Bryant G. Wood
Introduction
In his book A New Approach to the Chronology of Biblical History from Abraham to Samuel (Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon CA, 1993), Gerald Aardsma proposes that 1, 000 years is missing from Biblical history between the end of the book of Judges and the beginning of 1 Samuel. By restoring this 1, 000 years, the author claims, harmony is established between the Bible and extra-Biblical archaeological data. In this review we will examine the bases for Aardsma’s claim, and compare the archaeological evidence with the proposed chronology to see if there is indeed harmony.
Although the following review is rather long, we believe that it is justified. A New Approach was published by a reputable Christian organization and those who are not well informed on the subject of Biblical archaeology could easily be led astray by some of the assertions made by the author. In addition, the subject of the book provides an opportunity to review a number of aspects of Biblical history and chronology which should be of interest and benefit to our readers.
Problems With Traditional Chronology
Aardsma begins by pointing out a number of apparent problems with “traditional” Biblical chronology. The traditional chronology assumes an Exodus of ca. 1450 BC (all dates henceforth are BC), and the resulting dates for events before and after based on Biblical data (birth of Abraham ca. 2170, Jacob entering Egypt ca. 1880, Conquest of Canaan ca. 1410–1400, period of Judges ca. 1400–1050). Because of the presumed difficulties he believes that a revised chronology is necessary.
Biblical People
Traditional Chronology. The author produces a list of kings named in the Bible from the 10th-5th centuries corroborated by extra-Biblical evidence (pp. 7-9). He then wonders why there is a “complete absence of archaeological confirmation of biblical persons for all times much before the 1st millennium BC” (p.9). It is not due to a lack of written sources, he says, because we have documents from Ebla dating to the 3rd millennium, from Ugarit dating to the 14th-13th centuries
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 98
and from Amarna dating to the 14th century (p. 10).
The reasons for this phenomenon are quite clear to anyone who is familiar with the literary sources. Kings and officials are the only personages we can hope to find in extra-Biblical records since the historical documents in most cases deal with political events, not the activities of ordinary citizens. Biblical history prior to the monarchy, on the other hand, is that of individuals, families and, in the late 2nd millennium, tribes. We do not possess secular records from the past that are detailed enough to provide the names of the relatively insignificant people (from the prospective of national secular history) named in the Bible.
In the few instances where the name of a foreign king or chief is preserved in the pre-monarchy period (for example, Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Gn 14:1), we lack contemporary documents in which we might expect to find a record of the king in question. Of course, new discoveries could change that situation at any time. Our records from the past are skimpy, to say the least, particularly before the 1st millennium. Even in relatively large archives, such as the Ebla archive with approximately 8,000 documents, only a small percentage of the texts provide historical information.
We do, however, have one example of a dynastic name from the pre-monarchy period which has shown up in contemporary extra-Biblical texts. That is Jabin, king of Hazor, a name which has been found in 18th-17th century texts (Wood 1992:122). These texts do not refer to the specific Jabins of the Bible (Jos 11:1, ca. 1400; Jgs 4, ca. 1230), but demonstrate that Jabin was a dynastic name at Hazor in the 2nd millennium.
Egyptian History. There is good documentation for most periods with respect to the rulers of Egypt. In this case, however, when the Israelites had contact with a pharaoh of Egypt in their early history, the personal name of the pharaoh was not used (Abraham’s journey to Egypt, Gn 12:10–20; Joseph in Egypt, Gn 37–50; Sojourn and Exodus, Ex 1–15). This accords with Egyptian practice, where the title “Pharaoh” was used alone without a proper name until the 10th century. From the 10th century on, “Pharaoh” plus a proper name became common usage (Kitchen 1986). This practice was followed in the Bible, with the names of Shishak (1 Kgs 14:25, ca. 925), So (2 Kgs 17:4, ca. 725), Tirhakah (2 Kgs 19:9, ca. 688), Neco (2 Kgs 23:29, ca. 609) and Hophra (Jer 44:30, ca. 587) given for the latter period.
Ebla Archive. The records Aardsma cites as being potential sources for Bible personages are in reality of no help in this regard. The Ebla tablets found in northern Syria come from the period ca. 2400–2250. In terms of Biblical history, this era is represented only by the list of Abraham’s forebears in Genesis 11:16–24. The name Eber in Genesis 11:16–17 was in fact found at Ebla, although he was a king of the city and not the Biblical patriarch. Ebla was located about 150 mi southwest of Haran, the homeland of the patriarchs. Although the two localities were in the same cultural milieu, we cannot expect the
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 99
names of six average people in Haran, recorded in Genesis 11:16–24, to show up in the state records of Ebla.
It does appear, however, that three of the six names in Genesis 11:16–24 have been preserved as the names of towns in the district of Haran. Serug (Gn 11:20–23) is named in 1st millennium texts and survives as modern Seruj 34 mi west of Haran, Nahor (Gn 11:22–25) is named in 2nd and 1st millennium texts, and is located east of Haran, and Terah (Gn 11:24–32) is named in 1st millennium texts and is located at Til-Turahi south of Haran (Hess 1992; Kobayashi 1992:58).
Ugaritic Texts. The texts from Ugarit on the coast of Syria from the 14th-13th centuries again represent a very narrow textual scope in the Old Testament. This was the period of the early judges Othniel, Ehud, and Deborah (Jgs 3–5). Since these three judges had no contact with the Canaanites living 250–300 mi north at Ugarit, there is no reason why their names should appear in the royal records of that city state.
Amarna Letters. The Amarna Letters are correspondence between the vassal kings in Canaan and the royal court in Egypt, discovered at the capital city of Akhetaten in Middle Egypt. They cover a period of only about 25 years, ca. 1356–1331. In terms of Biblical history, this falls approximately at the end of the 40-year time of peace under Othniel. The sum total of recorded Biblical history for the period of the Amarna letters is found in Judges 3:11: “So the land had peace for 40 years, until Othniel son of Kenaz died.”
