The Journal of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary–Volume 11, 2025

Published annually by Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Cordova, Tennessee, Michael R. Spradlin, President.

Journal Committee

Michael R. Spradlin, PhD

Terrence Neal Brown, MLS, Editor, Book Review Editor

Van McLain, PhD

Candi Finch, PhD

Elisabeth McAdams, Collin McAdams, Editorial Assistants Cayman Blount, Technical Assistant

The Journal of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary is published each spring under the guidance of the Journal Committee of Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary.

Correspondence concerning articles, editorial policy, and book reviews should be addressed to the Editor, Terrence Brown (tbrown@mabts. edu). Manuscripts for consideration should be sent to the Editor. Writers are expected not to question or contradict the doctrinal statement of the Seminary.

The publication of comments, opinions, or advertising herein does not necessarily suggest agreement or endorsement by Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Journal Committee, or the Trustees of the Seminary.

The subscription rate for the print edition of The Journal is $10.00 per year. The rate is for mailing to domestic addresses. The Seminary does not mail The Journal internationally, but makes it available worldwide through its online edition. The online edition is available free of cost at www. midamericajournal.com. Address all subscription correspondence to: Journal Committee, Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, P.O. Box 2350, Cordova, TN 38088.

© 2025 Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary

ISSN: 2334-5748

“Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary is a school whose primary purpose is to provide undergraduate and graduate theological training for effective service in church-related and missions vocations through its main campus and designated branch campuses. Other levels of training are also offered.”

Dedication

Dr. T. V. "Corky" Farris

Reflections: Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary

Michael Spradlin

Symposium Program

Egypt to Canaan

William Shea

A Survey of Theories

Bruce Waltke

The Witness of Ai

Maxwell Miller

The Identity of Bethel and Ai

David Livingston

Jericho Revisited: The Archaeology and History of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age

Bryant Wood

Israelite Occupation of Canaan

Rivka Gonen

Hyksos Influence in Transjordan and Palestine-Canaan

Adnan Hadidi

Appreciations of Dr. T. V. "Corky" Farris

A Tribute to Dr. T. V. Farris:

I certainly have many memories of Dr. T. V. Farris in class. My most vivid memories involve the two semesters I spent with Dr. Farris meeting in his office studying Old Testament Soteriology. Each week, as we entered his office, we passed by the knight’s armor on a stand near his desk. I regret now that I never asked the story behind the suit or its significance to Dr. Farris personally. I could make a wonderful application of the suit’s heroic symbolism, but I really do not need to do that. Dr. Farris was, and is, one of my heroes of the faith. He is a hero not just because of his dramatic personal story of surviving a plane crash. He is a hero because he unapologetically believed that every word of the Bible is true. It was an honor to sit at his feet and learn the Hebrew Bible and Baptist doctrine all at the same time.

Michael Spradlin.

Tribute to Dr. T. V. “Corky” Farris:

I first met Dr. Farris in 1974. He was pastor of a church in Dallas but taught a class at Mid-America as a visiting professor. The class was called Creative Preaching. I was so impressed. As part of the class, he showed a film of a play they had performed at his church. It was quite professional. He was certainly ahead of his time in ways to share the gospel to a changing world.

Later Dr. Farris came to Mid-America as chairman of the Old Testament and Hebrew Department. Old Testament/Hebrew was my doctoral major, and I had the privilege of taking his wonderful seminar called Salvation in the Old Testament. Dr. Farris was also my doctoral adviser for my dissertation work.

In 1982 I joined the faculty as a member of the Old Testament Department and came to know this great man of God much better. I found him to be a kind colleague who greatly helped me as a rookie professor.

Dr. Farris was a brilliant scholar but also an excellent preacher. He was a member of Bellevue Baptist Church and preached for Dr. Adrian Rogers on a number of occasions. He was a master orator. While serving the Lord, he was in a plane crash that killed the pilot. Amazingly, Dr. Farris survived but walked with a cane the rest of his

life. But he always had a bright disposition and a wonderful sense of humor. We went to theological conferences together and had many laughs. (I remember Dr. Farris and several of our professors stopped at a restaurant between meetings in San Diego and Anaheim. We were all laughing and having a great time together. When the server came, Dr. Farris said something like you probably wonder why we are so happy. It is because we know the Lord and proceeded to share the Gospel with her. As I remember, she did know the Lord.)

Dr. Farris continued to be innovative beyond his times. He developed a software program for teaching Biblical Hebrew called HaMoreh (The Teacher). It was an excellent learning aid for Biblical Hebrew.

Until the end of his life he never lost the excitement of teaching and studying the word of the Lord. I remember seeing him at a faculty gathering on the Thursday night before he died. He was his usual kind self. Little did I know that within a few short days he would be in heaven. The kingdom on earth lost a giant that day. I miss him and look forward to seeing him again.

Stephen Miller.

Farris Tribute:

Dr. T. V. Farris was my mentor in Seminary. He was truly a scholar and a gentleman. His brilliant approach to Hebrew verb analysis I still use to this day with my students.

I met him in 1980 when he was preaching supply for Dr. Adrian Rogers on a Sunday morning at Bellevue Baptist church. That Sunday he witnessed to a young Japanese exchange student that was my guest. It was a divine appointment as the young man trusted Christ and Dr. Farris invited me to one day attend his Hebrew class.

As my Hebrew language skill increased under his mentorship, Dr. Farris asked me to help him with a workbook for his computerized Hebrew tutorial. His program was a work well ahead of its time. He also asked me to be his doctoral student grader, and I served in that capacity for over two years.

I was there, as was Dr. B. Gray Allison, on the night Dr. Farris went to be with the Lord. I heard his last words, “I just want to be with Jesus.” It was later that night that Dr. Allison asked me to take his classes the next day, and I have been teaching at Mid-America since that time.

He was truly blessed with keen intellect and a kind heart. I was blessed to have studied under his direction.

R. Kirk Kilpatrick

Reflections Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary

Michael R. Spradlin, PhD

Michael R. Spradlin, PhD, President of Mid-America Baptist

Theological Seminary, received a BA from Ouachita Baptist University, and an MDIV and PhD from Mid-America Baptist

Theological Seminary. He has a versatile ministry background that includes preaching, teaching, church planting, military chaplaincy, and many international and North American mission trips. In addition to serving as the president, Dr. Spradlin is also professor of Old Testament and Hebrew, church history, practical theology, and missions and chairman of the evangelism department. He is the author of many scholarly articles and books, including The Sons of the 43rd: The Story of Delmar Dotson, Gray Allison, and The Men of the 43rd Bombardment Group in the Southwest Pacific. Dr. Spradlin served as editor of Studies in Genesis 1-11: A Creation Commentary, Beaman’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Personal Evangelism and That One Face: The Doctrine of Christ in the First Six Centuries of Christianity. Dr. Spradlin and his wife Lee Ann live in Memphis and have three children (David, Thomas, and Laura), two daughters-in-law (Laurel and Madelyn), a son-in-law (Cody), and three grandchildren.

Before, they were just names on the front of books to me. I hardly thought of them as people but only as the purveyors of information that I must learn to get through the next hurdle of seminary. I did not see my time in seminary as an academic endeavor but as a time to learn the Bible. Leaving the Master of Divinity degree and headed into the Doctor of Philosophy degree, I had chosen Old Testament and Hebrew as my focus. This study encapsulated my passion for the Scriptures, love for languages, fascination with history, and curiosity of the obscure all in one package. Then came the conference.

I first heard of the conference, “Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?“, from my Old Testament professors. Larry Walker was an expert in Semitic languages and a member of the translation committee of the New International Version of the Bible. T. V. Farris had a unique gift

for creative communication and made preaching from the Hebrew Old Testament an exegetical party (in a good way). David Skinner explained the nuances of Hebrew grammar on the one hand and instilled confidence in the inerrancy of the Scriptures on the other. Steve Miller was the first person I ever heard delineate liberal, neo-orthodox, and conservative theology in an understandable way and convince you that the conservative view was the only truthful way to read the Bible. Although he was not a part of the Old Testament department, James Powell explained the contributions of archaeology and how these insights could bolster the case for biblical inerrancy.

I never chose to go to the conference; I and my fellow students were told that we were required to attend. Motivation and leadership all in one. I was enrolled in several classes that led up to the conference, and one of the key discussion points was something called “bichrome ware pottery.” It had not occurred to me to think about what this phrase even meant until someone put up a color picture of pottery with two colored bands around the rim. So much for archaeological acumen on my part.

Among the many luminaries that spoke, several made a deep impression on me. The first was Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review (BAR), who spoke at the kickoff dinner. The second was Cyrus Gordon who spoke “off the cuff” in one session and detailed things about the Bible that I had never realized. Finally, Kenneth Kitchen made the biggest impression. I ended up in a small group walking with him at the Ramses the Great exhibit (the conference was planned to coincide with the Memphis Wonders Exhibit, Ramses the Great, showing of the Ramesside artifacts). As we walked, he read the hieroglyphs and explained the meanings of each and told humorous anecdotes as well.

The conference ended and, as students, we moved on with our studies. Unknown to us, several challenges derailed the project to publish the papers presented during this event. It was a dream of MABTS professor James Powell, tremendous admirer of William F. Albright, to see the project to its completion, but he passed away before he could complete the work.

The papers languished in files for years until the intrepid work of Terrence Brown, Director of the Ora Byram Allison Memorial Library, brought them to my attention, and we decided to finish the dream of James Powell.

Because of the length of time involved, we have made several editorial decisions. We attempt to present papers exactly as presented, with little or no editing. I know that the format for transcribing ancient words has changed in the intervening decades, but we have striven to maintain the form used at the time of the conference. Also, further archaeological evidence has been published which may shed additional

light on the matters at hand. We have chosen to avoid updating the materials and to leave them as they were presented at the time of the conference.

We hope that this project will fulfill the original intent of those MABTS professors who labored to bring the conference together. We further hope that these papers will continue to spark an interest into the field of Near Eastern Archaeology, especially as it pertains to the Bible and its rich history.

The Symposium WHO WAS THE PHARAOH OF THE EXODUS?

PROGRAM

THURSDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 23

1:30 Registration

2:30 Introductions

3:00 The Egyptian Background of the Exodus

Edwin Yamauchi

3:45 The Departure from Egypt and Egyptian Toponyms

James Hoffmeier

THE EGYPTIAN EVIDENCE

4:30 Raamses, Succoth and Pithom

5:15 Break

THURSDAY EVENING, APRIL 23

Ken Kitchen

5:15 – 6:30 BANQUET Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza Dining Room

7:00 The Expulsion and Pursuit of the Hyksos

7:45 Exodus: The Ancient Egyptian Evidence

8:30 Tour of Ramesses Exhibit

FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 24

8:00 The Amarna Letters and the “Habiru”

Gleason Archer

Hans Goedicke

Ron Youngblood

THE WILDERNESS EVIDENCE

8:45 Tracks in Sinai

9:30 Break

10:00 Another Look at Transjordan

10:45 Egypt to Canaan

11:30 Critique

12:00 Adjourn

Itzhaq Beit-Arieh

Gerald Mattingly

William Shea

THE CONQUEST EVIDENCE

FRIDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 24

1:30 A Survey of Theories

2:15 The Witness of Ai

Bruce Waltke

Maxwell Miller

3:00 Break

3:30 The Identity of Bethel and Ai

4:15 Critique

5:00 Adjourn

FRIDAY EVENING, APRIL 24

David Livingston

7:00 Jericho Revisited: The Archaeology and History of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age

7:45 Israelite Occupation of Canaan

Bryant Wood

Rivka Gonen

8:30 Hyksos Influence in Transjordan and Palestine-Canaan Adnan Hadidi

9:15 Adjourn

SATURDAY MORNING, APRIL 25

8:00 The Southern Campaign of Joshua 10

8:45 Canaan’s Middle Bronze Age Strongholds

Gordon Franz

John Bimson

9:30 Break

10:00 The Destruction of Canaanite Lachish and Hazor:The Archaeological Evidence

David Ussishkin

10:45 The Palestinian Evidence for a Thirteenth Century Conquest: An Archaeologist Appraisal

Bryant Wood

11:30 Critique

12:15 Adjourn

SATURDAY AFTERNOON, APRIL 25

1:30 Egypt, Israel and the Mediterranean World

Cyrus H. Gordon

SUMMARY

2:15 Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

3:15 Critique

4:15 Conclusion

5:00 Adjourn

Hans Goedicke

J. Maxwell Miller

John Bimson

Edwin Yamauchi

Editor's note-

Each of the following presentations—essays—from the Exodus Symposium carry biographical sketches for the presenters from 1987, the time of the Symposium. While we understand some of the speakers from 1987 have died, others retired, and a few remain teaching and writing, in keeping with the spirit of The Journal’s effort in reproduction of the 1987 gathering, we have retained the brief biographical identifications from that time.

William Shea

Research Associate at the Biblical Research Institute office in world headquarters of the Seventh-day Adventist Church, Washington, D.C. Ph.D., University of Michigan. Former Professor of Old Testament at Andrews University. Author of articles on Old Testament, Ancient Near Eastern History, and West Semitic inscriptions.

NEW LIGHT ON THE EXODUS AND ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE TABERNACLE:

GERSTER’S PROTOSINAITIC INSCRIPTION NO. 1

WILLIAM H. SHEA

The Biblical Research Institute

Washington, DC 20012

An interesting Proto-Sinaitic inscription discovered by Georg Gerster in the southern Sinai Peninsula early in the year 1960 has received fairly widespread attention, with a variety of suggestions being made as to its exact reading and its meaning. The present study undertakes a further analysis of the letters in this inscription, a new reading of the text based upon this analysis, and some suggestions as to the historical setting and significance of the inscription. In view of evidence set forth below, I suggest that this text, commonly designated as Gerster No. 1, sheds light on the Israelite Exodus and construction of the wilderness tabernacle. The text has four columns, as follows (in my own hand):

1. Location and Discovery of the Inscription

The text which is the subject of this study was incised on the rock wall of a small pass which leads over the ridge that divides the Wadi Nasb from the Wadi Lihyan in southern Sinai. These two valleys run north; and at their northern end they join the Wadi Suwiq, which runs east and west. Eastward travel in the Wadi Suwiq takes one to the heart of the region where the ancient Egyptians mined turquoise. This is also the region in which the great temple of Hathor was located at Serabit el-Khadem. Westward travel in the Wadi Suwiq takes one to the place where it runs into the Wadi Baba. The Wadi Baba continues to the southwest and eventually joins the coastal plain of El Markha just south of Abu Zeneima.

Thus, this inscription is located in a subsidiary valley to the south, off of a main east-west route that extended through the ancient Egyptian mining region from the coastal plain to Serabit el-Khadem. This valley system lies to the north of the Wadi Feiran, which leads east from the coast to the traditional locations for Mount Sinai at Jebel Serbal, Jebel Musa, or Ras Safsaf.

As noted earlier, this text was found by Georg Gerster during the course of his expedition to Sinai early in 1960.1 Gerster had a clue as to the location of inscriptions in this area from the early work in the region

by Sir Flinders Petrie. When Petrie came to this particular pass during the course of his expedition through Sinai in 1905, he noted that there was an Egyptian inscription here which dated to the 20th year of Amenemhet III of the Twelfth Dynasty.2 This inscription was finally published by J. Cerny, A. H. Gardiner, and T. E. Peet in 1955.3 When it was published the observation was made that there was a bull’s head to the right of it and the suggestion was made that this could possibly have come from the Proto-Sinaitic script.4 When Gerster came to this spot in 1960 he also copied this three-letter inscription consisting of an >aleph, an cayin, and a mem that is located just to the right of the Egyptian inscription. This three-letter text has been identified as Gerster No. 2,5 but it is so brief that we are not concerned with it here.

The main inscription with which we are concerned, Gerster No. 1, is located two meters to the left of the Egyptian inscription along the same rock face. In view of its proximity to the Egyptian inscription, it is surprising that Petrie missed seeing it. He was in a hurry, however, as he had a rigorous time schedule to meet, and for this reason he noted that he did not visit the mines in this area. Petrie did, however, have a direct indication of where to look for this Egyptian inscription, for a mining prospector named Lintorn Simmons told him exactly where it was.6 Thus, it was this mining prospector who made the first discovery in the area which eventually led to the discovery of the Proto-Sinaitic inscription examined here.

2. Study of the text

Gerster offered the publication rights to this text to W. F. Albright, but Albright turned it over to J. Leibovitch.7 Leibovitch published the first hand-copy and identification of the letters of the inscription in 1961,8 but he did not provide a translation or interpretation of the text with his study. Albright published his own observations on this inscription in 1966, as a part of his treatment of the entire corpus of Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.9 He translated and interpreted this text as a prayer from a Kenite named Heber.10 Palaeographically he dated the text to ca. 1525 B.C. making it the earliest in the small corpus of these texts which he dated from 1525 to 1475 B.C.11

In 1962 Gardiner published a note on the date of the ProtoSinaitic inscriptions in which he continued to hold to an earlier date for these texts, from the time of the Twelfth Dynasty.12 Since the inscription was located near an Egyptian one from the Twelfth Dynasty, Gardiner held that this new find supported his view on this subject. Albright’s lower date for these inscriptions has received a broader acceptance in scholarly circles, however, and additional support for Albright’s lower date may be found in the interpretation of this text presented below.

While Gardiner’s study did not include a translation or interpretation of this text, it is accompanied by a hand-copy made by T. G. H. James from Gerster’s photograph.13

In the same year that Gardiner published his comments on the date of this inscription, A. van den Branden published the second overall interpretation of it.14 In the light of later studies, his results appear so exceptional that they have not been given detailed consideration here. In my opinion, van den Branden has identified only one letter in each column correctly.15 His study is accompanied by another hand-copy of the text. F. M. Cross, a student of Albright, published his observations on this text the year after Albright did, in 1967.16 He examined it as a part of his study on the origin and early evolution of the alphabet. In this study, Cross interpreted the text as consisting of a series of three names, and published still another hand-copy of it.

A. F. Rainey’s study of this text, published in 1975, broke new ground because it resulted from first-hand examination of the inscription in situ.17 A new photograph and hand-copy of the text were published with this study.18 Rainey held that the fourth column to the right should be included with the inscription, not deleted from it as had been done by Albright and Cross. Rainey sees the text as pronouncing blessings upon a certain Adda, whose title is also given here.19

At the time of the present writing, the most recent published examination of this inscription is that of M. Dijkstra in 1983.20 This study, like Rainey’s, has utilized a personal examination of the inscription in situ in Sinai. Dijkstra concurs with Rainey that the fourth column to the right should be included as a part of the inscription and has treated the inscription as a memorial to two individuals named Adda and Heber.

Dijkstra’s study brings us up to date as far as the main studies on this text are concerned. As can be seen from the literature reviewed above, this inscription is commonly interpreted as containing one or more personal names which have been set in the simple framework of a prayer (Albright), a blessing (Rainey), or a memorial (Dijkstra), or have been just left standing alone without such a setting (Cross).

The details of these studies can be summarized best by providing a table in which the readings of these scholars for the different letters in the various columns are identified. This synopsis will serve as a basis for comparison with my own analysis of these letters that follows. The columns have been numbered here from left to right because that is the way in which they are read in the interpretation of the text that I propose below.

3. Further Refinement in Identification of the Letters in the Text

Starting from the readings in the forgoing summary chart, the individual signs or letters of this inscription may be examined again in an attempt to reach further refinement in their identification. This should not be as difficult as might first appear to be the case from the general difficulty of the script. There already is considerable agreement upon the identification of most of the letters in this inscription among those who have treated it, and the chart which Albright worked out for the identification of the characters in the alphabet serves as a convenient point of reference.26

Column I

The five investigators are in global agreement that the first three signs in column I should be identified as the round-headed mace, the curved ox-goad, and the eye. These represent waw, lamed, and ayin, respectively. The only exception is the yod that Cross has proposed for the second sign. Since this reading is exceptional and does not fit well the traces present in the photographs, the lamed should be retained here.

The sign at the bottom of this column has generally been taken as the loop of twisted flax, which stands for heth, but some difficulty is encountered in making that identification from the traces that are present. In both the Egyptian (Gardiner sign V 28) 27 and other ProtoSinaitic 28 representations of this sign, the loops of its coil always cross in the midline. None of the indentions of this sign cross. Thus, this sign is not an example of heth. I take it as a variant form of the fish that is also found in Column III. It points upward as that fish does, but it is not as large nor does it have as prominent fins. The pointed nature of its fins or gills, however, has been minimized in the line drawings of this text. It is especially prominent in the left uppermost case. This letter should, therefore, be identified as a dalet, from the word dag for fish.

Column II

For the first four letters of Column II there is agreement among four out of five of the commentators upon their identification as a crossed taw, another example of the circular-headed waw, a fence in a vertical stance for heth, and a square house for beth. While I would still retain the possibility that the second sign in this column might be the lamed, with which Albright identified it, these four identifications may be taken as reasonably as secure.

The sign at the bottom of Column II has, however, been difficult to identify. While it has commonly been taken as a damaged head representing resh, it is readily apparent that it looks nothing like the head which stands out in Column IV. This sign is not round like a human head sign; it is square like the house sign, which stands for beth. It is a little smaller than the house sign above it, it angles sown slightly to the left, and it has separate lines incised for its walls, as this same sign does elsewhere among Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions.29 The square nature of this character is especially evident from Leibovitch’s original hand-copy,30 and this is one of the few characters which van den Branden appears to have identified correctly---as indeed a beth 31

Column III

All the investigators except Leibovitch are agreed upon the identification of the first two signs in Column III as being the ox-head for >aleph and the fish-sign for dalet. Leibovitch took the second sign as representing a samek, overlooking its clearcut depiction of a fish.

The sign at the bottom of this column has been more difficult to identify. It has commonly been taken as an ox-head representing an >aleph, but there is no lower line on the left to represent the jaw of the animal as there is with the >aleph at the top of this column. Thus, this sign is not an >aleph

For a time, I took this sign to be an ingot-shaped zayin, but that identification fails for lack of a stroke in the position where one is also lacking for an >aleph. What we do find here is a depiction of two upper

limbs that fork or extend upwards and outwards. They are connected to a tail that angles down to the right. This character thus takes on the shape of a “Y” which angles down towards the right. While it is somewhat exceptional in form (as are some of the other alphabetic characters in this inscription), this character to which this letter comes closest is the yod, as one might expect from a Y-shaped letter.

Column IV

The letter at the top of Column IV has been very difficult to identify. Four commentators have suggested a value for it, and in each one the value suggested has been different: a questionable B for Leibovitch, a questionable D for Cross, a T for Rainey, and a Z for Dijkstra. Thus, while it is clear that there are some incisions here which originally represent a letter, it is not clear which letter that was.

Gerster’s photograph, which has been republished with several of the studies of this inscription, shows this particular part of the inscription better than does Rainey’s more recent photograph. What appears here first in Gerster’s photograph is a double line which extends horizontally across the bottom of the character. On the left-hand side this double line turns upwards, and as it extends upwards it also bends to the right in the upper half of its course. To the right of this double line, opposite the juncture between its middle and lower thirds, a small threesided angular incision appears, with its open side pointed towards the double line. This incision parallel in shape the nose with the head that follows below in this column.

To the left of the upper stroke of this nose is a circular eye, which has a small stroke cut across it that extends from the upper right to the lower left. The strokes make up the nose, the eye, the back of the head, and the bottom of the neck of another human-headed shape, thus standing for a resh. Although this letter is smaller than the resh below and is damaged in part of its outline, enough is preserved to recognize it as representing a resh

Cross was the first to identify the next letter in this column as a hand, representing a kaph. That identification has been supported clearly by later observers. The thumb is on the right, the little finger is on the left, a curved line extends downward between them, and some vertical strokes for fingers extend upwards.

Another human head for resh follows below the kaph.

Although it is unusual in its shape and detail, it is one of the clearest representations of a character from the alphabet in the inscription. Since Leibovitch’s first interpretation of this text, this letter has been recognized as a resh

Below the second head in this column, and clearly separated from it, one horizontal stroke appears. No other incisions can be seen connected to it, and no other strokes or signs are visible below it. Rainey

had reconstructed a beth in this space, and Dijkstra has suggested that a nun was originally present here. I cannot find any other strokes to make up either of these characters, or any other character. Thus, this solitary horizontal stroke appears to be the last stroke of the inscription. The problem is that one horizontal stroke does not make up any letter of the alphabet. For that reason I would suggest that this is not a letter. It appears rather to be simply a line which indicates that one has at that point read to the end of the inscription. This horizontal stroke thus appears to serve as a kind of ancient soph pasuq or period.

4. Determination of the Wording of the Texts

With each of the individual letters in this inscription analyzed and identified above, the inscription as a whole can now be read and interpretated on the basis of the following text:

To enable us to read this text more easily, its columns need to be rotated 90O so that its lines read horizontally. In order to make this rotation two further decisions need to be made. First, since no word dividers were written with this text, its words have to be divided off on the basis of the best sense which successive groups of letters make as words. Second, the order in which its columns are to be read needs to be established. These two decisions are interrelated, for dividing up its words helps to establish the direction in which the columns are to be read, and deciding upon the best direction in which to read the columns provides a key whereby the words can be divided most logically.

Throughout this study this text has been approached by reading its columns from left to right and each column from top to bottom. Up to this point this has been done arbitrarily, but now the rationale for this approach should be provided. No particular sense has been made out of reading the column from right to left, but no good sense can be made by reading in the opposite direction. Reading the text in this direction provides some explanations for letter positions: the taw at the top of Column II looks like an ending on the word in Column I, and the

resh at the top of Column IV looks more like the last consonant of the word present in Column III. Finally, the horizontal bar at the bottom of Column IV looks m0ore like a marker which demarcates the end of the inscription than it does like another letter. There appears to be good reasons, therefore, why each column of this text should be read from top to bottom and as a group they should be read from left to right.

The columns of this text can now be turned, and its letters can be divided up into words. This has been done in two steps here: first, the text has been turned; and second, its words have been divided up. Since the latter step requires that a few letters be transposed to conclude the word of the preceding line. The letter distribution by line does not aways follow that of the column in the inscription. The letters by column and by word division may be outlined as follows:

5. Translation of the Text

The letters of this text have now been analyzed and identified, those letters have been divided into their best sense units or words, and the direction in which the columns of the text should be read has been proposed. This complicates the initial steps necessary to provide a text for translation, and the translation derived from them reads as follows:

Reading all of this in one statement, we thus have: “And for the congregation and for Ḥobab, a mighty furnace.” For a smoother reading and in order to provide a basis for interpretation discussed below, this statement can be turned around and some of the ideas understood in connection with these words can be filled in with parenthesis: “A mighty furnace (i.e., a smelter) (was supplied) for the congregation (of Israel) and Ḥobab (the Kenite from Midian).”

Each of the four lines or columns of this text contains one main word, and each of these four words can now be analyzed and discussed

in the order in which they occur:

Line 1: CADT, “Congregation”

A waw and a lamed appear first int this column prefixed to this noun. The waw fits well as a conjunction with which this statement begins. Parallels for such usage are common in Biblical Hebrew and other West Semitic languages. In this text, it might convey the somewhat severative sense of “now” in initiating this statement. The lamed which follows fits well as the common preposition “to, for.” That a person or persons, individual or corporate, would follow this preposition could be anticipated from normal usage.

There are several words which the letters CADT could compose. They could be a form of the rare verb “to walk” (Cadh I), or could be an uncommon feminine form of the word “witness” (Gen. 21, 30; 31,52) Neither fits well with the rest of the inscription and the context. Somewhat more frequent in Biblical Hebrew, but not providing any better sense here, is the noun for “ornament” or the related verb “to adorn” (Cadh II). More common still is the word Cedut for “witness, testimony,” commonly referring to the Ten Commandments in the OT. If this were the word used here. If this were the word used here, this statement still would have originated from Israelite circles in all likelihood, but this word fits neither the syntax of the statement nor the personal parallel that follows.

This process of elimination leaves us with the word Cedah/ Cadat, which is used 145 times in the OT with the meaning of “assembly, gathering, congregation, company, band.” More than half of its biblical occurrences appear in the book of Numbers (80 times), referring to the congregation of Israel during its period of existence in the wilderness after the Exodus from Egypt. Exodus adds 15 further occurrences of this word during this time, and Leviticus adds 11 more. Thus, there are over 100 biblical references to the “congregation of Israel” during the wilderness period.

As a personal reference of a corporate nature, this expression also fits well as a parallel to the personal name which follows in Column II. To find this word in a Semitic inscription from the Late Bronze Age or Egyptian New-Kingdom period, a time when Israel spent its wilderness sojourn in Sinai, already points in the presumptive directive of identifying the “congregation” mentioned in this inscription as Israel. The connection is made even more specific by the use of the personal name in Column II. By form---with a final taw---the word under congregation is either an early form of the noun in the absolute state, before the final taw was dropped, or is the noun in the construct state. The use of a construct form here to my mind, the more likely possibility would imply that some other word or name was understood as joined to the word

“congregation” but not written out. In omit usage Cadat, not Cedah, is the common form in which this cord is used with Israel, as thus Cadat yiśrael is the standard form for the phrase “the congregation of Israel.” Hence, the use of Cadat in this inscription can reasonably be taken as pointing towards “the congregation (of Israel).”

Line 2: ḤBB, “Ḥobab”

The waw which precedes ḥbb fits well as a conjuncture which links ḥbb to the “congregation” that has just been mentioned. If this is a lamed instead, which is also possible, it would parallel the preposition used in the first column, and in this case the conjunction would be understood.

Ḥbb is the direct consonantal equivalent of the personal name Ḥobab. This name occurs twice in the Bible as a reference to Moses’ brother-in-law. Num 10:29 refers to the time when Israel was preparing to depart from their year-long encampment at Mount Sinai. On this occasion Moses urged Ḥobab to accompany them because he knew the terrain and would be able to serve as a guide for them: “you know how we are to encamp in the wilderness, and you will serve as eyes for us.” A reference to Ḥobab in Judg 4:11 comes from the time of the judges Deborah and Barak when Heber and Jael, Kenites who were descendants of Ḥobab, lived in northern Israel separated from their tribe and clan.

Some confusion exists in understanding the relations between Ḥobab (Num 10:29; Judg 4:11), Jethro (Exod 3:1; 4:18; 18:1ff), and Reuel (Exod 2:18; Num 10:29). For our present purposes the distinction between or identification of Reuel and Jethro is unimportant. It is very important historically, however, to distinguish between Ḥobab and Jethro. The reason why this confusion has arisen has to do with the vocalization of the word ḥtn. In Judg 4:11 and Num 10:29, the word has been vocalized as ḥoten, “father-in-law,” when it should have been vocalized ḥatan, “brother-in-law.”

The latter vocalization is preferred because it makes better sense out of these references. Jethro, Moses’ father-in-law, met Moses in the wilderness (Exod 18:1). He delivered to him his wife and sons (verses 2-7). He then gave Moses some wise advice about how to manage tribal affairs (verses 13-26). After what appears to have been a relatively brief stay, he departed for his homeland (verse 27). Ḥobab, on the other hand, we find still encamped with the Israelites a year later, at the time when they were getting ready to break camp (Num 10:29) Thus Moses’ fatherin-law Jethro visited the Israelite camp only briefly and then returned to his homeland, while Moses’ brother-in-law Ḥobab remained encamped with the Israelites through the year that they spent at Mount Sinai.

This distinction is important for the significance of the

personal name ḥbb that is found in the Proto-Sinaitic inscription for our considering. It was Ḥobab, who stayed on with the Israelites for a year in Sinai, who is mentioned by name in this inscription; it is not Jethro, who only visited them there briefly. The year that Ḥobab spent in residence with the Israelites provided him with the opportunity to engage in the same type of activity in which they were engaged, and that type of activity is described in the remainder of the inscription. Its nature can be anticipated from the fact that Ḥobab is identified in Judg 4:11 as a Kenite. The name for this tribe means “metalsmith.” That Ḥobab would engage in some type of activity relating to metalworking during his stay with the Israelites is to be anticipated as a normal outworking of his probable trade.

According to the decipherment of this inscription proposed here, the personal name Ḥobab appears in southern Sinai in a Semitic inscription which dates to the New-Kingdom period of Egyptian history, the same general period in which the biblical Exodus took place. It is also the only period in which the personal name of Ḥobab is attested in the biblical onomasticon. When it does appear there, it is linked with this same general geographical region.

These unique features strongly suggest that we are dealing here with the very same biblical personage, Moses’ brother-in-law. That link between this inscription and the biblical text is reinforced by the connection here of this name with the word “congregation,” the very same word commonly used in the Pentateuch for the congregation of Israel in this same place and time. A reciprocal relationship is involved here: Ḥobab makes the word for “congregation” specific for that of the “congregation of Israel”; and that particular congregation in turn makes this personal name Ḥobab specific for that of the biblical personage by the same name.

