The Bible as History

The Bible, Archaeology, and History

     A Brief Outline of the Development of Biblical Archaeology

The Historical Validity of the Bible

     The Patriarchal Era (Creation to Moses)

         Parallels With Early Mesopotamian Cosmologies (Genesis 1-11)

         Post-Flood Civilizations (ca. 4-3,000 B.C.)

                    Mesopotamia, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel (Genesis 10-11)

                    The European Nations and their Link to Noah through Japheth

          The World of the Patriarchs (2200-1800 B.C.)

     The Mosaic Era (1446 B.C. - 30 A.D.)

          Can We Believe the Biblical Accounts of the Exodus/Conquest?

     The Era of the Israelite Kingdoms (1050-586 B.C.)

     The New Testament Era (5 B.C. - 100 A.D.)

     “Appearances can be deceiving” and this is a sound way of describing the situation in modern Western culture.  With the cultural onslaught of the French Enlightenment (1689-1789 A.D.) and the development of its materialistic, naturalistic, and humanistic assumptions during the Modern Era (1800-1963 A.D.), the Judeo-Christian/Biblical worldview was assigned to the trash pile and “evolutionary progress” was enshrined as the new paradigm for Western thought.  The problem with this scenario is that the gradual accumulation of evidence since 1878 (when Julius Wellhausen published his evolutionary revision of Israel’s history) has tended to favor the traditional Biblical framework and raise questions about the optimistic Enlightenment scenario.  This, along with the desire to maintain an intellectual monopoly in Western education circles, are the driving reasons as to why evolutionists do not want the Bible or any concept of creation, Intelligent Design, etc. discussed in public education circles.

The Bible, Archaeology, and History

     It is most unfortunate that 19th century hostile Biblical criticism and Darwinism were embraced as true so soon after their emergence, because this allowed them to give the impression that the Bible was wrong and materialistic/naturalistic “evolutionary progress” was right - about everything!  Looking back on the 19th century Bible critics, it is now possible to realize that the assault on the historical validity of the Bible was conducted on the basis of philosophical presuppositions rather than evidence.  When Wellhausen published his Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, very little was actually known about the ancient Middle East except what was recorded in the Bible.  Accordingly, hostile 19th century Bible critics, schooled in and thoroughly convinced of Enlightenment skepticism against the supernatural, were able to make all kinds of wild charges about the historical inaccuracies of the Bible simply because there was no credible field of Biblical Archaeology in existence at the time to “validate or disprove” the charges.  Although much of the critical attack on the Bible’s historical validity was eventually refuted, the vindication of the Biblical story is not something those under the spell of Enlightenment presuppositions want to hear about.  Several generations of westerners have lost faith in the Book of Books, are separated from its author, and have a weakened or dead faith in the savior it points to because of misguided scholars who offered nothing but the fruits of their own skeptical imaginations.

A Brief Outline of the Development of Biblical Archaeology

     From the third century A.D. until 1800, pious pilgrims might latch on to some artwork, ancient coins, or alleged relic tied to some early figure, but the Middle East was constantly being fought over and conquered by Rome, Moslem, and Crusader armies.  Much of the evidence of earlier civilizations was covered by sand and soil and ignored.

     During the 1800’s, a second phase of Biblical archaeology developed which could be labeled as “treasure hunting.”  While some work was done in the deciphering of ancient texts (cuneiform, Behistun Inscription), a good deal of the “archaeology” efforts that went on were little more than treasure hunts for as many valuable pieces of antiquity as could be attained for one’s nation before other hunters found them.  Sometimes, valuable material was damaged and lost due to the use of battering rams to enter tombs and other sites in search of large items of the greatest material wealth.  Some of the “trenching” of ancient tells (mounds with numerous layers of past occupation levels) was also done carelessly.  Towards the end of the 1800’s, it was discovered that pottery styles could be correlated with various levels of occupation and a new era of archaeology began.

     The third phase (1890-1948) involves the beginnings of “scientific” methodology, when stratigraphy and typology became a mainstay in archaeological research.  This was the era of Petrie, Albright, and Glueck.  The fourth era (1948-present) added the use of radiometric dating methods and includes the work of Kathleen Kenyon, Wright, Yadin, and a host of people from various universities.^[1]

     What is usually not heard through our secular media and educational system is that Biblical archaeology has provided a great deal of confirmation for the historical aspects of the Biblical story.^[2]  Where the Scriptures and secular records/artifacts intersect, they seem to be in general harmony.  Why is so much of Biblical history, largely concerned with the Jewish people, not mentioned in secular records?  For the same reason that American history does not contain much information about the history of Scotland, Germany, Japan, or Africa.  American history, like the histories of other nations, only comments on other nations where their history comes in contact with ours, due to a war or economic situation.  Egyptian or Assyrian history only mentions Israel when there is a sufficient reason to do so.  Every historian is selective as to which bits of information he will include and always writes with some kind of focused agenda.  When bias enters in, as it often does with proud and arrogant rulers or revisionist scholars, things that do not fit the historian’s agenda might be ignored altogether.  Given the way that most nations write history, we should take confidence that Biblical and secular sources, while rarely intersecting, are usually in close agreement when they do overlap and this suggests that Biblical history is valid history.  However, it is to the Bible’s credit that it appears to be much more honest about the failures of its main characters than most ancient histories or modern scholars are about their own biases and errors!

