Click here to send us Questions or
Comments

Copyright © 1997-2006
High
Top Media
All
Rights Reserved.

Legal
Notices

For April-June 2004
Volume 7 Number 2

Chronology of the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan

In
this two part series biblical historian Richard Paige shows how the
archaeological data can be explained.

by
Richard H. Paige

PART
I 13th or 15th Century?

When was the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan? This
is probably the single most complicated area in biblical studies today.
The Bible indicates one time period; most scholars believe it was at
another time. We need to understand the reason for this confusion.

Basic assumptions

To help us understand why this is such a controversial issue,
we need to understand the assumptions various scholars bring to the
subject. While there are two basic approaches―either the historical
accounts of the Bible were written under divine inspiration or they were
not―the situation is more complicated than
this.

Editor's Note

The author of
this article died in 1994. He taught the ancient Israel courses at
Ambassador University and in this article he condensed six lectures
concerning the exodus and conquest. Before his untimely death he
gave his notes and materials to the editor. This article remains
timely and we hope you find it of
interest.

Some scholars believe that the Bible is inspired in its
spiritual message but not in the physical details―especially those
relating to historical accounts. Others claim that nothing in the Bible
can be viewed as "inspired writings": that the Bible simply records the
ideas of men. Yet, while some of this latter group of scholars
understandably view the Bible as essentially worthless (as a historical
source) unless its statements are confirmed by external evidence, other
scholars in this group have a great deal of respect for the accuracy of
the text.

What do these assumptions have to do with establishing a date
for the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan? A great deal. Those
who do not believe the Bible is inspired in its historical material do not
feel there's a need to look for a harmony between what the Bible says and
what is found in the archaeological record. They don't get upset when they
find discrepancies; they accept only "objective" (i.e., non-biblical
evidence).

Those who believe that the biblical account has been inspired
to be historically accurate must look for agreement between what the Bible
says and what is found in the archaeological record. They are disturbed
when historians date a biblical event to a time that cannot be harmonized
with statements about that event in the Bible. If discrepancies appear,
the chronological placement (rather than the biblical text) must be
adjusted. A date that is in accord with the apparent meaning of the
biblical text must be preferred, even if there is no evidence outside the
Bible that justifies that date.

Scholars shouldn't rush to say that the text is in error
whenever they find what seems to be a discrepancy between archaeological
evidence and the apparent meaning of the text. One should wait patiently.
Later discoveries often explain the difficulties in the text. For example,
I
Chronicles 5:26, "The God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king
of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgathpilneser king of Assyria" (Authorized
Version). It looks like God stirred up two kings. But the verse continues,
"and he carried them away." Who is "he"? The pronoun and verb are
singular, but two kings are mentioned, joined by wa, the Hebrew
conjunctive for "and."

Why doesn't the subject match the verb? Many explanations were
offered to explain this "error" in the text. However, none proved to be
necessary. Archaeologists eventually discovered that the Assyrian king
Tilgathpilneser gave himself the name Pul when he conquered Babylon. So it
was one man; that's why it has a singular verb. The Hebrew conjunctive
wa (which can also mean "that is to say") should have been
translated to reflect this meaning, rather than the more usual meaning of
"and." The newer translations have corrected the translation of this verse
to accord with this new understanding.

Patience is often needed―until additional information becomes
available that will clarify seeming peculiarities in the text. But many
modern-critical scholars are impatient, and are quick to advance their
personal corrections of the text so that the text will agree with their
conclusions.

The year of the
Exodus

If we view the historical material in the Bible as inspired of
God, we must place great weight on certain scriptures that concern the
date of the Exodus. The most important is I
Kings 6:1: "And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year
after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt, in the
fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel...that he began to build the
house of the LORD."

This verse identifies the fourth year of Solomon's reign as
being the 480th year after the Exodus. Scholars do not agree exactly when
Solomon's fourth year was, but many would accept it as being about 964 to
963 B.C.E. If the Exodus was 480 years before, it would have been about
1443 B.C.E., in the middle of the 15th century B.C.E.

