anti-mormons on mormons and the bible christadelphians part one

8/7/2019 Anti-Mormons on Mormons and the Bible Christadelphians Part One

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/anti-mormons-on-mormons-and-the-bible-christadelphians-part-one 1/30

Mormons And the BibleBy Ronnie Bray

A common criticism aimed at members of the Church of Jesus Christof Latter-day saints is the charge that Mormons either contradict theBible, or ignore it, or relegate it to a lower position of importance tothe Book of Mormon. Are these charges true or not? Let us take alook at some of the accusations about Latter-day Saints and their useor not of the Holy Bible, and then consider the reliability of thecriticisms.

Christadelphian

The fulfilment of Bible prophecy testifies that Christ is atthe door, and demonstrates that the Bile is inspired andinfallible. 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 theState 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 theBible is inspired, and infallible.

c. The return of the Jewish people to Palestine isfulfilment of Bible prophecy and shows that the Bibleis inspired and infallible.

d. Palestine was promised to Abraham for an everlastinginheritance.

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-daySaints states unequivocally:

AF 10 We believe in the literal gathering 2 of Israel and in therestoration 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 renewed 6 and receive its paradisiacal glory.7

This statement of faith confirms that Mormons believe that inaccordance 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 Israel4 Ether 13:6 (2–11); D&C 42:9; 45:66 (66–67); 84:2 (2–5); Moses 7:625 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.

http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng






Q: Does Mormonism agree with these claims?

A: Mormonism agrees that the Bible is a collection of inspireddocuments, but disagrees that in its present versions it is infallible.The reason for not accepting that the Bible is in its present forms not100% error free is that during the long process of transmission fromthe original manuscripts, certain errors have been admitted, mostlydue to scribal errors during the copying processes when they werelaboriously copied by human hands that are likely to make mistakesfrom time to time.

Despite the qualification that the Bible is the word of God ‘as far it istranslated correctly,’ 9 Latter-day Saints believe the Bible is on thewhole 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 “asfar as it is translated correctly” and constitutes along with theBook 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 theyare outside the fulness of the Gospel?11

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

9 http://lds.org/scriptures/pgp/a-of-f/1?lang=eng see Article Eight10 Doctrine & Covenants 42:1211 MOGOM., p. 2







Although the modern understanding of fulness [‘fullness’ in BritishEnglish], has to do with being filled or completeness, that is not theonly definition of this versatile word.

Dictionary Definition of fullness

Fulness: Noun1 completeness over a broad scope, comprehensiveness2 the property of a sound that has a rich and pleasing timbre,

mellowness, richness3 the condition of being filled to capacity4 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; Colossians2:9

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

And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that yemight 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 analternate definition of fulness, such as glory, then Paul’s words aresupported in other places.

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia offers:

FULLNESS - fool'-nes: The translation of π λ ε ρ ο µ α , which isgenerally, 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 isfilled"; 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?' John1:16, `out of his fullness we all received.'12 [Emphasis added]

This definition changes the whole aspect of Doctrine & Covenants42:12 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 SaintJohn explains whey he has carefully selected the parts of the

biography and teachings of Jesus to include in his gospel, and he letshis readers know the extent of what could have been included had herecorded 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, isunbiblical according to the Beloved Apostle. Shall we, therefore,conclude that MOGOM’s point is mischievous, or that he wasunaware 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 21:2514 http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.iv.vii.html 15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_%28theologian%29

http://topicalbible.org/f/fullness.htm



http://www.ccel.org/ccel/edwards/works1.iv.iv.vii.html


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)







“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 inthese definitions; but perhaps an obscurity which is

unavoidable, through the imperfection of language to

express things of so sublime a nature. And therefore thething 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 theologiabnsand philosophers of the last three hundred years isgauged 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'stheological work is very broad in scope, but he is often

associated with his defense of Reformed theology, the

metaphysics of theological determinism, and the Puritanheritage. 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 canalso 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, 200617 George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (2003), pg. 498–50518 John E. Smith, "Christian Virtue and Common Morality," in The Princeton Companion toJonathan Edwards, ed. San Hyun Lee (2005), 34–41



