The recent discovery of a 3,500-year-old Egyptian fortress in northern Sinai has provided remarkable confirmation of both Egypt’s early imperial ambitions and the biblical record of the Exodus. The fortress, unearthed at Tell el-Kharouba and dating to the reign of Pharaoh Thutmose I, not only illuminates Egypt’s military reach but also explains why God did not lead the Israelites northward “by the way of the land of the Philistines” (Exodus 13:17).

1. Pharaoh of Moses’ Birth

Thutmose I reigned from approximately 1526-1512 B.C., the very year that Exodus 2 situates the birth of Moses.¹ His daughter, Hatshepsut, born early in his reign to the Great Royal Wife Ahmose, would later become Egypt’s first great female pharaoh.² It was almost certainly this princess—royal daughter of Thutmose I—who found the infant Moses among the reeds of the Nile and raised him as her own son in the Egyptian court.³

This makes Thutmose I the pharaoh during the infancy of Moses and the father of the woman who would shape the young Hebrew prince’s life within the palatial education of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The implications are striking: the very dynasty that nurtured Moses also constructed the fortified barriers God would later guide Israel to avoid.

2. Discovery of the Fortress

In October 2025, Egypt’s Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities announced the discovery of a vast New Kingdom fortress at Tell el-Kharouba, a site near the Mediterranean coast of northern Sinai. Excavations revealed a complex covering roughly 8,000 square meters (86,000 square feet), with a 106-meter-long (350 feet) southern wall and a zigzagging western wall designed to resist wind erosion. Eleven towers, storerooms, and ovens were found, along with fossilized dough—clear evidence of soldiers’ quarters.⁴

Most significant was a jar handle stamped with the royal cartouche of Thutmose I, found in the fortress’s foundational layer. This inscription anchors the structure firmly to his reign, identifying him as the pharaoh who commissioned this and other fortresses along the “Way of Horus,” a chain of garrisons stretching from the Nile Delta to Canaan.⁵ Archaeologists estimate the garrison held between 400 and 700 soldiers, averaging around 500 men—a formidable line of defense across Egypt’s northeastern frontier.⁶

3. The “Way of Horus” and the “Way of the Philistines”

This discovery directly correlates with the biblical geography of Exodus 13:17-18:

“Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, ‘Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt.’ But God led the people about, through the way of the wilderness of the Red sea.”

The “Way of the Philistines” described in Scripture is the same route Egyptians called the “Way of Horus.”⁷ It served as the main coastal highway between Egypt and Canaan, fortified by a dozen garrisons and supply stations. Professor James K. Hoffmeier—who excavated a similar fortress at Tell el-Borg—notes that Thutmose I “was the father of Egypt’s empire in Western Asia and likely a key player in the beginning of this defense system to which succeeding kings added more forts.”⁸

Thus, the very network that symbolized Egypt’s military might in Moses’ day also provides the historical backdrop for why the Israelites did not travel north. God’s decision to lead them through the wilderness and across the Red Sea was not only theological but tactical.

4. A Dynasty of Builders and Conquerors

The Eighteenth Dynasty, inaugurated by Ahmose I, was Egypt’s most powerful era. His successors—Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Thutmose II, Hatshepsut, and Thutmose III—expanded Egypt’s reach from Nubia to the Euphrates River. Thutmose I’s own stela from Tombos in Nubia records that “His Majesty crossed the Euphrates, the first of the kings of Egypt to do so,” confirming his Asiatic campaigns.⁹

This period aligns precisely with the early life of Moses. Thutmose I’s daughter Hatshepsut (the “daughter of Pharaoh” of Exodus 2) would later co-rule with her half-brother and husband Thutmose II, and after his death, reign as sole pharaoh. Her reign (ca. 1483 B.C.) corresponds to Moses’ exile in Midian, while her stepson Thutmose III—the conqueror of Canaan—fits the profile of the pharaoh of the Exodus if one follows an early-date chronology (Exodus 1446 B.C.).¹⁰

The newly discovered fortress of Thutmose I, therefore, represents more than an Egyptian outpost—it is an archaeological witness to the world in which Moses was born, reared, and later led God’s people out of bondage.

5. Archaeology Illuminating Scripture

Every new discovery from Egypt’s New Kingdom adds clarity to the biblical world. The Tell el-Kharouba fortress confirms that Egypt’s northeastern frontier was heavily militarized centuries before Israel’s departure, consistent with the Bible’s description of the “way of the Philistines.”

As Kenneth A. Kitchen writes in On the Reliability of the Old Testament, “the military road from Egypt to Gaza was well-known from pharaonic times … clearly fortified and garrisoned, and not a route for untrained tribes escaping bondage.”¹¹ Even liberal Egyptologists such as Thomas Eric Peet agree that “the writer [of Exodus] meant the great military highway that formed the chief route from Egypt to Syria.”¹²

For modern readers, the archaeology of the Sinai fortresses serves as a vivid reminder that Scripture’s geography and chronology align with the physical record of the ancient world.

6. Conclusion: Stones Cry Out

The fortress at Tell el-Kharouba stands as a silent monument to Egypt’s imperial might—and to God’s providential guidance. The same Pharaoh Thutmose I, who launched campaigns into Canaan and ordered fortresses along the Way of Horus, reigned when a Hebrew infant floated down the Nile into the arms of his daughter. That child would one day challenge the empire’s gods and lead his people to freedom.

Archaeology continues to affirm what faith has long held: the Bible’s history is anchored in reality. Every wall unearthed in Sinai, every seal inscribed with a royal name, and every fortress brick bears witness to the same truth—“the word of the LORD endures forever.”

[Dr. Jonathan Moore is a field archaeologist with the Shiloh Excavation in Israel, an adjunct faculty member at Freed-Hardeman University, and founder of Seeing His World, a missions-based educational nonprofit dedicated to providing academically grounded yet spiritually transformative guided experiences throughout the Bible lands (www.seeinghisworld.com).]

Endnotes

¹ Kenneth A. Kitchen(2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), pp. 308-309.

² Joyce Tyldesley (1996), Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh (London: Penguin), pp. 44-45.

³ Exodus 2:1-10.

⁴ Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and Antiquities, Press Release, October 2025; Sonja Anderson (2025), “Archaeologists Discover 3,500-Year-Old Egyptian Military Fortress in the Sinai Desert,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 21.

⁵ Micah van Halteren (2025), “3,500-Year-Old Egyptian Fortress Uncovered Along the ‘Way of the Land of the Philistines,’” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, November 10.

⁶ Hesham Hussein (2025), quoted in Live Science, October.

⁷ Thomas Eric Peet (1922), Egypt and the Old Testament (Liverpool: University Press), p. 69.

⁸ James K. Hoffmeier (1997), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 116-118.

⁹ Tombos Stela in James H. Breasted (1906), Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), 2:301-307.

¹⁰ Douglas Petrovich (2015), “Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh,” Bible and Spade, 28:35-43.

¹¹ Kitchen, p. 262.

¹² Thomas Eric Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, p. 70.

The post Fortress of Thutmose I Unearthed Along the “Way of Horus” Validates the Exodus Narrative appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Only a few years before the Scopes trial, Darrow authored a short pamphlet titled Absurdities of the Bible. He sought to debunk Scripture through ridicule and rhetorical flair. Despite his impressive understanding of the legal system, Darrow’s approach to the Bible betrayed a conspicuous lack of familiarity with the book he aimed to discredit. His pamphlet featured a staggering amount of misinformation about the Bible, as well as theological illiteracy and a disregard for the Bible’s historical, cultural, and literary context.

What if we were to cross-examine Darrow’s treatment of the evidence? In Absurdities of the Bible, he makes the following blunders:

• Darrow used numerous logical fallacies in his pamphlet. One of his favorites is the strawman fallacy—he caricatures biblical content and treats texts as if all Christians read them with extreme literalness, ignoring genre and figures of speech. He employs ad hominem attacks, as in his description of Christians as decidedly anti-intellectual.² Darrow makes a false analogy by highlighting miraculous birth stories outside of the biblical text, implying that the story of Jesus’ birth must be equally untrue.³ He often commits the fallacy of hasty generalization in condemning the text as morally bankrupt based on isolated and misinterpreted examples. Finally, he commits the fallacy of bifurcation—also known as the false dichotomy—in claiming that either a person uses reason and rejects the Bible or believes biblical stories at the expense of using any intelligence.⁴
• He claims that the Bible teaches a flat Earth,⁵ although it does not.⁶ Critics often mistakenly cite phenomenological language (describing how things appear to an observer, rather than how they objectively are; Ecclesiastes 1:5) or poetic phrases such as “the four corners of the earth” (Isaiah 11:12; Revelation 7:1; see also Ezekiel 7:2) as evidence (it should be telling that the overwhelming majority of texts that supposedly teach a flat Earth are poetic in nature).⁷
• Darrow’s mockery of the Balaam narrative in Numbers 22-24 mistakenly refers to the prophet as a Jew. He also refers to Asia as “a land of myth and fable and ignorance in the main.”⁸ Both statements could be read as ethnocentric in origin and as racially insensitive.

Darrow’s disparaging pamphlet is little more than an intellectually bankrupt screed. He often inserts details not found in the text and dishonestly exaggerates biblical details to accentuate their supposed absurdity. Darrow may have been a skilled lawyer, but when it came to understanding Christianity, he was far out of his depth. Between the Absurdities of the Bible and the Scopes “Monkey” Trial, Darrow had a winless record of 0-2 against Scripture.

For all his courtroom brilliance, the famed attorney gave little indication that he could participate in a serious engagement with the faith he so quickly dismissed.⁹ Darrow’s legacy is an object lesson in what happens when a sharp mind attempts to make a case without first understanding the evidence. He would have been much better served by approaching the Bible with a humble heart and diligence, sincerely desiring to know the truth.

Endnotes

¹ For more information on the trial, see Eric Lyons (2025), “100 Years Later: Revisiting the Scopes ‘Monkey’ Trial,” Reason & Revelation, 45[7]:2-6,8-11, July, apologeticspress.org/100th-anniversary-of-the-scopes-monkey-trial/.

² Clarence Darrow (1929), Absurdities of the Bible, Little Blue Book no. 1637 (Girard, KS: Haldeman-Julius), p. 5.

³ Ibid., pp. 7-8.

⁴ Ibid., pp. 9-10.

⁵ Ibid., p. 4.

⁶ See Justin Rogers (2017), “Does the Bible Teach a Flat Earth?” Reason & Revelation, 37[7]:74-77, July, apologeticspress.org/does-the-bible-teach-a-flat-earth-5428/.

⁷ The phrase “four corners of the earth” is an ancient phrase indicating “all the Earth.” It is derived from a royal title used by ancient kings in Mesopotamia. The first to refer to himself as the “King of the Four Corners of the Earth” (or “Four Quarters”) seems to have been Naram-Sin of Akkad (c. 2254-2218 B.C.). This title simply meant that Naram-Sin considered himself a universal sovereign over the entirety of the Earth. This phrase, like its biblical usage, did not communicate the concept of a flat Earth.

⁸ Darrow, Absurdities, pp. 6 and 9, respectively.

⁹ Here we might point out that Darrow debated the English writer and apologist G.K. Chesterton and appeared to have lost that debate in the eyes of many in the audience. The two met on January 18, 1931 in New York City to debate whether Christianity had been a force for good or ill in the world. Darrow took a hostile, sarcastic tone in attacking the Christian faith for its supposed historical abuses and stifling effect on intellectual progress. His attempts to bait Chesterton into getting angry failed, with Chesterton responding consistently with grace under fire. Although the debate did not produce a clear winner, much of the audience favored Chesterton, including those who did not share his spiritual perspective.

The post Clarence Darrow: The Lawyer Who Couldn’t Beat the Bible appeared first on Apologetics Press.

1. The Pool of Siloam in the Time of Jesus (1^st Century A.D.)

In John 9:1-11, the Gospel writer recounts how the Lord Jesus anointed the eyes of a blind man with clay and told him to “Go, wash in the Pool of Siloam.” For centuries, the pool’s exact location was uncertain. Many assumed it was the small Byzantine basin near the Church of St. Saviour until 2004, when workers repairing a water pipe in the southern City of David uncovered stone steps descending into a vast plastered pool. Archaeologists Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron soon identified this as the authentic Second-Temple Pool of Siloam, the very site referenced in the New Testament.²

The stepped pool—roughly 225 feet long and 15 feet deep—was constructed during the reign of Herod the Great in the late first century B.C., at the height of Jerusalem’s expansion.³ Fed by the ancient Siloam Tunnel, the pool collected water from the Gihon Spring and served both as a public reservoir and as a massive mikveh (ritual bath) for pilgrims ascending the Pilgrimage Road toward the Temple Mount.⁴ Its architectural grandeur reflects Herod’s vast building program, which included the Temple complex itself. When Jesus performed His miracle there, He stood amid a system that had already been serving God’s people for over seven centuries—a line of hydraulic continuity stretching back to the time of Judah’s earliest kings.

2. Hezekiah’s Tunnel: Engineering Under Siege (Late 8^th Century B.C.)

Long before Herod’s reconstruction, the same spring that fed the Siloam Pool had already been secured by one of the Bible’s most famous engineers: King Hezekiah. Facing the Assyrian invasion in 701 B.C., Hezekiah ordered the diversion of Jerusalem’s water supply into the fortified city. As 2 Kings 20:20 records, “He made the pool and the conduit and brought water into the city.” Archaeology confirms this in the Siloam Tunnel, an underground passage roughly 1,750 feet long that connects the Gihon Spring on the east to the lower valley on the west.⁵

Cut through bedrock, the tunnel winds in an S-shaped path and terminates near the location of the later Herodian pool. Its ancient Hebrew inscription—carved near the southern exit—commemorates the meeting of the two work crews who tunneled toward one another.⁶ The engineering precision required to complete such a project testifies to the royal resources and administrative capacity of Hezekiah’s reign.

By channeling water inside Jerusalem’s walls, Hezekiah effectively replaced an earlier open reservoir, transforming an external valley dam into a protected, internal water source. His system not only supplied the city during siege but also paved the way for the later Herodian expansions that pilgrims of Jesus’ day would see.

3. The Newly Discovered Siloam Dam of King Joash (Early 8^th Century B.C.)

Beneath these familiar works lies an even older foundation. In 2025, Johanna Regev, Nahshon Szanton, Filip Vukosavović, Itamar Berko, Yosef Shalev, Joe Uziel, and Elisabetta Boaretto published the results of their radiocarbon analysis of mortar samples from a massive stone wall at the southern mouth of the Tyropoeon Valley.⁷ The results—calibrated to between 805 and 795 B.C.—place the wall firmly within the reign of King Joash (r. ca. 835-796 B.C.).⁸

The wall, more than 40 feet high and 26 feet thick, sealed the valley and impounded both runoff and overflow from the Gihon Spring, forming an enormous open reservoir—the earliest known Pool of Siloam. Excavations revealed that this dam and its reservoir lay within the southern extent of ancient Jerusalem, inside what became the lower City of David. By Hezekiah’s time, the area was fully fortified, ensuring that the reservoir stood within the city’s defensive walls, precisely where the later Herodian pool would be expanded in the first century B.C. This confirms a continuous chain of hydraulic development at the same site—from Joash’s dam to Hezekiah’s tunnel to Herod’s monumental pool.⁹

Radiocarbon dating of embedded twigs and straw produced a tight 10-year range, while paleo-climatic data from Dead Sea cores and Soreq Cave stalagmites confirmed that Jerusalem faced alternating drought and flash floods during this era. The construction of such a dam provided both flood control and long-term water storage, demonstrating advanced planning under royal oversight. In every sense, the Joash dam anticipates the later biblical account of Hezekiah’s engineering reforms.

Its discovery vindicates the biblical portrayal of Judah’s early monarchy as organized, literate, and technologically capable—precisely the kind of kingdom that could undertake monumental civic works consistent with the historical books of 2 Kings and 2 Chronicles.

4. Canaanite Foundations: Jebus, the Water Systems Before Israel

Long before Israelite kings ruled Jerusalem, the Canaanite city of Jebus—the stronghold later conquered by King David (2 Samuel 5:6-9)—had already fortified the Gihon Spring with towers, tunnels, and a rock-cut pool inside its wall. Excavations by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1960s and Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron in the 1990s revealed a monumental Spring Tower—a defensive structure enclosing access to the spring from within the city.¹⁰ This earliest water system included a stepped tunnel descending to a protected pool, ensuring access to water during siege. Although the Bronze-Age pool differs in scale and purpose from the later Siloam installations, it set the hydraulic pattern that successive builders—Joash, Hezekiah, and finally Herod—would each adapt for their generation.¹¹

Moreover, the biblical book of Genesis identifies the city as Salem when Melchizedek is called “king of Salem” (Genesis 14:18-20), and Psalm 76:2 equates Salem with Zion, reinforcing the view that Jerusalem’s geographical identity stretches back into the early patriarchal period.

5. Continuity and Theological Significance

From the Bronze-Age foundations to the Herodian expansion, the Pool of Siloam embodies the continuity of Divine provision in Jerusalem’s history. Through every era, God’s people found both physical and spiritual refreshment in the same flowing waters of the Gihon Spring. Isaiah warned those who “refused the waters of Shiloah that flow gently” (Isaiah 8:6), while later prophets spoke of “drawing water from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3). Hezekiah’s tunnel fulfilled this prophecy in physical form—securing the city’s lifeline amid peril.

Centuries later, Jesus transformed that physical image into spiritual truth: “If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink” (John 7:37). The Siloam Pool thus stands as both a technological marvel and a living parable of redemption. The recent discovery of the Joash-era dam reinforces that Scripture’s record of royal infrastructure was not theological metaphor but historical reality—its stones still bearing witness to the ingenuity and faith of ancient Judah.

Conclusion

The unveiling of the Siloam Dam beneath Jerusalem’s City of David represents one of the most significant discoveries in decades—an engineering bridge linking Joash, Hezekiah, Herod, and Jesus. Each generation modified the same life-giving spring: Joash contained it with a massive dam; Hezekiah redirected it with a tunnel; Herod adorned it with stone steps; and Jesus sanctified it with a miracle.

Modern science has now dated the earliest phase of this system with remarkable precision, confirming that Judah’s kings were capable of large-scale, organized public works as the Bible describes. The stones cry out in testimony that the biblical narrative stands—not on myth—but on measurable history. In the Pool of Siloam—past and present—the waters still proclaim the truth of God’s Word: “With joy you will draw water from the wells of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3).

[Dr. Jonathan Moore—Field Archaeologist with the Shiloh Excavation, Israel; Adjunct Faculty at Freed-Hardeman University; and Founder of Seeing His World, a missions-based educational nonprofit dedicated to providing academically grounded yet spiritually transformative guided experiences throughout the Bible lands (www.seeinghisworld.com).]

Endnotes

¹ King Joash (Jehoash) reigned in Judah ca. 835-796 B.C. following a period of protection and oversight by Jehoiada the priest (see 2 Kings 11-12; 2 Chronicles 24). Crowned at age seven, he initially “did what was right in the eyes of the LORD” under Jehoiada’s guidance but later turned from faithfulness, permitting idolatry and ordering the death of the prophet Zechariah (2 Chronicles 24:20-22). He was assassinated by his servants and succeeded by his son Amaziah.

² Ronny Reich and Eli Shukron (2005), “The Second-Temple Period Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem,” Israel Exploration Journal, 55:153-167.

³ “The Siloam Pool: Where Jesus Healed the Blind Man,” Biblical Archaeology Society, www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/biblical-archaeology-sites/the-siloam-pool-where-jesus-healed-the-blind-man/.

⁴ Nahshon Szanton and Joe Uziel (2019), “The Pilgrimage Road: Jerusalem’s Ascent from the Pool of Siloam to the Temple,” City of David Studies.

⁵ Dan Gill (1983), “The Siloam Tunnel Reconsidered,” Nature 305:515-517.

⁶ James B. Pritchard (1969), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton University

⁷ Johanna Regev, et al. (2025), “Radiocarbon Dating of Jerusalem’s Siloam Dam Links Climate Data and Major Waterworks,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 122[35], https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2510396122.

⁸ Note that radiocarbon dating does, in fact, sometimes result in ages of materials that exceed 10,000 years. Radiocarbon dating, however, is understood to be suspect for objects thought to be older than roughly 3,000-4,000 years old [cf. George H. Michaels and Brian Fagan (2013), “Chronological Methods 8—Radiocarbon Dating,” University of California Santa Barbara Instructional Development.]. Further, biblical creationists argue that radioactive decay rates were apparently accelerated during the Flood and afterward, possibly up to 1,500-1,000 B.C., making all dating techniques unreliable for ages beyond that time. For evidence of accelerated radioactive decay in the past, see Don DeYoung (2008), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

⁹ City of David Foundation (2025), “Monumental Dam from the Time of Biblical Kings Uncovered,” August 29.

¹⁰ Kathleen M. Kenyon (1967), Jerusalem: Excavating 2000 Years of History (New York: McGraw-Hill), pp. 31-45.

¹¹ See “Salem (Bible),” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_(Bible) (accessed September 2025); Armstrong Institute, “The Incredible Origins of Ancient Jerusalem,” armstronginstitute.org/843-the-incredible-origins-of-ancient-jerusalem/ (accessed September 2025).

The post Jerusalem’s Newly Discovered Siloam Dam Confirms Biblical Engineering from Joash to Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.

A Clay Echo from the Assyrian Empire

Preliminary translation suggests the fragment recorded an official financial demand—possibly a warning of overdue tribute—issued from Assyria to a Judahite administrator. Petrographic testing showed the clay was not local but originated from the Tigris basin, the Assyrian heartland, indicating the tablet had traveled to Judah as part of imperial correspondence.²

According to Haaretz, the inscription even references the “month of Av,” a dating formula characteristic of Assyrian bureaucratic tablets, and may allude to “delay of payment,” implying Judah was falling behind on its obligations.³ If so, the fragment captures a precise historical moment when Hezekiah began resisting Assyrian domination, exactly as described in Scripture: “Hezekiah rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him” (2 Kings 18:7).

What makes this discovery remarkable is not only its antiquity but its context. It surfaced in soil from near the Temple Mount—the very administrative heart of Hezekiah’s Jerusalem—and dates to the same decades when prophets like Isaiah thundered warnings against political compromise.

Hezekiah’s Reign: The Historical Framework

Biblically, Hezekiah (ca. 715-686 B.C.) stands at the crossroads of faith and foreign policy. His reforms centralized worship in Jerusalem, purged idolatry, and reasserted reliance on Yahweh. Yet he ruled in the shadow of Assyria, whose kings—from Tiglath-pileser III to Sennacherib—extended their control across the Levant.

Archaeology reveals how Hezekiah’s spiritual resolve was matched by logistical preparedness. During this same period, two monumental engineering projects transformed Jerusalem’s defenses:

• Hezekiah’s Tunnel, a 1,750-foot conduit carved through bedrock to redirect the Gihon Spring into the city, securing its water during siege (2 Chronicles 32:2-4).
• The Broad Wall, a massive fortification up to 23 feet thick, unearthed in Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter, likely built in anticipation of the Assyrian invasion.

Both align perfectly with the Bible’s description of Hezekiah’s fortifications: “He strengthened himself, built up all the wall that was broken, and raised it up to the towers” (2 Chronicles 32:5). These structures, still visible today, are physical testimonies to Judah’s crisis-driven expansion during the reign of a king facing Assyria’s wrath.

Seals from a Turbulent City: Hezekiah and Isaiah

Within sight of the Temple Mount, archaeologists also discovered two clay seal impressions (bullae) that connect directly to the Hezekiah narrative.

1. The Hezekiah Bulla—unearthed in the Ophel excavations—reads “Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz king of Judah.” Its imagery includes a sun disk flanked by ankh symbols, reflecting both royal and religious motifs.⁴
2. The Isaiah Bulla—found just ten feet away—bears the inscription “[Belonging to] Isaiah nvy […],” possibly short for navi (prophet). Though partly broken, it dates to the same stratigraphic layer and suggests the prophet’s physical presence in Jerusalem’s royal quarter.⁵

Together, these two sealings embody the relationship between the prophet and the king described in Isaiah 36-39. Their proximity is not coincidence; they were likely impressed in the same administrative complex that managed correspondence like the newly discovered Assyrian tablet.

The Assyrian Side: The Taylor Prism

While Jerusalem yields Judah’s voice, Assyria speaks through its own clay. The Taylor Prism, one of three prisms inscribed by Sennacherib (701 B.C.), chronicles his western campaigns and his siege of Jerusalem. In elegant Akkadian, the king boasts: “As for Hezekiah the Judean, who did not submit to my yoke, I shut him up like a bird in a cage in Jerusalem, his royal city.” This inscription⁶ perfectly matches the events of 2 Kings 18-19 and Isaiah 36-37, except that the Assyrian record omits the outcome—the miraculous deliverance of Jerusalem. Scripture records that 185,000 Assyrian soldiers perished overnight (2 Kings 19:35), and even Sennacherib’s annals admit that Jerusalem remained unconquered—a rare omission for the empire that prided itself on total subjugation.

Faith and Deliverance

The convergence of evidence paints a vivid picture.

• The new Assyrian fragment reveals an administrative relationship between Judah and Assyria consistent with the period of tribute and rebellion.
• The Hezekiah and Isaiah bullae testify to the historical figures at the heart of that rebellion.
• The Tunnel and Wall illustrate the practical measures taken in response to the threat.
• The Taylor Prism provides Assyria’s own corroboration of the campaign, siege, and Hezekiah’s resistance.

These independent lines of evidence converge with stunning precision on the late 8^th century B.C.—the exact era of the biblical narrative.