Pharaoh of the
Exodus

18th Dynasty

Pharaoh

Low
Chronology
(Stern 1993:1530)

High
Chronology
(Stern  1993:1530)

Ahmosis or
Ahmose

1550-1525

1570-1546

Amenophis
I or Amenhotep I

1525-1504

1546-1526

Thutmosis
I or Thutmose I

1504-1492

1525-1512

Thutmosis
II or Thutmose II (died at about the age of 30 after a
reign of some 14 years)

1492-1479

c.
1512-1504

Hatshepsut
(both stepmother and aunt of Thutmose
III)

1479-1457

1503-1482

Thutmosis
III or Thutmose III

1479-1425

1504-1450

Amenophis
II or Amenhotep II

1427-1400

1450-1425

Thutmosis
IV or Thutmose IV

1400-1390

1425-1417

Amenophis
III or Amenhotep III

1390-1352

1417-1379

Amenophis
IV or Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten)

1352-1336

1379-1362

Smenkhkare

1338-1336

1336-1361

Tutankhamun

1336-1327

1361-1352

Aya

1327-1323

1352-1348

Haremhab

1323-1295

1348-1320

If one examines Egyptian history (using the "high chronology"
for the 18th dynasty), 1443 would place the Exodus in the 10th year of the
reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II (some books prefer the Greek variant
Amenophis II). Do the surviving records of ancient Egypt offer any support
for this? We have available to us Egyptian records that record the deeds
of Amenhotep II (especially his military campaigns). It is interesting to
note that the records available to us fail to list any campaigns after his
ninth year (1444 B.C.E.). His successor, Thutmose IV, launched no
campaigns whatsoever. It wasn't until the reign of the next pharaoh,
Amenhotep III, that there was a renewal of Egyptian imperial activity.

This gap is significant because it occurred during the period
known as the 18th dynasty of Egypt―one of its most powerful, most
expansionist, most imperialistic periods. Almost every pharaoh in this
dynasty campaigned actively somewhere to expand Egyptian power. For
example, Thutmose III, the father of Amenhotep II, was one of the greatest
conquerors in Egyptian history.

Amenhotep II was following right in his father's footsteps up
through his ninth year and then, suddenly, imperial expansion stopped. It
wasn't until the days of his grandson that Egyptian power again began to
expand.

This is what we would expect, given the events surrounding the
Exodus. The army of Pharaoh was drowned in the sea. The Israelites
"borrowed" from the Egyptians. The slaves (both the Israelites and the
"mixed multitude") left. The plagues would have caused great loss of
livestock, the loss of a harvest. These factors would have had a great
negative impact on the Egyptian economy.

Also, the last plague killed the firstborn. In Egyptian
society, government offices were usually passed from father to son,
usually the firstborn. The trained administrative core of Egypt, a lot of
top generals, etc., would have been killed. When they all died, it would
have left the nation in chaos. It would have taken more than a generation
for them to recover enough to be able to launch outward again.

Circumstances of Moses'
adoption

Moses was adopted by the "daughter of Pharaoh." What was his
potential as an adopted son―what did he give up when he left Egypt?
"Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of
Pharaoh's daughter" (Hebrews
11:24).

But what did this title mean? In the Egyptian royal family, the
throne did not pass to the heir just because he was the son of the
pharaoh. Based on the Isis/Osiris myth, a daughter of the ruling pharaoh
(known as the "throne princess") was the one through whom the crown was
usually inherited. It was the son of the pharaoh by the daughter of the
previous pharaoh (the throne princess), who usually became the next
pharaoh.

If the throne princess was barren, a son of the pharaoh by a
secondary wife would usually be designated as the heir. In order to
strengthen his claim to the throne, it was a common practice for the heir
to marry his sister, or half-sister, who became the new "throne princess.
(A man who was not the son of the previous pharaoh might secure the throne
by this method as well.) The preferred method of succession to the throne,
however, was for the son of the pharaoh and his chief wife (the throne
princess) to be the heir. He, then, was often referred to as the "son of
Pharaoh's daughter" to highlight the legitimacy of his claim to the
throne.

