David Livingston
A recent news release apparently published nationwide gave the distinct impression that archaeological evidence contradicts the biblical Exodus and Conquest accounts. Readers have sent copies of articles and asked us our opinion of them. (For those who did not see it, we enclose a copy of one in this mailing.) We do not agree with the opinions presented in the
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 13
article. In what follows we try to explain how things got this way and suggest solutions to the problems. We hope that by using this chart the situation will be more understandable.
Two Sets Of Dates On Chart: Top And Left Side.
Three dates can be noted across the top: 1550, 1400, and 1250 BC. These, of course, go from earlier (1550 BC) to later (1250 BC). They are only round numbers, with a few years difference for each depending on whose book you read. Exact dates are not necessary for the following explanation.
1550 BC has been the traditional date for the end of the Middle Bronze (MB) Period. This was the date when the Egyptians drove out their Hyksos (Semitic) rulers. [Presently, however, those holding the high chronology put this date at 1540; those holding the low chronology put it at 1529. (Kitchen 1987)] The end of the MB Period also represents the peak of Canaanite culture with the greatest number of strong, well fortified cities of any time in the history of Palestine. 1550 BC was later than Joseph, but earlier than Moses and nothing is mentioned in the Bible relative to this time.
1400 BC Is the approximate biblical date for the Conquest of the Promised Land by Joshua and the Israelites. We arrive at the date by adding 480 years to the year (ca. 960 BC) Solomon laid the foundation of the Temple (1 Kings 6:1). This time frame gives about 1440 BC for the date of the Exodus. Subtracting 40 years for the wilderness wanderings gives us the approxhnate date of the Conquest -1400 BC. This date is also confirmed by other Scriptures, notably: Judges 11:26, and 1 Chr 6:33–37.
1250 BC is the approximate date for the “Conquest” accepted by most archaeologists today. Scholars arrived at this date by what they considered to be strong archaeological evidence for a date later than that of the Bible. 1250 BC, then, is the archaeologists’ date for the Conquest while 1400 BC is the biblical date.
Some evangelical scholars have chosen to accomodate Scripture to this late date by giving a revised interpretation of the relevant biblical passages. Basically, they interpret the “480 years” of I Kings 6:1 as 12 generations of 40 years each. But, since everyone knows a generation is only about 25 years, the figure should really be 12 X 25, or 300 years. Thus the date should be about 1260–1290 for the Exodus and about 1220–1250 for the Conquest. This scheme is difficult to reconcile with the length of the Judges period reflected in Judges 11:26.
Note quotation marks around Conquest. The late “Conquest” date was set at 1250 BC in the 1930’s. Since then, it has become clear through intensive archaeological research that there apparently was no massive military onslaught in Canaan at that date. Thus, many scholars have concluded that a “Conquest” of Canaan is a misnomer. (A recent example of this is: found in Fredric Brandfon’s article in the January/ February 1988 Biblical Archaeology Review. There he says, “I put “conquest of Canaan’ .in quotes because… It may or may not have involved a ‘conquest’.” p. 54).
The revised explanation for the Israelite occupation is that it must have occurred some other way than by conquest (as the Bible says). Suggestions have been that it occurred either by: I) slow infiltration over a long period of time;
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 14
or, 2) there was some kind of “peasant revolt” which overthrew the city-states. One can find some support for both these views in Scripture. But the overall veracity of the Bible is discounted as the theories are developed.
Unfortunately, evangelical scholars who have opted for the late date now have little, if any, evidence of destructive assaults against the Canaanite cities at ca. 1250 BC as the Bible describes. As evidence accumulates, it becomes more apparent that the cities had become small and weak by that time.
Left Side Of Chart:
Starting from the top and going downward are modem dates from the beginning of this century to the present day. The chart follows the developments of scholarly thinking through most of this century. Actually, we could have begun in the 1930’s when the big change started. But we have done it this way to emphasize the unanimity of thinking during the early 1900’s.
Rejection Of The Biblical Date For The Conquest:
In 1900, one might safely say that “everyone” believed the Conquest was accomplished about 1400 BC (with the Exodus occurring about 1440 BC). For most scholars, the Bible was the standard for historical truth in ancient times, although there were always some who questioned it.
