Is Bible History Reliable? The Strange Case of the Walls of Jericho

8/6/2019 Is Bible History Reliable? The Strange Case of the Walls of Jericho

1/59

Is Bible History

Reliable?Part OneThe Strange Case of the Walls of Jericho

By Ronnie Bray

Bible scholars have dated the fall of the walls of the city ofJericho variously.

The first scientific investigation of the site ofJericho was carried out by Charles Warren in1868, but amounted to no more than a site-survey(Warren's prime interest was in establishing themodern equivalents of Biblical locales). In 1907-09 and again in 1911 digging was carried out bytwo German archaeologists, Carl Watzinger and

Ernest Sellin. Watzinger and Sellin believed thatthey would be able to validate the Biblical storyof Jericho's destruction by Joshua and theIsraelites, but concluded instead that the dataindicated that the city was unoccupied at the timewhich the Bible indicated for the Conquest.

These results were tested in 1930-36 by JohnGarstang, at the suggestion of William F.Albright, the doyen of Palestinian archaeology atthe time. Garstang discovered the remains of anetwork of collapsed walls which he dated toabout 1400 BCE, the time he believed the


2/59

Israelites were on their conquest, that hadapparently fallen in a dramatic fashion asopposed to being ruined by abandonment or

decay from natural forces. Garstang's work thusreversed the conclusions of the earlier diggings.

By the post-war period a revolution had occurredin archaeological methodology, and Albrightaccordingly asked Kathleen Kenyon, one of themost respected practitioners of the newarchaeology, to excavate at Jericho once more.

Kenyon dug at Jericho over the seasons between1952-1958. Kenyon traced the entire history ofthe city from the earliest Neolithic settlement.She did this by digging a narrow deep trenchmaintaining clean, squared off edges, rigorouslyexamining the soil and recording its stratification,and thus building up a cross-section of the tell.

When presented with an area that would requirewider areas to be excavated - the floor plan of ahouse for example - she carefully dug inmeasured squares while leaving an untouchedstrip between each section to allow thestratification to remain visible. Kenyon reportedthat her work showed Garstang to have beenwrong and the Germans right - Jericho had beendeserted at the accepted Biblical date of theConquest. Her result was confirmed in 1995 byradiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to


3/59

1562 BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certaintyof 95%.1

Such a date strikes at the historicity of the Bible, since theExodus, once thought to have taken place around 1550 BC,has been moved by modern discoveries to around 1250 BC.Kenyon's interpretation of the data was thus radically andfundamentally different from Garstang's. She concludedthat City IV had been destroyed about 1550 B.C. and,therefore, there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer

around 1400 BC She suggested that the archaeologicalevidence discredited the biblical record! Moreover, asizeable portion of scholars accepted her findings asconclusive.

John Garstang was the Director of the

Department of Antiquities in Palestine 1920-1926. During this time he walked the exactitinerary of Joshua's army and began excavatingJericho in the 1930's. He investigated more than100,000 shards of pot from Jericho, and using theceramic index dated the destruction of Jericho tothe middle of the Late Bronze Age whichtraditional dating places at 1400 1300 BC, inconflict with the then prevailing date of theExodus during the 19th Dynasty of Egypt, some200 years later, 1200 1100 BC. This was just

1 Radiocarbon, Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995


4/59

one example of many conflicting dates thatriddled the archology of Jericho.

The Biblical account places the Exodus andconquest 480 years before the founding ofSolomon's Temple. The 19th Dynasty timeline isin direct conflict with this, because a date of 480years before Solomon's Temple moves theExodus and subsequent conquest to around 1450BC

At the time of Garstang's findings, scholars andhistorians put forth any explanation they couldfind to discredit his date. Sceptics thought thearchology of Jericho too insubstantial to verifythe Biblical dates as understood. This was a problem to those that considered they hadaccurate historical dating in the Biblical account

of the Exodus, Conquest, and Settlement ofCanaan, particularly inerrantists.

Among his findings were scarabs which boresymbols and pictures of Egyptian Kings. Thelatest of these Kings was Amenhotep II,datingfrom 1413-1373 B.C.

There was no evidence found of any burials afterthis date.

Garstang described the occupation of Jericho.


5/59

"Four main epochs in its occupation are attested by that number of separate and successive

periods of fortification...The walls wereBabylonian in style...This period of occupation isto be assigned to the last centuries of the thirdmillenium BC, say 2300-2000 BC andcorresponds therefore with the first SemiticDynasty of Babylon, the remote age ofHammurabi and Abraham ."

Garstang goes on to state that about 2000 B.C.E.the site of Jericho, archaeology had proven, wasenclosed by "definitive defensive ramparts".

These fortifications comprised a stout wall 12-14feet thick. He also stated that Jericho, at this time,was only about 8 acres in size, a very modestly

sized city.

He then moves into the second millennium BC.

"About 1800 BC, a date depending ultimately onEgyptian chronology, the city of Jericho was re-fortified on a more ample scale. The area ofJericho now attained its maximum of about 12acres..the defensive works of Jericho at this timewere unparalleled comprising the three foldprincipal of glacis, parapet and outer fosse."


6/59

Garstang used this evidence to indicate a periodof relative prosperity. Jericho archaeology of thistime produced art of the Hyksos, and from the

period when Egypt was over run.

Jericho archaeology produced names of Hyksosleaders on the seals of tombs. The palace area ofthe city suggests that some of these individualslived and died in Jericho during this time.

What Garstang stated next is very important.

"The whole system was destroyed in 1600 BC bya general conflagration, an event which seemedto coincide with the demolition of the citiesramparts, though the evidence as to the date ofthe latter case is not so complete as to warrant adefinite conclusion....Further extensive damage

was done by a landslide, originating presumablyin an earthquake which broke one of the mainwalls in two and brought the brickwork of thisand other walls toppling down in large masses.This disaster was also accompanied by local fireswhich completely charred and cracked the brickand contents of the surviving rooms."

Notice how the walls appear to have sliddownward, reminiscent of a landslide. Thesewalls formed a ramp, which allowed for theIsraelites to march up and into the city. Jericho


7/59

archaeology had perhaps produced evidence ofthe collapse of Jericho's walls.

Garstang concluded that the tombs of the Hyksoswere the most numerous and complete, and thatJericho was captured and the fortificationsdismantled at the end of the Hyksos period, soonafter 1600 BC.Jericho archaeology has produced possible ruinsof the Israelite invasion. However, it was soon

restored as a vassal of the Pharaohs, andcontinued in this state until the earthquake at theend of the 16th century.

This ushered in the reconstruction of newbuildings, and a new archaeological period, theLate Bronze Age. The conventional date for this

period is around 1500 BC.

Garstang goes on.

"We come now to the last phase in the history ofBronze Age Jericho. The buildings of this periodin the palace area and their contents are found tohave been consumed by an intense conflagrationwhich has left them embedded in a knee deepdeposit of white ash covered by blackeneddebris.....The 15th century BC is represented byhundreds of intact specimens...notably one ofThuthmose III, the successor of Queen


8/59

Hatshepsut in tomb 5 and two of Amenhotep IIIin tomb 4....the last names Pharaohs ruled fromabout 1411-1375."