Although there are number of Amarna letters that possibly came from southern Canaan where Othniel lived (EA 301–308), since this was a time of peace there was no occasion for the Canaanite kings to mention him. The letters are taken up with more pressing matters, such as the hostilities of the Habiru in the hill country. The references to the Habiru in the Amarna Letters appear to be allusions to the mopping-up operations of the Israelites at this time, but no individual Habiru is mentioned by name. The Amarna Letters are an important source of information concerning overall conditions in Canaan shortly after the arrival of the Israelites, but it is unrealistic to expect the name of Othniel to be recorded in them.
Of interest in the present discussion is a possible mention of Adam in the Amarna archive. A few literary texts were found along with the diplomatic texts, probably practice texts for aspiring scribes. Among them was the “Adapa Story” about a man named Adapa who was tested in much the same way that Adam was tested. The original name Adam possibly shifted to Adapa through time (Shea 1977).
First Millennium Documentation. Let us now turn to the reason why we have numerous instances of Biblical names appearing in extra-Biblical documents in the 1st millennium. During this time Israel was an important nation, active in the arena of international politics. She had contact with surrounding countries and thus mentioned foreign kings in her records. And, as expected, the foreign nations recorded their contacts with the kings of Israel and Judah.
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 100
Another factor that leads to more Biblical kings being named in secular texts in the 1st millennium is that during this period we have much more textual data, particularly from Assyria. In the Old Testament, as well, we have more recorded material for the period following the establishment of the monarchy, ca. 1050–432 (1 Sm 8-Mal), as compared with the time from creation to 1050 (Gn-1 Sm 7). We would expect, then, to find numerous synchronisms between Biblical history and secular history in the 1st millennium.
Proposed Chronology and Bible Kings. Aardsma’s proposed chronology fares no better in the search for Biblical personages in secular records for the earlier periods of Biblical history. He attempts to relate Joseph (Gn 41–50) with the vizier Imhotep of the 3rd Dynasty (pp. 61-69), the pharaohs of the oppression and Exodus (Ex 1–15) with Pepi II and Nemtyemsaf II of the 6th Dynasty, and Cushan-Rishathaim (Jgs 3:7–11) with Naram-Sin of Akkad. This is pure guesswork, since there is no direct equation of personal names in any of these cases.
Moreover, the dates Aardsma is working with for these supposed synchronisms with the proposed chronology are in the 3rd millennium. Secular dates in this early period are known only within 100-200 years (Kitchen 1991:202), so any attempt to match exact dates derived from Biblical calculations with crudely approximate dates from secular history will be problematic.
Joseph in Egypt. Aardsma proposes that the pharaoh whose dreams Joseph interpreted was Djoser of the 3rd Dynasty, and Joseph was none other than the famous official Imhotep who served under Djoser (pp. 67-68). According to the proposed chronology, Joseph’s famine occurred ca 2879–2872 (p. 38). The most recent Egyptian chronology, however, places the 3rd Dynasty some 200 years later, between 2700 and 2600 (Kitchen 1992:328), thus invalidating Aardsma’s identification. What is more, we know nothing about the life of Imhotep (Martin 1982:112), so any comparison with Joseph is futile.
Pharaohs of the Oppression and Exodus. In the case of the pharaohs of the oppression and Exodus, we see an example of the distortion of Biblical history by the author in order to produce a fit between his proposed chronology and secular history. He maintains that the pharaoh of the oppression ruled for a very long period of time, a minimum of 80 years (pp. 64-65). This is based on his impression, “that it was the same pharaoh whose daughter found Moses as a baby and adopted him (Ex 2:10) that later wished to kill Moses (Ex 2:15) and who did not die until Moses was approximately 80 years old (Ex 4:19; 7:7)” (pp. 64-65). There is no basis in the Biblical record for this assumption.
In the economy of Scripture, only salient points are mentioned, with intervening details left out. Between the account of Moses’ birth (Gn 2:1–10) and his killing of the Egyptian (Gn 2:11–15), an elapsed time of 40 years (Acts 7:23), the Bible gives us no information at all. In other words, there is a 40 year gap between verses 10 and 11 of Exodus 2. We are given no information about what transpired during this
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 101
period, the first 40 years of Moses’ life. There could have been one pharaoh, or many pharaohs during this 40 years; we simply do not know.
Again, during the 40 year period Moses was in Midian (Ex 2:15–23), we are given only one piece of information, and from that piece of information we cannot draw any conclusions concerning the number of pharaohs who ruled during that time. We know what happened at the beginning of the period (Ex 2:15–22) and at the end of the period (Ex 2:23b ff), but for the intervening 40 years we are only told, “during that long period, the king of Egypt died” (Ex 2:23a). This reference is undoubtedly to the king who sought Moses’ life (v 15), but we do not know exactly when during the 40-year period the king died.
Aardsma assumes that the pharaoh died at the end of Moses’ 40 years in Midian and he takes the “long period” of v 23 to refer to the length of the reign of the pharaoh of the oppression. From the context, however, it is clear that the “long period” refers to the length of time Moses was in Midian, not the length of reign of the pharaoh. From the information given to us about the pharaoh of the oppression, it is not possible to draw conclusions about the length of his reign.
With regard to the pharaoh of the Exodus, the author believes that he had a very short reign, on the order of one year (p.65). This again is based on his belief that the pharaoh of the oppression died at the end of Moses’ 40 years in Midian. The new pharaoh would then have ruled only for the period of the plagues, since he was drowned in the Sea of Reeds when the Israelites fled Egypt (Ex 14:6, 28; Ps 106:9–11; 136:15). But as we have already seen, there is no basis for placing the death of the pharaoh of the oppression at the end of Moses’ stay in Midian. It could have happened at any time during the 40 years he was there. All we can say about the length of reign of the pharaoh of the Exodus is that he reigned for less than 40 years.
The author has no Biblical basis for relating the pharaoh of the oppression to Pepi II, who reigned for more than 90 years, and the pharaoh of the Exodus to Nemtyemsaf II, who reigned for only one year. Moreover, the most recent Egyptian chronology dates the 6th Dynasty, when these pharaohs ruled, to 2350–2190 (Kitchen 1992:328), well after Aardsma’s date for the Exodus of 2447 (p. 38). His statement that “the identification of these two individuals is essentially certain” (p. 66) is hardly justified.