In short, both of these references to persons – corporate and individual – are found as we have seen in the geographical context of Sinai and in the chronological context of the New-Kingdom period of Egyptian history, and these contexts link these two words or names in this inscription with the place and time of the biblical Exodus. We have here in this inscription, then, a contemporary text inscribed by someone from among the biblical people of Israel not long after they had left Egypt, while they were in Sinai.

Line 3: >ADYR, “A Mighty …”

The word >addir is used in Biblical Hebrew as either a noun or adjective meaning “mighty, splendid, glorious.” It is derived from the verb >adar, which means “to be glorious, to make glorious,” and it is related to the nouns >eder and >ederet, “splendor.” >Addir has three main uses in Hebrew: (1) as an occasional epithet for God as “the Mighty One”; (2)

as a noun referring to leaders or chieftains as “nobles” (cf. Judg 5:12), generally in the plural; and (3) as a modifying adjective meaning “mighty, splendid, glorious.” The last use is the most common (18 times), and it is the one that makes the best sense here. It is better connected with the word which follows it, kr, rather than with the preceding word Ḥobab. Its position in relation to kr suggests a possible predicate use of the adjective, but in the translation given above it had been utilized as a simply attributive adjective.

Line 4: KR, “Furnace”

The word kur occurs nine times in the OT, always with the meaning of the “furnace” that was connected with the smelting of the metals. The metals connected with the furnace vary. In three instances that metal is iron (Deut 4:20, 1 Kgs 8:51, and Jer 11:4). Two parallel passages in Proverbs refer to both silver and gold (17:3 and 27:21), while a passage in Isaiah (48:10) to silver only. One passage in Ezekiel uses this word three times (22:18-22), twice in connection with a fivefold list of metals consisting of silver, bronze, tin, iron, and lead.

This word kur, in a figurative sense, refers to the “furnace of affliction” past (Duet 4:20, 1kgs 8:51, Isa 48:10, and Jer 11:4), present (Prov 17:3 and 27:21), or future (Ezek 22:18, 20, 22). The furnace of affliction in the past was Egypt and the experience endured there. The present furnace of affliction is the way in which the Lord tries the hearts of men (Prov 17:3), and the future furnace was to be the way in which the Lord would melt down Judah and Jerusalem when His judgement would come upon them (Ezek 22:18, 20, 22). However, whereas the past-tense references to the furnace apply the term in the figurative sense only, the present and future tense applications of the term draw their figures out of descriptions of the function of the actual object. This is true of the passages in Proverbs, but it is especially vivid in the case of the passage in Ezekiel; “As men gather silver and bronze and iron and lead tin into a furnace, to blow the fire upon it in order to melt it, so I will gather you in anger and in my wrath, and I will put you in and melt you” (22:20).

It should be noted, further, that the furnace mentioned in the Proto-Sinaitic inscription here refers to a furnace that was used in smelting metals. It does not refer to any activities directly connected with the turquoise mining that the Egyptians carried out in the area. Thus, this metal smelting by Hobab and the congregation contrasts with that other type o industrial activity which was carried on in this region of Sinai – an activity that did not make use of the kur or “furnace.”

6. Interpretation of the Text

Two different parties were involved in the activity referred

to by this Proto-Sinaitic inscription. The first of these two parties was a congregation, and we have identified that congregation as the congregation of Israel after it took up residence in Sinai following the Exodus from Egypt. The other party involved in this activity was a man named Ḥobab, and that person we have identified as the brother-in-law of Moses who is mentioned twice in the Bible. The particular type of activity in which these two parties engaged had to do with the smelting of metal, for a furnace for metal (i.e., a smelter) is mentioned in the last two columns of this inscription in connection with these two parties mentioned in the first two columns of the text.

According to this interpretation, there should have been some sort of metal working activity carried on by these two parties in the vicinity of this inscription. An evident reason for the participation of Ḥobab in this type of work probably stems from his background and experience. Coming from the tribe of Kenites or “smiths”, he undoubtedly was experienced in working with metals. That background would have been valuable to the Israelites in their need for refined metals and metal-working as they encamped at Mount Sinai. The scale upon which these two parties participated in that metal-working activity appears to have been extensive, according to the evidence of the inscription, for the inscription in the third line refers to that installation or operation as “mighty” (>addir).

Since there is an inscription here in the Wadi Naṣb which refers to the smelter for metal that was worked by the congregation (of Israel) in cooperation with Ḥobab, that naturally raises the question of whether or not there is any archaeological evidence present in the area which would indicate that smelting activity was carried out here. Archaeological evidence for just exactly that kind of activity is present here in abundance. Petrie has referred to this evidence in his description of the massive pile of slag present in the Wadi Naṣb, and he has also demarcated the location of this deposit on his map of the region.32 It is located at about the mid-point between the southern end of the valley and its northern juncture with the Wadi Suwiq. Because of its importance for the interpretation of this inscription and for the history of Israelite activity in this area, Petrie’s description of this feature is quoted here at length:

In the Wadi Naṣb is an enormous mass of slag from copper smelting, about 6 or 8 ft. high, and extending apparently over 500 ft. along the valley, and 300 ft. wide, but Bauerman puts it at 250 yds. by 200 yds. It has been dug about in recent times, and the man here stated that there had been found four bars like gold, the size of his arm; he agreed, however, that they were copper. These were probably the leaking from one of the furnaces, of which the remains of several are to be seen amid

the slag. Besides this mass of slag, which may amount to about 100,000 tons, I saw much scattered slag all the way up the path to the tablet, though it is as difficult to account for its being thus moved, as for the piling up of slag on the hill at the mouth of the Wady Baba.33

It is possible, therefore, to correlate the interpretation of this ProtoSinaitic inscription advanced above with archaeological findings in the same area in which the inscription was found. Those findings occur on an extensive scale. A direct relationship can be proposed here --- that the evidence for the metal smelting carried on by Ḥobab the smith and the congregation of Israel in the “mighty furnace,” and >addir and kur, is directly represented by the mighty pile of slag found on the floor of the valley near this inscription. While I would not insist that all of the slag present here was deposited only during the one year that the Israelites were resident in the area, I would suggest that a sizable portion of it was, according to the evidence of the phrase used for it in this inscription. Thus, in at least a part of this pile we have the residue of the metal smelting carried out here by the Israelites in the time of Moses.

7. Implications of the Text

The interpretation of this Proto-Sinaitic inscription and its archaeological connections in the vicinity have implications that extend in several directions. They include the following:

1. The Route of the Exodus. The route that the Israelites followed after they left Egypt has been a matter of considerable debate over the last century. To simplify a complex matter, it can be said that there are three main theories about that route. One view holds that the Israelites left Egypt by way of the northern coastal road. Another view has seen the Israelites leaving Egypt by a route that went essentially due east or northeast from either Lake Timsah or from the vicinity of Suez. A third view has proposed that they traveled south from the vicinity of Suez into southern Sinai. These three views can be identified, respectively, as those of the northern route, the central route, and the southern route. If this inscription and the related archaeological evidence discussed thus far in this study have been delt with accurately, this evidence is decisively in favor of a southern route after the crossing of the yam suph or Sea of Reeds, wherever that may have been.

2. The Location of Mount Sinai. While this evidence favors the southern route through Sinai for the route of the Exodus, it does not necessarily lend support to the traditional identifications of Rephidim in the Wadi Feiran or Mount Sinai at one of the traditional locations like Jebel Serbal, Jebel Musa, or Ras Safsaf. What this new evidence now indicates is that when the Israelites left the coastal plain of El Markha,

they probably did so through the Wadi Baba, not the Wadi Feiran (which is two valley systems to the south of the Wadi Baba). That makes much better sense out of the story in Exod 17:17, which tells of the lack of water in the vicinity of Rephidim. Such an occurrence would have been much more likely in a valley like the Wadi Baba than in a relatively wellwatered valley like the Wadi Feiran.

Since the Israelites appear to have turned into the interior of Sinai north of the Wadi Feiran, it is unlikely that Mount Sinai should be located among the major mountains at the eastern end of the Wadi Feiran. It should be located somewhere to the north, along the arc of the Wadi Baba and the Wadi Suwuq. This arc would appear to encompass the geographical range of sites from the entrance to the Wadi Baba at the El Markha plain in the west to Serabit el-Khadem in the east. The great mountain massifs of southern Sinai are magnificent, beautiful, and impressive, but they do not appear to have provided the location where the Israelites camped while they spent their year in this region.

3. The Date of the Exodus. For those who consider the biblical Exodus to have been a historical event there has been a long-standing discussion over the date when it was thought to have occurred. Two main dates have been proposed: one in the Thirteenth century B.C., under the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty of the Ramessides, and the other in the Fifteenth century, under the eighteenth Dynasty of the Thutmosides. If the interpretation of this Proto-Sinaitic inscription proposed above is correct, it is decisively in favor of the earlier date.

4. The Time of Origination of the Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions. There has also been a debate over the time in which the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions originated. This discussion has revolved around whether this script was developed in the Nineteenth century B.C., in the time of the Twelfth Dynasty, or under the early Eighteenth Dynasty, in the Sixteenth or Fifteenth century B.C. The weight of evidence has favored the later date, and this interpretation of this inscription has lent further support to it. No one has proposed, however, that this script was still in use in Sinai as late as the Thirteenth century B.C. As it has synchronized the date of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions with the date of the biblical Exodus, this interpretation of this text has provided evidence against both the early date for the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions and the late date for the Exodus.

5. Construction of the Tabernacle. An important question here is what were the Israelites doing during the year that they encamped at Mount Sinai? The answer to this question is provided by the last half of the book of Exodus. The major task in which they engaged during that period was the building of the tabernacle. The first half of this section of the book gives the instructions for carrying out that construction, and the second half of the section tells how those instructions were carried out. This half of the book of Exodus also provides the largest single

concentration of OT references to bronze. There are 130 references to bronze in the entire OT, and 35 of them occur here – more than in any other OT book. The references to bronze are so abundant here because it was one of the major elements which went into the construction of the tabernacle and its contents.

The pieces of evidence that we have considered fit together like three corners of a triangular puzzle. These three pieces are (1) the abundant literary references to bronze in the Exodus passages that deal with the construction of the tabernacle, (2) the extra-biblical literary references in the Proto-Sinaitic inscription to the mighty smelter that was worked by the congregation (of Israel) and Ḥobab, and (3) the massive slag heap found on the floor of the valley at the foot of the mountain ridge where the inscription is located. The bronze that came out of the ore represented by its residue in the slag heap can readily be seen as coming out of the smelter referred to in this extra-biblical text. In time, this forge provided one of the metals that was used in the construction project described in the biblical text. One estimate is that those biblical references to bronze would have required two and one-half tons of metal.34 The size of the slag heap is such that the ore represented would appear adequate to have produced that amount of bronze, if indeed that much was necessary for the completion of the sanctuary.

Historical and literary critics have expressed considerable skepticism about the accuracy of the description of the tabernacle and its construction given in Exod 25-40.35 They have attributed these narratives to a late (exilic or post-exilic) literary source (P) that developed a very inaccurate historical picture of the tabernacle by projecting a view of the Solomonic temple back into that pre-monarchic period. In view of the fact that we now appear to have in hand an extra-biblical literary source and artifactual evidence which relate to the bronze hat was worked by the Israelites during the time they spent in Siani, this skepticism about wilderness tabernacle---or at least the presence of the bronze in this tabernacle---seems unwarranted.

8. Summary

A new interpretation of Gerster’s Proto-Sinaitic inscription No. 1 has been advanced here by combining most of the readings for its letters developed in the course of previous studies with new identifications proposed for four remaining letters at the bottom of the first three columns and the top of the fourth column. These four new proposals involve substituting a D for the Ḥ at the bottom of Column I, a B for the R at the bottom of Column II, a Y for the previous >A at the bottom of Column III, and an R for the previously unrecognizable letter at the top of Column IV.

When these substitutions and additions are made, the text that emerges from the resulting transcription can be translated. “And for the congregation and for Ḥobab, a mighty furnace.” The congregation referred to here has been taken in this study as being the congregation of Israel at the time of the Exodus, and the Ḥobab name here has been identified as Moses’ brother-in-law. With his experience as a Kenite Metalworker, Ḥobab was able to lead the Israelite workers in smelting the ore necessary as a part of the tabernacle construction. The smelter involved in this process is referred to in the last two columns of this text. Archaeological evidence for the operation of that smelter has been found in the extensive slag heap found in the Wadi Naṣb, not far from the location where his text was inscribed.

Implications from this conclusion about the contents of this inscription affect biblical history of the Exodus period at several points. The location of this inscription lends strong support to the idea that the Israelites passed through this part of southern Sinai as a part of their route of travel from Egypt to Canaan. Since this inscription and the activity associated with it are located some distance north of the traditional southern locations for Mount Siani, that important mountain should probably be sought north of those more traditional locations. In terms of chronological effects, this interpretation of this inscription supports the lower date for development of the ProtoSinaitic script, in the Sixteenth or Fifteenth century B.C. and it supports a higher date for the Exodus, in the Fifteenth century as opposed to the Thirteenth century. Since the contents of this inscription and the associated nearby archaeological evidence are connected to the production of bronze in this area at that time, and since the construction of the tabernacle was the prime reason why the Israelites needed bronze here, this inscription and the nearby slag heap provided evidence for the construction of that sanctuary by the Israelites, with Kenite assistance. Historical and literary reconstructions which have denied such a course of events should now be reevaluated by taking these new data into account.

Finally, a word should be said about the relationship of this inscription to the rest of the corpus of Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions. Most of those other inscriptions cluster around Mines M and L and the temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadem. They come in two basic categories: (1) short votive statements dedicated to Hathor, the goddess of the turquoise mining region; and (2) short statements about the personnel, procedures, or product of the turquoise mining process. In those respects the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions parallel the Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions which are also found in this area.

This particular Proto-Sinaitic inscription is unique, however. It stands apart from those other inscriptions in terms of geographic

location, the variant type of script utilized for it, the nature of its contents, and the group from which the person who incised it came. These unique features of this inscription can be explained by relating the inscription of it to someone from the congregation of Israel or to Ḥobab himself. It was not incised by someone from the group of Semitic miners who worked the turquoise mines to the east, where they inscribed their own ProtoSinaitic inscriptions of a different nature.

Notes

1. G. Gerster, Sinai (Darmstadt, 1961), p. 62, fig 65. This work is not available to me. W. F. Albright was advised of the existence of this text in a personal communication written to him by Gerster on March 7. 1960; Albright, The Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Their Decipherment, HTS 22 (Cambridge, MA, 1966), p. 28.

2. W. M. F. Petrie, Research in Sinai (New York, 1906), p. 27.

3. A. H. Gardiner, T. E. Peet, and J. Cerny, The Inscriptions of Sinai, Part II: Translation and Commentary (London, 1955), p. 76.

4. Ibid.

5. Albright, p. 29

6. Petrie, p. 27.

7. Albright, p. 28.

8. J. Leibovitch, “Deux nouvelles inscriptions protosinaitiques,” Le Museon 74 (1961): 461-466.

9. Albright, of int. For Gerster No. 1, see pp 28-29 and fig. 11.

10. Ibid., p. 29.

11. Ibid., p 12. For further lines of support drawn upon for this date by Albright, see his study, “The Early Alphabetic Inscriptions from Sinai and Their Decipherment,” BASOR, no. 110 (1948), pp 6-22.

12. A. H. Gardiner, “Once Again the Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions,” JEA 48 (1962): 42-48.

13. Ibid., p. 46, fig. 2.

14. A. van den Branden, “Les inscriptions protosinaitiques,” OA 1 (1962): 197-214. The line drawing of Gerster No. 1 is found on p. 199.

15. The four letters which van den Branden identified correctly, in my opinion, are (1) the L in Column 1, (2) the B at the bottom of Column 2, (3) and >A at the top of Column 3, and (4) the R at the bottom of Column 4.

16. F. M. Cross, “The Origin and Early Evolution of the Alphabet,” Eretz-Israel 8 (1967), 8-24. See pp 16-17 and fig. 2 for Gerster No. 1.

17. A. F. Rainey, “Notes on Sone Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions,” IEJ 25

(1975): 106-116. See pp. 106-111 for Gerster No. 1.

18. Ibid. See fig. 1 on p. 107 for the hand copy, and Pl. 11A for the new photograph (published upside-down).

19. Ibid., p. 111.

20. M. Dijkstra, “Notes on Some Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions Including an Unrecognized Inscription of Wadi Rod el CAir,” UF 15 (1983): 34-38.

21. Leibovitch, pp 464-465.

22. Albright, Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions, p. 29.

23. Cross, p. 17.

24. Rainey, p. 111.

25. Dijkstra, pp. 35-36.

26. See Albright’s “Schematic Table of Proto-Sinaitic Characters,” fig. 1 opposite p. 12 in Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions.

27. A. H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammer, 3rd ed. (Oxford, 1957), p. 525.

28. For examples of this sign in other Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, see inscriptions nos. 353 in fig. 5 and 363b in fig. 10, following p. 12 in Albright’s Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions

29. For examples of the variation in the beth or house sign in the Proto-Sinaitic script, see inscriptions nos. 346a (fig. 6), 359 (fig. 7), and 364 (fig. 10) with doors and no. 361 (fig. 8) with interior walls, following p. 12 in Albright’s Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions.

30. For the square nature of the sign at the bottom of Column II, compare Leibovitch’s drawing of this sign from Gerster’s photograph on p. 463 of “Deux nouvelles,” with the first beth in inscription no. 360 in fig. 9, following p. 12 in Albright’s Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions.

31. Van den Branden, p. 202. His drawing of this inscription is found on p. 199.

32. For a discussion of this slag heap, see Petrie, p. 27, and for its location on his map of the area see bottom section of Map 1 following p. 34 This finding is also discussed by Gardiner, Peet, and Cerny, The Inscriptions, pp. 30-31.

33. Petrie, p. 27.

34. This estimate is given by N. Sarna in his discussion of the tabernacle in his, Exploring Exodus (New York, 1986), p. 196.

35. For references to the sources containing a discussion of these literary critical matters, see F. M. Cross, “The Priestly Tabernacle in the Light of Recent Research,” in Temples and High Places in Biblical Times, ed. A. Biran (Jerusalem, 1981), pp. 169-170; J. P. Hyatt, Exodus, New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI, 1980), p. 260; and B. Childs, The Book of Exodus: A Critical Theological Commentary (Philadelphia, 1974), pp. 529-538.

Bruce Kenneth Waltke

Professor of Old Testament, Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia, PA. Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Literatures, Harvard University. Author of numerous books and articles including: Creation and Chaos, and Biblical Criticism: Historical, Literary and Textual. Directed field study trips to Middle East and Classical World and excavations at Gezer, Israel.

A SURVEY OF THEORIES OF THE CONQUEST

Bruce K. Waltke

Part

I: Introduction

The date of the Exodus depends in part on the chronology of Israel’s taking of territory on both sides of the Jordan River about forty years later as claimed in the Bible. Israel’s chronology in taking of this land, however, depends in part on the theoretical model used to represent this occupation. Three primary models have been proposed: immigration, revolt, and conquest. The last is further analyzed into the double conquest theories, the early date theories and the late date theory.

The Bible itself, however, does not present a pure model. For example, the conquests of Jericho and Ai stand in contrast to the settlement reached with the Gibeonites, and both of these leave unexplained how Israel occupied Shechem, where they renewed covenant with Yahweh. Archeological results strengthen the supposition that the process of Israel’s entrance and occupation of the land was complex. Nevertheless, although most moderns think that the nature and chronology of Israel’s entrance into the land does not lie absolutely in one of these three alternatives but in a combination of them, they generally accept one as the more adequate and dominant model. In this essay the writer presents the three models, mentions leading exponents, analyzes their sources, and critically appraises them by considering their strengths and weaknesses with an aim to establishing the chronology of the Conquest.

Part II: The Immigration Model

The immigration, or peaceful settlement model, created by Alt, developed by M. Noth, defended by Weippert, followed by Fohrer,

Hermann, and adapted by Kochavi and Aharoni, bases itself primarily on extra-biblical texts, especially on the annals of Thutmosis III and the Amarna Letters, and secondarily on archaeology; it reconstructs the development of the biblical narratives to fit the model in keeping with historical criticism. Many of the individual narratives in Joshua 2-11 are designated as late aetiologies [causation], composed to give historical support to Israel’s claims to the possession of the land.

From the list of rebel city-states in the military annals of Thutmose III (1479 B.C.E.), Alt discerned a basic difference in territorial division of the land. The vassal city states, whose territory extended only about 5 km around the fortified city, lie almost entirely on the coastal plain of Palestine and in the plain of Megiddo. On the other hand, since these tiny city states were not found in the same proportions in the mountainous regions of Palestine, he drew the conclusion that these regions took no part in the great struggle against Thutmose III (1966, p. 150).

For further clarification of the geo-political situation in the mountains he turned to the archives of Amenophis IV at tell El Amarna, which reflected that the center of the revolt in his days was no longer in the plains, as in the century before under Thutmose III, but, with a few limited exceptions, in the mountains, especially those of Judah and Samaria. These documents, however, yielded the same territorial divisions of Palestine; namely, small city states in the plains and larger territorial formations in the mountains with a few exceptions such as Jerusalem and Bethlehem in Judah, Shechem in the central highlands, and Hazor in Galilee.

This distinction was further validated by the stele of Sethos I (ca. 1300) erected at Beth Shan, celebrating the Pharaoh’s imposed recognition of himself as overlord of cities in the Jordan depression.

Alt now turned to the territorial divisions of Palestine at the beginning of the monarchy. Here he found the geo-political map radically altered. New states were all named after tribes and peoples who had played no part in the earlier history of the country, Philistines, Israelites, Judeans, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Arameans. Their territories resemble the larger territorial formations of the earlier period and seem to extend as far as men who belong to the same people or tribe have settled, and even include areas where previously the city-states had prevailed. The original nucleus of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah lay away from the city-states, but after the states had consolidated their power, they secondarily developed their power and expanded their territories by conquering resisting city-states. The role of the fortified cities of the plains ceased as independent states and became only administrative units within the structure of the larger kingdoms. David accelerated the unification of the two mountain

kingdoms in order to meet the threat of the Philistines who were trying to extend their sphere of influence from the coastal plain and then the plain of Jezreel into the mountains.

This change, Alt argued, could not have come about merely through the collapse of Egypt as a world power after Rameses III (ca. 1200) for one would have expected the political and territorial patterns that had developed over centuries to persist. Alt is now ready to consider the Israelite settlement.

According to Alt’s model, the tribes later known as ‘Israel’ entered the land as nomadic clans or confederacies of clans who were forced by weather conditions to leave their rainy winter and spring pasturage in border territories between the desert and cultivated land and to enter in the draught of summer into the relatively sparsely settled mountain regions and to come to an understanding with the owners of land for the pasturage of their small cattle. Gradually these nomadic entities settled down in the relatively sparsely settled upland areas and began to farm the land after they had turned its woodlands into arable land. The precise form of the settlement, however, varied from area to area. The conquest of city states in the plains and in certain valleys had to wait until the institution of Israelite kingship turned wholeheartedly to a policy of territorial and political expansion.

Alt entertained the notion that the Hapiru of the Amarna correspondence might be the Israelites and so their settlement might have occurred during the first half of the fourteenth millennium, but since the relationship was never convincingly proved, he thought it occurred after this time. His followers flatly rejected the equation. Because the pre-Israelite tribes gradually settled the land, Noth argued, an exact date for the Israelite occupation cannot be given. The Amarna period provides his terminus a quo because at that time Bethlehem was still ‘a city of the land of Jerusalem’ and only later became the center of the tribe of Judah, and because the letters record the destruction of Shunem, producing the necessary gap in the Canaanite system of citystates in the vicinity of the Jezreel plain for Issachar to settle down there. Noth (1960, 81) drew the conclusion, therefore, “We must therefore place the beginning of the Israelite occupation in the second half of the 14th century B.C. The final conclusion of the process will probably have taken place at least a hundred years before the accession of Saul.’’

The immigration model has much to commend it. First, its understanding of the territorial divisions from the Egyptian sources supports the biblical account: “Judah took possession of the hill country, but they were unable to drive the people from the plains, because they had iron chariots” (Judg. 1:19; cf. 1:27, 29, 31, 33, 35). Second, to the troubling question why the Bible does not mention the Egyptians if the conquest occurred during the period when Egypt ruled Palestine, it

answers that the Egyptians never completely subjected the mountains as they had the plains. Third, Alt’s study of the period before and after the Israelite settlement provides the student with many valuable insights into the territorial divisions of the land and their history. Fourth, later archaeological researches have shown that the Israelites founded hundreds of settlements in forested hilly areas of Galilee and of Judea, and in the Negev (Aharoni (1976), 75; Kochavi (1984) 54-60).

On the other hand, the history of tradition approach to the biblical sources and its results are problematic. First, its unexpressed presuppositions favoring historical criticism directly contradict the biblical view of history. Second, although the facts of Israel’s entrance into the land are far more complex than the stylized biblical account, nevertheless this approach’s skepticism regarding the historical validity of the biblical narratives seems unwarranted in light of their many particular validations from extra-biblical texts and archaeology. As pointed out by Bimson (1978, 32), Alt never demonstrated that the annals of Thutmoses III or the archives of Amenophis IV contradict the Bible. Third, the reconstruction of the history of Israel’s tradition is arbitrary and subjective. Often internal and external evidences militate against reading a narrative as an aetiology. For example, why does the narrative about Ai mention Israel’s failure to conquer the town in its first attempt? Fourth, Yeivin (1971, 235) argued that the national tradition of the enforced sojourn in Egypt and the conquest of Palestine is so entrenched in all the later stages of Israel’s development, that Israel existence apart from this history is incomprehensible. Fifth, by denying that the so-called nomadic clans and confederated clans that later came to form Israel after the settlement had commonly experienced the exodus and conquest, Greenberg (1965, 37-43) objected that this approach does not explain their spiritual and political union. Sixth, Gottwald (1984, 40) points out that archaeological features at sites such as Tel Masos, the well-developed traditions of building and pottery making, the high incidence of bovine animals, and the indications of extensive trade with the coastal plain and Transjordan, do not square with a broad pastoral nomadic hypothesis.

Part III: The Revolt Model

The revolt model, created by Mendenhall (1973), modified and elaborated by Norman Gottwald (1984, 45, n.1), and embraced by many moderns (e.g. Engel, 1983) agrees with the immigration model in regarding the biblical narratives as indeterminately reliable sources for Israel’s premonarchic history and viewing Israel as a later creation within the land (sometime between 1250 and 1150). It differs from the immigration model, however, in appealing primarily not to extra-biblical texts but to historical and comparative studies from the social sciences

and interpreting the development of the biblical traditions and of the archaeological evidence in that light.

According to the revolt model the pre-Israelite subgroups were predominantly based in Canaan and were not pastoral nomads, though the biblical sagas may represent the history of a fraction who migrated from Egypt to Canaan (Gottwald, 1984, p. 36). These Canaan based Israelites did not oppose Canaanites in order to claim the land nor did they oppose each other for ethnic or religious reasons, but rather they were peasants and other kinds of producers and providers of services who revolted against the feudal system established in Palestine at the time of Hyksos and extended throughout the Egyptian domination of Canaan during the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties (ca. 1570-1200); namely, the forced labor, military service, and tribute imposed on them by the overlords of the city-states. In the course of their revolt they took command of the agrarian means of production, whereby they were forged into a self-conscious social and religious people around Yahweh, the god of one of the sub-groups who was celebrated for the actuality of delivering it from socio-political bondage and promised continuing deliverance whenever Yahweh’s autonomous people were threatened. The revolt of these restive serfs originated in the hill country where the Canaanite overlords in the plains were too weak to contest the revolt effectively, and the ‘conquest’ went forward with measurable success throughout the land.

Gottwald (1979, 215) tried to fan some smoke in the biblical sources into a flame to support his theory. For example, he supposed that Num 21:27-30 and Deut 3:11 conceal a conversion of Amorites to Yahwism (Num 21:27-30), that the detailed lists of Edomite leaders in Israel’s tradition (Gen 36) also supposes their conversion; that the Danites derived from the Sea Peoples known from Greek and Egyptian sources as the Denen or Danuna; that the list of kings in Joshua 12 represents kings overthrown by the revolutionaries; and that the assembly at Shechem (Josh 24) can be construed as a great act of incorporation of the Canaanite populace who threw off Baal who was associated with their oppressors.

Gottwald (1984, 44) confessed that he is uncertain how, and even if, this model can be tested archaeologically. Instead, he advocated with others that archaeologists formulate explicit deductive hypotheses as a way of focusing strategy to test them. According to him (1985, 40), military conquest could have been the major overall strategy of the Canaan based Israelites in order to secure settlement of the land, but it is wrong-headed to attribute these victories to biblical Israelites.

In sum, according to the peasant revolt model the question of this symposium, ‘Who is the Pharaoh of the Exodus,’ is misguided and skews the archaeological evidence. Israel as an ethnic, religious political

force never ‘entered’ the land.

This model has the advantage of being able to incorporate the conquest material without being embarrassed by archaeological gaps at critical sites, gives a plausible reason why some Canaanite subgroups converted to Yahwism, finds some support in the sociopolitical dimension of the term capiru in the Amarna letters, and proposes a way of accounting for the phenomenal rise of Yahwism according to the dictates of historical criticism.

On the other hand, if the immigration model strains one’s credulity in its handling of the biblical text, this model, as Gottwald himself admitted, "positively boggles the mind" (1979, p. 211); it therefore suffers even more acutely from the same objections raised against the immigration model for its cavalier handling of biblical narrative. The only biblical evidence that may be fairly construed as supporting the revolt model is the assembly at Shechem who embraced Yahwism. Furthermore, Herrmann (1985, 47) rightly argued that only a model that has closer connections with the biblical and extra-biblical texts, together with careful consideration of the archaeological results, will survive the test of future scholarship. The only firm data supporting the model, the meaning of the term capiru in the Armana correspondence, cannot be equated with the biblical Israelites as Weippert (1971, 63-102) argued (1971, 63-102) and Gottwald recognized. In sum, the theory is mostly based on speculation.

Part IV: The Two Phases Conquest Models

Three major models of the conquest have been proposed: two phases, early date, and late date. Although they all envision a conquest model they differ so radically in their use of historical and biblical criticism and of archaeology that it seems best to treat them separately.

C. F. Burney (1921) theorized that the migration of patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as recorded in the book of Genesis represents the sequential movements of tribes from east to west under the guise of individuals. The Jacob tribe, for example, having settled in the land for some time later migrated eastward and later returned to Canaan increased by fresh Aramaean accessions. Burney equated their movement with the Habiru; at this time the Jacob-tribes seized the district of Shechem (cf. Gen 34). After the Habiru-invasion, the Joseph tribes broke off and moved into Egypt where they were subsequently oppressed by Rameses II and made their exodus during the reign of Merneptah or immediately after. The tribe of Levi and Simeon, he supposed, merged with proto-Judahite clans and moved northwards with them into the Negev and the hill-country (cf. Judg. 1). The Joseph tribes and some Levites split off, travelled round Edom to enter Canaan

under Joshua’s leadership from Transjordan.

T. H. Meek (1936) analyzed the Hebrew origins into three broad groups, only two of whom were involved in conquest and settlement. “One,” he wrote, “was in the far north: Asher, Dan, Napthali, Issachar, and Zebulun, all of whom were more native than Hebrew and became Hebrews only as they were drawn into the Hebrew confederacy by a common peril, beginning about the time of Deborah” (pp. 39-40). The other two groups he identified with the Habiru, known from the Amarna archives. One of these, “a composite group, perhaps more Aramean than anything else” (p. 25) under the leadership of Joshua, “at first were able to conquer only the Jordan valley and the eastern highlands of Ephraim, and only gradually extended their occupation westward.” (pp. 21f.) While this group of the Habiru migrants were taking advantage of unsettled conditions in Palestine to carve out for themselves a homeland, the mass of the migrating hordes had to seek pasturage elsewhere and some of the more venturesome ones, most certainly Levi, migrated to Egypt, where they experienced the events recorded in the Bible about the exodus. Under the leadership of Moses, this group, “pushed north; from Kadesh to Beersheba, to Hebron, until finally they controlled most of the land south of Jerusalem between the Dead Sea and Philistia” (p. 36). He dated this invasion in the twelfth century, that is about two centuries after Joshua. This southern confederacy included Judah, Levi, Simeon, and others.