Garstang then points to the handful of specimensthat represent the ensuing centuries, in sharpcontrast with the vast amount of artifacts from theHyksos, down to this Pharaohs reign.

He concludes this is evidence that the city and itsnormal life "ceased utterly around 1400 BC".

He wraps up his findings with the following.

"We reach then the following conclusions;

1. The city perished while in active occupation2. Buildings and their contents were consumed

by fire of exceptionally intensity3. The Ramparts fell at the same time as theadjacent houses and the state of their ruins pointsto earthquakes4. The date of the fall of Jericho was about1400 BC."

In other words, it is quite likely that, according toGarstang, these ramparts collapsed as a result ofan earthquake shock just before the onset ofJoshua and the Israelites.


9/59

Garstang also found dozens of jars full of graindating from the last Canaanite city of Jericho.This evidence indicates these were from the time

of the harvest, when the city was burned.

Thus, the foremost archaeologist of his time hadshown that the prevailing belief in the Biblicaldating of the conquest and fall of Jericho wasaccurate with Jericho archaeology. Garstang'sfindings, though did not go unchallenged, stoodon solid ground for about 20 years.

However, Egyptologists were concerned aboutGarstang and his dates. They argued that if theExodus took place during the 18th Dynasty, thereshould be evidence of building by the Israelites inthe Delta region, of which there was none.

Additionally, the date of the Exodus was still preferred to be in the 19th Dynasty, andGarstang's findings did not fit in with this view.His version of Jericho archaeology seemed to goagainst some commonly held Eyptian dates andevents.

Study Resource

John Bartlett gives an account of the most recentarchaeological finds at the biblical site of Jerichoin his book Jericho, Cities of the Biblical World,


10/59

Jericho Archaeology

Israel-a-history-of.com hopes you enjoy the

resources our advertisers supply! Your feedbackon products, information, opinions, etc. arewelcomed and encouraged! Just click on theContact Us tab on the Nav Bar!

Katherine Kenyon

In the 1950's Kenyon re-examined the site. Shecompletely reassessed Garstang's findings.Jericho archaeology was to take on a new face.

The double wall placed by Garstang in theMiddle Bronze Age, around 1400 BC, Kenyonclaimed it was from the Early Bronze Age, whichshe dated as ending around 2100 BC. This was a

difference of over 700 years!

She claimed no possibility that this wall could beconnected to Joshua, and in fact, stated thatJericho had not been inhabited for at least 150years before 1400 BC.

She stated;

" almost all traces of the Late Bronze Agetown of the time of Joshua had been destroyed byerosion"


11/59

She agreed that the city was destroyed by fire andearthquake, but in 1580 BC, towards the end ofthe Middle Bronze Age II period.

Kenyon stated that an acceptable end of the MBIIperiod is the rise of the 18th Dynasty in Egypt,around 1567 BC, when Egypt drove back theAsiatics.

Kenyon credited the Egyptians with thedestruction of the walls which Garstang attributed

to the Jews. Kenyon argued this destructionfollowed the Hyksos removal from Egypt, andsubsequent ousting from Palestine.

Critics of this view claim that Jericho is a strangelocation for an Egyptian invasion. The reasonbeing the city does not rest on any main North-

South route likely to be utilized by an invadingEgyptian army.

The following are excerpts from Kenyon'sfindings.

"At Jericho, the evidence for destruction is evenmore dramatic. All the middle Bronze Agebuildings were violently destroyed by fire....Thestratigraphical evidence suggests in itself thatthere was a gap in the occupation at Jericho. Thisis confirmed by a gap in the occupation of tombsin the cemeteries. Burials cease in all the tombs


12/59


13/59

Kenyon, with this statement, concludes Jerichoarchaeology disproves the Biblical account ofJericho. She also finds no evidence of the

occupation during Eglon's reign of the Moabites,as well as nothing from the time of Ahab.Jericho archaeology has produced evidence ofOld Jericho. She also states;

"Newcomers who were presumably the authorsof the destruction settled in considerable numbersin the area but they did not build for themselves a

walled town..."

She also found another massive destruction ofJericho by fire at the end of the Middle Bronzeage.

After this, there remains limited evidence of

occupation during the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200), and after that, nothing.

The Biblical account, Garstang's finds, andKenyon's conclusions do not seem to fit at all.

The Conclusion

It must be noted that the dates for Jerichoarchaeology, according to Garstang and Kenyon,were based on Egyptian Chronology. This has


14/59

since been proven erroneous, and a revisedchronology has been set forth.

Thus, taking only the words of Garstang andKenyon, and by comparing these with the revisedchronology, the following conclusion can bemade.

The findings of Jericho archaeology are takeninto consideration, disregarding the controversyof conflicting dates.

These findings are then applied to the revisedEgyptian chronology.

Jericho archaeology has produced two possibilities for the position of Joshua and theconquest of Jericho. One centres around the wall

Garstang found.

Kenyon claimed this wall was from the EarlyBronze III period, placing it from 2700-2200 BC,far too early for Joshua.

The other position centres on the wall Kenyonfound from a later age. The problem with thiswall is that nothing came after it, and the Biblestill talks of at least two other periods ofoccupation in Jericho.


15/59

Garstang's wall shall be taken to be the wallduring the time of Joshua, then Kenyon's secondwall is the final remains of the walls of Jericho

stemming from the gradual occupation of thetribes of Benjamin. The walls of Jericho falldown before the Israelites. From this gradualoccupation, Eglon King of Moab over took theseBenjamites and established The City of Palms aspart of Moab. A reduced city seems to fit withfindings from Jericho archaeology.

This led to the story of Ehud, the left handedBenjamite, and his assassination of King Eglon.In turn, this led to the re-occupation of Jericho bythe Benjamites.

The towns of the Benjamites would eventually beburnt by the remaining tribes of Israel. This was

in retaliation of the heinous crime committed bythe Levite on his concubine. Parts of her bodywere sent to all the tribes of Israel.

The artifacts from the Hyksos occupation isevidence of Jericho's occupation before theExodus, and the appearance of the Israelites inPalestine.

The tombs of the Egyptians signifies theEgyptian influence and presence living in thearea after Hiel had rebuilt the city at the cost ofhis two sons.


16/59

The loss of his two sons fulfilled the Lord's curseJoshua placed on Jericho. Jericho archaeology

alone, would seem to fit the literary backgroundevidence surrounding Jericho.

These were the tombs of the Egyptiansresponsible for giving advice during the time ofthe Divided Kingdom, when the NorthernKingdom sought Egyptian help in fighting off theMoabite threat, and, of course, the power of the

Southern Kingdom Judah. Jericho was a strategiccity.

Thus, the following is a description of Jericho, based on the conventional dating, Jerichoarchaeology, and explanations, in comparisonwith the revised dating and revised explanations.

This chart was put forth by Michael Sanders onhis lecture of Jericho found at www.biblemysteries.com

A.