Thus, when Moses refused to be called "the son of Pharaoh's
daughter," he was refusing to become the heir to the throne. He chose "to
suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of
sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures in Egypt" (verses
25-26).

While this background information is interesting, is there any
likelihood that Moses would have been adopted by a "throne princess" of
the 18th dynasty of Egypt?

The Tomb of
Hatshepsut, "throne princess" of the 18th dynasty. A BibArch™
Photo.

Scripture tells us that Moses was 80 years old at the time of
the Exodus; if we use 1443 B.C.E. as the date of the Exodus, it would
place Moses' birth in 1523. The throne princess (daughter of the previous
pharaoh) at that time was named Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut was the chief wife
of Thutmose II. They were childless. Hatshepsut, then, if we have dated
events correctly, would have been the woman who adopted Moses and groomed
him to be the next pharaoh. Is there anything in the Egyptian records to
suggest that this is what might have happened?

Thutmose II, Hatshepsut's husband, died while Moses was still
young. Thutmose II had decreed that Hatshepsut should rule jointly with
Thutmose III, his son by a secondary wife. Although Thutmose III was
accorded the royal titles, Hatshepsut effectively exercised the real power
alone. Indeed, contrary to all precedent, she declared herself pharaoh. In
keeping with this declaration, she had herself depicted in monumental
statues as a man―with a masculine physique and even with the traditional
false beard. All the traditional titles of pharaoh were appropriated by
her, with only one exception―the mighty bull.

Hatshepsut was eventually overthrown by Thutmose III about
1483―when Moses would have been about 40 years old! Was that a
coincidence, or were the events related? Could the fact that Hatshepsut's
designated successor was found to be a murderer of an Egyptian (Exodus
2:14-15) have been the key to Thutmose III's success in winning the
support of leading Egyptians in his power struggle with Hatshepsut? If
this is the case, Moses would have had good reason to flee Egypt.

Additional evidence
for a 15th-century date

As we have seen above, I
Kings 6:1 indicates that the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of
Canaan occurred in the 15th century B.C.E. The known facts of Egyptian
history seem to accord well with this chronological placement as well.
However, at least one other scripture also seems to lend support for a
15th-century date. This is Judges
11:26. This verse relates Jephthah's attempt to counter the Ammonite
oppression of the Israelites living east of the Jordan River. Seeking to
avoid a military confrontation, Jephthah engages in a diplomatic exchange
with the Ammonites in which he states that Israel had been living east of
the Jordan for 300 years.

Most everyone agrees that Jephthah lived around 1100 B.C.E.
Since Jephthah placed the Conquest about 300 years earlier, it would place
that event about 1400 B.C.E., again supporting the traditional
15th-century date.

Finally, let's consider the contribution (although it is minor)
of the series of documents found in the royal archives at Tel El-Amarna
(the Arabic name for the city that was the capital of Egypt during the
reign of Pharaoh Akhenaton). These tablets include the diplomatic
correspondence of not only Akhenaton, but that of the last half of the
reign of his father, Amenhotep III. These tablets reveal much about the
state of affairs in Canaan during the period from 1400 to about 1350
B.C.E.

Since the traditional date for the beginning of the Israelite
Conquest is about 1403, the letters might be expected to mention the
Israelites. Indeed, the letters from the kings of Jerusalem, Hazor and
Megiddo mention a people called Apiru who were destabilizing the
region.

As modem-critical scholars have correctly pointed out, the term
Apiru is not necessarily linguistically linked with the term
Hebrew; nor is it an ethnic term, since it was used from about 2000
to about 600 B.C.E. to describe any group that was outside the established
social order. Thus, although no positive correlation can be made (other
than the timing of the incursions of these armed "marauders"), the Amarna
tablets do offer some general support for the thesis of a 15th-century
date for the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest.