Rowley (1950, 112ff.), like Meek, thought that Zebulun and Asher were already in the land in 14th cent (p. 113) and, like Burney, associated the Jacob stories with the Amarna age, linking the Habiru with the treacherous incident involving Simeon and Levi (Gen 34) in an abortive attempt to take Shechem. Shortly after the Amarna age, according to Rowley, Judah and Simeon carried out from the south an incursion into the land, together with certain non-Israelite elements, including Kenites and Calebites, while northern tribes were pressing in, either singly or in small groups, simultaneously with those in the south.

When Levi and Simeon were defeated at Shechem, Rowley further supposed, they withdrew from there and eventually made their way into Egypt where they were oppressed by Rameses II and delivered by Moses at the time of Merneptah. They entered the land after only two years in the Wilderness under Joshua at ca. 1230.

Rowton (1953) supposed that there were two exoduses from Egypt. The first involved the Josephites who reached Palestine early in the 13th century and who, once established in Palestine, founded the amphictyony of Israel. The second involved the Levites at ca. 1170, but they did not enter Palestine until a generation later, ca. 1125. Aaron belongs to the first exodus and Moses and Joshua belong to the second. Aharoni (1957, 142) and Yeivin (1971, 76f), finding a contradiction

between Num 33:41-49 and Num 21: ff, suggested Israel followed an earlier route through Edom and Moab and a later route bypassing them (see maps 52 in Aharoni and Yeivin, p. 9).

These theories helpfully remind us that the biblical record may be incomplete by querying how Joshua and his host proceeded directly to Shechem from Ai without encountering any opposition and by supposing that the situation at Shechem may have been altered by the incidents associated with Jacob centuries earlier (cf. Gen 34).

On the other hand, they have little to commend themselves. First, they too are based on the alien presuppositions of historical criticism and upon questionable biblical criticism. Second, they all so drastically rewrite Israel’s history that were they true, it would be hard to understand how the biblical account ever came into existence. More specifically, Rowley denied the tradition of the wilderness, leaving the reader perplexed how it ever came into existence (Rowton, p. 50).

Meek so completely reversed the chronology of Moses and Joshua and so completely divorced them that the entrenched biblical traditions regarding them are incomprehensible; the same can be said against Rowton’s divorce of Moses and Aaron. Third, and correlatively, they demonstrate their arbitrary and subjective character by cancelling each other out. Fourth, they are guilty of substituting the plain plausible statements of tradition with novel, unnecessary explanations. Rowton, for example, found support for his two exodus theory in two narratives regarding the circumcision of the Israelites in Egypt and at Gilgal, in two different routes, one by the brook of Zered, the other all the way round Edom, in conflicting accounts of the Egyptian attitudes toward the Israelites, first hostile, then friendly, etc. A plain reading of the biblical text, however, readily accounts for these differences. Y. Kaufman (1953) convincingly harmonized the differences between Joshua and Judges 1. Regarding the alleged contradiction between Num 21 and 33 note that Zalmonah lies on Edom’s western border and that both accounts mention Oboth and Ije-Abarim, lying on Edom’s eastern border. Aharoni and Yeivin locate Punon in the heart of Edom but Budd (1984, 355) says its location is not certainly known, thereby effectively removing the alleged contradiction between Num. 21 and 33. Fifth, the first three theories are only as good as the questionable theory that links the cApiru with the Israelites.

Part V: Early Date Conquest Models

Three theories that eschew biblical criticism and base themselves on a literalistic interpretation of the biblical chronology have emerged. All three accept the biblical claim that during the second half of the fifteenth century, ‘the early date’ (in contrast to the second

half of the thirteenth century, ‘the late date’), Israel conquered the land as a unified and complete achievement in two stages: the conquest of Transjordania under the guidance of Moses (Num 20:21-22:1) and the conquest of Cisjordania under the leadership of Joshua (Joshua 1-12), after which the conquering tribes of Israel for several centuries struggled for integration and settlement of the land, as well as for their defense of the newly acquired patrimony against outsiders desirous of subduing them. They differ, however, in their interpretation of the archaeological data to be correlated with these dates.

‘Early date’ advocates commence their reasoning with the only notice bearing directly on the date of the Exodus, 1 Kgs 6:1 (MT, LXX L): “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, Solomon began to build the temple of the LORD.” If one adopts Thiele’s widely accepted conclusion that Solomon’s fourth year is 966 B.C., a straightforward reading of the text yields the date 1446 for the Exodus and, allowing 40 years for the Wilderness wanderings (Num 32:13), 1406 for the Conquest. If one were to follow the revisionist chronology of LXX BA, which reads in 1 Kgs 6:1, 440 instead of 480, one would arrive at 1366 for the Conquest, the time of the cApiru.

Second, Jephthah’s statement (ca. 1100) that Israel had occupied Transjordan for 300 years fits the higher chronology and cannot be squeezed into the 170 years demanded by the lower chronology.

Third, Bimson noted that 1 Chron 6:33-37 presents eighteen generations between Korah, who presumably lived at the time of the Exodus, and Heman, the singer in David’s time. If one allow twentyfive years per generation, and add the generation between David and Solomon, one would arrive at a date close to 480 years between Solomon and the Exodus.

Fourth, although the chronological notices in the book of Judges must be compressed according to either the higher or lower chronology, they better suit the higher chronology than the lower. In fact, they fit so much better that some think that the reference to 300 years in Judg 11:26 was secondarily fabricated and interpolated into the text to match the other chronological notices.

Fifth, the chronological notices in the book of Judges must be adjusted to absolute dates by means of archaeology. Bimson noted that the Philistines do not appear as major contenders for the land in the book until the time of Samson, toward the end of the period of the Judges. If the main wave of Philistines entered Canaan around 1200 B.C., one would have expected, according to the lower chronology, the earlier narratives in Judges to have mentioned numerous clashes between Israel and the Philistines throughout much of the period of the judges. Whereas this silence in Judges 1-12, apart from the curious, laconic

reference in Judges 3:31 and the reference in 10:7 accords badly with the late date theory, it matches well the higher chronology. The argument, however, is weakened somewhat by the reference to the Philistines in Judges 3:31.

Advocates of the early date differ, however, in their interpretation of the archaeological evidence can be classified into three groups: the traditional, Courville, and Bimson.

The Traditional Themes

Traditionalists, represented by Jack, Garstang, Unger, Wood, Waltke, S. Horn, and Shea accept the generally accepted chronology of Palestine; namely, LB I = 1570-1400 and LB II = 1400-1300. Accordingly, they date the conquest between LB I and LB II and identify the Pharaoh of the oppression with Thutmosis III and of the Exodus with Amenhotep II. They note that according to Kenyon (1970, 209) the sharpest break in the material culture during the period in question occurred not between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, but between LB I and LB II (ca. 1400 B.C.). The crude art of LB II is well represented by a stone libation tray from Tell Beit Mirsim (Waltke, 1972, p. 36). Kenyon noted: “Such a situation would well reflect the state of affairs during the acclimatization to settled life of wanderers such as the Habiru bands of the Amarna Letters and the Israelites of the Old Testament.”

Advocates of the early date restrict their attention for destruction layers to three cities mentioned in the Bible as having been burned: namely, Jericho, Ai, and Hazor.

At Jericho, Kenyon informed her readers, that no trace remains of the walls of the Late Bronze Age. This lack is also a problem for the late date. Kenyon (1957, 262) suggested that perhaps the Late Bronze inhabitants re-used the MBA rampart. Regarding the destruction of Jericho Kenyon is both inconsistent and unclear. On the one hand, in her final reports she dated the last occupation of Jericho, which she associated with Joshua, in the second half of the fourteenth century. In 1951, however, she validated from pottery in burnt debris, dubbed “The Streak,” that the city was destroyed between 1410 and 1340. This writer used that evidence to support the traditional date for the fall of Jericho, but Bimson (1978, 124) objected; he used the pottery to give a date to the burnt debris, and that nowhere does Kenyon treat the burnt layer as deriving from the LBA city. Regarding his first objection, however, note that Kenyon (1951, p. 120) aimed to date the stratum associated with the burnt material by the pottery. Bimson emphasized that she left open the possibility of a slight extension of the period represented by the pottery into the second half of that century by allowing that this LBA pottery may ‘just overlap’ with that from Stratum VIII at Beth-Shan, dated to the

second half of the 14th century. In the judgment of the writer, however, this distorts Kenyon’s own interpretation of the ceramic evidence. Comparing the pottery of the stratum in question with Beth-Shan IX (first half of fourteenth century) and VIII (second half of fourteenth century), she wrote (1951, 121): “On the published evidence, it does not…seem to be very close to that from the later level (= Stratum VIII), and the Jericho group can at most just overlap, but not equate with it.” The otherwise apparent lack of occupation during LB I may be due to erosion. The slight evidence of occupation at about 1325 at Jericho is better attributed to Eglon’s activities at ‘the City of Palms' Judg 3:19, name reserved in the Bible for Jericho than to Joshua.

Garstang also argued convincingly, despite disclaimers, that Jericho fell to Joshua before the reign of Akhenaten (ca. 1375) because: 1) not one of the distinctive, plentiful, and well-established archaeological criteria characteristic of Akhenaten’s reign has been found; 2) there is no reference to Jericho in the Amarna letters; and 3) no scarab after Amenhotep III (1412 B.C.-1375 B.C.) has been found there, though there survived an abundant and continuous series of scarabs of the Egyptian kings from the Middle Bronze Age right on down through the reign of Amenhotep III.

Regarding Hazor, Yadin associated the complete and final destruction of the Canaanite city, stratum la (terminated ca. 1230) with the Israelite Conquest. The reference in Judges 4:2, however, to Hazor as a Canaanite City in the opposition to Israel in the time of Barak, at least three or four generations after Joshua, precludes the late date and demands that one associate Joshua’s conquest with one of the earlier destruction levels of that city. The only way around this argument is to suppose either that the biblical narrative at Judges 4 is flawed or that the archaeological evidence is incomplete.

Can an earlier destruction level be identified with Joshua? This writer attempted to identify it with the end of Stratum 2 by means of a burnt gate in Area K of the Lower City, but Bimson (p. 191) showed that his argument was fallacious and that the gate must be dismissed from the discussion. Stratum 2 (= LB I) emerged as one of great prosperity and culture, and, according to Yadin (1972, p. 32) “this is no doubt the Hazor of the Thutmosis III period.” This stratum was completely destroyed before Stratum lb (= LB II). Stratum 2 could fit Joshua’s attack, but the excavators are vague both about the time and the nature of its destruction. Evidently there is no evidence of burning (contra Josh 11), a lack that argues against the traditional early date but does not decisively refute it. Stratum la (= LB III), this writer contended, should not be associated with Joshua but with Barak. Kitchen (1966, 68) noted that Jabin II’s main strength is ‘curiously’ not in Hazor but with Sisera in Harosheth. The apparent weakness of Hazor at the time of Barak finds

archaeological support in stratum la for at the time the Lower City ceased to be fortified, and its temples were abandoned and apparently plundered, being rebuilt afterwards in a very poor and temporary form. According to Aharoni, the last town was concentrated mainly on the Upper City. Yadin, however, explained that its meagre remains may be due to erosion (1972, p. 37).

At Ai Judith (Marquet-) Krause uncovered a large settlement gap between Early Bronze III and Iron I, without a trace of the Late Bronze Age town presupposed in the Bible (cf. Josh. 7). This gap embarrasses both the traditionalists and the advocates of the Late date.

Traditionalists attribute the archaeological evidence for the late date of the conquest to later Israelite conquests and settlement during the period of the Judges.

Courville and Bimson, however, think that the archaeological evidence, especially the lack of walls and conflagration at Jericho and of conflagration at Hazor between LB I and II, demand a more or less radical revision of Palestinian archaeology.

Courville’s theory

D. Courville forced the extra-biblical text and archaeological data to fit a literalistic reading of the Bible. With regard to the former he found amenable to his reconstruction Velikovsky’s radical revision of Egyptian chronology, most notably his associating the plagues inflicted by Moses upon the Egyptians with a similar account in the Ipuwer Papyrus, dated by authorities in about the Twelfth Dynasty, and his dating the Hyksos takeover of Egypt after their expulsion by the Israelites at ca. 1400. Having moved the late twelfth and the following dynasties to a date later than 1400 B.C.E., Courville is free to pull the end of EB down 600 years, from about 2000 to 1400, to explain the Egyptian character of the MB to Israel who had recently emerged from Egypt, and to attribute the brilliant culture of MB and LB not to the Canaanites but to the Hebrews. Above all, he can now identify the fallen and/or breached walls and conflagrations at EB Jericho and Ai with the Israelite Conquest. His tour de force of the data even allows him to pinpoint the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Choncharis, known from the Sothic list of Egyptian kings and validated by Josephus.

Courville’s method allowed him to fit his interpretation of the archaeological evidence quite nicely with biblical evidence, but he did not play fair with the extra-biblical evidence, and even in spite of his high-handed tactics not all the data fit.

Virtually all qualified Egyptologist reject Velikovsky’s reconstruction of Egyptian history. It is not the purpose of this paper to pass judgment on the other radical realignments of ancient Near

Eastern synchronisms. W. H. Stiebing, Jr (1985) objected to Velikovsky and Courville on the following grounds: 1) The Amarna Letters are now dated to the mid-ninth century, but the names of persons and places and the Egyptian-Palestinian relationships one gets from them is far different from the names and picture one gets from the Bible during the Israelite monarchy. 2) According to this theory the 18th and 19th dynasties Pharaohs belong to the Israelite Iron Age, but objects bearing the names of these Pharaohs have been found with Late Bronze artifacts so that these Pharaohs must have lived before the Iron Age. 3) If Jericho fell to Joshua in connection with the end of the Early Bronze period, its MB occupation and walls do not match the biblical claim that Jericho lay in ruins for centuries after Joshua. 4) According to Courville’s dating of the various archaeological periods, Samaria would have served as the capital of Israel during the Late Bronze Age. But no Late Bronze Age remains were uncovered during excavations of Samaria. In addition to these arguments, W. Shea (1985, 30f.) called attention to a letter from Aphek apparently to be dated to the time of Rameses II. Since it belongs to the LB II period of Palestine, it offers strong evidence for the traditional chronology linking the nineteenth dynasty with the Late Bronze era.

Bimson’s theory

Bimson’s theory consists of two parts: a radical reconstruction of the linkage between the stratigraphy of Palestine and the chronology of Egypt (Stiebing, 1985, 69, n. 26) and the redating of the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze ages of Palestine. W. Stiebing, Jr. (1985, 67) soundly refuted Bimson’s radical reconstruction of Palestinian stratigraphy from the Late Bronze Age downward and informed his readers that Bimson himself has rejected his own published ideas on “a revised chronology for Egypt and its consequences for Palestinian stratigraphy” (1985, 67). Stiebing, however, did not refute Bimson’s thesis that Middle Bronze IIC should be redated from the first half of the sixteenth century to the second half of the fourteenth century. Here Bimson seems to be on firmer ground. Instead of assuming with most scholars that the numerous destructions of Middle Bronze sites in Palestine occurred as the Egyptian army campaigned into Canaan in retaliation against the Hyksos, Bimson associated them with the Israelite conquest. He argued that there is no historical evidence either for an Egyptian retaliation against the Hyksos beyond their invasion of Sharuhen on the coastal plain or for equating the MB defenses at such sites as Jericho and Hazor with the Hyksos. With the Egyptian retaliation eliminated, the Israelites offered Bimson a most favorable alternative explanation for their destruction. Moreover, according to him, the bichrome ware that characterizes LB I can just as well be dated after the Israelite invasion as

before it. His scheme demanded a drastically reduced LB I period, but he noted that Kenyon and others had already anticipated reducing the period by as much as over a hundred years.

This new identification of the destructions levels that terminated MB IIC with the Israelite invasion nicely fits the evidence from Jericho and Hazor, which attest extensive conflagrations at this time, but Ai still remains a problem. In addition, his interpretation better suits the evidence of Hebron, Hormah, Arad, Gibeon, Dan, and other cities destroyed at the end of the Middle Bronze Age than the traditional early date and the late date of the Exodus because they exhibit little evidence of occupation during the Late Bronze Age.

Bimson’s thesis for redating and reinterpreting MB IIC have been criticized as follows: 1) Among other objections, Callaway (1981, 252) alleged that Bimson’s list of cities on p. 230 which favor his view over against the late date theory is “self-serving” and “deceptive” because the conclusion would have been different had Bimson included sites which were not destroyed in MB IIC (e.g., Heshbon, Edom, Moab, and Arad). To be fair, however, Bimson had earlier considered Arad (p. 204). 2) Callaway also objected that Bimson accepted numbers that support his redating scheme, while those which resist fitting into the scheme may be ‘artificial.’ In fact, however, Bimson did not take the 480 years at face value and regarded it as an embodiment of 12 and 40. So also, he did not take the numbers 40 and 80 in the book of Judges at face value. 3) A. Rainey (1980, 250) criticized Bimson for accepting Livingston’s identification of Bethel with el-Bira instead of with Beitin. In fact, however, Bethel and Ai constitute a problem for all views of the conquest. 4) He also criticized him for accepting the identification of Debir with Tell Beit Mirsim, when Khirbet Rabud is “the only sensible candidate for Debir,” but Kh. Rabud “was not in existence during the Middle Bronze period.” 5) Finally he chided him for not properly taking into account the “society and political situation in the el-Amarna tables” which “leave no room for the Israelites as we know them from the Book of Judges.” 6) G. Ramsey (1981, 75), who was otherwise quite favorable to Bimson’s thesis, noted that Bimson offered no archaeological reasons for lowering the date of MB IIC. 7) Ramsey also noted that because the scheme in the book of Judges is artificial, it is useless for the calculation of dates. 8) T. L. Thompson (1980, 67) noted that many sites having been abandoned in MB II were not resettled until the Iron Age.

Part VI. The Late Date Conquest Model

Many American and some Israeli archaeologists, notably W. F. Albright and Y. Yadin respectively, accept the conquest model but date it in the second half of the thirteenth century. Although they believe that

the biblical sources were developed and written down from a period of time quite early in Israel’s history (e.g. Exodus 15, Judges 5, Genesis 49, Deut 33, and Num 23-24) and at a much later period (esp. the narratives of Joshua and of Judges) and that over the years they were modified and adapted to suit contemporary interests and to serve contemporary purposes, they nevertheless believe on the basis extra-biblical written documents and above all on the results of the Palestinian excavations that they contain a solid core of valid information and should be accepted as substantially true.

Adherents of this model assert that the archaeological evidence, on the one hand, validates the biblical presentation in Joshua 1-12 that Israel conquered Palestine, and, on the other hand, exposes that the biblical chronology cannot be accepted literally. Instead, they redate the conquest to about 1230 and identify Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the oppression. According to them the 480 years in 1 Kgs 6:1 is a combination of the schematic numbers, 12 and 40, referring to the number of generations and the years of a generation respectively. In absolute terms, however, a generation is somewhere between 20 and 25 years so that the time between the Conquest and Solomon’s building of the temple may be well under 300 years. The mention of Israel on the Merneptah stele at about 1220 establishes their terminus a quo for the Conquest.

The settlements at a variety of sites on both sides of the Jordan River, in the territory generally claimed for Israel in the Bible, beginning sometime in the early phase of Iron Age I contrasts with those of the previous period (LB III), though Mazar (1985, 63) said that a sharp break in pottery typology did not occur as in other periods of sharp cultural breaks. With the slow process of disappearance of types and appearance of new ones a new culture emerges sharing common features not only in the limited repertoire of pottery designed for a subsistence economy of a poor, introverted society, but also in the general layout of the towns, which Mazar (1985, p. 66) said favored pastoralism and simple agriculture and differed sharply from any known Canaanite plan, in the pillared houses that Mazar (1985, p. 68) associated with Canaanite prototypes structures including private dwellings, in sporadic plastered water cisterns, and in the almost complete lack of art objects (Freedman, 1984, p. 31). Some sites on the fringe areas such as Har Adir in the high mountains of Upper Galilee and Tell Masos in the northern Negeb are exceptional, suggesting different ethnic occupants. In addition, numerous, widespread, and catastrophic destructions separate the markedly different and more sophisticated ‘Canaanite’ Late Bronze Age, and the cruder ‘Israelite’ Iron Age. Moving from north to south these cities are, Hazor (Tell el-Qedah), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesellim), Succoth (Tell Deir calla), Bethel (Beitin), Beth Shemesh

(Tell er-Remeileh), Ashdod (Esdud), Lachish (Tell ed-Duweir), Eglon (Tell el-Hesi), and Debir or Kiriath-Sepher (Tell Beit Mirsim or Khirbet Rabud). Of these cities, four are specifically said to have been destroyed by Joshua: Hazor (Josh 11:10-11), Lachish (Josh 10:31-33), Eglon (Josh 10:3435), and Debir (Josh 10:38-39); Bethel is said to have been taken by the house of Joseph (Judg 1:22-26).

The force of this argument is further enhanced by certain negative evidence. Some cities which the biblical sources exclude from the conquests have on excavation shown no signs of destruction in the thirteenth century. These include Gibeon (el-Jib) (Josh 9), Taanach (Tell Ta cannak) (Judg 1:27), Shechem (Tell Balatah) (Josh 24), Jerusalem (elQuds) (Josh 15:63; 2 Sam 5:6-9), Beth-shean (Tell el-Husn) (Judg 1:27-28), and Gezer (Tell Jezer) (Josh 10:33). Following the destruction at Hazor, Succoth, Bethel, and Debir (possibly also Gezer and Ashdod), unfortified and architecturally simple, even crude, settlements appear.

Finally, the major change that occurred between the Late Bronze and Iron Age was not the sudden destruction of Canaanite urban civilization, which in some localities continued throughout the transition period, but in the pattern of settlement in the countryside. Kochavi (1985, 55) wrote: “During the Late Bronze Age, and especially toward its end, new small unfortified settlements are known. However, with the beginning of the Iron Age, they suddenly appear by the hundreds.” New settlements appeared in the twelfth century, or slightly earlier, at Dor (Khirbet el-Burj), Gibeah (Tell el Ful), Beersheba (Tell es-Sebac), Tell ‘Etun (?) and Tell Radanna (possibly Beeroth or Ataroth-[adar]). Reoccupation of sites that had been deserted for some centuries occurred in the twelfth and eleventh centuries at Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun), Ai (et-Tell), Mizpah (Tell en-Nasbeh), Beth-zur (Khirbet et-Tubeiqah) and Tell Masos (Hormah?).

The evidence from Transjordan is also used to corroborate the late date theory. According to Glueck there was no sedentary occupation in the regions east of the Jordan from 1900 B.C., until 1300 B.C. Although Glueck later revised certain features of his original synthesis, as Sauer (1986, 3) noted, Glueck and his fellow advocates maintain the overall principle. For example, Campbell and Wright interpreted the Late Bronze “Amman Airport Temple” as a seminomadic shrine for a twelve-tribe league. Advocates of a ‘late date conquest’ argue that Israel’s encounter with Edom (Nu 20:17) and Moab (22:6) on its way to the sworn land must have occurred after 1300.

Finally, advocates of this view argue that were Israel in the land earlier than that time one would expect to find references to the military campaigns by Seti I (ca. 1300) and Rameses II (ca.) into Palestine in the book of Judges.

But the theory has problems. First, negative archaeological results from Jericho, Ai, Heshbon, Arad, and Makkedah argue that these

towns were not in existence at the alleged time of the conquest. Other sites, such as Dan/Laish and Jarmuth, mentioned as destroyed by the Israelites, have such meager Late Bronze Age remains that one may assume they had been merely small hamlets or only burial grounds at that time (Kochavi, 1985, 55). Albright drew the conclusion that although Jericho was in existence in the 14th century, the tell is so badly eroded that remains of this occupation have disappeared. Yadin (1982), on the other hand, agreed with Kenyon that the LB settlement at Jericho reused the city wall from the MB Age. Regarding the gap at Ai, Albright theorized that tradition transferred the conquest of Beitin to Ai (i.e. ‘the ruin’) because Ai looked like a ruin. Callaway (1968, 316ff) suggested that there were two cities at Ai. The first, he suggested, was a Hivite city and this is the settlement that the Israelites conquered. Yadin argued that his argument is untenable. Livingston and others think the site has yet to be identified. The same may be true of Heshbon and Arad as well.

Second, Franken (1968, 5) denied the identification of the cruder Iron Age settlements with Israelite culture. Weippert (1971, 133) urged caution, while Kenyon depreciated the strength of the evidence. While it is true that the Sea Peoples, or other invaders of the land, or internecine warfare between the Canaanite city, or fire from natural causes may account for the destruction levels, it seems more probable to identify them with Israel because the more or less homogeneous artifacts of Iron I are linked with Iron II, which are clearly Israelite.

Third, although adherents of the late date sometimes present the numerous destruction levels at this time as due to a monolithic invasion, in fact, they are sometimes separated by centuries. For example, Kochavi contended that Hazor met its final fate around 1275 B.C.E., while Lachish was destroyed about one hundred years later around 1160 B.C.E. Judges 1:23 associates the destruction of Bethel, Albright’s principal exhibit for dating the Conquest to the 13th cent, not with Joshua but with the later expansion of the House of Joseph.

Fourth, as noted above; by dating the end of Hazor with the Israelite conquest, no place is left for Israel’s later conquest there as recorded in Judges 4. Mazar solved the problem by concluding that the chronological order of events in Joshua and Judges must be reversed-that the battle of Deborah (in Judges) in fact preceded the destruction of Hazor (described in Johsua 11). Yadin (1982, 23) drew the conclusion that the reference to ‘Jabin king of Hazor’ in Judges 4 is a later editorial gloss. His suggestion finds support in the fact that poetic account of this battle makes no mention of Hazor or Jabin. This writer doubts both solutions.

Fifth, Bimson (pp. 55f.) documented that the ceramic evidence at these sites was handled somewhat subjectively to fit the theory.

Regarding the alleged gap in Transjordan, Bimson noted that Edom and Moab as characterized in the Numbers could have been

nomadic or semi-nomadic at the time Israel encountered them and so left behind them little archaeological remains. Mattingly (1983) and Sauer (1986) have shown that recent archaeological evidence from Transjordan is more and more undermining this buttress for the late date.

Seventh, Bimson attributed the silence in the book of Judges about the military campaigns of Seti I and Rameses III to the theological intention of the book. He supported his argument by noting the book’s silence about the military campaigns by Merneptah and Rameses III after the time Israel was in the land according to the late date theorists.

Part VII. Conclusion

The evidence of Palestinian archaeology is too ambiguous to establish conclusively the date of the Israelite Conquest. On balance, the positive evidence favors the late date, but it is muted by the negative evidence from Jericho, and other sites, and by the existence of Canaanite Hazor in the period of the judges.

Bibliography

Y. Aharoni, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Upper Galilee (1957). (Hebrew); “Nothing Early and Nothing Late,” BA 39 (1976) 5576; The Archaeology of the Land of Israel (1982) 153-191; “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan,” BAR, 8 (May/June, 1982), 14-23.

Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, The Macmillan Bible Atlas (1968).

W. F. Albright, From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process. (2nd ed., 1957).

Albrecht Alt, “Die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palastina” (1925); “Erwagungen uber die Landnahme der Israeliten in Palastina” (1939), both reprinted in Kleine Schriften, I (1953, 1968) 89175; “The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine,” Essays on Old Testament History and Religion, translated by R. A. Wilson (1966), 135-169.

G. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (1964).

J. J. Bimson, “Can There Be a Revised Chronology Without a Revised Stratigraphy?” Ages in Chaos? Proceedings of the Residential Weekend Conference (1978) Society for Interdisciplinary Studies Review, 6 (1982), 16; Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Journal

for the Study of the Old Testament. Supplement Series 5. (2nd ed., 1981).

J. Botero (ed.), Le probleme des Hapiru a la 4e Recontre Assyriologique Internationale (Cahiers de la Societe Asiatique 12 (Paris, 1954).

J. Bright, Early Israel in Recent History Writing: A Study in Method (1956). , A History of Israel (3rd ed., 1981).

Philip J. Budd, Numbers in Word Biblical Commentary, Vol. 5 (1984). F. Burney, Israel’s Settlement in Canaan. The Biblical Tradition and its Historical Background (1921).

J. Callaway, JBL, 87 (1968): 316 ff.; Review of Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by John J. Bimson, JSOT, Supplement Series 5 (1978); BA 44 (1981) 252f.

E. F. Campbell, Jr. and G. E. Wright, “Tribal League Shrines in Amman and Shechem,” BA 32 (1969) 104-116.

D. A. Courville, The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications, 2 vols. (1971).

H. Engel, “Abschied von den fruhisraelitichen Nomaden und der Jahweamphiktyonie. Bericht uber den Zusammenbruch eines wissenschaftlichen Konsensus,” Anfange Israels (1983) 43-46.

G. Fohrer, Geschichte Israels. Von den Anfangen bis zur Gegenwart (1977). D. N. Freedman, “The Chairman’s Introduction,” Biblical Archaeology Today (1984) 31-3.

H. J. Franken, “Palestine in the Time of the Nineteenth Dynasty, (b) Archaeological Evidence,” revd. CAH, II, ch. 26b (1968); “The Problem of Identification in Biblical Archaeology,” PEQ, 108 (1976): 3-11.

V. Fritz and A. Kempinski, Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen auf der Hirbet el Masas (Tel Masos) 1972-1975 (1983).

J. Garstang, The Foundations of Bible History: Joshua-Judges (1931).

N. K. Gottwald, “The Hypothesis of the Revolutionary Origins of Ancient Israel: A Response to Hauser and Thompson,” JSOT 7 (1978) 37-52; The Tribes of Yahweh: A Sociology of the Religion

of Liberated Israel, 1250-1050 B.C.E (1979); “The Israelite Settlement as a Social Revolutionary Movement,” Biblical Archaeology Today (1984) 34-46; The Hebrew Bible: A SocioLiterary Introduction (1985).

N. Glueck, The Other Side if the Jordan (2nd ed., 1970).

M. Greenberg, “Response to Roland de Vaux’s Method in the Study of Early Hebrew History,” in J. P. Hyatt (ed.), The Bible in Modern Scholarship (1965) 37-43.

A. J. Hauser, “Israel’s Conquest of Palestine: A Peasant’s Rebellion?” JSOT, 7 (1978): 2-19; “Response to Thompson and Mendenhall,” JSOT 7 (1978) 35f.

S. Hermann, Geschichte Israels in alttestamentlicher Zeit (1973, 2nd ed., 1980); A History of Israel in Old Testament Times (1975); “Basic Factors of Israelite Settlement in Canaan,” Biblical Archaeology Today (1985) 47-53.

S. Horn, “What We Don’t Know About Moses and the Exodus,” BAR (1977) 23f.

J. P. Hyatt, Commentary on Exodus (1971).

Y. Kaufmann, The Biblical Account of the Conquest of Palestine (1953).

J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus in the Light of External Evidence (1925).

K. M. Kenyon, “Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millennium B.C.,” PEQ, 83 (1951) 101-138; Digging Up Jericho, (1957); “Jericho: Oldest Walled Town,” Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land (1967) 19-28; Archaeology in the Holy Land (1970).

K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (1966).

M. Kochavi, “Khirbet Rabud = Debir,” Tel-Aviv, 1 (1974) 2-33; “The Israelite Settlement in Canaan in the Light of Archaeological Surveys,” Biblical Archaeology Today (1985) 54-60.

P. W. Lapp, ‘The Conquest of Palestine in the Light of Archaeology,’ Concordia Theological Monthly 38 (1967): 283-300.

D. Livingston, “The Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered,” Westminster Theological Journal, 33 (1970) 20-44; “Traditional Site of Bethel Questioned,” WTJ, 34 (1971) 39-50.

J. Marquet-Krause, Les fouilles de ay et-Tell 1933-1935: La resurrection d’une grande cite biblique (BAH 45 (1949)).

G. L. Mattingly, “The Exodus-Conquest and the Archaeology of Transjordan: New Light on an Old Problem,” Grace Theological Journal, 4.2 (1983) 245-262.

A. Mazar, “Israelite Settlement in Light of Excavations,” Biblical Archaeology Today (1985) 61-71.

B. Mazar, “The Early Israelite Settlement in the Hill Country,” BASOR, 241 (1981) 75-85.

T. J. Meek, Hebrew Origins (1936).

G. E. Mendenhall, “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BA 25 (1962) 6687; The Tenth Generation: The Origins of the Biblical Tradition (1973).

J. M. Miller in ‘An Archaeological Survey of Central Moab,’ a report presented to the annual session of the American Schools of Oriental Research on Nov. 19, 1978; “The Israelite Occupation of Canaan.” In Israelite and Judean History, edited by J. H. Hayes and J. M. Miller (1977) 213-284.