The Historical Validity of the Bible

     If there is one thing humans are consistently good at, it is being confused, inconsistent, and dividing up over what they are confused about.  Division could be handled pretty well with more love, patience, and reasonable discussion followed up with a patient appreciation for each other.  However, the “confusion” part is going to take time and energy to fix.  “Confusion” has to do with what and how we think and it is rooted in the fact that we all have started in different settings, encountered different combinations of information and situations, and handled them in a lot of different ways.  Thus, on many topics, you could place people along a continuum, with convinced extremists on both ends and lots of semi-confused people scattered between those poles.  Naturally, each of us tends to feel like our particular opinion or conclusion is the best one and that everyone else is a little too “conservative/fundamentalist” or “liberal,” depending on where they are in relation to our stance.  I am not going to be arrogant enough to think that I have solved the problem, but I am going to explain what I have concluded on the question of the historicity and “reality” of early Biblical material.

     Until 1700, the Bible provided the general Western scenario for understanding human origins and history.  It was taken for granted that an intelligent creator was responsible for the universe and the various lifeforms that inhabit our planet.  The evidence of ancient civilizations was interpreted in harmony with Biblical concepts.  The fact that neither archaeological nor historical evidence could confirm the existence of the ancient cities of Erech, Accad, Calneh, Ur, Babylon, etc. (Genesis 10:10-13), the Hittites (Genesis 15:20), or of an Assyrian king named "Sargon" (Isaiah 20:1) was assumed to be a reflection on secular studies rather than "proof" that the Bible was untrustworthy.  However, things changed rapidly in post-reformation Europe with the rise of the French Enlightenment and naturalistic philosophers who were intentionally hostile toward the Biblical worldview.  The philosophy of naturalistic transformism (i.e. “evolutionary progress”) was the "in" scenario in 19th-20th century Western intellectual circles and came to be viewed as philosophical "orthodoxy" amongst the upper classes in Europe and the United States by 1930.  With this transition, trust was removed from the Bible (on the assumption that it was mostly non-historical myth) and transferred to the evolutionary scenario (European intellectuals tended to assume the truth of Darwinism within 20 years of its appearance).  That most of this transition was accomplished on the basis of faith in the philosophical presuppositions of the Enlightenment rather than actual historical and archaeological evidence escaped the notice of many academics eager to jump on whatever paradigmatic bandwagon is currently passing by.  The absence of evidence confirming Biblical stories was now taken as “positive proof” for the Bible’s worthlessness as a historical document.

     Consequently, while apologetics or Bible "evidences" were once employed to silence the occasional skeptic, it has now become necessary to "validate" the Biblical worldview against a general public misconception that the Old Testament is, largely, worthless myths and legends.  It is now commonly promoted in the media and secular academia that "all intelligent and educated people accept the fact of evolution" just as anyone who believes the Bible is automatically assumed to be "ignorant, blind, misguided, right-wing, fundamentalist, narrow-minded, bigoted" and so on ad nauseum.

An Argument for Consistency

     This section is written for all, but especially for those who are content to believe the supernatural elements of the New Testament but then slide over to embrace the materialistic and naturalistic evolutionary scenario and “allegorize” the supernatural elements of the Old Testament - especially the Book of Genesis.  The study of history is crucial, because the Bible claims to present a framework for world history and has been attacked as a valid historical source.  In Western culture, two major stories have been slugging it out.  First, there is the traditional Biblical story with God creating, occasionally intervening, and revealing the essentials of what happened through selected people.  Second, there is the Enlightenment’s naturalistic evolutionary development story, wherein matter’s existence is assumed and then inanimate chemicals somehow came to life and have been upwardly progressing for billions of years, as they naturally transformed themselves into worms, fish, tree shrews, apes, and, finally, humans, with the most recent generation always being the peak of development.  There is also a third option - a good number of folks who are trying to live with a combination of the two stories – theistic evolutionists (God created by using evolutionary processes over a long, long time.  Essentially, they want to be “intellectually respectable” enough so as to not be labeled “ignorant fundamentalists,” but recognize that eternal life sounds pretty good and want that also.  I grew up in this third camp and both my evolutionary and theological understanding was pretty shallow and murky until I was forced to take a serious look at both.

     Is Genesis 1-11 a superstitious “fairy tale” about non-realities – gardens, dirt-men, rib-girls, talking serpents - which enlightened modern man can simply no longer believe?  Or, is the notion that chemicals, given enough time, accidentally turned into people little more than a secular nature myth to justify the atheism of 20th century rebels who do not want to acknowledge and submit to a Creator? 

