Misdating the Exodus and Conquest
Overview
Two main competing conservative chronologies of Israel’s origins have long appeared in study Bibles, commentaries, books, and journal publications. They are the 15th century BC chronology (that dates the Exodus and the Conquest to the 1400s BC) and the 13th century BC chronology (that dates these same events to the 1200s BC). Both theories originated in the 19th century before any archaeological evidence was available.
Neither of these chronologies is compatible with the hard evidence available today. They are radically contradicted in the archaeological record, particularly related to the Conquest. The discovery of this fact by the early 1970s sent shock waves through the conservative biblical community and led to the demise of “biblical archaeology” in vogue in that period. Claims that the Bible narratives could be “proven” by archaeological or other means were thoroughly rejected in academia.
Troubling News from Ai
The crack in the foundations of the traditional chronologies was discovered by Joseph Callaway, excavator of Et-Tell (biblical Ai). [1] This was the town Joshua destroyed in Canaan immediately after Jericho. Callaway probably expected to find evidence for a destruction level at Ai dating to c. 1220/1230 BC or c. 1406 BC—the two traditional dates for the Conquest. But he discovered that Et-Tell was uninhabited in those periods. In fact, no one had lived there for 1,000 years when new settlers arrived c. 1200 BC. Their newly constructed village was destroyed (or “disturbed”) c. 1125 BC, the year Conquest must have begun (updated here to c. 1135 BC).
More Unsettling News
The dating of the Bible’s account of the Israelite journey from the Sinai to the Transjordan thence across the Jordan River to Jericho and Ai and beyond is where the credibility of the Bible’s story of Israel’s origins has met its greatest challenge. Ai and nearly a dozen other towns that Moses and Joshua supposedly encountered or defeated in the Conquest of the Transjordan and Canaan did not exist before the early 1100s BC. It follows that the Conquest could not have happened before these towns had been settled and became established, a process requiring decades of occupation before they could have been encountered by the Israelites. [2]
Ruins of the city of Dibon
1. The biblical site. 2. The modern village
(Courtesy of RØHR Productions, Ltd.)
If the Bible’s Story is not Historical, Where Did it Come From?
Supporters of traditional chronologies have painted themselves and the Bible into a corner. They cannot adequately explain why the evidence does not support their dating scheme, so they tend to ignore, marginalize, or deny the archaeological findings to sustain a high view of Scripture.
Biblical skeptics have no such concern. They have long dismissed the Bible as a historical source with no consideration of the effect this has had on biblical authority among believers. But the skeptic must ask, “Since the Bible’s story of Israel’s origins is not a historical account where did the story come from?” Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman present a scenario explaining how, when, and why the story of Israel’s origins was invented by human authors that had an agenda. Their speculative work below is representative of many in mainstream scholarship who have sought to account for the early texts of the Hebrew Bible.
The Bible Unearthed
In their popular trade book titled Unearthing the Bible, Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (2001) the authors explain that within a few decades toward the end of the 7th century BC, a small cadre of “court officials, scribes, priests, peasants, and prophets came together to create a new movement.” What this cadre produced, Finkelstein and Silberman say, was an epic saga woven from historical writings, memories, legends, folk tales, anecdotes, royal propaganda, prophecy, and ancient poetry that would become (with further elaboration) the historical core of the Hebrew Bible.
They claim the text was written by this cadre to justify the radical political agenda of Judah’s King Josiah (640–609 BC). His objective was to centralize Jerusalem and the temple as the only acceptable place to worship God. Centralizing power in this way fueled Josiah’s ambitions of realizing again the “legendary” state of David and Solomon. In the process (these authors claim) modern monotheism was born. [3]
In dismissing the early texts of the Hebrew Bible as tendentious works of human imagination, Finkelstein and Silberman have turned to what they think is the only objective basis for reconstructing ancient Israel’s origins: archaeological evidence. They believe archaeology can establish what really happened, and it wasn’t what the Bible claims.
The Conservative Dilemma
Archaeological discoveries of the 1970s fractured the conservative sector of the academic community. Without fully acknowledging archaeology’s role in the ensuring ferment, evangelicals suffered a crisis within the academic ranks at that time, a crisis that has not been fully understood nor resolved—in my opinion. [4] I lived through the aftermath of this upheaval.