E. W. Nicholson, Exodus and Sinai in History and Theology (1973).

M. Noth, Das System der zwolf Stamme Israels (1930: reprint 1966); Geschichte Israels (1950, reprint 1969); The History of Israel (2nd ed., 1960).

J. B. Payne, “Chronology of the Old Testament,” Zondervan Pictorial Encyclopedia of the Bible, I (1975) 833.

J. B. Pritchard, Gibeon Where the Sun Stood Still (1962).

A. F. Rainey, “Bethel is Still Beitin,” WTJ, 33 (1971) 175-88; Review of Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by John J. Bimson, JSOT (1978); IEJ, 30 (1980): 249-251.

G. W. Ramsey, The Quest for the Historical Israel (1981).

H. H. Rowley, From Joseph to Joshua (1950).

M. B. Rowton, “The Problem of the Exodus,” PEQ, 85 (1953) 46-60.

J. A. Sauer, “Transjordan in the Bronze and Iron Ages: A Critique of Glueck’s Synthesis,” BASOR, 263 (1986).

K. N. Schoville, Biblical Archaeology in Focus (1978).

W. H. Shea, Review of Redating the Exodus and Conquest, by J. J. Bimson, JSOT (1978); CBQ 42 (1980) 88-90; “Exodus, Date of,” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Vol. 2 (1982) 230-238; “Some New Factors Bearing Upon the Date of the Exodus,” Catastrophism and Ancient History (1986) 29-35.

J. Schwartz, ‘Le “Cycle de Petoubastis” et les commentaires egyptiens de l’Exode,’ Bulletin de l’Institut Francais d’Archeolgie Orientale, 49 (1950) 75-83.

W. H. Stiebing, Jr., “Should the Exodus and the Israelite Settlement be Redated?” BAR (1985) 58-69.

H. G. Stigers, “Biblical and Archaeological Data Bearing on the Late Date of the Exodus” (unpublished, n.d.).

E. R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings (rev. ed. 1965).

M. F. Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (3rd ed., 1956).

I. Velikovsky, Ages in Chaos (1952).

B. K. Waltke, “Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus,” BS 129 (1972) 33-47.

Manfred Weippert, The Settlement of the Israelite Tribes in Palestine: A Critical Survey of Recent Scholar Debate in Studies in Biblical Theology, Second Series, 21 (1971).

L. T. Wood, “The Date of the Exodus,” in J. Barton Payne (ed.), New Perspectives on the Old Testament (1970) 67-86.

G. E. Wright, Biblical Archaeology (rev. ed., 1962).

E. Yamauchi, The Stones and the Scriptures (1973).

S. Yeivin, “The Rise and Fall of Hazor,” Archaeological Discoveries in the Holy Land (1967) 57-66; The Israelite Conquest of Canaan (1971); “Is the Biblical Account of the Israelite Conquest of Canaan Historically Reliable?” BAR, (1982) 17-23.

James Maxwell Miller

Director, Graduate Division of Religion at Emory University. Ph.D., Emory University. Archaeological field work includes: Tell Zeror (Israel), Tell Arad (Israel), et-Tell (West Bank), Tell Sheva (Israel), Buseirah (Jordan). Co-author of two books: A History of Ancient Israel and Judah and Israelite and Judaean History.

THE WITNESS OF AI

J. Maxwell Miller

According to the biblical account of the exodus-conquest, Joshua and his army destroyed and left in ruins three Canaanite cities --Jericho, Ai and Hazor. My assignment for this symposium is to explore the various lines of evidence pertaining to the Israelite defeat and destruction of Ai.

1. Overview of the Evidence

Joshua 7:1-8:29, which reports the event, may be summarized as follows. After dealing with Jericho, Joshua sent spies to reconnoiter Ai. The spies returned confident that the city could be taken with only two or three thousand men. When an attack was launched, however, it failed miserably. The king of Ai led his fighting men out of the city, routed the Israelites, and killed thirty-six of them. Thereupon the Israelites appealed to God and learned that Achan, against divine instructions, had taken some of the spoils from Jericho. Thus, they executed Achan with his family, burned his possessions, and launched a second attack on Ai --this time with more caution, better planning, and assurance of divine support. First Joshua positioned an ambush to the west of Ai, between Ai and Bethel. Then, with the main body of his fighting force, he attacked the city from another direction. Again, the king of Ai led his men out of the city to counterattack, and again the Israelites fled before them --but this time according to plan. Once the defenders of Ai had been drawn away from their city, the Israelite ambush seized the city and set it on fire. Thereupon the fleeing Israelites turned on their pursuers, annihilated them, and completed the destruction of the city. The total population of Ai was killed, we are told, twelve thousand people. The king was executed, and Ai left a perpetual ruin.

It is clear from the story that Ai was located near Bethel. Specifically, we are told that Joshua positioned the ambush “between

Bethel and Ai, to the west of Ai.” This is confirmed by Genesis 12-13 which reports Abraham’s initial entry into the land of Canaan.1 Abraham camped first near Shechem, we are told, and then “removed to the mountain on the east of Bethel, and pitched his tent, with Bethel on the west and Ai on the east” (12:8). Other biblical passages place Bethel in the hill country north of Jerusalem (Josh. 16:1-2; Judg. 4:5; I Sam. 7:16; 10:3; 13:2; etc.), mention a road which led from Bethel to Shechem (Judg. 21:19), and presuppose that Bethel was on the Israel side of the boundary after the separation of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah (I Kings 12:29-33; II Kings 17:28; 23:4-9; etc.). Finally, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in the fourth century A.D., places Bethel twelve Roman miles north of Jerusalem, on the right side of the road which led from Jerusalem to Neapolis (modern Nablus, which includes the ruins of ancient Shechem). Eusebius locates Ai a short distance east of Bethel and notes that it was represented in his day by minor ruins.2

There is now in the hill country north of Jerusalem and at approximately the distance which one would expect for Bethel, an Arab village which bears the name Beitin. Almost directly east of Beitin, and separated from it by a ridge which overlooks both, is a landmark ruin which the local people call the “tell” (et-Tell). “Beitin” is the Arabic equivalent of “Bethel;” and while it would be too much to suggest that the modern name “et-Tell” relates directly to the biblical story, the fact that the local villagers today use the same descriptive terminology for this prominent ruin that the biblical narrator used for the Ai ruin (et-Tell and tēl-'ôlām respectively) is striking. For the majority of biblical scholars, moreover, the conclusion is obvious--present-day Beitin and et-Tell represent the sites of ancient Bethel and Ai.

Edwar Robinson recognized the connection between Beitin and Bethel when he first explored the region north of Jerusalem in 1838. He also observed that et-Tell was the logical spot for Ai, but hesitated to make this second connection because he saw no evidence of ancient occupation on et-Tell. Gradually the nineteenth century explorers came to recognize that “tells” themselves often represent the stratified occupational debris of ancient cities and that this is true of et-Tell in particular. Correspondingly, the equation of et-tell with biblical Ai had gained almost universal acceptance by the turn of the century,3 and it remained unchallenged, so far as I know, until et-Tell was excavated during the 1930s.

However, the result of the excavations, as it turned out, conflicts with the biblical story. The Israelite conquest of Canaan would have to be dated sometime between approximately 1500 and 1200 B.C. Yet it is clear from the excavations that et-Tell was not even occupied during that time span, much less burned and left in ruins. Moreover, Ai is not the only ancient city whose archaeological remains seem to defy the

biblical story of the conquest. Also, in the cases of Arad, Dibon, Heshbon, Jericho, Gibeon, Jarmuth, Hebron, and Debir we are confronted with cities which supposedly were flourishing at the time of the conquest, and which can be located with a high degree of certainty, yet which either have produced no remains from the time of the conquest (whenever one dates it) or embarrassingly meager remains.

Actually Jericho, rather than Ai, has tended to be the storm center of the debate regarding archaeology and the conquest. Jericho was excavated first by Watzinger and Sellin in 1901-1909. This was before pottery dating had reached any degree of sophistication in Palestinian archaeology, so it was largely a matter of guesswork when they identified one of the phases of the city’s ruins as belonging to the time of Joshua.4 Pottery dating had come into its own by the 1920s, however, at which time Watzinger reexamined the Jericho materials and announced (in 1926) that Jericho apparently was unoccupied at the time of the supposed coquest.5

W. F. Albright reached the same conclusion almost simultaneously from surface pottery collected at et-Tell. …all the hundreds of potsherds inspected, with some insignificant Arab exceptions, were Canaanite. But, almost to the consternation of the writer, they proved to be, not Late Canaanite, but Middle Canaanite (Middle Bronze). … Apparently, therefore, we are forced to conclude that Ai was destroyed centuries before the invasion of Israel under Joshua, between the seventeenth and the fifteenth centuries, presumably in the sixteenth. Let no one think that this conclusion is forced and premature; the writer has, in the company with members of the American School, combed the surface of the tell on more than one occasion, examining thousands of sherds from all parts of the summit.6

At this early stage of his career, Albright thought in terms of multiple waves for the Israelite conquest. Accordingly, he attributed the destruction of Ai/et-Tell to one of the earlier Hebrew waves --specifically a “house of Joseph” wave which he calculated would have been entering Palestine during approximately the sixteenth century.

John Garstang, however, convinced that Watzinger and Albright were overlooking evidence, made soundings at et-Tell and Hazer in 1928 and more extensive excavations at Jericho in 1930-36.7 The results, he contended, showed that all three sites had continued occupation through the Early and Middle Bronze Ages but ceased to be occupied at some point during the fifteenth century. Regarding the results of his sounding at et-Tell in particular, he reported: While, as usual, M.B.A. wares were most abundant, there were found a considerable portion of the L.B.A. including (in the collection of the American School) a Cypriote wish-bone handle, but nothing of Mykenaean date or character, nor any local fabrics of a date later than 1400 B.C.8

Accordingly, Garstang dated the Israelite conquest to the fifteenth century.

When a French team directed by Judith Marquet-Krause and joined by the Jewish Palestine Exploration Society undertook a fullscale excavation at et-Tell in 1933-35, therefore, it was hoped that a secure conclusion could be reached regarding the date of the ancient city’s destruction. A secure conclusion was reached,9 but not one which favored any of the proposed dates for the conquest. Specifically, the bulk of the et-Tell ruin turned out to be the remains of a strongly fortified city which had stood there during the Early Bronze Age, but was destroyed already before the beginning of the second millennium B.C. Thereafter the site remained unoccupied until early in the Iron Age when a small unfortified settlement emerged on the old tell and lasted for approximately a century.

The last round of excavations at et-Tell was conducted by Joseph A. Callaway from 1964 to 1972.10 Callaway’s expedition, thorough and extensive, confirmed Marquet-Krause’s conclusions and provided more precise dates. We know now that an unfortified settlement emerged at the site of et-Tell during Early Bronze IB (ca. 3100-3000 B.C.), grew to a major walled city covering almost 30 acres during Early Bronze IC (ca. 3000-2860 B.C.), and continued to flourish until it was destroyed at the end of Early Bronze IIIB (ca. 2550-2350 B.C.). The site remained unoccupied then until the little (less than three acres), unfortified, Iron Age village emerged on the east side of the old tell. This little village, whose existence was confined to Iron IA (ca. 1220-1125 B.C.), was the end of occupation at the site. Callaway distinguished two archaeological phases for the village, with the transition from phase 1 to phase 2 marked by the abandonment of some of the phase I structures (including one which was destroyed by fire), building repairs on others, and some new floor levels.

Callaway also conducted soundings at two other sites in the immediate vicinity, Khirbet Haiyan and Khirbet Khudriya, both of which had been proposed as possible candidates for Ai by nineteenth century explorers before it was recognized that et-Tell itself was a city ruin. Neither site produced pre-Hellenistic remains.11

1. Reactions to the Conflicting Evidence

As one would expect, biblical scholars have reacted to this disconcerting archaeological evidence in different ways. For the purposes of our discussion and at the risk of oversimplification, I will divide them (us) into three groups: the “historical skeptics,” the “Bible revisionists,” and the “archaeology revisionists.” These labels represent caricatures of course. If they are unfair, at least I think the unfairness is

evenly spread.

The Historical Skeptics. Even general readers of the biblical account of the exodus-conquest notice items which sound more like folklore than accurate history --staffs that transform into snakes, plagues upon command, waters of the sea rolling back with perfect military timing, 600,000 people wandering for forty years in the desert, walls tumbling down at the sound of trumpets, the sun standing still, and so on. Close literary analysis suggests, moreover, that the whole Genesis-II Kings presentation of Israel’s past is a largely artificial literary construct produced hundreds of years after the exodus and conquest would have occurred and composed of various sorts of originally independent materials.12 The story of the destruction of Ai in particular includes internal contradictions. Compare vss. 8:3-11 with 8:12-13, for example, where first we are told that the ambush consisted of 30,000 men who were set in position on the eve of the second attack, then that it consisted of 5,000 men who were sent to position on the morning of the attack. Also, it becomes apparent at the conclusion of the story that its narrator lived long after the event reported and knew Ai as an age-old ruin on which was to be seen a great heap of stones.

So Joshua burned Ai, and made it for ever a heap of ruins (tēl'ôlām), as it is to this day. And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at the going down of the sun Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the tree, and cast it at the entrance of the gate of the city, and raised over it a great heap of stones, which stands there to this day. (vss. 8:2829)

Typical of folk legends, the story offers a mixture of anonymous characters (everyone except Joshua, even the king of Ai), exaggerated numbers (the idea of 35,000 fighting men attacking one of the little hill country settlements boggles the mind), and sweeping claims (not a single one of the inhabitants of Ai survived or escaped). Surely it is not to be regarded as a factual battle report, but as a local legend which provided a folk explanation for a conspicuous neighborhood ruin. When our Israelite ancestors entered the land, so the legend would have been told from one generation to the next, they destroyed a great city which stood at this spot and left it a perpetual ruin. Thus, the ruin still stands even to this day, the storyteller would conclude, and also the heap of stones which covers the grave of the ancient king of the city.

The legendary character of the conquest stories had already been observed by several leading scholars, Hugo Gressmann for example,13 before Watzinger announced that Jericho was unoccupied at the time of the supposed conquest. For these scholars, therefore, the new information came as no great surprise. It merely confirmed their suspicions. Marquet-Krause’s announcement less than a decade later that et-Tell was unoccupied throughout the whole Middle and

Late Bronze Ages came as even less of a surprise. Among the visitors to et-Tell during the first season of her excavations, when it was already becoming evident that the site would produce only Early Bronze and Iron I remains, was Albrecht Alt with a group from the Deutsches evangelisches Institut in Jerusalem. Alt observed in the annual report of the institute for that year that, unless further excavations filled in the apparent occupational gap, the biblical story of the destruction of Ai would have to be interpreted as an historically misleading folk story.14 Alt would have much more to say about the matter of the Israelite occupation of Canaan in later publications. It was Martin Noth, however, who made the most thorough analysis of the destruction of Ai story in the aftermath of the et-Tell excavations with emphasis on the story’s legendary character. In an article published in 1935,15 the last year of the Marquet-Krause dig, he concluded that:

1. The Ai/et-Tell identification is unavoidable in spite of the new archaeological evidence.

2. The aetiological [mythical] items, as well as the fashion in which the topographical data are presented, suggests a story which originated and circulated locally.

3. However, the explanation which the story gives for the ruin obviously is historically incorrect. It could not have been the Israelites who destroyed the city represented by the ruins, since that city had disappeared long before the Israelites appeared on the scene.

4. Moreover, the statement in verse 8:28 to the effect that Ai remained a perpetual ruin following Joshua’s conquest could only have been made fairly late in Israel’s history --i.e., after the Iron Age settlement had ceased to exist and had been forgotten.

Among other leading scholars of the day who likewise concluded that the biblical story of the destruction of Ai is a legendary and historically misleading account were Marquet-Krause,16 Rene Dussaud,17 and Alfred Lods.18 Even W. J. Phythian-Adams, who still argued strongly for a fifteenth century conquest and insisted upon the historicity of Joshua’s destruction of Jericho, was prepared to concede that the Ai story may have been legendary. It may well have been that such a tale had long been told in Israel as an explanation of the name of this “ruined” site and if some actual memory of the punishment of Achan (perhaps a traditional heap of stones) still survived likewise, the two may have been drawn together to make a single episode.19 This evaluation of the Ai/et-Tell situation has continued to attract

adherents, and probably is more widely accepted among scholars today than ever before. A recent champion of this approach is Ziony Zevit, for example, who has expressed his views in recent issues of BASOR and BAR.20

To summarize the position of the “historical skeptics,” they (we) regard the whole biblical account of the exodus-conquest as a largely artificial literary piece which draws heavily upon legendary materials and informs us more about the historical views of late Jewish theologians than about the actual circumstances of Israel’s origins. We see the story of the conquest of Ai in particular as a local folk legend which emerged among the Benjaminites to explain a prominent neighborhood landmark, the ancient city ruin known today as et-Tell. We believe that the archaeological situation at et-Tell fits nicely with this view. It confirms, namely, that the ruin was already there during biblical time, conspicuous and begging for explanation. At the same time the archaeology data disprove the explanation given. The city which produced the ruins was not destroyed by Israel’s ancestors as the folk story claims. It lay in ruins already long before the Israelites appeared on the scene.

The Bible Revisionists. The representatives of this second group which I am calling the “Bible revisionists,” likewise regard the biblical account of the conquest in general and the story of the destruction of Ai in particular as historically defective. Yet they speculate that there probably was an actual exodus-conquest of some sort and contend that the story of the Israelite conquest of Ai, legendary though it may be, could possibly preserve memory of an actual battle at et-Tell (or in the immediate vicinity) which may have involved Israelites.

W. F. Albright is the best-known representative of this approach. The quotation from him cited above dates from the mid-1920s, at which time he believed that the “Canaanite” occupation of Ai/et-Tell continued to the sixteenth century. Accordingly, he attributed the destruction of the city to an early wave of Israelite invaders. Marquet-Krause’s excavation results disqualified this theory. Also Albright himself conducted a small excavation at Beitin in 1934, from which he concluded that Late Bronze Age Bethel met with violent destruction during the early thirteenth century.21 Albright was already of the opinion that the main thrust of the Israelite invasion, the one led by Joshua, had occurred during the thirteenth century, so it seemed reasonable to attribute this thirteenth century destruction of Bethel to Joshua.22 The biblical support for such a conclusion is flimsy, of course, as Albright recognized. Although Bethel is listed in the summary of conquered cities in Joshua 12, there is no reference to its conquest in the preceding narratives. Moreover, Judges 1:22-26 attributes its conquest to the “house of Joseph,” presumably after Joshua’s death; and one need not conclude from the latter passage that the Josephites actually destroyed the city when they smote (massacred)

its population.

The house of Joseph also went up against Bethel; and the LORD was with them. And the house of Joseph sent to spy out Bethel. (Now the name of the city was formerly Luz.) And the spies saw a man coming out of the city, and they said to him, “Pray, show us the way into the city, and we will deal kindly with you.” And he showed them the way into the city; and they smote the city with the edge of the sword, but they let the man and all of his family go. (Judg. 1:22-25)

In short, the biblical and archaeological data regarding Bethel/Beitin and Ai/et-Tell conflicted with Albright’s hypothesized thirteenth century conquest for opposite reasons. The archaeological evidence testified to a destruction of Beitin during the thirteenth century; but the Bible neither specifically attributes the Bethel’s conquest to Joshua nor states that it was destroyed. The Bible does unequivocally credit Joshua with conquering Ai, and emphasizes that he burned the city to the ground; but the archaeological evidence proves that et-Tell was already a desolate ruin long before Joshua appeared on the scene (regardless of whether one dates him in the sixteenth, fifteenth, or thirteenth century).

Albright’s solution to this dilemma was to propose that the biblical story of the conquest of Ai contains in a late and misleading form memory of an ancient Israelite attack on Bethel. It was Bethel, in other words, not Ai, that Joshua conquered and burned to the ground. Since the ruins of Ai were more imposing than those of Bethel, however, later generations recounting the story gradually came to associate the incident with Ai. Likewise, the details of the story were revised in time to correspond to the topographical situation of Ai.

L. H. Vincent23 agreed that the king of Bethel must have been the real opponent of the battle, but proposed a scenario in which the battle actually would have been fought for control of the Ai/et-Tell ruin. According to his scenario, when the king of Bethel heard of Israel’s success at Jericho and saw that Joshua intended to penetrate the hill country, he organized a coalition of Canaanite rulers and sought to halt the Israelite advance at Ai. One might even suppose, according to Vincent, that the Canaanites hastily built a small fortress on the old Early Bronze Age ruins and that it was this temporary fortress which Joshua burned to the ground. Since it was a hastily built and temporary fortress on an otherwise unoccupied site, no archaeological remains would have survived.

K. Mohlenbrink, and more recently Joseph Callaway, speculate that the story of the destruction of Ai harks back to a battle which involved the Iron I village represented at et-Tell. Specifically, Mohlenbrink theorized in 1938 that this would have been a local battle waged by the “Gilgal amphictyony” possibly as late as the separation of the kingdoms and in any case having nothing to do with the conquest.24 Callaway,

whose more precise dating for the Iron I village precludes such a late date as proposed by Mohlenbrink, observes that the Israelite occupation of Canaan would have been a far more gradual process than the biblical account suggests --one which lasted well into the Iron Age and involved numerous local and relatively isolated conflicts. Accordingly, he would have the Israelites conquering the Iron I/phase 1 settlement at Ai/et-Tell. The emerging picture of the conquest that I see in the archaeological evidence is one of minor scale raids on small villages like the Phase I settlement at ‘Ai, but mainly it is a picture of political integration with the Iron Age I inhabitants of the land, such as those at Gibeon. The region north of Esdraelon was in some cultural characteristics distinct from the central hill country until well into the twelfth century, when the people represented by the ‘Ai phase II culture, who very well may have been Israelites, spread their influence to Hazor in the north and Lachish in the south. This, I admit, is a less glorious picture of the conquest than Albright’s Late Bronze dating implies or the biblical traditions insist. But to me, it is more realistic and credible, and it actually has more support from the biblical traditions once we get behind the propaganda of the theologians who subordinated history to their own purposes.25 If we agree with Callaway, therefore, the real battle of Ai involved an unwalled, three-acre village. The figures provided in the story would have to be regarded as exaggerations (Imagine a three-acre village with 12,000 inhabitants under attack by 30,000-plus Israelite troops!). The references to the city gate in vss. 7:4 and 8:29 become problematic. Moreover, rather than having been left as a perpetual ruin as the Bible claims, the defeated village was resettled immediately (i.e., by the people of the Iron I/phase II village).

In summary, while the “Bible revisionists” do not totally deny the historicity of the biblical story of the destruction of Ai, their theories do essentially that by implication. In order to meet the requirements of archaeology, they propose scenarios which call for revising the story virtually beyond recognition.

The Archaeology Revisionists. Finally, we come to the “archaeology revisionists,” those disinclined to challenge the historical accuracy of the biblical story, even of its details, and prefer instead to relocate Ai. Since the archaeological remains at et-Tell do not meet the requirements of the story, in other words, they conclude that et-Tell must not be Ai. And if relocating Ai means relocating Bethel also, then so be it.

Although several scholars pointed out in the aftermath of the Marquet-Krause excavations that we have no absolute proof for the Ai/ et-Tell identification,26 J. Simons seems to have been the first to oppose it explicitly.27 Noting the archaeological conflict in a 1944 article, he proceeded to raise the following additional objections to the equation of Ai with et-Tell:

1. Josh. 12:9 states that Ai was “beside” (mitsad) Bethel

which, in his opinion, implies that Ai was nearer to Bethel than et-Tell is to Beitin.

2. Et-Tell is a large site, in contrast to Joshua 7:3 where the overconfidence of the spies presupposes, again in his opinion, a small town.

3. Et-Tell has no broad valley to the north, as indicated for Ai in Josh. 8:11-13 (MT).

J. M. Grintz reiterated the last of these objections in a 1961 article and attempted to demonstrate that et-Tell is a more likely site for Beth-aven than for Ai.28

Simons and Grintz challenged only the Ai/et-Tell equation. As we have seen, however, the identification of Ai with et-Tell is linked to the identification of Bethel with Beitin (and vice versa). W. Ross expressed doubts about the Bethel/Beitin equation in a 1941 article, primarily on the grounds that Albright’s excavations at Beitin failed to produce remains of Jeroboam’s temple.29 David Livingston has since proposed new candidate sites for both Bethel and Ai, excavated the one which he proposes for Ai, and I presume will tell us about the results this morning. It is appropriate to summarize here the reasons which he has given in previous publications for rejecting the Bethel/Beitin and Ai/et-Tell identifications in the first place.30

1. The modern name “Beitin” could mean “two houses” in written Arabic, Livingston points out, and thus does not necessarily derive from the ancient name “Bethel” which means “house (or temple) of El.”

2. Even if “Beitin” did derive from “Bethel,” the modern village does not necessarily stand exactly where its ancient counterpart stood. Names move around.

3. In addition to Simons’ contentions that et-Tell is not large enough, that et-Tell and Beitin are not near enough together, that the valley north of et-Tell is not broad enough, Livingston adds that the hill between Beitin and et-Tell is not high enough, and that there is no hill north of et-Tell high enough for Joshua to have stood upon and been seen when he signaled to the ambush.

4. Neither, in Livingston’s estimation, is Beitin in as good a commercial location as Bethel must have been. Bethel was a “living city,” he claims, situated on a major northsouth/east-west road juncture.

5. Bethel was on the tribal boundary between Ephraim and Benjamin, and later on the national boundary between Israel and Judah. By that he means exactly on the line, and argues accordingly that Bethel must have

been on a natural geographical divide. Beitin fails again to qualify, in his judgment.

6. Several biblical passages associate Bethel and Ai with Beth-aven, which I Sam. 13:5 places west of Michmash (present-day Mukhmas). Yet Beitin and et-Tell are actually north-by-northwest of Michmash.

7. Finally, Livingston calculates that the twelfth Roman milestone on the road from Jerusalem to Neapolis, where Eusebius places Bethel, would not have been quite as far north as Beitin.

I have labeled this third group of scholars “Archaeology revisionists” in spite of the fact that most of their arguments for relocating Bethel and Ai have to do with topographical features rather than with excavation results. Yet the label is appropriately descriptive, I think, for two interrelated reasons. First, of all the many reasons which they give for rejecting the Bethel/Beitin and Ai/et-Tell equations, the only one which stands up under close scrutiny, in my opinion, is the archaeological conflict --the fact that the archaeological remains at et-Tell do not square with the biblical story about Ai. Second, and this should become more obvious with John Bimson’s presentation tomorrow morning,31 the move to relocate Bethel and Ai is but one item in a more comprehensive effort to correlate the whole biblical account of the conquest with the full range of archaeological evidence. Standing in the way of this goal, as indicated above, are the problematic “conquest cities.” In order to get around these problematic cities, Bimson has proposed that we lower the standard date for the close of the Middle Bronze Age from mid-sixteenth to the end of the fifteenth century B.C. and date the Israelite conquest at that point (i.e., at the close of the Middle Bronze Age, pushed forward to the end of the fifteenth century). This revision of the standard date for the end of the Middle Bronze Age and coordinated redating of the conquest will satisfy some of the problematic “conquest cities,” Jericho in particular. But it will not satisfy all of them. There is still the Ai/et-Tell situation to contend with, as well as Arad and Heshbon. Likewise, in each of these latter two cases, the ancient biblical name is preserved in Arabic form and attached to an archaeological ruin situated approximately where one would expect the biblical city to have stood. Yet again neither of these sites produced remains from either the Middle or Late Bronze Ages. For these particularly obstinate cases, therefore, the “archaeology revisionists” resort to relocation.

3. Two Crucial Areas of Disagreement

The controversy regarding archaeology and the problematic

conquest cities has raged for more than a half century now, and we are not likely to settle it during the course of this conference. Moreover, I am outnumbered --probably the only “historical skeptic” in a symposium strongly weighted toward the “archaeology revisionists” side. Yet it will bring some clarity to our discussion, I think, if we identify “up front” two crucial areas of disagreement.

One of the areas, obviously, has to do with the reliability of the Bible as a source of historical information. Some of us begin with the assumption or conviction that the biblical story of the exodus and conquest is historically accurate and that the archaeological evidence, when understood properly, will fit. So, it is simply a matter of searching for the fit until it is found. Others of us do not begin with any such assumption. Correspondingly, when we encounter situations in which the archaeological evidence seems in unavoidable conflict with the biblical materials, we are neither surprised nor inclined to engage in heroic efforts to make it fit.

The second crucial area of disagreement has to do with the reliability of contemporary Arabic place names for establishing the locations of ancient cities. The question is not whether the Arabic names often preserve authentic memory of ancient names (clearly, they do), but of the extent to which these place names have moved around during the course of history. Even Livingston seems disinclined to follow his own proposal that “Beitin” means “two houses” in favor of the standard view that it derives from the biblical name “Bethel.” Since he wishes to deny that present-day Beitin was also the site of ancient Bethel, however, he suggests that the name may have moved there from some other site (He has in mind the site of present-day Ramallah). The same sort of name relocation theory has been proposed as a solution for the Heshbon problem also. Admittedly, some authentic examples of place names having shifted positions can be cited, and Albright made much of this phenomenon. Yet I doubt that there was quite as much bouncing around of place names as Albright and others would have us suppose, or that these name shifts normally involved the distances sometimes supposed. And I am particularly bothered by the extent to which Albright and others after him have used this phenomenon of place name mobility as a convenient escape clause when archaeological excavations failed to produce expected results.32

4. Ambiguous Evidence, Unconvincing Arguments

I indicated above that only one of the long lists of reasons given by Livingston and others for rejecting the Bethel/Beitin and Ai/et-Tell equations in the first place, regardless of how much place names may have moved around in times past, stands up under close scrutiny. That

one is the archaeological conflict --the fact that the archaeological evidence from et-Tell does not square with the biblical story. I want to respond now in closing to their other reasons. And the first point to be made in this regard is that both the biblical and the patristic evidence is considerably more ambiguous than most of these reasons imply. At least four areas of ambiguity deserve mention.

(1) The Greek (Septuagint) version of the book of Joshua is considerably shorter than the standard Hebrew (Masoretic) version. This applies also to the story of the destruction of Ai in chapters 7-8. Noteworthy for our purposes, the Septuagint supplies fewer and less specific topographical details. Consider vss 8:11-13, for example, which describes the second Israelite attack on Ai. It is specifically the Masoretic version which reports that the main Israelite army camped on the north side of Ai, with a valley between them and the city, and that they attacked from that direction the next morning. The Septuagint version states simply that “all the men of war went up with him [Joshua], and they went forward and came over against the city eastward.” One might be tempted to speculate that the Greek translators abbreviated and even changed the topographical details somewhat because they were less familiar with, or less interested in, such matters. Recent developments in manuscript studies warn that the testimony of the Greek texts is never to be taken lightly, however, and in fact a Hebrew fragment of Joshua 8 discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is closer to the shorter Septuagint text.33 In any case, it appears that the wording of the Joshua account of the defeat of Ai remained somewhat fluid long after it was written down. Correspondingly, arguments which ignore the textual variations are of doubtful value. One thinks here especially of Simon’s contention that the valley north of et-Tell is not broad enough to fit the requirements of the story, and of Livingston’s objection that there is no hill north of the valley high enough for Joshua to have stood upon and signaled the ambush west of the city.

(2) There is always a danger of extracting more precise topographical information from the biblical materials than they intend to give. For example, the terms in biblical Hebrew which we translate “east,” “west,” “north” and “south” must be understood rather loosely, since there are no separate expressions for “southeast,” “northwest,” “northby-northwest” and the like. Accordingly, when I Sam. 13:5 states that Michmash was east of Beth-aven, that does not necessarily mean exactly 90 degrees east as checked with a compass.

Topographical passages are often vague, if not obscure, in other ways as well. A prime example is the double description of the Ephraim-Benjamin boundary --presented first as Ephraim’s southern boundary in Josh. 16:1-3 and then as Benjamin’s northern boundary in 18:12-14. The Ephraim version has the line coming up from Jericho into

hār bēṯʾēl (“Mount Bethel” or “hill country of Bethel”), then from Bethel to Luz, and from Luz to the territory of the Archites of Ataroth. The Benjamin version has the boundary coming up into “the mountain westward” and continuing via “the wilderness of Beth-aven” to the southern shoulder of Luz, which is identified in turn as Bethel. Note that the hār bēṯʾēl and “the wilderness of Beth-aven” hold corresponding positions in the two versions. How were they related? And how could the boundary have gone from Bethel to the southern shoulder of Luz, if Bethel and Luz were the same? I have some ideas on this matter and others have theirs; the point to be made here is simply that the evidence is not always clear even when the manuscripts agree. The exact route of the EphraimBenjamin boundary is itself a debated matter, and arguments which presuppose otherwise are misleading.