Historical Tension, Prophetic Clarity

Isaiah’s counsel during this period was clear: trust not in Egypt, nor in silver sent to Assyria, but in the Lord. The prophet warned that reliance on foreign powers would invite destruction, yet faith would bring deliverance (Isaiah 30-31). When Hezekiah humbled himself and sought God’s guidance, Jerusalem was spared.

This moment of mercy, however, was fleeting. The Bible presents the later kings—Manasseh, Amon, and Josiah’s sons—as reversing Hezekiah’s faithfulness. By the time of Nebuchadnezzar II, Judah’s unfaithfulness reached its climax in 586 B.C. with the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem. The contrast is theological and historical: the generation that trusted was preserved; the generations that forsook were judged.

Why This Discovery Matters

From an evidential standpoint, the cuneiform fragment represents the first tangible Assyrian document found in Jerusalem. It bridges the worlds of archaeology and Scripture, showing that the city was indeed part of Assyria’s bureaucratic orbit. The convergence with the prophetic books gives fresh weight to the Bible’s historical memory:

• The language is Akkadian, exactly as expected.
• The location aligns with Hezekiah’s administrative center.
• The theme—tribute and defiance—mirrors the biblical account.

Each artifact alone might be intriguing; together, they form a mosaic of historical credibility. As The Times of Israel observed, this inscription “adds an Assyrian voice to Jerusalem’s First Temple history.”⁷

A Voice from the Dust

In the end, the clay that once bore imperial demands now speaks for Scripture’s authenticity. The kings and empires that threatened Judah have crumbled, but their tablets, seals, and tunnels endure to testify that the events described in Kings and Isaiah were not mythic abstractions—they were lived history.

Hezekiah’s faith and Isaiah’s prophecy stand vindicated not only by the text but by the stones and shards beneath Jerusalem’s soil. The Assyrian scribe who pressed his stylus into that clay could not have known he was recording more than a bureaucratic transaction; he was leaving a fragment of evidence that, nearly three millennia later, would confirm the faithfulness of the God who delivers.

Endnotes

¹ See Dario Radley (2025), “Rare Assyrian Inscription Found in Jerusalem,” Archaeology Magazine, October, archaeologymag.com/2025/10/rare-assyrian-inscription-found-in-jerusalem/.

² Christopher Eames (2025), “A 2,700-Year-Old Assyrian Inscription Demanding Tribute Found in Jerusalem,” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, October 21, armstronginstitute.org/1353-a-2700-year-old-assyrian-inscription-demanding-tribute-found-in-jerusalem.

³ Ruth Schuster (2025), “Assyrian Cuneiform Hinting at Tax Dodging Found in First Temple Jerusalem,” Haaretz, October 22, www.haaretz.com/archaeology/2025-10-22/ty-article/assyrian-cuneiform-hinting-at-tax-dodging-found-in-first-temple-jerusalem/0000019a-0b0b-d44f-ab9e-9b2b54e60000.

⁴ “King Hezekiah’s Seal Comes to Light” (2015), Biblical Archaeology Review.

⁵ “Does This Seal Show the Signature of the Prophet Isaiah?” (2018), National Geographic.

⁶ “Sennacherib’s Annals—The Taylor Prism” (1680), British Museum K.

⁷ “Biblical Tax Notice: 1st-Ever Assyrian Inscription Found Near Jerusalem’s Temple Mount” (2025), The Times of Israel, October 22.

The post Echoes of Empire: The Jerusalem Cuneiform Fragment and the Biblical Record of Hezekiah and Isaiah appeared first on Apologetics Press.

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990)

• Greek Professor: University of Edinburgh and the University of Leeds
• Chaired Department of Biblical History and Literature at the University of Sheffield
• Honorary Doctor of Divinity from Aberdeen University
• Rylands Professor of Biblical Criticism & Exegesis at the University of Manchester
• Authored over 40 books
• Editor of both The Evangelical Quarterly and the Palestine Exploration Quarterly

“The variant readings about which any doubt remains among textual critics of the N.T. affect no material question of historic fact or of Christian faith and practice.”¹

“In view of the inevitable accumulation of such errors over so many centuries, it may be thought that the original texts of the New Testament documents have been corrupted beyond restoration. Some writers, indeed, insist on the likelihood of this to such a degree that one sometimes suspects they would be glad if it were so. But they are mistaken. There is no body of ancient literature in the world which enjoys such a wealth of good textual attestation as the New Testament.”²

“Something more ought to be said, and said with emphasis. We have been discussing various textual types, and reviewing their comparative claims to be regarded as best representatives of the original New Testament. But there are not wide divergencies between these types, of a kind that could make any difference to the Church’s responsibility to be a witness and guardian of Holy Writ.”³

“If the variant readings are so numerous, it is because the witnesses are so numerous. But all the witnesses, and all the types which they represent, agree on every article of Christian belief and practice.”⁴

“If the very number of manuscripts increases the total of scribal corruptions, it supplies at the same time the means of checking them.”⁵

Bruce Metzger (1914-2007)

• Scholar of Greek and NT Textual Criticism
• Late Professor at Princeton Theological Seminary (46 years)
• Recognized authority on the Greek text of the New Testament
• Served on the board of the American Bible Society
• Driving force of the United Bible Societies’ series of Greek Texts
• Chairperson of the NRSV Bible Committee
• Widely considered one of the most influential New Testament scholars of the 20^th century

“[E]ven if we had no Greek manuscripts today, by piecing together the information from these translations from a relatively early date, we could actually reproduce the contents of the New Testament. In addition to that, even if we lost all the Greek manuscripts and the early translations, we could still reproduce the contents of the New Testament from the multiplicity of quotations in commentaries, sermons, letters, and so forth of the early church fathers.”⁶

Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901)

• Biblical scholar, theologian, textual critic
• Bishop of Durham
• Held the Regius Professorship of Divinity at Cambridge
• Co-edited The New Testament in the Original Greek

Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)

• Textual critic
• Irish theologian
• Professor at Cambridge
• Co-edited The New Testament in the Original Greek

“With regard to the great bulk of the words of the New Testament…there is no variation or other ground of doubt.”⁷

“[T]he amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text.”⁸

“Since there is reason to suspect that an exaggerated impression prevails as to the extent of possible textual corruption in the New Testament…we desire to make it clearly understood beforehand how much of the New Testament stands in no need of a textual critic’s labours.”⁹

“[I]n the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachably alone among ancient prose writing.”¹⁰

“The books of the New Testament as preserved in extant documents assuredly speak to us in every important respect in language identical with that in which they spoke to those for whom they were originally written.”¹¹

“[T]he words in our opinion still subject to doubt can hardly amount to more than a thousandth part of the whole New Testament.”¹²

J.W. McGarvey (1829-1911)

• Minister, author, educator
• Taught 46 years in the College of the Bible in Lexington, Kentucky
• Served as President from 1895 to 1911

“All the authority and value possessed by these books when they were first written belong to them still.”¹³

Benjamin Warfield (1852-1921)

• Professor of Theology at Princeton Seminary (1887 to 1921)
• Last of the great Princeton theologians

“[S]uch has been the providence of God in preserving for His Church in each and every age a competently exact text of the Scriptures, that not only is the New Testament unrivalled among ancient writings in the purity of its text as actually transmitted and kept in use, but also in the abundance of testimony which has come down to us for castigating its comparatively infrequent blemishes.”¹⁴

“The great mass of the New Testament…has been transmitted to us with no, or next to no, variation.”¹⁵

Richard Bentley (1662-1742)

• English classical scholar, critic, and theologian
• Master of Trinity College, Cambridge
• First Englishman to be ranked with the great heroes of classical learning
• Known for his literary and textual criticism
• The “Founder of Historical Philology”
• Credited with the creation of the English school of Hellenism

“[T]he real text of the sacred writers does not now (since the originals have been so long lost) lie in any single manuscript or edition, but is dispersed in them all. ‘Tis competently exact indeed even in the worst manuscript now extant; nor is one article of faith or moral precept either perverted or lost in them.”¹⁶

“Make your thirty thousand various readings as many more, if numbers of copies can ever reach that sum; all the better to a knowing and serious reader, who is into the context, are so far from shaking the faith of the Christian, that they on the contrary confirm it.”¹⁷

Samuel Davidson (1806-1898)

• Irish Biblical Scholar
  • Professor of Biblical Criticism at Royal College of Belfast
  • Professor of Biblical Criticism in the Lancashire Independent College at Manchester
• Authored—

1. A Treatise on Biblical Criticism
2. Lectures on Ecclesiastical Polity
3. An Introduction to the New Testament
4. The Hebrew Text of the Old Testament Revised
5. Text of the O.T. & Interpretation of the Bible
6. Introduction to the Old Testament
7. On a Fresh Revision of the Old Testament
8. Canon of the Bible

“Having shewn the various attempts made to restore [the text] to its pristine purity, we may add a few words on the general result obtained. The effect of it has been to establish the genuineness of the New Testament text in all important particulars. No new doctrines have been elicited by its aid; nor have any historical facts been summoned by it from their obscurity. All the doctrines and duties of Christianity remain unaffected…. [T]he researches of modern criticism…have proved one thing—that in the records of inspiration there is no material corruption. They have shewn successfully that during the lapse of many centuries the text of Scripture has been preserved with great care; that it has not been extensively tampered with by daring hands…. [C]riticism has been gradually…proving the immovable security of a foundation on which the Christian faith may safely rest. It has taught us to regard the Scriptures as they now are to be divine in their origin…. [W]e may well say that the Scriptures continue essentially the same as when they proceeded from the writers themselves. Hence none need be alarmed when he hears of the vast collection of various readings accumulated by the collators of MSS. and critical editors. The majority are of a trifling kind, resembling differences in the collocation of words and synonymous expressions which writers of different tastes evince. Confiding in the general integrity of our religious records, we can look upon a quarter or half a million of various readings with calmness, since they are so unimportant as not to affect religious belief…. [T]he present Scriptures may be regarded as uninjured in their transmission through many ages.”¹⁸

Frederick H.A. Scrivener (1813-1891)

• Important textual critic of the New Testament
• Member of the English New Testament Revision Committee (Revised Version)
• Graduated Trinity College, Cambridge
• Taught classics at several schools in southern England
• Edited the Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
• Edited several editions of the Greek New Testament
• Collated the Codex Sinaiticus with the Textus Receptus
• First to distinguish the Textus Receptus from the Byzantine text

“[O]ne great truth is admitted on all hands—the almost complete freedom of Holy Scripture from the bare suspicion of wilful [sic] corruption; the absolute identity of the testimony of every known copy in respect to doctrine, and spirit, and the main drift of every argument and every narrative through the entire volume of Inspiration…. Thus hath God’s Providence kept from harm the treasure of His written word, so far as is needful for the quiet assurance of His church and people.”¹⁹

Sir Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952)

• Widely respected, eminent British paleographer and biblical and classical scholar
• Occupied a series of posts at the British Museum
• President of the British Academy from 1917 to 1921
• President of the British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem
• Made a lifelong study of the Bible as an historical text

“One word of warning…must be emphasized in conclusion. No fundamental doctrine of the Christian faith rests on a disputed reading. Constant references to mistakes and divergencies of reading…might give rise to the doubt whether the substance, as well as the language, of the Bible is not open to question. It cannot be too strongly asserted that in substance the text of the Bible is certain. Especially is this the case with the New Testament. The number of manuscripts of the New Testament, of early translations from it, and of quotations from it in the oldest writers of the Church is so large, that it is practically certain that the true reading of every doubtful passage is preserved in some one or other of these ancient authorities. This can be said of no other ancient book in the world.”²⁰

“It is true (and it cannot be too emphatically stated) that none of the fundamental truths of Christianity rests on passages of which the genuineness is doubtful.”²¹

“The interval then between the dates of original composition and the earliest extant evidence becomes so small as to be in fact negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the Scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed.”²²

“Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of the New Testament may be regarded as finally established.”²³

“The Christian can take the whole Bible in his hand and say without fear of hesitation that he holds in it the true Word of God, faithfully handed down from generation to generation throughout the centuries.”²⁴

Summary/Conclusions

• The nature of this subject is such that it matters not that we consider what scholars from a century or more ago have said—because if the integrity of the Biblical text was established and authenticated at that time, it remains so today.
• We can confidently affirm that we have 999/1000^ths of the original New Testament intact; the remaining 1/1000^th is inconsequential.
• The Bible has not been corrupted in transmission.

Endnotes

¹ F.F. Bruce (1975 reprint), The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 19-20.

² F.F. Bruce (1963), The Books and the Parchments (Westwood, NJ: Fleming H. Revell), p. 178.

³ Ibid., p 189.

⁴ Ibid.

⁵ Ibid., p. 181.

⁶ Interview in Lee Strobel (1998), The Case for Christ (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 59.

⁷ B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort (1882), The New Testament in the Original Greek (New York: Harper & Brothers), p. 2.

⁸ Ibid.

⁹ Ibid., pp. 2-3.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 278.

¹¹ Ibid., p. 284.

¹² Ibid., p. 565.

¹³ J.W. McGarvey (1974 reprint), Evidences of Christianity (Nashville, TN: Gospel Advocate), p. 17.

¹⁴ Benjamin B. Warfield (1886), An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament (London: Hodder & Stoughton), pp. 12-13.

¹⁵ Ibid., p. 13.

¹⁶ Richard Bentley (1725), Remarks Upon a Late Discourse of Free Thinking (Cambridge: Cornelius Crownfield), p. 68-69.

¹⁷ Ibid., p. 76.

¹⁸ Samuel Davidson (1853), A Treatise on Biblical Criticism (Boston, MA: Gould & Lincoln), pp. 147-148.

¹⁹ Frederic H.A. Scrivener (1861), A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell, & Co.), pp. 6-7.

²⁰ Sir Frederic Kenyon (1895), Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (London: Eyre & Spottiswoode), pp. 10-11.

²¹ Ibid., pp. 3-4.

²² Sir Frederic Kenyon (1940), The Bible and Archaeology (New York: Harper & Row), pp. 288-289.

²³ Ibid., pp. 288-289.

²⁴ Our Bible…, pp. 10-11.

The post Has the Bible Been Corrupted?—What the Scholars Say appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Full of fury, King Nebuchadnezzar ordered the furnace to be heated well beyond its usual temperature. Daniel’s three companions were then thrown into the furnace, which, in turn, resulted in the deaths of those who placed them there. The Bible then reads:

Then King Nebuchadnezzar was astonished; and he rose in haste and spoke, saying to his counselors, “Did we not cast three men bound into the midst of the fire?” They answered and said to the king, “True, O king.” “Look!” he answered, “I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire; and they are not hurt, and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God” (Daniel 3:24-25, NKJV).

The original manuscripts of the Bible do not typically include punctuation and capitalization. Translators must make those decisions as best they can. However, they sometimes create misimpressions by their decisions, forcing the English reader to interpret a passage incorrectly. Such is certainly the case with the words “the Son of God.” The English reader would inevitably understand the phrase “the Son of God” to be a reference to Jesus. The resulting conclusion is that Jesus made a pre-incarnate visit to the furnace to rescue Daniel’s companions.

However, surely a pagan Babylonian king would have no knowledge of Jesus Christ—let alone know what He looked like. For that matter, neither would Daniel or his three friends. While the Old Testament prophets prophesied of the coming Messiah, their understanding of His person would have been woefully incomplete, since the fulfillment of those prophecies was yet far into the future. (See 1 Peter 1:10-11.)

In addition to the fact that the manuscripts do not capitalize “son” and “God,” additional grammatical features are worthy of note. First, the Hebrew text has no article “the” before “son.” Hence, it can just as easily read “a” son of God. Second, the Hebrew word for “God” (elohim) is a generic term that must not be confused with the divine name (Yahweh/YHWH) that refers exclusively to the God of the Bible. Elohim has the same latitude of meaning as the English word “God.” The exact same word can refer to the God of the Bible, or it can be used to refer to any “god”—from the Hindu gods Vishnu and Durga to the gods of Native Americanism. The same Hebrew word for “God” is used, for example, in Exodus 20:23 to refer to “gods”: “You shall not make anything to be with Me—gods of silver or gods of gold you shall not make for yourselves.”¹ God even used the term in the giving of the Ten Commandments to refer to false gods: “You shall have no other gods (elohim) before Me” (Exodus 20:3). Further, it so happens that the Hebrew term elohim is a plural noun. Hence, it can refer to “gods” plural.

It makes perfect sense, then, that what the heathen king Nebuchadnezzar intended by his declaration was that the fourth figure in the fiery furnace was like a son of the gods—i.e., a celestial being of some sort. The king, in fact, clarified his own statement after the three companions emerged unscathed from the furnace: “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abed-Nego, who sent His Angel and delivered His servants who trusted in Him” (vs. 28). Nebuchadnezzar simply considered the fourth being to be some sort of supernatural, angelic being who was sent by Daniel’s God to rescue them from the furnace.

Several English translations recognize these grammatical nuances. The 1901 American Standard Version has “a son of the gods.” A host of other translations also so translate the verse, including the ESV, NASB, NCV, NIV, RSV, WEB, and YLT. The CJB has “and the fourth looks like one of the gods.” The ISV has “resembles a divine being,” which captures the meaning perfectly.²

Endnotes

¹ Such is the case in many passages throughout the Old Testament, including Exodus 12:12; 15:11; 18:11; 23:13,24,32,33; etc.

² Again, some have suggested that the third being in the furnace was a preincarnate appearance of Jesus. While such is certainly a possibility, we cannot know with certainty. Compare, for example, such passages as Genesis 18:1 and 1 Corinthians 10:4. However, as noted, we can be certain that the pagan Babylonian monarch (as well as Daniel and the three Hebrew youths) was unacquainted with Jesus.

The post Who Did Nebuchadnezzar See in the Furnace? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

How Many Israelites Exited Egypt?

Numbers 1:20-46 tallies by tribe the number of Israelites in the Exodus, with the exception of the tribe of Levi. Verse 46 gives the total tally: 603,550. The average population of each of the listed tribes is roughly 50,000.³ So, if we assume the tribe of Levi was similar, the tally rises to 650,000 individuals. However, women were not included in the figure (verse 2). If we assume there were approximately as many women as there were men, we infer that there would have been 1,300,000 adult Israelites at the Exodus.

According to verse 3, those individuals age 19 and below also were not included in the tally. If we assume that, at the time, the ) were, on average, living to age 70 (Psalm 90:10), then roughly 27% of the population was not included in Moses’ tally (if we assume all age brackets had approximately the same number of Hebrews).⁴ If so, the Hebrew population was roughly 1,780,000 at the Exodus.

Adult Male Isrealite Population at Exodus According to Numbers 1

Could the Hebrew Population Be That High in 215 Years?

As described previously,⁵ one can use statistics to arrive at reasonable population estimates at different times in history, based upon certain assumptions. If the initial Hebrew population in Egypt was 79 individuals, the average lifespan of the Hebrews was 70, they continued having children for half of their lives, had 10 children on average (due to the extremely elevated birthrates implied in the text; Exodus 1:7,12,20), and typically lived to see the births of half of their grandchildren on average (i.e., the generation length is 1.5), after 215 years, the Hebrew population would have been 1,770,000 people. Keeping in mind that if the average number of children per couple was larger or the generation length was slightly longer (e.g., 10.1 children on average and a 1.6 generation length—both of which are highly plausible), the Hebrew population quickly grows by tens of thousands.

Perhaps more notable is the fact that these calculations assume that the Hebrews gave birth to all of those individuals, with no males marrying outside of the Israelite family (as did Joseph, each of the other sons of Jacob, and Moses, for instance). If such marriages occurred only a fraction of the time (like the individual mentioned in Leviticus 24:10), the Hebrew population grows even higher. If, for example, intermarriage with the Egyptians occurred in only 5% of marriages,⁶ the final potential Hebrew population rises to 2,374,328. A higher percentage of such intermarriages increases the Hebrew population further and decreases the average number of children that would have been born in each home.

Also notable is the fact that the population record given in Numbers 1 may be more difficult to harmonize with, for example, a 430-year sojourn in Egypt of Jacob’s family. With the same assumptions stated above, in order to match the Hebrew population at the time of the Exodus in 430 years, the average number of children per family must be roughly four (and with little intermarriage outside of the Hebrew lineage). This scenario would be difficult to reconcile with (1) the lack of birth control methods at the time; (2) the notable alarm exhibited by the Egyptians as they observed the Hebrew population growth (Exodus 1:9-10,12); or (3) the thrice highlighted abnormality of the population explosion being witnessed at the time (Exodus 1:7,12,20).

Bottom line: the biblical claim about the Hebrew population by the time of the Exodus, after only 215 years of reproduction in Egypt, is not unreasonable. On the contrary, Moses’ record provides further support for the Bible’s reliability and sheds light on the potential Hebrew home at the time of the Exodus.

Endnotes

¹ See Jonathan Moore (2025), “When and Where Was Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt? The Long and Short of It (Part 1),” Reason & Revelation, 45[2]:2-9, February.

² See Acts 7:14, adding to Stephen’s 75, Joseph, his wife, and two sons (who were already in Egypt).

³ 50,296.

⁴ However, with the thrice highlighted elevated Hebrew birthrates at the time (Exodus 1:7,12,20), the percentage of Hebrew children in the population at the time may have been higher, depending upon how long the elevated birthrates occurred. If the child population bracket at the time of the Exodus was 25% higher (comprising 34% of the total population instead of 27%), the total Hebrew population rises to 1,970,000. However, if the elevated period was in effect for the entire 215-year period, the percentage of children in the population would have matched the other age brackets, lowering the estimated Hebrew population at the Exodus back to roughly 1,780,000.

⁵ Jeff Miller (2011), “Population Statistics and a Young Earth,” Reason & Revelation, 31[5]:41-47, May; see also Walter Lammerts, ed. (1971), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).

⁶ In the population algorithms, this scenario was modeled as each couple having 10.5 children on average instead of 10 children.

The post Could There Really Have Been Over a Million Israelites by the Exodus? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Regarding the critical dating of the book of Daniel, even the discoveries of the Dead Sea Scrolls did not seem to challenge the consensus. For example, Frank Moore Cross, a longtime professor at Harvard University and one of the first experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls, dated the oldest of the Daniel manuscripts (4QDan^c) to “the late second century,” “no more than about a half century younger than the autograph.”⁴ This is a remarkable claim since we have no other manuscript of the Bible so close to a book’s date of composition. Cross reached his date on paleographic grounds. (Paleography is a science that attempts to date manuscripts based on the style of handwriting.)

Scholars who followed Cross’s paleographic dating were not quite as confident about the date of the manuscript. A leading Scrolls scholar, Eugene Ulrich, dates 4QDan^c to the late second or early first century.⁵ This offers a little more wiggle room between the liberal scholarly reckoning of the book’s composition in the 160s B.C. However, newly published research forces a reevaluation of the paleographic dating of the Scrolls in general, and of 4QDan^c in particular.

How Has the Critical Consensus Been Challenged?

A team of researchers led by world-renowned Scrolls expert Mladen Papović combines new methods of Carbon-14 dating with Artificial Intelligence programming to redate a number of Scrolls. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls corpus consists of more than 900 manuscripts, further research must be done to draw conclusions more broadly, but the current results seem promising. Using new developments in technology, the Carbon-14 dating method was employed to reevaluate the standard theories about ancient Semitic paleography.

The Artificial Intelligence model, termed “Enoch,” utilizes “Bayesian ridge regression” to predict the dates of manuscripts based on “binarized” images of the scrolls. The Enoch Model’s paleographic analysis validates the Carbon-14 dating in more than 85% of cases. This result was deemed good enough to apply to 135 other Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts whose dates are in doubt. The work of the Enoch Model was checked against the sentiments of human experts in ancient Hebrew and Aramaic paleography, and the human experts deemed 79% of its predictions to be reliable. In other words, the researchers attempt to bring together old and trusted methods with exciting new leaps forward in technology to triple-check the credibility of scholarly claims.

The practical takeaway from this study is that some of the Scrolls are much older than previously thought. First, the new Carbon-14 dating tests and AI paleographic analysis allow us to push back the date of some manuscripts by 50 years or more. This news is significant on its own. But the study also demonstrates that the Hebrew and Aramaic scripts used in the period, typically termed the “Hasmonean” and “Herodian” scripts, respectively, are older than previously thought. Scholars have long believed that these scripts were in transition around the mid-first century B.C. In other words, previous paleographers have been inclined to date a manuscript with the “Herodian” script to the late first century B.C. at the earliest, while the “Hasmonean” script manuscripts could be dated earlier. The new research suggests that the two scripts actually coexisted from a much earlier period, making previous paleographic theories about the Dead Sea Scrolls unreliable.

How Does This Apply to Daniel?

One of the sample manuscripts analyzed is the oldest known copy of the book of Daniel. As we have previously mentioned, Cross (and those who follow him) have comfortably dated this manuscript, on paleographic grounds, to the late second century B.C. Ulrich might push this date even further forward, to the first half of the first century B.C. These dates allow the original composition of the book of Daniel to fall in the 160s, as liberal scholars have traditionally maintained. However, Popović and his collaborators conclude their reanalysis of the Carbon-14 and paleographic evidence as follows: “Sample 4Q114 [i.e., 4QDan^c] is one of the most significant findings of the ¹⁴C results. The manuscript preserves Daniel 8-11, which scholars date on literary-historical grounds to the 160s BCE. The accepted 2σ calibrated range for 4Q114, 230-160 BCE, overlaps with the period in which the final part of the biblical book of Daniel was presumably authored.”⁶

This statement is hard to believe. The authors do not wish to dismiss the scholarly consensus, so they suggest that 4QDan^c dates to the book’s exact time of composition. In other words, they do not claim that the manuscript is an original copy of Daniel, but certainly contemporary with the original copies. To put it mildly, this claim is unlikely to be true. Still, the researchers allow the manuscript to be authored in “the 160s BCE,” which is decades older than Cross and Ulrich previously thought. This alone is significant.