Conventional Date - 2500 to 2100Conventional Explanation - Pre-Patriarchal era ofindependent city statesRevised Date - 1775 to 1452Revised Explanation - Canaanite City

B.
http://www.biblemysteries.com/http://www.biblemysteries.com/


17/59

Conventional Date - 2100 to 1900Conventional Explanation - Arrival of Amorites

followed by more settled invadersRevised Date - 1452 to 1399Revised Explanation - Invasion by Joshua.Benjamite occupation

C.

Conventional Date - 1900 to 1500

Conventional Explanation - Semitic culturefounded by Canaanite & Phoenician culturesRevised Date - 1399 to 1185Revised Explanation - The time of Eglon & Ehudand the re-occupation by Benjamites. Finalburning of Jericho.

D.

Conventional Date - 1525 to 1425Conventional Explanation - Canaanite Town withEgyptian tombsRevised Date - 1185 to 1022Revised Explanation - Thuthmose helps Deborahin her battle with Sisera, thus the Egyptianinfluence in Jericho.

E.

Conventional Date - 1400 to 1200


18/59

Conventional Explanation - NoneRevised Date - 1022 to 915 (time of the reign ofKing David)

Revised Explanation - Scant occupation whenDavid asked his men to stay until beards wereregrown

When the events of the Bible are viewed incontext with Jericho archaeology, there is littlequestion the Biblical account of Jericho is indeed

an actual history of a city which dates backthousands of years, possibly as early as 9000 BC!

The dates surrounding these events remaincontroversial at best. However, evenarchaeologists will admit the most controversialarea of this amazing field of study is the actual

dating of events. It should come as no surprisethat dates vary widely, and should not be used asevidence to dismiss one particular theory overanother.

Yigal Levin writes,

The traditionally accepted date of the Fall ofJericho based on 1 Kings 6:1, where it says thatthe Temple was built in Solomon's 4th year,which was the 480th year since the Exodus.Assuming that the Shishak invasion was in 926,


19/59

which was Rehoboam's 5th year (1 Kings 14:25),Rehoboam succeeded Solomon in 931/0,Solomon became king in 971/0 so Solomon's 4th

year was 967/6. Subtract (or actually add) 480,you get 1446. Take away 40 years in thewilderness, you get 1446 for Joshua's invasion.

Of course, that only works if the dates areaccurate, including 40 years for Solomon (and 40for David), 40 years in the wilderness, and the480, which just HAPPENS to be 40 x 12.

While Kenyon's chronology has been revised, thebasic facts seem to be correct: the city at Tell es-Sultan, identified as the ancient site of Jericho,was a large, fortified city during the MiddleBronze Age, which was abandoned at thebeginning of the Late Bronze Age, around 1550

BC.

However, even if that date is off by about acentury either way it would not make adifference, as there is NO archaeological ORtextual evidence of any appearance of anythingthat anyone could identify as "Israelites" until thevery end of the 13th century.2

Some of the evidence for a later date of the exodus hasbeen presented in countering the arguments for the early

2http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.html
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.htmlhttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.htmlhttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.htmlhttp://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.html


20/59

date. In addition, advocates for the later 13th century daterely heavily on the archaeological discoveries of the pastcentury.

Biblical Support for a 13th century date (1290

BC)

Even though biblical scholars have foundsignificant problems with the 15th century datefor the exodus, there is very little direct biblical

evidence for a later 13th century date. Most of thesupport comes from archaeological and historicalevidence. Historians would argue that thispresents no problem since the biblical text wasnot written to provide us with the kind of datathat we require in order to answer our modernhistorical questions. The very reasons offered

above concerning the cultural use of numbers andthe lack of concern with precision in datingsuggests that the search for a biblical "proof" of adate may be fruitless. Still, to those who are usedto looking at Scripture to answer such questions,the answer of "not enough evidence" is not at allsatisfying. It is this assumption that the Bibleshould be able to address any question they wantto pose it that has tended to fuel considerableacrimony in various issues of biblical history.Historical Support for a 13th century date (1290BC)


21/59

1) Edom and Moab

Archaeology surveys and excavations on the

eastern side of the Jordan river (Transjordan),pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was nosettled civilization in the Edomite and Moabiteareas of the southern Transjordan until about thelate 14th or early 13th century BC. Also, theearliest record referring to the Edomites is anEgyptian letter dating to the 13th century. Thereis scarcely any evidence of settlement in these

areas in the 15th century BC. Since we knowfrom the traditions that Israel encountered settledpeople in this area (e.g., Num 20:14), it seemsthat a 13th century date for the exodus is morelikely and less problematic than a 15th centurydate. Also, the Moabite city of Heshbon was thefirst city taken by the Israelites in the Transjordan

area, becoming a part of the tribal territory ofReuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thoroughexcavations at what has been identified as thissite reveal that the city was not occupied untilaround 1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40years in the desert, this suggests a date for theexodus at the beginning of the 13th century.

Difficulties Raised: There have been a fewlimited excavations that suggest at least somesettled population as early as the 14th century, forexample at a temple complex at Timnah in thenorthern Negev. There is also substantial


22/59

evidence that there were nomadic tribes whoinhabited the area earlier than the 14th century.These could have been the people that the

Israelites encountered. Also, it is not at all certainthat the site identified as Heshbon is, in fact, thecity that the Israelites conquered.

2) Lachish, Debir, and Bethel

Excavations at three key cities taken by Joshuaand the invading Israelites, Lachish (Josh 10:31-

32), Debir (Josh 10:38-39), and Bethel (Jud 1:23-25) reveal a level of ash marking the burning ofthe cities that dates to the late 13th or early 12thcentury. This appears to correspond to thedestruction of these cities by the invadingIsraelites. This would place the exodus sometimein the mid to late 13th century.

Difficulties Raised:

There is no direct evidence to link the destructionof these cities to the Israelites. The biblicalaccounts do not say that the Israelites burnedthese cities, only that they destroyed the

inhabitants. The destruction levels could as easilyhave been from later Egyptian raids into the area.Logical Support for a 13th century date (1290BC)

1) The Hyksos


23/59

The Hyksos were an Asiatic people who capturedand ruled Egypt from around 1667 to 1546 BC

(other dates for the Hyksos range from 1720 to1580 BC). They were sometimes called the"Shepherd Kings" because of their assumedorigins among the nomadic peoples of the FertileCrescent, but that association is by no meanscertain. They were generally Semitic people likethe Israelites, a term that simply refers to sharedcultural and linguistic roots. Since this time

period of the Hyksos roughly corresponds to theera of the Patriarchs, it seems logical to concludethat the migration of the Israelites to Egypt andthe rise of Joseph to power corresponded to theHyksos control of Egypt. Semitic rulers would be more favorable to allowing a Semitic"foreigner" to be second in command of Egypt

and to allow large migrations of other Semiticpeople into the land. The "new king who did notknow Joseph" (Ex 1:8) would be a description ofthe expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, whichled the return of control to Egyptians and theenslavement of the Israelites as retaliation forforeign rule.

