Mormons And the Bible

By Ronnie Bray

A common criticism aimed at members of the Church of Jesus Christ

of Latter-day saints is the charge that Mormons either contradict the
Bible, or ignore it, or relegate it to a lower position of importance to
the Book of Mormon. Are these charges true or not? Let us take a
look at some of the accusations about Latter-day Saints and their use
or not of the Holy Bible, and then consider the reliability of the
criticisms.

Christadelphian

The fulfilment of Bible prophecy testifies that Christ is at

the door, and demonstrates that the Bile is inspired and
infallible. This is vindicated particularly in the return of
the Jewish people to the land promised to Abraham for
an everlasting inheritance, and the modern revival of the
State of Israel1. Mormonism destroys this concept of
Scripture.

The structure of this complaint rests on:

a. According to Bible prophecies, ‘Christ is at the door’

– meaning, the Parousia is immanent.
b. The fulfilment of Bible prophecies proves that the
Bible is inspired, and infallible.
c. The return of the Jewish people to Palestine is
fulfilment of Bible prophecy and shows that the Bible
is inspired and infallible.
d. Palestine was promised to Abraham for an everlasting
inheritance.
e. The State of Israel is a revival of the former State of
Israel, and

1
Mormonism of God or Men, Christadelphians, West Beach, Australia, Vol 30, Number 2,
January, 1981, Published by Eureka Press, inside front cover: hereinafter referred to as
‘MOGOM.’
 f. Mormonism destroys this concept of Scripture.

Taking each of these points by turn we shall investigate whether

a. the points are correct as stated, and

b. whether Mormonism destroys the concept and facts as
stated in the pamphlet.

1. According to Bible prophecies, the Second Coming of Jesus

Christ is immanent.

Q: Does Mormonism agree or disagree with this Biblical concept?

A: Mormonism agrees that these are the last days in which, Bible
prophets foretell that Jesus Christ will return to earth.

The Articles of Faith of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

Saints states unequivocally:

AF 10 We believe in the literal gathering2 of Israel and in the

restoration of the Ten Tribes;3 that Zion4 (the New Jerusalem) will be
built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign5 personally
upon the earth; and, that the earth will be renewed6 and receive its
paradisiacal glory.7

This statement of faith confirms that Mormons believe that in

accordance with Bible and other prophecies:

Christ will reign8 personally upon the earth.

2. The fulfilment of Bible prophecies proves that the Bible is

inspired, and infallible.

2
Isaiah 49:22 (20–22); 60:4; 1 Nephi 19:16 (16–17)
3
The Lost Ten Tribes of Israel
4
Ether 13:6 (2–11); D&C 42:9; 45:66 (66–67); 84:2 (2–5); Moses 7:62
5
Micah 4:7.
6
Isaiah 11:1–9; 35:1–10; 51:1–3; 65:17–25; Ezekiel 36:35 (1–38); 2 Nephi 8:1–3.
7
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng
8
Micah 4:7.
Q: Does Mormonism agree with these claims?

A: Mormonism agrees that the Bible is a collection of inspired

documents, but disagrees that in its present versions it is infallible.
The reason for not accepting that the Bible is in its present forms not
100% error free is that during the long process of transmission from
the original manuscripts, certain errors have been admitted, mostly
due to scribal errors during the copying processes when they were
laboriously copied by human hands that are likely to make mistakes
from time to time.

Despite the qualification that the Bible is the word of God ‘as far it is
translated correctly,’9 Latter-day Saints believe the Bible is on the
whole trustworthy, and an essential guide to doctrine, faith, and
morals, and as such it is treated.

The unknown author of the pamphlet directs the reader’s attention to a

passage in the book of Doctrine and Covenants.

Perhaps a passage in the Doctrine and Covenants will assist our

understanding.

‘And again, the elders, priests, and teachers of this Church

shall teach the principles of my gospel, which are in the Bible
and the Book of Mormon, in the which is the fulness of the
gospel.’10

The Bible, according to Mormon publications, is inspired “as

far as it is translated correctly” and constitutes along with the
Book of Mormon, “the fulness of the gospel.” One might ask
why other “inspired” works such as the “Doctrine &
Covenants” and “The Pearl of Great Price” are required if they
are outside the fulness of the Gospel?11

Two major points in this quoted section require addressing. The first
is, What was meant by fulness?

9
http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng see Article Eight
10
Doctrine & Covenants 42:12
11
MOGOM., p. 2
Although the modern understanding of fulness [‘fullness’ in British
English], has to do with being filled or completeness, that is not the
only definition of this versatile word.

Dictionary Definition of fullness

Fulness: Noun
1 completeness over a broad scope, comprehensiveness
2 the property of a sound that has a rich and pleasing timbre,
mellowness, richness
3 the condition of being filled to capacity
4 greatness of volume, voluminosity, voluminousness

‘Fullness is a favourite word of Saint Paul, who speaks of:

• the "fulness" of the Gentiles, Romans 11:25

• the "fulness" of time, Galatians 4:4
• the fulness of him that filleth all in all, Ephesians 1:23
• the "fulness" of Christ, Ephesians 4:13, and
• the "fulness" of the Godhead in Christ, Colossians 1:19; Colossians
2:9

He uses it in a novel way in Ephesians 3:19.

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye

might be filled with all the fulness of God.

If MOGOM’s definition of fulness is correct, then this verse

positively teaches theosis, or deification. However, if it takes an
alternate definition of fulness, such as glory, then Paul’s words are
supported in other places.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia offers:

FULLNESS - fool'-nes: The translation of π λ ε ρ ο µ α , which is

generally, but not invariably, rendered "fullness" in the New
Testament. Etymologically, π λ ε ρ ο µ α - which itself is derived
from the verb π λ ε ρ ο ο , "I fill"-signifies "that which is or has
been filled"; it also means "that which fills or with which a thing is
filled"; then it signifies "fullness," "a fulfilling."

1. "Fullness" in the Gospels:

In the Gospels it occurs as follows: Matthew 9:16 and Mark 2:21: in

both of these passages it means "the fullness," that by which a gap or
rent is filled up, when an old garment is repaired by a patch; Mark
6:43, `They took up fragments, the fullness of twelve baskets'; 8:20,
`The fullness of how many baskets of fragments did ye take up?' John
1:16, `out of his fullness we all received.'12 [Emphasis added]

This definition changes the whole aspect of Doctrine & Covenants

42:12 and avoids the unsafe conclusion that the two volumes of sacred
scripture contain all that God has ever revealed about the Gospel of
Jesus Christ.

The Bible itself informs its readers that it is incomplete, when Saint
John explains whey he has carefully selected the parts of the
biography and teachings of Jesus to include in his gospel, and he lets
his readers know the extent of what could have been included had he
recorded everything that Jesus both said and did.

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if
they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself
could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.13

By which we see that expecting a fullness, or completeness, is

unbiblical according to the Beloved Apostle. Shall we, therefore,
conclude that MOGOM’s point is mischievous, or that he was
unaware of other meanings for fulness than the one he knows?

In his dissertation of ‘The End For Which God Created The World,’14
Jonathan Edwards15 wrote:

12
http://topicalbible.org/f/fullness.htm
13
John 21:25
14
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.iv.vii.html
15
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_%28theologian%29
 “The thing signified by that name, ‘the glory of God,’
when spoken of as the supreme and ultimate end of all
God’s works, is the emanation and true external
expression of God’s internal glory and fulness; meaning
by his fulness what has already been explained; or, in
other words, God’s internal glory, in a true and just
exhibition, or external existence of it.