Evidence for a 13th-century Exodus

Based on I
Kings 6:1, the Exodus can be dated to the middle of the 15th century,
coinciding with what appears to have been a rather sudden collapse in
Egyptian political and military power. Forty years earlier, we find
evidence of a tremendous power struggle in which an overly ambitious
female pharaoh was thwarted in her previously successful attempt to
block the accession of the "rightful" heir to meaningful royal power.
Forty years before that, there is evidence of a childless throne princess,
who, conceivably, would have had strong motives to adopt a son―especially
one seemingly provided for her by the god of the Nile.

All these details are what we would expect to find in the
historical record if the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan took
place in the 15th century B.C.E.

So why do many
modern-critical scholars insist on a 13th-century Exodus? Even if they
do, why should we even consider their reasons? First, we must realize
that the conclusions of the modern critics are not irrational; they are
based on evidence―evidence that we must look at. In the next several
pages, I'll attempt to summarize that evidence. Second, we need to know
what the criticisms of the traditional date are if we are to seek a
satisfactory means of rebutting the criticisms.

As we will see, there are legitimate alternatives to the
conclusions of the modem critics―alternatives that do not contradict the
biblical account. Although these may be satisfactory to us, we can't
expect these alternative answers to convict the modern-critical scholars.
For they not only see no need to eliminate any apparent contradictions
between the archaeological evidence and the biblical text, but will not
accept the biblical text as evidence unless it is supported by unequivocal
"extra-biblical" (i.e., archaeological or secular literary) evidence.
Given the current state of archaeological knowledge, this is not always
possible.

Evidence from Egypt

Scholars
did not begin to criticize the traditional 15th century date of the Exodus
and the Israelite Conquest until a lot of archaeological research had
taken place in Egypt and Palestine. Let's summarize the evidence that led
to their conclusion that one should look to a time―other than the 15th
century for evidence of these events:

The city of Rameses that
is mentioned in the biblical text (Exodus
1:11) as one of the "treasure cities" built by the enslaved
Israelites must have been named for Pharaoh Rameses II, who lived in the
13th century. Earlier, scholars had thought the name Rameses was simply
a historical update given by a later editor (similar to the mention of
the city of Dan in Genesis
14, even though it wasn't named Dan until the time of the Judges).
However, archaeologists excavating the city built by Rameses II in
Goshen couldn't find any remains of an earlier city from the 15th
century.

Although she may have been
motivated to do so, there are no Egyptian records of Hatshepsut having
adopted anyone as her son.

During the 15th century,
the 18th dynasty of Egypt had its capital in Thebes, 400 miles away from
Goshen. This would have made it impossible for Moses to relay messages
back and forth as described in the Bible.

Although conservative
scholars have associated the Amarna tablets' references to Apiru
with the Israelite invaders of Canaan, this association is not
conclusive and does not constitute proof that the 15th-century
invaders of Canaan were Hebrews.

Pharaoh Seti I campaigned
in Canaan in about 1300 B.C.E. and made no mention of the Israelite
tribes. Around the year 1290 (using the "middle chronology" for the 19th
dynasty), Rameses II campaigned in Canaan, and he didn't mention the
Israelite tribes, either. Moreover, the Bible doesn't mention the
military campaigns of either of these pharaohs. This seems to suggest
that the Israelites were not then in Canaan (as a 15th-century date
would demand).

Around 1225, Pharaoh
Merneptah campaigned in Canaan, and he does mention Israel. (In
fact, it is the first documentary evidence that has been found of the
name Israel.) Since the earlier pharaohs failed to mention the
presence of the Israelites, and Merneptah does, the conclusion
was drawn that the Israelites must have arrived in Canaan between 1290
and 1225, rather than at the end of the 15th century.

Evidence from Edom and
Moab

Numbers
20 mentions that Moses sent messengers to the king of Edom, asking
permission to pass through his land on the way to Canaan. Edom refused,
threatening to fight Israel if they tried to pass through (verse 18). "So
Edom came out against them with many men, with a strong hand" (verse
20). Modern critics claim this implies there was a strong, settled
community in Edom. The same thing is implied about Moab, because the
Israelites went around Moabite territory, too.