In Exodus 12:40-41, there is a reference to thespan of time that the Israelites lived in Egypt.

40. The time that the Israelites had lived in Egyptwas four hundred thirty years. 41. At the end of


24/59

four hundred thirty years, on that very day, all thecompanies of the LORD went out from the landof Egypt.

If we take the earliest date proposed for theHyksos control of Egypt (1720 BC) and assumethat this is roughly the time of the Israelitesmove into Egypt, adding 430 years would give usa date of about 1290 BC for the exodus. Usingthe 15th century date for the exodus (1440)would place the patriarchal migration into Egypt

long before the Hyksos took control of Egypt.

Difficulties Raised: This perspective also buildson several assumptions that may not be sound.First, there is no necessity that the Hyksos berelated to the Israelites since there is no biblicalevidence for this, nor is there any historical

evidence beyond logical deduction.

Second, the Septuagint, the second century BCtranslation of the Old Testament into Greek, has aslightly different version of Exodus 12:40, adding"and in the land of Canaan." That is, the 430years covers not only the period of time theIsraelites spent in Egypt but also includes thetime the Patriarchs lived in Canaan before theywent to Egypt. If we add up the various timesgiven for the patriarchs, we end up with about215 years that they lived in Canaan (Gen 12:4,21:5, 25:26, 47:9). This leaves only the other 215


25/59

years for the stay in Egypt. This appears to be problem with either system of dating, andsuggests that the traditions at this point cannot be

used as a reliable guide for constructing dates.

Third, the time frame of the Patriarchs is notknown well enough to assume that the migrationto Egypt was in the 18th century. It could havebeen as much as 100 to 150 years earlier thanthat.

2) The cities of Pithom and Rameses

The biblical narratives report that the enslavedIsraelites were building the store or treasury citiesof Pithom and Rameses (Ex .1:11). While neithersite has been positively identified, it seems fairlycertain that the cities were constructed by or in

honor of one of the pharaohs that went by thename Rameses. The first pharaoh who reigned asRameses I ruled Egypt from around 1293-1291BC (some date his reign to 1314-1312). RamesesII (1279-1212 or 1290-1224 BC) was a prolificbuilder during his long reign, so it seems logicalto assume that this was the pharaoh whoconstructed the city of Rameses. This wouldsuggest that the exodus happened sometimeduring the reign of one of these pharaohs near thebeginning of the 13th century.



26/59

It is not necessary that the city of Rameses builtby the Israelites was constructed by a pharaoh.

The name Rameses was in use before the 13thcentury, and could have been associated withsomeone else. The name means "Ra is born,"referring to the sun-god Ra, and could have beenassociated with a temple complex.

3) Egyptian incursions into Canaan

Since the area of Palestine occupies a narrowstrip of land connecting Egypt with the greatempires to the north, it was frequently the victimof wars and raids between these empires seekingto establish spheres of influence. We know fromextra-biblical historical records that during the15th century BC, Egypt had extended her

influence through Northern Palestine westwardinto Asia Minor and eastward to the Euphratesand into the territory of Mittani. However, by the14th century, Egyptian power had diminishedconsiderably both because of internal dissensionand because of a resurgence of the Hittites inAsia Minor. In the late 14th to mid-13th centurythere was a protracted series of wars betweenEgypt, led by pharaohs Sethos I (Seti, 1305-1290BC) and Rameses II (1290-1224), and theHittites. There were battles and incursions thatranged back and forth through Palestine. A peacetreaty finally led to a long era of peace between


27/59

the two empires, and allowed the reign ofRameses II to be one of the most peaceful andprosperous of all the pharaohs.

If the Israelites were already well established inthe land, as the 1440 BC date of the exoduswould suggest, they would have been continuallybattered by the incursions of these two pharaohsas they marched north to engage the Hittites inSyria and eastern Asian Minor. Yet the biblicalrecord is totally silent about any such incursions.

Given this protracted warfare between the Hittitesand Egypt with Palestine at its center, it isinconceivable that there would be no biblicalrecords of the incursions of Sethos or Ramesesinto Israelite territory. This suggests that theIsraelites were not yet in the land, and thereforethe exodus must have been later in the early 13th

century. This would correspond to the otherevidence in Palestine as well as the mention ofthe city of Rameses in Exodus.


This is really an argument from silence that is

difficult to prove. There is no need to conclude a13th century date from the lack of biblicalreference to the Egyptian incursions since thereare other explanations possible for that silence.The incursions into Palestine by Sethos I andRameses II were not against the Israelites but


28/59

against the Canaanites, specifically the Hittitesand their allies. The Egyptians were notconcerned at this time with fighting the Israelites

since they posed no threat to Egypt. They wereseeking to reestablish their position in the regionagainst the Hittites, so they would have no needto engage the Israelites. Therefore, there would be no need for the Israelites to mention theEgyptian incursions through their territory.

Also, it is entirely possible that the periods of

"rest" mentioned in the book of Judges (e.g.,3:11, 30, 5:31, etc.) were times of increasedEgyptian control of the area that would restrictraids from surrounding Canaanites. When theEgyptians withdrew or were forced back, theCanaanites surrounding the Israelites were freerto raid the Israelite settlements.

Conclusion

This quick survey of the two positions on the dateof the exodus demonstrates the tenuous nature ofeither position, whether working primarily from aliteral reading of Scripture (the early date) orworking primarily from the evidence ofarchaeological excavations (the late date). Whilehistorical evidence can often contribute to abetter understanding of Scripture from a varietyof perspectives, it is also obvious that historicalevidence cannot solve every historical questionthat we can raise from the biblical text. This


29/59

suggests that historical methodology, especiallywhen that methodology is shaped by theassumptions of modern critical investigation, can

be a useful tool, but cannot really serve to"prove" doctrinal positions about the nature ofScripture. As a tool, it has value. But just as withany tool when it is used in a manner or task forwhich it was not designed, we are left with lessthan acceptable results.

Historical Context

There is simply no solid historical or biblicalevidence that will definitely establish a date forthe exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical evidence of the exodus itself.This should not be surprising even from a

historical point of view. On the one hand, wecould hardly expect slaves fleeing for their livesto stop and leave monuments and inscriptionsdescribing their escape. And we know from otherhistorical records, for example where there aretwo accounts from different countries about a battle, that Egyptian pharaohs did not erect

monuments to their failures and tended todescribe defeats as victories, much like modernpolitical parties still tend to do. So, if we arelooking for external verification of the exodus,historians are not able to help us much. Ratherthan disproving anything, this simply says that


30/59

we do not have the historical evidence to affirmor deny the event or to establish its date by thecriteria of historical critical methodology.

Historically, we simply do not know beyondprobability.

However, this does not mean that historicalinvestigation is of no value to us in the exodusnarratives, or that the narratives do not provideany historical evidence. We may not be able toanswer all of our specific questions. But there are

some features of the exodus story that generallyprovide a context for the biblical narratives. Forexample, from a sociological perspective the biblical traditions bear a clear memory ofEgyptian ancestry. The tradition remembered thatMoses had an Egyptian name, in spite of the factthat the traditions try to give it a Hebrew meaning

(Exod 2:10). In fact, several of the pharaohs bearthe name "mose" in various forms meaning "isborn" (Thutmose, Ahmosis, Rameses). Moses iseven mistaken for an Egyptian (Ex 2:19).