     First, I took a serious look at evolution, which I assumed to be true, and discovered two things – inductive study of observable realities (what goes on under the “scientific method”) is truly “science” and, generally, a very good thing.  Second, I gradually came to realize that latched on and riding under the belly of “modern Western science,” often out of sight and unrecognized like an external parasite, was the materialistic naturalism of the Enlightenment.  Rather than truly operate from a position of neutrality and objectivity, the Enlightenment had hijacked Western science and injected its own philosophical agenda - assuming that only the natural realm exists, that progress was inherent in natural systems, and that only human reason can uncover any “truth”!  Thus, 19th century “science” soon asserted a story about matter transforming itself into all of the existing lifeforms, over long periods of time, and taking occasional arrogant potshots at the Bible and anyone who would take it seriously.  There seemed to be an enormous philosophical agenda going on, which was generally trying to hide under the label of “science and reason,” but was little more than bold claims and bluster to endorse a philosophical agenda.  As I looked deeper, I found that “evolution” had been promoted with overstated and bogus evidences – falsified embryo drawings, fraudulent skulls of “ape-men,” artistic charts of human ancestors made of largely non-ancestors that fit the imagined picture, synthesizing non-living building blocks for life in glass apparatus, peppered moths that really didn’t change at all, fossilized horse feet, similar skeletal structures, taxonomic “trees” with nothing real except at the tips of the branches, bird beaks that cycle through small variations, genetically mutilated fruit flies, etc.  Old earth geology sprung from the mind of two amateur geologists who simply and willfully ignored evidences of “catastrophic” (sudden, major change) events.  In the larger universe, it seems that “Big Bang” thinking also has major assumptions involved in the reasoning process that might not be true.  As I continue to watch these things, my skepticism continues to grow and, while I have no problem with the smaller variations matter, I have concluded that the “grand transformation” myth (chemicals to chemists) simply did not happen (whether you put God “at the controls” or not) and the “evolutionary revision” of history and the Biblical story are equally untrue.

     Second, the Bible claims to originate with God, but can it be taken as a credible story of where we came from and what happened?  What am I going to do with “miracle” stories?  If you are going to hold that Genesis contains “fairy tale” and myths of unreal events and people, then at what point does the Old Testament begin to speak of “real” events and people?  Why should I believe the NT stories of Jesus’ miracles and resurrection, His apostles healing people of sickness and raising them from the dead, and hope for a final divine intervention – the 2^nd coming?  If I can believe that a virgin girl can have a baby, that this baby grew up, healed diseases, raised dead people to life, and give similar power to His Apostles – and it really did happen and is worthy of my “faith” – then, why is it so difficult to accept the origin of the first two people from dirt and a rib, one case of a talking animal, water being manipulated in a few cases, and plagues being sent against Egypt?  Why is the supernatural story of the first man/woman being formed miraculously from dirt/rib by God so much tougher to take seriously than the incredible naturalistic whopper that people came from “chemicals + time + chance in a warm little pond and then 600 million years of fortunate genetic accidents and impersonal nature “making selections”???????

     How consistent is it to believe the NT miracles really happened, but relegate the Old Testament miracles to “fairy tale” status?  Isn’t the same God at work in both eras?  Why does philosophical naturalism and anti-supernaturalism only kick in for some with the beginnings, but not for 2,000 years ago?  As for history, why should one think that Genesis only begins to speak of real people with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, around 4,000 years ago?  The same writer and in the same literary style discussed named people and specific events in the first eleven chapters of Genesis – Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Seth, Enoch, Noah, and Shem?  If these weren’t real people and real events, what are they?  What did happen prior to 2,000 B.C.?  On what basis are they determined to be “mythological non-realities”?  If you do believe the New Testament material, what are you going to do with Jesus and His apostles treating the events and people of Genesis 1-11 as realities?  How “intellectually respectable” is it to relegate everything prior to 2,000 B.C. into a murky “I don’t know” and leave it at that?

     Consider the ramifications for rejecting Genesis 1-11.  First of all, what kind of an “origins” story will you embrace (not committed to the whole evolutionary story, but also don’t believe Genesis – no opinion?  nothing happened?)?  Second, you will run into continual problems with later biblical material – God, in the Ten Commandments, affirmed the truthfulness of the creation account and it was the foundation for Israel’s Sabbath (Exodus 20:8-11).  God’s message to Israel through the prophet Hosea assumed the reality of Adam and what he did (Hosea 6:7).  Adam seems to have been as real a person as everyone else in Jesus’ genealogical lineage (Luke 3:38).  Paul described an era of time, from Adam to Moses, as though it was a reality from one point to the other (Romans 5:14) and clearly accepted the historical reality of Adam as a foundation for his discussions of other issues (1Corinthians 15:22,45; 1Timothy 2:14,15), as did Jude (Jude 14).  Eve is treated like a real person as much by Paul (2Corinthians 11:3; 1Timothy 2:13) as in Genesis (3:20; 4:1).  Cain and Abel were “real people” to the New Testament writers (Hebrews 11:4; 1John 3:12; Jude 1:11).  The NT writers also mention Enoch (Genesis 5:22-24) as a real man (Luke 3:37; Hebrews 11:5; Jude 14).

     You see, its hard to discount the reality of people in Genesis 1-11 without raising some serious questions about the NT writers – were they blindly (and ignorantly?) assuming the truthfulness of Genesis 1-11, while we “enlightened moderns know” that it didn’t really happen like that?  Further, if the NT writers were ignorantly passing on faulty, unreal myths from Genesis, were they doing the same with Jesus – inventing a savior figure and embellishing him with untrue miracle accounts that only we moderns are sufficiently savvy to recognize for what they are?  This is exactly where the Enlightenment rationalists wound up – rejecting the whole story as untrue “myth” and telling others to do the same.

     So, what are we to do?  The mere distance of time makes it difficult for us now to “prove” that Genesis 1-11 reflects historical reality, but we’re equally separated from the ability to “observe and prove” that these chapters do NOT reflect reality.  However, we can consider historical and archaeological evidence that will help us to judge the “probability” of what we read there.  I am assuming this – SOMETHING happened prior to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and I was at least willing to consider the possibility that God is not “fibbing” to us in Genesis 1-11 about what it was.  I am also aware of something else – Westerners are the “children of the Enlightenment” and have been taught to think in terms of materialism and naturalistic development.  The evolutionary progress paradigm also implies that we are, inherently, wiser, smarter, and better than all who walked this planet before us (evolution suggests that the current generation is always the “most advanced”) and this approach might distort our view of the past (and the present).