Archaeological Findings
As with secular scholars, Aardsma uses the apparent discrepancies between the archaeological data from Jericho and Ai and the Bible to dismiss conventional Biblical history and replace it with something else (pp.3, 11). In the case of secular scholars, the Bible is set aside and various imaginative proposals are put forward as to how the nation of Israel came into being. In the case of A New Approach, conventional Biblical chronology and history are set aside and an imaginative new chronology is proposed to supposedly harmonize Biblical and archaeological data.
Jericho. Our research has shown quite conclusively that the archaeological
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 102
findings at Jericho correlate very well with the Biblical record as it stands, with no textual emendations necessary (Wood 1987; 1990). The data correlate not only for the Conquest, but also for the time of Eglon/Ehud in the Judges period (Wood 1987:14). Thus we have an archaeological sequence at Jericho which matches in detail traditional Biblical history. Aardsma seeks an anchor on which to hang Biblical chronology (pp. 26-29); Jericho is such an anchor:
1. Destruction of a well-fortified city by fire following a short siege, accompanied by collapsed city walls except in the north, at harvest time at the end of the LB I period, ca 1400 (Jos 6:1–25).
2. Period of abandonment (Jos 6:26).
3. Residency constructed at the end of the LB IIA period, ca 1320 (Jgs 3:20–25).
4. Residency abandoned after a short period of occupation (Jgs 3:29–30).
5. Unoccupied until the Iron Age (1 Kgs 16:34).
Ai. Aardsma is quite correct in saying that there is a problem between archaeology and the Bible if Et Tell is the Ai of the Conquest. There is no evidence for occupation, let alone a destruction, at the site of Et Tell in ca. 1400, the traditional date of the Conquest. But is Et Tell really Joshua’s Ai? The Associates for Biblical Research does not think so and is conducting ongoing research to locate the real site of the Ai of Joshua. Even though sufficient evidence is not yet in hand to definitively solve this problem, Ai is only one site among scores mentioned in Joshua and Judges. The available evidence from all of these sites must be evaluated in order to reach meaningful conclusions regarding Biblical history and chronology (see below). The findings from one site alone cannot be used to formulate far-reaching theories on Biblical history.
The Proposed Chronology
An Anchor Point
Aardsma states that an anchor point is needed to relate Biblical history to archaeological history. For this he chooses the site of Et Tell, which he identifies as the Ai of Joshua (pp. 26-29). In order to relate Biblical history to the archaeology of Et Tell, the author must add 1, 000 years to Biblical chronology. The city at Et Tell was destroyed at the end of Early Bronze (EB) III in ca. 2400–2300, and then lay abandoned until ca. 1200. The conquest of Ai by Joshua and the Israelites must have occurred in 2400, according to Aardsma, rather than the traditional date of ca. 1400 (pp. 32-33).
The author lists five reasons why he identifies the EB III city at Et Tell with the Ai of the Conquest:
1. Et Tell is located east of Bethel (p. 29; Gn 12:8; Jos 7:2).
Aardsma follows the majority opinion in locating Bethel at the site of Beitin, about 1 mi northwest of Et Tell. The research of Livingston, however, has shown that Bethel should be located at El Bira, a modern town about 3 mi west-southwest of Et Tell (Bimson and Livingston 1987:47). In either case, Et Tell is east of the sites in question, as required by the Bible.
2. Et Tell is larger than Jericho (pp. 29, 31). For this point the author quotes
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 103
Joshua 10:2: “Gibeon was an important city, like one of the royal cities; it was larger than Ai.” He then goes on to compare the size of Et Tell (25 acres) with Jericho (7 acres according to Aardsma, but in reality 12 acres). He concludes, “thus Et Tell is over three times the size of Jericho, further corroborating its identification as the biblical Ai” (p. 31). The author has missed the point of Joshua 10:2. It says nothing about the relationship of Ai to Jericho, but rather that Gibeon was larger than Ai. The comparison should be made with Gibeon, not with Jericho! Gibeon is a medium size site, between 2.7 and 12.1 acres (Middle Bronze Age, Broshi and Gophna 1986:82; Gibeon was not significant enough to be included in the listing of EB sites, Broshi and Gophna 1984:46). Since Gibeon is smaller than Et Tell, Et Tell cannot be the Ai of Joshua.
3. Et Tell was violently destroyed (p. 31; Jos 8:19, 28). It is true that Et Tell was destroyed at the end of EB III, but so were many other sites.
4. Et Tell was fortified (p. 31; Jos 7:5; 8:29). Again, it is true that Et Tell was fortified in EB III, but so were many other sites.
5. A heap of stones was found at Et Tell (pp. 31-32; Jos 8:29). Here again, the author has not read the Biblical text carefully. Joshua 8:29 states that the Israelites hung the king of Ai on a tree, then threw his body down at the entrance of the city gate and raised a large pile of stones over it. The excavators of Et Tell did indeed find a large pile of stones in the EB III city, but they were in a temple, not in the city gate! The pile of stones found at Et Tell has nothing to do with the pile of stones in Joshua 8:29.
The author’s five points are insufficient to prove that EB III Et Tell is the Ai of Joshua. In fact, point 2 shows that Et Tell is not Joshua’s Ai. Aardsma’s anchor point has vanished and this in itself invalidates his entire thesis. He is confident, however, of his Et Tell-Ai-2400 equation:
There is no mistake apparent in our logic or assumptions to this point (p. 32)
The fact that we find such a monument [the heap of stones] situated immediately above the ruins of a strongly fortified but violently destroyed city which suits the biblical description of Ai in so many other ways as well seems to me to completely guarantee that we have correctly identified the site and the event (p. 32).
Strictly speaking, nothing more is required to further develop the biblical chronology which results from this new approach (p. 34).
Such statements are rash, irresponsible and unjustified.
A Textual Emendation
To justify adding 1, 000 years to Biblical history, the author argues that the text of 1 Kings 6:1 must be emended. 1 Kings 6:1 is the main text for establishing the date of the Exodus, and from that, the dates for the Patriarchs and the Conquest. It states
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 104
that Solomon began to build the Temple in his fourth year, 480 years after the Israelites left Egypt. The Hebrew text for this verse reads, “and it happened in the 80th and 400th year from the Exodus … .”