In the 1930s Nelson Glueck (pronounced "Glick"), of Hebrew
Union College, conducted an archaeological survey in the lands east of the
Jordan River, including the area of ancient Ammon, Moab and Edom. Based on
his survey results, he concluded that there were no settled communities in
these areas between 2300 and 1300 B.C.E. If Israel had gone through in the
15th century, they could have walked through without asking anyone's
permission. Since Israel did ask permission, and Moab and Edom did
not exist as settled kingdoms until about 1300 B.C.E., the Israelites must
have made their requests during the 1200s (the 13th century B.C.E.).

Canaanite cities not
destroyed in the 15th century

Interesting as the items above may be―and strong arguments
against an Exodus and Israelite Conquest of Canaan during the 15th century
B.C.E.― evidence that began to be assembled from the intensive excavation
of Palestine west of the Jordan River during the 1930s and 1940s appeared
to be even more damaging to the traditional 15th-century dating of these
biblical events.

The 15th century is also known (in archaeological circles) as
Late Bronze I. If the traditional date for the Exodus is correct, the
Israelites would have invaded Canaan around 1400 B.C.E., the end of the
Late Bronze I period. So we should expect to find evidence that certain
Canaanite cities were destroyed at the end of the Late Bronze I.

The Bible gives us many
details about where the Israelites went and which cities they conquered.
Numbers
21:1-3 records the Israelites' first Canaanite conquest. The king of
Arad, in southern Canaan, attacked the Israelites. The Israelites
eventually defeated him, destroyed his cities and renamed one city Hormah.
However, archaeologists found that Arad wasn't inhabited during the Late
Bronze I―nothing existed on the site between about 2350 B.C.E.
(approximately the end of the Early Bronze Ill) and about 1100 B.C.E.
(Iron Age Ia).

After the Israelites had journeyed around Edom and Moab, they
began to enter the territory of King Sihon the Amorite. Sihon attacked,
and was defeated and the Israelites occupied Heshbon (Numbers
21:21-26). However, archaeologists found that Heshbon and Dibon (two
cities mentioned in the biblical text as having been destroyed by the
Israelites) were not even founded until the Iron Age (about the ninth
century B.C.E.).

After the Israelites crossed the Jordan River, they camped at
Gilgal, conquered Jericho and Ai, and were tricked into making an alliance
with Gibeon. Then the Israelites had to defend Gibeon when Gibeon was
attacked by the leaders of Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish and Eglon.
They chased the Canaanites, and Joshua
10 says they conquered the cities of Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron
and Debir. Then, in a northern campaign, after defeating a league of
Canaanite kings at the waters of Merom (in upper Galilee), they burned the
city of Hazor (Joshua
11).

What did the modern-critical scholars find when they looked at
the archaeological evidence? Let's begin with Jericho. Kathleen Kenyon, as
a result of her investigations at Jericho, concluded that the city had
been destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age (about 1550 B.C.E.).
She also concluded that the city remained uninhabited until around 1440,
whereupon it was continuously inhabited until 1325. According to the
traditional date for the Conquest, the destruction of Jericho would have
been about 1405 B.C.E. But―according to Dame Kathleen Kenyon― there was no
sign of any destruction of the city anytime between 1440 and 1325
B.C.E.

What about the conquest of Ai? Excavations were carried out by
a French team headed by Judith MarquetKrause in the 1930s and again
in the 1960s by an American team directed by Joseph Calloway. Both teams
concluded that Ai was destroyed near the end of the Early Bronze Age
(about 2440 B.C.E.), and it remained uninhabited until the Iron Ia
period (shortly after 1200 B.C.E.). Even then, it was an unwalled
village. Yet, not only does Joshua
7:5 mention a city gate (implying that Ai had a wall), but two
chapters of the Bible are devoted to the conquest of Ai―a city that
apparently did not even exist during the 15th century!

What about Gibeon? The archaeologists found that Gibeon was
inhabited in the Middle Bronze Age and in the Iron Age, but was
uninhabited during the entire Late Bronze Age (about 1550-1200 B.C.E.).
What of the cities that attacked Gibeon? Jerusalem did exist―according to
the evidence unearthed by the excavations in the City of David. We aren't
sure where the sites of Libnah and Eglon are. Jarmuth has been located,
but the evidence so far is too inconclusive for archaeologists to make any
determinations about its history during the Late Bronze Age.