The Patriarchal Era (Creation to Moses)

     Genesis 1 tells us simply that, in a rather short period of time, God created the physical universe and major kinds of life that would then reproduce “within their kinds.”  The Bible describes humans as appearing fully human and language/technology capable from the beginning.  While moral evil enters quickly, we also soon learn that "giants" (nephilim - Genesis 6:4) were on the earth before the flood and remnants of these were still present centuries later (Numbers 13:33 and Goliath's family).  While the reference does not offer us as much information as we might like, science today knows from fossil evidence that lifeforms on the early earth were once much larger than current specimens - sharks, alligators, birds, beavers, reptiles, etc.  Now it is becoming clear that humans also were larger than today.^[3]

     While it is understandable that the pre-flood world's records and accomplishments would be largely unavailable for comparison with Genesis 1-6, it is largely ignored by the secularists and evolutionists that early post-flood Middle Eastern cultures shared a very similar view of major pre-flood events.  These parallels are exactly what would be expected if those things actually happened.  That the ancient Middle Eastern stories generally agree only up to the great flood is also to be expected, since the descendants of the flood survivors would have gone off in their own directions after the tower of Babel incident and their individual histories and cultures would diverge after that point.  The idea that a great flood once destroyed almost all life on land is found in the cultural traditions of over 120 people groups.  It is with post-flood culture that our investigation can reasonably begin in earnest.

Parallels with Early Mesopotamian Cosmologies (Genesis 1-11)

     There is a general understanding that Genesis and ancient middle eastern mythology do contain some obvious major parallels - divine creation, man made from dirt/clay with some divine qualities, long pre-flood lifespans, rebellion, and a major flood judgment.^[4]  The earliest Sumerian legend, the Eridu Genesis, appears to describe the creation of humans and animals, the building of the first cities, and the great flood.  While such could be a matter of literary dependence, confident evolutionists never seem to even consider another explanation - that both reflect a common memory of real historic events!  Although the numbers differ, the idea of longer human life spans prior to the flood is also seen in the Sumerian king-list, nam-lugal (kingship), which was found at Kish, south of modern Baghdad and names eight kings who reigned a total of 241,200 years, then a great flood swept over the earth, followed by a list of 39 post-diluvian kings who reign for a total of 26,997 years.^[5]  Similar accounts exist in the ancient Babylonian Enuma Elish and Epic of Gilgamesh, both found in the palace of the Assyrian King Ashur-banipal.

     The Great Flood - Although modern Western civilization has willfully rejected the story of a great flood long ago, as the Apostle Peter predicted (2Peter 3:3-6), this was the common story that numerous ancient cultures held in common for centuries.  As we have already noted it can be found in several ancient legends of Mesopotamia, the Picts and Celts, the Toltec Indians of Mexico, the legends surrounding the building of Tiahuanico in South America, the Miao people of southern China, New Guinea, etc.  The ancient Chinese pictograph for "boat" (right) combined three smaller symbols: vessel + eight + mouths/people.  Researchers have found most of the crucial elements of Genesis 1-11 embedded in these the ancient Chinese pictographs.^[6]  The ancient Greeks and Romans grew up with the story of Deucalion and Pyhrra, who saved their children and a collection of animals by boarding a vessel shaped like a giant box.  In fact, it appears that what is rare is to find a culture that does NOT have a flood legend.^[7]

     "Flood geology," or trying to explain the earth's geological features and strata as a result of major catastrophic events, including the great flood, has fallen out of favor with the adoption of Hutton & Lyell's "uniformitarian" (long, slow effects of non-catastrophic forces).  However, as we shall see later, Hutton and Lyell may have succeeded in selling an idea, but they ignored a lot of evidence to do it.  One estimate is that 99% of all the world's fossils are found in sedimentary (water-laid sediments) rock.  Much of the burial that occurred had to be fairly rapid, for even soft vegetation and fragile creatures like jelly fish were perfectly preserved in fossils.  There are numerous trees which were fossilized standing upright and extending through numerous feet of different strata - those layers had to be deposited within the period of time that the tree was healthy enough to survive the process, possibly pretty rapidly.  Recent volcanic eruptions at Mt. St. Helens have given proof that even hundreds of feet of stratified material can be deposited in a very short time – in an afternoon.  Buried cities, which are now below sea level, have been found in widely separated areas, such as Florida^[8] and the Arctic.^[9]  In 1999-2000, Robert Ballard found evidence of human habitation (as many as 50 possible sites) over 300 feet below the present surface of the Black Sea (dwelling, stone tools, ceramic storage vessels) and dated the overwhelming of the site by water c. 5,500 B.C.

Post-Flood Civilizations (ca. 4-3,000 B.C.)

     When post-reformation European skeptics were ridiculing the book of Genesis as myth and legend written long after 1400 B.C., archaeology was little more than treasure hunting.  It was easy to assert that "no one could write in Moses' time" and to simply deny the existence of Nimrod and his cities, the Hittites, Sargon, etc., because there was no hard evidence to confirm these things at that time.  Although the assumptions of the evolutionary worldview were adopted as “fact” by those skeptical of the Biblical view long before they had been tested or proven themselves, archaeology became more of a “science” and slowly began to demonstrate that the ancient world was not simply a "lower stage of human evolution" and that the Bible was much more accurate than its critics had given it credit for.