Aardsma proposes that the word for 1,000 was originally in the verse and later dropped out due to a scribal error. He maintains that the original reading was, “and it happened in the 80th and 1,000th and 400th year from the Exodus … .” In copying the text, Aardsma believes that the eye of the scribe jumped from the first “and” to the second “and,” thus leaving out the 1,000. We have no textual witness for this emendation, but beyond that the reconstruction he proposes is against normal Hebrew practice.
Numbers in the Old Testament are spelled out in words in accordance with carefully defined procedures. They are written in ascending order for technical or statistical numbers (to lay stress on the smaller, more precise, part of the number), or descending order for numbers in a narrative passage, poem or speech (Cassuto 1961:52). In the author’s reconstruction, he proposes a mixed order of tens, thousands and hundreds. A mixed order occurs only rarely in the Hebrew text.
Since the number given in 1 Kings 6:1 is a technical number, the order is ascending. If there were an additional 1,000 in the original text, it would have read, “and it happened in the 80th and 400th and 1,000th year from the Exodus … .” In this case it would have been the 400 that would have dropped out by Aardsma’s reasoning, not the 1,000.
Aardsma’s emendation is pure conjecture, however, since there is no textual (or archaeological!) basis for changing 1 Kings 6:1. According to the author’s scenario, there is no information, or very little (p. 58, see “Filling the Gap” below), in the Old Testament of events that transpired during the envisioned missing 1, 000 years. This seems very strange, even incredible. We are to imagine many centuries of silence concerning the sacred history of God’s people between the books of Judges and 1 Samuel, accompanied by a scribal error that eliminated the only record, a chronological notation, for the period!
Later Biblical writers continually referred to earlier events in Israel’s history — in the Psalms, the prophets and the New Testament. Yet nowhere in Scripture is there a hint of any such gap. We are talking of a period equivalent to the time from Abraham to the end of the book of Judges, or from David to the birth of Christ! Where are the people of faith from this 1,000 year period in Hebrews 11? Where did all that history go?
A Discordant Harmony
After establishing his “corrected” chronology, Aardsma discusses various aspects of Biblical and secular history that he maintains are brought into alignment with the new scheme. We shall examine these supposed “harmonizations” and also point out additional problems with the proposed chronology.
Before Abraham
In Genesis 10:10–11 eight cities in the kingdom of Nimrod are listed:
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 105
Babylon, Erech, Akkad, Calneh, Nineveh, Rehoboth Ir, Calah and Resen. A number of them have been located and excavated and thus we know something about their history. According to the proposed chronology, these cities should have existed in the 4th millennium, but in fact two of them were not founded until the mid-3rd millennium. Akkad (Sumerian Agade) was not built until the 24th century by Sargon I (Davila 1993:49) and Calah (modern Nimrud) was first inhabited in ca. 2500 (Pinches 1979).
Times of the Patriarchs
Abraham Meets Pharaoh. Genesis 12:10–20 records Abraham’s journey to Egypt when there was famine in Canaan. There, he had an encounter with pharaoh, king of Egypt. This would have taken place in ca. 3085 according to the proposed chronology. The author believes that the event harmonizes well with Egyptian history: “if there had been no pharaoh in Egypt [at the time Abraham was there according to the proposed chronology], then there would be some explaining to do” (p. 54). There is indeed some explaining to do since 3085 falls at the end of the Gerzean period, prior to the unification of Egypt under a single king according to the most recent chronology. Egypt was not united until the beginning of the 1st Dynasty, ca. 3000 (Kitchen 1992:328). The title pharaoh was not in use in 3085, since it is not attested in Egyptian texts until the early 3rd millennium (Redford 1992:288).
Additional Problems. Four of the Cities of the Plain, Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, were destroyed in the days of Abraham (Gn 19), in about 3068 according to the proposed chronology (p. 38). A very good case can be made for identifying five Early Bronze Age sites southeast of the Dead Sea with the Cities of the Plain (Shea 1988 and additional references there). Two of the sites have been excavated, Bab edh-Dhra, which can be identified with Sodom, and Numeirah, which can be identified with Gomorrah. Even though there may be some evidence for a destruction at Bab edh-Dhra at the end of EB I, ca. 3000 (Shaub 1993:133), it was not the final destruction described in Genesis 19 since the town quickly recovered. Numeira, on the other hand, did not exist in 3068 (Rast and Schaub 1980). Both of these places were violently burned by fire at the end of EB III and never rebuilt, nicely correlating with traditional chronology.
Jacob camped near the city of Shechem (Gn 33:18), which had a city gate (Gn 34:20). This would have occurred ca. 2900 by the proposed chronology. Excavations at Shechem, however, have shown that the city was not founded until 1, 000 years later in ca. 1900 (Campbell 1992:1347). So there would have been no city at the site of Shechem in the time of Jacob according to the proposed chronology, nor in the time of Joshua (Jos 17:7; 20:7; 21:21; 24:1, 25, 32) or the Judges (Jgs 8:31; 9:1–57; 21:19), for that matter.
The Egyptian Sojourn
Joseph’s Famine. Aardsma wishes to relate Joseph’s famine to the transition from EB I to EB II in Palestine when, “the EB I people suddenly abandoned
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 106
their towns and cities, only to reappear, albeit in reduced numbers, in EB II” (p. 58). The author is in error here, since there were no towns and cities in the EB I period. This was the beginning of agriculture and sedentarization, with only small rural villages appearing toward the end of the period, followed by a smooth transition to the urbanized EB II period (Richard 1987:24–27; Mazar 1990:92–108; Ben-Tor 1992:82–95).
What he is describing is in fact the transition from EB II to EB III. In either case, the date of Joseph’s famine according to the proposed chronology, 2879–2872 (p. 58), does not fit. The transition from EB I to EB II can be synchronized with the beginning of the 1st Dynasty in Egypt, ca. 3000 (Richard 1987:23; Mazar 1990:108; Ben-Tor 1992:95; Kitchen 1992:328) and the transition from EB II to EB III with the end of the 2nd Dynasty, ca. 2700 (Richard 1987:23; Mazar 1990:108; Ben-Tor 1992:122–23; Kitchen 1992:328).
The consolidation of power under the pharaoh at the time of Senwosret III in the 12th Dynasty (Leprohon 1992:346) and the expedition to Canaan in the reign of this pharaoh, possibly associated with the burial of Jacob (Shea 1992), fits the Biblical evidence much better for the time of Joseph, in agreement with the traditional chronology.
