Is Bible History

Reliable?
Part One
The Strange Case of the Walls of Jericho
By Ronnie Bray

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

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%.1

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.

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

1
Radiocarbon, Vol. 37, Number 2, 1995
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.2

Some of the evidence for a later date of the exodus has

been presented in countering the arguments for the early
2
http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/b-hebrew/2004-May/018496.html
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 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.

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 ִמְצַרִים‬

ֶׁ ‫ ְוֹלא ָזִכיִתי‬,‫שָנה‬
ָׁ ‫שְבִעים‬
ִׁ ‫ ֲהֵרי ֲאִני ְּכֶבן‬,‫ָאַמר ָלֶהם ִרִּבי ֶאְלָעָזר ֶּבן ֲעַזְרָיה‬

Passover 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/Debun
king-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=i7PsTOu2
F4i7ccGfqPYO&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=resu
lt&resnum=2&ved=0CCEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepag
e&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