     Secular historical/archaeological sources take us back to the first Middle Eastern civilization builders, the Sumerians, who claimed great longevity for their ancestors (Sumerian King list - left), to have survived a great flood, and to have come from "Aratta."  These people seem to have been somewhat influential in the founding of three great pockets of civilization, which suddenly emerged in the Nile, Tigris-Euphrates, and Indus River Valleys around 3500-3,000 B.C.^[10]  Excavations of some of the earliest cities (Ur, Erech, Akkad) coincide with the Biblical record of Nimrod's empire-building (Genesis 10:9-12).

Mesopotamia, Nimrod, and the Tower of Babel (Genesis 10-11)

     The "Table of Nations" (Genesis 10) details some of the Middle Eastern nationalities that arose from Noah's three sons and their descendants and came to be scattered as a result of the confusion at Babel.  R. K. Harrison provides a key for identifying some of the names.^[11]  From Japheth came Gomer (Cimmerians), Ashkenaz (Scythians), Madai (Medes), Javan (Ionians), and the Doderim (Rhodes).  Those coming from Ham are Cush (Ethiopia), Sheba (Saba), Mizraim (Egypt), Caphtorim (Cretans), Heth (Hittites), and the Hivites (Hurrians).  And from Shem, he notes Elam, Asshur (Assyria), Shebam and Aram.  There was a tradition among the Picts, the earliest settlers of Scotland, that traced their origins to Japheth, the son of Noah who survived the great Flood.  They believed that their ancestors had moved westward from the Tigris-Euphrates area, along the northern Mediterranean coast, and became what history would know as the Celtic people - Spanish Basques, Bretons, Irish and Scottish Celts/Picts.^[12]

     In the histories of the Toltec Indians of ancient Mexico, there is a tradition of 1,716 years of human history before a great flood, after which the survivors built a great tower, but dispersed when their language became confused.  The Toltecs believed they came from a family of seven friends and their wives who spoke the same language, crossed great waters, lived in caves, and wandered 104 years until they came to Hue Hue Tlapalan (southern Mexico).  This was 520 years after the great flood.

     Hislop traced the ancient records and found a fascinating correlation between pagan mythology and the Biblical record.  Cush, the father of Nimrod, was known to the ancient world as Bel (the "Confounder") and he was the father of Ninus.  The wife of Ninus, Semiramis, was the first deified queen of ancient Babylon and, with her worship possibly in place before the division of language groups, it is easy to see why there was a widespread and similar concept of a "mother goddess" known around the Middle East and Mediterranean world by a number of different names in different areas - Isis, Ishtar, Astarte, Ashtoreth, Diana, Cybele, Rhea, etc.^[13]  Will Durant adds that one of the two pre-flood rulers immortalized by Sumerian priest-historians, Tammuz (the other was Gilgamish), became the Greek god Adonis.^[14]

The European Nations and their Link to the Early Patriarchs

     Although modern historians give little attention to the Bible’s “Table of Nations” (Genesis 10) and its connection with modern nations, it appears that this is not due to a lack of evidence.  Bill Cooper^[15] has presented thought-provoking evidence that the early nations of Europe and their royal houses did trace their lineage back to the Biblical Noah, through his son Japheth.  Citing numerous ancient documents, Cooper demonstrates that the Gauls, Scythians, Goths, Medes, Iberians, Spanish, Italians, Alfred the Great’s lineage, Danish, Norwegian, Icelandic, Irish, and Anglo-Saxon royal houses all traced their origins back to the Middle Eastern patriarchs mentioned in Genesis 5 & 10.  Along with some information on ancient estimates for the date of creation and the flood, Cooper also discusses the numerous reports amongst ancient people concerning the monsters and dragons that persisted for a time and were eventually killed off (dinosaurs after the flood?).

World of the Patriarchs (ca. 2200-1800 B.C.)

     Libraries, consisting of thousands of clay tablets, have been found at Ebla (right), Mari, Nuzi, etc. and reveal a highly advanced Middle Eastern civilization during Abraham's time.  Archaeological evidence has come to light that may confirm the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah (Ebla Tablets) and Josephus (Wars IV:8.iv) indicated that the ruins were still visible in the first century A.D.

     The Hurrian town of Nuzi has yielded ancient texts which reveal that Abraham's plan to make Eliezer his heir (Genesis 15:2,3), Sarai's plan to have children through a surrogate slave-girl (Genesis 16:2), the transfer of Esau's birthright (Genesis 25:31-34), the importance of the father's blessing (Genesis 27:27ff), Rachel's taking of the household idols (Genesis 31:19 - left), and such are in perfect harmony with the cultural practices of the time and area in which the Biblical patriarchs lived.^[16]  Genesis 23 was written by someone with an “intimate knowledge of intricate subtleties of Hittite laws and customs” prior to 1200 B.C.^[17]

The Mosaic Era (1446 B.C. - 30 A.D.)

     1. "Moses" is an appropriate name for someone brought into the royal Egyptian household in the 1500's B.C., for Pharaohs of that era were named Ahmose, Ahmosis, Thutmose, etc.