“It is confessed, that there is a degree of obscurity in

these definitions; but perhaps an obscurity which is
unavoidable, through the imperfection of language to
express things of so sublime a nature. And therefore the
thing may possibly be better understood, by using a
variety of expressions, by a particular consideration of
it, as it were, by parts, than by any short definition.”

Edward’s place among the most eminent of theologiabns

and philosophers of the last three hundred years is
gauged by what those familuar with his work said of him.

"[Edwards] is widely acknowledged to be America's most

important and original philosophical theologian,"16 and
one of America's greatest intellectuals.17 Edwards's
theological work is very broad in scope, but he is often
associated with his defense of Reformed theology, the
metaphysics of theological determinism, and the Puritan
heritage. Recent studies have emphasized how
thoroughly Edwards grounded his life's work on
conceptions of beauty, harmony, and ethical fittingness,
and how central The Enlightenment was to his mindset.18

Reverend Edward’s definitions serve to remind us that fulness can

also mean brightness, or glory, and that we ought not to insist that a
word can only be applied according to our personal understanding or
to satisfy what we consider our theological necessity.

16
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Jonathan Edwards," First published Tue Jan 15, 2002;
substantive revision Tue Nov 7, 2006
17
George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (2003), pg. 498–505
18
John E. Smith, "Christian Virtue and Common Morality," in The Princeton Companion to
Jonathan Edwards, ed. San Hyun Lee (2005), 34–41
MOGOM asserts,

… the Mormon Church warrants our investigation into its

doctrinal basis and its foundations. There is no possible
way we can refute the dogma of the infallibility of the
“Book of Mormon” unless we examinee it concurrently
with the Bible. There must be no contradiction between
the two unless God’s character be brought into disrepute.
The Bible is acclaimed the world over by Christianity as
the Word 19of God. The “Book of Mormon” has limited
numerical and religious support. This does not
necessarily mean it is incorrect, but the Bible has been
vindicated historically, archæologically, prophetically
and even scientifically.20

By this means the scene is set for a showdown between the

Christadelphian view of the Bible and its teachings, and the teachings
of the Book of Mormon relative to the Holy Bible’s teachings.
However, before we can submit to this ordeal by comparison, we must
consider whether what MOGAM claims for the Bile is correct or not.
If it is, then the contest by comparison will be fair. However, if it is
not, then the dice are loaded against the Book of Mormon, and it will
be evident that the Book of Mormon is not intended to be allowed to
be shown a shaving equivalence.

MOGAM claims without qualification

‘ … the Bible has been vindicated historically,

archæologically, prophetically and even scientifically.’

Is this true? Is it wholly true? Is it partially true? If the Bible is to be

shown to be vindicated on each of these counts, then it must be shown
to be 100% true on each count. Otherwise, the grounds for comparison
of one Book with the other is false.

The Walls of Jericho

19
‘Word’ in capitals is usually reserved for the Λ ο γ ο σ , meaning Jesus Christ
20
MOGOM, p. 3
Bible scholars have dated the fall of the walls of the city of Jericho
variously from

The first scientific investigation of the site of Jericho was carried out by Charles
Warren in 1868, but amounted to no more than a site-survey (Warren's prime
interest was in establishing the modern equivalents of Biblical locales). In
1907-09 and again in 1911 digging was carried out by two German
archaeologists, Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin. Watzinger and Sellin believed
that they would be able to validate the Biblical story of Jericho's destruction by
Joshua and the Israelites, but concluded instead that the data indicated that the
city was unoccupied at the time which the Bible indicated for the Conquest.

These results were tested in 1930-36 by John Garstang, at the suggestion of

William F. Albright, the doyen of Palestinian archaeology at the time. Garstang
discovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about
1400 BCE, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest, that had
apparently fallen in a dramatic fashion as opposed to being ruined by
abandonment or decay from natural forces. Garstang's work thus reversed the
conclusions of the earlier diggings.

By the post-war period a revolution had occurred in archaeological

methodology, and Albright accordingly asked Kathleen Kenyon, one of the most
respected practitioners of the new archaeology, to excavate at Jericho once
more. Kenyon dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952-1958. Kenyon
traced the entire history of the city from the earliest Neolithic settlement. She
did this by digging a narrow deep trench maintaining clean, squared off edges,
rigorously examining the soil and recording its stratification, and thus building
up a cross-section of the tell. When presented with an area that would require
wider areas to be excavated - the floor plan of a house for example - she
carefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between
each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyon reported that
her work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jericho
had been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result was
confirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562
BCE (plus/minus 38 years) with a certainty of 95%.21

Such a date strikes at the historicity of the Bible, since the Exodus,
once thought to have taken place around 1550 BC, has been moved by
modern discoveries to around 1250 BC. Kenyon's interpretation of
the data was thus radically and fundamentally different from
Garstang's. She concluded that City IV had been destroyed about 1550
B.C. and, therefore, there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer
around 1400 BC She suggested that the archaeological evidence
discredited the biblical record! Moreover, a sizeable portion of
scholars accepted her findings as conclusive.

21
Radiocarbon, Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995
John Garstang was the Director of the Department of Antiquities in Palestine
1920-1926. During this time he walked the exact itinerary of Joshua's army and
began excavating Jericho in the 1930's. He investigated more than 100,000
shards of pot from Jericho, and using the ceramic index dated the destruction of
Jericho to the middle of the Late Bronze Age which traditional dating places at
1400 – 1300 BC, in conflict with the then prevailing date of the Exodus during
the 19th Dynasty of Egypt, some 200 years later, 1200 – 1100 BC. This was
just one example of many conflicting dates that riddled the archæology of
Jericho.

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

At the time of Garstang's findings, scholars and historians put forth any
explanation they could find to discredit his date. Sceptics thought the
archæology of Jericho too insubstantial to verify the Biblical dates as
understood. This was a problem to those that considered they had accurate
historical dating in the Biblical account of the Exodus, Conquest, and Settlement
of Canaan, particularly inerrantists.

Among his findings were scarabs which bore symbols and pictures of Egyptian
Kings. The latest of these Kings was Amenhotep II,dating from 1413-1373 B.C.

There was no evidence found of any burials after this date.

Garstang described the occupation of Jericho.

"Four main epochs in its occupation are attested by that number of separate and
successive periods of fortification...The walls were Babylonian in style...This
period of occupation is to be assigned to the last centuries of the third millenium
BC, say 2300-2000 BC and corresponds therefore with the first Semitic Dynasty
of Babylon, the remote age of Hammurabi and Abraham ."

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

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

He then moves into the second millennium BC.

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

Garstang used this evidence to indicate a period of relative prosperity. Jericho

archaeology of this time produced art of the Hyksos, and from the period when
Egypt was over run.
Jericho archaeology produced names of Hyksos leaders on the seals of tombs.
The palace area of the city suggests that some of these individuals lived and died
in Jericho during this time.

What Garstang stated next is very important.

"The whole system was destroyed in 1600 BC by a general conflagration, an

event which seemed to coincide with the demolition of the cities ramparts,
though the evidence as to the date of the latter case is not so complete as to
warrant a definite conclusion....Further extensive damage was done by a
landslide, originating presumably in an earthquake which broke one of the main
walls in two and brought the brickwork of this and other walls toppling down in
large masses. This disaster was also accompanied by local fires which
completely charred and cracked the brick and contents of the surviving rooms."

