors during the 18th Dynasty) refers in her account of her trip to Punt to an official from the time of Solomon, successor to David. The term "Habiru" ("Apiru") doesn't refer to the Hebrews. Some recent authors have tried to make the early Kingdom synchronize with the Amarna period; the conventional pseudochronology doesn't work in any case.
The term "Habiru" ("Apiru") doesn't refer to the Hebrews.
////////////
Since this, if true, completely destroys the thrust of the article, you're kind of like obliged to give some evidence for your assertion.
I mean what's an outsider to think when one person says tis so based on such and such evidence and another says tis not so based on no evidence.
In his last letter to the pharaoh Abimilki changed the manner he had used... He used to tell the pharaoh that he, the august overlord, 'thundereth in the heavens like Adad.' It should be noted here that this was the same attribute that Shalmaneser in his inscriptions applied to himself... Bizarre conjectures were published to explain the meaning of that perplexing name Shalmaiati... Abimilki's last letter is not yet ended. What should we like to read in it? ...Abimilki wrote that he would desert his rocky island and evacuate the population of Tyre... [I]n the time of Shalmaneser III (in the ninth century) there lived a prince called Suppiluliuma (Sapalulme), to whom Shalmaneser referred in his annals. He could have been the author of the letter in the el-Amarna collection signed with his name. In a short and broken text from Ugarit referring to donations made to the goddess of the city of Arne, Prince Nikmed of Ugarit-Ras Shamra as well as Suppiluliuma are mentioned... Arne was not far from Ugarit and was captured by Shalmaneser III... [I. Velikovsky, Ages In Chaos, pp 318-323]The el-Amarna letters don't date to the time of King David as David Rohl claims. As Velikovsky showed -- in 1952 -- they are a century and more thereafter. Turns of phrase, the sequence of events, and even the players on the stage are one after the other identical. But in the conventional pseudochronology, they are separated by six hundred years. As he concluded:
Can one accept such a series of coincidences? And if it is accepted, is it only to have the old difficulties present themselves again? If the Habiru were the Israelites, why, then, in the Book of Joshua, which records the conquest of Canaan, and in the letters of el-Amarna are no common name and no common event preserved? [I. Velikovsky, Ages In Chaos, p 335]