This places the narrative in an Egyptian contextthat then allows us to draw from our historicalknowledge about ancient Egypt in helping usunderstand features of the narrative. For example,we do know that there was a precedent for aSemitic "outsider" to govern Egypt, which makesJosephs position in Egypt credible. We know ofmassive building projects built by slave labor


31/59

such as described in Exodus. And there is goodevidence from Egyptian documents that many ofthe plagues would have corresponded to Egyptian

deities, providing not simply threatening miracles but a sustained challenge to Egypts religioussystem. Even the final plague struck at a coreEgyptian religious belief in which the heir ofpharaoh became an incarnation of the sun-god Rewhen he ascended the throne. The historical andcultural background forces us to engage the texton a far deeper level than reading the story as

either straightforward history on the one side ordoctrine on the other.

Of course, none of this "proves" the Bible, nordoes it tell us "what really happened." But it doesrender the biblical narratives moreunderstandable in a historical context. And if we

understand that context, we will likely be in abetter position to understand the impact of thebiblical narrative, not for what it tells us abouthistory, but for what it tells us about God.Finally, the historical issues and the methodsused to research them cannot really stand alone.We still do not have Scripture after we have"proven" something happened or did not happen.We only have history. And that is not really ourgoal in the study of Scripture. We have Scripturewhen people who have experienced God and hisself-revelation in human history, and who havecome to understand the significance of that


32/59

revelation, bear witness to God. We study thehistorical dimensions of Scripture in order thatwe might better hear and understand that witness

to God.

Our temptation is to assume that the Bible waswritten for us directly. Historical investigationhelps us realize that while Scripture has ongoingrelevance, it is not timeless (outside of time) anymore than Gods revelation in that history istimeless. Gods actions are and have always been

time conditioned for us, because he has chosen toreveal himself in human history, not apart from it.Since that is true, historical investigation willalways be necessary, not to prove that somethinghappened, or when it happened, or how, butrather to help us hear the confession about Godfrom the midst of Gods historically conditioned

self-revelation and the peoples historicallyconditioned witness. In that sense, whilehistorical investigation cannot prove much aboutthe Faith, it is a crucial tool of biblical study.

See:

http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.htmlhttp://www.cresourcei.org/copyright.html

Alternate views:
http://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.htmlhttp://www.cresourcei.org/copyright.htmlhttp://www.cresourcei.org/exodusdate.htmlhttp://www.cresourcei.org/copyright.html


33/59

The Exodus (Greek , Hebrew: ,Modern Yetsi'at Mitzrayim Tiberian [js ija mis ajim] Y' i ath Mi rayim ; "the exit from

Egypt") is the story of the departure of theIsraelites from ancient Egypt described in theHebrew Bible. Narrowly defined, the term refersonly to the departure from Egypt described in theBook of Exodus; more widely, it takes in thesubsequent law-givings and wanderings in thewilderness between Egypt and Canaan describedin the books of Leviticus, Numbers and

Deuteronomy.

The extant narrative is a product of the late exilicor the post-exilic period (6th to 5th centuriesBC), but the core of the narrative is older, beingreflected in the 8th to 7th century BCDeuteronomist documents.[1]

A minority of scholars assumes that the Iron Agenarrative has yet older sources that can be tracedto a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapseof the 13th century BC.[2]

The Book of Exodus tells how Moses leads theIsraelites out of Egypt and through the wildernessto Mount Sinai, where God reveals himself andoffers them a Covenant: they are to keep his torah(i.e. law, instruction), and in return he will betheir God and give them the land of Canaan. TheBook of Leviticus records the laws of God. The


34/59

Book of Numbers tells how the Israelites, lednow by their God, journey onwards from Sinaitowards Canaan, but when their spies report that

the land is filled with giants they refuse to go on.God then condemns them to remain in the desertuntil the generation that left Egypt passes away.After thirty-eight years at the oasis of KadeshBarnea the next generation travel on to theborders of Canaan. The Book of Deuteronomytells how, within sight of the Promised Land,Moses recalls their journeys and gives them new

laws. His death (the last reported event of theTorah) concludes the 40 years of the exodus fromEgypt.

Origins of the Exodus story

While the story in the books of Exodus, Numbersand Deuteronomy is the best-known account ofthe Exodus, there are over a hundred and fiftyreferences scattered through the Bible, and theonly significant body of work that does notmention it is the Wisdom literature.[3] Theearliest mentions are in the prophets Amos

(possibly) and Hosea (certainly), both active in8th century Israel; in contrast Proto-Isaiah andMicah, both active in Judah at much the sametime, never do; it thus seems reasonable toconclude that the Exodus tradition was important


35/59

in the northern kingdom in the 8th century, butnot in Judah.[4]

In a recent work, Stephen C. Russell traces the8th century prophetic tradition to three originallyseparate variants, in the northern kingdom ofIsrael, in Trans-Jordan, and in the southernkingdom of Judah. Russell proposes differenthypothetical historical backgrounds to eachtradition: the tradition from Israel, whichinvolves a journey from Egypt to the region of

Bethel, he suggests a memory of herders whocould move to and from Egypt in times of crisis;for the Trans-Jordanian tradition, which focuseson deliverance from Egypt without a journey, hesuggests a memory of the withdrawal of Egyptiancontrol at the end of the Late Bronze Age; and forJudah, where the tradition is preserved in the

Song of the Sea, he suggests the celebration of amilitary victory over Egypt, although it isimpossible to suggest what this victory may havebeen.[5]

The exodus from Egypt is the theme of theJewish holiday of Passover ("pesa "); the term continues to be used in the Passover Hagadah.[6]At the beginning of the Exodus narrative theIsraelites are instructed to prepare unleavenedbread as they will be leaving in haste, and tomark their doors with blood of the slaughtered


36/59

sheep so that the "Angel" or "the destroyer" will"pass over" them while killing the first-born ofEgypt. The Hebrew name for the festival,

"Pesa ", refers to the "skipping over", "jumping over" or "passing over" by God of Jewish houseswhile killing the first born of Egypt.

(Despite the biblical story, scholars believe thatthe Passover festival originated in a magic ritualto turn away demons from the household by painting the doorframe with the blood of a

slaughtered sheep.)[7]

Jewish tradition has preserved national andpersonal reminders of this pivotal narrative intodaily life. Examples of such reminders includethe wearing of 'tefilin' (phylacteries) on the handand forehead, which some Jews practice daily;

the wearing of 'tzitzit'; the eating of 'matzot'(unleavened bread) during the Pesach (Passover)holiday; the fasting of the firstborn a day beforePesach; the redemption of firstborn children andanimals; and even the observance of the Sabbath.

Composition of the Torah exodusnarrative

There are currently a number of competingtheories on the composition of the Exodus storycontained in the four books Exodus-Leviticus-


37/59


38/59

only cast into serious doubt by a series of bookswhich appeared in the 1970s.