Notice how the walls appear to have slid downward, reminiscent of a landslide.
These walls formed a ramp, which allowed for the Israelites to march up and
into the city. Jericho archaeology had perhaps produced evidence of the collapse
of Jericho's walls.

Garstang concluded that the tombs of the Hyksos were the most numerous and
complete, and that Jericho was captured and the fortifications dismantled at the
end of the Hyksos period, soon after 1600 BC.
Jericho archaeology has produced possible ruins of the Israelite invasion.
However, it was soon restored as a vassal of the Pharaohs, and continued in this
state until the earthquake at the end of the 16th century.

This ushered in the reconstruction of new buildings, and a new archaeological

period, the Late Bronze Age. The conventional date for this period is around
1500 BC.

Garstang goes on.

"We come now to the last phase in the history of Bronze Age Jericho. The
buildings of this period in the palace area and their contents are found to have
been consumed by an intense conflagration which has left them embedded in a
knee deep deposit of white ash covered by blackened debris.....The 15th century
BC is represented by hundreds of intact specimens...notably one of Thuthmose
III, the successor of Queen Hatshepsut in tomb 5 and two of Amenhotep III in
tomb 4....the last names Pharaohs ruled from about 1411-1375."

Garstang then points to the handful of specimens that represent the ensuing
centuries, in sharp contrast with the vast amount of artifacts from the Hyksos,
down to this Pharaohs reign.

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

He wraps up his findings with the following.

"We reach then the following conclusions;

1. The city perished while in active occupation

2. Buildings and their contents were consumed by fire of exceptionally
intensity
3. The Ramparts fell at the same time as the adjacent houses and the state
of their ruins points to earthquakes
4. The date of the fall of Jericho was about 1400 BC."

In other words, it is quite likely that, according to Garstang, these ramparts

collapsed as a result of an earthquake shock just before the onset of Joshua and
the Israelites.

Garstang also found dozens of jars full of grain dating from the last Canaanite
city of Jericho. This evidence indicates these were from the time of the harvest,
when the city was burned.

Thus, the foremost archaeologist of his time had shown that the prevailing belief
in the Biblical dating of the conquest and fall of Jericho was accurate with
Jericho archaeology. Garstang's findings, though did not go unchallenged, stood
on solid ground for about 20 years.

However, Egyptologists were concerned about Garstang and his dates. They
argued that if the Exodus took place during the 18th Dynasty, there should be
evidence of building by the Israelites in the Delta region, of which there was
none.

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

Study Resource

John Bartlett gives an account of the most recent archaeological finds at the
biblical site of Jericho in his book Jericho, Cities of the Biblical World,

Jericho Archaeology

Israel-a-history-of.com hopes you enjoy the resources our advertisers supply!

Your feedback on products, information, opinions, etc. are welcomed and
encouraged! Just click on the Contact Us tab on the Nav Bar!

Katherine Kenyon

In the 1950's Kenyon re-examined the site. She completely reassessed

Garstang's findings. Jericho archaeology was to take on a new face.

The double wall placed by Garstang in the Middle Bronze Age, around 1400
BC, Kenyon claimed it was from the Early Bronze Age, which she dated as
ending around 2100 BC. This was a difference of over 700 years!

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

She stated;

" … almost all traces of the Late Bronze Age town of the time of Joshua had
been destroyed by erosion"
She agreed that the city was destroyed by fire and earthquake, but in 1580 BC,
towards the end of the Middle Bronze Age II period.

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

Kenyon credited the Egyptians with the destruction of the walls which Garstang
attributed to the Jews. Kenyon argued this destruction followed the Hyksos
removal from Egypt, and subsequent ousting from Palestine.

Critics of this view claim that Jericho is a strange location for an Egyptian
invasion. The reason being the city does not rest on any main North-South route
likely to be utilized by an invading Egyptian army.

The following are excerpts from Kenyon's findings.

"At Jericho, the evidence for destruction is even more dramatic. All the middle
Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire....The stratigraphical
evidence suggests in itself that there was a gap in the occupation at Jericho. This
is confirmed by a gap in the occupation of tombs in the cemeteries. Burials
cease in all the tombs in the northern cemetery at the end of the Middle Bronze
Age (1550 BC - conventional dating)."

The stratigraphy of Jericho provides evidence of an extensive settlement. Each

layer represents an era of time. The bottom layer represents the oldest years of
occupation, working upwards as each successive generation built upon the
previous. The stratigraphical evidence of Jericho. Thus, Jericho archaeology
attempts to bridge the physical findings and social / cultural events with dates, to
the layering of civilization provided by excavation.

Kenyon states that tombs were found in the Western cemetery dating around
1375-1300 BC. This is still before her date of the time of Joshua.

"The evidence from the 1952-1958 excavations at Jericho indicate that there was
a Late Bronze Age town there in the 14thcentury which might have been
attacked by Joshua, but nothing survives to illustrate the Biblical account. It also
suggests that if this destruction followed by 600 years of abandonment was the
work of the Israelite tribes under Joshua, it is not likely to have been later than
1300 BC, which is difficult to reconcile with a flight from Egypt in 1260 BC."

Kenyon, with this statement, concludes Jericho archaeology disproves the

Biblical account of Jericho. She also finds no evidence of the occupation during
Eglon's reign of the Moabites, as well as nothing from the time of Ahab.
Jericho archaeology has produced evidence of Old Jericho. She also states;

"Newcomers who were presumably the authors of the destruction settled in

considerable numbers in the area but they did not build for themselves a walled
town..."

She also found another massive destruction of Jericho by fire at the end of the
Middle Bronze age.

After this, there remains limited evidence of occupation during the Late Bronze
Age (1550-1200), and after that, nothing.
The Biblical account, Garstang's finds, and Kenyon's conclusions do not seem to
fit at all.

The Conclusion

It must be noted that the dates for Jericho archaeology, according to Garstang
and Kenyon, were based on Egyptian Chronology. This has since been proven
erroneous, and a revised chronology has been set forth.

Thus, taking only the words of Garstang and Kenyon, and by comparing these
with the revised chronology, the following conclusion can be made.

The findings of Jericho archaeology are taken into consideration, disregarding

the controversy of conflicting dates.

These findings are then applied to the revised Egyptian chronology.

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

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

The other position centres on the wall Kenyon found from a later age. The
problem with this wall is that nothing came after it, and the Bible still talks of at
least two other periods of occupation in Jericho.

Garstang's wall shall be taken to be the wall during the time of Joshua, then
Kenyon's second wall is the final remains of the walls of Jericho stemming from
the gradual occupation of the tribes of Benjamin. The walls of Jericho fall down
before the Israelites. From this gradual occupation, Eglon King of Moab over
took these Benjamites and established The City of Palms as part of Moab. A
reduced city seems to fit with findings from Jericho archaeology.

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

The towns of the Benjamites would eventually be burnt by the remaining tribes
of Israel. This was in retaliation of the heinous crime committed by the Levite
on his concubine. Parts of her body were sent to all the tribes of Israel.

The artifacts from the Hyksos occupation is evidence of Jericho's occupation

before the Exodus, and the appearance of the Israelites in Palestine.

The tombs of the Egyptians signifies the Egyptian influence and presence living
in the area after Hiel had rebuilt the city at the cost of his two sons.

The loss of his two sons fulfilled the Lord's curse Joshua placed on Jericho.
Jericho archaeology alone, would seem to fit the literary background evidence
surrounding Jericho.