Moreover, we should note that the authors bias the interpretation of their evidence. Since liberal scholars require the book of Daniel to have reached its final form in the 160s, any potential date earlier than that threatens to upend the consensus. The dates “230-160 BCE” are obviously broader than most scholars would call “the period in which the final part of the biblical book of Daniel was presumably authored.” I understand that these date ranges are intended to account for a margin of error, but they include what scholars usually call the terminus post quem (“the date after which”) and the terminus ante quem (“the date before which”), respectively. While Popović and his collaborators are cautious to allow room for the scholarly consensus, their data suggest the possibility that the consensus date of Daniel is objectively wrong.

Scholars believe that the book of Daniel had to be composed prior to 164 B.C. because it does not clearly mention the death of the anti-Jewish tyrant Antiochus IV Epiphanes. However, the book does mention atrocities committed during his reign, specifically ones dating during the years 167-164 B.C. Daniel chapters 8-11 refer to Antiochus as the “little horn” (8:9), and mention with great specificity the events of his reign, such as interrupting Temple sacrifice (8:11-12), his war with the Ptolemies (11:20-35), and his exaltation of himself as a god (11:36-45). These incredibly detailed passages match precisely the historical realities as documented in the books of 1-2 Maccabees and in Greek historians such as Polybius. Yet, Antiochus’s death is only obliquely referred to (11:45). Thus, the critical assumption emerges that the book was composed during the reign of, but prior to the death of, Antiochus IV.

To be clear, one of the primary reasons liberal scholars deny the book of Daniel a sixth-century date is that they assume it is impossible for the biblical authors to know the future with precision. Predictive prophecies like those found in Daniel 8-11 must be regarded, as the German critic Otto Eissfeldt once called them, vaticinia ex eventu, or “prophecies after the event.”⁷ In other words, the so-called “prophecies” of Daniel are really no prophecies at all, but historical reflections on events that occurred in recent memory. This is the scholarly consensus. If Popović and his collaborators are correct, the new dates assigned to the oldest manuscript of Daniel might force a change in how scholars date the book of Daniel.

Conclusion

The historical accuracy of the book of Daniel regarding the anti-Jewish persecutions of Antiochus IV is virtually uncontested. Critical scholars usually explain this accuracy by simply arguing that the authorwas not a prophet of the sixth century, but an eyewitness to the events of the 160s B.C. The possibility that a manuscript of the book (4QDan^c) could be older than the events it records forces a reevaluation of the predictive power of Scripture. Whether Daniel was composed in circa 530 B.C. (as Bible believers traditionally maintain) or in circa 230 B.C. (the oldest possible date of 4QDan^c) is irrelevant. Any date prior to the reign of Antiochus IV not only means the critical consensus is wrong, but also that the predictive prophecy of Scripture is right.

Endnotes

¹ Popović Mladen, Maruf A. Dhali, Lambert Schomaker, Kaare Lund Rasmussen, Jacopo La Nasa, Ilaria Degano, Maria Perla Colombini, and Eibert Tigchelaar (2025), “Dating Ancient Manuscripts Using Radiocarbon and AI-based Writing Style Analysis,” PLoS One 20[6], e0323185, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0323185.

² Justin Rogers (2016), “The Date of Daniel: Does It Matter?” Reason & Revelation, 36[12]:134-137,141-143, December.

³ John J. Collins (1993), Daniel: A Commentary on the Book of Daniel in Hermeneia Old Testament Commentary (Minneapolis: Fortress), p. 1.

⁴ Frank Moore Cross (1961), The Ancient Library of Qumran (Garden City, NY: Doubleday), p. 43.

⁵ Eugene Ulrich (2001), “The Text of Daniel From Qumran,” in The Book of Daniel: Composition and Reception, ed. John J. Collins and Peter W. Flint (Leiden: Brill), 2:574.

⁶ Popović, et al., 20[6]:3.

⁷ Otto Eissfeldt (1965), The Old Testament: An Introduction, trans. Peter R. Ackroyd (New York: Harper and Row), p. 517.

The post Could New Dead Sea Scrolls Research Help to Confirm the Reliability of the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Burn Layers: What the Ashes Reveal

The ruins of ancient cities often whisper a grim and powerful story. Among the most compelling voices in archaeology are what scholars call “burn layers”—literal strata of ash, charred debris, and collapsed walls embedded in the Earth. These layers are not just discolorations in sediment. They are fixed points in time—clear markers of when destruction fell upon a people or place. Whether caused by conquest, divine judgment, or civil unrest, a burn layer says with quiet certainty: something ended here.

Time is a cruel editor. These once-vivid scars fade, weathered by erosion, obscured by rebuilding, or dismissed by those who no longer remember. Even when archaeology uncovers them, interpretation is not neutral.

One of the most debated burn layers in biblical archaeology is at Jericho. Scholars like Bryant Wood and earlier John Garstang found remarkable correspondence between the site’s destruction and the biblical account in Joshua 6. Their excavations uncovered large storage jars filled with charred grain—evidence of a sudden conquest during spring harvest, not a prolonged siege. Mudbrick walls had collapsed outward, consistent with the biblical account that the walls fell “flat” and the people went “up” into Jericho. Houses built against the city wall, like Rahab’s, were also found. The city had been consumed by fire—exactly as the text says.

Yet Kathleen Kenyon, and more recently Lorenzo Nigro, rejected this alignment. Kenyon dismissed Garstang’s findings, arguing there were no city walls standing at the time of Joshua, based in part on her claim that imported Cypriot pottery was absent. But that pottery was found by Garstang and confirmed by others. Nigro, following Kenyon’s flawed framework, ignored the broader material record, including the stratigraphy and scarabs. Notably, a series of Egyptian scarabs, ending with one from the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1390-1352 B.C.), clearly suggests occupation during the Late Bronze Age—around the time of the conquest if one follows a biblical timeline.

This tells us something deeper about archaeology: facts can be reinterpreted, or even ignored, when they challenge dominant assumptions. In today’s climate, any evidence aligning with Scripture is suspect by default. But burn layers don’t care about academic fashion—they remain silent witnesses of destruction and judgment. Those who dismiss what lies beneath do so while treading unknowingly atop fragile ground, suspended above the ashes of forgotten judgment. Like the civilizations they study, they too may one day become a burn layer—testimony to the cost of ignoring truth.

Burn layers tie us to a specific point in the past when civilization collapsed. Shiloh, for example, has a burn layer dating to around the rise of the Philistines in the 11th century B.C., likely corresponding with the events of 1 Samuel 4. But Shiloh was later rebuilt. New generations lived on top of the destruction, unaware or unconcerned with what had come before. The layers beneath their feet were forgotten—and so were the warnings they held.

Would we live differently if we could see the burn layers beneath our feet? Would it change our trajectory if we remembered what lies just below the surface—the remains of cities destroyed by pride, violence, and the rejection of God? The Bible says, “They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand” (Isaiah 44:18, KJV). Generations walked above the ruins of their ancestors with no recollection of the judgment that once came. And so they repeated it.

Hazor, Lachish, Ai, and Gezer all show burn layers. In many cases, these align with moments of divine intervention or judgment as recorded in Scripture. At Hazor, a massive destruction layer has been found in the palace—dated by many to the time of Joshua. At Lachish, arrowheads and ash speak to the firestorm brought by Sennacherib in 701 B.C. But not every site has a burn layer that survives. Natural forces erase them. Cities are paved over. And in some cases, God may choose to let the memory fade. Even so, their stories remain in Scripture.

What will our own civilization leave behind? Rome left marble. Babylon left bricks. Greece left amphitheaters. But all of them left burn layers, too. Every empire burns—whether by foreign armies, internal collapse, or divine decree. Burn layers are what remain when the illusion of permanence is shattered. They are the buried sermons of history.

As wars rage and bombs fall in the modern world, we ask: what burn layers are being created now? What will archaeologists one day find beneath our cities? More importantly, what will they say about who we were—and what we worshiped?

Burn layers matter. They are more than scientific evidence. They are reminders. Archaeology can reveal them. Only Scripture can interpret them. “[T]he Most High rules in the kingdom of men” (Daniel 4:17). Jericho’s ash still speaks. So does Jerusalem’s. And maybe one day, ours will too.

Burn Layers Beneath Our Feet

In every age, there are those who refuse to see the warning signs—those who walk confidently over glass floors stretched thin across the flames of the past. But burn layers do not lie. They record the fall of kingdoms, the arrogance of empires, and the finality of divine justice.

Yet sometimes, even within the soot and ash of destruction, the grace of God still glimmers. At Jericho, where the walls fell in terrifying collapse and the city burned in judgment, one household stood untouched. Amid embers and ruin, a scarlet cord hung from a window. Rahab, a woman once far from righteousness, was saved—she and her family—because she believed, and obeyed. Her deliverance was not an accident of war, but an act of grace. She trusted the word of the Lord, and in the middle of judgment, she found mercy.

Sometimes, within the burned layers of ash and soot, the grace of God can be found. This is the paradox of divine justice—that while nations fall and cities are consumed, God still sees the faithful. And He still saves.

Jeremiah was branded a traitor for urging surrender to Babylon. But he saw the destruction coming. He could already smell the smoke. When his cries went unheeded, Jerusalem was reduced to rubble and ash—a burn layer beneath a once-golden city.

One day, all human kingdoms will fall. Their legacies will lie buried beneath the dust of time. But in that day, may we be found not among the ruins—but among the redeemed. For there is a kingdom that will never fall, a city that will never burn. And there is One whose grace can save us—even from the fire.

What will our generation leave behind? Perhaps not a layer of ash, but a headstone. A fossilized echo of misplaced trust and spiritual neglect. Yet for those who listen, burn layers are not just about endings. They are a call to choose what will never burn. The kingdoms of this world fall. But “we are receiving a kingdom which cannot be shaken” (Hebrews 12:28). There is only one foundation that will never become a layer of ruin: the one built on the eternal King.

Let the ashes remind us—not only of what was lost—but of what remains unshakable.

The post Burn Layers: Traces of Judgment, Echoes of Grace appeared first on Apologetics Press.

ABRAHAM AT SHECHEM

The Bible introduces Shechem in Genesis 12 with an aura of profound promise and significance. It was the first place Abraham entered upon arriving in the land God had destined for him (ca. 1875 B.C.), and it was here that God appeared to him for the first time in a vision:

Abram passed through the land to the place at Shechem, to the oak of Moreh. At that time the Canaanites were in the land. Then the LORD appeared to Abram and said, “To your offspring I will give this land.” So he built there an altar to the LORD, who had appeared to him (Genesis 12:6-7, ESV).

This encounter between Abraham and Shechem resonates as deeply as the moment when a groom carries his bride across the threshold, marking the beginning of a new and transformative chapter. Standing on the fertile plain between two mountains, God assured Abraham, “To your seed I will give this land,” turning a vision into a concrete reality. This moment inaugurated the enduring relationship between Abraham’s family and the land of Canaan, setting the stage for Shechem to be remembered as a place of covenant, redemption, and divine promise.

The tree of Moreh may have been a gathering place for the local Canaanite population, possibly used for communal decision-making, worship, or oracular consultations. Yet, as Abram stood beneath its shade, the tree was transformed. What may have been a place of pagan ritual or human deliberation became a site where the true God appeared and revealed His covenant. The Hebrew name Moreh (מוֹרֶה) is derived from a root meaning “to teach” or “to instruct.” This suggests that the tree was more than a geographical landmark—it was a site of revelation and guidance. As Abram journeyed through the land God had promised, his arrival at Shechem by the great tree of Moreh seems imbued with meaning, as though the tree were a symbol of divine teaching, preparing Abram to receive the promise that would shape the destiny of his descendants. Abram’s decision to build an altar here was no coincidence. His act reclaimed a site most certainly tied to Canaanite worship and reoriented it toward Yahweh, marking it as a place where God appeared and made His covenantal promises known.

Archaeology of Shechem and Abraham’s Sojourn

The earliest non-biblical written reference to Shechem dates to the Middle Bronze Age. It appears on a stele—a standing stone—belonging to Khu-Sebek, an Egyptian nobleman serving in the court of a pharaoh. Discovered in 1901 at Abydos, Egypt by archaeologist John Garstang, the stele describes a military campaign in a foreign region referred to as “Sekmem,” widely identified as Shechem. According to the inscription, “Sekmem fell,” indicating a successful Egyptian campaign in the area.¹

Though the Khu-Sebek Stele does not explicitly name the Pharaoh under whom Khu-Sebek served, if it was Sesostris III/Senusret III (ca. 1880-1840 B.C.) or his successor Amenemhat III,² this timeframe is consistent with Abraham’s potential journey to Egypt (ca. 1851 B.C.) and his interactions with Shechem (ca. 1875 B.C.) (using the High Chronology).³ This timeline reinforces the idea that Shechem was already a strategically important location, attracting the attention of both local patriarchs like Abraham and powerful empires like Egypt, as early as the 19^th century B.C.

Though some, like Edward Campbell,⁴ argue that Shechem was not an established city during Abraham’s life, archaeological excavations at Shechem indicate that urbanization began during the Middle Bronze Age I (Levels XXII-XXI; ca. 1900-1750 B.C.).⁵ This timeframe coincides with the period when Abraham arrives (ca. 1875 B.C.). Prior to the arrival of Abraham there may or may not have been fortification walls at Shechem, but in either event, Shechem was populated and constituted a settlement.

JACOB AT SHECHEM

Around 200 years later (ca. 1700 B.C.), the Bible records that Jacob, Abraham’s grandson, “camped within sight of the city” (Genesis 33:18, NIV). While the biblical account does not explicitly describe Shechem as fortified during Abraham’s time, it had undoubtedly grown into a significant settlement by the time Jacob arrived. In Genesis 33:20, Jacob built his own altar at Shechem, calling it “El Elohe Israel” (“God, the God of Israel”) and reaffirming the covenantal legacy tied to this sacred location. Jacob’s actions suggest he was aware of the sacred history of the site, where his grandfather Abraham had built an altar.

Here, Jacob also demonstrated the exclusivity of Israel’s worship of Yahweh when he gathered all the idols and pagan items still hidden within his household and buried them “underneath the elah tree⁶ in Shechem” (Genesis 35:4). Instead of destroying these objects, he chose to inter them, seemingly to desecrate the very foundation of this city marked by betrayal and ruin. This act of purifying his household symbolized a rejection of idolatry and recommitment to the God of his fathers, a profound statement against the corruption of Shechem and the polytheistic practices of the surrounding Canaanite culture.

JOSHUA AT SHECHEM

Shechem’s significance does not end with Abraham and Jacob. Centuries later, it would become a place of covenant renewal. Following Moses’ instructions (Deuteronomy 11:29-32; 27), the Israelites journeyed to Shechem shortly after entering the Promised Land.⁷ In Joshua 8, Israel gathered at Shechem to affirm their commitment to Yahweh, standing in the valley between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, the mountains of blessing and cursing. There, they renewed their covenant with God, redefining and deepening their commitment to the divine relationship. This covenant was both profound and perilous, marking a collective acceptance of mutual accountability within Israel. After crossing the Jordan and enacting the covenant of Blessings and Curses at Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, the nation became responsible for one another’s actions.

The geography of Shechem reinforced the solemnity of this covenant. The two mountains flanking the plain created a natural setting reminiscent of the halved animals in the Covenant of the Pieces (Genesis 15), where divine fire and smoke passed between the sacrifices. Despite the modest heights of Mount Ebal (3,083 ft.) and Mount Gerizim (2,890 ft.), their unique acoustics make it possible for voices spoken on the slopes to be heard clearly in the valley below. This natural amphitheater likely amplified the voices of Joshua and the Israelites when they proclaimed the Law from these mountains.

This covenant ceremony inverted the imagery of Sinai. Instead of standing at the base of Mount Sinai looking upward toward God’s revelation, the tribes of Israel were divided between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal, gazing down at the Ark of the Covenant positioned in Shechem’s plain below. This arrangement accentuated the nation’s unity and shared obligations as they stood over the Ark and the ancient city of Shechem—a place steeped in divine promise. This ceremony completed the circle Abraham began, connecting the nation’s origins to its new role in the Promised Land.

The Book of Joshua also highlights the inclusive nature of this gathering, noting that “all Israel, aliens and citizens alike” were present to hear the words of the Law (Joshua 8:33,35). The Hebrew word for “aliens” (gerim) refers to non-Israelites who lived among the people of Israel. These individuals were often foreigners who had joined the Israelite community, possibly because of their belief in Yahweh or because of practical circumstances (e.g., Rahab, Ruth the Moabite).

Based on an early Exodus date of 1446 B.C., this event would have occurred around 1406 B.C. during the Late Bronze IB period, corresponding to Level XIV at Tell Balata.⁸ Archaeological evidence shows Shechem’s earlier destruction around 1540 B.C., likely by the Egyptian armies of Ahmose I or Amenhotep I, with subsequent rebuilding beginning around 1450 B.C. The reconstructed city at Level XIV featured fortifications, residential structures, and a fortress-like temple, representing the Shechem where Joshua read the Law to the Israelites and the local population.

Later, Joshua assembled the Israelites at Shechem a second time to renew their covenant with God, urging them to reaffirm their commitment to serve Him:

And Joshua wrote these words in the Book of the Law of God. And he took a large stone and set it up there under the terebinth that was by the sanctuary of the LORD. And Joshua said to all the people, “Behold, this stone shall be a witness against us, for it has heard all the words of the LORD that he spoke to us. Therefore it shall be a witness against you, lest you deal falsely with your God.” So Joshua sent the people away, every man to his inheritance (Joshua 24:26-28, ESV).

The connection to Abram’s experience under the tree of Moreh (the terebinth) is unmistakable—Shechem had been, and would continue to be, a place where God instructed His people and invited them into covenantal relationship. With unmistakable symbolism, Joshua mounted a stone, a symbol of the covenant with God, in the very same place that Jacob had interred the family idols, centuries earlier. Thus, this ceremony reiterated God’s promises to Abraham (Genesis 12:7; 17:7-8), Jacob, and Israel through the covenant at Sinai (Exodus 24:8), tying Shechem’s history of covenant renewal to the larger biblical narrative of faith and divine promise.

Was the symbolic stone meant to counter the idols? To cancel them? To remind Israel that idolatry dogged them from their very inception as a people, and they must always be on guard against it? We cannot know—we do not even know if Joshua knew of the buried idols—but we do feel the weight of both of those legacies echoed in the same place.

JOSEPH BURIED AT SHECHEM

The Bible next highlights Shechem as the site where Joseph’s burial fulfilled a long-held promise. Before his death in Egypt, Joseph made his brothers swear to return his body to the land God had promised to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob after Israel’s deliverance from Egypt (Genesis 50:24-25). True to his request, Joseph’s remains were eventually interred at Shechem in the land Jacob had purchased from the sons of Hamor for one hundred pieces of silver. This land was designated as the inheritance of Joseph’s descendants (Joshua 24:32).

Shechem held profound significance for Joseph, both as part of his family’s covenantal legacy and as a site of personal transformation. It was the first land Jacob purchased in Canaan (Genesis 33:18-20), symbolizing his commitment to establishing a permanent presence in the Promised Land in accordance with God’s promises to Abraham (Genesis 12:6-7) and Isaac. By choosing to be buried at Shechem, Joseph anchored himself in this legacy, affirming his faith in God’s covenant and expressing confidence in Israel’s ultimate inheritance of the land. Joseph’s burial demonstrates his forward-looking hope, tying his personal story to the broader redemptive narrative of the Israelites’ eventual possession of Canaan.

At the same time, Shechem also bore a deeply personal significance for Joseph, as it was near the site where he was betrayed and sold into slavery by his brothers (Genesis 37:12-28).⁹ His choice of burial location may reflect a reconciliation with this painful chapter of his life, transforming a place of treachery into one of covenantal fulfillment and divine restoration. Joseph’s burial in Shechem may in some way symbolize a redemptive act, reclaiming a space once associated with betrayal as a testament to God’s providence. This decision would convey Joseph’s theological understanding of suffering and redemption, encapsulated in his declaration that what his brothers intended for harm, God used for good (Genesis 50:20). In this way, Shechem becomes both a personal and theological statement of faith, serving as a bridge between Joseph’s story of forgiveness and the enduring promises of God to His people.

The burial of Joseph at Shechem clearly implies a peaceful relationship between the Israelites and the inhabitants of the region during this time. The land at Shechem, originally purchased by Jacob and willed to Joseph (Genesis 48:22), likely passed to Joseph’s son, Manasseh. This inheritance may explain why the tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim settled in the area surrounding Shechem (Joshua 16-17). The absence of military activity within their allotted territory during the period of consolidation following the Conquest further underscores this harmonious coexistence. Instead, their campaigns focused on areas at the borders of their inheritance, such as Bethel (Judges 1:22-29,35). This evidence points to a significant period of stability and cooperation between the Israelites and Shechem’s inhabitants.

THE CALAMITY OF SHECHEM

While Shechem is a place marked by covenant renewal, it was also a site of profound calamity. Dinah was violated within its boundaries,¹⁰ and as previously noted, Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers on its outskirts. This juxtaposition of covenant and catastrophe underscores Shechem’s theological significance. It is a place where divine promises are proclaimed and human failures are exposed—a microcosm of the tension between God’s faithfulness and human frailty. Each of Shechem’s tragic stories begins with hope, yet spirals into rupture, reflecting the fragility of human relationships and the consequences of moral and spiritual disobedience. Still, its enduring association with covenant renewal suggests that even in the midst of calamity, Shechem remains a witness to God’s unwavering commitment to His people and His ability to bring redemption from ruin.

Shechem in the Judges Period

Shechem’s history of calamity reaches another dark chapter with the story of Abimelech, a figure whose ambition and treachery corrupted the land of promise. After the death of Gideon, Abimelech manipulated his Shechemite heritage to gain the trust of the city’s leaders, using funds from the temple of Baal-Berith to consolidate his power.¹¹ His name, meaning “My Father is King,” reflected his ruthless pursuit of authority, culminating in the brutal murder of his seventy brothers to eliminate rivals and secure his dominion (Judges 9:1-6).

Abimelech’s rule, however, was built on a foundation of betrayal and bloodshed, and his leadership quickly descended into chaos. When the people of Shechem turned against him, Abimelech’s response was catastrophic. He razed the city, slaughtered its inhabitants, and burned alive those who sought refuge in the temple of Baal-Berith—a site that had already become a symbol of idolatry and desecration (Judges 9:46-49). His violent end, crushed beneath a millstone dropped by a woman, fulfilled Jotham’s prophetic curse and underscored God’s judgment on his corruption and tyranny (Judges 9:53-57).

Archaeologists, including Edward Campbell, Benjamin Mazar, George Earnest Wright, and Lawrence Stager, identify the “tower of Shechem” mentioned in Judges 9 as the Fortress-Temple or Tower Temple of Shechem.¹² This massive Canaanite structure, excavated by Wright in 1926 and later reexamined by Stager, is known as “Temple 1.” Measuring 70 feet (21 meters) wide and 86 feet (26 meters) long, with foundation walls 17 feet (5.1 meters) thick, it is the largest Canaanite temple discovered in Israel. The structure featured a multistory mudbrick and timber superstructure with a grand entrance flanked by two towers. Stager proposed that its courtyard may have been the site where Joshua set up a large stone under the oak near the holy place of the Lord (Joshua 24:26). The destruction of this Fortress-Temple is dated to approximately 1100 B.C., consistent with Level XI at Shechem and correlated with the events described in Judges 9.¹³ Campbell cautiously supports this connection, noting that the archaeological evidence aligns plausibly with the biblical narrative of Abimelech’s attack.¹⁴

Shechem in the United Kingdom

Later, in the period of the divided monarchy, Rehoboam’s ill-fated attempt to assert his rule in Shechem ended in humiliation and the fracturing of his kingdom. His harsh demands were rejected, and he fled to Jerusalem, leaving behind a shattered monarchy and the seeds of national division (1 Kings 12:16).

Afterwards, Jeroboam made Shechem the capital of the northern kingdom (1 Kings 12:25). Its central location and historical importance made it a natural choice for political power, but Jeroboam’s actions quickly turned Shechem into a center of apostasy. Jeroboam established rival worship centers in Bethel and Dan, erecting golden calves to prevent his people from worshiping in Jerusalem. His use of Shechem as a political base emphasizes how human ambition continually corrupts places of divine significance. What had been a city of covenant renewal became a launching point for spiritual rebellion.

Archaeological evidence from Levels X and IX at Tell Balata reflect the period of Jeroboam I (920–810 B.C.), during which the city was rebuilt and elevated to prominence. Carefully constructed stone houses with foundations for stairs suggest the prosperity and architectural advancements of this time, consistent with the biblical account of Jeroboam fortifying Shechem (1 Kings 12:25). Yet, even this period of restoration could not shield Shechem from the consequences of disobedience.

God’s judgment came swiftly with the Assyrian invasion of 724 B.C. (2 Kings 17:5-6)¹⁵. Level VII reveals the city’s devastation, reduced to rubble and ash by the invading forces. The thoroughness of the destruction, described as “a heap of ruins” covered in burned beams and collapsed brickwork, is a sobering reminder of the fate that awaited those who turned away from God’s covenant.¹⁶ Following the destruction, the Assyrians repopulated the area with exiled peoples, who merged their own beliefs with a form of Yahwistic worship (2 Kings 17:23-24). This syncretism gave rise to the Samaritans, a community whose worship centered on Mount Gerizim and mirrored elements of Judaism. Even in the New Testament, the Samaritans’ distinct religious identity is highlighted (Luke 9:52; John 4:7-22; Acts 8:25), underscoring the long-lasting consequences of Israel’s apostasy.