MOGOM asserts,

… the Mormon Church warrants our investigation into itsdoctrinal basis and its foundations. There is no possibleway we can refute the dogma of the infallibility of the“Book of Mormon” unless we examinee it concurrentlywith the Bible. There must be no contradiction betweenthe two unless God’s character be brought into disrepute.The Bible is acclaimed the world over by Christianity asthe Word 19of God. The “Book of Mormon” has limitednumerical and religious support. This does notnecessarily mean it is incorrect, but the Bible has beenvindicated historically, archæologically, prophetically

and even scientifically.20

By this means the scene is set for a showdown between theChristadelphian view of the Bible and its teachings, and the teachingsof the Book of Mormon relative to the Holy Bible’s teachings.However, before we can submit to this ordeal by comparison, we mustconsider 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 isnot, 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 beshown to be vindicated on each of these counts, then it must be shown

to be 100% true on each count. Otherwise, the grounds for comparisonof 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 Christ20 MOGOM, p. 3



Bible scholars have dated the fall of the walls of the city of Jerichovariously 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 primeinterest was in establishing the modern equivalents of Biblical locales). In1907-09 and again in 1911 digging was carried out by two Germanarchaeologists, Carl Watzinger and Ernest Sellin. Watzinger and Sellin believedthat they would be able to validate the Biblical story of Jericho's destruction byJoshua and the Israelites, but concluded instead that the data indicated that thecity 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. Garstangdiscovered the remains of a network of collapsed walls which he dated to about1400 BCE, the time he believed the Israelites were on their conquest, that hadapparently fallen in a dramatic fashion as opposed to being ruined by

abandonment or decay from natural forces. Garstang's work thus reversed theconclusions of the earlier diggings.

By the post-war period a revolution had occurred in archaeologicalmethodology, and Albright accordingly asked Kathleen Kenyon, one of the mostrespected practitioners of the new archaeology, to excavate at Jericho oncemore. Kenyon dug at Jericho over the seasons between 1952-1958. Kenyontraced the entire history of the city from the earliest Neolithic settlement. Shedid this by digging a narrow deep trench maintaining clean, squared off edges,rigorously examining the soil and recording its stratification, and thus buildingup a cross-section of the tell. When presented with an area that would requirewider areas to be excavated - the floor plan of a house for example - shecarefully dug in measured squares while leaving an untouched strip between

each section to allow the stratification to remain visible. Kenyon reported thather work showed Garstang to have been wrong and the Germans right - Jerichohad been deserted at the accepted Biblical date of the Conquest. Her result wasconfirmed in 1995 by radiocarbon tests which dated the destruction to 1562BCE (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 bymodern 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 1550B.C. and, therefore, there was no fortress city for Joshua to conquer around 1400 BC She suggested that the archaeological evidencediscredited 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 Palestine1920-1926. During this time he walked the exact itinerary of Joshua's army and began excavating Jericho in the 1930's. He investigated more than 100,000shards 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 duringthe 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 thefounding of Solomon's Temple. The 19th Dynasty timeline is in direct conflictwith this, because a date of 480 years before Solomon's Temple moves theExodus and subsequent conquest to around 1450 BC

At the time of Garstang's findings, scholars and historians put forth anyexplanation they could find to discredit his date. Sceptics thought thearchæology of Jericho too insubstantial to verify the Biblical dates as

understood. This was a problem to those that considered they had accuratehistorical dating in the Biblical account of the Exodus, Conquest, and Settlementof Canaan, particularly inerrantists.

Among his findings were scarabs which bore symbols and pictures of EgyptianKings. 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 andsuccessive periods of fortification...The walls were Babylonian in style...This period of occupation is to be assigned to the last centuries of the third milleniumBC, say 2300-2000 BC and corresponds therefore with the first Semitic Dynastyof Babylon, the remote age of Hammurabi and Abraham ."