Hebron apparently did not exist in the 15th century; it has
remains from the Late Bronze II (13th century), but not the Late Bronze I
period. At the site of Tel BeitMirsim (identified as the location of
Debir by W.F. Albright), again, there are no remains from the Late Bronze
I. Finally, although there was a destruction of Lachish during the Late
Bronze Age, it was apparently destroyed too late in the period to be
associated with the 15th century B.C.E.

All this archaeological evidence appears to be in conflict with
the dating of the Israelite Conquest in the end of the 15th century (end
of the Late Bronze I)―and thus in conflict with the date apparently
demanded by I
Kings 6:1 and Judges
11:26.

Let's look at northern Canaan. Joshua
11 mentions the Israelite victory over the king of Hazor and kings of
other northern areas. Then Joshua burned Hazor (verse
11). Here―at last―we find a positive match between the Bible and the
archaeological evidence! There is a 15thcentury destruction of
Hazor.

Out of a list of 14 cities that figure prominently in the
biblical account of the Conquest, we can find positive links with only
three of them (Jerusalem, Hazor and Lachish―the last being highly
suspect). All the other cities were either apparently uninhabited at the
time, or apparently continued to be occupied with no disruption (Jericho),
or cannot be identified (Eglon and Libnah), or have been insufficiently
excavated for conclusions to be drawn (Jarmuth).

The results of this archaeological research present major
problems to those who believe the Conquest was in the 15th century.
Although we'll find that there are answers to these problems―to be
discussed later―let's continue our examination of the evidence that so
strongly influenced the modem-critical scholars, not just against
the 15th-century date for the Conquest, but in favor of a
13th-century date.

Canaanite cities
destroyed in the 13th century

By now, I think you can understand why many scholars began to
look at I
Kings 6:1 more critically. Perhaps, they thought, they weren't getting
many "matches" between the biblical accounts and the archaeological
evidence because they were looking in the wrong time period. The evidence
caused the scholars to question the chronological information given in I
Kings 6:1. The scholars hadn't originally been critical of the
480-year figure in the text; it was only in the light of what they
considered to be conclusive archeological evidence that they went back to
the text and said, "Let's see if the number 480 can be understood in
another way."

The critical scholars claimed that the 480 years mentioned in
I
Kings 6:1 should not be taken literally. It is probably a secondary
number derived (they stated) as a result of multiplying 12 by 40, two
biblically important numbers. The writer (they stated), writing in the
days of Solomon (or later), didn't know how long it had been from the
Exodus to the fourth year of Solomon, but thought it was 12 generations.
He estimated the length of a generation as 40 years because one generation
had spent 40 years in the wilderness before dying out.

However, although individuals do survive longer, 25 years is a
better estimate for an average generation. Since the product of 12
generations times the more realistic 25 years per generation is 300, the
modern-critical scholars concluded that the Exodus took place about 300
years before Solomon―in the 13th century. This would have placed
the Israelite Conquest about 1225 B.C.E. (the Late Bronze IIb). They then
concentrated their attention on the archaeological record from that
period.

William Foxwell Albright had conducted a dig at Beitin, a
village believed to be the site of the biblical city of Bethel. At the
level of the Late Bronze IIb period, he found that a fire had destroyed
the whole city. Underneath the ashes were the remains of a very
sophisticated culture; above them was an inferior culture. This
destruction and sudden cultural change convinced Albright that he had
found evidence of Joshua's invasion―destruction of a sophisticated urban
Canaanite culture, followed by the Israelites, who had wandered the desert
for 40 years. Albright called it "a complete break from the Late Bronze
and the Iron Age strata. It is so complete that no bridge can be thrown
across it. We are compelled to identify it with the Israelite
conquest."

Archaeologists found more evidence for a late date in northern
Canaan. Almost all the northern Canaanite cities were destroyed in the
Late Bronze IIb (the 13th century B.C.E.). Albright led the way and others
joined, in no small part because Albright was so famous.