Shechem’s layered history demonstrates how a site so intertwined with God’s covenant and acts of divine revelation could still fall victim to ruin due to the disobedience of its people. Its rise and fall serve as a solemn reminder that no place, regardless of its past sanctity, is immune to judgment when God’s commands are forsaken. Yet, the survival of the Samaritan community on Mount Gerizim reflects God’s ongoing narrative of redemption, even amid human failure.

SHECHEM IN THE INTER-BIBLICAL PERIOD

During the Hellenistic period (ca. 330-107 B.C.), Shechem experienced a modest revival, marked by the construction of significant buildings and the establishment of a large Samaritan temple and sacrificial platform on Mount Gerizim. This temple, whose remnants were visible during Jesus’ time (John 4:20), became central to Samaritan worship. However, the ongoing conflict between the Ptolemies and Seleucids brought decline to Shechem, culminating in its destruction by John Hyrcanus around 126 B.C. Hyrcanus razed the Samaritan temple and leveled Shechem by 107 B.C., leaving the city in ruins until its identification in A.D. 1901.

In the Roman period, Samaritans continued to inhabit the region. Archaeological evidence, such as burials on Mount Ebal, confirms their presence.¹⁷ Although the Samaritans attempted to restore their cult worship on Mount Gerizim, the Romans suppressed these efforts and, in A.D. 72, constructed a new city, Flavia-Neapolis, about one mile west of Tell Balata. This Roman city, later known as Nablus, remains a thriving urban center.

JESUS AT SHECHEM

Centuries after Abraham, Jacob, and Joshua, Jesus sat at Jacob’s well near Shechem, now called Sychar. The well’s location at the base of Mount Gerizim, southeast of Tell Balata, is historically significant, as it lies at a crossroads connecting Jerusalem to the Jordan Valley and Galilee. While not mentioned in the Old Testament, its authenticity is supported by Jewish, Samaritan, Christian, and Muslim traditions.¹⁸ Today, the well lies beneath a Greek Orthodox church, accessible via steps from the apse.

This setting provides the backdrop for Jesus’ interaction with the Samaritan woman in John 4, where He declared Himself the Messiah. This moment, rich with theological depth, connects the old covenant to the new. The well, dug by Jacob in the land he had purchased, symbolizes God’s provision. But Jesus points to a deeper fulfillment, where worship is no longer tied to a mountain, temple, or city, but to spirit and truth.

The Samaritan woman’s presence at the well reflects Shechem’s fractured history. Her ancestors, the Samaritans, worshiped on Mount Gerizim, a site they regarded as holy. This division between Jews and Samaritans, rooted in centuries of conflict, is healed through Jesus’ words. In Him, the promises first made to Abraham are fulfilled—not just for one people, but for all nations.

The story of Jesus sitting at Jacob’s well constitutes perhaps a redeeming moment for the city’s legacy, transforming it from a place of division and idolatry into a symbol of restoration and hope. Jesus’ conversation with the woman transcends the geographic and ethnic divides that had fractured the region for centuries. In offering her living water, He inaugurates a new covenant—one that fulfills God’s promises to Abraham and extends grace to all humanity. This profound moment, at a site steeped in historical and theological resonance, underscores Shechem’s enduring role as a place of divine encounter and revelation.

CONCLUSION: SHECHEM AS A MICROCOSM OF REDEMPTION

Shechem, with its fertile valleys and towering mountains, is a place of profound beauty and deep spiritual significance. Shechem’s position between Mount Gerizim and Mount Ebal serves as a physical manifestation of the covenant blessings and curses God gave Israel in Deuteronomy 27-28. The visual power of these two mountains underscores the weight of the decision Israel faced in this place. This dramatic moment reinforces the binary choice God presents to His people: obedience leading to life and blessing, or rebellion leading to death and curse. It is a choice that echoes through the Scriptures, from Joshua’s declaration to “choose this day whom you will serve” (Joshua 24:15, ESV) to Jesus’ invitation to worship in spirit and truth at Jacob’s well.

Shechem’s history also reveals humanity’s tendency to corrupt what God has declared holy. What should have been a city of promise and reconciliation became infamous for its association with conflict and catastrophe. In Shechem, the tension between divine promise and human failure is written into its very soil, a tragic emblem of Israel’s fractured history.

 Yet, through the brokenness, Shechem points to the faithfulness of God. It is also a place of hope—a hope fulfilled in Jesus Christ, who offers living water to a thirsty world. Shechem is a reminder of the unshakable nature of God’s promises, His grace, and His covenantal love.¹⁹

At Shechem, God validated His covenant with Abraham, promising to bear the consequences of its violation Himself. At Calvary, He fulfilled that promise in Jesus Christ, taking on the sin of humanity and walking the path of sacrifice that no one else could endure. Shechem is not just a city of the past; it is a testament to the God who walks with His people, through valleys of promise and ruin, and leads them into redemption.

ENDNOTES

¹ Lawrence E. Toombs (1992), “Shechem,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 5:1179.

² Scarabs bearing Amenemhat III’s cartouche have been found at Canaanite sites, such as Gezer and Megiddo, indicating Egyptian presence and interaction. See E.D. Oren (1984), The Role of the Sea Peoples in Canaanite History: Studies in the Archaeology of the Late Bronze Age.

³ The High Chronology argues that the Late Bronze Age (ca. 1550) ended in roughly 1200 B.C., the Iron Age I lasted from 1200-1000 BC, and the Iron Age IIA from 1000 BC through Shoshenq I’s invasion of the southern Levant. See T.E. Levy and T.F.G. Higham, eds. (2005), “Introduction: Radiocarbon dating and the Iron Age of the Southern Levant: Problems and potentials for the Oxford conference,” in The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (London: Equinox).

⁴ Edward F. Campbell (1993), “Shechem,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (New York: Simon & Schuster), 4:1347.

⁵ Toombs, 5:1179.

⁶ The Elah tree is generally associated with the Quercus calliprinos, or the Palestine Oak. The Hebrew word אֵלָה (Elah) is also sometimes translated as “terebinth,” which leads to overlap in biblical interpretations. This tree is robust and evergreen, common in the highlands of Israel, and often symbolizes strength and endurance.

⁷ The journey to Shechem took the Israelites through the central hill country, an area they had yet to conquer. Remarkably, women and children participated in this peaceful trek, emphasizing its non-military nature (Joshua 8:35). This event was not a spontaneous act but a fulfillment of Moses’ earlier instructions to the Israelites (Deuteronomy 11:29-30; 27:4-13; Joshua 8:33). The Shechem gathering was clearly preordained, planned long before the Israelites entered the Promised Land or initiated any military campaigns in Canaan.

⁸ Campbell, 4:1345-54; Toombs, 5:1174-86.

⁹ Dothan, where Joseph was sold into slavery (Genesis 37:17-28), is located approximately 13 miles north of Shechem in a fertile plain along ancient trade routes. Its proximity to Shechem highlights the trajectory of Joseph’s journey and its connection to significant biblical events at both sites.

¹⁰ The rape of Dinah is recounted in Genesis 34:1–2, where Shechem, the son of Hamor the Hivite, takes and violates Dinah, the daughter of Jacob and Leah, while she visits the local women.

¹¹ Baal-Berith, meaning “Lord of the Covenant,” was a Canaanite deity worshiped in Shechem, as referenced in Judges 8:33 and Judges 9:4. Archaeological findings at Shechem, including a large temple (Temple 1) identified as the “Temple of Baal-Berith,” support its role as a center of worship.

¹² Campbell, 4:1345-54; Lawrence E. Stager (2003), “The Shechem Temple where Abimelech Massacred a Thousand,” Biblical Archaeological Review, 28[4]:26-35,68-69.

¹³ Stager, 28[4]:26-35,68-69; Joe D. Seger (1997), “Shechem,” in The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, ed. Eric M. Myers (New York: Oxford University Press), 5:19-23.

¹⁴ Campbell, 4:1345-54.

¹⁵ Shechem was likely destroyed by the Assyrians in 724-721 B.C., around the time Samaria, the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, fell to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V (completed under Sargon II; 2 Kings 17:5-6). This marked the eradication of the northern tribes of Israel and their exile, coinciding with Assyria’s broader campaign of conquest and resettlement.

¹⁶ Toombs, 5:1174-86.

¹⁷ Itzhak Magen (1993), “Neapolis,” in The New Encyclopedia of Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, ed. Ephraim Stern (New York: Simon & Schuster), 4:1354-59.

¹⁸ Zdravko Stefanovic (1992), “Jacob’s Well,” in The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David N. Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 3:608-609.

¹⁹ The concept of Hebrew covenantal love, often expressed by the term chesed (חֶסֶד), encapsulates God’s steadfast, loyal love and faithfulness to His covenant people. It implies a commitment that goes beyond obligation, rooted in mercy, grace, and enduring devotion. This term frequently appears in the Hebrew Bible, emphasizing God’s relational fidelity (e.g., Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 136). Chesed also calls for reciprocal loyalty and love among God’s people, reflecting their covenant relationship with Him.

The post Shechem: A Crossroads of Covenant, Calamity, and Redemption appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the February issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Understanding the Time Spans

Considering the above passages, do the 400 and 430-year periods correlate or contradict? Although both periods end with the Exodus, one must consider their beginnings to understand these time spans fully. As Paul indicates in Galatians 3:16-18, the 430-year period began with the Lord’s promise to Abraham. Genesis 15:13-16 conveys that the 400-year period began with the affliction upon Abraham’s descendants, namely, Isaac’s first affliction.

Although Abraham received several divine calls as recorded in Genesis, pinpointing the precise timing of the initial promise is challenging. Genesis 12:1-4 states that when Abraham was called out of Haran to Canaan, he was 75 years old—but it is unclear if the initial promise was made the same year or some time before. Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5) when Isaac was born. If the divine promise was imparted to Abraham 30 years before Isaac’s birth, this elucidates the periods of 400 and 430 years. Alternatively, if the promise was given when Abraham was 75 years old and if Isaac was five years old when he was weaned and began to be mocked by Ishmael (Genesis 21:9), then there is no discrepancy. (Add 25 years from the promise to Isaac’s birth and five more until Isaac’s first affliction to account for the 30 years.¹)

Thus, upon the writing of Genesis 15, the 400 years of affliction would have started with the weaning of Abraham’s first descendant, Isaac (430 years minus 30 years), not upon the initial promise made to Abraham when he was 75. So, both the 430 years and the 400 years are correct but have different starting points. The time between the promise to Abraham (at 75) and the Exodus leads to 430 years, and the time span between the weaning and affliction of Isaac (Genesis 21:9) and the Exodus results in 400 years.

Fourth Generation

Genesis 15:16 also records that the Lord told Abraham that “in the fourth generation they shall return here” to Canaan. Numbers 14:33-34 records that the older generation would be left to die in the wilderness due to their disobedience to God. The question is whether this fourth-generation reference best fits within a 430-year span or 215 years. Again, this issue continues to be hotly debated, but for our purposes, we will be succinct.

This passage is part of God’s covenant with Abraham, where God is telling Abraham about the future of his descendants. It is generally understood that the “fourth generation” mentioned here refers to the actual descendants of Abraham, not the number of generations (i.e., time) that passed after they entered Egypt. In other words, God is telling Abraham that his descendants will return to the land promised to him after four generations of living in a foreign land, which is later revealed to be Egypt.

Though “in the fourth generation” sounds ambiguous or even theologically symbolic, it would be impossible to count these four generations from Abraham as this only gets you to around the time Jacob and his family entered Egypt. From Jacob, however, it is only four generations to Moses (though he did not enter Canaan) and only four generations from the sons and/or grandsons of Jacob who went down into Egypt and then returned to Canaan. Yet, this would preclude missing generations and only works in the short sojourn model.

Based on the scope of this analysis, it is important to acknowledge that while the initial generation designated to return to Canaan was the fourth, the fifth generation—descendants of the fourth—were also present upon arrival in Canaan. The primary constraint from the given text is that the fourth generation was the earliest generation to make the return to Canaan. Nevertheless, their progeny, who lived during the same period, were going to be arriving at the same time.

One striking example of how these chronologies demonstrate real problems for those who support the long sojourn position is the generation of Levi. Detailed information regarding their ages at death and birthplaces allows us to construct a chronological timeline. According to the biblical account, Levi was born in Haran well before the Israelites’ arrival in Egypt, as documented in Genesis 29. Notably, Levi’s grandson Amram married Levi’s daughter, Jochebed (Amram’s aunt), as stated in Exodus 6:20, thus making Levi both the grandfather and great-grandfather of Moses and his siblings. Following the pattern set forth above, the fourth generation of Levi’s descendants that came into Canaan includes Moses’ sons Gershom and Eliezer (1 Chronicles 23:14-17). Moving backward, Moses, their father, died at 120; Moses’ father, Amram, died at around 137; and Kohath, the son of Levi, died at around 133.

Kohath, son of Levi, to Gershom and Eliezer (four generations)

1st      Kohath (death at age 133)

2nd     Amram (death at age 137)

3rd      Moses (80 years old at Exodus; death at 120)

4th      Gershom and Eliezer (generation that entered Canaan)

Even if one stretches the available data to its maximum limits, this timeline does not work in the context of a 430-year-long Egyptian sojourn. The provided genealogy suggests that even if Levi arrived in Goshen at the age of 50 with his newborn son Kohath (as mentioned in Genesis 46:11), and if Kohath had his son Amram at the old age of 133—the year he died—Amram’s lifespan of 137 years would still not bridge the gap to 400 or 430 years since Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus. The most you can get out of Moses’ genealogy is 350 years (133 plus 137 plus 80), leaving an unaccounted 70 to 80-year gap.

The dilemma of the generational timeline deepens upon closer scrutiny. First, it is exceedingly unlikely that these men had children the year of their death. So, since they likely sired their children younger in life, the overall available time span would decrease further. Additionally, taking into account that Jochebed would have eventually reached menopause, her lifespan would not be enough to cover the gap to her own children, especially if it mirrored that of her contemporaries. If one adheres to the view that the Israelites endured 400 years of Egyptian oppression, this period could not commence before Joseph’s death. This leads to the implication that the 400-year countdown began with the onset of oppression during Moses’ generation and ended with the Exodus. However, this poses a chronological challenge because Moses only lived to be 120 years old, making it unfeasible for him to span the entire 430 years.

It is, therefore, impossible for a 430-year sojourn to fit within the four generations unless one claims gaps in the genealogy, which is what long sojourn advocates must do out of necessity.² Robert Carter and Lita Sanders correctly state, “[T]he biblical genealogy would be incredibly opaque if the people recording the data were skipping over random people. It would not even be easy to do if they were skipping over only specific people, because so many siblings, uncles, nieces, etc., are mentioned.”³ On the other hand, when we consider a shorter sojourn period of 215 years, the available data aligns much better without the need for interjecting missing names or families. In this scenario, it is plausible that Miriam, who nearly lived through the 40-year Exodus, could have had early memories of Kohath, who was born prior to the Israelites’ arrival in Egypt. A shorter sojourn is simply better substantiated by the available data.

Dating the Sojourn

The Pharaoh of Joseph’s Time: Sesostris III or the Hyksos?

For those that support a long sojourn along with an early-date Exodus, ca. 1446/1445 B.C., the full 430 years is added, resulting in ca. 1876/1875 B.C. as the year Jacob would have entered Egypt in the United Middle Kingdom during the reign of Sesostris III.⁴ However, as noted previously, if the 400-year affliction of Genesis 15 started 71 years after Jacob arrived in Egypt, when Joseph died and the people were enslaved, that would lead to an Exodus at the end of this period occurring ca. 1406 B.C. (1876/1875 B.C. + 70 years = 1805 B.C. + 400 years of affliction = 1406 B.C.). However, an Exodus date of 1406 B.C. is not consistent with the biblical text.

According to supporters of the short sojourn along with an early-date Exodus, Jacob entered Egypt in 1660 B.C. (1446/1445 B.C. + 215 years). If Jacob entered Egypt ca. 1660 B.C., he would have arrived during the Egyptian 2nd Intermediate period when the Hyksos ruled a divided Egypt (ca. 1650-1550 B.C.). The Hyksos people were a Semitic people, like the Israelites, not native Egyptians, which may explain the willingness of the pharaoh of Joseph’s time to place him in a position of power.

Additionally, the narrative of Joseph rising to power is well articulated within the biblical text. Kenneth Kitchen,⁵ who maintains a mild degree of ambiguity on this particular issue, seems to support the notion of Joseph’s ascension during the Hyksos era ca. 1650 B.C. He further remarks on the introduction of chariots during the Hyksos reign, which seems to affirm that the Hyksos period, rather than the Middle Kingdom era, is a more suitable context for the events of Genesis 41:42-43:

Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

Kitchen acknowledges that the type of war chariot referred to in Genesis 41 did not exist before the Hyksos period.

The Pharaoh Who Knew Not Joseph: Ahmose I or the Hyksos?

Due to the prosperity of the Israelites in Egypt during Joseph’s time, the affliction referenced in Genesis 15 must have started after the rise of a pharaoh who did not know Joseph. After Joseph’s death, we have recorded:

And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves (Exodus 1:12b-14, ESV).

Following the short sojourn dating, Jacob’s death 17 years after his arrival in ca. 1660 B.C., as well as the death of his son Joseph years after that, would place the enslaving of the Israelites after ca. 1590 B.C., only 64 years before the birth of Moses. The maximum period of hard bondage was less than 130 years. (Joseph’s death year minus the year of the Exodus, ca. 1573 B.C. – 1446 B.C. = 127 years.) The minimum length of hard bondage was 80 years, from Moses’ birth to the Exodus, at which time he was 80 years old (Exodus 2:1-12; cf. 7:7).

The best evidence points to Ahmose I (ca. 1550-1525 B.C.) as the pharaoh who knew not Joseph (Exodus 1:8). During the beginning of his reign, ca. 1550-1540, the Hyksos rulers were defeated and expelled from Egypt. However, those of Jacob’s lineage who lived in and around Goshen did not leave. Instead, they stayed in their rich surroundings, ultimately finding themselves enslaved and hated by their native Egyptian conquerors, who likely perceived the Hebrews as being aligned with their enemies, the Hyksos.

In Exodus 1:8, the “new king” “arose…over Egypt.” In Hebrew the verb qum plus the preposition ‘al often has the meaning “to rise against” (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11; 28:7; Judges 9:18; 20:5; 2 Samuel 18:31; 2 Kings 16:7)—inferring a violent military overthrow. This interpretation fits well with Ahmose I who defeated the Hyksos militarily. However, it could not be said of the Hyksos who assumed rule over a long period of time without an invasion or violence.⁶

The statement found in Exodus 1:10 becomes more comprehensible within this framework: “come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.” Which adversaries could the Egyptians have been wary of as they observed the burgeoning numbers of the Hebrews? The context provided by this verse is particularly cogent if the foes in question were a group that had been recently expelled from Egypt after a century of dominion: the Hyksos. This pharaoh’s concern was not only that the Hebrews had become too numerous but that with their numbers, along with their prior rulers, the Hyksos could retake control of lower Egypt.

Some have questioned how Ahmose I (the native Egyptian King who began the 18^th Egyptian Dynasty), if he were the “new King who knew not Joseph” according to Exodus 1:8, could truthfully say that the Israelites were more and mightier than the Egyptians. In answering this question, it is essential to understand that verse 7 of Exodus 1 indicates that the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful, and they multiplied greatly, such that the land was filled with them. The Israelite people who remained after the Hyksos were removed would have certainly outnumbered by far the native Egyptians.

Some advocates of the long sojourn believe that with Jacob/Joseph having arrived well before the Hyksos (ca. 1875 B.C.), the “new king who did not know Joseph” was indeed the inaugural Hyksos ruler.⁷ This view posits that a Semitic Hyksos king enslaved and persecuted a kindred Semitic group who had been granted land in the same region where the Hyksos earlier established their capital Avaris. This line of reasoning stretches the bounds of credulity. Additionally, proponents of the long sojourn theory face the challenge of identifying a plausible enemy that could have allied with Israel to mount an offensive against Egypt.

Conclusion

The duration of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt is a topic of intense debate among scholars due to varying approaches to Egyptian chronology and the biblical text. Despite this, a consensus tending toward the short sojourn perspective is quite evident reaching back from the earliest Jewish chronologists (Hillel) to John Calvin, Ussher, Newton, and Hoffmeier, along with a host of other scholars. Though there is a considerable amount of data that was not discussed in this article, numerous aspects of the biblical texts and Egyptian history corroborate the short sojourn hypothesis:

1. Adhering to the long sojourn interpretation complicates our understanding of passages like Galatians 3:17, which unequivocally declares that the interval from the covenant with Abraham to the giving of the Law at Sinai was 430 years.
2. The concept of a short sojourn aligns with the scriptural records, especially when considering various ancient texts (LXX) that refer to the sojourn encompassing both Egypt and Canaan.
3. Many places in Scripture (Exodus 12:40; Genesis 17:8; 28:4; and Exodus 6:4) indicate that Canaan was considered part of the sojourning of Abraham and his descendants—not Egypt alone.
4. The 430-year timeframe does not conflict with the 400-year affliction. Rather, the 430 years encompasses the period from Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 12 to the giving of the Law after the Exodus. Within this timeframe, there is a 400-year period where Abraham’s descendants, starting with Isaac’s oppression by Ishmael, experienced adversity, leading up to the final afflictions in Egypt preceding the Exodus.
5. The genealogies among those who entered Egypt and were involved in the Exodus better support the 215-year sojourn, and in some ways function against 430 years.⁸ 
6. Under the premise of the short sojourn, Joseph would have risen to power under the Hyksos (15^th Dynasty, ca. 1650-1550 B.C.) and not during the time of native Egyptian pharaohs (long sojourn). Numerous synchronizations exist that better explain the Joseph narrative including that he is depicted using a chariot (Genesis 41:43; 46:29). This aligns with the historical understanding that chariots did not exist in Egypt prior to the Hyksos, consistent with the short sojourn.
7. Ahmose I’s military defeat of the Hyksos fits well with the Hebrew language describing the pharaoh who did not know Joseph in Exodus 1:8, implying a military conquest. This description does not fit with long sojourn advocates’ suggestion that the new king was a Hyksos pharaoh.

When the biblical narrative is interpreted holistically and rationally, the perceived discrepancies typically associated with the sojourn’s duration are resolved. While one should remain non-dogmatic on every detail regarding the genealogies and Egyptian chronology (which seems to change daily), evidence for the short sojourn is extremely well-supported and makes much more sense textually and historically, especially when it comes to the narrative of Joseph.⁹

Endnotes

¹ See Martin Anstey (1913), The Romance of Bible Chronology (London: Marshall Brothers), pp. 114,117.

² See Paul J. Ray (2012), “The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn In Egypt,” Associates for Biblical Research, January 5; Karl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch (1952) “The Pentateuch 1,” in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans), p. 469.

³ Robert Carter and Lita Sanders (2021), “How Long were the Israelites in Egypt? Using their own Family Tree to Resolve a Debate,” Creation, https://creation.com/how-long-were-the-israelites-in-egypt.

⁴ Thiele argues that by adding the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40 to the date of the Exodus (1446 B.C.), we arrive around 1875 B.C. See Edwin R. Thiele (1965), The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 52. This period, specifically 1878-1843 B.C., corresponds to the reign of Sesostris III, who is thought to be contemporary with Abraham (Genesis 12). Whitcomb, Payne, and Wood hold that it was Jacob, referenced in Genesis 47, who arrived during the reign of Sesostris III, not Abraham. See J. Barton Payne (1954), An Outline of Hebrew History (Grand Rapids: Baker), p. 47; John C. Whitcomb, Jr. (1968), “Old Testament Patriarchs and Judges” (Chicago: Moody Press), explanatory sheet; Leon Wood (1970), A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 114. Long Sojourn advocates must maintain that the 430 years of sojourning according to Exodus 12 and Galatians 3 must be accounted for entirely within Egypt. However, their rationale, as detailed in their scholarly work, fails to persuade.

⁵ Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 349.

⁶ John Rea (1961), “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Grace Journal, 2[1]:5-14, Winter.

⁷ See John Rea (1960), “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 3[3]:58-66, Summer.

⁸ See B. Hodge (2016), “Long or Short Sojourn by Chronological Derivation Strictly via the Biblical Text,” Biblical Authority Ministries, July 15, https://biblicalauthorityministries.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/long-or-short-sojourn-by-chronological-derivation-strictly-via-the-biblical-text/.

⁹ Many critics of the short sojourn approach erroneously assume that all supporters of the short sojourn theory also endorse Rohl’s “new chronology” perspective. Rohl suggests that the sojourn began around 1662 B.C. (a date likely incorrect) and connects it to Amenemhat III’s reign during Dynasty 12 (a connection also considered to be inaccurate). As a proponent of the short sojourn theory, I want to clarify that I do not endorse Rohl’s new chronology or his theology, nor do I see the need to compress Egyptian history to defend our position.

The post When and Where Was Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt? The Long and Short of It (Part 2) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also holds Masters degrees in Medical Education and Biblical Studies and completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is an adjunct faculty member in the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology and has been a square supervisor for the Associates of Biblical Research excavating in Shiloh for the past four years.]

For centuries, scholars have debated the length of the Israelite sojourn inEgyptwith considerable implications for our understanding of the chronology of the patriarchs and the Exodus. While the Bible seems to answer this question in Exodus 12:40-41 and in Galatians 3:17, there remains contention among many about both the length and location of the sojourn.