These were the tombs of the Egyptians responsible for giving advice during the
time of the Divided Kingdom, when the Northern Kingdom sought Egyptian
help in fighting off the Moabite threat, and, of course, the power of the Southern
Kingdom Judah. Jericho was a strategic city.

Thus, the following is a description of Jericho, based on the conventional dating,

Jericho archaeology, and explanations, in comparison with the revised dating
and revised explanations.

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

A.

Conventional Date - 2500 to 2100

Conventional Explanation - Pre-Patriarchal era of independent city states
Revised Date - 1775 to 1452
Revised Explanation - Canaanite City

B.

Conventional Date - 2100 to 1900

Conventional Explanation - Arrival of Amorites followed by more settled
invaders
Revised Date - 1452 to 1399
Revised Explanation - Invasion by Joshua. Benjamite occupation

C.

Conventional Date - 1900 to 1500

Conventional Explanation - Semitic culture founded by Canaanite & Phoenician
cultures
Revised Date - 1399 to 1185
Revised Explanation - The time of Eglon & Ehud and the re-occupation by
Benjamites. Final burning of Jericho.

D.

Conventional Date - 1525 to 1425

Conventional Explanation - Canaanite Town with Egyptian tombs
Revised Date - 1185 to 1022
Revised Explanation - Thuthmose helps Deborah in her battle with Sisera, thus
the Egyptian influence in Jericho.

E.

Conventional Date - 1400 to 1200

Conventional Explanation - None
Revised Date - 1022 to 915 (time of the reign of King David)
Revised Explanation - Scant occupation when David asked his men to stay until
beards were regrown

When the events of the Bible are viewed in context with Jericho archaeology,
there is little question the Biblical account of Jericho is indeed an actual history
of a city which dates back thousands of years, possibly as early as 9000 BC!
 The dates surrounding these events remain controversial at best. However, even
archaeologists will admit the most controversial area of this amazing field of
study is the actual dating of events. It should come as no surprise that dates vary
widely, and should not be used as evidence to dismiss one particular theory over
another.

Yigal Levin writes,

The traditionally accepted date of the Fall of Jericho based on 1 Kings 6:1,
where it says that the Temple was built in Solomon's 4th year, which was the
480th year since the Exodus. Assuming that the Shishak invasion was in 926,
which was Rehoboam's 5th year (1 Kings 14:25), Rehoboam succeeded
Solomon in 931/0, Solomon became king in 971/0 so Solomon's 4th year was
967/6. Subtract (or actually add) 480, you get 1446. Take away 40 years in the
wilderness, you get 1446 for Joshua's invasion.

Of course, that only works if the dates are accurate, including 40 years for
Solomon (and 40 for David), 40 years in the wilderness, and the 480, which just
HAPPENS to be 40 x 12.

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

However, even if that date is off by about a century either way it would not
make a difference, as there is NO archaeological OR textual evidence of any
appearance of anything that anyone could identify as "Israelites" until the very
end of the 13th century.22

Some of the evidence for a later date of the exodus has been presented
in countering the arguments for the early date. In addition, advocates
for the later 13th century date rely heavily on the archaeological
discoveries of the past century.

Biblical Support for a 13th century date (1290 BC)

Even though biblical scholars have found significant problems with the 15th
century date for the exodus, there is very little direct biblical evidence for a later
13th century date. Most of the support comes from archaeological and historical
evidence. Historians would argue that this presents no problem since the biblical
text was not written to provide us with the kind of data that we require in order
to answer our modern historical questions. The very reasons offered above
concerning the cultural use of numbers and the lack of concern with precision in
dating suggests that the search for a biblical "proof" of a date may be fruitless.
Still, to those who are used to looking at Scripture to answer such questions, the
22
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.html
answer of "not enough evidence" is not at all satisfying. It is this assumption that
the Bible should be able to address any question they want to pose it that has
tended to fuel considerable acrimony in various issues of biblical history.
Historical Support for a 13th century date (1290 BC)

1) Edom and Moab

Archaeology surveys and excavations on the eastern side of the Jordan river
(Transjordan), pioneered by N. Gleuck, reveal that there was no settled
civilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern Transjordan until
about the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also, the earliest record referring
to the Edomites is an Egyptian letter dating to the 13th century. There is scarcely
any evidence of settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we know
from the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area (e.g., Num
20:14), it seems that a 13th century date for the exodus is more likely and less
problematic than a 15th century date. Also, the Moabite city of Heshbon was the
first city taken by the Israelites in the Transjordan area, becoming a part of the
tribal territory of Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at what
has been identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until around
1250 to 1200 BC. Allowing for the 40 years in the desert, this suggests a date for
the exodus at the beginning of the 13th century.

Difficulties Raised: There have been a few limited excavations that suggest at
least some settled population as early as the 14th century, for example at a
temple complex at Timnah in the northern Negev. There is also substantial
evidence that there were nomadic tribes who inhabited the area earlier than the
14th century. These could have been the people that the Israelites encountered.
Also, it is not at all certain that the site identified as Heshbon is, in fact, the city
that the Israelites conquered.

2) Lachish, Debir, and Bethel

Excavations at three key cities taken by Joshua and the invading Israelites,
Lachish (Josh 10:31-32), Debir (Josh 10:38-39), and Bethel (Jud 1:23-25) reveal
a level of ash marking the burning of the cities that dates to the late 13th or early
12th century. This appears to correspond to the destruction of these cities by the
invading Israelites. This would place the exodus sometime in the mid to late
13th century.

Difficulties Raised: There is no direct evidence to link the destruction of these

cities to the Israelites. The biblical accounts do not say that the Israelites burned
these cities, only that they destroyed the inhabitants. The destruction levels
could as easily have been from later Egyptian raids into the area.
Logical Support for a 13th century date (1290 BC)

1) The Hyksos

The Hyksos were an Asiatic people who captured and ruled Egypt from around
1667 to 1546 BC (other dates for the Hyksos range from 1720 to 1580 BC).
They were sometimes called the "Shepherd Kings" because of their assumed
origins among the nomadic peoples of the Fertile Crescent, but that association
is by no means certain. They were generally Semitic people like the Israelites, a
term that simply refers to shared cultural and linguistic roots. Since this time
period of the Hyksos roughly corresponds to the era of the Patriarchs, it seems
logical to conclude that the migration of the Israelites to Egypt and the rise of
Joseph to power corresponded to the Hyksos’ control of Egypt. Semitic rulers
would be more favorable to allowing a Semitic "foreigner" to be second in
command of Egypt and to allow large migrations of other Semitic people into
the land. The "new king who did not know Joseph" (Ex 1:8) would be a
description of the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, which led the return of
control to Egyptians and the enslavement of the Israelites as retaliation for
foreign rule.

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

40. The time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years.
41. At the end of four hundred thirty years, on that very day, all the companies
of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

If we take the earliest date proposed for the Hyksos’ control of Egypt (1720 BC)
and assume that this is roughly the time of the Israelites’ move into Egypt,
adding 430 years would give us a date of about 1290 BC for the exodus. Using
the 15th century date for the exodus (1440) would place the patriarchal
migration into Egypt long before the Hyksos took control of Egypt.

Difficulties Raised: This perspective also builds on several assumptions that

may not be sound. First, there is no necessity that the Hyksos be related to the
Israelites since there is no biblical evidence for this, nor is there any historical
evidence beyond logical deduction.