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

These fortifications comprised a stout wall 12-14 feet thick. He also stated thatJericho, 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 nowattained its maximum of about 12 acres..the defensive works of Jericho at thistime were unparalleled comprising the three fold principal of glacis, parapet andouter fosse."

Garstang used this evidence to indicate a period of relative prosperity. Jerichoarchaeology of this time produced art of the Hyksos, and from the period whenEgypt 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 diedin Jericho during this time.

What Garstang stated next is very important.

"The whole system was destroyed in 1600 BC by a general conflagration, anevent 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 towarrant a definite conclusion....Further extensive damage was done by alandslide, originating presumably in an earthquake which broke one of the mainwalls in two and brought the brickwork of this and other walls toppling down inlarge masses. This disaster was also accompanied by local fires whichcompletely 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 andinto the city. Jericho archaeology had perhaps produced evidence of the collapseof Jericho's walls.

Garstang concluded that the tombs of the Hyksos were the most numerous andcomplete, and that Jericho was captured and the fortifications dismantled at theend 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 thisstate 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 around1500 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 aknee deep deposit of white ash covered by blackened debris.....The 15th centuryBC is represented by hundreds of intact specimens...notably one of ThuthmoseIII, the successor of Queen Hatshepsut in tomb 5 and two of Amenhotep III intomb 4....the last names Pharaohs ruled from about 1411-1375."

Garstang then points to the handful of specimens that represent the ensuingcenturies, 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 utterlyaround 1400 BC".

He wraps up his findings with the following.

"We reach then the following conclusions;

1. The city perished while in active occupation2. Buildings and their contents were consumed by fire of exceptionallyintensity



3. The Ramparts fell at the same time as the adjacent houses and the stateof their ruins points to earthquakes4. The date of the fall of Jericho was about 1400 BC."

In other words, it is quite likely that, according to Garstang, these rampartscollapsed as a result of an earthquake shock just before the onset of Joshua andthe Israelites.

Garstang also found dozens of jars full of grain dating from the last Canaanitecity 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 withJericho archaeology. Garstang's findings, though did not go unchallenged, stoodon solid ground for about 20 years.

However, Egyptologists were concerned about Garstang and his dates. Theyargued that if the Exodus took place during the 18th Dynasty, there should beevidence 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 19thDynasty, and Garstang's findings did not fit in with this view. His version of Jericho archaeology seemed to go against some commonly held Eyptian datesand 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 andencouraged! Just click on the Contact Us tab on the Nav Bar!

Katherine Kenyon

In the 1950's Kenyon re-examined the site. She completely reassessedGarstang's findings. Jericho archaeology was to take on a new face.

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

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

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 18thDynasty in Egypt, around 1567 BC, when Egypt drove back the Asiatics.

Kenyon credited the Egyptians with the destruction of the walls which Garstangattributed to the Jews. Kenyon argued this destruction followed the Hyksosremoval from Egypt, and subsequent ousting from Palestine.

Critics of this view claim that Jericho is a strange location for an Egyptianinvasion. The reason being the city does not rest on any main North-South routelikely 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 middleBronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire....The stratigraphicalevidence suggests in itself that there was a gap in the occupation at Jericho. Thisis 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 BronzeAge (1550 BC - conventional dating)."

The stratigraphy of Jericho provides evidence of an extensive settlement. Eachlayer 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 archaeologyattempts to bridge the physical findings and social / cultural events with dates, tothe layering of civilization provided by excavation.

Kenyon states that tombs were found in the Western cemetery dating around1375-1300 BC. This is still before her date of the time of Joshua.

"The evidence from the 1952-1958 excavations at Jericho indicate that there wasa Late Bronze Age town there in the 14thcentury which might have beenattacked by Joshua, but nothing survives to illustrate the Biblical account. It alsosuggests that if this destruction followed by 600 years of abandonment was thework of the Israelite tribes under Joshua, it is not likely to have been later than1300 BC, which is difficult to reconcile with a flight from Egypt in 1260 BC."

Kenyon, with this statement, concludes Jericho archaeology disproves theBiblical account of Jericho. She also finds no evidence of the occupation duringEglon'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 inconsiderable numbers in the area but they did not build for themselves a walledtown..."