The 400 vs. 430 Years Debate

There are two key passages that reference a 430-year sojourn. Exodus 12:40-41 states, “Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Paul notes in Galatians 3:17, “And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ.”

However, two other passages refer to a 400-year period. Genesis 15:13 records, “Then He said to Abram: ‘Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.’” Acts 7:6 adds, “But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years.”

So, from the above four texts, we have 430 years (Genesis 12:40; Galatians 3:16-18) and 400 years (Genesis 15:13-16; Acts 7). Which is the correct number of years? There is no doubt that these authors knew their dates well enough to make a historical statement. Paul certainly knew about the 400 years mentioned in Genesis 15 and the 430 years of Genesis 12. How then can one explain the 400 years of Genesis 15?

While some commentators claim that Moses may have been rounding the numbers whereby 430 becomes 400, the argument is unconvincing. Petrovich¹ argues that both numbers have the same interval in view. The 400 years is cast as a round figure looking into the future, while the 430 years is the elapsed time span for that period. According to this perspective, the 400 years should be interpreted as simply a rough or round number, not an exact number. Thus, according to some, the exact length of the sojourn should not be sought in Genesis 15:13.²

The potential source of confusion concerning these time spans might arise from the fact that both periods concluded simultaneously with the Exodus. However, careful analysis of these passages indicates that Moses was calculating the 430 years of Exodus 12 from a completely different starting point than the 400 years of Genesis 15.

The Significance of the Sojourn

The question of the length of the Egyptian sojourn corresponds to our understanding of which pharaoh promoted Joseph and which pharaoh came along that “did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). This question also provides important insights to help us understand the approximate date of Abraham’s journey into Egypt during the famine of Genesis 12:10-12. In other words, how scholars date the length of the sojourn correlates to how they date the patriarchs.

Long vs. Short Sojourn

There exist two main approaches to the length of the Egyptian Sojourn. The majority of the debate surrounds where the clock started for the sojourn. Advocates of the long sojourn contend that the 430 years took place entirely in Egypt. Among those who support a long sojourn placing Jacob/Joseph during the Middle Kingdom period include Gleason Archer,³ Merrill Unger,⁴ John Rea,⁵ Leon Wood,⁶ and Doug Petrovich,⁷ among others.⁸

The short sojourn approach holds that the 430 years began with Abraham in Canaan and, thus, the period of Israel’s sojourn in Egypt was much shorter, approximately 215 years. Advocates of the short sojourn calculate a period of 215 years, starting with the moment Abram, at 75 years of age, received the divine covenant (Galatians 3:17).[9] Following this, Isaac’s birth occurs 25 years later. Jacob is born when Isaac reaches 60 years old (as per Genesis 25:26), and subsequently, Jacob descends into Egypt at the age of 130 (referenced in Genesis 47:9). The sum total of these years—25 plus 60 plus 130—equates to 215 years from the time of Abraham receiving the covenant to Jacob’s arrival in Egypt. The remaining 215 years consequently occur in Egypt. Among those who support a short sojourn are a bevy of biblical scholars as well as archaeologists including John Calvin,¹⁰ Joseph Bensen,¹¹ William Albright,¹² and Floyd Nolen Jones,¹³ among a host of others.¹⁴

While this controversy is not new, it possesses intricacies that necessitate a measured approach. The evidence better aligns with the short sojourn. Additional evidence may alter current conclusions. On the other hand, the timing of the Exodus is an entirely different question for which the Bible is much clearer. Previous articles¹⁵ have established that the best approach to identifying the date of the Exodus is to use the Hebrew text, which plainly points to a 15^th-century Exodus. Those who defend the late date, such as William Albright, H.H. Rowley, and James Hoffmeier, placing the Exodus ca. 1290, ca. 1225, and ca. 1270 B.C. respectively, do so by rejecting the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, deeming it unreliable or not to be taken literally.¹⁶ We consider the 480-year statement to be not only correct, as does Hillel, Ussher, Petrovich, Unger, Stripling, and Wood among a host of others,¹⁷ but essential to accurate and proper biblical chronology.

Key Passages for Discussion

Exodus 12:40-41 (430 Years)

Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years. And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

While on the surface, this passage, derived from the Hebrew Masoretic Text, seems to imply that the children of Israel spent the entire 430 years of their sojourn in Egypt, other passages shed additional light on this verse. Though we are provided the entire length of the sojourn of Israel in 430 years, the text doesnot indicate when the sojourning started. However, the text is clear when this time ended: when “all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.” Thus, Israel was in Egypt when the 430 years was coming to an end ca. 1446 B.C. and the phrase, “who lived in Egypt” (Exodus 12:40), should be interpreted, as “who dwelt at that time in Egypt.” Vilis Lietuvietis¹⁸ suggests that the Hebrew grammar in Exodus 12:40 of the Masoretic Text emphasizes the completion of the 430-year period, rather than indicating that the Hebrews resided in Egypt for the entire duration. Another possible translation is, “The duration of the Israelites’ stay, which included time in Egypt, was 430 years.” Therefore, Exodus 12:40 does not necessarily conflict with the notion of a shorter stay in Egypt since the reference to Egypt simply acknowledges when they ended their sojourn and does not indicate when the sojourn began.

The text in no way demands that the 430 years of the sojourn of Israel took place entirely in Egypt. The Greek LXX¹⁹ (translated centuries before the Masoretic Text) and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP; which also predates the Masoretic Text) include an important difference in Exodus 12:40, as follows: “Now the sojourning of the children of Israel and of their fathers, which they sojourned in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt was 430 years.”²⁰ Of the three major textual traditions, two (the LXX and SP) provide support for some of the sojourn occurring outside of Egypt (short sojourn). Though these textual traditions indicate that the sojourning also took place in Canaan, no doubt need be attributed to the Masoretic Text. While much more could be written about the reliability and historicity of our Bibles, the argument in favor of the short sojourn does not depend on this variant of Exodus 12 text found in the LXX. The text clearly indicates that there was sojourning occurring before Egypt.²¹

It has been proposed by some that the term “sons of Israel” in Exodus 12:40 implies the period of sojourn could only begin with the arrival of Jacob’s descendants in Egypt, excluding Abraham, Isaac, and even Jacob himself from this timeline.²² However, this interpretation does not hold up under scrutiny. The phrase “sons of Israel” in this passage refers to the Israelites poised to depart Egypt. If we consider the narrative’s broader context, it becomes evident that this term is used with precision, as Jacob’s descendants were the ones who first settled in Egypt. The scripture does not say, “The sojourning of the children of Israel in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years,” but the “sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt.”

Also, Canaan is referenced at least five times as a land of “sojourning” for the descendants of Abraham (Genesis 17:8; 28:4; 36:7; 37:1; Exodus 6:4). Genesis 17:8 records a reiteration of the promise to Abraham which implies that Canaan is a land of sojourning: “I will give to you and to your descendants after you, the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God” (NASB). The same connection is made in the Lord’s promise to Isaac: “May He also give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your descendants with you, that you may possess the land of your sojournings, which God gave to Abraham” (Genesis 28:4, NASB). Also consider Genesis 37:1 (ESV): “Jacob lived in the land of his father’s sojournings, in the land of Canaan.” God repeats the promise to Moses: “I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they lived as sojourners” (Exodus 6:4, ESV). If there were any doubts regarding whether the period of sojourning encompassed Canaan, these doubts are dispelled when we harmonize different passages of Scripture. For instance, when we compare Exodus 12:40 with other relevant verses like Genesis 17:8, 28:4, and Exodus 6:4, it becomes evident that Canaan was indeed regarded as an integral part of the sojourning experience of Abraham and his descendants. This understanding is further emphasized by Jacob himself, who acknowledged that his sojourning extended beyond Egypt: “The days of the years of my sojourning are 130 years” (Genesis 47:9, ESV). His response to Pharaoh is worded in such a way as to communicate that he considered himself to have already been “sojourning” (מָגוּר) before his time in Egypt. The root word גּוּר (gur) gives rise to both גֵּר (ger) and מָגוּר (magur). Ger focuses on the person who is sojourning, emphasizing their status as a foreigner or temporary resident while magur highlights the place or act of sojourning, emphasizing the temporary or dependent nature of the dwelling. The use of magur (מָגוּר) in Genesis 17:8 and 28:4 highlights that Abraham and Jacob were already considered sojourners in Canaan, living temporarily in a land not yet fully theirs. This term underscores their transient status, emphasizing their reliance on God’s covenant promise of eventual ownership.²³

Galatians 3:16-18 (430 Years)

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ. And this I say, that the law, which was four hundred and thirty years later, cannot annul the covenant that was confirmed before by God in Christ, that it should make the promise of no effect. For if the inheritance is of the law, it is no longer of promise; but God gave it to Abraham by promise (Galatians 3:16-18).

In this text, Paul seems to advocate that the 430-year clock started ticking when God made His promise to Abraham as per verse 16. Furthermore, this text does not appear to be an indication that God’s promise to Abraham occurred after they got to Egypt. It would be approximately 450 years from the start of the years of affliction until Israel received the land as their inheritance according to Acts 13:17-20:

The God of this people Israel chose our fathers and made the people great during their stay in the land of Egypt, and with uplifted arm he led them out of it. And for about forty years he put up with them in the wilderness. And after destroying seven nations in the land of Canaan, he gave them their land as an inheritance. All this took about 450 years. And after that he gave them judges until Samuel the prophet (ESV).

Paul in this passage is simply summarizing the period including the 400 years of affliction (starting with Abraham’s seed) and adding the 40 years of wandering in the desert after the Exodus and “about” 10 years to complete the conquest of Canaan under Joshua.

Though Paul is clearly aligned with the LXX, Wood²⁴ argues that in this passage Paul was intentionally attempting to be equivocal or ambiguous. As a scholar well-versed in both the Hebrew scriptures and the LXX, Paul was acutely aware of the textual variances and the surrounding discourse around this time period. So, arguing that Paul was purposefully attempting to be ambiguous is not convincing. Arguing that Paul aimed to use a figure that would “not be distracting yet historically accurate”²⁵ is unpersuasive. Petrovich²⁶ argues that the LXX’s mention of Israel and Canaan in Exodus 12:40 is dubious and not to be trusted.

To say that Paul would not have been familiar with the reading in the Greek LXX and the Hebrew with regards to his comment in Galatians 3:17 is an untenable stretch. There is little debate about the authors of the New Testament, in their references to Old Testament texts, often utilizing the LXX as their source. This is exemplified in the apostle Paul’s declaration in Galatians that the Law was instituted 430 years after the promise bestowed upon Abraham, not upon entering into Egypt. Though Paul’s statement unequivocally aligns with the Septuagint’s rendition, it is not to be suggested that Paul intended to endorse any particular clause or rendition of Exodus 12:40. Furthermore, it is critical to remember that the paramount intent of Paul’s discourse is to direct attention towards Christ and not the length of the sojourn.²⁷

Some advocates of the long sojourn contend that Galatians 3:17 does not refer to when the covenant was given but, instead, when it was “confirmed.” Thus, according to them, the “final confirmation” could have been just before Jacob and his family entered Egypt, thus allowing for the entirety of the 430 years to have occurred in Egypt. The problem with this argument is that nowhere in Galatians is Isaac or Jacob mentioned concerning the 430 years. Paul specifically refers to the promise “made” to Abram. Even if the text meant “confirmation” of the promise to Abram, the legal ratification of the covenant occurred soon after Abram entered Canaan at or around 75 years old (Genesis 15:8-21).

Nonetheless, by including this perspective in his epistles, Paul effectively integrated it into the scriptural canon. His scholarly stature and proficiency are well-documented (see Acts 5:34; 22:3), and his capability to comprehend both Hebrew and Greek texts is beyond dispute (not to mention the fact that Paul’s words are inspired by God²⁸). Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Paul was thoroughly convinced of the historical veracity of his writings. The notion of his purposefully striving to be ambiguous does not “hold water.” 

Moreover, it is worth emphasizing that the conjunction “and” in the phrase “to Abraham and to his offspring” suggests that Paul perceived the commencement of this temporal duration to be with Abraham, rather than with Jacob. Paul seems to be saying the 430-year sojourn (the same number of years noted in Exodus 12:41), started with Abraham when he said that the (Mosaic) Law came 430 years after the promise to Abraham. This passage alone, even without the LXX reference to Canaan, is the most powerful argument in favor of the short sojourn. 

It was this passage that convinced many of the most influential chronologists of the Bible including James Ussher²⁹ and Sir Isaac Newton.³⁰ Ussher was convinced that Galatians 3:17 provided the linchpin to estimating Israel’s actual time in Egypt, which he estimated to be closer to 215 years rather than the full 430 years. Since then, many influential scholars including Calvin,³¹ Albright,³² and Floyd Nolen Jones³³ among many others have advocated the shorter Egyptian sojourn.

Genesis 15 (400 years)

Then He said to Abram: “Know certainly that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years. And also the nation whom they serve I will judge; afterward they shall come out with great possessions. Now as for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried at a good old age. But in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete” (vss. 13-16).

Genesis 15:13-16 identifies specifically that it was Abraham’s offspring (Isaac and his descendants) that would be sojourners and afflicted for 400 years. They were in Canaan first (Psalm 105:12-13), and afterward in Egypt. This persecution, which started with mockery when Ishmael, the son of an Egyptian, taunted Isaac as described in Genesis 21:9, eventually escalated to the most heinous form of murder—the killing of newborn children. This pattern of persecution persisted in various forms for 400 years. However, God would bring judgment upon the nation they serve, and Abraham’s family would return to Canaan in the fourth generation (a final point that is discussed later in this article).

When did Abram’s descendants begin to be “afflicted” for 400 years? While some may assert that this affliction started upon Israel’s entry into Egypt, this cannot be the case as Joseph and his family initially lived in the richest part of the Delta under the special favor of the pharaoh until his death at least 71 years³⁴ after the arrival of Jacob and his brothers. That is, there was first a time of favor and then a time of affliction for the Israelites in Egypt. Joseph was about 39 when his family arrived in Egypt (compare Genesis 41:46,47,53; 45:6,11) and he died at 110 (Genesis 50:22). Thus, the Israelites were peacefully living in Egypt for at least 71 years before the persecution erupted. These 71 years without affliction must be added to the 400 years of affliction in Egypt, so the sojourn would have to be at least 470 years. But this reckoning cannot be true, for the maximum time given for the sojourn was 430 years according to Exodus 12:40-41. What can be said with certainty is that Israel’s arrival in Egypt did not start the clock of affliction per Genesis 15.

Long sojourn advocates often argue against the short sojourn approach by claiming that the Israelites could not have been under obvious persecution until they arrived in Egypt—but this is not necessarily the case. Furthermore, the text in no way demands that this affliction or oppression entailed slavery or physical harm. In fact, the Hebrew word used for “affliction” in Genesis 15:13-16 is the same Hebrew word used in Genesis 16:6 describing how Sarai treated Hagar when she forced her to flee. In other words, the “affliction” of Abraham’s descendants may refer to any kind of adversity, humility, or weakening. Thus, the short sojourn approach asserts that both wandering and persecution were occurring to Abraham’s descendants before they settled in Egypt. Accordingly, the affliction of Genesis 15 would begin with the mistreatment of Isaac by Ishmael, Hagar’s son, who had Egyptian lineage.³⁵ Isaac also faced persecution by the Philistines (Genesis 26:17-22), and Jacob faced affliction in the service of Laban. As an example, Jacob says in Genesis 31:42,

Unless the God of my father, the God of Abraham and the Fear of Isaac, had been with me, surely now you would have sent me away empty-handed. God has seen my affliction and the labor of my hands, and rebuked you last night.

Instead of continuous oppression, the 400 years establish a timeframe from the initial persecution to the final persecution under consideration.

Furthermore, the concept of servitude (vss. 13-14) certainly conjures images of Israel being enslaved by the Egyptians, but it may also include other examples of Abraham’s descendants serving others in foreign lands. One prominent example is Jacob’s years of service to Laban.

Although verse 14 denotes a single nation (“the nation whom they serve”), Egypt, receiving the Lord’s judgment, this reference does not preclude verse 13 from referring to affliction within Canaan as well as Egypt. Instead, verse 13 refers to sojourning in “a land,” not the land of Egypt specifically. It is clear that while verse 14 focuses more on Egypt, verse 13 is more general and, therefore, logically includes sojourning, serving, and affliction in both Canaan and Egypt.

Acts 7:6-7 (400 years)

But God spoke in this way: that his descendants would dwell in a foreign land, and that they would bring them into bondage and oppress them four hundred years. “And the nation to whom they will be in bondage I will judge,” said God, “and after that they shall come out and serve Me in this place.”

In this passage, Luke records Stephen’s speech referring to the subsequent clarification/reiteration of the promise to Abraham. In the promise, God foretells the affliction of Abraham’s progeny, a detail that was absent in the initial promise found in Genesis 12 but was later introduced during the reaffirmations in Genesis 15 and 17. Hence, Stephen’s mention of 400 years of tribulation is not only remarkably precise but also incredibly accurate. Both Genesis 15 and Stephen aimed to convey historical information regarding the duration of persecution endured by Abraham’s descendants. Again, it is essential to clarify that this timeframe does not solely encompass the time spent in Egypt or the entire sojourn period. However, upon closer examination of the text, it becomes evident that there is remarkable precision in this narrative.

[Part two of this article will appear in next month’s issue of R&R.]

Endnotes

¹ D.N. Petrovitch (2019), “Determining the Precise Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt,” Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin, 64:21-41. See also Douglas Petrovich (2006), “Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, 17[1]:81-110, Spring.

² Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), pp. 355-356; Gordon J. Wenham (1987), Genesis 1-15, Word Biblical Commentary (Waco, TX: Word), 1:332.

³ Gleason L. Archer, Jr. (1964), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 205.

⁴ Merrill F. Unger (1964), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 134.

⁵ John Rea (1961), “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Grace Theological Journal, Winter, 2.1:7.

⁶ Leon Wood (1970), A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 114.

⁷ D.N. Petrovitch (2019), “Determining the Precise Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt,” Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin, 64:21-41.

⁸ Jack R. Riggs (1971), “The Length of Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt,” Grace Theological Journal, Winter, 12[1]:32; Paul J. Ray, Jr. (1986), “The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, 24[3]:231-248, Autumn; Eugene H. Merrill (2008), Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 92-96; Douglas K. Stuart (2006), Exodus, New American Commentary (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman), 2:305; Andrew E. Steinmann (2011), From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia), pp. 68-70; Richard S. Hess (2018), “The Ancestral Period,” in Behind the Scenes of the Old Testament: Cultural, Social, and Historical Contexts, ed. Johnathan S. Greer, John W. Hilber, and John H. Walton (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 187; Rodger C. Young (2018), “Ussher Explained and Corrected,” Bible and Spade, 47, Spring.

⁹ The giving of the law at Mount Sinai, just a few months after the Exodus from Egypt, dates to ca. 1446 B.C. while Abraham at the moment that he received the promise according to Galatians 3:17 is around ca. 1875/76 B.C. Thus, 1876 B.C.-1446 B.C. = 430 years. See the later section on “Dating the Sojourn” for more details.

¹⁰ John Calvin (1554), Calvin’s Commentaries, Genesis, translated from the Calvin Translation Society Edition, Christian Classics Ethereal Library, https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/commentaries.i.html.

¹¹ Joseph Benson (1811), “Commentary on the Old and New Testaments,” Bible Hub, www.biblehub.com/commentaries/benson/.

¹² William F. Albright (1969), Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan (Garden City, NY: Doubleday), pp. 153-54; William F. Albright (1963), The Biblical Period from Abraham to Ezra, revised and expanded (New York, NY: Harper and Row), p. 11.

¹³ Floyd Nolen Jones (2009), The Chronology of the Old Testament, rev. edition (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

¹⁴ Matthew Henry (1706), Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary on the Whole Bible, Bible Study Tools, www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/matthew-henry-concise/; Robert Jamieson, A.R. Fausset, and David Brown (1871), Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, StudyLight, www.studylight.org/commentaries/jfb.html; John Gill (1980), Exposition of the Entire Bible, Bible Study Tools, https://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/; H.N. Orlinsky (1960), Ancient Israel (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press), p. 34; Merrill F. Unger (1964), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 144; Martin Anstey (1913), The Romance of Bible Chronology (London: Marshall Brothers), p. 114; H.A.W. Meyer (1873), The Epistle to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), p. 167; John Eadie (1869), A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Galatians (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), p. 260; Henry Alford (1958), The Greek Testament (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 31; Donald McDonald (1887), “Chronology,” The Imperial Bible Dictionary, ed. Patrick Fairbairn (London: Blackie and Son), p. 31; Tertullian (1885), “Answer to the Jews 2,” Ante-Nicene Fathers, 3:153; S. Olam 3 (210 years)—see Heinrich W. Guggenheimer (1998), Seder Olam: The Rabbinic View of Biblical Chronology (Lanham, MD: Jason Aronson, Inc.), p. 24; J. Ussher (2003), The Annals of the World (Green Forest, AR: Master Books); James G. Murphy (1866), A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Exodus (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark), p. 134; George Bush (1859), Commentary on Exodus, reprint (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), p. 150; James K. Hoffmeier (2007), “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50[2]:226, June; Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles (2012), “The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies,” Resources for Biblical Studies (Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature), 72:81; Edwin R. Thiele (1963), “Chronology, Old Testament,” The Zondervan Pictorial Bible Dictionary, ed. Merrill C. Tenney (Grand Rapids, MI; Zondervan), p. 167. Thiele contends that providing a definitive response regarding all aspects of the 430-year sojourn is challenging. However, he suggests that, according to Galatians 3:16-17, the sojourn likely encompassed both Canaan and Egypt.

¹⁵ Jonathan Moore (2023), “Current Perspectives on the Historicity and Timing of the Conquest of Canaan,” Reason & Revelation 43[10]; Jonathan Moore (2023), “The Biblical Conquest: Myth or History?” Bible & Spade, 36[3]; Jonathan Moore (2024), “The Date of the Exodus: What Does the Bible Say and Why Does It Matter? Part 1,” Reason & Revelation, 44[6]:2-10; Jonathan Moore (2024), “The Date of the Exodus: What Does the Bible Say and Why Does It Matter? Part 2,” Reason & Revelation, 44[7]:2-10.

¹⁶ Though some late-date (ca. 1290 B.C.) Exodus advocates support the short sojourn, including Kitchen and Hoffmeier, this shared viewpoint on the sojourn does not in any way alter my views on the date of the Exodus. Many early-date (1446 B.C.) Exodus advocates also support the short sojourn as these views are not incompatible.

¹⁷ Hillel was the father of modern-day Jewish chronology from the 1st century B.C. See Leonard Kravitz and Kerry M. Olitzky (1999), Pirkei Avot: A Modern Commentary on Jewish Ethics (Millburn, NJ: Behrman House). See also Ussher (2003); Douglas Petrovich (2006), “Amenhotep II and The Historicity of the Exodus Pharaoh,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, 17[1]:81-110, Spring; Merrill F. Unger (1981), Commentary on the Old Testament, 2 vols. (Chicago, IL: Moody Press); Bryant G. Wood (2005), “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48[3]:475-489, September; Rodger C. Young (2003), “When Did Solomon Die?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 46[4]:60, December; David M. Howard (1998), Joshua: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Nashvill, TN: B&H Publishing Group), p. 37; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (1998), A History of Israel from the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman), pp. 104-111; Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. (1990), The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Exodus, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), 2:288-291; Eugene H. Merrill (1996), Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 66-75; Scott Stripling (2021), “The Early Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Fifteenth Century B.C.,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. Mark Jansen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic), pp. 1-42; Bryant Wood (2007), “The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 B.C.: A Response to James Hoffmeier,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50:249-258; Bryant Wood (2003), “From Rameses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), pp. 256-262; William H. Shea (2003), “The Date of the Exodus,” in Giving the Sense (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), pp. 236-255.

¹⁸ Vilis Lietuvietis (2020), Was the Masoretic Text’s Ex. 12:40 430 years sojourn to the Exodus begun by Abraham or Jacob?: Hyksos Dyn. 15 Khyan and Khamudi; Dyn. 18 Ahmose, Amenhotep I, Thutmose I, Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, and Exodus Pharaoh Amenhotep II attest. Thoroughly Perfected Final Edition (7 May 2020), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341215041_Was_the_Masoretic_Text’s_Ex_1240_430_years_sojourn_to_the_Exodus_begun_by_Abraham_or_Jacob_Hyksos_Dyn_15_Khyan_and_Khamudi_Dyn_18_Ahmose_Amenhotep_I_Thutmose_I_Hatshepsut_Thutmose_III_and_Exodus_Phara.

¹⁹ The term “LXX” symbolizes the 70 or, more precisely, 72 scholars who were engaged in the translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek during the third century B.C. Each of the 12 tribes of Israel contributed six translators to this task. The Septuagint, rather than being a single uniform text, represents an anthology of Greek translations, the work of numerous scribes, likely compiled over several centuries and possibly originating from various locales. See Karen H. Jobes and Moisés Silva (2015), Invitation to the Septuagint, 2^nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic).

²⁰ All emphases in Scripture references are added by the author.

²¹ For additional source material in support of the short sojourn and the LXX, see Ussher (2003); compare No. 139, p. 31, with No. 192, p. 39, and also with No. 72, p. 25; D. Down (2001), “Reply to Letter, Biblical Chronology,” Journal of Creation, 18[1]:58; W.M. Viccary (2007), “Biblical chronology—Our Times are in His Hands,” Journal of Creation, 21[1]:62-67; P. Mauro (1987), The Wonders of Bible Chronology (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Ministries), pp. 1-5.