(3) Not all of the biblical references to Bethel necessarily refer to the same spot. Some apparently have to do specifically with the village Bethel; others with the famous Bethel worship place from which the village derived its name, but which was not necessarily located in the village; still others pertain to the general region of the village and associated sanctuary. Presumably it was the village which was known also as Luz. Very likely, the Bethel sanctuary was on the mountain between the village Bethel and Ai --the mountain on which Abraham is said to have camped and built an altar to Yahweh. The term hār bēṯʾēl in the boundary description cited above probably refers to neither the village nor the sanctuary specifically, but to both with their surrounding vicinity.

Moreover, the issue of the topographical interrelationship of the Bethel village, the Bethel sanctuary and the Ai ruin cannot be disassociated from the Beth-aven problem. If one makes no topographical distinction between the Bethel village and the Bethel sanctuary and follows the Masoretic reading of Josh. 7:2,34 then it would appear that Beth-aven was a separate spot, and Grintz has the beginnings of a case for locating it at et-Tell. However, most scholars, with good reason, favor the alternate view that Beth-aven was but another name (a derogatory name) for the Bethel sanctuary.35 Hosea uses the name “Beth-aven” in contexts which seem to presuppose the Bethel sanctuary. Also, the parallel descriptions of the Ephraim-Benjamin boundary make better sense when read in that light. It would explain, for example, why hār bēṯʾēl in the Ephraim version roughly parallels “the wilderness of Beth-aven” in the Benjamin version, and how the boundary could proceed from Bethel (in the Ephraim version) to Luz which (in the Benjamin version) is equated with Bethel. In other words, we should think of the boundary as entering the Bethel/Beth-aven region and proceeding to Luz/Bethel village. But however one deals with them, there is a whole range of uncertainties here which Livingston’s

arguments for relocating Bethel and Ai simply do not take into account.

(4) That Eusebius, Jerome and the Madaba mosaic map place Bethel and Ai in the general vicinity of Beitin and et-Tell is not disputed. The question is whether these sources allow us to calculate the location of Bethel more exactly, and if so, whether Beitin is precisely on the mark or a mile or two “off.”36 Among the uncertainties which have made for lively debate are (a) the location of the twelfth Roman milestone, (b) whether Eusebius intended us to understand that Bethel was “at” this milestone or only in the vicinity of it, and (c) whether it was Bethel, or the turn-off of a secondary road to Bethel, which was located “at” or “near” the twelfth milestone, wherever that was. About all one can say for certain, it seems to me, is that the patristic sources provide a “ball park” location for Bethel and that Beitin is well within the ball park.

Some of the arguments raised by Livingston and others, in addition to glossing over these ambiguities in the evidence, involve an excessive degree of subjectivity. I would place in this category arguments such as: “Et-Tell is too large a ruin for Ai, which required an attacking force of only 3,000 men.” “The valley to the north of et-Tell is not broad enough to have accommodated Joshua’s army.” “The hill between Beitin and et-Tell is really more of a ridge than a hill, and it is not high enough.” “Et-Tell is not near enough to be considered “beside” (mitsad) Beitin,” and so on. In addition to the fact that these arguments depend largely on Masoretic details missing in the Greek texts, they are presumptuous judgment calls. How, for example, are we to calculate the minimum breadth of the valley or elevation of the hill? As for determining the size of Ai on the basis of the number of men required to attack it, apparently even Joshua’s spies misjudged the situation. After all, the 3,000 men were chased away --or so the story goes.

Other arguments presuppose false criteria. Livingston contends that Bethel would have been a major city, for example, situated at the juncture of main north-south and east-west roads. Also, it would have been situated on the boundary line between the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. And it was because of this strategic commercial and boundary line position, he claims, that Jeroboam I selected Bethel for one of the golden calf temples. But these are manufactured criteria. Bethel was an important worship place. The associated village may or may not have been a thriving commercial center. And a single biblical passage, to my knowledge, associates it with a road. Namely, Judges 19-21, which recounts a tribal war with Benjamin, concludes with the elders of Israel instructing the Benjaminite men to go to Shiloh for wives. So, they said, “Behold, there is the yearly feast of the LORD at Shiloh, which is north of Bethel, on the east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem.” Why the mention of Bethel in connection with the road? Is it because Bethel was an important urban center comparable

to Shechem? No, Bethel is where the elders and Benjaminites were gathered when the instructions were given, according to the story. Bethel served the purposes of Jeroboam I, on the other hand, because (a) it was already an important cultic center with an ancient heritage, and (b) it was on the southern frontier of his kingdom. That is not the same as to say, however, and I know of nothing in the biblical texts which suggests, that it straddled the boundary line --if indeed there was a firmly fixed line.

5. Conclusion

To conclude, the contemporary Arab name “Beitin” corresponds to the biblical name “Bethel,” the modern village which bears the name is situated approximately where one would expect biblical Bethel to have been, the et-Tell ruin nearby meets the topographical requirements of Ai whether one follows the Masoretic or Septuagint manuscripts, and the name “et-Tell” is suggestive of the biblical story about the destruction of Ai which concludes with Ai becoming a tēl-'ôlām. All of this does not constitute proof that Beitin and et-Tell are the sites of Bethel and Ai respectively. But it comes closer to proof than is usual on matters of biblical toponymy. With one exception, the numerous objections raised by Livingston and others are inconsequential. That one exception, the one indisputable reason for seeking another candidate for Ai, is that the archaeological evidence from et-Tell conflicts with the historical claims of the biblical story. But this problem is not confined to Ai and et-Tell, and it is a problem only for those who presuppose the historical accuracy of the story. For those of us who see it as a local Benjaminite folk legend which explained an ancient neighborhood ruin, the archaeological remains at et-Tell fit quite well. These remains verify that et-Tell was already a landmark ruin long before the Israelites appeared on the scene and that, except for a brief interval during the time of the Judges, it stood throughout biblical times as a conspicuous, unoccupied site.

Appendix

In Search of Ai During the Nineteenth Century

Medieval writers and travelers, the Crusaders for example, were inclined to search for Bethel and Ai further north than Beitin and et-Tell, apparently led astray by the fact that the conquest of Ai is followed up in the book of Joshua by an Israelite assembly at Mount Ebal (Josh. 8:3035). When Edward Robinson visited the village of Beitin in 1838, however, he immediately recognized that the Arab name “Beitin” corresponds to the Hebrew name “Bethel,” and that the location of Beitin meets the

topographical requirements both of the biblical texts pertaining to Bethel and of Eusebius’ description. Et-Tell also caught his eye as the likely spot for Ai, but he saw no surface ruins to suggest that et-Tell had been occupied in ancient times. Thus, with expressed reluctance, he proposed another site nearby which did offer visible ruins.

We had expected to find here (i.e., upon et-Tell) some remains of an ancient site; but there was nothing save a cistern, and immense heaps of unwrought stones, merely thrown together in order to clear the ground for planting olive trees. The position would answer well to that of Ai; and had there been traces of ruins, I should not hesitate so to regard it. … After all our search, we could come to no other result, than to assign as the probable site of Ai the place with ruins just south of Deir Duwan. This is an hour distant from Bethel; having near by on the north the deep Wady el-Mutyah; and towards the southwest other smaller Wadys, in which the ambuscade of the Israelites might easily have been concealed.37

Robinson did not get the name of this second site. Later, during the Palestine Exploration Fund Survey of Western Palestine, it was to be recorded as Khirbet Haiyan.

C. W. M. Van de Velde, a Dutchman who visited et-Tell in 1852, was also impressed with the extent to which its location and topographical surroundings correspond to those of biblical Ai. Moreover, the cisterns and huge piles of stones on the tell were evidence enough, in his opinion, that at least a small settlement had once stood on the site. Thus, he seems to have been the first to equate Ai with et-Tell. Actually, Ai would have been a rather small place, he argued, citing the overconfidence of Joshua’s spies. Moreover, the clearest indication that this was the site of biblical Ai, in Van de Velde’s opinion, was the correspondence between the modern name, which he heard as Tell elHajar, and the statement in Josh. 8:28 that Ai became “forever a heap or ruins,” a tēl-'ôlām.

“And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap for ever, a desolation unto this day.” One of the remarkable things with regard to the tell we have identified with Ai is its name, “Tell of the heap of stones,” a name which to this day remains, though the city was rebuilt, and even existed after Babylonian captivity.38 It remained for Capt. Charles W. Wilson to make a detailed examination of et-Tell and environs, which he did in the spring of 1866, and to set forth more systematically the topographical arguments for equating etTell with biblical Ai. His observations were published first in the Palestine Exploration Fund Quarterly Statement (1869) and reprinted later in the Memoirs of the Survey of Western Palestine (1882). The following excerpts bear repeating.

The ground which at first breaks down rapidly from the great ridge that forms the backbone of Palestine, swells out into a small plain three-quarters of a mile broad before commencing

its abrupt descent to the Jordan valley, and at the head or western end of this plain, on a projecting spur which has almost the appearance of an isolated hill, are the ruins known as et-Tell. A short distance west of the mound, and entirely concealed from it by rising ground, is a small ravine well suited for an ambush, one of the branches of the main valley which runs close to et-Tell and protects its northern face, the same into which the army of the Israelites descended the night before the capture of the city. ... It may be mentioned here that there is no practicable road up the beds of the wadis from Jericho to Bethel. The present track crosses the plain mentioned above as lying below et-Tell; and the old road, the ascent by which Elisha “went up” to Bethel, must have followed the same course. Ai, lying thus between the ravine on the north and the gorge on which Michmash stands (the “passage” of Isaiah x.29) on the south, would lie directly in the way of an army advancing from the Jordan Valley to the interior of Palestine. …

Exactly in this position (i.e., between Beitin and et-Tell) we found a hill from which there is a most commanding view, such as might be expected from Genesis xiii.10, over the surrounding country, embracing the lower portion of the Jordan Valley, the plain of Jericho, and the northern extremity of the Dead Sea. On the top of the hill we noticed the ruins, or rather foundations, of an old fortified church, which are mentioned by one or two writers only.

The presence of a church in such a position, with such a view from it, and with traces of an old road leading from it towards Bethel, was so striking that we could hardly resist coming at once to the conclusion that the site of Abram’s altar was perfectly well known to the early Christians --as Ai was certainly known to them by name down to the fourth century-- and that the church was purposely built on the spot in commemoration of the events which had taken place there.39

Wilson also clarified the name of the site, which turned out to be simply et-Tell rather than Tell el Hajar, or Tell er-Rijmeh as some travelers had heard. This corresponded even more closely to Josh. 8:28, in his opinion, since that verse states simply that Joshua made Ai a “tell” for ever.40

Scholarly opinion remained divided between et-Tell and Khirbet Haiyan until the turn of the century, however, with perhaps a slight majority favoring Khirbet Haiyan. Against the topographical factors which clearly favored et-Tell, there remained the uncertainty as to whether et-Tell had in fact been occupied in ancient time. Khirbet Haiyan offered visible ruins; and its name does bear some similarity to the ancient name “Ai.”41

A few other sites were proposed also, none of which received significant following: M. V. Guerin mentioned Khirbet el-Kudeireh, another small site in the vicinity of et-Tell and Khirbet Haiyan.42 However Guerin’s description of Kudeireh suggests that he had confused the names and actually meant Khirbet Haiyan. T. H. Guest suggested the

site of the modern village Rammun,43 which does have in its favor that it is more directly east of Beitin. Yet the majority of scholars then and now agree that both the name and the location of Rammun correspond more closely to those of biblical Rimmon.

Perhaps the most appealing of the alternate suggestions was the one offered by H. H. Kitchener44 and followed tentatively by W. F. Birch.45 Namely, Kitchener proposed Khirbet Haiy, approximately one mile east of Mukhmas. Kitchener obviously assumed that the Aiath of Isaiah 10 was identical with the Ai in Genesis and Joshua.

The connection between Ai and Michmash in the Bible is very close in Isa. x. 29. Here Bethel is not mentioned, as it seems natural to suppose it would have been had Ai been at et-Tell, and this seems to me to point to a different site for Ai. Kh. Haiy would have to be passed by the great king before the baggage was laid up at Michmash for the passage of the Wady Suweinit.46

Gradually the archaeological character of tells carne to be recognized, and with this recognition came consensus that et-Tell is the site biblical Ai. E. Sellin’s remarks in 1900 are typical of the emerging consensus. In addition to the cisterns and heaps of stones observed on the tell by earlier visitors, Sellin called attention to three further items of evidence that et-Tell was occupied in ancient times. Specifically, he noted that et-Tell was covered with potsherds, that there were foundation walls on its lower slopes, and that it had the typical shape of an artificial mound, a stratified city ruin.

Whoever requires further proof that a city once stood on this hill, then I invite him to view it from a distance, from along the track which leads to Beitin. And if his eye has been sharpened to recognize among the hills the artificial reshapings of the natural formations which resulted from the stratified remains of ancient cities, as for example tell jarmut, tell es-safije, and ‘atarot, then he will observe immediately that the same situation exists here.47

Credit for the suggestion that Khirbet Haiyan may have been the site of a late monarchical and/or post-exilic village which emerged in the vicinity of Ai/et-Tell --i.e., the Ai of Nehemiah 7 and possibly the Aiath/ Aija of Isaiah 10 and Nehemiah 11- belongs to G. Dalman; who also proposed that Beth-aven was an alternate name for the Bethel sanctuary which would have been situated on the mountain between Bethel and Ai. Responding in 1911 to Schlatter, who had sought to locate the Bethel sanctuary at Khirbet Haiyan,48 he states:

But the stonecut tombs in the vicinity do not indicate an early date (i.e., for Khirbet Haiyan). More likely, a later Ai could have been situated here. However, the old Ai must be sought on the tell west of der diwan. Without a doubt it represents the most important occupational site in the whole vicinity. … The old sanctuary, the place of Abraham’s altar between Bethel and Ai … and of Jacob’s dream must be sought near el-burdsch, on the tower of which we noticed rosettes and palm branches probably

from the Byzantine period. This could also possibly be the Bethawen distinguished from Bethel in Josh. 7:2 …49

ENDNOTES

1. In addition to the Joshua 7-8 and Genesis 12-13 narratives, Ai appears also in Josh. 10:1-2; 12:7-24; 18:2128; Neh. 7:32 and Ez. 7:28. Isa. 10:27b-32 and Nehemiah 11 mention a village (or two different villages) with a name (names) similar to Ai and apparently located in the same general vicinity. The Iyim mentioned in Num. 33:45 and the Ai mentioned in Jer. 49:3 clearly are unrelated to the Ai under discussion.

2. Eusebius: Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen, ed., E. Klostermann (Hlldeshelm: Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1966), pp. 4-7.

3. See Appendix for a summary of nineteenth century scholarship pertaining to the location of Ai.

4. E. Sellin and C. Watzinger, Jericho (Leipzig: J. C. Heinrichs, 1913)

5. C. Watzinger, “Zur Chronologie der Schichten von Jericho,” ZDMG 80 (1926), 131-136. Translated excerpt in PEFQS 58 (1926), 207.

6. W. F. Albright, “Ai and Beth-aven,” AASOR IV (1924), 141-149, esp. pp. 146-147. Albright recognized no “Jewish” (Iron Age) or Roman sherds on et-Tell (Ibid., p. 143), but reported both Jewish and RomanByzantine pottery at Khirbet Haiyan nearby (Ibid., p. 144, n. 1). This confirmed, in his opinion, Dalman’s earlier suggestion that Khirbet Haiyan was the site of a later (post-Canaanite) Ai. Cf. G. Dalman, “Jahresbericht des Deutschen evangelischen Instituts fur Altertumswissenschaft des heiligen Landes fur das Arbeitsjahr 1910/11,” PJB 7 (1911), 1-31, esp. p. 14; and “Palastinische Wege und die Bedrohnung Jerusalems nach Jes. 10,” PJB 12 (1916), 37-57, esp. pp. 45-46.

7. J. Garstang, Joshua-Judges (London: Constable & Co., 1931); J. and J. B. E. Garstang, The Story of Jericho (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1948).

8. Joshua-Judges, p. 356. Cf. also “Notes and News,” PEFQS 61 (1929), p. 2.

9. Judith Marquet-Krause, “et-Tell,” QDAP 4 (1935), 204205; “La deuxieme campagne de fouilles a Ay (1934) rapport sommaire,” Syria 16 (1935), 325-345; Les fouilles

de ‘Ay (et-Tell) 1933 35 (Paris: Geuthner, 1949).

10. Joseph Callaway, Pottery from the Tombs at ‘Ai (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1964); “The 1964 ‘Al (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 178 (1965), 13-40; “New Evidence on the Conquest of ‘Ai,” JBL 87 (1968), 312-320; “The 1966 ‘Ai (Et-Tell) Excavations,” BASOR 196 (1969), 2-16; “The 1968-1969 ‘Ai (Et-Tell Excavations,” BASOR 198 (1970), 7-31; The Early Bronze Age Sanctuary at Ai (et-Tell) (London: Bernard Quaritch, 1972); “Reexamination of Lower City at ‘Ai (et-Tell) in ‘71, 72,” PEQ 229 (1974), 147-155. “Excavating Ai (et-Tell): 196472,” BA 39 (1976), 18-30.

11. J. A. Callaway and M. B. Nichol, “A Sounding at Khirbet Haiyan,” BASOR 183 (1966), 12-19; Callaway, “New Evidence on the Conquest of ‘AI,” p. 315. The possibility of some Iron Age occupation at Khirbet Haiyan should not be excluded, however. Albright reported some “Jewish” sherds at the site, as we have already noted, and Iron II sherds were reported there more recently by Moshe Kochavi’s survey team. Albright, AASOR IV (1924), pp. 144, n. 1; Z. Kallai, “In the Land of Benjamin and Mount Ephraim,” Judaea, Samaria and the Golan: Archaeological Survey (196768), ed., M. Kochavi (Publications of the Archaeological Survey of Israel I; Jerusalem: Carta 1972), pp. 153-193, esp. pp. 178-179, no. 96.

12. See standard commentaries and Douglas Knight, “The Pentateuch,” The Hebrew Bible and Its Modern Interpreters, eds., D. A. Knight and G. M. Tucker for the Society of Biblical Literature (Philadelphia/Chico, Calf.: Fortress Press/Scholars Press, 1985), pp. 263-296.

13. H. Gressmann, Die Anfange Israels (Die Schriften des Alten Testaments II; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1914). See esp. pp. 141-147.

14. A. Alt, “Das Institut im Jahr 1933,” PJB 30 (1934), 5-31, esp. pp. 9-10.

15. M. Noth, “Bethel und Ai,” PJB 31 (1935), 7-29 (=Aufsatze I, pp. 210-228).

16. J. Marquet-Krause, Syria 16, esp. pp. 340-341.

17. Rene Dussaud, “Note Additionnelle,” Syria 16 (1935), 346-352. Excerpt translated in “Notes and News,” PEFQS 68 (1936), 54-55.

18. A. Lods, “Les fouilles d’Ai et l’epoque de l’entree des Israelites en Palestine,” Annuaire de l’Institut de

Philologie et d’Histoire Orientales et Slaves IV (1936): Melanges Franz Cumont (Brussels: Secretariat de 11 Institut, 1931), pp. 847-857.

19. W. J. Phythian-Adams, “Jericho, Ai and the Occupation of Mount Ephraim,” PEFQS 68 (1936), 141-149, esp. p. 148.

20. Ziony Zevit, “Archaeological and Literary Stratigraphy in Joshua 7-8,” BASOR 251 (1983), 23-36; “The Problem of Ai,” BAR 11 (1985), 58-69.

21. W. F. Albright, “The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel,” BASOR 56 (1934), 2-15.

22. “The Kyle Memorial Excavation at Bethel,” pp. 3, 11; “Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BASOR 58 (1935), 10-18; “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology,” BASOR 74 (1939), 11-23, etc. Albright had proposed a thirteenth century conquest already in 1918: “Historical and Mythical Elements in the Story of Joseph,” JBL 37 (1918), 23-36.

23. L.-H. Vincent, “Les fouilles d’et-Tell = ‘Ai,” RB 46 (1937), 231-266.

24. K. Mohlenbrink, “Die Landnahmesagen des Buches Josua,” ZAW 56 (1938), 238-268, esp. p. 261.

25. J. A. Callaway, “New Evidence on the Conquest of ‘Ai,” p. 319.

26. A. van Selms, “De Archaeologie in Syrii en Palaestina (tot 587 voor chr.),” Ex Oriente Lux 4 (1936), pp. 207211; F. Kenyon, The Bible and Archaeology (London: George G. Harrap, 1940), p. 190; A. Bea, “La Palestina Preisraelitica: Storia, Popoli, Cultura,” Biblica 24 (1943), 231-260, esp. p. 258. Cl. Kopp wished to hold open the possibility that a LB settlement associated with et-Tell was yet to be found, “Die Ausgrabungen von Hai,” Theologie und Glaube 31 (1939) 52-68, esp. pp. 6667.

27. J. Simons, “Een opmerking over het ‘Aj-probleem’” Oriente Lux 9 (1944), 157-162 [Cf. AJA 51 (1947), 311]; The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament p. 270. Simons also challenged Noth’s view that the name ha’ay was an appellative meaning “the ruin.” Cf. Noth, “Bethel und Ai,” pp. 19-20 (Aufsatze I, p. 221).

28. J. M. Grintz, “’Ai which is beside Beth-Aven’. A Reexamination of the Identity of ‘Ai,” Biblica 42 (1961), 201-

216. Cf. also z. Kallai’s attempt to locate Beth-aven at Tell Maryam: Kallai, “Notes on the Topography of Benjamin,” IEJ 6 (1956), 180-187.

29. W. Ross, “Is Beitin the Bethel of Jeroboam?” PEQ 73 (1941), 22-28.

30. “Location of Biblical Bethel and Ai Reconsidered,” Westminster Theological Journal 33 (1970), 20-44; “Traditional Site of Bethel Questioned,” Westminster Theological Journal 34 (1971), 39-50.

31. For an earlier statement of his position see Redating the Exodus and Conquest (JSOT Sup 5; Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1978).

32. See my comments in “Site Identification: A Problem Area in Contemporary Biblical Scholarship,” A. Kuschke Festschrift ZDPV 99 (1983), 119-129.

33. Cf., e.g., J. D. Shenkel, Chronological and Recessional Development in the Greek Text of Kings (Harvard Semitic Monographs I; Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968); and J. A. Callaway, “New Evidence in the Conquest of ‘Ai,” n. 35. See also the critical edition of Joshua (completed through Josh. 19:38) prepared by M. L. Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek (Publications of the Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation I-IV; Paris: P. Geuthner, 1931-38).

34. The Codex Vaticanus reading for vs. 7:2 has “Ai, which is near Bethel,” while Codex Alexandrinus reads “Ai, which is near Beth-aven” and the Masoretic texts read “Ai which is near Beth-aven, east of Bethel.” It seems more likely, in my opinion, that the Masoretic tradition has conflated variant readings which appear separately in the Greek manuscripts than that both Greek translations abbreviated but dropped different names.

35. Cf. G. Dalman, “Jahresbericht …” op. cit.; A. M. Schneider, “Bethel und seine altchristlichen Heiligtumer,” ZDPV 57 (1934), 186-190; M. Noth, Das Buch Josua (Handbuch zum Alten Testament; Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1953, 2nd. edition), pp. 100-101, 109; Albright contended that Beth-aven originated as a wordplay on beth’on, which he hypothesized was the name of the pre-Israelite city which stood at Ai/et-Tell: “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the light of Archaeology,” pp. 1617.

36. Cf. A. Rainey, “Bethel is Still Beitin,” Westminster Theological Journal 33 (1970), 175-188.

37. Edward Robinson, Biblical Researches in Palestine and in the Adjacent Regions. Journal of Travels ln the Year 1838 (London: Crocker and Brewster, 1874, 11th ed.), pp. 574-575.

38. C. W. M. Van de Velde, Reise durch Syrien und Palastina im den Jahren 1851 und 1852, trans. K. Gobel (Leipzig: T. O. Weigel, 1855-1856), Part II, pp. 239-287 [Eng. trans., Narrative of a Journey Through Syria and Palestine in 1851 and 1852 (Edinburgh/London: William Blackwood and Sons, 1854)].

39. C. Wilson, “On the Site of Ai and the Position of the Altar which Abram Built Between Bethel and Ai,” PEQFS 4 (1869), 123-126.

40. Wilson credited a Rev. G. Williams with having made this observation regarding the wording of Josh. 8:28.

41. The name “Khirbet Haiyan” was recorded during the Palestine Exploration Fund Survey of western Palestine, and the possible connection between the names Haiyan and Ai observed by C. R. Conder: “On Some of the Gains to Biblical Archaeology Due to the New Survey,” PEFQS 16 (1881), 34-56, cf. esp. pp. 36-37. Cf. also “Lieutenant Conder’s Reports,” Ibid., pp. 247-281, esp. pp. 254-255. Earlier Conder had favored et-Tell as the site of ‘Ai: “The Survey of Palestine. Lieut. Claude R. Conder’s Reports,” PEFQS 9 (1874), 3564, esp. pp. 62-64.

42. M. V. Guerin, Description Geographique, Historique et Archeologique de la Palestine, Judee (Paris: Imprimerie Imperlale, 1969), Vol. III, pp. 59-62.

43. T. H. Guest, “On the Site of Ai,” PEFQS 13 (1878), 194-196.

44. H. H. Kitchener, “Site of Ai,” PEFQS 13 (1878), 74-75.

45. W. F. Birch, “Ai,” PEFQS 13 (1878), 132-133; 14 (1879). 103104.

46. Kitchener, op cit., p. 75.

47. E. Sellin, “Mittheilungen von meiner Palistinareise 1899,” Mittheilungen und Nachrichten des Deutschen Palastina Vereins (1900), pp. 1-3, esp. p. 3.

48. D. A. Schlatter, Zur Topographie und Geschichte Palastinas (Stuttgart: Vereins-Buchdruckerel, 1893), pp. 236-242.

49. G. Dalman, “Jahresbericht …,” esp. p. 14. Cf. also Dalman, “Palastinische Wege und die Bedrohung Jerusalems nach Jes. 10,” esp. pp. 45-46.

David Livingston, Jr.

Director, Associates for Biblical Research, Inc. Six seasons have been devoted to ABR's own dig searching for Ai. He has had articles published in several magazines and journals.

“The Identity of Bethel and Ai”

David Livingston

There are at least two points of view one may take to try to discover the identity of any biblical city, or to research any biblical event or place. The first I mention is certainly the most popular. It is that the biblical accounts were usually written long after the events mentioned in them took place. Oral traditions and scattered written accounts were edited and reedited, filling them with discrepancies and making them untrustworthy in historical research and inferior to the factual data derived from archaeological excavations. Thus, they take second place to the latter. In other words, the Bible is to be interpreted by archaeology.

Another point of view is that the biblical accounts were written mostly by eyewitnesses contemporary with the events. An important consideration for our discussion today is that the writers of the Pentateuch and Joshua CLAIMED to have seen these events and places with their own eyes (e.g., Dt. 1:30, 3:27, 4:9, 10:21, 34:4, Josh. 1:5,7, 23:1-3, etc.). Although it would not be necessary from this point of view that the writer was personally on the scene for everything, it would hold that the account was written very soon afterward. Thus we could consider that it was accurately recorded. And certainly this applies to the biblical accounts related to the identification of Bethel and Ai.

Since this viewpoint would hold that the accounts were written by observers who were on the scene, and scribes thereafter carefully transcribed the originals, the record which we have today may be considered to be factually correct as to places and events. Thus, one may use the Bible as primary data, superior to archaeology. In this case, then, archaeology would be interpreted by the Bible. This is the viewpoint I will be taking as a working hypothesis.

PROBLEMS AND PROCEDURE IN IDENTIFYING BETHEL AND AI:

No matter which of the two viewpoints one holds, probably everyone is agreed that Bethel and Ai were twin cities. Genesis 12:8 is

the first mention of this relationship. And it recurs throughout the Old Testament, as late as post-exilic times (Ezra 2:28, Neh. 7:32).

Geographically, Ai is east of Bethel. Topographically, there must be a mountain between them--not just a hill, a mountain (Hebrew “har”). To fulfill a twin-city relationship, they ought to be relatively close together, perhaps almost adjoining.

This all comes into question when we examine the traditional sites for Bethel and Ai. Joe Calloway was correct when he said, “Ai is an embarrassment to anyone who takes the biblical account of the Conquest seriously.” (He is referring, of course, to Ai at the modern site of et-Tell.) He says this, I'm sure, because et-Tell was not occupied at all at the traditional date of the Conquest--about mid-thirteenth century. But it wasn’t occupied at the older date (ca 1400 BC), either. So, it is an embarrassment, no matter what your viewpoint.

The first settlement there after Early Bronze was an Iron Age (Israelite?) one, precluding a Canaanite occupation during the Conquest. Some have suggested that the excavators may have just overlooked areas where the Middle or Late Bronze Canaanites had their city. But, that cannot be. The excavations have been both thorough and carefully done (and publication is in the process of being completed in a most exemplary manner).

The conclusion from this that seems obvious to us is: TRADITIONAL Ai cannot be BIBLICAL Ai. But if it is not biblical Ai, is there another site east of “Bethel” which might be Ai? No. Every potential site within a radius of 5 miles east of “Bethel” has been thoroughly explored and excluded. Everything said to this point is little more than review for most people familiar with the problems.

Now I want to say something radical, but in light of all the above, logical. It is this: If Bethel and Ai were twin-cities and traditional Ai cannot be biblical Ai, then traditional “Bethel” CANNOT be biblical Bethel! Is this really possible?

How could traditional “Bethel” have been mislocated in the first place? Edward Robinson originally identified it in the 1830’s by equating the modern Arabic name of “Beitin” with “Bethel” (which is feasible); and by using the distance of Bethel from Aelia (Jerusalem) mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome. His measurements of the distance they gave was done on horseback, estimating it by the length of time his horse traveled from Jerusalem to Beitin. This way of measuring distances may have some merit, but it seems rather uncertain. At any rate, one hundred years later, W. F. Albright accepted Robinson’s identification without checking the distance, either by horseback or automobile. But, we must remember that to this point et-Tell was not questioned as Ai, and everyone assumed it was. Any one of us would have done as Albright did. It seemed so obvious that Beitin was Bethel.

On this basis then, Albright, and later Kelso, excavated Beitin for several seasons. Preliminary reports finally culminated in The Excavation of Bethel published in 1968 as an Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research (XXXIX). Because of an interest I had in the problem of Ai and its twin-city Bethel, I read the report looking for archaeological proof the writers might set forth that Beitin was truly Bethel. I could not find it in the report except to say that if one ASSUMES Beitin is Bethel, the archaeological material fits the criteria for biblical Bethel nicely. So, I wrote Dr. Albright and asked what proof he could point to. (Maybe I had overlooked something.) His first answer was that there was no archaeological proof (no jar handles, no inscriptions, etc., specifically confirming this was Bethel), but that the identification was maintained by the biblical and patristic evidence. With that I restudied the biblical references and concluded that one could not locate Bethel precisely from them, either. So I wrote again asking about the biblical proofs thinking he might have something I missed. His answer was that there was no biblical proof at all. The identification was made using the archaeological and patristic evidence. But, he had already eliminated the former himself.

So now we were left with only the patristic evidence. What was it and how accurately could it be checked? You must realize that I proceeded on all this VERY hesitatingly. How could Robinson and especially Albright and my own seminary professor, James Kelso, conceivably be wrong? (In fact, I still feel the same way; and maybe I will yet find that they were not wrong!)

But to go on, the patristic evidence Robinson and Albright used was that of Eusebius/Jerome’s in their Onomasticon. There they said that no matter which direction you were going, north or south, “Bethel” was near the 12th Roman milestone (RMS) on the road to Neapolis (modern Nablus). And since Bethel, according to their description, was right on the road, there was no mention of a turn-off. In other words, when one was at the 12th milestone, he was near Bethel. Two resources were available for us to check this distance. They were the Roman milestones found and published in the last 100 years (incidentally, ALL of them since Robinson’s research in the 1830’s to 1850’s), and measurements by odometers on the road from Jerusalem to Beitin.

Measurements by odometers done independently by several of us, shows the mileage to be 10.1 statute miles between the Damascus Gate and the center of modern el-Bireh, slightly over 12 statute miles to Beitin. Sounds good for Beitin, doesn’t it? Except that those distances in Roman miles are slightly over 11 for el-Bireh and a little over 13 for Beitin.