An influential hypothesis within the"supplementary" model was advanced by JohnVan Seters in the 1970s - Van Seters proposedthat an author he calls the Jahwist wrote the base-story in the 6th century, and that this was laterexpanded by others, notably the Priestly school ofwriters - but what Van Seters means by "Jahwist"is very different to what the classical

documentary hypothesis means. His work wasinfluential, but scholars today tend to adopt a"fragmentary model" approach.

The most recent ideas on the origin of the fivebooks place Deuteronomy in the late 7th centurywith a revised version in the 6th, and the other

four books in the Persian period of the 5thcentury. It is generally agreed that the Exodustradition behind the five books predates thenarrative as told in Exodus, Numbers andDeuteronomy (since it also appears in the 8thcentury prophets), but there is no consensus onjust what might lie behind the tradition.

Historicity debate

According to biblical scholar Carol A. Redmount,the Bible's exodus story is best seen as theology


39/59

told in the form of history, illustrating how theGod of Israel acted to save and strengthen hischosen people, the Israelites, and it is therefore

inappropriate to approach miraculous events suchas the burning bush and the plagues of Egypt ashistory.[8] Nevertheless, the discussion of apossible historical nucleus of the narrative has along history, and continues to attract attention.

The following section discusses some of the morepopular aspects of the Exodus story.

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38 NIV, the Israelitesnumbered "about six hundred thousand men onfoot, besides women and children," plus many

non-Israelites and livestock.[9] Numbers 1:46gives a more precise total of 603,550.[10] The600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the"mixed multitude" of non-Israelites would havenumbered some 2 million people,[11] comparedwith an entire estimated Egyptian population ofaround 3 million.[12] Marching ten abreast, and

without accounting for livestock, they wouldhave formed a line 150 miles long.[13] Noevidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such ademographic and economic catastrophe, nor isthere evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted(or could have hosted) these millions of people


40/59

and their herds,[14] nor of a massive populationincrease in Canaan, which is estimated to havehad a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the

time.[15] Some scholars have interpreted thesenumbers as a mistranslation - reading the Hebrewword eleph as "600 families" rather than 600,000men, reduces the Hebrew population involved toroughly 20,000 individuals,[16][17] - but theview of mainstream modern biblical scholarshipis that the Exodus story was written not ashistory, but to demonstrate God's purpose and

deeds with his Chosen People, Israel; theessentially theological motivation of the storyexplains the improbability of the scenariodescribed above.[18] It has also been suggestedthat the 603,550 people delivered from Egypt(according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply anumber, but contains a secret message, a

gematria for bene yisra'el kol ros, "the children ofIsrael, every individual;"[19] while the number600,000 symbolises of the total destruction of thegeneration of Israel which left Egypt, none ofwhom lived to see the Promised Land.[20]

Archaeology

The archaeological evidence of the largelyindigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming,"and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt ora 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai


41/59

wilderness."[21] For this reason, mostarchaeologists have abandoned the archaeologicalinvestigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a

fruitless pursuit."[22] A century of research byarchaeologists and Egyptologists has found noevidence which can be directly related to theExodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and theescape and travels through the wilderness,[18]and it has become increasingly clear that IronAge Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel -has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[23][24] the

culture of the earliest Israelite settlements isCanaanite, their cult-objects are those of theCanaanite god El, the pottery remains in the localCanaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is earlyCanaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishingthe "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is anabsence of pig bones, although whether this can

be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to otherfactors remains a matter of dispute.[25]

Anachronisms

The late origins of the Exodus story are evident

also in a number of anachronisms whichcharacterise it. For example, Pharaoh's fear thatthe Israelites might ally themselves with foreigninvaders makes little sense in the context of the New Kingdom, when Canaan was part of anEgyptian empire and Egypt faced no enemies in


42/59

that direction, but does make sense in a 1stmillennium context, when Egypt wasconsiderably weaker and faced invasion first

from the Persians and later from Seleucid Syria.[26]

Other anachronisms point to a period in the mid-1st millennium: Ezion-Geber, (one of the Stationsof the Exodus), for example, dates to a period between the 8th and 6th centuries BC withpossible further occupation into the 4th century

BC,[27] while the place-names on the Exodusroute which can be identified - Goshen, Pithom,Succoth, Ramesses and Kadesh Barnea - point tothe geography of the 1st millennium rather thanthe 2nd.[28]

Chronology

The chronology of the Exodus story likewiseunderlines its essentially religious rather thanhistorical nature. The number seven, for example,was sacred to God in Judaism, and so theIsraelites arrive at Sinai, where they will meet

God, at the beginning of the seventh week aftertheir departure from Egypt,[29] while theerection of the Tabernacle, God's dwelling-placeamong his people, occurs in the year 2666 afterGod creates the world, two-thirds of the waythrough a four thousand year era which


43/59

culminates in or around 164 BC, the year of therededication of the Second Temple.[30][31]

Route

The Torah lists the places where the Israelitesrested. A few of the names at the start of theitinerary, including Ra'amses, Pithom andSuccoth, are reasonably well identified witharchaeological sites on the eastern edge of theNile delta,[32] as is Kadesh-Barnea,[33] wherethe Israelites spend 38 years after turning backfrom Canaan, but other than that very little iscertain. The crossing of the Red Sea has beenvariously placed at the Pelusic branch of the Nile,anywhere along the network of Bitter Lakes andsmaller canals that formed a barrier toward

eastward escape, the Gulf of Suez (SSE ofSuccoth) and the Gulf of Aqaba (S of Ezion-Geber), or even on a lagoon on the Mediterraneancoast.

The biblical Mt. Sinai is identified in Christiantradition with Jebel Musa in the south of the Sinai

Peninsula, but this association dates only fromthe 3rd century AD and no evidence of theExodus has been found there.[34]

The most obvious routes for travelers through theregion were the royal roads, the "king's


44/59

highways" that had been in use for centuries andwould continue in use for centuries to come. TheBible specifically denies that the Israelites went

by the Way of the Philistines (purple line on themap to the right), the northerly route along theMediterranean coast. This leaves the Way of Shur(green) and the Way of Seir (black) as probableroutes, the former having the advantage ofheading toward Kadesh-Barnea.

Date

The Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. 2nd century CE)determines the commencement of the Exodus to2448 AM (1312 BCE). This date has becometraditional in Rabbinic Judaism.[35]

In the first half of the 20th century the Exoduswas dated on the basis of 1 Kings 6:1, whichstates that the Exodus occurred 480 years beforethe construction of Solomon's Temple, the fourthyear of Solomon's reign. Equating the biblicalchronology with dates in history is notoriouslydifficult, but Edwin Thiele's widely accepted

reconciliation of the reigns of the Israelite andJudahite kings would imply an Exodus around1450 BC, during the reign of Pharaoh ThutmoseIII (1479-1425 BC).[36]


45/59

By the mid-20th century it had become apparentthat the archaeological record made this dateimpossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had

already been discovered in 1881,[37] andEgyptian records of that period do not mentionthe expulsion of any group that could beidentified with over 2 million Hebrew slaves, norany events which could be identified with theBiblical plagues.