     2. Pharaoh’s daughter (Exodus 2:5) finds a likely parallel in Hatshepsut (1501-1479 B.C.)^[18] and at the time of the 10th plague in Egypt (ca. 1446 B.C.) it turned out that the first-born Egyptian Prince did not follow his father to the throne.^[19]  The exodus is noted in Roman history with Tacitus' account of the Hebrews being expelled from Egypt because of a plague or disease.^[20]

     3. Joshua's Conquest (1405-1398 B.C.) is paralleled by the Amarna letters (right), which contain  calls for help, from Canaan to Egypt, against the Habiru that were conquering sections of Canaan around 1400 B.C.  Archaeologists claim that there is little evidence of destruction of towns in Canaan around 1400 B.C., although this is what we should expect since the Israelites wanted to preserve and take over Canaanite towns and vineyards intact (Deuteronomy 6:10-11).  The book of Joshua records that only three Canaanite towns were destroyed and burned during the conquest (6:24; 8:28; 11:11,13).  Shortly after the conquest, an Egyptian Pharaoh (Akhenaton/Amenhophis IV, 1379-1362 B.C. - left) tried to turn all Egypt to the worship of one God - could this have been a reaction to what had occurred in Israel’s exodus, wilderness wandering, and conquest of Canaan?  Could at least one influential Egyptian have caught the significance of what had happened (Exodus 9:13-16) and tried to turn his nation to monotheism?  If not, how do you explain Akhenaton's radical efforts?

     4. The era of the Judges (1360-1050 B.C.) speaks of Israel being overrun and conquered by neighboring countries and battles being fought.  Is this the evidence of 13th century B.C. destruction that liberal scholars want to associate with the late-dated conquest?  Let’s take a closer look at this issue.

Can We Believe the Biblical Accounts of the Exodus/Conquest?

     Following the Reformation, religious skepticism crept into every major state church and Christian denomination as the result of the Enlightenment’s shift in intellectual confidence from divine revelation to human reason.  Slowly, those who had embraced the philosophical assumptions of the Enlightenment subjected every historical element in the Bible to doubt and re-interpretation.^[21]  Because "miracles" are not common today (how could a "miracle" be common or “normal”?) and the very notion is abhorrent to one who embraces naturalistic philosophy, they have tended to be dealt with by a two-step process.  First, the essential events, while still acknowledged as occurring, are given naturalistic explanations to account for what happened.  After this has settled in for a generation or two, the second step is employed - deny that the events even occurred.  History has often been totally re-written by later generations that want to justify a new viewpoint.  All you have to do to deceive people about the past is stop telling them what really happened, under the pretense that previous history was “biased” and then slowly fashion a new story that fits the current agenda.  Since most people are intellectually lazy and do not want to read, think, learn, and/or question what is commonly being taught, this is an easy thing to accomplish.

      We must consider dating the exodus and conquest together because the archaeological issues that are generally raised for both are closely linked to the conquest of Canaan.  The integrity of Scripture, as well as the issue of historic reality, is at stake here, so this is no trivial matter.

     The Alternative Views - Current scholarly opinion, generally rooted in Enlightenment presuppositions and biased toward non-traditional explanations, has come up with an alternative to the traditional/Biblical date for the Exodus.  Some, like George Mendenhall have even gone so far as to simply deny that it happened at all – they tell us that some Canaanites rebelled against their masters and slowly turned into "the Israelites" over a period of time.  Others suggest that the Israelites did leave Egypt, but not until 1266/1260 B.C.

     The "No Exodus/No Conquest" View - This view (developed by Noth, Alt, Mendenhall, and Gottwald) asserts that archaeological evidence is lacking for any 1400 B.C. destruction of Canaanite cities (Jericho, AI, Gibeon, Makkedah, Libnah, Lachish, Eglon, Hebron, Debir, and Hazor) and that rather than "invading/conquering" Canaan, it was taken over from within by a group of Canaanite shepherds who began permanent hilltop settlements and became the “Israelites”.  Building upon the assumptions of Wellhausen’s “Documentary Hypothesis,“ this view rejects the bulk of essential OT material - Israel didn't "receive the Law" at Sinai, but monotheistic YHWH-ism was invented centuries later as a unification tool in opposition to the religion of Canaanite kings.  This was the explanation offered by Silberman in Archaeology magazine,

What seems almost certain, however, is that the story of the bloody conquest of the land of Canaan as a unified military campaign led by a single, divinely directed leader was woven together centuries later-an anachronistic saga of triumph on the battlefield, crafted and compiled by loyal court poets anxious to flatter the later Israelite and Judean kings.^[22]

Silberman did acknowledge that this view began with 18th century European scholars who were “relying more on reason than reverence” and had “turned to naturalistic explanations” (p. 24).

     The "Late-Date" Exodus View - This theory, once popular in liberal scholarship, proposes that the Israelite exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan did occur, but it happened much later than the Biblical record suggests.  They would put the exodus between 1266-1260 B.C. and a 12-tribe Israelite confederacy in Canaan by 1231 B.C.  In this view, Ramses II (1304-1236 B.C.) is held to be the pharaoh of the exodus.  The classic Cecil B. DeMille film, "The Ten Commandments" was built on this scenario.  The reasons offered in support of this view are as follows.  First of all, Nelson Glueck, in the 1930's and '40's, claimed that there were no sedentary populations in the Negev and Trans-Jordan areas between 1900-1300 B.C. for Israel to have encountered.  His basis was pottery on the surface and on mound slopes.  Thus, the exodus and wilderness wandering could not have occurred before 1300 B.C.  Second, it is assumed that the city of "Ramses" (Exodus 1:11) could not have been built before 1400 B.C. because it was built by and named after Ramses II (1304-1236 B.C.).  Third, there is evidence of widespread devastation of cities in central Canaan during the 13th century and this is taken as evidence of Israel’s “conquest” in the 1200's B.C.