Second, the Septuagint, the second century BC translation of the Old Testament
into Greek, has a slightly different version of Exodus 12:40, adding "and in the
land of Canaan." That is, the 430 years covers not only the period of time the
Israelites spent in Egypt but also includes the time the Patriarchs lived in Canaan
before they went to Egypt. If we add up the various times given for the
patriarchs, we end up with about 215 years that they lived in Canaan (Gen 12:4,
21:5, 25:26, 47:9). This leaves only the other 215 years for the stay in Egypt.
This appears to be problem with either system of dating, and suggests that the
traditions at this point cannot be used as a reliable guide for constructing dates.

Third, the time frame of the Patriarchs is not known well enough to assume that
the migration to Egypt was in the 18th century. It could have been as much as
100 to 150 years earlier than that.

2) The cities of Pithom and Rameses

The biblical narratives report that the enslaved Israelites were building the store
or treasury cities of Pithom and Rameses (Ex .1:11). While neither site has been
positively identified, it seems fairly certain that the cities were constructed by or
in honor of one of the pharaohs that went by the name Rameses. The first
pharaoh who reigned as Rameses I ruled Egypt from around 1293-1291 BC
(some date his reign to 1314-1312). Rameses II (1279-1212 or 1290-1224 BC)
was a prolific builder during his long reign, so it seems logical to assume that
this was the pharaoh who constructed the city of Rameses. This would suggest
that the exodus happened sometime during the reign of one of these pharaohs
near the beginning of the 13th century.

Difficulties Raised: It is not necessary that the city of Rameses built by the
Israelites was constructed by a pharaoh. The name Rameses was in use before
the 13th century, and could have been associated with someone else. The name
means "Ra is born," referring to the sun-god Ra, and could have been associated
with a temple complex.

3) Egyptian incursions into Canaan

Since the area of Palestine occupies a narrow strip of land connecting Egypt
with the great empires to the north, it was frequently the victim of wars and raids
between these empires seeking to establish spheres of influence. We know from
extra-biblical historical records that during the 15th century BC, Egypt had
extended her influence through Northern Palestine westward into Asia Minor
and eastward to the Euphrates and into the territory of Mittani. However, by the
14th century, Egyptian power had diminished considerably both because of
internal dissension and because of a resurgence of the Hittites in Asia Minor. In
the late 14th to mid-13th century there was a protracted series of wars between
Egypt, led by pharaohs Sethos I (Seti, 1305-1290 BC) and Rameses II (1290-
1224), and the Hittites. There were battles and incursions that ranged back and
forth through Palestine. A peace treaty finally led to a long era of peace between
the two empires, and allowed the reign of Rameses II to be one of the most
peaceful and prosperous of all the pharaohs.

If the Israelites were already well established in the land, as the 1440 BC date of
the exodus would suggest, they would have been continually battered by the
incursions of these two pharaohs as they marched north to engage the Hittites in
Syria and eastern Asian Minor. Yet the biblical record is totally silent about any
such incursions. Given this protracted warfare between the Hittites and Egypt
with Palestine at its center, it is inconceivable that there would be no biblical
records of the incursions of Sethos or Rameses into Israelite territory. This
suggests that the Israelites were not yet in the land, and therefore the exodus
must have been later in the early 13th century. This would correspond to the
other evidence in Palestine as well as the mention of the city of Rameses in
Exodus.

Difficulties Raised: This is really an argument from silence that is difficult to

prove. There is no need to conclude a 13th century date from the lack of biblical
reference to the Egyptian incursions since there are other explanations possible
for that silence. The incursions into Palestine by Sethos I and Rameses II were
not against the Israelites but against the Canaanites, specifically the Hittites and
their allies. The Egyptians were not concerned at this time with fighting the
Israelites since they posed no threat to Egypt. They were seeking to reestablish
their position in the region against the Hittites, so they would have no need to
engage the Israelites. Therefore, there would be no need for the Israelites to
mention the Egyptian incursions through their territory.

Also, it is entirely possible that the periods of "rest" mentioned in the book of
Judges (e.g., 3:11, 30, 5:31, etc.) were times of increased Egyptian control of the
area that would restrict raids from surrounding Canaanites. When the Egyptians
withdrew or were forced back, the Canaanites surrounding the Israelites were
freer to raid the Israelite settlements.
Conclusion

This quick survey of the two positions on the date of the exodus demonstrates
the tenuous nature of either position, whether working primarily from a literal
reading of Scripture (the early date) or working primarily from the evidence of
archaeological excavations (the late date). While historical evidence can often
contribute to a better understanding of Scripture from a variety of perspectives,
it is also obvious that historical evidence cannot solve every historical question
that we can raise from the biblical text. This suggests that historical
methodology, especially when that methodology is shaped by the assumptions
of modern critical investigation, can be a useful tool, but cannot really serve to
"prove" doctrinal positions about the nature of Scripture. As a tool, it has value.
But just as with any tool when it is used in a manner or task for which it was not
designed, we are left with less than acceptable results.
Historical Context

There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitely

establish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historical
evidence of the exodus itself. This should not be surprising even from a
historical point of view. On the one hand, we could hardly expect slaves fleeing
for their lives to stop and leave monuments and inscriptions describing their
escape. And we know from other historical records, for example where there are
two accounts from different countries about a battle, that Egyptian pharaohs did
not erect monuments to their failures and tended to describe defeats as victories,
much like modern political parties still tend to do. So, if we are looking for
external verification of the exodus, historians are not able to help us much.
Rather than disproving anything, this simply says that we do not have the
historical evidence to affirm or deny the event or to establish its date by the
criteria of historical critical methodology. Historically, we simply do not know
beyond probability.

However, this does not mean that historical investigation is of no value to us in

the exodus narratives, or that the narratives do not provide any historical
evidence. We may not be able to answer all of our specific questions. But there
are some features of the exodus story that generally provide a context for the
biblical narratives. For example, from a sociological perspective the biblical
traditions bear a clear memory of Egyptian ancestry. The tradition remembered
that Moses had an Egyptian name, in spite of the fact that the traditions try to
give it a Hebrew meaning (Exod 2:10). In fact, several of the pharaohs bear the
name "mose" in various forms meaning "is born" (Thutmose, Ahmosis,
Rameses). Moses is even mistaken for an Egyptian (Ex 2:19).

This places the narrative in an Egyptian context that then allows us to draw from
our historical knowledge about ancient Egypt in helping us understand features
of the narrative. For example, we do know that there was a precedent for a
Semitic "outsider" to govern Egypt, which makes Joseph’s position in Egypt
credible. We know of massive building projects built by slave labor such as
described in Exodus. And there is good evidence from Egyptian documents that
many of the plagues would have corresponded to Egyptian deities, providing not
simply threatening miracles but a sustained challenge to Egypt’s religious
system. Even the final plague struck at a core Egyptian religious belief in which
the heir of pharaoh became an incarnation of the sun-god Re when he ascended
the throne. The historical and cultural background forces us to engage the text
on a far deeper level than reading the story as either straightforward history on
the one side or doctrine on the other (for an example of how this might work in a
specific biblical text, see Genesis Bible Study: The Cultural Context of Israel).

Of course, none of this "proves" the Bible, nor does it tell us "what really
happened." But it does render the biblical narratives more understandable in a
historical context. And if we understand that context, we will likely be in a
better position to understand the impact of the biblical narrative, not for what it
tells us about history, but for what it tells us about God. Finally, the historical
issues and the methods used to research them cannot really stand alone. We still
do not have Scripture after we have "proven" something happened or did not
 happen. We only have history. And that is not really our goal in the study of
Scripture. We have Scripture when people who have experienced God and his
self-revelation in human history, and who have come to understand the
significance of that revelation, bear witness to God. We study the historical
dimensions of Scripture in order that we might better hear and understand that
witness to God.