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

After this, there remains limited evidence of occupation during the Late BronzeAge (1550-1200), and after that, nothing.



The Biblical account, Garstang's finds, and Kenyon's conclusions do not seem tofit at all.

The Conclusion

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

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

The findings of Jericho archaeology are taken into consideration, disregardingthe 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 from2700-2200 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 atleast two other periods of occupation in Jericho.

Garstang's wall shall be taken to be the wall during the time of Joshua, thenKenyon's second wall is the final remains of the walls of Jericho stemming fromthe 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. Areduced 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 tribesof Israel. This was in retaliation of the heinous crime committed by the Leviteon 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 livingin 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 evidencesurrounding Jericho.

These were the tombs of the Egyptians responsible for giving advice during thetime of the Divided Kingdom, when the Northern Kingdom sought Egyptian



help in fighting off the Moabite threat, and, of course, the power of the SouthernKingdom 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 datingand revised explanations.

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

A.

Conventional Date - 2500 to 2100Conventional Explanation - Pre-Patriarchal era of independent city statesRevised Date - 1775 to 1452Revised Explanation - Canaanite City

B.

Conventional Date - 2100 to 1900

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

C.

Conventional Date - 1900 to 1500Conventional Explanation - Semitic culture founded by Canaanite & PhoenicianculturesRevised Date - 1399 to 1185Revised Explanation - The time of Eglon & Ehud and the re-occupation byBenjamites. Final burning of Jericho.

D.

Conventional Date - 1525 to 1425Conventional Explanation - Canaanite Town with Egyptian tombsRevised Date - 1185 to 1022Revised Explanation - Thuthmose helps Deborah in her battle with Sisera, thusthe Egyptian influence in Jericho.

E.

Conventional Date - 1400 to 1200Conventional 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 historyof a city which dates back thousands of years, possibly as early as 9000 BC!



The dates surrounding these events remain controversial at best. However, evenarchaeologists 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 varywidely, 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 the480th year since the Exodus. Assuming that the Shishak invasion was in 926,which was Rehoboam's 5th year (1 Kings 14:25), Rehoboam succeededSolomon in 931/0, Solomon became king in 971/0 so Solomon's 4th year was967/6. Subtract (or actually add) 480, you get 1446. Take away 40 years in thewilderness, 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 justHAPPENS 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 notmake a difference, as there is NO archaeological OR textual evidence of anyappearance of anything that anyone could identify as "Israelites" until the veryend of the 13th century.22

Some of the evidence for a later date of the exodus has been presentedin countering the arguments for the early date. In addition, advocatesfor the later 13th century date rely heavily on the archaeologicaldiscoveries 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 historicalevidence. Historians would argue that this presents no problem since the biblicaltext 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 aboveconcerning the cultural use of numbers and the lack of concern with precision indating 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

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 thatthe Bible should be able to address any question they want to pose it that hastended 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 settledcivilization in the Edomite and Moabite areas of the southern Transjordan untilabout the late 14th or early 13th century BC. Also, the earliest record referringto the Edomites is an Egyptian letter dating to the 13th century. There is scarcelyany evidence of settlement in these areas in the 15th century BC. Since we knowfrom the traditions that Israel encountered settled people in this area (e.g., Num20:14), 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 thefirst city taken by the Israelites in the Transjordan area, becoming a part of thetribal territory of Reuben (Num 21:21-24, 32:37). Thorough excavations at whathas been identified as this site reveal that the city was not occupied until around1250 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 atleast some settled population as early as the 14th century, for example at atemple complex at Timnah in the northern Negev. There is also substantialevidence that there were nomadic tribes who inhabited the area earlier than the14th 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 citythat 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) reveala level of ash marking the burning of the cities that dates to the late 13th or early12th century. This appears to correspond to the destruction of these cities by theinvading Israelites. This would place the exodus sometime in the mid to late13th century.