     The Traditional/Biblical View - The "Early/Traditional" view for dating the exodus affirms the Biblical perspective, that the Israelites left Egypt under Moses' leadership and received the Law at Mt. Sinai.  This view asserts that the exodus occurred around 1446 B.C. and was followed by the conquest of Canaan, under Joshua, around 1405-1398 B.C.  The evidences for this view, in my mind, are still compelling.

     First, this is the Biblical viewpoint.  While acceptance of the traditional date begins with a reverence for Scripture on the part of believers,^[23] the alternative views likewise often begin with an element of reverence for a "non-traditional" explanation - the "Athenian complex" (Acts 17:19-21), if you will.  On the whole, the Bible has a pretty impressive track record as a historical source and it should not be discounted without clear and convincing evidence.  The standard liberal arguments against Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the dates of the exodus/conquest, the validity/dating of Daniel, and such turn out to be far from convincing unless one is already “leaning that way.”  From my examination, the liberal theories have proven to be little more than a good dose of skepticism, a pinch of circumstantial evidence, and silence on the conservative evidence or objections to the liberal argument.  If skeptics were as "objective" about their own theories as they are about the Biblical view, we would have fewer alternative theories!  The skeptics doubt the conquest occurred around 1400 B.C., because there is little evidence of Canaanite cities/towns being destroyed at that time, while there is evidence of widespread destruction of cities/towns in the 1200's B.C.  To my mind this fits the biblical picture perfectly, for the Biblical conquest was purposely NOT supposed to be destructive so that the cities and dwellings would be available for Israelite occupation afterwards^[24] - only Jericho, Ai, and Hazor were said to have been destroyed and burnt by Joshua!  The devastation in the 1200's B.C. is to be expected on the basis of the account that Israel was often overrun by oppressors during the period of the Judges (ca. 1350-1150 B.C.).

     Second, the circumstantial historical evidence is supportive of the traditional view.  The situation in Egypt is right for the story of Moses if it is placed against the backdrop of Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, and the throne mysteriously not passing to his oldest son (died in the 10^th plague?).  Along with this, Amenhotep II was powerful and militaristic, but his last campaign into Canaan occurred the same year as the exodus and his successor, Amenhotep III (1417-1379 B.C.), ruled during Joshua's conquest of Canaan and seemed to purposely ignore Canaan and only sent military expeditions south into Nubia.  Both he and his son, Amenhotep IV (1379-1362 B.C.) received letters from Canaan (the "Tell Amarna" letters) which sought immediate Egyptian aid in view of the conquest/turmoil associated with the Apiru/Habiru in the early 1400's B.C.  Another suspicious element is the fact that Amenhotep IV revolted against traditional Egyptian religion and tried to turn Egypt to the worship of one, all-encompassing deity represented by the sun.  This is not hard to understand if he was reacting to what had recently occurred with Israel's exodus and conquest of Canaan!  Tacitus (Histories, book V:3 "The Jews") cites numerous stories of where the Jews came from, but says that most authorities believe that they were ejected from Egypt in connection with a disease.  On the other hand, trying to make Ramses II the Pharaoh of the exodus forces one to so compress the Biblical timeframe that it borders on being impossible to find the time for 40 years in the wilderness, the conquest, and the period of the Judges.  In fact, this creates such a time problem that some have even tried to place at least part of the conquest before the exodus!^[25]

     Third, the archeological evidence (or lack of it) is in harmony with the traditional view.  Nelson Glueck made a quick "surface" survey of the Negev and Trans-Jordan and drew an erroneous conclusion, because further investigation of a more scientific nature has shown that many of the sites were, in fact, settled and powerful in 1400 B.C.

     As for the storage cities built by the Israelites (Exodus 1:11), they actually “rebuilt” cities that had fallen into ruin.  The late dating is based on the assumption that “Ramses” must refer to Ramses II (1304-1237).  However, it is now known that the name was used as far back as the 12th dynasty, could have been in use since the Hyksos period, and has been found on wall paintings dating to the time of Amenhotep IV.^[26]  Also, the Biblical text suggests that a period of time passed between the Israelites' work on these cities and the exodus, so, if they were named for Ramses II, this would push the exodus to an impossibly late date.

     While we have already noted that the lack of Canaanite devastation around 1400 B.C. is in perfect agreement with Israel's desire to keep the cities and houses intact, we might note that controversy still exists concerning the three cities said to be destroyed and burnt in the conquest (Jericho, Ai, Hazor).  Both Garstang (Jericho) and Yadin (Hazor) argued for destruction dates around 1400 B.C.^[27]  It is still undecided as to whether or not the original site of Ai has even been found.  Since there is a well-attested stela which indicates that Pharaoh Merneptah (1236-1223 B.C.) led an expedition into upper Canaan in 1231 B.C. and defeated an "Israel" which was already settled in the land,^[28] it is impossible to have Israel leave Egypt in 1266-1260 B.C., wander in the wilderness for 40 years (1266-1226 B.C.), then go through seven years of conquest in Canaan (1226-1219 B.C.), yet have Merneptah bragging about defeating a credible Israelite nation already established in northern Israel five years earlier (1231 B.C.)!  As I have already noted, the evidence of widespread devastation of cities and towns in 13th century B.C. Canaan does not point to the conquest, but to the Judges era.  There is no inscription evidence to explain the nature of the 13th century destruction, so no one knows if it was the result of invasion or civil war.  However, the book of Judges explains why there would have been devastation - Israel was overrun and conquered by a number of outside enemies during this time.