Additional Problems. According to the proposed chronology, the Egyptian Sojourn took place from 2877 to 2447 (p. 38), the period of the 1st to 5th Dynasties in Egypt (Archaic Period and Old Kingdom, Kitchen 1992:328). The presence of Asiatic slaves in Egypt is not attested, however, until the 12th Dynasty (Middle Kingdom, ca. 1963–1786), precisely the time when the Israelites were enslaved according to the traditional chronology (Kitchen 1993:77–79).
What is more, the slave price paid for Joseph, 20 shekels (Gn 37:28), is the price of a slave in the first half of the 2nd millennium, the time of Joseph according to the traditional chronology, not the price of a slave in the 3rd millennium which was 10–15 shekels. In fact, the price of slaves at other times in Bible history agrees with known prices in antiquity when one uses the traditional chronology, as the following table illustrates (Kitchen 1993:79–80; cf. Dandamayev 1992:60):
Period
Slave price in antiquity
Slave price in OT
before 2000
10–15 shekels
—
2000–1500
20 shekels
20 shekels (Gn 37:28, ca. 1900)
1500–1000
30 shekels
30 shekels (Ex 21:32, ca. 1450)
900–600
50–60 shekels
50 shekels (2 Kgs 15:20, ca. 743)
539–332
90–120 shekels
—
Exodus 1:11 tells us that the Israelites were used as slave labor to build the store cities of Pithom and Rameses. Pithom is located at Tell el-Maskhuta (Holladay 1992:588), while Ramesses is at Tell el-Dabca (Bietak 1986:271–83). Neither site was occupied at the time of the author’s date for the Sojourn. Tell el-Dabca was first occupied ca. 2100 (Bietak 1991:32), while Tell el-Maskhuta was not settled until ca. 1750 (Holladay 1992:588).
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 107
The Exodus
The author claims that the plagues should have caused a hiatus in Egyptian history and, “no such hiatus is observed in Egyptian history at the conventional biblical dates for the Exodus” (p. 44). Using an outdated 1908 Egyptian chronology, he points to the chaotic 1st Intermediate Period following the 6th Dynasty in ca. 2475 as the aftermath of the Exodus. Aardsma claims that the 1908 chronology is valid since it has been verified by radiocarbon dating (p. 46). But Egyptologists disagree; they do not use the 1908 chronology, radiocarbon dating notwithstanding. The most recent chronology is that published by Kenneth Kitchen, where he states, “so far radiocarbon studies, including those incorporating calibration, have not yet brought us to the point where they can improve on historical dating” (1991:201). According to Kitchen, the 1st Intermediate Period began in ca. 2160, nearly 300 years later than the author’s proposed Exodus date of 2447 (Kitchen 1991:206; 1992:328).
Wilderness Wandering
Occupation in the Sinai. Aardsma points out that there is ample evidence for occupation in the Sinai Desert in the 3rd millennium, but none in the 2nd millennium, the time the Israelites were there according to the traditional chronology. Third millennium occupation fits the proposed scheme, he says (p. 48). But the Bible does not say that the Israelites built settlements in the Sinai desert during their 40 years of wandering. They were poor ex-slaves from Egypt living as pastoral nomads, wandering from place to place. We would not expect to find evidence of an Israelite presence in the Sinai, just as you cannot find evidence for the presence of modern Beduin nomads, unless you happen to stumble on a very recent camp site. The Israelites did not build settlements until the 12th century in the Iron I period.
Mt. Sinai. The author accepts Anati’s location of Mt. Sinai at Har Karkom, between Kadesh-Barnea and Eilat, without question, undoubtedly because the findings there provide support for his hypothesis. Anati found evidence of religious activity at the mountain in the 3rd millennium, but not at the traditional time of the Exodus. But can we be certain that this is the Mt. Sinai of the Old Testament? Certainly not. There are, in fact, at least a dozen proposed sites for the location of Mt. Sinai, with Jebel Musa in the southern Sinai peninsula having the oldest tradition associated with it (Davies 1992:48).
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 108
The Conquest
The Collapse of EB III. We have already seen that the proposed theory relates the Conquest to the end of the EB III period in Palestine (“An Anchor Point,” above). The author appeals to Kathleen Kenyon’s outmoded theory of invading desert nomads to explain the collapse of the EB III culture (p. 49). This explanation has been abandoned by scholars dealing with this period. Richard, for example, states:
I must stress, however, that there is no evidence to posit, as has been done in the past, a nomadic invasion as explanation for the collapse of the urban city-state system [at the end of EB III] (1987:34; cf. Ben-Tor 1992:123–24; Dever 1992:110; Mazar 1990:141–43).
Moreover, the collapse of urbanism at this time was not confined to the hill country of Canaan where the Israelites settled. It has been observed in Mesopotamia and Egypt as well (Richard 1987:34–35). The end of EB III is correlated with the end of the Egyptian 5th Dynasty, ca. 2350 (Richard 1987:23; Ben-Tor 1992:123; Kitchen 1992:328), or the early 6th Dynasty, ca. 2300 (Mazar 1990:108; Kitchen 1992:328). According to the latest scholarship, then, the end of EB III came some 100 or more years after the author’s proposed 2447 date for the Conquest. Thus, the social upheavals which occurred at the end of EB III in Palestine cannot be related to the Israelite Conquest of Canaan.
The correlations proposed by the author result in an impossible situation. We have seen that he wishes to relate the Exodus to the beginning of the 1st Intermediate period (“The Exodus,” above), which Egyptologists date to ca. 2160. On the other hand, he relates the Conquest to the end of EB III in Palestine, which is dated to ca. 2350–2300. In other words, according to Aardsma’s reconstruction the Conquest would have occurred 150 or more years before the Exodus, a very awkward situation!