In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find

traces of the simultaneous destruction ofCanaanite cities c.1400 BC - in fact many ofthem, including Jericho, the first Canaanite cityto fall to the Israelites according to the Book ofJoshua, were uninhabited at the time.

The lack of evidence led William F. Albright, the

leading biblical archaeologist of the period, to propose an alternative, "late" Exodus around1200-1250 BC.

His argument was based on the many strands ofevidence, including the destruction at Beitel(Bethel) and some other cities at around thatperiod, and the occurrence from the same periodof distinctive house-types and a distinctive round-collared jar which, in his opinion, was to beidentified with in-coming Israelites. Albright'stheory enjoyed popularity around the middle of


46/59

the 20th century, but has now been generallyabandoned in scholarship.[38]

The evidence which led to the abandonment ofAlbright's theory include: the collar-rimmed jarshave been recognised as an indigenous formoriginating in lowland Canaanite cities centuriesearlier;[39] while some "Joshua" cities, includingHazor, Lachish, Megiddo and others, havedestruction and transition layers around 1250-1145 BC, others, including Jericho, have no

destruction layers or were uninhabited during thisperiod;[15][40] and the Merneptah Stele indicatesthat a people called "Israel" were already knownin Canaan by the reign of Merneptah (1213-1203BC).[41]

Modern theories on the date - all of them popular

rather than scholarly - tend to concentrate on an"early" Exodus, prior to c.1440 BC. The majorcandidates are:

* The 2006 History Channel documentary TheExodus Decoded revived an idea first put forwardby the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus,identifing the Israelites with the Hyksos, the non-Egyptian rulers of Egypt expelled by theresurgent native Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt,c.1550-1530 BC. However, there are numerousdifficulties with the theory, and it is not acceptedby scholars.[42][43]


47/59

* David Rohl's 1995 A Test of Time attemptedto correct Egyptian history by shortening the

Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost300 years. As a by-result the synchronisms withthe biblical narrative have changed, making the13th Dynasty pharaoh Djedneferre Dudimose(Dedumesu, Tutimaos, Tutimaios) the pharaoh ofthe Exodus.[44] Rohl's theory, however, hasfailed to find support among scholars in his field.[45]

* From time to time there have been attemptsto link the Exodus with the eruption of theAegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BC on thegrounds that it could provide a naturalexplanation of the Plagues of Egypt and thecrossing of the Red Sea - geologist Barbara J

Sivertsen's 2009 book "The Parting of the Sea:How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and PlaguesShaped the Story of the Exodus" is the mostrecent.[46]

Extra-Biblical accounts

The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodusis by Hecataeus of Abdera (late 4th centuryBCE): the Egyptians blame a plague onforeigners and expel them from the country,whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to


48/59

Canaan, where he founds the city of Jerusalem.[47]

More than a dozen later stories repeat the samebasic theme, most of them with a marked anti-Jewish tendency.[47] The best-known is that bythe Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd centuryBCE), known from two quotations by the 1stcentury AD Jewish historian Josephus.

In the first Manetho describes the Hyksos, their

lowly origins in Asia, their dominion over andexpulsion from Egypt, and their subsequentfoundation of the city of Jerusalem and itstemple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies theHyksos with the Jews.[48]

In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000

lepers and other "impure people," led by a priestnamed Osarseph, join forces with the formerHyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take overEgypt. They wreak havoc until eventually thepharaoh and his son chase them out to the bordersof Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses.[49]

Manetho differs from the other writers indescribing his renegades as Egyptians rather thanJews, and in using a name other than Moses fortheir leader[47] - many scholars regard theidentification of Osarseph with Moses as a later


49/59

addition to the text,[50] although the questionremains open.[51]

Notes[for purple text]

1. John McDermott, "Reading the Pentateuch"(Paulist Press, 2002) p.22

2. so e.g., Hoffmeier (1996) and Kitchen(2003)

3. Stephen C. Russell, "Images of Egypt inearly biblical literature" (Walter de Gruyter, 2009), p.1

4. Niels Peter Lemche, "Early Israel:anthropological and historical studies" (Brill, 1985)p.327

5. Stephen C. Russell, "Images of Egypt inearly biblical literature" (Walter de Gruyter, 2009),pp.194-197

6. , , Passover Hagadah according to Mishneh Torah

(Hebrew original), (mechon-mamre.org)

7. Bernard Malcolm Levinson, "Deuteronomyand the hermeneutics of legal innovation" (OUP,1997) p.58


50/59

8. Carol A. Redmount, Bitter Lives: Israel InAnd Out of Egypt, in "The Oxford History of the

Biblical World" (ed. Michael D. Coogan, OUP, 1998),p.64 (see full argument on pp. 63-64)

9. Exodus 12

10. Numbers 1

11. Mattis Kantor ("The Jewish Time Line

Encyclopedia" Jason Aronson Inc., 1989, 1992) placesthe estimate at 2 million "[i]n normal demographicextensions...."

12. Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert(eds), "Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt (Routledge,

1999)p.251

13. Cline, Eric H. (2007), From Eden to Exile:Unraveling Mysteries of the Bible, NationalGeographic Society, ISBN 978-1426200847 p.74

14. William Dever, "Who Were The EarlyIsraelites And Where Did They Come From?", p.19

15. AB Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2002). The Bible Unearthed:Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the


51/59

Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Free Press. ISBN 978-0684869131.

16. Abraham Malamat, "Aspects of TribalSocieties in Mari and Israel", in XVe RencontreAssyriologique Internationale: La Civilisation deMari, Les Congrs et Colloques de lUniversit deLige, 1967, p.135 - referenced at Associates forBiblical Research

17. Colin J. Humphreys, "The Number of

People in the Exodus from Egypt: DecodingMathematically the Very Large Numbers in NumbersI and XXVI," Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998), pp. 196-213.

18. Carol L. Meyers, "Exodus", New CambridgeBible Commentary series (Cambridge University

Press, 2005) p.5

19. Barry Beitzel, "Exodus 3:14 and the divine Name: A Case of Biblical Paronomasia, "TrinityJournal 1 NS (1980), pp.6-7

20. Philippe Guillaume, "Tracing the Origin ofthe Sabbatical Calendar in the Priestly Narrative,Genesis 1 to Joshua 5", Journal of Hebrew Scriptures,vol.5 art.13, pp.8, 15

21. Dever, William G. (2002). What Did theBiblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?.


52/59

Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X. p.99

22. Dever, William G. (2002). What Did theBiblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?.Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X. p.99

23. Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds.(1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeologicaland Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel

Exploration Society. ISBN 1880317206.

24. Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw. ed. Adictionary of archaeology

25. (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). WileyBlackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0631235835.http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=false

26. Anne E. Killebrew, "Biblical Peoples andEthnicity" (Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) p.176

27. Alberto Soggin, "An Introduction to the

History of Israel and Judah", (SCM Press, 1999, transfrom Italian 3rd edition 1998), pp. 128-9

28. Gary D. Pratico, "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal"
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=falsehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=zmvNogJO2ZgC&pg=PA313&dq=%22Iron+Age+Israel%22+origins+in+Canaan,&hl=en&ei=hThOTZaRK8uZhQe_vqWoDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&sqi=2&ved=0CDsQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22Iron%20Age%20Israel%22%20origins%20in%20Canaan%2C&f=false


53/59

Bulletin of the American Schools of OrientalResearch, No. 259 (Summer, 1985), pp.1-32

29. John Van Seters, "The Geography of theExodus", in John Andrew Dearman, Matt PatrickGraham, (eds), "The land that I will show you: essayson the history and archaeology of the Ancient NearEast in honour of J. Maxwell Miller" (SheffieldAcademic Press, 2001), pp.255ff

30. Carol L. Meyers, "Exodus", New Cambridge

Bible Commentary (Cambridge University Press,2005) p.143

31. James Maxwell Miller and John HaralsonHayes, "A History of Ancient Israel and Judah"(Westminster John Knox, 1986) p.59

32. Philip Davies, Scribes and Schools: TheCanonization of the Hebrew Scriptures (WestminsterJohn Knox 1998) p. 180

33. John Van Seters, "The Geography of theExodus," in Silberman, Neil Ash (editor), The LandThat I Will Show You: Essays in History andArchaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J.Maxwell Miller (

34. Sheffield Academic Press, 1997) p.255ff.,ISBN-978-1850756507


54/59

35. Mercer Dictionary of the Bible, entry for Kadesh Barnea (Mercer University Press, 1991) p.485

36. James Hoffmeier, "Ancient Israel in Sinai:The Evidence for the Authenticity of the ExodusTradition" (Oxford University Press, 2005) p.115ff

37. Seder Olam Rabbah, Finegan, Jack,Handbook of Biblical Chronology, Revised Ed.,Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998, p. 111

38. Howard, David M. Jr. and Michael A.Grisanti (editors) (2003). "The Date of the Exodus (byWilliam H. Shea)". Giving the Sense: Understandingand Using the Old Testament Historical Texts. KregelPublications. ISBN 9781844740161.

39. "Tuthmosis", Egyptology Online

40. Kitchen, Kenneth A (2003). On theReliability of the Old Testament. Eerdmans. pp. 30910. ISBN 978-0802849601.

41. Mary Joan Winn Leith, "How a PeopleForms", review of "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity: AnArchaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites,Philistines and Early Israel" (2001), BiblicalArchaeology Review, May/June 2006, pp.22-23


55/59

42. Dever, William G (2003). Who Were theEarly Israelites and Where Did They Come From?.Eerdmans. pp. 4446. ISBN 0802844162.

43. Currie, Robert and Hyslop, Stephen G. TheLetter and the Scroll: What Archaeology Tells UsAbout the Bible. Washington, D.C.: NationalGeographic, 2009.

44. "Debunking "The Exodus Decoded"".September 20, 2006.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspx. . Retrieved 8 August2009.

45. "The Exodus Decoded: An ExtendedReview" Tuesday 19 Dec 2006.http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459

Retrieved 8 August 2009.

46. Rohl, David (1995). "Chapter 13". A Test ofTime. Arrow. pp. 3418. ISBN 0099416565.

47. Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journalof Ancient and Medieval Studies XIII (1996).Available at [1]

48. Sivertsen, Barbara J (2009). The Parting ofthe Sea: How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues
http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspxhttp://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspxhttp://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspxhttp://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspxhttp://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459


56/59

Shaped the Story of the Exodus. Princeton UniversityPress. ISBN 9780691137704.

49. K.L. Noll, "Canaan and Israel in Antiquity:An Introduction" (Sheffield Academic Press, 2001)p.34

50. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeksand Barbarians, in L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison(ed), "Josephus' Contra Apion" (Brill, 1996), pp.121-2

51. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeksand Barbarians, in L.H. Feldman and J.R. Levison(eds), "Josephus' Contra Apion" (Brill, 1996), pp.134-5

52. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeksand Barbarians, in Louis H. Feldman and John R.

Levison (eds), "Josephus' Contra Apionem: studies inits character and context" (Brill, 1996) p.135

53. Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus's interpretationof the Bible", (University of California Press, 1998)p.342

Bibliography

Yohanan Aharoni. The Archaeology of theLand of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press,1982. ISBN 0-664-21384-7. This book is notable


57/59

for the large number of Ramesside cartouchesand finds it cites throughout Israel.

Jan Assman, Moses the Egyptian: The Memoryof Egypt in Western Monotheism, First HarvardUniversity Press, 1997.

John J. Bimson. Redating the Exodus. Sheffield,England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. ISBN0-907459-04-8.

Johannes C. de Moor. "Egypt, Ugarit andExodus" in Ugarit, Religion and Culture,Proceedings of the International Colloquium onUgarit, Religion and Culture, edited by N. Wyattand W. G. E. Watson. Mnster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. ISBN 3-927120-37-5.

Dever, William (2001). What Did the BiblicalWriters Know, and When Did They Know It?Eerdmans. http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=falsehttp://books.google.com.au/books?id=6-VxwC5rQtwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=What+did+the+biblical+writers+know,+and+when+did+they+know+it&source=bl&ots=hUc37Tquuc&sig=G5sPWFC-oG2TyfnLQz42GX7zutQ&hl=en&ei=i7PsTOu2F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false


58/59

Dever, William, Who Were the Early Israelitesand Where Did They Come From?, Eerdman's,2003.

Encyclopaedia Judaica. S.v. "Population".ISBN 0-685-36253-1.

Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, edited byFrerichs, Lesko & Dever, Indianapolis:Eisenbrauns, 1997. ISBN 1-57506-025-6.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.The Bible Unearthed. New York: Free Press,2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8.

James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: theevidence for the authenticity of the Exodustradition, Oxford University Press, 1996, 1999,

ISBN 9780195130881.

James Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai:theevidence for the authenticity of the wildernesstradition, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN9780195155464.

Thomas E. Levy and Mohammed Sajjar."Edom & Copper", Biblical ArchaeologicalReview (BAR), July/August, 2006: 24-35.


59/59

Mark McEntire, Struggling with God: AnIntroduction to the Pentateuch, Mercer UniversityPress, 2008.

Carol Meyers, Exodus, Cambridge UniversityPress, 2005)

Noll, K. L. Canaan and Israel in Antiquity,Sheffield Academic Press, 2001.

Nahum Sarna. "Six hundred thousand men on

foot" in Exploring Exodus: The Origins ofBiblical Israel, New York: Schocken Books(1996): ch. 5. ISBN 0-8052-1063-6

Hershel Shanks, William G. Dever, Baruch

Halpern and P. Kyle McCarter. The Rise ofAncient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian

Institution October 26, 1991, BiblicalArchaeological Society, 1992. ISBN 1-880317-05-2

Documents

Is Bible History Reliable? The Strange Case of the Walls of Jericho