Difficulties Raised: There is no direct evidence to link the destruction of thesecities to the Israelites. The biblical accounts do not say that the Israelites burnedthese cities, only that they destroyed the inhabitants. The destruction levelscould 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 around1667 to 1546 BC (other dates for the Hyksos range from 1720 to 1580 BC).They were sometimes called the "Shepherd Kings" because of their assumedorigins among the nomadic peoples of the Fertile Crescent, but that associationis by no means certain. They were generally Semitic people like the Israelites, aterm 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 seemslogical 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 incommand of Egypt and to allow large migrations of other Semitic people intothe land. The "new king who did not know Joseph" (Ex 1:8) would be adescription 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 Israeliteslived 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 companiesof 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. Usingthe 15th century date for the exodus (1440) would place the patriarchalmigration into Egypt long before the Hyksos took control of Egypt.

Difficulties Raised: This perspective also builds on several assumptions thatmay not be sound. First, there is no necessity that the Hyksos be related to theIsraelites since there is no biblical evidence for this, nor is there any historicalevidence beyond logical deduction.

Second, the Septuagint, the second century BC translation of the Old Testamentinto Greek, has a slightly different version of Exodus 12:40, adding "and in theland of Canaan." That is, the 430 years covers not only the period of time theIsraelites 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 thatthe migration to Egypt was in the 18th century. It could have been as much as100 to 150 years earlier than that.

2) The cities of Pithom and Rameses

The biblical narratives report that the enslaved Israelites were building the storeor 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 thatthis was the pharaoh who constructed the city of Rameses. This would suggestthat the exodus happened sometime during the reign of one of these pharaohsnear the beginning of the 13th century.

Difficulties Raised: It is not necessary that the city of Rameses built by theIsraelites was constructed by a pharaoh. The name Rameses was in use beforethe 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 associatedwith a temple complex.

3) Egyptian incursions into Canaan

Since the area of Palestine occupies a narrow strip of land connecting Egyptwith 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 fromextra-biblical historical records that during the 15th century BC, Egypt hadextended her influence through Northern Palestine westward into Asia Minor and eastward to the Euphrates and into the territory of Mittani. However, by the14th century, Egyptian power had diminished considerably both because of internal dissension and because of a resurgence of the Hittites in Asia Minor. Inthe late 14th to mid-13th century there was a protracted series of wars betweenEgypt, 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 andforth through Palestine. A peace treaty finally led to a long era of peace betweenthe 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 theincursions of these two pharaohs as they marched north to engage the Hittites inSyria and eastern Asian Minor. Yet the biblical record is totally silent about anysuch incursions. Given this protracted warfare between the Hittites and Egyptwith Palestine at its center, it is inconceivable that there would be no biblicalrecords of the incursions of Sethos or Rameses into Israelite territory. Thissuggests that the Israelites were not yet in the land, and therefore the exodusmust have been later in the early 13th century. This would correspond to theother evidence in Palestine as well as the mention of the city of Rameses inExodus.

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 biblicalreference to the Egyptian incursions since there are other explanations possiblefor that silence. The incursions into Palestine by Sethos I and Rameses II werenot against the Israelites but against the Canaanites, specifically the Hittites andtheir allies. The Egyptians were not concerned at this time with fighting theIsraelites since they posed no threat to Egypt. They were seeking to reestablishtheir position in the region against the Hittites, so they would have no need toengage the Israelites. Therefore, there would be no need for the Israelites tomention 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 thearea that would restrict raids from surrounding Canaanites. When the Egyptians

withdrew or were forced back, the Canaanites surrounding the Israelites werefreer to raid the Israelite settlements.Conclusion

This quick survey of the two positions on the date of the exodus demonstratesthe tenuous nature of either position, whether working primarily from a literalreading of Scripture (the early date) or working primarily from the evidence of archaeological excavations (the late date). While historical evidence can oftencontribute 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 historicalmethodology, especially when that methodology is shaped by the assumptionsof 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 notdesigned, we are left with less than acceptable results.Historical Context