Dramatic cultural change
in the 13th century

I want to quote extensively from "Is the Biblical Account of
the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?" by Yigael Yadin
(Yadin
1982:). [Editor's note: parentheses show comments that were in the
original article; brackets show comments by Richard Paige.]

"All archaeologists agree that at the end of the Late Bronze
Age [about 1225]...the material culture we associate with this period
abruptly stopped [i.e., the Late Bronze Age culture was suddenly replaced
by an Iron Age culture].

"Late Bronze agriculture was based on fortified [walled]
city-states. At the end of the period, many of these cities were
destroyed. The archaeological evidence shows conflagrations and
destructions which cannot be attributed to famine or earthquakes. Sometime
later (that is, in a later archaeological stratum), a new and completely
different culture developed, sometimes on the destroyed site and sometimes
on a new site.

"This new culture (Iron Age culture) was initially rather poor
architecturally, so poor it can hardly be called urban. This culture
appears to reflect the first efforts at settlement by a semi-nomadic
people. While this is the >general pattern, certain destroyed sites
were rebuilt immediately with fortifications and the attributes of a
proper city.... The fact is, however, that excavation results from the
last 50 years or so support in a most amazing way (except in some cases to
be mentioned later) the basic historicity of the Biblical account.

"The Biblical narrative in broad outline tells us that at a
certain period nomadic Israelites attacked the city-state organization of
the Holy Land, destroying many cities and setting them on fire. Then,
slowly but surely, the Israelites replaced these cities with new,
unfortified cities or settlements. At the same time, they attempted to
occupy certain cities but were unsuccessful [Judges
1 lists some cities they tried to occupy but could not].

"The residents of those cities continued to live side by side
with the new invaders. As already indicated, this description―leaving out
the words 'Canaanite' or 'Israelite'―is exactly the picture which the
archaeological finds present to us: a complete system of fortified cities
collapsed and was replaced by a new culture whose material aspect can be
defined as the first efforts of semi-nomads to settle down."

Though the archaeological data did support some of the
biblical account, according to Yadin it contradicted many of the biblical
details. So, in accordance with the basic assumptions of many
modern-critical scholars, Yadin decided that the portions of the biblical
accounts of the Conquest that match the archaeological findings should be
regarded as authentic reports; the other parts of the accounts (that do
not match the archaeological findings) should be viewed as fictional
additions. The theory of men like Yadin is that there was a Conquest, but
the Bible only incidentally reflects the facts. The narrative, written
hundreds of years later, was just an approximation of how the Conquest
actually took place, and thus many of its details are hopelessly
inaccurate.

Problems with the
13th-century theory

Albright became convinced
that the archaeological evidence supported a 13th-century Conquest―but his
theory was based in large part on his excavation at Beitin, which he
concluded was Bethel. However, while Joshua
12:16 states that Joshua conquered "the king of Bethel" the Bible
does not state that Bethel itself was destroyed. Indeed, Judges
1:23-25 indicates that it continued to exist as a Canaanite
center until it was eventually occupied by the "house of Joseph"
several decades (at least) after the initial conquest of the land under
Joshua. So the archaeological evidence at Beitin can't really be said to
"match" the account in the Bible.

What about the Canaanite cities in the north? Many scholars
have been impressed by the large number of Canaanite cities that were
destroyed and burned in the last part of the Late Bronze Age (just before
the beginning of the Iron Age) and see this as the handiwork of the
Israelite invaders of Canaan. However, all of these cities were destroyed
by fire. The Bible specifically states that Joshua did not burn any
of the northern cities he conquered except Hazor (Joshua
11:12-13).

There are many other problems if one seeks to claim that the
archaeological evidence provides strong support for the idea that the
Israelites conquered Canaan during the late 13th century B.C.E. The
problem with attempting those that were destroyed in the same part of the Late
Bronze Age 11 (13th century B.C.E.) cannot be accomplished any more
successfully than the previous effort to match the evidence from the Late
Bronze I (15th century B.C.E.). [See summary of the article by J. Maxwell
Miller below.]