²² D.N. Petrovitch (2019), “Determining the Precise Length of the Israelite Sojourn in Egypt,” Near Eastern Archaeological Society Bulletin, 64:26.

²³ Magur (מָגוּר), noun [masc.], refers to “sojourning place” or “dwelling place,” often in the plural. Found in contexts like God’s covenant with Abraham (Genesis 17:8; 28:4; Exodus 6:4), it denotes transience (e.g., Genesis 47:9) and metaphorically represents life as a sojourner (Psalm 119:54). Francis Brown, S. R. Driver, and Charles A. Briggs (1996), The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers), S.v. “H4033. magor.”

²⁴ Leon Wood (1986), A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 66.

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ Petrovitch (2019), pp. 21-41; Petrovich (2006), pp. 81-110.

²⁷ Meyer (1873), p. 167; Alford (1958), p. 31.

²⁸ Eric Lyons (2009), “The New Testament: A Product of Man or God?” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-new-testament-a-product-of-man-or-god-830/.

²⁹ Ussher (2003). Originally published in 1658.

³⁰ Jed Z. Buchwald and Mordechai Feingold (2013), Newton and the Origin of Civilization (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

³¹ Calvin.

³² Albright (1963).

³³ Jones (2009).

³⁴ Joseph was 17 when he had his first two dreams (Genesis 37:2), and his brothers sold him into slavery. He was 30 when he entered Pharaoh’s household (Genesis 41:46). Jacob arrived in the early part of the famine (Genesis 45:6), which started after seven years of plenty, so Joseph was around 40 years old. Jacob arrived in Egypt at the age of 130 (Genesis 47:9) and then died at the age of 147 (Genesis 47:28). Joseph died at 110 (Genesis 50:22).

³⁵ Interestingly, Ishmael mocks young Isaac, therefore he was cast out. Before this moment, Ishmael was called Abraham’s son (Genesis 17:25) but, afterward, he was called the “son of the Egyptian” (Genesis 21:9), “son of the bondwoman,” and “lad.”

The post When and Where Was Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt? The Long and Short of It (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Satyrs

Ancient Greek art depicted these nature spirits in various forms, but most people think of them as half-man, half-goat creatures. They were known for their love of women, wine, and music. Early English versions such as the KJV and the Geneva Bible include the term, but later versions wisely remove it because the Hebrew word sa`ir means “male goat.”² The KJV contains two misleading translations for this term: “satyr” (Isaiah 13:21; 34:14) and “devil” (Leviticus 17:7; 2 Chronicles 11:15). In the latter two instances, these occurrences may be referring to goat-shaped idols.³

The term sa`ir appears more than 50 times in the Hebrew Bible, usually referring to a male goat. All but a handful of occurrences appear in the Pentateuch, three-fourths of which describe the animal as a sin offering (e.g., Leviticus 16; Numbers 7; 29).⁴ After four centuries of advancements in biblical scholarship, we can see that the word describes a goat, not a creature from Greek mythology.

Unicorns

Legends about these animals appear in the writings of ancient authors such as Strabo (Geography 15.1), Pliny the Elder (Natural History 8.31), and Aelian (On Animals 3.41; 4.52). Their descriptions vary in specific details, but sources typically describe this animal as a creature resembling a horse with a single horn protruding from its forehead. English translations as early as the 1300s mistakenly include this creature in the biblical text. However, some people try to defend its inclusion in the King James Version by saying it refers to the rhinoceros (rhinoceros unicornis) or real animals with rare deformities.⁵ Based on the uses of the term in various Semitic languages, as well as in the Hebrew Bible, this connection simply is not possible.

The Hebrew word translated as “unicorn” is re’em, which is related to the Assyrian word rīmu and the Ugaritic word r’m,⁶ all of which mean “wild ox.” It appears in several places in the Bible, the first of which describes the strength of Israel (Numbers 23:22; 24:8). Other texts make it clear that the re’em is an ox when it uses the term in parallel statements referring to calves (Psalm 29:6) and bulls (Isaiah 34:7), which also makes it unlikely to be referring to a rhinoceros—a species which existed in India and Africa but does not appear to have been native to the ancient Near East in biblical times.

Several problems occur with other references, however, as the Hebrew text of Deuteronomy 33:17 makes it clear that the re’em (singular) has more than one horn. The KJV translators incorrectly rendered the singular term “ox” as the plural “unicorns,” perhaps in an attempt to harmonize the elements of the passage. The book of Job depicts the re’em as a draft animal used for harrowing or plowing (Hebrew sadad; Job 39:10; cf. Hosea 10:11), which is fitting for oxen but not whimsical, magical creatures.⁷

Cockatrices

According to various sources, the mythical cockatrice is born from a chicken egg incubated by a toad or serpent. This creature is depicted with both avian and reptilian features, with the ability to kill other animals with a single glance (what Shakespeare called “the death-darting eye of Cockatrice”⁸). The Hebrew term translated as “cockatrice” by both the KJV and the Geneva Bible is tsip`oni, meaning “poisonous serpent.” The term appears in parallel with other Hebrew words referring to serpents (Proverbs 23:32; Isaiah 11:8; 59:5; Jeremiah 8:17), making it clear that the term does not refer to a mythological creature.

The history of the cockatrice creates an additional problem for those who target older English translations in their criticism of the Bible: it appears that the creature’s origins only go back as far as the medieval period. The word first appeared in the English language in the Late Middle Ages when John Wyclif included it in his translation (1382), which heavily influenced the King James Version. It seems that the creature first emerged in European mythology as early as the twelfth century,⁹ making it an extremely anachronistic translation of the original Hebrew term.

Conclusion

Although English translations in the past have included the names of mythical creatures, this appears to have been because of human tradition rather than actual scholarship. Satyrs and unicorns may appear in Greco-Roman and early English literature, but their origins do not appear to extend back into the ancient Near East. The same can be said of the cockatrice, which does not seem to predate the medieval period. We cannot fault the biblical authors if their work was not translated accurately by scholars many centuries later.

While critics frequently condemn the biblical authors for mentioning mythical creatures, they do not appear to recognize that these references are often erroneous renderings on the part of fallible translators who could not benefit from the advancements in Hebrew scholarship that modern experts have at their disposal today. Now that scholars have a better grasp of ancient languages and the relevant literature, we can see that anyone looking for fantastic beasts in the Bible will have to go elsewhere to find them.

Endnotes

¹ The prophet Isaiah sometimes uses mythical language in a nonliteral manner—this is clear when he says that Egypt is like Leviathan (or Lotan, the “twisting serpent”), a monster from Ugaritic literature (Isaiah 27:1; although it has the same name, this is different from the animal mentioned in Job 41). A modern-day equivalent might be like calling a complaining woman a “harpy,” a brutish or abusive man an “ogre,” or the CEO of a large corporation a “titan” in the business world. We often use mythological references in colloquial language, such as saying that a person with a notable weakness has an Achilles’ heel, that a perennially successful entrepreneur has the Midas touch, or that someone can expect trouble because he has opened Pandora’s box. Similarly, the biblical writers occasionally used such figures of speech without validating the pagan ideas behind them.

² R. Laird Harris (1999), “śāʿîr” in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, R. Laird Harris, ed. Gleason L. Archer, Jr., & Bruce K. Waltke (Chicago, IL: Moody Press), p. 881.

³ Mark F. Rooker (2000), Leviticus (Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman), p. 234.

⁴ See references in John R. Kohlenberger III and James A. Swanson (1998), The Hebrew English Concordance to the Old Testament with the New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 1514.

⁵ Jason Bittel, “Real-Life ‘Unicorn’ Found; Deer Has Extremely Rare Deformity,” https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/11/141112-unicorn-deer-slovenia-antlers-science-animals/.

⁶ J. Tropper and H. P. Müller (2004), “re’em,” in Theological Dictionary of the Old Testament, ed. G. Johannes Botterweck and Helmer Ringgren (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), 13:244.

⁷ See a fuller discussion in Douglas Mangum (2011), “Chasing Unicorns in the Bible,” Bible Study Magazine, pp. 32-33, Jan-Feb.

⁸ Romeo and Juliet, 3.2.47.

⁹ See discussion in Laurence A. Breiner (1979), “The Career of the Cockatrice,” Isis, 70[1]:30-47, March.

The post Unicorns, Satyrs, and Cockatrices…in the Bible? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Many within Christianity have attempted to assert that Golgotha, “the place of the skull” and site of Jesus’ crucifixion, was, in fact, part of Mount Moriah, conflating the two significant locations. Yet, when it comes to Jesus’ crucifixion, Scripture offers no indication that Golgotha was situated on Mount Moriah itself. Though Golgotha was near the city and close to the Temple (John 19:20), it was distinctly outside the city walls (Hebrews 13:12) and separate from the sacred site of Abraham’s altar. This geographical distinction emphasizes God’s intent for the crucifixion of Christ to take place in a different location—near, but not on Mount Moriah.

Geographical and Topographical Differences

The geographical and topographical differences between Mount Moriah and Golgotha serve as a compelling introduction to the profound theological reasons for God’s choice of Golgotha as the site of Christ’s sacrifice. Mount Moriah, rising approximately 2,428 feet (740 meters) above sea level, was not only geographically central but symbolically the heart of Jewish worship. This elevated location was significant in Israel’s history, serving as the place where Abraham was tested with the near-sacrifice of his son Isaac (Genesis 22).¹ Surely the provision of the ram in Isaac’s place foreshadowed Jesus, the ultimate sacrificial Lamb, Who would later come to fulfill God’s redemptive plan. Additionally, Moriah was where Abraham met Melchizedek, king of Salem, who blessed him and offered bread and wine, another typological pointer to Christ’s priestly role (Hebrews 7). Furthermore, it was on this mountain that Solomon built the Temple, which became the center of worship and sacrifices for the Jewish people for centuries (2 Chronicles 3:1).

In contrast, Golgotha, where Jesus was crucified, lies outside the city walls of Jerusalem to the west, approximately 600 yards (about a third of a mile) from the Temple. Topographically, Golgotha was part of an old limestone quarry that had been abandoned and eventually converted into a garden in the early first century. This location, once used for extracting building materials, later became a notorious execution site under Roman rule. It was a public, shameful place, not a hallowed ground of religious significance like the Temple Mount.

The height differences between the Temple Mount and Golgotha are also noteworthy. The Temple Mount stood higher, symbolic of its revered status in Jewish religious life. The grandeur of Herod’s Temple would have dominated the skyline, towering over the surrounding city and making it the focal point of worship, pilgrimage, and sacrifice. In contrast, Golgotha was a less distinguished, more isolated place of death, chosen deliberately by the Romans for public executions outside the city walls to maximize humiliation and warning.

Yet, it is precisely in these geographical and topographical differences that we find theological depth. As the following exploration reveals, the distinction between Golgotha and Mount Moriah seems intentional and deeply significant in God’s redemptive plan.

Golgotha Outside the City: A Fulfillment of the Sin Offering

One of the most profound reasons Jesus was crucified outside the city of Jerusalem on Golgotha, rather than on Mount Moriah, lies in the symbolism of the sin offering. According to the Mosaic Law, sin offerings were to be taken outside the camp to be burned, representing the removal of sin from the community (Leviticus 16:27). Hebrews 13:11-12 directly ties this to Jesus’ crucifixion:

The high priest carries the blood of animals into the Most Holy Place as a sin offering, but the bodies are burned outside the camp. And so Jesus also suffered outside the city gate to make the people holy through his own blood (NIV).

By being crucified outside the city, Jesus fulfilled the role of the sin offering, bearing the sins of humanity. If Jesus had been sacrificed on the Temple Mount, this crucial symbolism would be lost. His sacrifice was not just another offering within the Jewish system—it was something entirely new and greater. It was a sacrifice for sin that removed the need for any further sacrifices, as Hebrews 10:10 says, “We have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.”

Separation from the Jewish Sacrificial System

The Temple on Mount Moriah was the heart of the Jewish sacrificial system, which was the central means through which Jews maintained their covenant relationship with God. The sacrifices offered there were temporary, designed to point forward to something greater. Jesus’ death brought that system to its fulfillment and end (Hebrews 10:1-4). Hebrews 10:12 tells us that Christ offered a single sacrifice for sins and then sat down at the right hand of God. His death being geographically distinct from the Temple reinforces that His sacrifice was not merely a continuation of the old system, but a completion and replacement of it.

In a sense, God was drawing a theological line between the Old and the New Covenants. Jesus’ crucifixion on Golgotha symbolizes the end of the old sacrificial system and the establishment of a New Covenant, one based on His blood (Luke 22:20). This separation is essential to the message of the Gospel, which is that salvation is no longer mediated through animal sacrifices but through the once-for-all sacrifice of Jesus Christ (Hebrews 9:26-28).

The Temple’s Role as a Symbol of the Old Covenant

The Temple itself was a symbol of the Old Covenant and its temporary nature. Jesus prophesied the destruction of the Temple (Matthew 24:2), which would happen in A.D. 70. His crucifixion outside the Temple signifies the passing of the Old Covenant and the impending end of the Temple’s role as the center of worship. The curtain of the Temple was torn in two at the moment of Jesus’ death (Matthew 27:51), symbolizing that the separation between God and humanity had been removed. Worship was no longer tied to the Temple but to Jesus Himself.

Theologically, placing Jesus’ sacrifice on Golgotha emphasizes that the new way of relating to God—through Christ—is separate from the old Temple system. If Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, it would have kept the Temple system too central in the New Covenant. By choosing Golgotha, God made it clear that the Temple system was being replaced by Christ’s body, which is the true Temple (John 2:19-21).

Avoiding Syncretism and Confusion

Imagine if Jesus had been crucified on Mount Moriah, where the Jewish Temple stood. This location was not only sacred to Jews but also significant to Christians. Mount Moriah had long been associated with the Mosaic covenant, the priesthood, and the sacrificial system established under the Law. If Christ had died there, it would have been easy for Christians to mistakenly elevate the Temple sacrifices as eternally binding, rather than understanding that Christ was the ultimate fulfillment of all that those sacrifices foreshadowed. The theological implications would have been disastrous. Instead of the clear break that Christianity needed to distinguish itself as the fulfillment of Judaism, the association between Jesus’ sacrifice and the Jewish Temple sacrifices would have led to confusion and potentially syncretism, where people might blend the old Jewish system with the New Covenant.

By separating the locations, God ensured that the two systems—the Mosaic system centered on the Temple and the New Covenant centered on Christ—would remain distinct. Had Golgotha and Mount Moriah overlapped, there might have been a temptation for early Christians (and later followers) to continue to hold the Jewish sacrifices as sacred, alongside Jesus’ ultimate sacrifice. This would have undermined the complete sufficiency of Jesus’ atonement and perpetuated reliance on the Temple system that Jesus came to replace.

Jesus, the Sacrifice for All Nations

Mount Moriah, and by extension, the Temple, was the focal point for Jewish worship. It was where Jews believed God’s presence dwelled, and only the high priest could enter the Holy of Holies once a year on the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16). By sacrificing Jesus outside the city, God signaled that the sacrifice of His Son was not just for Jews but for the whole world.

As a public place for executions, Golgotha was accessible and visible to all—Jews, Gentiles, Romans, and foreigners alike. This underscores that Jesus’ sacrifice was for “every tribe, language, people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9). If Jesus had been sacrificed within the Temple precincts, the message might have been seen as exclusive to Jews, reinforcing the idea that salvation was only through the Jewish system.

Conclusion

Therefore, the distinct separation between Mount Moriah and Golgotha was no accident. Golgotha, a place of rejection, became the site of salvation, while Moriah, with all its ancient significance, remains the heart of the Old Covenant, which Christ came to fulfill. By choosing Golgotha for the sacrifice of Jesus rather than Mount Moriah, God demonstrated the distinctiveness of Jesus’ sacrifice from the old system. Golgotha symbolizes Jesus as the ultimate sin offering, fulfilling the Law but establishing a New Covenant that transcends the Jewish Temple and its rituals.

Jesus was not sacrificed where kings ruled or priests labored. God, in His wisdom, chose for the ultimate sacrifice to take place in a place of rejection—a place reserved for the cursed and the despised. This site was far more fitting for the One Who came “to seek and save the lost” (Luke 19:10) and to bear the sins of the world. The separation of these two sites prevents any syncretism and keeps the focus on Christ’s sacrifice for all nations, rather than allowing it to be tied to the Jewish sacrificial system. This separation preserves the truth that Jesus’ sacrifice is the end of all sacrifices, and that in Him, all peoples—Jews and Gentiles alike—find their way to God.

Endnotes

¹ However, it is crucial to note that when God directed Abraham to offer Isaac in Genesis 22:2, He specified “the land of Moriah,” not necessarily Mount Moriah. This phrase may imply that the broader region in which Jerusalem sits, including Mount Moriah and other nearby elevations, was encompassed within the “land of Moriah.” While some may argue this point, Scripture specifically connects the building of Solomon’s Temple on the threshing floor of Araunah the Jebusite with the exact site of Abraham’s offering of Isaac. These two events—Abraham’s near-sacrifice of Isaac and Solomon’s Temple construction—are indelibly linked in Scripture (see Genesis 22:2 and 2 Chronicles 3:1). These verses bridge the geographical and theological significance of Mount Moriah as the site for Israel’s Temple and the place of Abraham’s test of faith.

The post Two Sacred Hills: Why Golgotha, Not Moriah, Was Chosen for Christ’s Sacrifice appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Christians may hear claims that David is no more real than the legendary King Arthur. As with many other biblical persons, the king has come under assault by those who would consign him to the realm of legend, if not fiction. Critics known as “biblical minimalists” question the historical value of the Bible, generally dismissing all of the claims made by the text unless they can be corroborated by indisputable physical evidence. To them, David and his son Solomon were nothing more than a couple of petty chieftains occupying a tiny piece of hill country. Two famous monuments offer evidence that refutes popular attempts to deny the historicity of David and his kingdom.

The first artifact is the Mesha Stele. This black basalt victory monument commemorates Moab’s successful rebellion against the Northern Kingdom of Israel around 850 B.C. Discovered in Dhiban, Jordan in 1868, the Mesha Stele records the achievements of the Moabite king Mesha. This monarch established his capital city at Dibon, asserted his independence from the northern kingdom of Israel after Ahab’s death, defeated the Israelite army, and captured or reclaimed several cities under Israelite control. The inscription includes several details that align with the biblical account in 2 Kings 3, as well as numerous references to biblical figures, including Omri, the tribe of Gad, and the covenant name of God, Yahweh.¹

The Mesha Stele refers to the “house of dwd,” which scholars have interpreted as the “House of David.” The renowned epigrapher André Lemaire (among others) reads the inscription this way.² The phrase is a reference to the Southern Kingdom of Judah (“house” meaning “dynasty”) and thus identifies David as the founder of the ruling dynasty at the time. Although the reference seems straightforward, biblical minimalists have proposed alternate interpretations. One suggestion is that the term could refer to an as-yet-undiscovered “temple of Dwd,”³ while another posits that the word dwd refers to an otherwise unknown deity named Dod.⁴ Others claim that the phrase refers to a town⁵ or city-state.⁶ These suggestions have no supporting evidence, and most members of the scholarly community have dismissed them.⁷

Biblical minimalist Philip Davies argued that the term dwd could be translated as “beloved,” “uncle,” or “kettle,” calling these suggestions more “plausible” than translating the term as the name David.⁸ The vast majority of scholars roundly disagree with Davies’ bizarre suggestion. The late Anson Rainey, a giant in the academic field of ancient epigraphy (the study of ancient inscriptions), stated that Davies was an “amateur” in this area who could “safely be ignored.”⁹

The second significant mention of the historical David is found in the Tel Dan inscription, which was discovered in 1993 in excavations at the biblical city of Dan. Surveyor Gila Cook, working under the renowned Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran, discovered the first fragment of the inscription by chance. She noticed it on a stone fragment from a monument smashed in antiquity and reused as building material for a wall outside the city gate. Efforts to locate additional fragments uncovered two more pieces in the summer of 1994.

The Tel Dan inscription is one of the most significant discoveries in the history of biblical archaeology. It appears to have been authored by Hazael of Aram-Damascus (842-796 B.C.), although his name does not appear in the inscription.¹⁰ Some of the text is damaged, but the most significant portion may be reconstructed as, “[I killed Jeho]ram son [of Ahab] king of Israel, and [I] killed [Ahaz]yahu son of [Jehoram kin]g of the House of David.” This interpretation fits with the biblical timeline, although the Bible says Jehu was responsible for the demise of the two monarchs (2 Kings 9:14-28). Given that ancient kings tended to exaggerate or even propagandize their accomplishments, Hazael likely attempted to claim credit for Jehoram’s and Ahaziah’s deaths. André Lemaire points out that at least one Assyrian king did something very similar, taking credit for killing someone when another source ascribed the deed to a group of Assyrian nobles.¹¹ This is just one of several such examples known to scholars.¹² Hazael was neither the first nor the last politician to take credit for someone else’s work.

At a time when skeptics in academia had made significant attacks on the historicity of biblical figures, the Tel Dan inscription helped establish David’s existence as a fact of history. It is significant enough that even Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein, who often displays considerable skepticism toward the Bible’s reliability, would write, “The mention of the ‘House of David’ in the Tel Dan inscription from the ninth century B.C.E. leaves no doubt that David and Solomon were historical figures.”¹³ Elsewhere, he says, “the Tel Dan inscription provides an independent witness to the historical existence of a dynasty founded by a ruler named David, from just a few generations after the era in which he presumably lived.”¹⁴

The “House of X” (with “X” representing the name of a dynasty’s founder) was a common way of referring to Semitic kingdoms in the early first millennium B.C. In contemporary examples, Assyrian records referred to the Northern Kingdom as the “House of Omri” for well over a century when the Omride dynasty held power in Israel. Additional examples of the same practice appear in ancient Aram and Babylon.¹⁵ Still other examples include the North Syrian kingdom of Arpad (the “House of Agusi”) and the kingdom of Damascus (the “House of Hazael”).¹⁶ The Mesha Stele and Tel Dan Inscriptions follow standard practice in their references to the Southern Kingdom and the Davidic dynasty.

Attempts to interpret the “House of David” as anything other than the kingdom of the biblical monarch go against the clear meaning of the inscriptions and essentially function as arguments from silence. There is no temple of Dwd, no deity named Dod, and no urban center identified as “Beth-Dwd” known to scholars. These suggestions are flawed attempts to avoid the obvious implications of the name, which is that a real king named David ruled a small but important kingdom in the Levant and that the dynasty he founded continued to rule in Judah for many years after his death.

Ancient people were in a far better position to comment on the existence of the historical David than contemporary scholars. Inscriptions mentioning the “House of David” were carved when the Davidic dynasty still ruled in Judah. Modern authors are two and a half millennia removed from that time and have only limited evidence. Furthermore, the most vocal critics exhibit easily-detected prejudices against the biblical text. Although the references to David’s dynasty do not mention specific events of his life, they do indicate that the ancients saw him as a historical figure.

Scholars make no attempt to discover the birthplaces of Uther or Merlin. They do not search for Avalon or try to determine where Arthur held court at Camelot. Excavators do not entertain any notions of finding the remains of the Round Table or the stone that held the fabled Excalibur. All of these things are the stuff of fantasy. By contrast, archaeologists can identify the town of David’s birth, excavate the city where he ruled, and read his name in ancient inscriptions. Unlike the legendary king of the Britons, scholars have convincingly shown David to be a man of history. To argue otherwise says less about the Israelite king and more about the biases of the modern critic.

Endnotes

¹ K.A.D. Smelik, trans. (2000), “The Inscription of King Mesha,” in The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), pp. 137-138.

² See André Lemaire (1994), “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20:30-37.

³ Thomas L. Thompson (2004), The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel (New York: Basic Books), p. 204. See also Thompson (1995), “‘House of David’: An Eponymic Reference to Yahweh as Godfather,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament, 9:74.

⁴ See Kenneth A. Kitchen (1997), “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century BCE, and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 76:29-44.

⁵ Philip R. Davies (1994), “‘House of David’ Built on Sand: The Sins of the Biblical Maximizers,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[4]:54-55.

⁶ F.H. Cryer (1994), “On the Recently Discovered ‘House of David’ Inscription,” Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament,8[1]:3-19.

⁷ See James K. Hoffmeier (1995), “Current Issues in Archaeology; The Recently Discovered Tell Dan Inscription: Controversy & Confirmation,” Archaeology in the Biblical World, 3:14, Summer.

⁸ Davies, 20[4]:54-55.

⁹ Anson F. Rainey (1994), “The ‘House of David’ and the House of the Deconstructionists,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 20[6]:47.

¹⁰ Alan Millard, trans. (2000), “The Tel Dan Stele,” in The Context of Scripture, ed. William W. Hallo and K. Lawson Younger (Leiden: Brill), pp. 161-162.

¹¹ André Lemaire (1998), “The Tel Dan Stela as a Piece of Royal Historiography,” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 81:10.

¹² Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 510, n.77.

¹³ Israel Finkelstein (2007), “King Solomon’s Golden Age: History or Myth?,” in The Quest for the Historical Israel, ed. Brian B. Schmidt (Leiden: Brill), pp. 114-115.

¹⁴ Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (2006), David and Solomon: In Search of the Bible’s Sacred Kings and the Roots of the Western Tradition (New York: Free Press), p. 266.

¹⁵ Gary A. Rendsburg (1995), “On the Writing bytdwd in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” Israel Exploration Journal, 45[1]:22-25.

¹⁶ Nadav Na’aman (1995), “Beth-David in the Aramaic Stela from Tel Dan,” Biblische Notizen, 79:17-24.