Egypt in Canaan. Aardsma points out that at the time of the traditional date of the Conquest (ca. 1400), Canaan was under the control of Egypt and yet Egypt is never mentioned in Joshua and Judges (p. 44). The answer to this oft-repeated criticism is quite simple. For the period 1483–1150 Egypt maintained tight control only over the coastal plain and the Kishon-Jezreel Valley, the area of the international trade route that passed through Canaan. They had little to do with the interior hill country. In addition, the Egyptian presence in the region was minimal. Egypt ruled her northern province through Canaanite vassal kings. As long as these kings paid their tribute and followed the wishes of Pharaoh, they were left alone. The Egyptians had a handful of administrative centers, such as Gaza and Beth Shan, with a few administrative personnel and military forces, but otherwise there were no Egyptians to be seen (Redford 1985:192–93). Since the Israelites had no direct contact with the Egyptians, only with their Canaanite vassals, the Egyptians are not mentioned in the Biblical record.
Other Problems. At the completion of the Conquest, Joshua established
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 109
the Tabernacle at Shiloh (Jos 18:1, 8–10; see also 19:51; 21:2; 22:9, 12). It remained there during the period of Judges (Jgs 18:31; 21:12, 19, 21), to the time of Samuel (1 Sm 1–4). According to the proposed chronology, this covered a period of about 1300 years, from ca. 2400 to 1100, a rather long time for the Israelites to be utilizing a temporary tent structure for their main place of worship. The author contends, however, that by the time of Samuel, it had developed into a permanent structure (p. 15). But 1 Kings 8:16 indicates that Solomon’s Temple was the first permanent place of worship to be built by the Israelites. Regardless of whether the Tabernacle at Shiloh became a permanent structure or not, the archaeological evidence shows that Shiloh was not occupied at the time of Aardsma’s proposed date for the conquest and period of judges (ca. 2447–1957, p. 38). Shiloh was not occupied until ca. 1750 (Finkelstein 1993:1366).
A significant number of the places mentioned in the book of Joshua have been identified and excavated. If there is any validity to the author’s proposed date for the Conquest, these sites should have been occupied in the EB III period. Upon investigation, however, we find that many of them were not. Following is a list of 29 sites, in addition to Shechem and Shiloh (above), that have no evidence of occupation in EB III, with Scripture references and documentation of the archaeological findings:
Gibeon (Jos 9, 10, 11:19; 18:25; 21:17; Pritchard 1993:513)
Gezer (Jos 10:33; 12:12; 16:3, 10; 21:21; Jgs 1:29; Dever 1993:498)
Debir (Kh. Rabud) (Jos 10:38–39; 11:21; 12:13; 15:7, 15, 49; 21:15; Jgs 1:11; Kochavi 1993)
Dor (Jos 11:2; 12:23; 17:11; Jgs 1:27; Stern 1993:358)
Sidon (Jos 11:8; 13:4, 6; 19:28; Jgs 1:31; 3:3; 10:6, 12; 18:7, 28; Jidejian 1971:17–18)
Ashdod (Jos 11:22; 15:46–47; Dothan 1993:95)
Arad (Nm 21:1; 33:40; Jos 21:14; Jgs 1:16; Amiran and Ilan 1993:76)
Aphek (Jos 12:18; 19:30; Beck and Kochavi 1993:64–66)
Madon (Tel Qarnei Hittin) (Jos 11:1, 5; 12:19; Gal 1993:452)
Tirzeh (Tell el-Farcah North) (Jos 12:24; 17:3; Chambon 1993:434)
Ekron (Tel Miqne) (Jos 15:11, 45, 46; 9 1:43; Jgs 1:18; Dothan and Gitin 1993:1052)
Aroer (Dt 2:36; 3:12; 4:48; Jos 12:2; 13:9, 16; Olvari-Goicoechea 1993:93)
Heshbon (Nm 21:25–28, 30, 34; 32:3, 37; Dt 1:4; 2:24, 26, 30; 3:2, 6; 4:46; 29:7; Jos 9:10; 12:2, 5; 13:10, 17, 21, 26–27; 21:39; Geraty 1993:627)
Rabbah (Dt 3:11; Jos 13:25; Burdajewicz 1993:144–47)
Beth Shemesh (Jos 15:10; 19:22, 38; 21:16; Bunimovitz and Lederman 1993:250)
Timnah (Tel Batash) (Jos 15:10, 57; 19:43; Mazar and Kelm 1993:152)
Jabneel (Tel Yincam) (Jos 15:11; 19:33; Liebowitz 1993:1515)
Beersheba (Jos 15:28; Herzog 1993:168, 172)
Ziklag (Tel Serac) (Jos 15:31; 19:5; Oren 1993:1330)
Mizpah (Tell en Nasbeh) (Jos 18:26; Zorn 1993:1098)
Sharuhen (Tell el-Ajjul) (Jos 19:6; Kempinski 1993:49)
Sihor Libnath (Tell Abu Hawam) (Jos
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 110
19:26; Balensi, Herrera and Artzy 1993:9)
Achzib (Jos 19:29; Jgs 1:31; Prausnitz 1993:32)
Rehob (Tel Bira) (Nm 13:21; Jos 19:28, 30; 21:31; Prausnitz 1993:262)
Kinnereth (Jos 19:35; Fritz 1993:300)
Jaffa (Jos 19:46; Kaplan and Ritter-Kaplan 1993:656–57)
Kartah (cAtlit) (Jos 21:34; Johns 1993:114)
Acco (Jgs 1:31; Dothan 1993:18–19)
Helba (Nahariya) (Jgs 1:31; Yogev 1993:1088)
Period of Judges
The Habiru. The term Habiru is used throughout the ancient Near East in the 2nd millennium for stateless people. Aardsma believes that his proposed chronology makes it possible to equate the term Habiru to “Hebrew” (pp. 83-84). The author thereby implies that Habiru is an ethnic term and every use of the term in an ancient text is a reference to the Biblical Hebrews. Nothing could be further from the truth. A number of studies have shown that Habiru refers to fugitives who had left, or been driven out of, the city-state system to live as refugees or outlaws (Lemche 1992). It may, on occasion, refer to the Israelites, such as in the Amarna Letters in the 14th century, but the term is a social, not an ethnic, designation.
Filling the Gap. In an effort to provide some Biblical history for his proposed gap, the author postulates that Judges 17–21 and Ruth should be assigned to this period since, “no chronological information is provided … [and] insufficient data are given biblically to permit even approximate dates to be assigned to these particular narratives” (p. 58). Once again, facts are being misrepresented to fit the author’s scheme. By analyzing the archaeological and Biblical information, it is seen that the migration of the Danites, Judges 17–18, should be assigned to ca. 1175 (Wood 1991b:107–109).