J. Maxwell
Miller: Most of the Evidence Doesn't
Fit

J. Maxwell Miller summarized some
of the problems with the 13th-century Conquest theory in the
beginning of an article in Palestine
Exploration Quarterly, JulyDecember
1977, entitled "Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of
Canaan: Some Methodological Observations" (Miller
1977).

"Albright's proposed correlation of
biblical and archaeological data [as being essentially correct
if you ignore some of the details] in terms of a
thirteenth-century B.C.E. exodus-conquest has served as a
standard working hypothesis, especially among English
speaking scholars, since the late
1930s....

"As artifactual data relevant to
the end of the Late Bronze Age have continued to
accumulate from Palestinian sites, the inclination has been to
attribute any -approximately thirteenth-century city
destruction to the  Israelite invaders, regardless
of whether the city in question is even
mentioned in the biblical conquest traditions. When
excavations at the cities which do figure in the
conquest traditions have yielded little or no LB [Late
Bronze] remains, this negative evidence has been explained
away in one fashion or another.

"Actually some of the archaeological evidence which was
available during the 1930s, especially that from Jericho and
Ai, was already then rather damaging to

Albright's position; and not all the archaeological
arguments which he was able to marshal in support
of a thirteenth-century exodus-conquest have
survived the test of time. Finally [note this] we
have reached the point, it seems to me, where more
archaeological evidence must be explained away in order
to maintain Albright's position than can be called upon
to support n" Most of the evidence doesn't
fit The archaeological situation at the cities which figure
prominently in the conquest tradition is as follows.
Hormah...Arad, Heshbon, Jericho, Ai, Gibeon and now Jarmuth
have yielded little or no evidence of even having been
occupied during LB, much less of having been destroyed during
the thirteenth century.... Hebron and Debir...appear to have
been occupied during LB-Iron I [c.1225-1200], but there is no
indication at any of these places of a major destruction which
could be attributed to an Israelite
invasion.

"Bethel [Beitin] was occupied and
destroyed more than once during LB-Iron I. But the
Bible conspicuously excludes Bethel from Joshua's
conquests.... Eglon has been associated with Tell
el-Hesi; but there is little to recommend this
identification, which leaves only Lachish and
Hazor. Here finally are two cities which the Bible
claims to have been conquered by Joshua and where
archaeological remains could be interpreted in terms of
a thirteenth-century conquest—not a very
high
percentage."

To be
continued in the July-September 2004 issue.

This article, specially edited and reformatted
for BibArchTM, was first published by The
Worldwide Church of God under the title
"Ancient Israel: Chronology of the Exodus and the Israelite Conquest of
Canaan" in Reviews You Can Use (Paige
1989) and used with permission.

Page last edited: 11/28/04
08:44
AM

Does the national archive and treasury of the kings
of Judah lie hidden deep underground in the ancient City of
David?

Limited
edition. Our price $18.95. The tomb of King David has been
lost since the days of Herod the Great. Have archaeologists
and historians now isolated its location? New research
suggests the tomb, and a national archive and treasury
containing unbelievable wealth, lies not far south of the
Haram esh-Sharif.

What was Jerusalem in the days of Herod and Jesus
really like?

A bold and
daring Temple analysis. Our price $22.45. Tradition
places Herod's Temple on the Haram esh-Sharif. Is this really
the site of the Temple in Jesus' day? A new carefully detailed
compilation and analysis of the historical evidence says --
absolutely not!

View
Temple Video

The Old City of
Jerusalem

Our most popular map. Only $9.95. This small
sample section of a beautiful map from the Survey of Israel,
suitable for framing, is a must for serious students of the
Bible.

Thank you for visiting
BIBARCH™
Please Visit Our Site
Often

Rated in
the
Top 10% of Websites
by
WebsMostLinked

Rated Outstanding
and starting
web/internet resource by the

Chosen by
librarians at O'Keefe Library, St. Ambrose University, for inclusion
in The
Best Information on the Net.