Our temptation is to assume that the Bible was written for us directly. Historical
investigation helps us realize that while Scripture has ongoing relevance, it is
not timeless (outside of time) any more than God’s revelation in that history is
timeless. God’s actions are and have always been time conditioned for us,
because he has chosen to reveal himself in human history, not apart from it.
Since that is true, historical investigation will always be necessary, not to prove
that something happened, or when it happened, or how, but rather to help us
hear the confession about God from the midst of God’s historically conditioned
self-revelation and the people’s historically conditioned witness. In that sense,
while historical investigation cannot prove much about the Faith, it is a crucial
tool of biblical study.

See:

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

Alternate views:
The Exodus (Greek ἔξοδος, Hebrew: ‫יציאת מצרים‬, Modern Yetsi'at Mitzrayim
Tiberian [jəsʕijaθ misʕɾajim] Y'ṣiʾath Miṣrayim ; "the exit from Egypt") is the
story of the departure of the Israelites from ancient Egypt described in the
Hebrew Bible. Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure from
Egypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequent
law-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaan
described in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The extant narrative is a product of the late exilic or the post-exilic period (6th
to 5th centuries BC), but the core of the narrative is older, being reflected in the
8th to 7th century BC Deuteronomist documents.[1]

A minority of scholars assumes that the Iron Age narrative has yet older sources
that can be traced to a genuine tradition of the Bronze Age collapse of the 13th
century BC.[2]

The Book of Exodus tells how Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt and
through the wilderness to Mount Sinai, where God reveals himself and offers
them a Covenant: they are to keep his torah (i.e. law, instruction), and in return
he will be their God and give them the land of Canaan. The Book of Leviticus
records the laws of God. The Book of Numbers tells how the Israelites, led now
by their God, journey onwards from Sinai towards Canaan, but when their spies
report that the land is filled with giants they refuse to go on. God then condemns
them to remain in the desert until the generation that left Egypt passes away.
After thirty-eight years at the oasis of Kadesh Barnea the next generation travel
on to the borders of Canaan. The Book of Deuteronomy tells how, within sight
of the Promised Land, Moses recalls their journeys and gives them new laws.
His death (the last reported event of the Torah) concludes the 40 years of the
exodus from Egypt.

Origins of the Exodus story

While the story in the books of Exodus, Numbers and Deuteronomy is the best-
known account of the Exodus, there are over a hundred and fifty references
scattered through the Bible, and the only significant body of work that does not
mention it is the Wisdom literature.[3] The earliest mentions are in the prophets
Amos (possibly) and Hosea (certainly), both active in 8th century Israel; in
contrast Proto-Isaiah and Micah, both active in Judah at much the same time,
never do; it thus seems reasonable to conclude that the Exodus tradition was
important in the northern kingdom in the 8th century, but not in Judah.[4]

In a recent work, Stephen C. Russell traces the 8th century prophetic tradition to
three originally separate variants, in the northern kingdom of Israel, in Trans-
Jordan, and in the southern kingdom of Judah. Russell proposes different
hypothetical historical backgrounds to each tradition: the tradition from Israel,
which involves a journey from Egypt to the region of Bethel, he suggests a
memory of herders who could move to and from Egypt in times of crisis; for the
Trans-Jordanian tradition, which focuses on deliverance from Egypt without a
journey, he suggests a memory of the withdrawal of Egyptian control at the end
of the Late Bronze Age; and for Judah, where the tradition is preserved in the
Song of the Sea, he suggests the celebration of a military victory over Egypt,
although it is impossible to suggest what this victory may have been.[5]

The exodus from Egypt is the theme of the Jewish holiday of Passover
("pesaḥ"); the term continues to be used in the Passover Hagadah.[6] At the
beginning of the Exodus narrative the Israelites are instructed to prepare
unleavened bread as they will be leaving in haste, and to mark their doors with
blood of the slaughtered sheep so that the "Angel" or "the destroyer" will "pass
over" them while killing the first-born of Egypt. The Hebrew name for the
festival, "Pesaḥ", refers to the "skipping over", "jumping over" or "passing
over" by God of Jewish houses while killing the first born of Egypt.

(Despite the biblical story, scholars believe that the Passover festival originated
in a magic ritual to turn away demons from the household by painting the
doorframe with the blood of a slaughtered sheep.)[7]

Jewish tradition has preserved national and personal reminders of this pivotal
narrative into daily life. Examples of such reminders include the wearing of
'tefilin' (phylacteries) on the hand and forehead, which some Jews practice daily;
the wearing of 'tzitzit'; the eating of 'matzot' (unleavened bread) during the
Pesach (Passover) holiday; the fasting of the firstborn a day before Pesach; the
redemption of firstborn children and animals; and even the observance of the
Sabbath.

Composition of the Torah exodus narrative

There are currently a number of competing theories on the composition of the

Exodus story contained in the four books Exodus-Leviticus-Numbers-
Deuteronomy. They are conventionally divided into three "models", meaning
that there are three possible ways in which the books could have been
composed.

The documentary model proposes that the four books (actually five - the models
include Genesis) were originally four separate documents, treating the same
subject (i.e. the Exodus) written at various times and combined by a series of
"redactors", or editors, the last in about 450 BCE. The "supplementary model"
holds that that there was a single original document which was then expanded
by "supplements", again with the end product emerging around 450 BCE. The
"fragmentary" model proposes that the four books were combined by a single
author from a host of "fragments", meaning small texts as well as oral traditions
(sagas and folk-tales), again c.450 BCE.

The documentary model is associated today with Julius Wellhausen, a German

bible-scholar of the 19th century. His hypothesis (often called simply "the
documentary hypothesis") holds that the five books are a combination of four
originally independent sources, called the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestly
source, and the Deuteronomist. His theory dominated biblical scholarship for
much of the 20th century and was only cast into serious doubt by a series of
books which appeared in the 1970s.

An influential hypothesis within the "supplementary" model was advanced by

John Van Seters in the 1970s - Van Seters proposed that an author he calls the
Jahwist wrote the base-story in the 6th century, and that this was later expanded
by others, notably the Priestly school of writers - but what Van Seters means by
"Jahwist" is very different to what the classical documentary hypothesis means.
His work was influential, but scholars today tend to adopt a "fragmentary
model" approach.

The most recent ideas on the origin of the five books place Deuteronomy in the
late 7th century with a revised version in the 6th, and the other four books in the
Persian period of the 5th century. It is generally agreed that the Exodus tradition
behind the five books predates the narrative as told in Exodus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy (since it also appears in the 8th century prophets), but there is no
consensus on just what might lie behind the tradition.

Historicity debate

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

best seen as theology told in the form of history, illustrating how the God of
Israel acted to save and strengthen his chosen people, the Israelites, and it is
therefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bush
and the plagues of Egypt as history.[8] Nevertheless, the discussion of a possible
historical nucleus of the narrative has a long history, and continues to attract
attention.

The following section discusses some of the more popular aspects of the Exodus
story.