     Final Thoughts - With time, more information has come to light that suggests the validity of the traditional Biblical story.  First of all, when Kathleen Kenyon died in 1978, her final report on Jericho had not been released.  When it was released, in 1982-3, it vindicated Garstang’s original conclusion – City IV had been destroyed violently around 1400 B.C., with evidence that something like an earthquake had hit prior to the burning.  The “store-cities” were not built just before the exodus, but had been built/maintained for some time prior to the exodus.  Nelson Gluek’s “surface survey’s” (in the 1930’s), suggesting a lack of people and settlements in the Trans-Jordan for Israel to interact with prior to the conquest, were simply misleading – further surveys conducted in 1963, 1966, 1975, and 1978 revealed some thirty-two Middle Bronze II sites.  Again, rejection of the traditional view was not warranted by this element, either.  Also, excavations at Taanach, Megiddo, Gezer, and Beth-Shean revealed no transitions or breaks around 1400 B.C., supporting the Biblical view that Israel failed to take these sites at that time.^[29]

The Era of the Israelite Kingdoms (1050-586 B.C.)

     Some have raised questions about the dates of various king's reigns, but Edwin Thiele's The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings demonstrates that the Biblical chronology and dating is quite accurate when understood in its historical and cultural context.  Essentially, what Thiele demonstrated was that the problems can all be solved easily when co-regencies and the use of both "accession year/non-accession year" dating systems are recognized.

      David’s men probably took Jerusalem (2Samuel 5:8) by means of what is now known as “Warren’s shaft.”  The Moabite Stone (right), found in 1868, mentions king Mesha (2Kings 3:4), as well as the Israelite kings Omri and Ahab and the divine name, Yahweh.

      Israelite history can be paralleled with Assyrian history at several points.  King Ahab of Israel is mentioned in an Assyrian inscription that describes the anti-Assyrian coalition that opposed Shalmaneser III at the battle of Karkar (853 B.C.).  The black obelisk of Shalmaneser III mentions the Israelite king, Jehu. 

       The Taylor Prism (left) gives Sennacherib’s account of the 701 B.C. failed siege of Jerusalem with the more positive claim that he had shut up Hezekiah “like a caged bird within his royal capital.”  The sons of Shaphan and Hilkiah (Jeremiah 36:10-12:25; 1Chronicles 6:13; 9:11) are mentioned in seals found in the ashes of the 586 B.C. destruction level.  Evidence of the idolatry attributed to the time of Josiah’s reformation has been found in caves around Jerusalem.^[30]  The Cyrus Cylinder (right) speaks of how Cyrus was chosen to rule Babylon, as well as allow captive peoples to return home to their own lands and temple.

The New Testament Era (5 B.C. - 100 A.D.)

     With a calendar adjustment necessitated by errors discovered later, Jesus was born (late 5 or early 4 B.C.) during the later reign of Herod the Great over Judea.  The account of boy babies killed in Bethlehem because of his fear of a possible rival to his throne (Matthew 2) is quite believable.  History informs us that this same man also killed a wife, a mother-in-law, three sons, etc. and wanted a number of Jerusalem’s leaders killed when he died so there would be mourning.  Jesus’ life began during the reign of the Roman Emperor Octavian/Augustus and died in 30 A.D., during the reign of Tiberius.  Archaeology has confirmed a sizable portion of the New Testament information concerning Roman administration, cities, and a number of events mentioned in the book of Acts.

Final Comments

     The critics made a lot of charges about the Bible being historically unreliable and these assertions created a widely accepted impression.  Unfortunately, the accumulation of evidence has pretty well refuted most of these charges, but few in the academic ranks have bothered to listen.  For those with eyes to see and ears to hear, the testimony is there.  Dr. Werner Keller, a noted scientific journalist from Germany, has written and spoken out on the historical validity of the Bible,

These breathtaking discoveries, whose significance it is impossible to grasp all at once, make it necessary for us to revise our views about the Bible.  Many events which previously passed for “pious tales” must now be judged to be historical. . . .In view of the overwhelming mass of authentic and well-attested evidence now available, as I thought of the skeptical criticism which from the eighteenth century onwards would fain have demolished the Bible altogether, there kept hammering on my brain this one sentence: “The Bible is right after all?”^[31]

In a similar manner, Dr. Clifford Wilson, a former director of the Australian Institute of Archaeology, has said,

Archaeology has in fact come down on the side of the Bible, even from the early chapters of Genesis. . . For the unbiased research student the evidence is compelling . . . The evidence has led me increasingly to accept the literal nature of the Bible record as authentic history.^[32]

CEM - 12/19/2005 

A Ministry of Severn Christian Church (Severn, Maryland)

Unless otherwise noted, all material produced by Charles E. McCoy

All Scripture citations/quotations from the New American Standard Bible

To send a question to Chuck: chuck@severnchristian.org