But, why measure from the Damascus Gate? Those working on this problem have assumed that the Roman column on the Medeba map (probably giving the Arabic name of “Bab ‘al-Amoud” to the gate) was

the 0 mile marker (miliarium aureum) in Roman/Byzantine times. But other Roman cities had their 0 milestone at their CENTER, in the forum (e.g., Rome and London). Why would Jerusalem be different? Why START counting at the northern gate, or any gate, for that matter? (The Roman column seems to have been commemorative and likely had nothing to do with mileage measurements.) Using this column as a starting point is especially a problem if 4th century milestones were recovered that make measurements more precise. And at least four between Jerusalem and Beitin have been found and published. They clearly indicate that the 0 milestone was at least as far south as the Church of the Holy Sepulcher and possibly as far south as the Nea Church! If so, it allows us to add several tenths of a mile to our measurements by odometer, putting Beitin almost 14 Roman miles north of Jerusalem and el-Bireh at least 11 1/2.

What about the milestones found? In the late 19th and early 20th centuries several milestones were still in place and were published by explorers and scholars, some with and some without inscriptions. One already alluded to was the First milestone. Although without an inscription, it was correctly located when compared with the Third and Fifth and ONLY ONE-HALF MILE NORTH OF THE DAMASCUS GATE. The Third did not have an inscription, either. But the Fifth (over a mile south of er-Ram- biblical Rama?) was very clear, with the distances legible in both Latin and Greek. There was space for yet a sixth milestone before turning off the main road into Eusebius’ “Rama” and Eusebius mentions this. He also mentions that one turned into “Rama” at the Seventh RMS when traveling from north to south. Obviously, his “Rama” was straddled by the Sixth and Seventh RMS. And this checks out today. It is 5.5 statute miles from the Damascus Gate to a point just opposite er-Ram on the main road (6-6.5 Roman miles from the center of Jerusalem).

The only other milestone we are aware of was mentioned by Michael Avi-Yonah in Roman Map of Palestine (1940). It was discovered about 1 mile south of el-Bireh. He calls it the Tenth RMS from Jerusalem. However, in correspondence with him, he said there was no inscription on it. It got its number from its location. If it truly was the Tenth, then the Eleventh was near el-Bireh and the Thirteenth was near Beitin, now too far away. But, according to our other measurements, Avi-Yonah’s milestone SHOULD be the Eleventh, making el-Bireh near the Twelfth and putting Beitin near the Fourteenth.

We might conclude then that el-Bireh covers ancient Bethel. And Beitin, instead of being “Bethel”, might conceal some other ancient town such as Zemaraim, Ophrah, or even Beth-Aven (as suggested by Captain Conder and others). Certainly the latter is not impossible phonologically.

Even if this radical conclusion were correct, we have not been able to find a way to verify that el-Bireh might be Bethel. It is a heavily

populated, modern city. One section of the city, however, has a high point called “Ras et-Tahuneh”. Although on the WEST side of the road today, it may have been on the EAST (right hand side going north) in former times since the road makes a sharp bend to the east just before passing it. Ras et-Tahuneh was surveyed by the Israelis in 1969, and surface finds indicate that it was occupied in almost every period of ancient times. This high point is not necessarily Bethel, but it needs to be excavated because of its strategic location, whatever it is. However, the Ramallah/ el-Bireh area is very tense politically. So excavation is not advisable for now. What should we do? How CAN we test our proposal that Bethel and Ai must both be relocated?

One way to try to solve this problem was to look for a site east of el-Bireh (our postulated “New Bethel”) on the other side of the mountain. We recall that in Genesis 12:8 Abraham camped on a mountain with Bethel (Luz) on the west and Ai on the east. (Incidentally, there is no mountain at all east of Beitin.) Jebel et-Tawil (“the tall one”) is the Arabic name of the mountain on the east edge of el-Bireh. An Israeli settlement recently built there retains this meaning in its own name of “Psagot”, “(The) Heights”. We went to the other side of et-Tawil and there we actually found ruins. Its name was Khirbet (“ruins of”) Nisya. Local Arabs told us the name “Nisya” means “forgotten”. No one knows what the ruins are. Although it sits on a natural rise, Nisya is definitely not a “tell” or mound with some depth of ancient remains. Bedrock can be seen at the surface all over the site. In spite of its having been quite denuded, the site was occupied almost continuously from early times, as we shall see. To prepare for its exploration, we asked for an excavation permit from the Israeli Department of Antiquities and received it in 1978. Since then we have dug for six short seasons, beginning in 1979.

As we see it, for a site to be biblical Ai, it must meet at least three criteria: 1) The topography (hills and valleys) must fit the biblical description; 2) It must be properly located in relationship to other towns mentioned in Scripture; 3) It must be occupied or deserted at the same periods as in the Bible. Without going into the topographical and geographical details (which were all gone over in our 1970-1971 articles in the Westminster Theological Journal), let us look at the archaeological evidence. But, before doing so, let me remind you that the topographical and geographical details are well-suited for Khirbet Nisya to be biblical Ai. The battle could be reenacted there to this day with every detail matching. This does not PROVE it is Ai. But these are not unimportant observations, either.

RESULTS OF SIX SEASONS EXCAVATIONS

Since we have only published the results of our excavation “in

house” and with seasonal reports to the Department of Antiquities of the State of Israel, most scholars consider Roy Blizzard’s surface exploration in 1973 as the last word. The earliest occupation he found was Iron Age I which, if it were all, would automatically rule out Khirbet Nisya as Ai. And, actually, most scholars have done just that--ruled it out, based on the lack of archaeological evidence. And I cannot blame them. I would too.

But, we are here to report that we have found enough material earlier than Iron Age I to indicate that Khirbet Nisya was occupied throughout Middle Bronze II and, apparently, into Late Bronze I (20001400 BC). (A Department of Antiquities survey in 1978 seemed to indicate occupation in Early Bronze also. But our excavations have not borne this out.)

The biblical/archaeological periods when finds should be represented at Ai are: the Patriarchal (MB), the Conquest (LB), late Israelite (IA II) and the Return (Persian). Other periods might be present. But, they do not mean much one way or the other, biblically. I have purposely not been very specific on the periods mentioned above, especially the first two, since there is so much controversy over the biblical dates and some diversity of opinion as to the naming and dates of the MB phases. Since I lean toward the early biblical dates for the Patriarchs and the Exodus/Conquest, I would hope to find very early MB material and LB I material with no LB II. I suggest this format because the site should be unoccupied by “Canaanites” for some time after a Conquest in ca. 1400 BC.

As you might guess, we do have finds for all the required periods (or I would not stand here today and suggest these radical changes!). We have ceramics for what I will call MB II a, b and c; probably LB I; both Iron Age I, and particularly IA II to the end; and Persian ceramics, as well as the two earliest coins (ca. 380 BC). Of course, we have Hellenistic pottery and coins, with almost 30 coins from Alexander Janneus alone. Following this is Early Roman, but almost no Late Roman. Then, we have Early and Late Byzantine represented by ceramics, many coins and most of the remaining architecture on the site. And, finally, Early Arabic, after which the site seems to have been abandoned, for the most part. As you can see, for such a denuded site, it seems to have had fairly continuous occupation for long periods of time.

One other occupational period should be considered. Eusebius mentions that Ai (he pronounces it “Gai”) was “deserted” in his day, about 330 AD. This is of interest because a gap exists in both coins and ceramics from the late first century until mid-fourth century. There are two coins from this “gap”. But they are widely separated in time and seem to be strays. (We have about 140 coins to date which in themselves give us a fairly clear picture of occupation and abandonment from 380 BC until the 8th c. AD.)

TWO PROBLEMS WITH KHIRBET NISYA BEING AI

To this date, we have not found any architecture earlier than Hellenistic (except for, possibly, one wall of a Persian building). It seems very clear that each succeeding occupation has gone back down to bedrock for their building activity, often carving installations into it. A very large mikveh with adjoining cistern, for instance, was almost certainly cut out in the Hasmonean period. Pits cut into bedrock all over the site are similar to those found by Pritchard at Gibeon for the Hellenistic period. And Byzantine foundations are laid everywhere on bedrock. We could give more illustrations. But added to this is the lack of soil accumulation, so that it is barely a meter above bedrock at its deepest. All in all, then, probably we should not expect architecture from the earlier periods, even though there may have been substantial settlements from time to time.

The second problem is the complete lack of walls and gate (so far). To fit the biblical description which speaks of a gate (and you would not have a gate without walls), any candidate for Ai should have both. We have neither. We may eventually find some. But we have not so far, even though we have looked for them. We have also looked for some evidence of an emergency (siege) water supply, but have not found that, either.

As we consider the first problem mentioned, we need to recall that there is no early architecture (EB, MB, LB) at several nearby sites. At least three are Tell en-Nasbeh (Mispeh?), Tell el-Jib (Gibeon), and Tell el-Ful (Gibeah?). Ceramics are found for some of those periods at each of the sites, but later building and agricultural activities seem to have obliterated the earlier structures. Notable are massive Iron Age walls and buildings found at them, the foundations of which go to bedrock.

As for the second problem--lack of walls and gates at Khirbet Nisya-it is important to note the way walls were built in late MB II and probably into LB I (where MB walls seem to continue in use in some cases). Almost without exception in the MB sites studied, city walls were built on a field stone base (about one meter high--for drainage?) which was topped with mudbricks to the desired height. Examples of this kind of wall can be found at Beth-Shemesh, Shechem, Beitin, Jericho, Dan (notably so!), Hazor, Gezer, Aphek, Tel Zeror, Kh. Zukeriya (only 1 acre in size), etc. If this kind of wall was covered with detritus, it has been preserved. If not, it has “melted”. And, if you want to see how fast this can happen, go see the recently discovered mudbrick walls and gate at Tel Dan. There is real consternation over how to preserve them at all, they are deteriorating so fast. We do not seem to have discovered yet how the Canaanites were able to build walls and gates this way and have

them be preserved long enough to be useful for defense. If there ever was a wall around Khirbet Nisya, it would likely ONLY have been during the Canaanite occupation. And it should have been of mudbrick with a fieldstone base like those mentioned. But should we really expect to find mudbrick walls and gate at a site as denuded as Khirbet Nisya? And, as for the fieldstone base, it could easily have been completely dismantled or incorporated into a terrace wall and, as yet, has not been discovered. All we have tried to do here is suggest how there could be an MB-LB presence at Khirbet Nisya (which there obviously was) without there being any wall or gate remaining, even though there might have been one there at that time.

CONCLUSION:

To keep a proper perspective on the problems involved in identifying Bethel and Ai, there are at least four things to keep in mind: 1) That topography alone cannot be used to identify a site. But, in this case, there are almost no other places in the area that fit the detailed description given in the Bible. 2) Geographical relationships should meet all the biblical specifications. Even though they do, they will not alone prove the identification, either. But when both topography and geography meet the requirements, we may be much closer to a positive identification. 3) Even though we have not been able to determine that it was a fortified city or a substantial settlement in earlier periods, Khirbet Nisya nonetheless does have the proper archaeological periods represented. This archaeological evidence coupled with its meeting biblical specifications for both topography and geography ought to make it a good candidate for Ai. 4) As more evidence becomes available, it will either eliminate Khirbet Nisya as a candidate for Ai, or it will become heavier and heavier in its favor.

In closing, the identification of Bethel and Ai may not yet be certain. But we may be getting closer.

Bryant Wood

Ph.D. in Near Eastern Studies from University of Toronto. Has served as instructor in Biblical Archaeology, and Intermediate Biblical Hebrew at Toronto Baptist Seminary. Field experience includes: Khirbet Nisya Excavation, Israel, Wadi Tumilat Project Survey, Wadi Tumilat, Egypt, Wadi Tumilat Project excavation at Tell el-Maskhuta, Egypt. Research interest is in the Archaeology of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Age Periods in Palestine. Forthcoming publications include: Egyptian Amphorae of the New Kingdom and Ramesside Periods: Their Function and Typology.

The Archaeology and History of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age

Bryant G. Wood

Associates for Biblical Research

Paper presented at the “Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” Symposium Memphis, April 24, 1987

@ Bryant G. Wood 1987

INTRODUCTION

The relatively small site of Jericho,1 located at the southern end of the Jordan Valley, has captured the attention of historians and archaeologists since the earliest days of exploration in the land of Palestine. This, of course, is due to the graphic account given in Joshua 6 of the capture of this city by the Israelites when they first entered the land of Canaan. The first excavation to be conducted at the site was by Charles Warren in 1868. He concluded from his test probes that there was nothing of interest to be found there (Warren 1869). No further work was done at Jericho until an Austro-German expedition under Ernst Sellin and Carl Watzinger carried out large-scale excavations from 1907 to 1909 and again in 1911 (Sellin and Watzinger 1913). These early efforts were prior to the development of ceramic typology and excavation by stratigraphic methods, so they are of little value in recovering the history of the Bronze Age city buried in the debris of the mound. Garstang’s Results

The first investigator to use modern methods, although still

crude by today’s standards, was John Garstang, who dug at Jericho from 1930 to 1936. During the course of his excavations, he published a series of preliminary technical reports in the University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology.2 The second world war prevented Garstang from publishing a final report on his work, but he wrote a popular account in collaboration with his son in 1948, which summarized his final views.

Concerning Late Bronze Age Jericho, Garstang excavated a double wall which he dated to the late 15th-early 14th century B.C. and associated with the Israelite conquest (Garstang and Garstang 1948:126, 136-39). He also excavated a residential area of the last Bronze Age city, his “City IV,” on the southeast slope of the mound. It had been thoroughly destroyed by a violent conflagration. Based on pottery found in the destruction debris and scarabs recovered from the necropolis, Garstang dated the destruction to the late 15th-early 14th century B.C. and again associated it with invading Israelites (ibid:116-30). Following the destruction of City IV, there was a long period of abandonment, interrupted only by the construction of a large building, which Garstang called the “Middle Building,” above the spring on the southeast side of the site. He dated this structure to the end of the 14th century B.C. and associated it with the palace of Eglon, King of Moab, described in Judges 3 (Garstang 1941; Garstang and Garstang 1948:124). The next occupation of Jericho was in the Iron Age (Weippert and Weippert 1976).

Kenyon’s Results

Kathleen Kenyon became interested in Jericho when she undertook a reevaluation of Garstang’s work, published in the Palestine Exploration Quarterly in 1951. As an outgrowth of questions raised in this critique, she conducted further explorations at the site from 1952-1958 (Jericho 3:1-2). Kenyon ushered in a new era in Palestinian archaeology in this dig by introducing rigorous stratigraphic excavation techniques and the detailed recording of balks [a wall of unexcavated earth left between excavation units] (Kenyon 1972). Her results considerably revised Garstang’s conclusions. She determined that the double wall was not from the Late Bronze (LB) I period (ca. 1550-1400 B.C.) as Garstang contended, but was in fact from the Early Bronze Age. The destruction of City IV, also dated to the end of LB I by Garstang, occurred at the end of the Middle Bronze (MB) Age in ca. 1550 B.C. according to Kenyon (Jericho 3:2). Regarding the date of the Middle Building, she was in agreement with Garstang, placing it in the late 14th century, at the end of the LB IIA period (Kenyon 1978:39).

Kenyon’s results, then, indicate that Jericho was unoccupied during the 15th century B.C., the time put forward for the “early date” of the Israelite entry into Canaan, and both Kenyon and Garstang agreed that there was no occupation at Jericho in the 13th century B.C., the

suggested time frame for the “late date” of the Israelite settlement. As a result of these conclusions, Jericho has become a parade example of the difficulties encountered in attempting to correlate the findings of archaeology with the biblical data concerning the conquest.

There is little doubt that Kenyon was correct in redating Garstang’s double wall to the Early Bronze period, and there seems to be agreement by all on the date of Garstang’s “Middle Building.” There is good reason, however, to question Kenyon’s date for the demise of City IV, and it is this date which I wish to examine in this paper.

Until a few years ago it was necessary to rely on Kenyon’s word for the date of the destruction of City IV. With the publication of the pottery from this destruction in Jericho 4 in 1982 and Jericho 5 in 1983, it is now possible to perform an independent analysis of this pottery. Before embarking on such an analysis, however, I would like briefly to address three related issues: (1) Kenyon’s methodological approach in determining the date for the end of City IV, (2) the agent of the destruction, and (3) the ceramics of the LB I period in general.

THE END OF CITY IV

Kenyon’s Methodology

Even though there was considerable stratified daily-use pottery from the LB I period available for Kenyon to work with when she initiated her work on Jericho,3 instead she chose to use unstratified tomb groups to construct her ceramic typology for this period. This seems inconsistent in view of her impeccable field work and her strong insistence on the stratigraphic separation of material during excavation. Based on these tomb groups, Kenyon ascertained that the diagnostic wares of the LB I period are Bichrome Ware, Cypriote grey polished juglets, Cypriot white painted Va “teapots,” Cypriot Base Ring I, White Slip I and White Slip II (Kenyon 1969:50-51; idem 1973:528-29; idem 1979:18283). She also mentions the appearance of locally-made truncated dipper juglets, Late Bronze-type dipper juglets with pointed base, and the continuation of Middle Bronze Age forms such as cylindrical juglets and flaring-carinated bowls (idem 1969:51; idem 1973:528-29; idem 1979:182). It is obvious that she paid little attention to these common domestic forms, however, since they appear regularly in the final phases of City IV, as we shall see presently. Her emphasis, rather, was on the imported wares.

As a result of using tomb groups for the diagnostic pottery for the LB I period, Kenyon reached the following conclusion concerning the lower limit for the date of the Bronze Age city at Jericho: When the material is analysed in the light of our present knowledge, it becomes clear that there is a complete gap both on the tell and in the tombs between c. 1560 B.C. and c. 1400 B.C. (1979:182).

Kenyon based her conclusions on what was not found at Jericho rather than what was found.

The use of deposits of exotic imported wares found in tombs to date habitation levels is methodologically unsound and, in fact, unacceptable for a number of reasons. To begin with, tomb groups are unstratified, as Kenyon herself pointed out on many occasions in her evaluation of Garstang’s work (1951:114-16; 1957:260; 1978:39; 1979:182). Rock-cut tombs were family sepulchers and as such, they were used for many generations. When new burials were made, old ones were pushed aside. As a result, tomb groups represent mixed accumulations of material from extended time periods. Secondly, the ancients tended to place their prized possessions, “heirlooms” if you will, in tombs. These expensive items, many times imported pottery, were highly valued and were kept for a long duration before finally being deposited in a tomb.

The third major point to be made against using tomb material to date habitation levels concerns the differing character of the deposits. Expensive imported wares and the small containers found in tomb offerings are discovered only occasionally amongst the common domestic debris recovered in the typical Palestinian excavation. When the excavation reports for Jericho are examined, it is obvious that both Garstang and Kenyon dug in a poor quarter of the city where they found only humble domestic dwellings. Kenyon writes of the final Bronze Age city:

The picture given ...is that of simple villagers. There is no suggestion at all of luxury.... It was quite probable that Jericho at this time was something of a backwater, away from the contacts with richer areas provided by the coastal route (1967:271). It is unrealistic, therefore, to expect to find exotic imported wares in this type of cultural milieu. What is more, Kenyon excavated only a limited area in this quarter – two 5 x 5 m squares. Rather than looking for unusual forms such as Cypriote white painted Va teapots, etc., attention should be focused on the ordinary domestic pottery such as bowls, cooking pots, and store jars, which were found in abundance.

An argument from silence is always problematic, but Kenyon’s argument is especially poorly founded. Instead of using tomb groups to date habitation levels, the reverse should be the case. Short-lived common domestic wares from well-stratified habitation levels should be used to determine the date-range of the unstratified mixed deposits found in tombs.

The Agent of the Destruction

Based on her date for the end of City IV, Kenyon associated the destruction of the city with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt in ca. 1570 B.C. (1976:563). She believed that the demise of Jericho City IV, as well as other Middle Bronze Age cities in Palestine, was the result of follow-up punitive campaigns by the Egyptians in the mid-16th century

B.C. (1979: 177,180). Such a theory, however, lacks supportive evidence. For example, there is no textual evidence to indicate that the Egyptians went beyond Sharuhen in their pursuit of the Hyksos (Redford 1979:27375, 278; Shea 1979:3). Moreover, there is no evidence to suggest that the Egyptians ever campaigned in the southern Jordan valley in the Eighteenth Dynasty. Their interest was in the trade routes of the coast and the Kishon-Jezreel Valley and in points further north.

In addition, Jericho itself has produced evidence contrary to Kenyon’s theory. Within the destruction debris of City IV both Garstang and Kenyon found many store jars full of grain (LAAA 21:123,128; Kenyon 1957:230; Jericho 3:369, 370), indicating that when the city met its end there was an ample food supply. This flies in the face of what we know about Egyptian military tactics. Campaigns were customarily mounted just prior to harvest time. There were three reasons for this: first, food supplies stored within the cities would be at their lowest level, secondly, the Egyptians themselves could use the produce from the fields to feed their army and, third, what produce the Egyptians did not want for their own use, they could destroy, thereby placing a further hardship on the indigenous population. Furthermore, the Egyptian method of capturing a strongly fortified city such as Jericho was by siege warfare. Sharuhen was besieged for three years (Wilson 1969:233), while the siege of Megiddo lasted seven months (ibid:238). The ample food supply at Jericho indicates that it came to its end after harvest time and that it was not besieged.

These factors, when taken together, point to an agency other than the Egyptians for the destruction of Jericho City IV.

The Nature of LB I Pottery

An important factor to be kept in mind when looking at the pottery from the end of Jericho City IV is that there is no sharp break in the local material culture between the end of the Middle Bronze Age and the beginning of the Late Bronze Age (Amiran 1969:124-46; Kenyon 1969:51; idem 1973:528; idem 1979:182; Aharoni 1982:115). The same pottery forms continue from the MB III4 period into the LB I period and in the absence of the imported wares described by Kenyon, it is difficult to discriminate between the two periods. A close analysis, however, reveals that there are a number of distinguishing features in the local pottery that allow one to differentiate between MB III pottery and LB I pottery. A careful review of the pottery from the final phase of City IV, both that published by Garstang and by Kenyon, leaves little doubt that the city continued into the LB IB period.

The Stratigraphy

The only area on the tell where the final phase of City IV has survived the ravages of nature and man is on the southeast slope, just above the perennial spring. Garstang dug a considerable area here, his

“palace area,” while Kenyon excavated but two squares, HII and HIII, to the north of Garstang’s area (fig. 1).5 The stratigraphy is clear (figs. 2 and 3).6 City IV was massively destroyed in a violent conflagration, possibly preceded by an earthquake. This left a layer of destruction debris a meter or more thick across the entire excavation area. Kenyon describes the calamity as follows: The destruction was complete. Walls and floors were blackened or reddened by fire, and every room was filled with fallen bricks, timbers, and household utensils; in most rooms the fallen debris was heavily burnt, but the collapse of the walls of the eastern rooms seems to have taken place before they were affected by the fire (Jericho 3:370).

A rich assemblage of pottery was trapped in the destruction and sealed by the subsequent collapse of the mud brick walls (Jericho 3:368-70).

Above the destruction debris is a thick erosion layer referred to as “the streak” by Garstang and called “wash” by Kenyon. This erosion took place during a period of abandonment, when the debris further up the slope washed down and was deposited in the excavation area (ibid). The next phase of occupation, Garstang’s “Middle Building;” equivalent to Kenyon’s “Phase 54,” was founded directly upon and in this erosion layer. The material in the erosion layer, therefore, is largely material from the final phase of City IV washed down from above, although there is occasionally some earlier material mixed in. The thickness of the erosion layer indicates that there was a considerable period of abandonment, although it is not possible to be precise about the exact length of time (ibid:371).

Ceramic Types From the End of City IV

Our purpose in this section is two-fold. First, to isolate local ceramic types that are diagnostic for the LB IB period and demonstratethat these types occur in the final phases of Jericho City IV. Secondly, to demonstrate that the MB III types that are found to be in use at the end of the life of City IV are perfectly at home in the LB IB period, as demonstrated by parallels from other LB IB contexts. The parallels cited in this section are drawn from well-known LB IB strata from other sites (table 1).

Table 1

LB IB Deposits From Which Parallels are Cited For the Pottery From the End of Jericho City IV

Flaring Carinated Bowls (fig. 4:1-3). An excellent chronological indicator for the LB I period is the flaring carinated bowl (Wood 1985:374-76). The diagnostic feature of this vessel is the crimp at the point of carination. It is very pronounced in the MB III period (fig. 5:1-5), and then becomes less pronounced with time. The Jericho examples (fig. 4:1-3) and illustrated parallels (fig. 4:4-8) have a crimp which is intermediate in form between the pronounced crimp of the MB III period and the slight crimp of the LB IIA period (Amiran 1969:pl. 39:8-11).

Deep Globular Bowls (fig. 4:9-11). The deep globular bowl with stylized combed decoration is a MB III type. That this type continues into the LB IB period is illustrated by the example from Lachish Fosse Temple I (fig. 4:11).

Conical Bowls (fig. 6). The common bowl of the Middle Bronze period is the shallow platter bowl (fig. 5:6-23), whereas the common bowl of the Late Bronze period is the conical bowl (Amiran 1969:pl. 38). In the final phases of City IV, the conical bowl increases in frequency over the platter bowl, suggesting a date toward the beginning of the Late Bronze Age.

Simple Carinated Bowls (fig. 7). The simple carinated bowl with plain or slightly everted rim (fig. 7) is another bowl-type which becomes popular in the Late Bronze period. The examples from the end of Jericho City IV (fig. 7:1-5, 7, 11, 12), find ready parallels in other LB IB contexts (fig. 7:6, 8-10, 13-16).

Bowls With Legs and Spouted Kraters (fig. 8). Two unusual vessels found in use at the end of the life of City IV are the bowl with legs (fig. 7:1) and the spouted krater (fig. 7:6). The same vessel types are found in other LB IB levels as illustrated by the parallels in fig. 7.7

Everted-Rim Cooking Pots (figs. 10, 11). The ordinary cooking pot is

another excellent diagnostic indicator for the LB I period, as it is for other phases of the Bronze and Iron Ages in Palestine. Its development can be clearly traced at Jericho. The type commonly in use in the LB I period was the everted rim, round-bottomed, cooking pot. This type had its beginnings in the MB III period (fig. 9:1-9), evolving from the earlier holemouth cooking pot. In the LB I period, however, a thickening of the rim begins (fig. 10:1-11) which eventually results in the well-known flange-rim cooking pot of the LB II period.

One particular aspect of this development was limited to the LB I period. That was an internal lip, evidently intended to support a cover (Amiran 1969:135). We have five examples of this type from the final phases of City IV (fig. 10:12-16). In fig. 11:1-5 we see a type of cooking pot with a sharply everted rim, matched in the LB IB levels at Shechem and the Lachish Fosse Temple (fig. 11:6,7). Further thickening of the rim occurs (fig. 11:8-10) until a flange is formed (fig. 11:13, 14), which becomes the definitive form in the LB II period. Close parallels are found in other LB IB contexts (fig. 11:11, 12, 15-19). Large Store Jars (fig. 12). Store jars, like bowls and cooking pots, are ubiquitous in habitation deposits and are good diagnostic indicators. Care must be exercised in using large vessels such as store jars for chronological purposes, however, since they had longer lives than smaller daily-use vessels due to their high cost and low portability. In the MB III period, the large store jar had a short neck and a thick, heavy rim, many times profiled, which was slightly everted (fig. 9:10-28). In the LB I period, however, the neck becomes longer, the rim is now a simple folded rim, and the eversion tends to be more pronounced (fig. 12).

Dipper Juglets (fig. 13). The dipper juglet in the LB I period is shorter than that of the Middle Bronze Age (Amiran 1969:146). It is characterized by a long straight neck, a pointed base, a handle from shoulder to rim, and a pinched, sometimes trefoil, mouth. This type of juglet, particularly the “truncated” juglet of fig. 13:3, was one of Kenyon’s diagnostic indicators for the onset of the LB I period (Kenyon 1969:51; idem 1973:528).

Saucer Lamps (fig. 14). The characteristic saucer lamp of the MB III period has angled sides and a string-cut “stump base” (Dever 1974:4). In the LB I period, on the other hand, the saucer lamp is shallow with a thin flat base and vertical side walls. The examples from Jericho (fig. 14:1-3) find good parallels in Hazer Stratum 2 (fig. 14:4) and Lachish Fosse Temple I (fig. 14:5, 6).

Painted Wares From the End of City IV

The evidence of the painted wares is perhaps the most compelling of the ceramic evidence for lowering the date of Jericho City IV to the end of the LB I period. We shall look at four categories of painted ware: painted sherds, conical bowls with internal concentric circles, striped store jars, and Bichrome Ware. Before examining this

evidence, however, a few general comments on painted wares in the MB III and LB I periods are in order.

Painted Wares in the MB III and LB I Periods

In the MB III period a distinctive type of painted pottery, called “chocolate-on-white” ware, appears which is diagnostic for this period (Toombs and Wright 1963:51; Amiran 1969:158-59; Seger 1974:123, 130; Hennessy 1985). It is characterized by a fine well-levigated fabric and a wheel-burnished thick white slip on the exterior (and sometimes interior) surfaces. The ware is decorated with red or reddish-brown paint and exhibits an overall high level of workmanship. Present evidence from stratified deposits suggest that chocolate-on-white pottery does not continue into the LB I period.8

During the LB I period, the painted pottery characteristic of the Late Bronze Age begins. This is a much cruder ware and does not have the thick white, highly burnished, slip of the chocolate-on-white ware. The most popular motif of the Late Bronze painted decoration is a wavy line between two parallel lines, which was also a common motif of the chocolate-on-white family. A frequently occurring bowl in this class in

the LB IB period is a bowl with concentric circles painted on the inside. This is also derived from an earlier chocolate-on-white bowl type. It appears, then, that the poorer-quality painted ware of the Late Bronze Age is an imitation, or degenerate successor, of the earlier chocolate-onwhite ware.

A very important chronological conclusion can thus be drawn from these observations: chocolate-on-white ware is characteristic of the MB III period while the common painted wares of the Late Bronze Age do not begin until the outset of the period in the LB I phase. The distinction between the two groups is readily apparent at Jericho and serves to indicate that the final stages of City IV date to the LB I period.

Garstang published a great deal of painted pottery (LAAA 21: pls. 19-25. passim; pls. 27-39), but the stratigraphic attribution is not always specified. Where stratigraphic distinctions are made, it is clear that the chocolate-on-white ware comes from levels well below that of the final destruction,9 on the one hand, while there is considerable degenerate painted ware in the final phase of City IV.10 The same observation can be made with regard to Kenyon’s excavation. Chocolate-on-white ware is found only in Phases 32a-46,11 while the degenerate painted ware occurs in the final two phases of City IV, Phases 51 and 52 (figs. 15:11; 16:5, 6).12

Bowls With Interior Concentric Circles (fig. 15). One of the major indicators for the LB IB period is the coarseware bowl with interior concentric circles. It does not occur earlier than the LB IB period, nor does it continue into the LB IIA period. Garstang recognized the chronological significance of this bowl early on and correctly dated it to the 15th century B.C. (LAAA 21:121). The abundance of this bowl at Jericho (fig. 15:10-23) is strong evidence that the Bronze Age city continued into the LB IB period. The bowl is commonly found in LB IB levels at other sites and only a few examples are presented here (fig. 15:1-9). It is the characteristic decorated bowl of Ashdod Stratum XVII (Ashdod 2-3:8, e.g., and also Hazor Stratum 2 (Yadin 1972:32).

Striped Store Jar (fig. 16:1-4,9). Another type of Late Bronze painted ware which begins in the LB I period is the striped store jar. Bands of red paint are applied to the neck and body of the small-size store jar, sometimes referred to as a water jar. The one example published from Jericho (fig. 16:3) has good parallels in LB IB levels at Ashdod (fig. 16:1) and Hazor (Fig. 16:2).

Possible Bichrome Ware Sherds (fig. 17:1-6). Although Kenyon dug only a limited area of the final phase of City IV and did not find any imported ware, Garstang dug a much larger area and appears to have recovered a few sherds of Bichrome Ware, one of Kenyon’s major diagnostic indicators for the LB I period. Since by all indications Garstang and Kenyon dug in one of the poorer quarters of the city, these sherds were probably “strays” which originated elsewhere in the city and were carried or washed into Garstang’s excavation area. Garstang referred to the ware of these sherds as “red ware.” We have illustrated only those sherds which have clear Bichrome Ware motifs. Garstang published many other “red ware” sherds with bichrome decoration which may be Cypriote Bichrome Ware, but they are less likely.13

The sherd in fig. 17:1 has the diagonal cross motif common on Bichrome Ware (Epstein 1966:64-66), e.g., the type Al(a) crater from Lachish Fosse Temple I shown in fig. 17:7. Fig. 17:2 is a portion of a lattice panel (ibid:71-73), while fig. 17:3 is a horizontal handle possibly from a type Al(b) crater, an example of which is seen in fig. 17:8. The motif in fig. 17:4 is not entirely clear, but it appears to be a portion of a series of square frames, often found on Bichrome Ware vessels (e.g., ibid:pl. 10:4). The wavy line decoration on the sherds of fig. 17:5, 6 is a frequent Bichrome Ware motif (ibid:77-81), as exemplified by fig. 17:9, a Bichrome Ware jug from Lachish Fosse Temple I.