The last three chapters of Judges, 19–21, tell of the Benjaminite civil war. Judges 20:27b–28a states, “in those days the ark of the covenant of God was there, with Phinehas son of Eleazar, the son Aaron, ministering before it.” According to this notice, the events of these chapters occurred only two generations after Aaron, brother of Moses, early in the period of Judges, not during the author’s imagined gap. Likewise, the book of Ruth has a genealogical notice which provides an approximate time frame for the events narrated in the book: “Boaz [husband of Ruth] the father of Obed, Obed the father of Jesse, and Jesse the father of David” (Ruth 4:21b–22). Thus, the story of Ruth took place two generations before David, around the time of Eli.
Additional Problems. Judges 13–16 records Samson’s war with the Philistines. The conflict continued during the times of Eli, Samuel, Saul and David as recorded in 1 Samuel. This conflict with the Philistines provides a strong link between the books of Judges and 1 Samuel, in spite of the author’s objections to the contrary (pp. 14-15). It was not until David became king that the Israelites gained victory over their adversaries (2 Sm 8:1). According to the proposed chronology, the Israelite war with the Philistines
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 111
would have lasted about 1, 000 years!
We know much about the Philistines through the discoveries of archaeology. From Egyptian inscriptions, we know that the mass migration of these people from the Aegean to the southwest coast of Palestine occurred in the 8th year of Rameses III, or 1177. Excavations have shown that the cities of Timnah, Ashdod, Ashkelon and Ekron were first inhabited by the Philistines at about this time (Mazar and Kelm 1993:153; Wood 1991a). In ca. 2000, the supposed time when Samson was fighting the Philistines according to the proposed chronology (p. 38), Samson would not have been able to find a Philistine wife in Timnah (Jgs 14:1), obtain Philistine garments in Ashkelon (Jgs 14:19), be captured by the lords of the Philistines (Jgs 16:1–21), or pull down a Philistine temple in Gaza (Jgs 16:23–30).
As with the book of Joshua, many of the sites mentioned in the book of Judges have been located and excavated. In addition to the problem sites already mentioned above (Timnah, Ashkelon, Gaza and Shechem), five additional sites do not have occupation at the right time (EB IIIB-EB IV, p. 38) to fit the proposed chronology for the period of the Judges. These sites are:
Kadesh in Naphtali (Jgs 4:6, 9–11; Stern 1993:860)
Heshbon (Jgs 11:19, 26; Geraty 1993:627)
Shiloh (Jgs 18:31; 21:12, 19, 21; Finkelstein 1993:1366).
Jebus (Jerusalem) (Jgs 19:10–11; Shiloh 1993:701)
Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh) (Jgs 20:1, 3; 21:1, 5, 8; Zorn 1993:1098)
Conclusions
Apart from the author’s admitted lack of knowledge in the field of archaeology (p. 5), the major problem with the book is its narrowly restricted view. The author professes to be a scientist by training (p. 5), yet he has adopted a very unscientific approach. He has based his theory on the archaeology of only one or two sites, when in fact there is a great wealth of data, both Biblical and non-Biblical, which relates to the date of the Exodus and Conquest. If one is going to put forward a major new theory, it is incumbent upon the originator to test the theory against all of the pertinent data, rather then just one or two data points. Such a myopic approach is not limited to the work under review, but is a problem endemic in Biblical archaeology.
The author’s approach is to select various bits and pieces of information which seem to support his hypothesis, while neglecting the large bulk of data which discredit it. In addition, he uses unorthodox identifications, interpretations and chronologies to bolster his conclusions. When the full weight of the available data is brought to bear on the views expressed in A New Approach, it is readily apparent that they cannot stand. A critical review of the proposed chronology reveals that it is misguided, lacks credibility and is without a rational basis. Aardsma’s 1,000 year gap idea cannot be taken seriously and should be immediately dismissed. Giving it even passing consideration distracts from the correct understanding of Biblical history and chronology, and God’s working among mankind in times past.
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 112
Bibliography
Abbreviations
ABD – The Anchor Bible Dictionary, 6 vols., ed. D.N. Freedman. New York: Doubleday, 1992.
A&BR – Archaeology and Biblical Research
BAR – Biblical Archaeology Review
BASOR – Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research
NEAEHL – The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, 4 vols., ed. E. Stern, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1993.
Works Cited
Amiran, R., and Ilan, O.
1993 Arad: The Canaanite city. Pp. 75–82 in NEAEHL 1.
Balensi, J.; Herrera, M.D.; and Artzy, M.
1993 Abu Hawam, Tell. Pp. 7–14 in NEAEHL 1.
Beck, P., and Kochavi, M.
1993 Aphek (in Sharon). Pp. 62–72 in NEAEHL 1.
Ben-Tor, A.
1992 The Early Bronze Age. Pp. 81–125 in The Archaeology of Ancient Israel, ed. Amnon Ben-Tor, trans. R. Greenburg, New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bietak, M.
1986 Avaris and Piramesse: Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta, rev. ed. Mortimer Wheeler Archaeological Lecture 1979. Proceedings of the British Academy, London, vol. 65. London: Oxford University Press.
1991 Egypt and Canaan during the Middle Bronze Age. BASOR 281:27–72.
Bimson, J.J., and Livingston, D.P.
1987 Redating the Exodus. BAR 13:40–53, 66–68.
Broshi, M., and Gophna, R.
1984 The Settlement and Population of Palestine During the Early Bronze Age II-III. BASOR 253:41–53.
1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlement and Population. BASOR 261:73–90.
Bunimovitz, S., and Lederman, Z.
1993 Beth Shemesh. Pp. 249–53 in NEAEHL 1.
Burdajewicz, M.
1993 Rabbath-Ammmon. Pp. 1243–49 in NEAEHL 4.
Campbell, E.F., Jr.
1993 Shechem: Tell Balâtah. Pp. 1345–54 in NEAEHL 4.
Cassuto, U.
1961 The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch. Trans. I. Abrahams. Jerusalem: Magnes.
Chambon, A.