The post The Historical David in Ancient Inscriptions appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the June issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Exodus 1:11 and Rameses

Exodus 1:11 is one of the most crucial passages in studying the Exodus-Conquest date. According to the passage, “they [the Egyptians] set taskmasters over them [the Israelites] to afflict them with heavy burdens. They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Rameses.” For those examining the Exodus, identifying these cities’ location and time of building is key to establishing a potential date for Israelite presence in Egypt and Exodus from Egypt. The major problem and source of debate for scholars concerning this passage is that neither of these cities has been convincingly identified.

For many scholars, the search for the “Rameses” or “Ramesses” in this verse has been founded on the belief that the name is connected to pharaohs of the nearly identical moniker, and thus, the city must have been named after a pharaoh named Rameses. This belief has resulted in a search for the remains of a store city built while Rameses II ruled (1279-1213 B.C.). Those, like Hoffmeier, who begin their examination upon this premise find it impossible for the Exodus to have occurred prior to the reign of a pharaoh named Rameses.¹ In addition, proponents of this theory note that most of the significant archaeological findings as well as extrabiblical sources referencing Pithom and Rameses are from the 12^th-13^th centuries.²

Several scholars have associated the Rameses of Exodus 1:11 with Pi-Ramesses. The area of Pi-Ramesses was comprised of several cities that possessed different names throughout different periods in Egyptian history.³ The name Pi-Ramesses was used from the time of Rameses II onward until ca. 1130 B.C. when the site was abandoned for a new capital in Tanis.⁴ Kenneth Kitchen notes that Seti I constructed a palace there, and Rameses II built the store city referenced in this verse.⁵ Hoffmeier adds that Pi-Ramesses was likely started around 1270 B.C.⁶ However, Hoffmeier acknowledges that the site was built upon earlier remains, likely as far back as the reign of Horemheb (1323-1295 B.C.) and maybe even before.⁷

Many scholars have raised serious doubts as to whether Rameses II named the Rameses of Exodus 1:11 after himself. Robert I. Vasholz is unconvinced that a pharaoh would name after himself sites that “were basically depots for the storage of supplies and taxes paid in terms of foodstuffs.”⁸ Vasholz points out that pharaohs typically did not name cities after themselves but after their gods. He notes, for example, Menfe (Memphis), which was later renamed Hitpuah, meaning “spirit of [the god] Ptah.”⁹ The name Rameses means “begotten by Ra,” the god of the Sun. So, if Rameses did name the city of Exodus 1:11 after himself during his reign, then there are some major textual problems that must be overcome. Starting in Exodus 1:11 and reading through to the Exodus event itself in Exodus 12, there spans a substantial amount of time as indicated below:

1. Oppression—including the building of Pithom and Rameses (Exodus 1:11)
2. Growth in Israelite population (Exodus 1:12a)
3. Distress of the Israelites on the part of the Egyptians (Exodus 1:12b)
4. Murder of all newborn Israelite males (Exodus 1:16)
5. Moses is born (Exodus 2:2)
6. The king of Egypt dies while Moses is in Midian (Exodus 2:23)
7. Eighty-year-old Moses confronts the next pharaoh (Exodus 7:7)
8. The Exodus event (Exodus 12)

So, if Pharaoh Rameses II built Pi-Ramesses in Exodus 1 and then died in chapter 2, while Moses was in hiding, he could not have been the pharaoh of the Exodus. Also, Moses was 80 years of age at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7), and the building of Rameses (Exodus 1:11) would have occurred before Moses’ birth (Exodus 2:2). Additionally, construction would have happened long before even Rameses came to the throne.¹⁰ Advocates of the late date, like Hoffmeier, however, contend that Hebrew slaves were involved in the construction of the new capital of Rameses II beginning ca. 1270 B.C. (long after Moses would have been born),¹¹ followed by the Exodus just three years later in ca. 1267 B.C.!¹² It does not seem feasible to fit the events of Exodus 1:11-12:36 in a three-year timespan.

Archer summarizes this conundrum for late date advocates: “If the exodus took place around 1290 (as most modern scholars suppose), and if Moses was 80 at that time, his birth took place in 1370, or a good 60 years before a Nineteenth Dynasty Rameses ever sat on the throne of Egypt. Therefore, it could not have been at a city named after Rameses II (1299-1232 B.C.) that the Israelites worked (prior to the birth of Moses).”¹³ Unger also observes:

[I]t is by no means certain that the city of Rameses was named after the Pharaoh of that name. In fact, Genesis 47:11 states that Jacob and his family settled in the land of Rameses when they entered Egypt…unless we postulate an anachronism, for which there is not the slightest proof, we must conclude that there was an area by that name before there was ever a Pharaoh Rameses. It could well be that there had been an ancient Ramesside dynasty long ages before and the Ramessides of the Nineteenth Dynasty were named for them, the city also having taken this name. In any case, there is no need to assume that the mention of the city of Rameses proves that the Exodus must have taken place during the reign of Rameses II.¹⁴

Even if Pi-Ramesses is the city of “Rameses” of Exodus 1:11, no one has clearly demonstrated that the events of this passage took place during the reign of Rameses II. Dyer argues that establishing the late dating on similar names does not make a strong case for their theory.¹⁵

Early-date scholars, however, have suggested that the name of the store city Rameses is an inspired editorial updating (e.g., by Samuel¹⁶) of an older name (Avaris). Many conservative scholars and archaeologists such as John Bimson, Bryant Wood, Gleason Archer, Michael Grisanti, Douglas Petrovich, and Scott Stripling hold to the view that the scriptural name Rameses was an inspired editorial updating for the purpose of helping the original readers of Exodus locate the city as its original name (Avaris) had faded into obscurity.¹⁷ The Bible contains several examples of names that appear to be updated by an inspired writer before the completion of the final work with the goal of enhancing the level of specificity and detail of the reference. Inspired editorial updating of a text is not in any way surrendering to the Documentary Hypothesis, Source Criticism, or any other such liberal scholarship.¹⁸ One of the more interesting examples of an inspired editorial update is found in Genesis 47:11, where Moses refers to Jacob becoming settled in “the land of Rameses.” This was hundreds of years before the Exodus and well before Rameses II was born. Genesis 12:8 and 13:3 reference Bethel proleptically many years before it was given its name by Jacob in Genesis 28:19. Likewise, Genesis 14:14 references Dan, prior to its naming by the Danites in Judges 18:29, and 1 Kings 13:32 mentions Samaria in anticipation of the name given by Omri in 1 Kings 16:24.¹⁹

In summary, it may be the case, considering the examples cited above, that the name “Raamses” of Exodus 1:11 was a later name used to describe an earlier, lesser-known location. The original location, Avaris (Tell el-Dab’a), corresponds well with the testimony of our earliest Egyptian record of 3^rd Century B.C. historian and priest Manetho as quoted by Josephus’s Against Apion, Book 1. While there are many other supposed examples of inspired editorial updating in the Old Testament, I do believe that there is evidence that there could have been an inspired editor of Exodus (Samuel, Ezra, or some other unknown inspired author) and that such an editor may have changed the name from Avaris or Peru-nefer to Rameses and did so with good reason. Since Moses had written Exodus, the name of that entire site had changed. So, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the name only (not the message or any other part of the text) was updated to the name generations would later be able to identify. This phenomenon does not in any way challenge the notion that the Pentateuch was anything less than fully inspired, authoritative, and inerrant.²⁰

Exodus 2:23 and the Sequence of Pharaohs

As referenced previously, Exodus 2:23 describes a critical event to scholars studying the chronology of the Exodus. While Moses was hiding in Midian, “it happened in the process of time that the king of Egypt died.” If the late-date advocates are correct in concluding that the Israelites built Pi-Ramesses for Pharaoh Rameses II (1279–1213 B.C.), then it was Rameses II who died while Moses was in Midian, thereby creating an opportunity for his return to Egypt. Obviously, if Rameses died before Moses made his way from Midian to Egypt, Moses must have confronted some other Pharaoh. While it may be said that Rameses may have occupied the role of one of the prior oppressing pharaohs, he could not have been both the pharaoh of the oppression and the pharaoh of the Exodus if Exodus 2:23 is conveying historical reality.

Was Rameses II’s son and successor, Merneptah (1213-1203 B.C.), the pharaoh of the Exodus? This is entirely unlikely due to one of the most important archaeological discoveries of the 19th century.  The Merneptah Stele, discovered in 1896 by William Petrie, dates to the first part of Merneptah’s reign.²¹ It contains the earliest confirmed reference to the nation-state “Israel.” About the alignment of a late-date Exodus with the Merneptah Stele, Stripling writes: “An exodus in the mid-thirteenth century followed by a forty-year wilderness sojourn and an initial conquest of six years does not allow adequate time for the development and recognition of national Israel at the end of the same century.”²² Thus, setting aside the chronological problems late-date proponents face elsewhere in the Bible (1 Kings 6:1), this popular shift to Rameses II, as a pharaoh of the Exodus, stands in direct contradiction to the chronology contained within the first two chapters of Exodus.

It has been argued by late-date advocates that it is possible that the pharaoh of Exodus 1:11 and his building efforts are out of place chronologically—that the verses prior (8-10) describe a different, earlier pharaoh to verse 11. This shifting, however, only highlights the weakness of the 13th century-date and the Rameses II theory centered around this verse. A.S. Yahuda summarizes the problems with the Rameses-Exodus 1 connection:

I personally can see no strong ground why “the land of Rameses” or the City of Raamses must necessarily be associated with the name of Rameses II, only because it happened that we do not know another previous king of the same name. There are about seventy kings who reigned 400 years before Rameses II, between 1900 and 1600 BC, many of whom are not known to us by name…. Who will venture to say with absolute certainty that there was not among them also a king of the name of Rameses? And after all, must the city and the land of Rameses be connected by all means with the name of a king?²³

In contrast, an early-date Exodus ca. 1446 B.C. aligns with Exodus 2:23 and the timing of the pharaohs. If Amenhotep II (ca. 1455-1418 B.C.) was the Pharoah of the Exodus (which we contend), then his predecessor (Thutmose III) must have reigned over 40 years before he died according to Exodus 2:23. Adhering to the high chronology of Egyptian history, the reign of Thutmose III was ca. 1504-1450 B.C. (reigning over 50 years).²⁴ Additionally, Exodus 12:29-32 indicates that the Exodus pharaoh survived the 10th plague, implying that he must not have been a firstborn son. Amenhotep II in fact had an older brother named Amenemhat who apparently died before he could assume the throne.

Also, per Exodus 12, the Exodus pharaoh’s firstborn died in the 10th plague, thus necessitating that the one who succeeded him could not be his first born. Amenhotep II’s successor was Thutmose IV (ca. 1401-1391 B.C.) who claimed himself to have come into power only after the death of his older brother, the apparent heir to the throne.²⁵

Judges 11:26 and the 300 Years

According to Judges 11:26, Jephthah declares to the Ammonite king, “For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them during that time?” Though it is difficult to know the exact date of Jephthah, most scholars estimate that his dealings with the Ammonites happened sometime from 1130 to 1073 B.C. Stripling places this event around 1100 B.C.,²⁶ and if this date holds true, 1100 + 300 = 1400 B.C.²⁷ Importantly, the date aligns well with 1 Kings 6:1 as the Israelites conquered Ammon at the end of their 40 years in the wilderness.²⁸ Thus, if the Israelites had been in the land for 300 years, that would correlate to a time frame ca. 1400 B.C., synchronizing well with the early date of the Exodus. Furthermore, the number of years in the book of Judges representing the cycles of oppression and peace comes to 301 years, not counting the Ammonite oppression of Jephthah.²⁹

Nevertheless, some scholars reject this interpretation of Judges 11:26, including Boling³⁰ and Kitchen, who suggest that Jephthah was a simpleton incapable of conveying chronological information, much less accurate historical details.³¹ Kitchen goes on to write that Jephthah was nothing more than “a roughneck, an outcast” whose words are “nothing more than a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people.”³² Kitchen believes that the biblical writers were correct in recording what Jephthah said, but Jephthah’s response was ignorant. Either he was unable to know the facts or perhaps he intentionally lied about them to make the case for his own people, certainly not the last time a leader would have done so. Despite the boldness of Kitchen’s assertions, his treatment of Judges 11:26 clearly diminishes the truthfulness of Jephthah,³³ unnecessarily calling into question his ability to recall what was likely well-known information. Davis summarizes this point well:

It is scarcely possible, however, that Jephthah should make such a blunder in the midst of important international negotiations. His knowledge of the Torah is evident from the context of Chapter 11 of Judges. It is doubtful that Jephthah could have exaggerated this number as it was used in the argument to the king…. The King of Ammon had some knowledge of the historical precedence involved in Israel’s occupation of the territory of Transjordan (cf. Judges 11:13). Again it would be well to point out that numerical information given in the passage under question does not appear in a poetic section and therefore probably reflects sober fact.³⁴

Lastly, a late-date Conquest of Canaan dated to ca. 1290 B.C. leaves merely 150 years before the rise of King Saul, which was ca. 1050 B.C. Howard summarizes the incongruity of the late-date Exodus in relation to the book of Judges, pointing out that it “seem[s] to be an unreasonably short time frame for these [events] all to have occurred. In an early-date scheme, the numbers in Judges still need to be considered to have overlapped somewhat, but not nearly so drastically as under a late-date scheme.”³⁵

However, the 480 years of elapsed time indicated in 1 Kings 6:1 is entirely consistent with the chronology of the book of Judges.³⁶ They are not, however, compatible with an entry into the land in the late 13th or early 12th century B.C. Hebrew scholar and professor Dr. Justin Rogers notes:

The traditional date of 1446 B.C.E for the Exodus and 1406 for the Conquest of Canaan makes sense of the numbers given in both of these texts, literally reckoned…. Even if we grant that 1 Kings 6:1 expresses a symbolic chronology, the 300 years of Judges 11:26 is impossible to overcome. Many Evangelical scholars respond by dismissing the chronology and arguing that we can’t trust a wicked man who killed his daughter. This seems to me a clear case of special pleading. Even killers can tell time, and there is a good case to be made that Jephthah wasn’t wicked after all (see Hebrews 11:32). It is important to note that the number 300 cannot be schematized, so those who defend a 13th century date of the Exodus must ignore or reject Judges 11:26.³⁷

1 Chronicles 6:33-37 and the Generations

First Chronicles 6:33-37 indicates there were 18 generations from the time of Korah (Numbers 16) to the time of Heman, a leading musician from the time of David. Adding one more generation to get to Solomon’s era would constitute 19 generations from the Exodus to Solomon. If one accepts what is widely supported in the literature, in that 25 years represents one generation, then the equation is as follows: 19 generations × 25 years = 475 years.³⁸ Stripling summarizes the significance of this equation:

When 475 is added to 967 B.C. (Solomon’s fourth regnal year), we land in the mid-fifteenth century (1442 B.C.). If the exodus occurred in the mid-thirteenth century, the average length of the nineteen generations from Korah to Solomon would be approximately 15.2 years. This is highly improbable, especially since not all the ancestors of Heman would have been firstborn.³⁹

Thus, 1 Chronicles 6:33-37 correlates well with the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1.

Ezekiel 40:1 and the Jubilee Year

Ezekiel 40:1 represents another compelling argument for the early date of the Exodus as this passage seems to indicate that it was Rosh Hashanah⁴⁰ and also the tenth of the month when Ezekiel saw his vision in 574 B.C. Knowing that Rosh Hashanah was known to be on the tenth of the month only at the start of the Jubilee Year (Leviticus 25:9-10), both the Talmud (‘Arakin 12b) and the Seder Olam 11⁴¹ record 17 cycles from Israel’s entry into Canaan until the last Jubilee in 574 B.C., 13 years after Jerusalem’s destruction.⁴² A Sabbatical year was due to begin in Tishri of 588 B.C. based upon Zedekiah’s release of slaves in that year (Jeremiah 34:8-10). Later Jewish practice was to associate a Sabbatical year with the release of slaves, in keeping with that year being called a year of release in Deuteronomy 15:9. This was fourteen years (two Sabbatical cycles) before Ezekiel’s Jubilee. If the high priests began counting years when they entered the land in 1406 B.C. (cf. Leviticus 25:2-10), then these Jubilee cycles appear to agree exactly with that date.⁴³ This approach to establishing the date of the Exodus corroborates the 1406 B.C. date and stands on its own, irrespective of the plain reading of 1 Kings 6:1.

Young notes that Israel’s priests would have begun counting the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles when they entered the land in Nisan of 1406 as they were commanded to do in Leviticus 25:1-10.⁴⁴ This alone could explain how Ezekiel, as a priest, would have known when Sabbatical and Jubilee Years were appointed. According to Stripling, Tishri 10 of 574 B.C. was the Day of Atonement.⁴⁵ Since the Jubilee year was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year, the first year of this cycle must have been 48 years earlier, starting in 622 B.C.⁴⁶ Stripling summarizes the importance of this text:

The Seder Olam, ch. 11, and the Babylonian Talmud record that Ezekiel’s vision was at the end of the seventeenth Jubilee cycle and that another Jubilee was due in the eighteenth year of Josiah (623/22 B.C. by modern scholarship). Both figures place the start of counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years in 1406 B.C., in agreement with the 1446 date for the exodus calculated from 1 Kgs 6:1 and the subsequent forty years in the wilderness.⁴⁷

Taking 1406 B.C. as the year that Israel entered Canaan, substantiation of this date can be affirmed not only from the chronological note of 1 Kings 6:1, but also from the 17 Jubilee cycles spanning the time from 574 B.C. to the first Jubilee celebrated upon Israel’s entry into Canaan (17 cycles × 49 years = 833 years + 574 [end of the 17th Jubilee] = 1407 B.C.). This date supports an entry into Canaan in that year since Israel was to start counting the cycles when they entered the land of Canaan (Leviticus 25:1-10).⁴⁸ Wood and Young summarize the implications of this data:

[T]he information in 1 Kgs 6:1 could not have originated in exilic or post-exilic times, as held by Wellhausen, Burney, Hawkins, and a host of other scholars. Only a writer that had access to genuine chronological data could have calculated a time from the exodus to the start of Temple construction that was compatible with the Jubilee calendar as constructed from the Jubilees in the days of Josiah and Ezekiel. It is this calendar that provides a date for the entry into Canaan that is in precise agreement with the 480th-year datum of 1 Kgs 6:1. When Thiele’s date for the division of the kingdom is combined with a literal reading of 1 Kgs 6:1, the resulting dates for the exodus and conquest are in perfect accord with the multiple phenomena that have been cited related to the Jubilees and Sabbatical years. All this is explained by a hypothesis that is the quintessence of simplicity: Israel entered the Promised Land in 1406 B.C. with the only credible source for the Jubilee and Sabbatical-year legislation that has ever been postulated, the book of Leviticus, in its possession.⁴⁹

While Wood and Young advocate that Ezekiel 40:1 was at “the beginning of the year” as a reference to the seventh month of the year, Tishri, some disagree with this interpretation noting instead this is a reference to Abib (Nisan). Fishbane asserts that the assignment of a seventeenth Jubilee to the Ezekiel 40 passage is a back-assessment and midrashic speculation.⁵⁰ According to Hawkins, the Torah stipulated that the New Year was to be inaugurated with Abib (Nisan), not Tishri.⁵¹ During the instructions about the departure from Egypt and the Passover, Exodus 12:2 states that “this month shall mark for you the beginning of the months; it shall be the first month of the year for you.” While many of the identified Sabbatical years noted in Young’s argument are contested,⁵² if the Seder Olam and the Babylonian Talmud accurately indicate that Ezekiel’s vision was at the end of the 17th Jubilee cycle and that another Jubilee was due in the eighteenth year of Josiah, this supports the hypothesis that the counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee Years started in 1406 B.C., in agreement with the 1446 date for the exodus calculated: see 1 Kings 6:1 and then add 40 years in the wilderness.⁵³ Despite many attempts to nullify the plain meaning of 1 Kings 6:1 and the denial that Ezekiel saw the beginning of a Jubilee on Tishri 10 of 574 B.C., as Stripling notes, no exegetes have been able to provide an adequate response to this amazing “coincidence.”⁵⁴

CONCLUSION

In the case of the Exodus, the Bible serves as the most complete ancient written source, and it should be read as a historically reliable account. As Stripling aptly points out, “Any proposed discrepancy must be evidence-based, not an argument from silence.”⁵⁵ Whenever an alleged textual discrepancy occurs, it is understandable for one to seek extrabiblical elucidation; however, while many claim contradictions exist within the biblical texts, none hold up to scrutiny.

Though dubious hermeneutics and biased archaeological interpretations continue to engender doubts and uncertainty about the historicity of the Exodus and Conquest, the veracity and reliability of the biblical text is preeminent over any chronological challenges. Based on the witness of the above biblical passages, the data clearly point to the 15th century. The two most unequivocal passages from the HB concerning the Exodus include the “480 years” in 1 Kings 6:1 and “300 years” in Judges 11:26—both pointing to an early Exodus.

While dating the Exodus to the 13th century B.C. is currently mainstream among biblical scholars and archaeologists, reinterpreting or rejecting the plain reading of numerous biblical passages undermines the validity of the biblical text. Though these scholars continue to promote a late-date Exodus based upon questionable exegesis of 1 Kings 6:1 among other passages, nowhere in the Bible is a large number (such as “480 years”) used to symbolize a certain number of generations, and nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that a “full” or ideal generation was 40 years in length. Likewise, late-date adherents cannot sufficiently resolve Jephthah’s 300 years and the timeframe of Judges. And while Rameses II is often identified as the pharaoh of the Exodus based on Exodus 1:11, this too requires manipulation of the biblical text—specifically Exodus 2:23, indicating the death of the pharaoh of Exodus 1:11 before Moses’ return to Egypt.

While debate will certainly continue concerning nearly every line of argumentation regarding the date of the Exodus, the problems that exist for late-date advocates far outweigh those faced by advocates of the early date. Moreover, those who defend the late date cannot explain why the early date harmonizes perfectly with so many scriptural passages, clearly placing the Exodus in the 15th century B.C.⁵⁶

Endnotes

¹ Rameses I had a brief reign in the 1290s B.C., which still precludes the possibility of an earlier date Exodus for those who support this viewpoint.

² Hoffmeier (2007), pp. 234-235.

³ Bryant G. Wood (2003), “From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus-Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard, Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), pp. 260-262.

⁴ Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 255.

⁵ Ibid., p. 256.

⁶ Hoffmeier (2007), pp. 233-234.

⁷ Ibid., p. 233; Pi-Ramesses was considered the greatest city in Egypt, rivaling even Thebes to the south. It has been hypothesized that the name could mean “House of Rameses” (also given as “City of Rameses”) and was constructed close by the older city of Avaris.

⁸ Robert I. Vasholz (2006), “On the Dating of the Exodus,” Presbyterion, 32:111.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ Carl G. Rasmussen (2003), “Conquest, Infiltration, Revolt, or Resettlement?” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, ed. David M. Howard, Jr. and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel), pp. 143-44; Peter A. Clayton (1994), Chronicles of the Pharaohs (New York: Thames & Hudson), p. 145.

¹¹ Kitchen dates the Exodus to ca. 1260 B.C. making Moses’ birth ca. 1340 B.C. According to Kitchen, Rameses reigned (starting at the age of 25) from ca. 1279-1213 B.C. See Kitchen, pp. 159,307,359.

¹² Hoffmeier (2007), pp. 225-247.

¹³ Gleason L. Archer (1998), A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: Moody), pp. 231-232.

¹⁴ Unger (1966), p. 107.

¹⁵ Charles H. Dyer (1983), “The Date of the Exodus Reexamined,” Bibliotheca Sacra, 140[559]:226.

¹⁶ It is traditionally held that Samuel wrote the book of Judges, with particular attentiveness to explaining to his own population the geographical names as they were “this day.” It is possible Samuel may have updated the names in Genesis post Ramesside 19^th Dynasty ca. 11^th century B.C. [C.J. Gosling (1986), Joshua, Judges, Ruth (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), The Bible Student’s Commentary, trans. R. Togtman, pp. 217-23].

¹⁷ See Christopher Eames (2022), “The ‘Rameses’ of Exodus 1:11: Timestamp of Authorship? Or Anachronism?,” https://armstronginstitute.org; John J. Bimson (1981), Redating the Exodus and Conquest, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series (Sheffield: Almond Press, second ed.), 5:30-60; D.M. Rohl (1995), “A Test of Time,” The Bible—From Myth to History (London: Century), 1:299-325; Bryant G. Wood (September 2005), “The Rise and Fall of the 13th Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48[3]:479; Douglas Petrovich (2006), “Amenhotep II and the Historicity of the Exodus-Pharaoh,” The Master’s Seminary Journal, 17[1]:81-110; Stripling, p. 53.

¹⁸ Inspired editorial updating could include the reference to the death of Moses [Deuteronomy 34; see John William McGarvey (1902), The Authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy (Montgomery, AL: Alabama Christian School of Religion), p. 199—“We have now reached the end of the book, with the exception of the account of the death of Moses, and some comments on his career, all of which undoubtedly came from the pen of some later writer or writers.”], the death of Joshua (Joshua 24:29-33), as well as the arrangement and transitional verses between the books of the Psalms (Psalms 41:13; 72:19; 89:52; 106:48), including the phrase, “The prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended” (Psalm 72:20). The occurrences of the phrases, “until this day,” “to this day,” and other variations (Genesis 32:32; Deuteronomy 3:14; 10:8; 29:28; Joshua 7:26; 8:28; 9:27; et al.) could be included among examples of inspired editorial updating.

¹⁹ It is possible that Dan refers to land named in Moses’ day, which later contained a city by the same name.