Other Chronological Evidence

There are a number of other factors which argue for a lower date for the end of City IV. First, is the time element. The beginning of the MB III period at Jericho can be fairly well fixed at Kenyon’s Phase 32. It is in this phase that inverted-rim bowls with a beveled outer edge, a diagnostic type for the MB III period (Toombs and Wright 1963: 51; Seger 1965:236), begin appearing with regularity (Jericho 4: fig. 168:1; Jericho 5: figs. 104:3; 105:4,18). The first chocolate-on-white sherds also appear in this phase (Jericho 5: figs. 168:15; 169:6). From Phase 32 to the end of the life of City IV, Kenyon discerned 20 architectural phases, with evidence

that some of the phases lasted for long periods of time. Over the course of these 20 phases there were three major and 12 minor destructions. A gate tower was rebuilt four times and repaired once, followed by habitation units which were rebuilt seven times (Jericho 3:354-70). It seems unlikely that all of this activity could have transpired in the 100 or so years assigned to the MB III period.

Another chronological datum which must be taken into consideration is the scarab series discovered by Garstang (fig. 18). In his excavation of the cemetery northwest of the city, Garstang recovered a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs extending from the Hyksos period into the New Kingdom. The last in the series is a royal-name scarab bearing the cartouche of Amenhotep III, the king who was on the throne at the end of the LB IB period. The continuous nature of this series suggests that the cemetery was in active use until the end of the LB I period (Garstang and Garstang 1948:126).14

Finally, one carbon-14 sample was taken from the destruction debris of City IV. The calibrated date for this sample is 1410 + 40 B.C., which accords well with our conclusions based on the ceramic data. (Jericho 5:763, Lab. No. BM-1790).

As we have seen, the ceramic data indicate a date in the LB IB period for the destruction of Jericho City IV. The scarab and carbon-14 data, moreover, argue for a date at the very end of that period, i.e., ca. 1410-1400 B.C.

THE LB IIA OCCUPATION

Introduction

On top of the erosion layer which covered the destroyed City IV, Garstang found the remains of a substantial building which he called the “Middle Building,” because of its stratigraphic position between the ruins of City IV and a later Iron Age structure excavated by Sellin and Watzinger (Fig. 19). In her two squares, Kenyon found fragmentary remains which were contemporary with the Middle Building. These remains comprised her Phase 54. Compared with the buildings beneath, Garstang’s Middle Building is a rather impressive structure. It is ca. 14.5 x 12 m, with a large retaining wall on the downhill side. In addition to its size, the abundance of painted pottery found in and around the building, and an Amarna-type tablet found just outside the east wall (LAAA 21: 116-117) attest to a high-level administrative function for the complex.

Bienkowski carried out a detailed study of the remains from the period of the Middle Building. He concluded that occupation at this time was limited to the southeast slope of the site (Bienkowski 1986:120-22).

Since Bienkowski examined the imported wares associated with this phase in detail (ibid: 118-20}, I shall here only briefly examine the local pottery.

Local Ceramic Wares From Phase 54

The area of the Middle Building was badly disturbed (LAAA 21:101-2,106; Garstang and Garstang 1948:123), so we shall restrict our inquiry to material from Kenyon’s contemporary Phase 54. Although a limited amount of material from this phase was found, enough was recovered to allow a determination of the date of the phase. The only in-situ pottery was a lone dipper juglet found on a small intact patch of floor next to an oven (fig. 20:1; Jericho 3:371). With its trefoil mouth, shortened neck and pointed base, it is clearly LB IIA in date as the parallels show. The remaining Phase 54 pottery comes from associated fill and debris. Sufficient diagnostic pottery is present is this material, however, to confirm a LB IIA date for Phase 54.

The two store jar rims (fig. 20:6,7) have excellent parallels in Hazor Stratum IB (fig. 20:8,9). Bowls from the LB IIA period (fig. 21) are distinctive. They have an inward folded rim, with the fold being rather wide and flat. The examples from Jericho Phase 54.(fig. 21:1-4) find ready parallels from the LB IIA levels of Gezer, Hazor, and the Lachish Fosse Temple (fig. 21:5-11). Finally, three krater rim sherds (fig. 22:5-7) also attest to a LB IIA date. The krater rim is just beginning to thicken, foreshadowing the tee-rim of the LB IIB period. A similar development is noted at Hazor Stratum IB and Rabud Stratum LB 3 (fig. 22:1-4).

The local pottery, then, attests to a late 14th century date for the Middle Building and associated remains. This is in agreement with the conclusions reached by other scholars (Garstang 1941; Kenyon 1978:39; Bienkowski 1986:117). The period of abandonment, therefore, appears to have covered the major part of the 14th century, or the “Amarna Age.” The fact that Jericho is not mentioned in the Amarna letters supports this conclusion (Garstang and Garstang 1948:126,129,179).

CONCLUSIONS

While Kenyon is to be commended for her brilliant accomplishments at Jericho, it is apparent that when the. evidence. is critically examined there is no basis in fact for her contention that City IV was destroyed by the Egyptians in the mid-sixteenth century B.C. The pottery, stratigraphic considerations, scarab data, and a carbon-14 date all point to a time at the end of the 15th century B.C. for this destruction. Garstang’s original date for this event, consequently, appears to be the correct one. After a period of abandonment, the southeast slope of the site was reoccupied when a residency-type building was constructed toward the end of the 14th century B.C., a date agreed upon by all investigators.

The only written record to survive concerning Jericho in the Late Bronze Age is that preserved in the Old Testament.15 That memory was a faithful one, since the archaeological history of Jericho closely parallels the biblical history as recorded in Joshua 6 and Judges 3.

Footnotes

1. The area of Jericho is given as 4 ha by Kenyon (1976:550) and 1.5 ha by Broshi and Gophna (1986: table 4). In either case, it falls in the category of a “medium” size site, according to the classification of Broshi and Gophna (ibid:74).

2. Henceforth abbreviated LAAA. Garstang’s Jericho reports appear in the following volumes: LAAA 19 (1932):3-22, 35-54; LAAA 20 (1933):3-42; LAAA 21 (1934):99-136; LAAA 22 (1935): 143-84; LAAA 23 (1936) :67-76. Abbreviations used for excavation reports cited in this paper are listed alphabetically in the bibliography.

3. The pottery from Lachish Fosse Temple I, published in 1940 (Lachish 2), and from Megiddo Strata VIII and IX, published in 1948 (Megiddo 2). Kenyon was well aware of this material (1951:115). Since 1955, a continuous stream of well-stratified LB I pottery has been published, as evidenced by the reports cited in this paper.

4. In this paper. the terminology for the Middle Bronze Age suggested by Dever (1985: fig. 5) and others is adopted (see Gerstenblith 1983:2-3 for a discussion and further references). The relationship between this terminology and the other major terminology extant in the literature (stemming from W.F. Albright) is as follows:

Approximate Dates, B.C.

2000-1800 1800-1650 1650-1550

“new” terminology: MB I MB II MB III

“old” terminology: MB IIA MB IIB MB IIC

5. The relationship between Garstang’s plan and Kenyon’s plan in fig. 1 is only approximate. Kenyon does not explain how she arrived at her composite plan (1978: fig. 18; 1979: fig.50). It is possible that she was in error in placing Garstang’s plan on the overall site plan. In her critique of Garstang's excavation, she took the intersection of H5-H6/I5-I6 on Garstang's “palace area” plan, LAAA 21:pl. 13, as being the same as the intersection of H5-H6/

I5-I6 on the overall site plan, LAAA: pl. 9 (Kenyon 1951:110 n.l). Clearly, this assumption is in error, for the overall site plan has grid lines running north and south and are spaced 30 m apart, whereas the palace area plan has grid lines which are displaced 10o west of north and are spaced 25 m apart. The two grid sytems bear no relationship to one another. The configuration in fig. 1 is based on the assumption that the drain excavated by Kenyon is a continuation of the drain excavated by Garstang.

6. Garstang’s sections show the same relationships as Kenyon’s (LAAA 2l: pls. 14,16).

7. Note the similar spouted kraters from the LB IB “Tablet Building” at Tell Hadidi, Syria (Dorneman 1981: figs. 4:14, 10:7).

8. It is possible that chocolate-on-white ware was the forerunner of the Cypriote Bichrome Ware of the LB I period (Tombs and Wright 1963:51; Seger 1974:130; cf. Hennessy 1985:110-12).

9. LAAA 21:123 with regard to pl. 19:12; ibid:120 with regard to pl. 22:14; ibid:19 with regard to pl. 28:19.

10. LAAA 21:129 with regard to pl. 23:11; ibid:121 with regard to pls. 27:13 and 33:11.

11. Jericho 5: fig. 168:15 (Phase 32a); ibid: fig. 169:6 (Phase 32-33); ibid: fig. 175:2 (Phase 36); ibid: fig. 179:13 (Phase 46). One additional example comes from the wash (Phase 53): ibid: fig. 206:2.

12. Additional examples come from the wash (Phase 53): figs. 15:12; 16:3, 7, 8; Jericho 5: fig. 206:4, 5.

13. LAAA 21 pls. 27:2, 3, 9, 12; 31:4; 33:12; 34:2; 36:7; 37:6, 19.

14. Similarly, scarabs of Thutmosis III and Amenhotep III were found in association with Lachish Fosse Temple I, which has a ceramic assemblage much like that of the final phase of City IV (Lachish 2:68-69).

15. There are no known extra-biblical references to Jericho (cf. Horn 1953).

Bibliography

Aharoni, Y.

1982 The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Ed. Miriam Aharoni; translated from 1978 Heb. ed. by A. F. Rainey. Philadelphia: Westminster.

Amiran, R.

1969

Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land: From its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age. Translated from 1963 Heb. ed. Jerusalem: Masada.

Ashdod 2-3 - Ashdod 2-3: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations, 1963, 1965, by M. Dothan. Antiqot 9-10 (English Series), 1971.

Beth Shemesh 3 - Rumeileh, Being Ain Shems Excavations (Palestine), Part 3, by E. Grant. Biblical and Kindred Studies No. 5. Haverford PA: Haverford College, 1934.

Bienkowski, P.

1986 Jericho in the Late Bronze Age. Warminster, England: Aris and Phillips.

Brochi, M. and Gophna, R.

1986 Middle Bronze Age II Palestine: Its Settlement and Population. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 261:73-90.

Dever, W. G.

1974 The MB IIC Stratification In the Northwest Gate Area at Shechem. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216:31-52.

1985 Relations Between Syria-Palestine and Egypt in the ‘Hyksos’ Period. Pp. 69-87 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J.N. Tubb. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Dornemann, R. H.

1981 The Late Bronze Age Pottery Tradition at Tell Hadidi, Syria. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 241:29-47.

Epstein, C.

1966 Palestinian Bichrome Ware. Documenta et Monumenta Orientis Antiqui Vol. 12. Leiden: E.J. Brill.

Garstang, J.

1941 Note on the Revised Date of the Middle Building. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 58:368-72. Reprinted in Garstang and Garstang 1948:177-80.

Garstang, J. and Garstang, J. B. E.

1948 The Story of Jericho, rev. ed. London: Marshall, Morgan and Scott.

Gerstenblith, P.

1983 The Levant at the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age. American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series No. 5. Winona Lake IN: Eisenbrauns.

Gezer 1 - Gezer 1: Preliminary Report of the 1964-66 Seasons, by W.G. Dever, et. al., Jerusalem: Hebrew Union College Biblical and Archaeological School in Jerusalem, 1970.

Hazor 1 -Hazor 1: An Account of the First Season of Excavations, 1955, by Y. Yadin, et. al., Jerusalem: Magnes, 1958.

Hazor 2 -Hazor 2: An Account of the Second Season of Excavations, 1956, by Y. Yadin, et. al., Jerusalem: Magnes, 1960.

Hazor 3-4 -Hazor 3-4: An Account of the Third and Fourth Seasons of Excavations, 1957-1958 (Plates), by Y. Yadin, et. al. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961.

Hennessy, J. B.

1985 Chocolate-on-White Ware at Pella. Pp. 100-13 in Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages: Papers in Honour of Olga Tufnell, ed. J.N. Tubb. London: Institute of Archaeology.

Horn, S. H.

1953 Jericho in a Topographical List of Ramesses II. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12:201-203.

Jericho 3 - Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Three: The Architecture and Stratigraphy of the Tell, by K. M. Kenyon; T. A. Holland, ed. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1981.

Jericho 4 -Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Four: The Pottery Type Series and Other Finds, by K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1982.

Jericho 5 -Excavations at Jericho, Vol. Five: The Pottery Phases of the Tell and Other Finds, by K. M. Kenyon and T. A. Holland. London: British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem, 1983.

Kenyon, K. M.

1951 Some Notes on the History of Jericho in the Second Millenium B.C. Palestine Exploration Quarterly 83:10138.

1957 Digging up Jericho. London: Ernest Benn. 1967 Jericho. Pp. 264-75 in Archaeology and Old Testament Study, ed. D. W. Thomas. Oxford: Clarendon.

1969 The Middle and Late Bronze Strata at Megiddo. Levant 1:25-60.

1972 Beginning in Archaeology, 3rd rev. ed. New York: F. A. Praeger.

1973 Palestine in the Time of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Pp. 526-56 in The Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd ed., Vol. 2, Part 1, ed. I. E. S. Edwards, et al. Cambridge: The University Press.

1976 Jericho. Pp. 550-64 in Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, Vol. 2, ed. M. Avi-Yonah. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

1978 The Bible and Recent Archaeology. Atlanta: John Knox.

1979 Archaeology in the Holy Land, 4th ed. New York: W. W. Norton.

LAAA 20 - Jericho: City and Necropolis, by J. Garstang. University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 20 (1933):3-42.

LAAA 21 - Jericho: City and Necropolis, Fourth Report, by J. Garstang. University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 21 (1934):99-136.

Lachish 2 - Lachish 2: The Fosse Temple, by O. Tufnell, C.H. Inge and L. Harding. London: Oxford University Press, 1940.

Megiddo 2 - Megiddo 2: Seasons of 1935-39, by G. Loud. Oriental Institute Publication 62. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948.

Mevorakh 2 - Excavations at Tel Mevorakh (1973-1976), Part Two: The Bronze Age, by E. Stern. Qedem 18. Jerusalem: The Hebrew University, 1984.

Michal - Excavations at Tel Michal, 1977, by Z. Herzog, O. Negbi and S. Moshkovitz. Tel Aviv 5 (1978):99-130.

Rabud - Khirbet Rabud = Debir, by M. Kochavi. Tel Aviv 1 (1974): 2-33.

Redford, D. B.

1979 A Gate Inscription From Karnak and Egyptian Involvement in Western Asia During the Early 18th Dynasty. Journal of the American Oriental Society 99:270-87.

Seger, J. D.

1965 Two Pottery Groups of Middle Bronze Shechem. Pp. 235-43 in Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City, by G. E. Wright. New York: McGraw-Hill.

1974 The Middle Bronze II C Date of the East Gate at Shechem. Levant 6:117-30.

Sellin, E. and Watzinger, C.

1913 Jericho: Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen. Leipzig: J.C. Hinricks.

Shea, W. H.

1979 The Conquests of Sharuhen and Megiddo Reconsidered. Israel Exploration Journal 29:1-5.

Toombs, L. E. and Wright, G. E.

1963 The Fourth Campaign at Balatah (Shechem). Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 169:1-60.

Warren, C.

1869

Notes on the Valley of the Jordan and Excavations at Ain es-Sultan. London: Palestine Exploration Fund.

Weippert, H. and Weipert, M.

1976

Wilson, J. A.

Jericho in der Eisenzeit. Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 92:105-48.

1969 Egyptian Historical Texts. Pp. 227-64 in Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 3rd ed, ed. J.B. Pritchard. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.

Wood, B. G.

1985 Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: An Investigation of the Terminal LB IIB Phase. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Toronto. Ann Arbor MI: University Microfilms.

Rivka Gonen

Lecturer, Department of Bible and Ancient Near East, BenGurion University in the Negev, Beer-Sheva; Curator, Department of Jewish Ethnography, The Israel Museum, Jerusalem. Ph.D., Hebrew University, Jerusalem. Publications include History of the Hebrew Script, Ancient Pottery, Weapons of the Ancient World, and Grain in Antiquity.

ISRAELITE OCCUPATION OF CANAAN

Rivka Gonen

Department of Bible and the Ancient Near East

Ben Gurion University of the Negev

One of the most interesting processes in the history of a region, in any given period of time, is the replacement of one population group by another. Such a process can be sudden and violent, following war and invasion. It can be gradual and over a long period, as a result of immigration or infiltration. It may be a combination of both. One period in the history of ancient Israel in which a process of this nature occurred was the replacement of the autochthonous Canaanite (*) population by the Israelites. This process is described at length in the Books of Joshua, Judges and I Samuel, which clearly relate it to the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt and their years of wanderings in the desert. The Bible tells that, after several unsuccessful attempts to enter the promised land from the south, the Israelites circumvented the TransJordanian Plateau and gathered opposite Jericho. After crossing the Jordan River they launched a campaign, during which they destroyed several Canaanite cities and won battles in open field. Thus, the Israelites came to possess much of the hill country of Judea, Samaria, and the Galilee, where they settled. The lowlands remained in Canaanite hands for many more years. They came under Israelite domination only during the conquests of David. While the biblical descriptions convey the impression that the battles had been conducted in rapid succession, the settlement of the conquered territories is described as a lengthy process, with families, and in one case a whole tribe, moving from one locality to another in search of better conditions.

With such a clear historical framework, archaeologists have for many years attempted to draw a parallel picture and to fill-in details of destructions of Canaanite sites on the one hand, and of new settlements and never material culture on the other. This paper will discuss only one

aspect of this complex period - the changes in patterns of settlement from the Late Bronze -Canaanite period, to the Early Iron - Israelite period. Excavations, and more so surveys conducted in recent years, as well as studies of urbanization problems of the Late Bronze Age, have revolutionized our understanding of changes in the distribution and nature of settlements in these periods, changes which have direct bearing on the subject of this symposium.

----------------

(*) Since no archaeological criterion for the identification of the various pre-Israelite population groups has been devised, we will refer to all as Canaanites, for the sake of clarity.

Patterns of settlement in the Late Bronze Age

In recent years there is a growing awareness that the Late Bronze Age is one of the least urbanized periods in the history of Canaan. Following an almost total destruction of urban settlements at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, Canaan did not recover throughout the Late Bronze Age. Destroyed settlements were left unoccupied for part or all of the Late Bronze Age, and if re-settled, occupation was on a smaller scale, usually confined to the acropolis of what used to be a much larger settlement. This pattern is discernable even in major sites such as Jericho, Megiddo, Jerusalem; Miqne, to name just a few. These settlements re-occupied in the Late Bronze Age were mainly situated in the coastal plain and the central valleys, through which passed the main communication routes between Egypt and Syria. The most densely occupied area during that period was the southern coastal plain, where settlement was enhanced by the establishment of small-scale Egyptian fortresses, mainly in the 13th century B.C. A handful of new settlements, mostly small ones, were also established along the Mediterranean coast, in places of convenient docking, no doubt to serve the international maritime trade that flourished in the 14th-13th centuries B.C. The rest of the country was depleted of its settlements. In the Judea-Samaria hills only Debir (Khirbet Rabud), Jerusalem, Beth-el and Shechem had any kind of substantial occupation, while the Galilee had virtually no major settlement. This picture is greatly clarified by a series of intensive surveys carried out in various parts of the country. In the Late Bronze Age the number of settlements had dropped by 65% compared to the Middle Bronze Age, while for the central hill regions it had dropped by 95%, from 48 to 5 settlements. Another feature of great importance concerning settlements of the Late Bronze Age is the almost total absence of city walls. New excavations that reached the relevant strata (e.g. Akko, Miqne, Timna) corroborate this fact, as do reassessments of sites excavated in the past (Jericho, Megiddo).

While the urban landscape of Canaan was greatly reduced during the Late Bronze Age, and the number of city dwellers had to be rather small, there are signs that at least part of the population had reverted to life outside organized settlement. Not only are there temples, or sites of a cultic nature, not related to settlements (Tel Mevorakh, Shiloh, Deir Alla), but many burial places of various types have been found in sites otherwise not occupied (e.g. Gibeon, Hebron, Dura, Palmachim). Both cultic and burial sites may well have served a nomadic population, the existence of which is attested also in contemporary written records, especially the el-Amarna letters.

Patterns of settlement in the Early Iron Age

Leaving aside the complicated questions of both dating and explaining the end of the Late Bronze Age, it is clear that the 12th-11th centuries B.C. were centuries of marked changes in the distribution and nature of settlements. During that period, the hill country which in the Late Bronze Age was virtually empty, was gradually filling up with a dense network of settlements. The process seems to have begun in the first half of the 12th century B.C. on both sides of the central Jordan River in the mountains of Samaria and Gilead, and gradually, during the late 12th - 11th centuries it spread to the Judean hills, the Beer-Sheba plain and Galilee. Numbers are again striking. As against 5 settlements of the Late Bronze Age identified in the intensively surveyed southern Samaria region, 103 belong to the Early Iron Age. The new settlements have several specific characteristics. Firstly, they are tiny - 5-6 dumans (1.5 acres) on the average - therefore their population must have been very small. Secondly, they have a typical layout and architectural features. They are usually built in a peripheral plan, with houses touching one another to form a built-up band around an open space in the center of the settlement. This layout, typical of early stages of settlement of nomads, indicates that indeed these settlements represent a hitherto non-sedentary segment of population. Another sign of an early stage of transition from nomadism to settled life is the abundance of stone-lined pits dug in the ground that served as silos.

The occupation of the hill regions by a new type of settlement is the most striking evidence of a major social, perhaps ethnic, change that took place in the 12th-11th centuries B.C. Although the archaeological evidence does not lead to the identification of the people who took part in these processes, the changes in the distribution, layout and general characteristics of settlements from the Late Bronze to the Iron Age fits well the biblical account of the process of settlement of the Israelites. They do not, however, provide us with any clue as to the origin of these new settlers, or the circumstances which led to their sedentarization. These questions still remain open.

Short Bibliography

Finkelstain I. (1986) The Archaeology of the Period of Settlement and Judges. Israel, Hekibbutz Hameuchad Ltd. (in Hebrew).

Gonen R. (1984) Urban Canaan in the Late Bronze Age. BASOR 253: 61-73. (1987) Megiddo in the Late Bronze Age – A Reassessment. Levant XVII: 1-18.

Adnan Hadidi

Director General, Department of Antiquities, The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Ph.D. in Art History and Archaeology, University of Missouri. Editor Studies in the History and Archaeology of Jordan, consultant editor, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Corresponding Member of the German Archaeological Intstitute and member of the Board of Trustees of the America Center of Oriental Research at Amman.

Hyksos Influence in Jordan and Palestine - Canaan

Adnan Hadidi

The Hyksos period in Egypt ca. 1730-1550 B.C., corresponds to the later part of the Middle Bronze Age in Jordan and Palestine. Today, many Syro-Palestinian archaeologists subdivide this period into two stages: Middle Bronze Age IIB or most often abbreviated MBIIB, about seventeenth and early sixteenth century B.C., and Middle Bronze Age IIC or MBIIC, covering roughly the first half of the sixteenth century B.C., (Albright, 1965:57; Mazar, 1968:82, 93, 97; Dever, 1985:69, Figs. 1 and 2, n.4).

The Middle Bronze Age IIB. and IIC is contemporary with the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia and with the late Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period of Egypt (Mazar, 1968:97). The period began with the movement of a population coming from the north which became sedentary in Jordan and Palestine and introduced new ceramics of high technical quality and of characteristic shapes and decoration. Also, a new dagger, short, with a wide shoulder and a pronounced mid-rib giving a triangular appearance became widely used in this period (Kenyon, 1973:79).

The Hyksos probably originated from the Hurrian and Mittani kingdoms of northern Mesopotamia, migrated to the region, crossing through Palestine to settle in Egypt where they seized power and built a new capital. On the basis of contemporary and early written sources, supplemented by archaeological records, notably inscriptional, it is now commonly believed that the Hyksos established power in the Egyptian Delta about 1730 B.C., with their capital at Avaris, present day Tell elDab’a near Qantir in the Eastern Delta (Dever, 1985:69, 74), and that they were driven out following the siege and destruction of their capital about 1550 B.C., by Ahmos I (1570-1546 B.C.) the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty (Dever, 1985:70, 78).

It is generally agreed that the material culture of this period is an extension and continuation of the earlier period of the Middle Bronze

Age designated by archaeologists as either MBII (Kenyon, 1973:88) or MBIIA (Dever, 1985: Fig. l; Mazar, 1968:76). But being essentially a warlike people, the Hyksos brought with them the horse-drawn chariotry as well as a new system of fortification which was possibly developed as a defense against the battering ram. This system consisted of a huge sloping rampart (or glacis) made either of bricks and beaten earth (terre pisé) or polygonal masonry in the substructure with a vertical mud-brick wall built on the flat top of the sloping substructure. The defensive complex is usually enhanced by a trench or moat at its foot, especially in level areas (Albright, 1949:86, 88; Parr, 1968:20). A remarkable element in this fortification system was the impregnable triple gateway within a covered passage. The roof of the passage was supported by piers, three on each side, which narrowed it down to the width required by the passage of a chariot, thereby forming three successive gates. Indeed the “three-entrance” gates constitute the most prevalent city-gate typology in Palestine during the whole Middle Bronze Age, to the extent that they can be considered as one of the characteristic features of the military architecture of this age. Some of the best examples of this kind of defensive architecture are found at Palestinian sites such as at Laish (Tell Dan), Hazor (Tell Waqqas), Jericho, Tell Keisan, Shechem (Tell Balatah), Lachish (Tell el-Duweir), Tell Beit Mirsim, Tell el-Ajjul, Tell el-Far’ah south, and several other places. Remains of such fortifications in Jordan are thought to have existed at Amman, Tell Safut, and at Pella (Tabaqat Fahil), Tell es-Sa’idiyeh and Tell Deir Alla in the Jordan Valley.

Another architectural innovation which belongs to the MIIC period and which had a defensive nature, was he fortified temple or what professor Benjamin Mazar calls the ‘migdal-temple’ (Mazar, 1968:92). It was a compact, rectangular structure with a single long hall within its very thick walls. In front of the building was a fortified gate protected by two towers and entered from a wide courtyard. It usually has two rows of pillars supporting a roof over the central hall, and a niche in the back wall opposite the entryway, where the statue of the deity once stood. In certain examples of this type of temple, there was one or more additional stories and a flight of stairs built within one of the front towers giving access to the upper stories. The most remarkable Palestinian examples of this type of temple were discovered at Shechem (Tell Balata), Megiddo (Tell el-Mutesallim), and Hazor (Tell Waqqas). The only example of a ‘migdal’ or ‘fortress’ temple in Jordan was recently discovered by the University of Arizona archaeologists at the small site of Tell el-Hayyat in the North Jordan Valley. They unearthed a series of four superimposed temples, all oriented east-west and covering a span of several hundred years between 2000 - 1500 B.C. The temple dated to the MBIIB period of the occupational history of the site, was found to have been built on the same plan (8x8 m) of the preceding MBIIA, with a

single layer of stone foundations rather than mud-brick foundations. The ‘temenos’ [separated for an official purpose] wall was rebuilt on precisely the same lines as in the previous phase. In Phase 2, which the excavators date to MBIIC period about the middle of the sixteenth century B.C., the temple underwent a radical rebuilding. It was provided with a base of 1.5 m of rubble over which four courses of foundation stones were built. At the same time the dimensions of the temple were enlarged and the ‘temenos’ wall was moved south to provide more space in the forecourt. A mud-brick superstructure was placed on the stone foundations and both the interior and the exterior were plastered. The two “buttresses” on either side of the temple forecourt which originally belong to MBIIA period about eighteenth century B.C., were further consolidated, and a plastered niche occupied the center of the back wall. In its last years of existence, the temple seems to have been looted and destroyed, most probably by Egyptian raiders who were in pursuit of fleeing Hyksos remnants. The Tell el Hayyat temple is the oldest Canaanite temple yet discovered east of the Jordan River.

The general prosperity in the cultural life of Jordan and Palestine during the Hyksos period found expression in the palaces and villas of the richer classes in Canaanite society. In the succeeding Late Bronze Age there is much documentary illustration of this rich people society and the wide gap between the class of nobility and their serfs. Remains of palaces and villas of the rich were discovered at various Palestinian sites notably at Tell Beit Mirsim, Megiddo, and Jericho. The largest palace of the Hyksos period was discovered at Tell el-Ajjul in southern Palestine, not too far from the Hyksos capital at Avaris. This palace occupied an area of about 2000 m2 and its exterior wall was 2 m thick built of mud-brick on the high plain base which was so characteristic of this age (Mazar, 1968:93).

Canaanite art showed more originality during the Hyksos period than it did in the preceding periods of the Middle Bronze Age IIA/B, when the Palestinian and Jordanian artists depended heavily on Egyptian models and ideas. At the same time that Egyptian scarabs, engraved gems, ornamental breastplates, and alabaster vases were imitated and made locally, we find the beginning of an independent native art. This art is illustrated by woodwork such as tables and stools, metal work such as bracelets, ear-rings, fillets for the hair, toggle pins for holding garments together, and ivory and bone inlay. A reconstructed ivory and ebony box from Pella in the North Jordan Valley, is an interesting example of the art of this period during sixteenth and fifteenth century B.C., (Potts, 1986:219, Pl. XXVI). The box is rectangular in shape with vertical sides topped by a projecting cavetto cornice with a separable cover which takes the form of an asymmetrical gabled roof. Although the shape of the box and its ivory decoration are strongly inspired by Egyptian models and ideals,

the stance and attitude of the lions and the overall workmanship are to be related to native Canaanite art. This Canaanite art already attained wide fame in textile production, and in using a red dye prepared from a shellfish known as murex, for which the Akkadians called Canaanite country as Kinakhna, i.e., the land of purple dye. In the Hyksos period, the land of Canaan witnessed the production of pottery, mainly bowls and jugs, characterized by a high degree of sophistication. This new pottery was made on efficient potters’ wheels and kilns capable of firing pottery of much higher standard than ever before. Vessels are found to have been made of well-levigated clay [clay purified with water], which often has a fine red slip and is highly burnished with sharp carination [change of direction], suggesting an imitation of metallic prototypes. Shapes are generally very graceful, with beautifully proportioned curves. One of the best-known pottery types of this period is the Tell el-Yahudiyeh jug. It is one-handled, pear-shaped (piriform) with a button base and a double handle, decorated at the top with a vestigial rivet. The jug surface was generally black burnished, with white-dotted decoration arranged in simple geometric designs (Amiran, 1969:118-120). These jugs are believed to have been used as perfume containers which explains their wide diffusion through trade, which especially flourished during the last few decades of the middle of the sixteenth century B.C., or MBIIC period (Albright, 1949:94-95). To this period also belongs the appearance of a new ware designated ‘Chocolate-on-White’ with its special thin quality and unique artistic style (Petrie, 1931:10; Mazar, 1968:94, Amiran, 1969:121). In Jordan the ‘Chocolate-on-White’ is discovered mainly at Pella in the North Jordan Valley, but it remains a comparatively rare fabric not only in Jordan but also in Palestine (Hennessy, 1981:279).

Professor Basil Hennessy, the Director of the University of Sydney Excavation at Pella, believes that the ware is a product of the area east of the River Jordan. The same period witnessed the beginning of the imports of Cypriot pottery known as White Slip I and Base Ring I pottery, which gradually increased during the Late Bronze Age I, abbreviated LBI (Amiran, l969:121; Hennessy, 1981:279). The significance of this cultural phenomenon in the history of Canaan in the sixteenth century B.C., is of special interest in present day archaeological writings (Mazar, 1968:94; Amiran, 1969:118, n.7). But the foremost Canaanite contribution to world civilization is indeed the alphabet which they invented and developed about the end of MBIIC. The Canaanite alphabet was to be the origin of all western alphabets. Also, through the Old Testament, all literature ultimately owes a great deal to Canaanite literature (Kenyon, 1973: 86).