There is simply no solid historical or biblical evidence that will definitelyestablish a date for the exodus. In fact, there is no direct extra-biblical historicalevidence of the exodus itself. This should not be surprising even from ahistorical point of view. On the one hand, we could hardly expect slaves fleeingfor their lives to stop and leave monuments and inscriptions describing their escape. And we know from other historical records, for example where there aretwo accounts from different countries about a battle, that Egyptian pharaohs didnot 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 thehistorical 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 inthe exodus narratives, or that the narratives do not provide any historicalevidence. We may not be able to answer all of our specific questions. But thereare some features of the exodus story that generally provide a context for the biblical narratives. For example, from a sociological perspective the biblicaltraditions bear a clear memory of Egyptian ancestry. The tradition rememberedthat Moses had an Egyptian name, in spite of the fact that the traditions try togive it a Hebrew meaning (Exod 2:10). In fact, several of the pharaohs bear thename "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 fromour historical knowledge about ancient Egypt in helping us understand featuresof the narrative. For example, we do know that there was a precedent for aSemitic "outsider" to govern Egypt, which makes Joseph’s position in Egyptcredible. We know of massive building projects built by slave labor such asdescribed in Exodus. And there is good evidence from Egyptian documents thatmany of the plagues would have corresponded to Egyptian deities, providing notsimply threatening miracles but a sustained challenge to Egypt’s religioussystem. Even the final plague struck at a core Egyptian religious belief in whichthe heir of pharaoh became an incarnation of the sun-god Re when he ascendedthe throne. The historical and cultural background forces us to engage the texton 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 aspecific 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 reallyhappened." But it does render the biblical narratives more understandable in ahistorical 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 ittells us about history, but for what it tells us about God. Finally, the historicalissues and the methods used to research them cannot really stand alone. We stilldo 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 hisself-revelation in human history, and who have come to understand thesignificance of that revelation, bear witness to God. We study the historicaldimensions of Scripture in order that we might better hear and understand thatwitness to God.

Our temptation is to assume that the Bible was written for us directly. Historicalinvestigation helps us realize that while Scripture has ongoing relevance, it isnot timeless (outside of time) any more than God’s revelation in that history istimeless. 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 provethat something happened, or when it happened, or how, but rather to help ushear the confession about God from the midst of God’s historically conditionedself-revelation and the people’s historically conditioned witness. In that sense,while historical investigation cannot prove much about the Faith, it is a crucialtool of biblical study.

See:

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

Alternate views:

The Exodus (Greek ξοδος, Hebrew:ἔ , Modern Yetsi'at Mitzrayimיציאת מצריםTiberian [jəs ijaθ mis ajim] Y' i ath Mi rayim ; "the exit from Egypt") is theʕ ʕɾ ṣ ʾ ṣ story of the departure of the Israelites from ancient Egypt described in theHebrew Bible. Narrowly defined, the term refers only to the departure fromEgypt described in the Book of Exodus; more widely, it takes in the subsequentlaw-givings and wanderings in the wilderness between Egypt and Canaandescribed in the books of Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy.

The extant narrative is a product of the late exilic or the post-exilic period (6thto 5th centuries BC), but the core of the narrative is older, being reflected in the8th to 7th century BC Deuteronomist documents.[1]

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

The Book of Exodus tells how Moses leads the Israelites out of Egypt andthrough the wilderness to Mount Sinai, where God reveals himself and offersthem 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 Leviticusrecords 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 spiesreport that the land is filled with giants they refuse to go on. God then condemnsthem 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 travelon to the borders of Canaan. The Book of Deuteronomy tells how, within sightof the Promised Land, Moses recalls their journeys and gives them new laws.

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

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



His death (the last reported event of the Torah) concludes the 40 years of theexodus 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 referencesscattered through the Bible, and the only significant body of work that does notmention it is the Wisdom literature.[3] The earliest mentions are in the prophetsAmos (possibly) and Hosea (certainly), both active in 8th century Israel; incontrast 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 wasimportant 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 tothree originally separate variants, in the northern kingdom of Israel, in Trans-Jordan, and in the southern kingdom of Judah. Russell proposes differenthypothetical 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 theTrans-Jordanian tradition, which focuses on deliverance from Egypt without a journey, he suggests a memory of the withdrawal of Egyptian control at the endof the Late Bronze Age; and for Judah, where the tradition is preserved in theSong 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 ("pesa "); the term continues to be used in the Passover Hagadah.[6] At theḥ beginning of the Exodus narrative the Israelites are instructed to prepareunleavened 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 thefestival, "Pesa ", refers to the "skipping over", "jumping over" or "passingḥ over" by God of Jewish houses while killing the first born of Egypt.