Prominent American archaeologist William Dever says many biblical scholars, theologians, seminary professors, and clergy are culpable in what amounts to public deception. Many of these scholars proceed by ignoring skeptical voices (and possibly even their own doubts) in the interests of doing business as usual. He says they cannot, surely, be unaware of the contradictions between the biblical narrative and the extrabiblical evidence, contradictions seldom addressed and never credibly reconciled.[5]
Archaeologists, some of whom were on the same page with conservative Bible scholars before the 1970s, abandoned their recommendation that archaeologists excavate with the Bible in one hand. Again, according to Dever, there is not one “reputable” archaeologist in the world today who espouses the Conquest Model. [6] (This is the belief that the Israelites [as a discrete population] invaded Canaan in lightning military action and established themselves in the land through force of arms as described in the book of Joshua.) Dever observes that “reputable” archaeologists no longer include the Bible’s account among the possible explanations for how Israel came to exist in the land.[7]
By 2012, archaeologist Walter Rast could observe that biblical studies and Syro-Palestinian archaeology had adopted distinctive methodologies that no longer engaged.[8] The academic literature shows increasing insulation of biblical scholarship from contributions of archaeology—trending toward “story” and away from history.[9]At the same time archaeologists generally no longer refer to the Bible as a credible source of historical information when evaluating evidence of occupation in Canaan dating to the Late Bronze Age (1550–1200 BC) through the Iron Age I (1200–1000 BC).
Some traditional Bible scholars (holding fast to their accepted chronologies) have adopted a “hermeneutic of suspicion” when it comes to archaeological evidence. Some have complained that archaeologists have produced a history that does not correspond with the Bible’s story.[10] Some speak of the “tyranny of archaeological evidence” over the Bible’s witness.#misdating3
And Dever (once again) observes that the few “new” biblical histories of ancient Israel that have appeared are no more than rational paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible; they do not adequately address the archaeological evidence.[12] In these histories scholars often ignore, discredit, or rationalize archaeological discoveries where those findings contradict an expected dating of biblical events.[13]
This state of uncertainty among conservative scholars committed to the traditional chronologies of Israel’s origins is the direct result of insisting on dates for the Exodus and the Conquest that place these events in the wrong centuries.
The way out of the dilemma is to admit the contributions of archaeology and correctly date the Bible events. This will require a reevaluation of long held assumptions that cannot be correct (see “Objections” below).
[2] Here are a few examples of biblical events/circumstances that could not have happened before the 12th century BC (the 1100s BC): The domination of the Negev by the Amalekites, the rise of Lowland Edom in the Arabah; the founding of the towns of Aroer, Heshbon, and Dibon in the Transjordan. In Canaan, an Iron I reoccupation at Jericho, the reoccupation of Ai, walled Bethel, the founding of Gibeon (and other Hivite towns), the reoccupation of Hebron, the Israelite construction of Shiloh, the destruction of Lachish, and construction of the Mt. Ebal altar. In addition, several towns defeated by Joshua in the northern campaign were not viable before the 12th century BC. Details of these and many other events—only compatible date-wise with a 12th century BC chronology—are explained in The Bible and the Origins of Ancient Israel.
3] I. Finkelstein and N. Silberman (2001: 1-2).
[4] See H. Lindsell (1976).
[5] W. Dever (2003: 224). See also Has Archaeology Buried the Bible? (2020).
[6] W. Dever (1992a, Kindle Edition loc. 458).
[7] In addition to what Dever and others consider the now passé Conquest Model of W. F. Albright (1932), at least four non-biblical “settlement” models have gained favor in the literature to explain how a people that would become Israel came to be in Canaan. They include: the Peaceful Infiltration Model (Y. Aharoni, 1970; A. Alt; 1925), the Peasant Revolt Model (N. Gottwald, 1979), the Symbiosis Model (V. Fritz, 1987), and the Ethnogenesis Model (T. Levy and A. Holl, 2002). See T. Levy, R. Adams, and A. Muniz (2004: 63–64), W. Kaiser, Jr., and P. Wegner (2016: 8–13), P. Ray, Jr. (2008: 80–90), and P. Mazani (2008: 95–109).
[8] W. Rast (2012a: 48–49). But see E. Velázquez, III (2008: 74) who points out that, practically, the two disciplines must continue some dialogue; they do not function as entirely divorced disciplines.
[9] To illustrate this trend: In his 600-page commentary on Judges, K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (2020: 27–28) has only two paragraphs on chronology; his focus is on the literary structure of the text that reveals invaluable insights into the nature of the book (and it is not a narrative). This trend among Bible scholars toward story or literature and away from history contrasts with earlier historical approaches.
[10] See F. Hartenstein (2003: 2–28) and K. Matthews (2005: 24–25).
[11] K. Matthews (2005: 28).
[13] I. Provan, V. Long, and T. Longman, III (2003: 177) illustrate this by explaining why (they believe) the archaeological evidence at biblical Ai (Et-Tell) cannot be definitive.