1993 Farcah, Tell el- (North). Pp. 433–40 in NEAEHL 2.
Dandamayev, M. A.
1992 Slavery: Ancient Near East. Pp. 58–62 in ABD 6.
Davies, G.I.
1992 Sinai, Mount. Pp. 47–49 in ABD 6.
Davila, J.R.
1992 Accad. Pp. 49–50 in ABD 1.
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 113
Dever, W.G.
1992 Palestine, Archaeology of (Bronze-Iron Ages). Pp. 109–14 in ABD 5.
1993 Gezer. Pp. 496–506 in NEAEHL 2.
Dothan, M.
1993a Ashdod. Pp. 93–102 in NEAEHL 1.
1993b Tel Acco. Pp. 17–23 in NEAEHL 1.
Dothan, T., and Gitin, S.
1993 Miqne, Tel (Ekron). Pp. 1051–59 in NEAEHL 3.
Finkelstein, I.
1993 Shiloh: Renewed Excavations. Pp. 1366–70 in NEAEHL 4.
Fritz, V.
1993 Chinnereth, Tel. Pp. 299–301 in NEAEHL 1.
Gal, Z.
1993 Galilee. Pp. 449–53 in NEAEHL 2.
Geraty, L.T.
1993 Heshbon. Pp. 626–30 in NEAEHL 2.
Herzog, Z.
1993 Tel Beersheba. Pp. 167–73 in NEAEHL 1.
Hess, R.S.
1992 Nahor. P. 997 in ABD 4.
Holladay, J.S., Jr.
1992 Maskhuta, Tell el- Pp. 588–92 in ABD 4.
Jidejian, N.
1971 Sidon Through the Ages. Beirut: Dar el-Machreq.
Johns, C.N.
1993 cAtlit. Pp. 112–17 in NEAEHL 1.
Kaplan, J., and Ritter-Kaplan, H.
1993 Jaffa. Pp. 655–59 in NEAEHL 2.
Kempinski, A.
1993 cAjjul, Tell el-. Pp. 49–53 in NEAEHL 1.
Kitchen, K.A.
1986 Pharaoh. P. 821 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., vol. 3, ed. G.W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids MI:Eerdmans.
1991 The Chronology of Ancient Egypt. World Archaeology 23:201–08.
1992 Egypt, History of (Chronology). Pp. 321–31 in ABD 2.
1993 Genesis 12–50 in the Near Eastern World. Pp. 67–92 in He Swore an Oath: Biblical Themes from Genesis 12–50, eds. R.S. Hess, P.E. Satterthwaite, and G.J. Wenham. Cambridge: Tyndale House.
Kobayashi, Y.
1992 Haran (Place). Pp. 58–59 in ABD 3.
Kochavi, M.
1993 Rabud, Khirbet. P. 1252 in NEAEHL 4.
Lemche, N.P.
1992 Habiru, Hapiru. Pp. 6–10 in ABD 3.
Leprohon, R.J.
1992 Egypt, History of, Middle Kingdom-2nd Intermediate Period (Dyn. 11–17) Pp. 345–48 in ABD 2.
Liebowitz, H.
1993 Yincam, Tel. Pp. 1515–16 in NEAEHL 4.
Martin, G.T.
1982 Saqqara. Pp. 107–22 in Excavating in Egypt: the Egypt Exploration Society 1882–1982, ed. T.G.H. James. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Mazar, A.
1990 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library. New York: Doubleday.
Mazar, A., and Kelm, G.L.
1993 Batash, Tel(Timnah). Pp. 152–57 in NEAEHL 1.
BSP 6:4 (Autumn 1993) p. 114
Olávarri-Giocoechea, E.
1993 Aroer (in Moab). Pp. 92–93 in NEAEHL 1.
Oren, E.
1993 Serac, Tel. Pp. 1329–35 in NEAEHL 4.
Pinches, T.G.
1979 Calah P. 572 in The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, rev. ed., vol. 1, ed. G.W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids MI:Eerdmans.
Prausnitz, M.W.
1993a Achzib. Pp. 32–35 in NEAEHL 1.
1993b Bira, Tel. Pp. 262–63 in NEAEHL 1.
Pritchard, J.B.
1993 Gibeon. Pp. 511–14 in NEAEHL 2.
Rast, W.E., and Schaub, R.T.
1980 Preliminary Report of the 1979 Expedition to the Dead Sea Plain, Jordan. BASOR 240:21–61.
Redford, D.B.
1985 The Relations Between Egypt and Israel from El-Amarna to the Babylonian Conquest. Pp. 192–205 in Biblical Archaeology Today: Proceedings of the International Congress on Biblical Archaeology, Jerusalem, April 1984, ed. J. Amitai. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society.
1992 Pharaoh. Pp. 288–89 in ABD 5.
Richard, S.
1987 The Early Bronze Age: The Rise and Collapse of Urbanism. Biblical Archaeologist 50:22–43.
Schaub, R.T.
1993 Bab edh-Dhrac Pp. 130–36 in NEAEHL 1.
Shea, W.H.
1977 Adam in Ancient Mesopotamian Traditions. Bible and Spade 6:65–76.
1988 Numeirah. A&BR 1:12–23.
1992 The Burial of Jacob. A&BR 5: 33–44.
Shiloh, Y.
1993 Jerusalem: The Early Periods and the First Temple Period. Pp. 701–12 in NEAEHL 2.
Stern, E.
1993a Dor. Pp. 367–68 in NEAEHL 1.
1993b Kedesh, Tel (in Jezreel Valley). P. 860 in NEAEHL 3.
Wood, B.G.
1987 Uncovering the Truth at Jericho. A&BR 1:6–16.
1990 Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence. BAR 16:44–58.
1991a The Philistines Enter Canaan: Were they Egyptian Lackeys or Invading Conquerors? BAR 17:44–52, 89–92.
1991b Recent Discoveries and Research on the Conquest. A&BR 4:104–10.
1992 Archaeology News and Notes. A&BR 5:122–27.
Yogev, O.
1993 Nahariya. Pp. 1088–90 in NEAEHL 3.
Zorn, J.R.
1993 Nasbeh, Tell en. Pp. 1098–1102 in NEAEHL 3.