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38 NIV, the Israelites numbered "about six hundred
thousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelites
and livestock.[9] Numbers 1:46 gives a more precise total of 603,550.[10] The
600,000, plus wives, children, the elderly, and the "mixed multitude" of non-
Israelites would have numbered some 2 million people,[11] compared with an
entire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.[12] Marching ten
abreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line
150 miles long.[13] No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such a
demographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinai
desert ever hosted (or could have hosted) these millions of people and their
herds,[14] nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, which is estimated to
have had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.[15] Some scholars
have interpreted these numbers as a mistranslation - reading the Hebrew word
eleph as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, reduces the Hebrew population
involved to roughly 20,000 individuals,[16][17] - but the view of mainstream
modern biblical scholarship is that the Exodus story was written not as history,
but to demonstrate God's purpose and deeds with his Chosen People, Israel; the
essentially theological motivation of the story explains the improbability of the
scenario described above.[18] It has also been suggested that the 603,550 people
delivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, but
contains a secret message, a gematria for bene yisra'el kol ros, "the children of
Israel, every individual;"[19] while the number 600,000 symbolises of the total
destruction of the generation of Israel which left Egypt, none of whom lived to
see the Promised Land.[20]

Archaeology

The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is

"overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year
pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21] For this reason, most
archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and
the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[22] A century of research by archaeologists
and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the
Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the
wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the
kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[23][24] the
culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are
those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite
tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker
distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig
bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other
factors remains a matter of dispute.[25]

Anachronisms

The late origins of the Exodus story are evident also in a number of
anachronisms which characterise it. For example, Pharaoh's fear that the
Israelites might ally themselves with foreign invaders makes little sense in the
context of the New Kingdom, when Canaan was part of an Egyptian empire and
Egypt faced no enemies in that direction, but does make sense in a 1st
millennium context, when Egypt was considerably weaker and faced invasion
first from the Persians and later from Seleucid Syria.[26]

Other anachronisms point to a period in the mid-1st millennium: Ezion-Geber,

(one of the Stations of the Exodus), for example, dates to a period between the
8th and 6th centuries BC with possible further occupation into the 4th century
BC,[27] while the place-names on the Exodus route which can be identified -
Goshen, Pithom, Succoth, Ramesses and Kadesh Barnea - point to the
geography of the 1st millennium rather than the 2nd.[28]

Chronology

The chronology of the Exodus story likewise underlines its essentially religious
rather than historical nature. The number seven, for example, was sacred to God
in Judaism, and so the Israelites arrive at Sinai, where they will meet God, at the
beginning of the seventh week after their departure from Egypt,[29] while the
erection of the Tabernacle, God's dwelling-place among his people, occurs in the
year 2666 after God creates the world, two-thirds of the way through a four
thousand year era which culminates in or around 164 BC, the year of the
rededication of the Second Temple.[30][31]

Route

The Torah lists the places where the Israelites rested. A few of the names at the
start of the itinerary, including Ra'amses, Pithom and Succoth, are reasonably
well identified with archaeological sites on the eastern edge of the Nile delta,
[32] as is Kadesh-Barnea,[33] where the Israelites spend 38 years after turning
back from Canaan, but other than that very little is certain. The crossing of the
Red Sea has been variously placed at the Pelusic branch of the Nile, anywhere
along the network of Bitter Lakes and smaller canals that formed a barrier
toward eastward escape, the Gulf of Suez (SSE of Succoth) and the Gulf of
Aqaba (S of Ezion-Geber), or even on a lagoon on the Mediterranean coast.

The biblical Mt. Sinai is identified in Christian tradition with Jebel Musa in the
south of the Sinai Peninsula, but this association dates only from the 3rd century
AD and no evidence of the Exodus has been found there.[34]

The most obvious routes for travelers through the region were the royal roads,
the "king's highways" that had been in use for centuries and would continue in
use for centuries to come. The Bible specifically denies that the Israelites went
by the Way of the Philistines (purple line on the map to the right), the northerly
route along the Mediterranean coast. This leaves the Way of Shur (green) and
the Way of Seir (black) as probable routes, the former having the advantage of
heading toward Kadesh-Barnea.

Date

The Seder Olam Rabbah (ca. 2nd century CE) determines the commencement of
the Exodus to 2448 AM (1312 BCE). This date has become traditional in
Rabbinic Judaism.[35]

In the first half of the 20th century the Exodus was dated on the basis of 1 Kings
6:1, which states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of
Solomon's Temple, the fourth year of Solomon's reign. Equating the biblical
chronology with dates in history is notoriously difficult, but Edwin Thiele's
widely accepted reconciliation of the reigns of the Israelite and Judahite kings
would imply an Exodus around 1450 BC, during the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose
III (1479-1425 BC).[36]
By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological record
made this date impossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had already been
discovered in 1881,[37] and Egyptian records of that period do not mention the
expulsion of any group that could be identified with over 2 million Hebrew
slaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues.

In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneous
destruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BC - in fact many of them, including
Jericho, the first Canaanite city to fall to the Israelites according to the Book of
Joshua, were uninhabited at the time.

The lack of evidence led William F. Albright, the leading biblical archaeologist
of the period, to propose an alternative, "late" Exodus around 1200-1250 BC.

His argument was based on the many strands of evidence, including the
destruction at Beitel (Bethel) and some other cities at around that period, and the
occurrence from the same period of distinctive house-types and a distinctive
round-collared jar which, in his opinion, was to be identified with in-coming
Israelites. Albright's theory enjoyed popularity around the middle of the 20th
century, but has now been generally abandoned in scholarship.[38]

The evidence which led to the abandonment of Albright's theory include: the
collar-rimmed jars have been recognised as an indigenous form originating in
lowland Canaanite cities centuries earlier;[39] while some "Joshua" cities,
including Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo and others, have destruction and transition
layers around 1250-1145 BC, others, including Jericho, have no destruction
layers or were uninhabited during this period;[15][40] and the Merneptah Stele
indicates that a people called "Israel" were already known in Canaan by the
reign of Merneptah (1213-1203 BC).[41]

Modern theories on the date - all of them popular rather than scholarly - tend to
concentrate on an "early" Exodus, prior to c.1440 BC. The major candidates are:

* The 2006 History Channel documentary The Exodus Decoded revived an

idea first put forward by the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus,
identifing the Israelites with the Hyksos, the non-Egyptian rulers of Egypt
expelled by the resurgent native Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt, c.1550-1530 BC.
However, there are numerous difficulties with the theory, and it is not accepted
by scholars.[42][43]

* David Rohl's 1995 A Test of Time attempted to correct Egyptian history by

shortening the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost 300 years. As a by-
result the synchronisms with the biblical narrative have changed, making the
13th Dynasty pharaoh Djedneferre Dudimose (Dedumesu, Tutimaos, Tutimaios)
the pharaoh of the Exodus.[44] Rohl's theory, however, has failed to find
support among scholars in his field.[45]

* From time to time there have been attempts to link the Exodus with the
eruption of the Aegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BC on the grounds that it
could provide a natural explanation of the Plagues of Egypt and the crossing of
the Red Sea - geologist Barbara J Sivertsen's 2009 book "The Parting of the Sea:
How Volcanoes, Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus" is
the most recent.[46]
 Extra-Biblical accounts

The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is by Hecataeus of Abdera (late

4th century BCE): the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel them
from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, where
he founds the city of Jerusalem.[47]

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

In the first Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their
dominion over and expulsion from Egypt, and their subsequent foundation of the
city of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos
with the Jews.[48]

In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people,"
led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living
in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh
and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the
lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses.[49]

Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptians
rather than Jews, and in using a name other than Moses for their leader[47] -
many scholars regard the identification of Osarseph with Moses as a later
addition to the text,[50] although the question remains open.[51]

Notes [for purple text]