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

Jewish tradition has preserved national and personal reminders of this pivotalnarrative 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 thePesach (Passover) holiday; the fasting of the firstborn a day before Pesach; the

redemption of firstborn children and animals; and even the observance of theSabbath.

Composition of the Torah exodus narrative

There are currently a number of competing theories on the composition of theExodus 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 beencomposed.

The documentary model proposes that the four books (actually five - the modelsinclude Genesis) were originally four separate documents, treating the samesubject (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 singleauthor 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 "thedocumentary hypothesis") holds that the five books are a combination of four originally independent sources, called the Yahwist, the Elohist, the Priestlysource, 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 byJohn Van Seters in the 1970s - Van Seters proposed that an author he calls theJahwist 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 "fragmentarymodel" approach.

The most recent ideas on the origin of the five books place Deuteronomy in thelate 7th century with a revised version in the 6th, and the other four books in thePersian 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 noconsensus 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 istherefore inappropriate to approach miraculous events such as the burning bushand the plagues of Egypt as history.[8] Nevertheless, the discussion of a possiblehistorical nucleus of the narrative has a long history, and continues to attractattention.

The following section discusses some of the more popular aspects of the Exodusstory.

Numbers and logistics

According to Exodus 12:37-38 NIV, the Israelites numbered "about six hundredthousand men on foot, besides women and children," plus many non-Israelitesand 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 anentire estimated Egyptian population of around 3 million.[12] Marching tenabreast, and without accounting for livestock, they would have formed a line150 miles long.[13] No evidence exists that Egypt ever suffered such ademographic and economic catastrophe, nor is there evidence that the Sinaidesert 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 tohave had a population of only 50,000 to 100,000 at the time.[15] Some scholarshave interpreted these numbers as a mistranslation - reading the Hebrew wordeleph as "600 families" rather than 600,000 men, reduces the Hebrew populationinvolved to roughly 20,000 individuals,[16][17] - but the view of mainstreammodern 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; theessentially theological motivation of the story explains the improbability of thescenario described above.[18] It has also been suggested that the 603,550 peopledelivered from Egypt (according to Numbers 1:46) is not simply a number, butcontains 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 totaldestruction 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, mostarchaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses andthe Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[22] A century of research by archaeologistsand Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to theExodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through thewilderness,[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] theculture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects arethose of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanitetradition, 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 thecontext of the New Kingdom, when Canaan was part of an Egyptian empire andEgypt faced no enemies in that direction, but does make sense in a 1stmillennium context, when Egypt was considerably weaker and faced invasionfirst 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 the8th and 6th centuries BC with possible further occupation into the 4th centuryBC,[27] while the place-names on the Exodus route which can be identified -



By the mid-20th century it had become apparent that the archaeological recordmade this date impossible. The mummy of Thutmoses III had already beendiscovered in 1881,[37] and Egyptian records of that period do not mention theexpulsion of any group that could be identified with over 2 million Hebrewslaves, nor any events which could be identified with the Biblical plagues.

In addition, digs in the 1930s had failed to find traces of the simultaneousdestruction of Canaanite cities c.1400 BC - in fact many of them, includingJericho, 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 archaeologistof the period, to propose an alternative, "late" Exodus around 1200-1250 BC.