However, in the 1930’s all that began to change. In that decade, two great archaeologists dug at two of the most important sites in Palestine. Englishman John Garstang dug at Jericho and found ample evidence there that the Conquest took place about 1400 BC. William F. Albright dug at Beitin, which he assumed was Bethel. At the beginning of the decade, both men held to a 1400 BC Conquest. But during his excavation, Albright wavered then switched from the early to the late date for the Conquest. That is, from 1400 BC to 1250 BC. He made this reversal on the basis of a thick destruction level which had occurred about 1250 BC at “Bethel.” He assumed this level was the Israelite destruction (even though the Bible nowhere states that the Israelites destroyed Bethel). He also found a similar destruction at Tell Beit Mirsim, which he thought was biblical Debit. At Lachish, James Starkey found that it, too, had been destroyed at about this time. Because of Albright’s brilliance and pervasive influence on the next generation of archaeologists, his view prevailed and almost everyone by the 1950’s agreed with him and opted for the late date.
In the meantime, a few “diehards”, including John Garstang, continued to hold out for the biblical date of 1400 BC. For the most part, scholars committed to the Bible as Truth were the only ones who continued to hold to the early biblical date. Throughout the archaeological controversy, these men continually tried to accomodate archaeological evidence to the Bible, and not vice versa. Thus the 1400 line continues straight to the bottom. Probably, they were correct all along. That is, the archaeological evidence, when all is said and done, could finally come to support their position.
Returning to the line which diverges from the biblical date line in the 1930’s, we come to the 1950’s. Dame Kathleen Kenyon (also from England) did not agree with Garstang’s finds and did not have his commitment to the Bible. She returned to dig at Jericho.
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 15
A meticulous archaeologist, she, nevertheless, made some serious errors. Of the section of the city destroyed by the Israelite Conquest, she dug only one-thirteenth as large an area as Garstang. Based on an absence of certain imported wares, and essentially ignoring Garstang’s work, she concluded that the “Conquest” had occurred in 1325 BCI (See Bryant Wood’s article on Jericho in the Premiere Issue of Archaeology and Biblical Research for more complete information.)
What was even worse, she concluded there were no walls around Jericho when the Israelites arrived.
Her work was heralded as definitive and the results were incorporated into the overall picture now being synthesized by other scholars. It was becoming clear that, not only were there no walls around Jericho in 1325 BC and even later, there were no walls around most of the other sites “conquered” by the Israelites at 1250 BC. In fact, solid evidence for a massive military onslaught of any kind, at any site in Israel, was still lacking in spite of greatly increased excavation.
Thus, during the 1960’s and 1970’s all kinds of doubts about the veracity of the biblical story of the Conquest became confirmed in many scholars’ minds. In the meantime, the lack of archaeological evidence for an Exodus from Egypt in about 1290 BC (during Rameses II’s reign), also led many to conclude that this story, too, was no more than a myth.
Thus, the consensus today among scholars who have no commitment to Scripture is that no Exodus and no Conquest occurred. Generally, the scenario they accept is that the Israelites are little more than the outgrowth of small groups which had immigrated to Palestine over several hundred years and finally banded together about the time of David or shortly before. They gathered folklore and other literature which scribes supposedly put together during the time of the Israelite monarchy (to create a national entity). The books the scribes authored were then attributed to Moses and Joshua to give them authenticity.
But this error is a blind alley. The Bible and archaeology will never be reconciled following” this course.
New Developments
On the other hand, there are new developments in archaeology which are largely overlooked by scholars locked into the above scheme. These developments suggest a revision of the 1550 BC date. (Much of what follows was discussed in more detail in an article by John Bimson and this writer in the Biblical Archaeology Review for September/October, 1987.)
Whereas, it is true there were few walled Late Bronze cities in 1250 BC, and these settlements were small, on the other hand at the close of the Middle Bronze Period (I 550 BC) the cities were at their peak development. The cities at the end of the MB Period may be described as having the greatest fortifications of all the history of Palestine. Logic makes it obvious, then, that those who hold to the biblical story must go backward (from 1400 BC) to the time when the cities fit the description of Moses’ spies. They had described the cities as “fortified and very large” (Numbers 13:28). Go back to 1550 BC? But that is 150 years!
Even though at first the end of the MB Period seems too early for the Conquest, perhaps archaeology
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 16
can be reinterpreted in light of Scripture (instead of the reverse as is usually done). Or, maybe some of what was thought to be “MB” occupational remains actually continued into the Late Bronze (LB) Period, right down to 1400 BC.
Reinterpreting Archaeology For The End Of The Middle Bronze Period
Originally, the scenario for the end of the MB Period assumed by W. F. Albright and others was that the Egyptians drove their Hyksos overlords out of Egypt in 1550 BC. This event may have occurred at that time in Egypt. But along with driving the Hyksos out of Egypt was the assumption that the Egyptians continued on and ravaged all the cities of Palestine as they chased the Hyksos back home. Thus the awful destructions found in cities all over Palestine at the end of the MB Period were attributed to an Egyptian rampage in1550 BC.