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

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

3. Stephen C. Russell, "Images of Egypt in early biblical literature"

(Walter de Gruyter, 2009), p.1

4. Niels Peter Lemche, "Early Israel: anthropological and historical

studies" (Brill, 1985) p.327

5. Stephen C. Russell, "Images of Egypt in early biblical literature"

(Walter de Gruyter, 2009), pp.194-197

6. ‫שֵּתָאֵמר ְיִציַאת‬
ֶׁ ‫ ְוֹלא ָזִכיִתי‬,‫שָנה‬
ָׁ ‫שְבִעים‬
ִׁ ‫ ֲהֵרי ֲאִני ְּכֶבן‬,‫ָאַמר ָלֶהם ִרִּבי ֶאְלָעָזר ֶּבן ֲעַזְרָיה‬
‫ ִמְצַרִים‬Passover Hagadah according to Mishneh Torah (Hebrew original), (mechon-
mamre.org)

7. Bernard Malcolm Levinson, "Deuteronomy and the hermeneutics of

legal innovation" (OUP, 1997) p.58

8. Carol A. Redmount, Bitter Lives: Israel In And Out of Egypt, in "The

Oxford History of the Biblical World" (ed. Michael D. Coogan, OUP, 1998), p.64 (see
full argument on pp. 63-64)
9. Exodus 12

10. Numbers 1

11. Mattis Kantor ("The Jewish Time Line Encyclopedia" Jason Aronson
Inc., 1989, 1992) places the estimate at 2 million "[i]n normal demographic
extensions...."
12. Kathryn A. Bard, Steven Blake Shubert (eds), "Encyclopedia of
Ancient Egypt (Routledge, 1999)p.251

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

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

15. AB Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2002). The Bible
Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred
Texts. Free Press. ISBN 978-0684869131.

16. Abraham Malamat, "Aspects of Tribal Societies in Mari and Israel", in

XVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: La Civilisation de Mari, Les Congrès et
Colloques de l’Université de Liège, 1967, p.135 - referenced at Associates for Biblical
Research

17. Colin J. Humphreys, "The Number of People in the Exodus from

Egypt: Decoding Mathematically the Very Large Numbers in Numbers I and XXVI,"
Vetus Testamentum 48 (1998), pp. 196-213.

18. Carol L. Meyers, "Exodus", New Cambridge Bible Commentary series

(Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.5

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

20. Philippe Guillaume, "Tracing the Origin of the Sabbatical Calendar in

the Priestly Narrative, Genesis 1 to Joshua 5", Journal of Hebrew Scriptures, vol.5 art.13,
pp.8, 15

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

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

23. Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism
to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration
Society. ISBN 1880317206.

24. Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw. ed. A dictionary of archaeology

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

26. Anne E. Killebrew, "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity" (Society of

Biblical Literature, 2005) p.176

27. Alberto Soggin, "An Introduction to the History of Israel and Judah",
(SCM Press, 1999, trans from Italian 3rd edition 1998), pp. 128-9

28. Gary D. Pratico, "Nelson Glueck's 1938-1940 Excavations at Tell el-

Kheleifeh: A Reappraisal" Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.
259 (Summer, 1985), pp.1-32

29. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus", in John Andrew
Dearman, Matt Patrick Graham, (eds), "The land that I will show you: essays on the
history and archaeology of the Ancient Near East in honour of J. Maxwell Miller"
(Sheffield Academic Press, 2001), pp.255ff

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

(Cambridge University Press, 2005) p.143

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

32. Philip Davies, Scribes and Schools: The Canonization of the Hebrew
Scriptures (Westminster John Knox 1998) p. 180

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

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

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

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

37. Seder Olam Rabbah, Finegan, Jack, Handbook of Biblical Chronology,

Revised Ed., Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1998, p. 111

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

39. "Tuthmosis", Egyptology Online

40. Kitchen, Kenneth A (2003). On the Reliability of the Old Testament.

Eerdmans. pp. 309–10. ISBN 978-0802849601.

41. Mary Joan Winn Leith, "How a People Forms", review of "Biblical
Peoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines and
Early Israel" (2001), Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2006, pp.22-23
42. Dever, William G (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and Where
Did They Come From?. Eerdmans. pp. 44–46. ISBN 0802844162.

43. Currie, Robert and Hyslop, Stephen G. The Letter and the Scroll: What
Archaeology Tells Us About the Bible. Washington, D.C.: National Geographic, 2009.

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

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2006/09/Debunking-The-Exodus-Decoded.aspx. .
Retrieved 8 August 2009.

45. "The Exodus Decoded: An Extended Review" Tuesday 19 Dec 2006.

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459 Retrieved 8 August 2009.

46. Rohl, David (1995). "Chapter 13". A Test of Time. Arrow. pp. 341–8.
ISBN 0099416565.

47. Bennett, Chris. "Temporal Fugues", Journal of Ancient and Medieval

Studies XIII (1996). Available at [1]

48. Sivertsen, Barbara J (2009). The Parting of the Sea: How Volcanoes,
Earthquakes, and Plagues Shaped the Story of the Exodus. Princeton University Press.
ISBN 9780691137704.

49. K.L. Noll, "Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: An Introduction" (Sheffield

Academic Press, 2001) p.34

50. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians, in L.H.

Feldman and J.R. Levison (ed), "Josephus' Contra Apion" (Brill, 1996), pp.121-2

51. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians, in L.H.

Feldman and J.R. Levison (eds), "Josephus' Contra Apion" (Brill, 1996), pp.134-5

52. Arthur J. Droge, Josephus Between Greeks and Barbarians, in Louis H.

Feldman and John R. Levison (eds), "Josephus' Contra Apionem: studies in its character
and context" (Brill, 1996) p.135

53. Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus's interpretation of the Bible", (University

of California Press, 1998) p.342

Bibliography

Yohanan Aharoni. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia:

Westminster Press, 1982. ISBN 0-664-21384-7. This book is notable for the
large number of Ramesside cartouches and finds it cites throughout Israel.

Jan Assman, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in Western

Monotheism, First Harvard University Press, 1997.

John J. Bimson. Redating the Exodus. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic

Press, 1981. ISBN 0-907459-04-8.
 Johannes C. de Moor. "Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus" in Ugarit, Religion and
Culture, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and
Culture, edited by N. Wyatt and W. G. E. Watson. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-
Verlag, 1996. ISBN 3-927120-37-5.

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

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

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

Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, edited by Frerichs, Lesko & Dever,

Indianapolis: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ISBN 1-57506-025-6.

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

James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of the
Exodus tradition, Oxford University Press, 1996, 1999, ISBN 9780195130881.

James Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai:the evidence for the authenticity of

the wilderness tradition, Oxford University Press, 2005, ISBN 9780195155464.

Thomas E. Levy and Mohammed Sajjar. "Edom & Copper", Biblical

Archaeological Review (BAR), July/August, 2006: 24-35.

Mark McEntire, Struggling with God: An Introduction to the Pentateuch,

Mercer University Press, 2008.

Carol Meyers, Exodus, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

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

Nahum Sarna. "Six hundred thousand men on foot" in Exploring Exodus: The
Origins of Biblical Israel, New York: Schocken Books (1996): ch. 5. ISBN 0-
8052-1063-6

Hershel Shanks, William G. Dever, Baruch Halpern and P. Kyle McCarter.

The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution October
26, 1991, Biblical Archaeological Society, 1992. ISBN 1-880317-05-2

Taking into account the foregoing information, I challenge the

Christadelphians to respond to this refutation that the Bible is 100%
historically accurate as they have stated in MOGOM.