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

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

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

* The 2006 History Channel documentary The Exodus Decoded revived anidea first put forward by the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus,identifing the Israelites with the Hyksos, the non-Egyptian rulers of Egyptexpelled 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 byshortening the Third Intermediate Period of Egypt by almost 300 years. As a by-result the synchronisms with the biblical narrative have changed, making the13th Dynasty pharaoh Djedneferre Dudimose (Dedumesu, Tutimaos, Tutimaios)the pharaoh of the Exodus.[44] Rohl's theory, however, has failed to findsupport among scholars in his field.[45]

* From time to time there have been attempts to link the Exodus with theeruption of the Aegean volcano of Thera in c.1600 BC on the grounds that itcould 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" isthe most recent.[46]



Extra-Biblical accounts

The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is by Hecataeus of Abdera (late4th century BCE): the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel themfrom the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, wherehe founds the city of Jerusalem.[47]

More than a dozen later stories repeat the same basic theme, most of them with amarked anti-Jewish tendency.[47] The best-known is that by the Egyptianhistorian Manetho (3rd century BCE), known from two quotations by the 1stcentury 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 thecity of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksoswith 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 livingin 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 thelepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses.[49]

Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptiansrather 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. R ussell, "Images of Egypt in early biblical literature"(Walter de Gruyter, 2009), pp.194-197

6. ת א ַ ִצי י ְ רמֵ ָא ֵּת ִתי ֶׁש ִכי ֹלא ָז ָשָנה, ְו ׁ ם י ע ִ ְב ֶבן ִׁש ֵרי ֲאִני ְּכ ֲה ה, י ָרְ ָעָזר ֶּבן ֲעַז ְל ִּבי ֶא ֶהם ִר ַמר ָל ָאַרִים ְצ -ִ Passover Hagadah according to Mishneh Torah (Hebrew original), (mechonמ

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 (seefull argument on pp. 63-64)



9. Exodus 12

10. Numbers 1

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

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

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

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

16. Abraham Malamat, "Aspects of Tribal Societies in Mari and Israel", inXVe Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale: La Civilisation de Mari, Les Congrès etColloques de l’Université de Liège, 1967, p.135 - referenced at Associates for BiblicalResearch

17. Colin J. Humphreys, "The Number of People in the Exodus fromEgypt: 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 BiblicalParonomasia, "Trinity Journal 1 NS (1980), pp.6-7

20. Philippe Guillaume, "Tracing the Origin of the Sabbatical Calendar inthe 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 andWhen 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 andWhen 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 Nomadismto Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel ExplorationSociety. 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 AndrewDearman, Matt Patrick Graham, (eds), "The land that I will show you: essays on thehistory 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 C ambridge 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 HebrewScriptures (Westminster John Knox 1998) p. 180

33. John Van Seters, "The Geography of the Exodus," in Silberman, NeilAsh (editor), The Land That I Will Show You: Essays in History and Archaeology of theAncient 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 H offmeier, "Ancient Israel i n Sinai: T he E vidence for theAuthenticity 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). "TheDate 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 "BiblicalPeoples and Ethnicity: An Archaeological Study of Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines andEarly Israel" (2001), Biblical Archaeology Review, May/June 2006, pp.22-23



42. Dever, William G (2003). Who Were the Early Israelites and WhereDid They Come From?. Eerdmans. pp. 44–46. ISBN 0802844162.

43. Currie, Robert and Hyslop, Stephen G. The Letter and the Scroll: WhatArchaeology 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" (SheffieldAcademic 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", (Universityof 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 thelarge number of Ramesside cartouches and finds it cites throughout Israel.

Jan Assman, Moses the Egyptian: The Memory of Egypt in WesternMonotheism, First Harvard University Press, 1997.

John J. Bimson. Redating the Exodus. Sheffield, England: Sheffield AcademicPress, 1981. ISBN 0-907459-04-8.

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

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459

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

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=459



Johannes C. de Moor. "Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus" in Ugarit, Religion andCulture, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion andCulture, 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 DidThey 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 ComeFrom?, 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. NewYork: Free Press, 2001. ISBN 0-684-86912-8.

James K. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt: the evidence for the authenticity of theExodus 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", BiblicalArchaeological 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: TheOrigins 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 theChristadelphians to respond to this refutation that the Bible is 100%historically accurate as they have stated in MOGOM.

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








anti-mormons on mormons and the bible christadelphians part one

Documents