There are two problems with this interpretation. One is that the Egyptians had gone through about a hundred year period of humiliation and weakness under the Hyksos; apparently, they barely had the power to drive them out. This conclusion is evidenced by the length of the siege of the very first city the Egyptians encountered -Sharuhen. The siege lasted three years before they could conquer it! After that, there is no record of them attacking any other city at that time (shortly after 1550 BC).
The second problem is that, although the Middle Bronze Period ended with the cities in Palestine being destroyed by violent conflagrations, it is becoming increasingly evident that this was not shortly after 1550 BC. It was later, much later, in some cases. However, it must be added that many of these destructions were eventually caused by the Egyptians. Probably Thutmose Ill can be credited with many of them. His lists of conquered cities around 1470 BC include Gaza, Joppa, Gezer, Aphek, Meggido, Bethshan, Taanach, Hazor, etc. Those sites which have been excavated have destructions at the end of the MB Period. Important to note is that these are all in the lowlands or along the coast. There is no record of Thutmose III (or later pharaohs) attacking hill country cities. This fact is a most important point.
We see, then, that the Middle Bronze Period continued fin Palestine beyond 1500 BC well into the 1400’s. The strong lowland Canaanite city-states were under Egyptian authority by 1400 BC. Thutmose Ill had made Palestine an Egyptian province by 1400 BC.)
The Hornet
In light of this situation, John Garstang in 1930 suggested that Thutmose Ill may have been the “hornet” spoken of in Exodus 23:28, Deuteronomy 7:20, and Joshua 24:12. The frontispiece of his book Joshua Judges illustrates and explains his point. Here he points out that one of Thutmose’s insignias was a hornet.
He may or may not be correct. But it is a very interesting observation, for the lowland cities were not taken by Israel; but, when the armies of these lowland cities came up to fight Israel, they were easily defeated. Evidently, the Lord had “taken care of them” in preparation for Israel’s arrival about 1400 BC. Does the “hornet” refer to Thut-mose III and later pharaohs?
Latest Discoveries At Jericho
Bryant Wood’s recent analysis of
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 17
Garstang’s and Kenyon’s finds for the “City IV” destruction, may revolutionize thinking about the date of the fall of Jericho.
Dr. Wood discovered that Dame Kenyon dated the debris from this violent destruction (which was actually Late Bronze I) to the end of the Middle Bronze Period based on the absence of exotic imported wares. The local pottery, Egyptian scarabs and a carbon-14 date, however, indicate that the city continued to ca. 1400 BC. Her error was that she misread Late Bronze I pottery associated with the debris. She concluded that it was Middle Bronze pottery. Therefore she put the date at 1550 BC for this destruction. But it now appears certain that it was really Late Bronze I pottery which was associated with the City IV destruction.
Therefore, this destruction is the evidence for the Israelite Conquest in 1400 BC. (For details see the Premiere Issue of Archaeology and Biblical Research.)
So… apparently Garstang had been correct all along. His assignment of the conflagration and violent destruction of “City Four” to the end of Late Bronze I (ca. 1400 BC) was right. Scholars should have been more cautious about accepting Kenyon’s radical revision of Garstang’s work. We should remember that he excavated 13 times as large an area as Kenyon for the final Bronze Age city.
Furthermore, the MB-LB dates of other hill country sites should probably be reexamined in light of Bryant Wood’s Jericho discovery. Most of the dating for Late Bronze I has been determined by imported foreign pottery rather than by local pottery. But should we expect to find foreign imports inland and in the hill country in the quantity they have been found in lowland sites?
Or should we even expect to Fred any foreign imports there at all?
The “Habiru/Apiru”
Because the generally accepted date for the Conquest is 1250 BC, the “Habiru/Apiru” intruders to Palestine mentioned in the El Amarna letters cannot be equated with =Hebrew” invaders.
On the other hand, if and when the date of the Conquest is once again acknowledged as about 1400 BC, then these bands of intruders could well be considered as describing, at least to some extent, hostilities early in the period of the Judges.
The time is right. Amenhotep III and IV are mentioned in these letters and their reigns come shortly after 1400 BC. So a return to an early date may open renewed interest in connecting the “Habiru/ Apiru” with the “Hebrews.”
Conclusion
The purpose of this brief article is to give our readers an overview of problems to be discussed in future issues of Archaeology and Biblical Research. It does not attempt to resolve the issues, or go into them in any depth. We hope that this summary and chart will help our readers “dig deeper” into biblical archaeology and “see through” some of the misleading information that abounds today.
Please keep it on hand for future reference.
BSP 1:3 (Summer 1988) p. 18