In summing up I cannot find better words than those used by the late Dame Kathleen Kenyon:

“The exact interpretation of what is meant by Hyksos is still debated. But there is a general consensus of opinion that during the period the rulers of Egypt were Asiatic intruders. In such an

intrusion, Palestine must be concerned. The distribution of the new type of defenses shows that this is the material evidence of the Hyksos period in Palestine. Defenses of this type can be traced from Carchemish in the north-east through inland Syria and Palestine to Tell el-Yahudiya north of Cairo. There is no uniformity in the culture of the towns so defended. Rather, the defenses are the evidence of an alien aristocracy, superimposed on the pre-existing population...

As far as Palestine is concerned, the introduction of the new type of defense meant no break in culture. From the first beginnings of the Middle Bronze Age down to its end, and long past it, all the material evidence-pottery, weapons, ornaments, buildings, burial methods-is emphatic that there is no break in culture and basic population. As suggested above, this is the Canaanite culture of the Mediterranean littoral.” (Kenyon, 1973:115).

References

Albright, W.F. 1949

The Archaeology of Palestine Harmondsworth. 1965

“Some Remarks on the Archaeological Chronology of Palestine before about 1500 B.C.” In Robert W. Ehrich (ed.) Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. London.

Amiran, R. 1969

Dever, W.G. 1985

Falconer, S.E. et al 1982

Hennessy, J.B. 1981

Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. Jerusalem.

“Relations between SyriaPalestine and Egypt in the ‘Hyksos’ Period.” In Jonathan N. Tubb (ed.) Palestine in the Bronze and Iron Ages. London.

“1982 Excavations of Tell elHayyat Project.” ADAJ 27:87101.

“Preliminary Report on a Second Season of Excavation at Pella, Jordan, 1980.” ADAJ 25:267-309.

Kenyon, K.M. 1973

Mazer, B. 1968

Parr, P.J. 1968

“Palestine in the Middle Bronze.” Cambridge Ancient History, 3rd edition, Vol. II, Part 1. Cambridge.

“The Middle Bronze Age in Palestine.” IEJ 18:65-97.

“The Origin of the Rampart Fortifications in Middle Bronze Age Palestine and Syria.” ZDPV 84:18-45.

Pietrie, W.M.F. 1931 Ancient Gaza I. London.

Potts, T. 1986

“An Ivory-decorated box from Pella (Jordan)” Antiquity LX, No. 230:217-219.

Book Reviews

Mike Farris, editor. What’s in a Name?: The Sermons of Dr. T. V. “Corky” Farris. Volume 1. Canyon Lake, TX: Peniel Unlimited, 2024. 425 pages.

Reviewed by Dr. David L. Allen

Distinguished Professor of Practical Theology at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary, Dean of the Adrian Rogers Center for Biblical Preaching.

I am a collector and connoisseur of sermon books. I own hundreds of them, dating back to the early seventeenth century. Once a popular genre in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they have been on the wane for the past 50 years and are less common on the market today. Occasionally one such book is published that catches my eye, and this volume is such a book.

What’s in a Name? is more than a sermon book. Interspersed between sermons are delightful comments about Corky’s life and the situational background of the next sermon or two by his son, Mike. Mike is himself an accomplished author and adjunct professor in the Political Science department at the University of Texas at Arlington. He is a member of Sunnyvale First Baptist Church in Sunnyvale, TX, where my wife and I are also members. The “Transitional Narratives” between sermons by Mike serve to tell the life story of his father and create a contextual atmosphere where the sermons come alive to the reader. One feels as if he knows the preacher personally reading these sermons.

Born in Fort Worth, TX, on July 4, 1927, that date seems to have been a harbinger of things to come in Corky Farris’ life, especially since his preaching was something of a pyrotechnic extravaganza. Listeners never walked away disappointed. “Corky” Farris was a remarkable man, and some of that adjective has rubbed off on his sermons. He passed away December 14, 1993, at the age of 66.

The book comprises 16 sermons transcribed from old cassette tapes by Mike, which are superb in so many ways. Illustrations and word pictures abound. Corky Farris knew how to turn the ear into an eye. His sermons are so visual you feel you can reach out and touch the words. He is a master of humor. And of course, to top it off, he leaves you with an understanding of the biblical text and a desire to walk with God.

Corky Farris was a multi-talented man who played many roles in his storied life- husband, father, military man, missionary to Japan, pastor,

and professor. His variegated life experiences made the man into a great preacher. Two defining events marked him deeply and contributed to making him the effective preacher that he was. The first occurred at the age of 37 when his small plane went down in the “Big Thicket” region of southeast Texas. The pilot died and Corky suffered a broken back, paralyzing him from the waist down. Uncertain of rescue, Corky crawled for the next 40 hours without knowing where he was going. Rescue came and Corky spent months in the hospital followed by physical rehab.

The doctors said he would never walk again, but they did not know the spunk and determination of Corky Farris. He did learn to walk, but an ever-present cane was his companion for the rest of his life. The second defining event was the death of his wife, Juanita, to cancer in 1978.

In the spring of 1970, Dr. Farris accepted the call to serve as pastor of Gaston Avenue Baptist Church in Dallas, TX. His tenure was short lived, as some church members criticized his strong evangelistic preaching while others objected to his wife, Juanita, working in the nearby Baptist General Convention of Texas building where she was secretary of the Evangelism division. Corky tendered his resignation after only two years as pastor, telling the congregation that he found objections to his leadership at the church “intolerable.”

Corky accepted a position to teach Hebrew and Old Testament at the newly formed Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary in Little Rock, Arkansas. This too was short lived as he returned to Dallas to pastor another church for a short period. But in 1976, Corky returned to Mid-America Seminary, now located in Memphis, where for the next 17 years he would serve as Chairman of the Old Testament and Hebrew Department. He also created and taught a course in “Creative Preaching.”

The 16 sermons in this book range from expository to dramatic monologue in nature and indicate that Farris knew how to excel at “creative” preaching. The initial sermon is on the most famous verse in all the Bible- John 3:16. You can almost hear the passion in his voice as he pleads with lost people to believe in Jesus Christ. This sermon sets the tone for every other sermon in the book because if there were ever a single thread woven throughout the tapestry of Corky’s sermons, it was evangelism.

The next two sermon titles tell the story of their content: “Curse of Half-Heartedness” and “Settling for Second Best.” The preacher could never allow himself or his listeners to be anything but totally sold out to Christ and his Lordship.

“Heart Failure” is a sermon on Genesis 32 where Jacob wrestles with God at Peniel before meeting his aggrieved brother Esau for the first time in many years. Farris makes you feel as if you were there during the midnight hour watching this wrestling match. His conclusion is effective:

Have you met God face to face? Have you come to recognize your need of him? Are you prepared to abandon your futile effort to make things fit together? Are you ready and willing to call upon his name and to confess your failure and to ask his forgiveness? If you are, then I promise you, on the authority of God’s word, that he is prepared to hear and answer your request and to change your life.

Two sermons: “More Evidence of the Spirit: Joy,’’ and “Sin in the life of a Believer” exhibit Farris’ ability to balance the positive and the negative in the Christian life. Some preachers are always preaching happy sermons. Some preachers are always preaching negative sermons. Corky does both and he does them well.

His sermon “Dramatic Monologue on Hosea” reveals the actor in Dr. Farris. His son, Mike, informs the reader that his dad was a frustrated actor. Reading this sermon reveals just how good Farris can deliver a sermon in the form of a dramatic monologue. I remember the words of Spurgeon when he said if he could have his way, he would require every preacher to take acting lessons!

The next two sermon chapters, “What’s in a Name?” and “Come to the Water” treat us to expositions of Matthew 1:18 and Isaiah 54, show us Farris’ capacity to preach well from both the New Testament and the Old Testament. Many preachers shy away from the Old Testament, finding it more difficult to preach in today’s modern culture. Farris knows how to draw us into an Old Testament passage and show us its hope for living.

The next two sermons each reflected on the two greatest trials and defining events that shaped his life. “Psalm 23” was preached at Mid-America Seminary in 1978 following the death of Juanita. Here he closed the sermon with these memorable words: “Folks, I’m still in the valley, but I really would rather walk here with him than to walk alone on the heights.” “The Big Thicket” was preached in 1990 at Mid-America Seminary where Farris reflected on the plane crash that nearly took his life.

But I have the feeling that when we get to heaven, each of us with his cane-we’ll all have one. And when we get there, if the Lord should say, “Hey, Farris, let me explain to you why you had to carry that cane all those years,” I’m just almost sure that, without a single exception, our response will be, “Lord, what cane was that?”

The final six sermons all deal with Job and his suffering. For every person who has ever suffered, is suffering, or will suffer these solidly biblical but intensely practical sermons will bring hope in the midst of suffering.

If you read only one sermon book this year, or next year, or the year after that ... make it this book!

Anchored to the Text: Essays in Honor of Dr. Richard R. Melick, Jr. Edited by Shawn Buice and Roger D. Duke. Ontario, CA: Gateway Seminary, 2023, 391 pp.

Review by Dr. Stephen W. Carlson

Hendersonville, TN

This Festschrift honors Dr. Richard R. Melick, Jr., and contains nine essays on New Testament and Greek studies, the areas of Dr. Melick’s expertise. All the contributors are former students of Melick’s from the various academic institutions where he has taught.

Melick provided the following information about his life in the interview for this book (section 1). His mom led him to faith in Christ when he was thirteen years old. He felt the Lord leading him into ministry, so he prepared for whatever the Lord had in store for him by receiving his bachelor’s degree from Columbia Bible College, his master’s degree from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and his doctoral degree from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary where he studied under Curtis Vaughn. He met and married his wife, Shera, while a student at TEDS, and they have four children, all of whom are serving the Lord. Melick has served on faculty at several colleges and seminaries, and he played a significant role in the conservative resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1980s and 1990s.

Dr. Melick taught at Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary from 1983 to 1992. I was blessed to be his first Graduate Assistant/ Teaching Fellow at MABTS and to have one of my doctoral courses in Greek under him. His scholarly teaching and his genuine concern for his students had a great impact on my own life and ministry. When the editor of this journal, Terrence Brown, asked me to write this review, I accepted with pleasure and am honored to do so.

The first essay (“Melick, Mullenburg, and New Testament Rhetorical Criticism: Highlights and Insights”) by Roger D. Duke delves into rhetorical criticism and its contribution to New Testament studies. Rhetoric was a common aspect of Greco-Roman oratory, and scholars often view New Testament writers (legitimately, in my view) as using rhetoric as a literary device and a form of argumentation. Various literary tools are used to identify a rhetorical unit, which allows interpreters to explain more clearly the power of that passage for promoting the author’s argument and the effect the passage should have on the readers. Rhetorical criticism provides insights into New Testament ethics,

the process of explaining spiritual truths to readers, and communication whose purpose is persuasion.

The second essay (“‘The Righteous, by “His” Faithfulness Will Live’: Habakkuk 2:4 Reexamined”) by Archie W. England considers the thorny issue of comparing the Hebrew of Habakkuk 2:4 to Paul’s quotations of it. (In the Greek doctoral seminar I had with Dr. Melick, we studied this problem at length.) The crux of the matter is that the Hebrew text does not say “by faith” (as the Greek reads in Rom. 1:17 and Gal. 3:11) but “by his faithfulness,” and it is unclear whether God’s faithfulness or human faith is in view. (To make things thornier, the LXX reads “my faith,” i.e., God’s faithfulness.) England explains that the whole argument of Habakkuk is that God’s faithfulness is the only hope in which His people can rest for deliverance. This means that Gods faithfulness to us in providing redemption leads to our faith in Him, and it is this latter aspect on which Paul focuses his argument about justification.

The third essay (“A Tale of Two Masters: Structural and Linguistic Connections Between Luke 12:35-40 and 17:7-10”) by Hershael W. York analyzes a test case about Luke’s use of his sources to write his gospel. York focuses on two passages within the large framework of Luke 9:51–19:48 (the Travel Narrative), which many view as a chiasm of some kind, showing literary unity. York accepts chiasm here but not with multiple pairs. York points out that these two parables are unique to Luke and are uniquely arranged: “the former parable is about a master who serves his servants, and the latter parable is of the one who does not” (p. 156).

The fourth essay (“Romans 7:14-25: One More Look”) by David S. Dockery tackles one of Paul’s most challenging passages. Proposed solutions include Paul speaking as an unbeliever, as a person under the law, and as an immature believer. Also involved is the problem of indwelling sin. Dockery sees Paul as arguing in three stages: (1) Paul struggled with sin in the Christian life (vv. 14-17); (2) flesh is the ruling principle of sin which contains nothing good; (3) the law of Moses versus the law of sin shows that believers wage war in their inner beings between what they should do and what they end up doing. Dockery points to the “already/not yet” aspect of the kingdom as appropriate here: believers are already redeemed from sin but not fully, which will not happen till Christ’s return. While on earth, believers will continue to struggle with indwelling sin.

The fifth essay (“Participles and Preaching: Exegetical Insights from the Book of Ephesians”) by Shawn Buice explains the importance of studying Greek participles for exegesis of the Greek text. He then considers two passages in Ephesians where participles are highly significant for interpretation: Ephesians 1:3-14 and 5:15-21. Buice ends with a challenge for pastors not to neglect their study of Greek participles in sermon preparation.

The sixth essay (“Colossians 1:9-14: Interpretation and Influence”) by Steve Veteto explains Paul’s prayer in that passage, which continues his prayer from verses 3-8. This essay has an even more personal touch than the others do since Veteto sees Paul’s prayer in verses 9-14 as exemplified in the way Melick poured himself into his students. Veteto explains how Melick did this using three categories from the prayer: Bearing Fruit and Growing; Being Strengthened with Power; and Joyfully Giving Thanks.

The seventh essay (“Women Pastors, Women Preachers: What Does the New Testament Say”) by David McAlpin tackles one of the most controversial and difficult subjects in New Testament studies. McAlpin explains 1 Timothy 2:11–3:3, the locus classicus of this subject, in light of exegetical and contextual considerations. His interpretation places him squarely in the conservative complementarian camp, and he does so by faithfully allowing the text to speak for itself without allowing modern sensitivities about “women’s rights” to intrude. The bottom line is that what God wants for His church is infinitely more important than what our culture wants for women in the church.

The eighth essay (“The Language of Doxa in Pauline Literature”) by Mikko Sivonen traces the Pauline concept of doxa (Greek glory) from his understanding of Israel in the Old Testament to his application of it to Jesus Himself. He does this by explaining the lexical meaning of doxa, Paul’s use of the term in relation to God (glory of God), and its ultimate expression in the Christ event: “The story of God’s doxa, public acknowledgement of the manifestation of his ultimate value and honor through Christ, is truth that transforms lives” (p. 328).

The ninth essay (“An Epistle of Straw: Does James Contradict the Teaching of Paul?”) by Charles Quarles starts by recalling how Martin Luther used Romans and its teachings on justification by faith to start the Protestant Reformation. Yet, Luther stumbled over James 2:24 and its apparent contradiction to Paul’s teachings, concluding that James “is really an epistle of straw” (p. 331). John Calvin, however, argued that James was showing that “he who professes that he has faith, must prove the reality of his faith by works” (p. 332). Quarles agrees with Calvin, and he also provides a detailed study of the new birth in the book of James that shows James’ understanding of salvation is consistent with the rest of the New Testament, including Paul’s letters.

Finally, the book concludes with a nineteen-page accounting of Melick’s academic career as a professor, administrator, preacher, and author; and three indices (Scripture, author, subject).

The articles in this Festschrift are well-written and wellresearched, and anyone looking for resources on these subjects will benefit from them. However, the main issue for me regarding readability is that the format is not user friendly and there were also several editorial

and printing mistakes that detracted from the book’s content. Some of these are small and others are more significant. Here are the ones I discovered. (1) It is unclear in what order the contributors are listed, but they should be in alphabetical order (p. 5). (2) The sections should be numbered as chapters and listed as such on the table of contents and in the body of the book. (3) The author of each chapter should be listed on the table of contents. (4) The first line under a side heading should be double spaced, not single spaced. (5) The Greek font sometimes failed to print as Greek and instead became English gibberish. This happened all the way through the article by Steve Veteto (pp. 233-54). (6) Headers at the top of each page providing the chapter title would have been immensely helpful.

Beyond the Clinical Hour: How Counselors

Can Partner with the Church to Address the Mental Health Crisis.

James N. Sells, Amy Trout, Heather C. Sells.

By

Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2024, 236 pp., $22.71, softcover.

Review by Nicholas Adam Johnson

Nicholas Adam Johnson serves as Program Director for the Tennessee Baptist Children’s Homes, Millington, TN, and as an Elder at Redemption Community Church, Bartlett, TN. He is a member of the Association of Certified Biblical Counselors.

Beyond the Clinical Hour is part of the Christian Association for Psychological Studies (CAPS) which seeks to apply Christianity to the work of psychology and counseling to help Christian clinicians apply their faith to their clients. James Sells has co-written two other books for CAPS with Mark Yarhouse: Family Therapies and Counseling Couples in Conflict. Sells is professor for the School of Psychology & Counseling at Regent University and the Rosemarie S. Hughes Endowed Chair of Christian Thought in Mental Health Practice. Amy Trout has worked to bring integration to churches and psychological services at the Center for Church-Psychology Collaboration at Wheaton College.

This work, according to the authors, intends to help in human care and to aid in improving the mental health need and current trends in the world. This approach is noticeably clear in the work that the author’s goal is to help care well for people in suffering. They clearly recognize the number of hurting individuals and note how the professional psychologists and therapists are not able to meet the need. The purpose of this book challenges the mental health student and their professors to use the Christian counselor in this work by applying their field to the Christian’s faith but keep that faith bound by modern ethics and worldly philosophies of care.

Beyond the Clinical Hour divides into three sections. In part one the authors work to describe the landscape and need of the mental health crisis. They lay out in these two chapters that the need is extremely great, and the church can help lessen the burden on the need. If the church can be “synthesized” into the care then the need, which is always growing, will find aid. The reason they pose the church to be assistance is the church and the counseling profession view the relationship with those who are suffering in the highest regard. In this part of the book, they lean on passages of Scripture that support

God’s call of Christians to help the suffering. The identity of a Christian in God and in His image, the imago Dei, serves as a motive for being compassionate and others-centered.

The second part speaks to how this synthesis can occur through integration. In the third chapter, the authors present their view of integration and how it helps to blend the beauty and elegance of faith with the discipline and practice of behavioral sciences. They promote a form of integration today that places faith subservient to behavioral sciences. They admit that integration has changed over time according to worldly needs and practices and cultural changes. Integration, they say, must remain nimble to the changes in culture, needs of the people, and even variables like pandemics, economics, and politics. Integration, according to Sells, et al. is a process of “internalization of the biblical text, theological understanding, worldview clarification, and skill amalgamated into professional life” (p. 65). However, the authors reveal that integrationists have had to prove themselves to the secular world to be accepted. They had to integrate their integration. In the fourth chapter, the authors describe and flesh out the need for a worldview which they say is integral to integration. Through worldview our culture and politics are formed. The authors admit that culture has created a worldview of care that regards an hour with a therapist as the way to find help through suffering. They offer that a worldview that integrates faith with behavioral sciences must be rooted in hospitality, righteousness, and compassion.

In the closing section, part three, the authors present five chapters on the way forward. This is the portion of the book where reality greets the new integrationist. In these chapters, they present a culture of supervision, consultation, and ethics. The behavioral science professor and practitioner become a liaison to the church, guiding the Christian caregiver to walk in care with someone in secular ethics and practices while agreeing to have different perspectives. In their view, the practitioner helps the church to take on the roles of care under the umbrella of the secular codes of practice.

Strengths of this work include a thorough attempt to flesh out how to integrate the secular with the sacred. The authors clearly see the need for the church to be involved in the care of souls. They see rightly a world that is hurting and in need of help. They also see how the Bible calls believers to care well for others as Christ cared for people. The book itself is well edited and clearly follows a clear presentation of argument. Also, a set of questions follows each chapter to cover a review of the chapter’s material.

Weaknesses of the book are in the theory of integration. As a Biblical counselor, I cannot promote the view presented in this book as it seeks to marry unequally yoked members. The secular and the

sacred have opposing views of the nature of man, the cause of suffering, what brings hope, and the solution of suffering. The authors believe the secular has the monopoly on right practice, and they allow the secular to determine the sacred. The Bible clearly states its sufficiency in passages such as 2 Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:3-4.

This book will appeal to those who seek to integrate but not those who seek to counsel Biblically. I would not recommend this practice to Biblical counselors.

Baptism: Zwingli or

The Bible?

By Jack Cottrell. Includes Excursus by J. W. McGarvey. Mason, OH: The Christian Resource Association, 2022, 137 pp., $14.99.

Reviewed by Andrew M. Payne Ed.D, MDiv, M.S.C.J.

Adjunct Professor Itawamba Community College, Fulton, MS

Jack Cottrell discusses Zwingli’s views on baptism and how they played a part in the formation of covenant theology in his book Baptism: Zwingli or The Bible? He uses previous studies, leaning heavily upon his dissertation from Princeton University, to draw new insights into how Zwingli established his popular understanding of covenant theology and the role baptism had on Zwingli early on. Though a Zwinglian scholar, Cottrell is not a disciple of Zwingli, calling his views on baptism and the covenant of Abraham “anti-Biblical” (p. vi). Cottrell breaks Zwingli’s views on baptism into two stages. The first is denial that baptism is connected with salvation and, the second, a development of a new view of baptism, specifically infant baptism.

The first part of the book is a concise summary of Cottrell’s PhD dissertation in two chapters. Chapter 1 begins by distinguishing the difference in the Reformation and its two factions by categorizing them as Lutheranism and Reformed Theology, a brainchild of both Zwingli and, later, Calvin. Further, the parts of Reformed Theology and the sacraments, particularly the sacrament of baptism, are established as the topic under review. Through scripture and tradition (Church Fathers through Luther), Cottrell shows the meaning of baptism was consistent for 1500 years; that is, the meaning of baptism is an act of God, not man, and, thus, an act of salvation. Chapter 2 explores the changes that Zwingli made regarding the theology of baptism, exhibiting how Zwingli rejected the earlier biblical consensus through insisting that baptism and salvation are not connected, rationalizing the separation of the two, and re-interpreting the doctrinal passages which point to baptism as directly connected to salvation. Cottrell then discusses Zwingli’s view of pedobaptism in relation to Covenant Theology, as Zwingli reasoned it, and provides an analysis of Zwingli’s views.

Cottrell’s second part details his response to Zwingli’s view on baptism. Having given an extremely apt and succent, yet brief, overview of Covenant Theology in Chapter 2, Chapter 3 serves to offer Cottrell’s thoughts on whether the church falls under the Abrahamic Covenant and his critique. Chapter 4 discusses, in some detail, the Biblical teaching of both Paul and Jesus concerning faith, works, and baptism. Here,

Cottrell notes the seeming contradiction in the teaching of Jesus in John 6:26–29 and the later teachings of Paul concerning the nature of works in salvation. He surmises this departure derives due to a difference in meaning for the word “work” (the Greek word ergon). Therefore, though it is the same word, the context is different. He performs this semantic exercise to argue that baptism is a “work” leading to a salvation experience through grace and faith alone.

The fifth chapter reveals what Cottrell considers his greatest contribution to theological study by proposing a new understanding of what Paul means by “works” in Romans 3:28 and Ephesians 2:8–10. In this last chapter of Part II, Cottrell posits that the “Zwinglian” view of baptism, as he calls it, which completely divorces baptism with the salvation event, is a false view and anti-biblical. This contribution, in short, is a new understanding of the definition of the Greek word ergon. He supports this new position by first showing the inadequacy of the traditional meaning of the word as “something that we do” (pp. 111–112). When Paul uses ergon he is not referring to something we do, but the works of law or man’s response to these laws and applies to humankind; it is a generalized audience not an individual event. This affects what Christians must be obedient to, namely the gospel, not the law. He determines this placement as an important distinction to combat what he calls the Zwinglian baptism heresy as well as to offer assurance to the believer concerning salvation. The final chapter is an excursus by J. W. McGarvey. The volume includes this excursus to answer concerns over how this view affects the remission of sins.

Cottrell labors under the premise that baptism is a salvation event. This means that “God has designated water baptism as the moment of time in which He bestows the double cure of salvation upon the believing and repentant sinner” (pp. viii–ix). Even so, Cottrell describes in wonderful detail the views that both Zwingli has as well as the response by Martin Luther and the Anabaptists. Anyone who is studying baptism or covenant theology and its role in the theology of baptism will benefit from Cottrell’s work.

What is Covenant Theology: Tracing God’s Promises through the Son, the Seed, and the Sacraments. By

Ryan M. McGraw.

Wheaton: Crossway, 2024, 143 pp., $14.99, softcover, ISBN 978-1-4335-9277-5.

Review by Nathan J. Pellegra

Nathan J. Pellegra serves as teaching elder/pastor of Redemption Community Church in Bartlett, Tennessee and graduated from Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary with his Master of Divinity in 2008.

Ryan M. McGraw serves as the Professor of Systematic Theology at Greenville Presbyterian Seminary. Of the thirty-plus publications he has authored, his most notable published works include Ark of Safety: Is There Salvation Outside the Church? and this current work on covenant theology.

McGraw has written What is Covenant Theology to serve as a primer of covenant theology for those unfamiliar with this area of theological study. The first five chapters concisely split into the ideas of covenant theology that McGraw traces through God’s promises in the Son, the seed, and the sacraments, as the title suggests. The sixth chapter is designated for questions and answers that allow readers to have clarification of critical issues.

In chapters 1 and 2, McGraw focuses on the importance of covenant theology as a display of the unity of the whole of Scripture. He communicates the great need for believers in Jesus Christ to understand the unity of Scripture so that they no longer read the Bible with disjointedness. As with most covenant theologians, he divides the covenants with God and man into three categories: the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. He defines the covenant of redemption as the Trinitarian covenant within the Godhead, made in eternity past, where the purpose of redemption is planned. The covenant of works was made between God and Adam, where God chose to have a relationship with mankind. The result of this covenant is Adam’s failure to keep the law of God perfectly, which led to sin entering the world, bringing the curse of God upon mankind and the earth. Finally, the covenant of grace enters the timeline of history in Genesis 3:15, where a gracious God promises that in the Seed of the woman the offspring of the serpent will be crushed, who is the devil. It is in this promise that God gives hope in Christ for none can find salvation in the covenant of works.

Chapter 2 serves as a deep investigation into the covenant of

grace that begins with the promise of Genesis 3:15. McGraw shows how the covenant of grace is both the historical and redemptive structure to the unified Scriptures. From the time of Adam to Noah, the author draws attention to the signs of the covenant that provided to mankind, like the rainbow, to remind us of the faithful promises of God. With the Abrahamic covenant, God sets his people apart by calling them to Himself and separating them from the nations. Under this heading, McGraw introduces key elements of the covenants, like the sacrificial system, which points to hope in the Seed of the woman that will provide forgiveness when blood is shed. The Abrahamic covenant promises that through the families born from Abraham the whole population of earth receives blessing by the Seed, Who is Jesus Christ, coming to provide salvation for sinners. The author moves on to the covenant with Moses where he reminds readers that with the giving of the law, God intends to make a holy people although his people will continually fail at living lives of holiness. That failure yields magnification in the Davidic kingdom as the people of Israel battle themselves, the nations, and God himself. David points the reader forward to a King Who will rule and reign over all heaven and earth as the Seed Who will prove victorious over man’s greatest enemy. He is the promised Seed Who crushes the offspring of the serpent, the blesser of the nations, the One Who fulfills the law, the eternal King Who will rule and reign for all eternity as Lord and Savior of the church.

In Chapters 3-5, the author takes a practical approach to the study of covenant theology. In chapter 3, he focuses on the joy of reading the Scriptures as a unified work. In Chapter 4, he focuses on the importance of seeing the work of the Trinity in the covenant of grace through all human history and in the lives of believers today. He writes, “[t]he gospel is about knowing God, and the more God reveals the gospel through his covenants, the more of God we see and know” (64). Chapter 5 shows how people apply covenant theology in the Christian life with their children and spouse. Those who recognize the covenants of grace are building their marriage and homes on Christlikeness. McGraw excels at writing concisely about such a weighty doctrine as covenant theology. He gives clarity about the position of covenant theology, which presents the Bible as a unified Scripture. He also does well in centering his focus on the sovereignty of God and the preeminence of Christ in all of scripture. The overall weakness of this book is the way the author prioritizes covenant theology over simply scripture itself. For example, he writes, “[c]ovenant theology is a blessed means of teaching how to live the Christian life, especially with others, precisely because the triune God is always first, then his church, and then individuals… covenant theology kills self-centeredness, fostering genuine Christianity” (82-83). One could make the case that

Scripture alone, by the power of the Spirit, affects this change in the believer, whether covenant theology is observed or not. Overall, I would recommend this book to those interested in learning about covenant theology in its basic forms, even as I disagree with some of the authors’ conclusions.

Redeeming Our Thinking of History: A God-Centered Approach. By Vern S. Poythress. Wheaton, Il: Crossway, 2022, 247 pp., $24.99, softcover. ISBN 9781433571442.

Reviewed by Zachary Sandiford, PhD

Mid-America Baptist Theological Seminary Cordova, TN

Vern S. Poythress received a PhD from Harvard University and a ThD from the University of Stellenbosch. He is the Distinguished Professor of New Testament, Biblical Interpretation, and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary. Poythress has authored numerous books, including Redeeming Mathematics: A God-Centered Approach, Redeeming Science: A God-Centered Approach, Redeeming Philosophy: A God-Centered Approach to the Big Questions, and Logic: A God-Centered Approach to the Foundation of Western Thought. This book is an installment of the God-Centered Approach series.

In this work, Poythress proposed that the study of history serves and aids the Christian’s growth, and he used a fourfold overarching approach to the work with this proposal in mind. First, the book’s overall goal is that reading history expands the Christian’s view of God. Second, reading history expands the Christian’s view of Christ and redemption. Third, studying history reveals the state of mankind, “righteous and wicked.” Fourth, as Christians research history in the Bible, it leads to praising and glorifying God because the attributes of God, such as wisdom, power, justice, and mercy, are seen.

After the explanatory introduction, the author divided the book into five parts, comprising twenty-six chapters. Chapters one through eight create the first part, entitled “What We Need in Order to Analyze History,” and examines the essential resources God has supplied for studying history. Part two, entitled “History in the Bible,” investigates how the biblical authors wrote historical content in the pages of Scripture. Poythress dedicated chapters nine through eleven to analyze these narratives. Part three gives a seven-chapter study of “Understanding God’s Purposes in History.” Poythress explains God’s divine purposes for history and a recognition of man’s limitations in studying the discipline. Part four, entitled “What Does History Writing Look Like?,” is a focused study of how the historian writes history for particular periods. These three chapters evaluate the writing of history during the Roman Empire, the Reformation, and other civilization’s historical descriptions. The final section of the work, part five, is entitled “Alternative Versions of How to Think about History.” Chapters twenty-two through twenty-six

detail historiography and how to evaluate Providence. In this section, Poythress explains Jay D. Green’s “Five Versions of Historiography.” Poythress suggests adding two, or possibly three, versions. He states that academic excellence is a way to serve God through the discipline, which is a sixth version. The seventh version is the Christian historian’s vocational call and service to God. However, he inserts Providentialism as a view without giving it a number, yet treating it as a version. He spends several chapters analyzing Providentialism. Poythress examines each version, detailing the differing types’ strengths and weaknesses. Poythress adds one appendix outlining Providence according to Mark Noll, drawn from Noll’s Jesus Christ and the Life of the Mind. The author also provides an extensive bibliography.

As one reads Poythress’s content, the focus is on the Word of God and a biblical approach to historiography. Poythress presented a detailed yet concise description of how a Christian should approach history and the writing of historical narratives. The author uses numerous scriptural references to defend and support his work. The information was structured, orderly, and easy to follow for much of the book. However, the only weakness is the concluding material in chapters 25 and 26 outlining the versions of historiography. The author masterfully explained Green’s versions in chapter 22; however, adding two versions and possibly a third to make seven (or eight?) was confusing. Poythress even states at the beginning of chapter 26, “Let us return a final time to providentialism. Of the five or six views, it is the most contested” (emphasis mine). This numbering confusion occurs after all the versions and additions have been explained. These versions are essential and add to the book, but they could have been structured differently for better understanding and clarity, even if a version is negated.

The book is a valuable resource for the Christian historian to prepare for the writing of history. This book is not a practical “how-to” aid in writing history but, as the title suggests, a “how to think” aid as one approaches the writing of history. This book appeals to a broad audience but is most beneficial and recommended to the Christian historian or a higher academic student.

The QR code below is a link to The Journal's website. The code will link the reader to the vocal presentations of the seven essays in this volume and the eight essays from the previous volume.