²⁰ Gleason Archer contends that the final chapter of Deuteronomy is “demonstrably post-Mosaic.” Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, updated and rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody, 1994), p. 276. Thus, an unnamed inspired author added ch. 34 sometime after Moses completed his work on the Pentateuch and both prior to and after the addition of ch. 34, the Pentateuch was fully inspired, authoritative, and inerrant.

²¹ William M. Flinders Petrie (1896), Six Temples at Thebes (London), p. 13.

²² Scott Stripling (2021), “The Early Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Fifteenth Century B.C.,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. by Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic), p. 42.

²³ A.S. Yahuda (1935), The Accuracy of the Bible: The Stories of Joseph, the Exodus and Genesis Confirmed and Illustrated by Egyptian Monuments and Language (Boston: E.P. Dutton & Co).

²⁴ There is significant disagreement among Egyptologists over the year of Thutmose III’s accession, with three prevalent views: the “high chronology” dates it to ca. 1504 B.C.; the “middle chronology” dates it to ca. 1490 B.C.; and the “low chronology” dates it to ca. 1479 B.C. The high chronology is preferred by Shea (1982, pp. 230-238), Petrovich (2006, pp. 81-110), and Stripling (pp. 34-35) because of its agreement with the Ebers Papyrus and with the timing of the second Palestinian campaign of Amenhotep II. It is my contention that the high chronology better matches the biblical literature along with the astronomical date in the Ebers Papyrus: Thutmose I (ca. 1529-1516 B.C.), Thutmose II (ca. 1516-1506 B.C.), Queen Hatshepsut (ca. 1504-1484 B.C.), Thutmose III (ca.1506-1452 B.C.), and Amenhotep II (ca. 1455-1418 B.C.).

²⁵ Erected during the first year of Thutmose IV’s reign, the Dream Stele is a granite inscription fitted between the paws of the Great Sphinx of Giza. Commissioned by Thutmose IV himself, the inscription essentially publicly declares his divinely inaugurated reign while also admitting that he was not the firstborn who was heir to the throne.

²⁶ Stripling, pp. 24-25.

²⁷ Unger (2008), p. 148; Kitchen, p. 207; Eugene H. Merrill (2008), Kingdom of Priests (Ada, MI: Baker Academic, second ed.), p. 103.

²⁸ Stripling, p. 25.

²⁹ T.J. Betts (2008), “Dating the Exodus,” The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, 12[3]:86.

³⁰ Boling (1975), p. 204 claims that the “300 years” is a gloss.

³¹ Kitchen, p. 209.

³² Ibid.

³³ Ibid.

³⁴ John J. Davis (1971), Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), p. 31.

³⁵ David M. Howard (1998), Joshua: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture (Broadman & Holman Publishers), p. 39.

³⁶ As Paul Ray (2005, pp. 93-104), Andrew Steinmann (2005, pp. 491-500), and other authors have identified, there is some degree of overlap among some of the judgeships; they seem generally to view the appearance of the judgeships in the book of Judges as occurring mostly in chronological order. Based on his determinations of which judgeships overlap and which do not, Steinmann (2005), pp. 491-500 even reconstructs an “absolute” chronology.

³⁷ Justin Rogers (October 3, 2023), personal correspondence.

³⁸ See Betts, p. 85.

³⁹ Stripling, p. 25.

⁴⁰ Rosh Hashanah, also known as the Day of Trumpets, was one of the “appointed feasts of the LORD” given to Israel in the HB. The Hebrew word, teruah literally means “to shout or make a noise”. This feast falls on the first day of the Hebrew month of Tishri corresponding to September or October. “And the LORD spoke to Moses, saying, ‘Speak to the people of Israel, saying, In the seventh month, on the first day of the month, you shall observe a day of solemn rest, a memorial proclaimed with blast of trumpets, a holy convocation. You shall not do any ordinary work, and you shall present a food offering to the LORD’” (Leviticus 23:23-25). Rosh Hashanah always falls on the seventh new moon of the Jewish year and begins a ten-day period preceding the holiest day of the Jewish calendar, the Day of Atonement.

⁴¹ The Seder Olam, “Book of the Order of the World,” is an ancient history of Israel written in Hebrew by Babylonian talmudists about A.D. 160. It contains a chronology of the history of the Jewish people from Adam until the revolt of Bar Kokba in the reign of emperor Hadrian. Although many other works have based their work on the Seder Olam chronology, there are areas that need revision and correction. Later updated in Seder Olam Zutta in the 8th century A.D., Seder Olam remains a valuable historical resource, though it is not inspired.

⁴² Ibid., p. 34.

⁴³ Ibid.

⁴⁴ Rodger C. Young (2006a), “Seder Olam and the Sabbaticals Associated with the Two Destructions of Jerusalem: Part II,” Jewish Bible Quarterly, 34:252-254.

⁴⁵ Stripling, p. 34.

⁴⁶ Wood and Young, 51[2]:225-243.

⁴⁷ Stripling.

⁴⁸ Rodger C. Young (December 2003), “When Did Solomon Die?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 46[4]:602.

⁴⁹ Wood and Young, 51[2]:242.

⁵⁰ Michael A. Fishbane (2016), Midrash Unbound: Transformations and Innovations, ed. Joanna Weinberg (The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization in association with Liverpool University Press), p. 121.

⁵¹ Ralph K. Hawkins (2008), “The Date of the Exodus-Conquest is Still an Open Question: A Response to Rodger Young and Bryant Wood,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51[2]:245-266.

⁵² Hoffmeier (2021), p. 40-44.

⁵³ Rodger C. Young (2006b), “The Talmud’s Two Jubilees and Their Relevance to the Date of the Exodus,” Westminster Theological Journal, 68:77-82; Andrew E. Steinmann (2011), From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis: Concordia), p. 51.

⁵⁴ Stripling, p. 56.

⁵⁵ Ibid., p. 22.

⁵⁶ Special thanks to Dr. Scott Stripling, provost and professor of biblical archaeology at The Bible Seminary in Katy, Texas, for taking the time to review and provide feedback on this article. As always, your input is invaluable.

The post The Date of the Exodus: What Does the Bible Say and Why Does it Matter? Part 2 appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also holds Masters degrees in Medical Education and Biblical Studies and completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is an adjunct faculty member in the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology and has been a square supervisor for the Associates of Biblical Research excavating in Shiloh for the past four years.]

Background

Until the 1960s, the discussion concerning the date of the Exodus was a battle between the critical, textual studies of the Bible and archaeological studies.¹ Today, however, most scholars question the historicity of the Exodus, the Conquest, and even the existence of Moses. The minimalist school claims that the final biblical text was written in the Hellenistic period, only 700 years after the time of David and Solomon, and therefore, they claim the biblical history of the Exodus and subsequent Conquest are purely literary. ²

Constant speculative, historical reconstruction of the Exodus event seems to be ever present even among Jewish scholars. A front-page story in The Los Angeles Times reports an interview with a Jewish rabbi who said, “The truth is, that virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.”³

The data in archaeological surveys of recent decades have not been disputed in the sense of the existence of sites, the dating of pottery, etc. But the interpretations have changed regarding several questions, e.g., dating of material finds, ethnicity of inhabitants, and continuity and discontinuity between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age. There remains a deep division between the post-modern, rationalist-critical reading of the biblical text and the traditional grammatical-historical reading of the text.

When it comes to the historicity of the Exodus, the stakes could not be higher, and skeptics and liberal scholars alike know this all too well. If the people, places, and events of the Exodus are not historical but, instead, are legend, then the trustworthiness of biblical revelation is seriously undermined.

Early vs. Late-Date Exodus

Is the evidence against the biblical dating so muddled that one should throw out all attempts to identify the date of the Exodus? Historical matters are seldom simple. While the material culture at these sites illuminates the biblical text, it often raises more questions than it settles.

As of this writing, even among those scholars who hold to a historical Exodus, there is no consensus concerning its exact timing. However, most biblical scholars and experts generally agree that the Exodus account is framed within Egypt’s “New Kingdom” period (ca. 1570-1040 B.C.), immediately prior to the period of Israel’s monarchy. This window of time encompasses the entire period of the Exodus, Israel’s sojourn in the wilderness, and the period of the judges. Considering that the Torah is replete with references, phraseology, and language like that of the New Kingdom era, this chronology fits well with the events surrounding the biblical Exodus.⁴

Most proponents of the early date of the Exodus hold that the biblical and archaeological data indicate it happened during the 18th Egyptian  Dynasty in the 15th century B.C., about 1447/46 B.C. (Late Bronze Age I B).⁵ Late-date advocates maintain that the archaeological record holds little to no evidence of a Conquest at the end of the 15th century B.C. Proponents of the late date believe the data discovered so far indicate the Exodus happened in the 13th century B.C., sometime around 1250 B.C. in the 19th Dynasty, 20 years or so into the reign of Pharaoh Rameses II (1279-1213 B.C.). Essentially, late-date advocates give preference to archaeological findings while early-date proponents trust the accuracy of the Hebrew Bible (HB) first and foremost.⁶

While modern scholarship remains skeptical about the whole prospect of writing a history of anything, much less a history of Israel, some believe that history emerges from a particular perception of reality (usually that of educated, upper-class male scribes) that may not be in line with contemporary concerns of the underclasses, ethnic minorities, or feminist groups. As a result, these skeptics often view a religious document (though it contains verifiable historical information) as unreliable. According to some, the Bible should not be trusted as a spiritual manuscript as it proliferates a “privileged point of view” rather than representing fairly the real situation of all concerned parties.⁷

While many scholars are inclined to attribute the destructions of Jericho, Ai, and Hazor to a myriad of different invaders,⁸ written historical records (HB) plainly attribute those destructions to Israel. It is my contention that the history recorded in the HB corresponds extremely well with the material evidence. The growing inclination among some that archaeology is more reliably “scientific,” in contrast to the biblical texts which constitute unreliable historical data, blatantly disregards that Christianity is a historical faith based on actual events recorded in a historical document. William Brown summarizes this view of Israel’s history:

On the one hand, Israel’s story is no imaginative construct severed from the harsh realities of historical experience. The Bible is about a particular people who embodied a particular history. For all its ambiguity, archaeology anchors Israel’s story in history. Moreover, the archaeological picture underscores the social and theological struggles the ancient community faced as it developed those traditions that came to comprise scripture. On the other hand, Israel’s history cannot be severed from Israel’s faith in the God who delivered, sustained, and constituted Israel as a people.⁹

The germane question is, “Can written sources and archaeological remnants together establish the historicity of the Exodus?” Scott Stripling affirms this when he writes: “It is critical that we assign proper weight to these written sources and the material remains. Proper epistemology enables reliable historiography…the written text is less subjective than human interpretations of the material culture, and therefore it ought to receive primacy in our considerations.”¹⁰

Though archaeology can and does play a key role in biblical studies and Christian apologetics, we must keep in mind the limits of archaeology. Archaeology can confirm, enlighten, and illuminate, but it cannot prove the divine inspiration of the Bible. While archaeologists study and interpret the evidence left behind by those who inhabited and destroyed biblical sites, how the evidence is understood and applied depends on the interpreter’s presuppositions and worldview. There was a time when minimalist scholars famously questioned the existence of King David, that is, until 1993 with the discovery of the “House of David” inscription at Tel Dan. Likewise, although many ground their arguments in the absence of evidence regarding the Exodus event, the ancient Egyptians almost never recorded events which portrayed them unfavorably, so one should not expect to find an engraving or a statue bearing the name “Moses” or a monument depicting the 10 plagues.

Despite the challenges in interpreting the biblical and archaeological material together, an ever-growing body of evidence demonstrates localized destruction of prominent Canaanite cities at the Late Bronze Age I B-II A horizon consistent with a ca. 1446 B.C. Exodus and a ca. 1406 B.C. Conquest.

Methodology

The logical beginning for those examining the historicity of the biblical Exodus is the text itself. Though the biblical evidence seems clear, it should also be considered in light of the archaeological evidence. For our purposes, we will first examine the chronological clues as presented in the biblical text. From a methodological standpoint, I will be approaching the biblical text in the following manner as adapted from Walter Kaiser, Jr. and Paul Wegner:¹¹

1. History CAN include the unique, the miraculous, and the intervention of the divine.
2. History CAN include anything that does not have external documentation.
3. History CAN include narratives about individuals, but most focus on nations instead.¹²
4. History CAN focus on individuals as shapers of the times, not only upon the sociological factors that influence historical change.
5. Historical writing CAN give logical and necessary priority to written evidence over material culture.

While archaeology, oftentimes working under the false guise of “science,” is valuable for helping us to understand the material culture behind the text, Scripture remains the primary source of authority.  One must not elevate archaeology to the point that it becomes the judge for the validity of Scripture. Randall Price emphasizes this point:

There are indeed instances where the information needed to resolve a historical or chronological question is lacking from both archaeology and the Bible, but it is unwarranted to assume the material evidence taken from the more limited content of archaeological excavations can be used to dispute the literary evidence from the more complete content of the canonical scriptures.¹³

Although I believe that strong archaeological evidence exists to support the early date, the most powerful case for an early date Exodus begins with Scripture. Stripling expresses this concept perfectly when he says, “Archaeological excavation, properly conducted, illuminates the written word of God, and vice versa, but if the two appear to conflict, early-date advocates defer to the biblical text.”¹⁴

The Biblical Texts

1 Kings 6:1

The most literal interpretation of the biblical sources begins with the date given for the building of Solomon’s Temple in 1 Kings 6:1 (NASB): “Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel…he began to build the house of the Lord.” Several Assyrian artifacts from specific periods mention Israelite and Judean kings, allowing one to date Solomon’s reign precisely. Those artifacts include a reference to Ahab on the Kurkh Monolith at the time of the ca. 853 B.C. Battle of Qarqar and a reference to Jehu on the Black Obelisk, paying tribute in ca. 841 B.C.¹⁵ Using internal biblical data and archaeology, Edwin Thiele was able to apply these regnal counting methods to create a timeline for the reign of Solomon, aligning his fourth year referenced in 1 Kings 6:1 with 967 B.C.¹⁶ Basic addition then places the Exodus around 1446 B.C. and the Conquest around 1406 B.C. This date also accords well with extrabiblical evidence to be discussed in a later article.¹⁷

The 480-year timeframe as conveyed in 1 Kings 6 comports well with other biblical evidence. Robert Boling has totaled “the first 4 years of Solomon’s rule, the 42 regnal years of Saul and David, the 136 years from Tola to Eli, the 200 years of peace under the saviors, the 53 years of oppression, and the 45 years implied in Josh 14:1. The total is 480.”¹⁸ Paul Ray,¹⁹ Andrew Steinmann,²⁰ and others, upon examining the chronology of Judges, have determined that 480 years concisely fits the span of time found within the text. Advocates for a 13^th century Conquest, on the other hand, have not been able to explain convincingly the chronology in Judges.

Late-date adherents have more mathematical work to do to explain their chronology in light of the biblical record. Unambiguously, neither 480 nor 440²¹ fits with a 13^th-century Exodus and, as a result, for late-date proponents, this number represents a symbolic number not to be interpreted literally. James Hoffmeier and Ralph Hawkins identify two possible options that late-date advocates propose for explaining the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 in their shorter timeframe. The first is that the 480 years constitute what Assyriologists call a Distanzangaben, a given distance, or an approximation relating to the distant past. Hoffmeier argues that Assyrian rulers cite large numbers, like 720 years, between the founding of a temple or temple renovations and some important past event.²²

The second option, which is the chief argument for advocates of a late Exodus during the 13^th (or even 12^th) century, is that the “480 years” of 1 Kings 6:1 is a symbolic generational number. They hypothesize that the author of 1 Kings was referring to 12 idealized generations of 40 years when he arrived at the number 480. Both 12 and 40 are some of the most significant and oft-repeated numbers in the Bible. Nevertheless, Wood and Young have this to say about this convention:

Some numbers in the Bible clearly are not to be taken in a strictly literal sense (the “seventy times seven” of Matt 18:22, for example). The context and literary convention being followed are usually plain enough in such cases, however, to show that a non-literal interpretation is intended. For 1 Kgs 6:1, similarly, the context and literary convention being followed dictate that the 480 years must be taken as literal in intention. There is no indication that ancient readers would have understood it in any other sense. To treat it as other than literal would open the door to the radical revisionism that no interpreter with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture could accept: the forty years of Israel in the desert would not be literal, nor the forty days of the temptation of Jesus, nor his three days in the tomb, and so on without end, so that we would no longer be able to understand the plain meaning of any factual statement in Scripture.²³

Although there are no passages in the Bible directly communicating that 40 years is the ideal or full generation, scholars such as David van Daalen²⁴ often use the following passages to support their argument that a generation is equivalent to 40 years: Exodus 16:35; Numbers 14:33; 32:13; Ezekiel 4:6; 29:11; Deuteronomy 2:14; Psalm 95:10; and Hebrews 3:9-10. For example, Numbers 32:13 (ESV) states: “And the Lord’s anger was kindled against Israel, and he made them wander in the wilderness forty years, until all the generation that had done evil in the sight of the Lord was gone.” Although the passage does not state that a generation equated 40 years of time, late-date proponents infer a connection. However, it is more likely that the 40 years referred to in Numbers 32:13 are the allotted amount of time needed for the generation (except those under 20) to die.

The word for generation in Numbers 32:13 is dōr דּוֹר) in Hebrew and genea (γενεά) in Greek. Dōr does not indicate the passage of time between the birth of a father and son in these verses concerning 40 years, though it is used as such in some other passages. Even if such a meaning was attempted here, it would not fit the context of the events since technically two generations died in the wilderness (parents and their children older than 20). Another interpretation for dōr is “contemporaries.” In Genesis 6:9, Noah was righteous among his dōr. The writer of Hebrews refers to the genea that tempted God in the wilderness (Hebrews 3:10), and Matthew notes the genea that sought a sign (Matthew 12:39). These examples connect to a group of people, not a time period.

Hoffmeier observes that the connection may have been formed by such passages as Joshua 5:6, “For the people of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, till all the nation, the men of war that came forth out of Egypt, perished,” or Psalm 95:10, “For forty years I loathed that generation.”²⁵ Yet, neither of these passages explicitly equate the length of a generation with 40 years. More likely, over time, the number 40, which was undoubtedly a significant number for the Israelites, came to mean a long period of time.

The problem with associating 40 years to a generation is the lack of precedents or clear examples of such an interpretation within the Bible. It can be soundly argued that this false association constitutes a derived assumption to fit with the theory, an approach on par with circular reasoning. Ronald Hendel, a secular Jewish scholar, remarks:

[The 480 years] is unambiguous biblical testimony for the date of the exodus. Yet distinguished evangelical scholars will fiddle with this date, since it does not correspond with what archaeological and historical evidence tells us about the time of Israel’s emergence…. In my view, this concession to historical and archaeological evidence is admirable. But it is also a departure from the plain sense of the Bible…. Identifying the Bible’s errors and replacing them with historically plausible reconstructions is a curious strategy for evangelical scholars. It clearly departs from the traditional doctrine of inerrancy.²⁶

Even if the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 is symbolic, connecting monumentally important stages of time in Israel’s history, it in no way demands or suggests that it should not also be taken literally. Artificially reducing this number to create verisimilitude with highly debatable and, oftentimes, conflicting archaeological evidence seems unnecessary and harmful to the biblical text.²⁷ Stripling aptly notes that with “this approach to dating, late-date advocates would have us believe that the biblical writer was either confused or practicing hyperbole. I find both of these unlikely.”²⁸

Overall, the 12 generations interpretation of the 1 Kings passage requires a great deal of mathematical sleuthing and hoop-jumping to understand a number that does not suggest a secret meaning. If the 1 Kings writer had intended to express a different amount of time or convey the passage of time in terms of generations, it would certainly have been simple and logical for him to state the allotted time in a different way, rather than utilize a coded system not outlined elsewhere. The purpose of 1 Kings is to record the history of the Israelites, an aim that generally favors clarity over mystery. Thus, the intention of 1 Kings 6:1 is plainly stated—to describe that 480 years had passed between the Exodus and the building of the first Temple. Sadly, too many scholars have missed or muddled the simplicity of this passage.

Exodus 12:40 and the Hyksos

There is considerable debate surrounding Exodus 12:40 and the actual length of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt. While this topic is too broad to cover extensively in this article, it is important to note that there is a textual variant that exists in Exodus 12:40 between the Hebrew Masoretic text and the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Masoretic text is a reliable, more recent Hebrew text (9^th century A.D.) while the LXX is an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible (ca. 250-150 B.C.). The difference between the two traditions is italicized below:

Masoretic (Hebrew text):

40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.

41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

Septuagint (Ancient Greek text):

40 Now the sojourn of the children of Israel who lived in the land of Egypt and in the land of Canaan was four hundred and thirty years.

41 And it came to pass at the end of the four hundred and thirty years—on that very same day—it came to pass that all the armies of the LORD went out from the land of Egypt.

Combining this verse in Exodus to Paul’s parallel statement in Galatians 3:16-18, Paul seems to lend support to the LXX reading of the text as he denotes the 430 years of sojourning beginning with the promise given to Abraham (in Canaan). Those who advocate for the 430 years of Exodus 12 to have started in Canaan with Abraham (in support of the LXX and Galatians 3:17) would allow for only 215 actual years of Israelite sojourn in Egypt (short sojourn), with the other 215 years representing the sojourn in Canaan. Advocates of the long Egyptian sojourn take the time from Joseph and his brothers in Egypt until the Exodus to be 430 years and then add extra time to go back to the Promise of Abraham (well over 600 years). While the Hebrew Masoretic text has demonstrated reliability despite its more recent transmission, the omission of “the land of Canaan” in this verse seems to be inconsistent with Galatians 3:17 and creates problems elsewhere in the text, including Genesis 15:15-16. While both long and short sojourn advocates can arrive at a 15^th century Exodus (which we support), the short sojourn comports better with Galatians 3:17²⁹ along with a considerable amount of extrabiblical evidence including Josephus.³⁰ Furthermore, taking into account Exodus 1:8 regarding the rise of a king “who knew not Joseph,” this best intersects with the arrival of Ahmose I of the 18^th Egyptian Dynasty ca. 1570 B.C.³¹

This timing supports an early-date Exodus, placing the Israelites in Egypt during the Hyksos dynasty (ca. 1670-1550 B.C.). According to the Turin Royal Canon, the Hyksos ruled for 108 years from their capital at Avaris.³² Thus, the Hebrews’ arrival in Egypt would date to approximately ca. 1661 B.C., around 7-10 years after the Hyksos had arrived. The reigns of these Hyksos rulers fit well with a 215-year sojourn whereby Joseph was made vizier by a Hyksos pharaoh, not a native Egyptian pharaoh. The Hyksos were a heterogenous ethnic group which included Semitic/Asiatic peoples who likely migrated from Canaan.³³ The following are only a few indicators that may support the hypothesis that the Pharaoh of Joseph’s day may not have been a native Egyptian, but instead, Hyksos:

1. Most Egyptologists and experts would agree that it would be entirely unthinkable for a native Egyptian pharaoh to give up land (much less the most fertile land of the Delta) to a group of foreigners (Genesis 47:6).
2. Appointing a foreigner to rule over the land would have been a massive undermining of the priestly religious system and highly improbable. Such a promotion of a Hebrew as vizier over the whole country would legitimize Joseph’s God instead of one of the many Egyptian gods.
3. If Joseph’s Pharaoh was a native Egyptian, why does Scripture on four occasions emphasize that Potiphar was an Egyptian, but not Pharaoh? The Hyksos adopted Egyptian culture and incorporated the worship of Egyptian gods into their own religious beliefs alongside their chief gods Baal and Anat. The Hyksos also would have promoted native Egyptians into significant positions of authority (Genesis 39:7-20).
4. The single horse battle chariot was introduced during the Hyksos rule of Egypt.³⁴ Genesis 41:43 and 46:29 indicate Joseph rode in a chariot. If Joseph lived in the Middle Kingdom (long sojourn) this detail would seem to be an anachronism or an error.³⁵
5. Genesis 41:38-40 indicates that Pharoah said, “Can we find a man like this, in whom is the Spirit of God?” This positive statement about an outsider from the North would be wildly inconsistent with what we see later among the native 17^th/18^th Dynasty pharaohs like Kamose who swore to “smite” and “rip open the belly” of his Asiatic enemies to the North.³⁶
6. In Genesis 46:31-34, Joseph says to his brothers and to his father’s household:
   • “I will go up and tell Pharaoh and will say to him, ‘My brothers and my father’s household, who were in the land of Canaan, have come to me. And the men are shepherds, for they have been keepers of livestock, and they have brought their flocks and their herds and all that they have.’ When Pharaoh calls you and says, ‘What is your occupation?’ you shall say, ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our fathers,’ in order that you may dwell in the land of Goshen, for every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians.”
   • The only logical reason as to why Joseph must coach his brothers what to say to Pharaoh was that Pharaoh was not an Egyptian. As the Hyksos were a Semitic people, much like the Israelites, Joseph told his father to tell the king that they were shepherds, unlike the Egyptians, to gain their favor.³⁷
7. In Genesis 41:41,Pharaoh said to Joseph, “I hereby put you in charge of the entire land of Egypt.” Although the Hyksos did not rule over a unified Egypt, their influence and power extended throughout Egypt including the southern Egyptian capital of Thebes. Seventeenth Dynasty King Kamose indicates this with an inscription bemoaning taxation imposed by the “Asiatics”:
   • I should like to know what serves this strength of mine, when a chieftain in Avaris, and another in Kush, and I sit united with an Asiatic and a Nubian, each in possession of his slice of Egypt, and I cannot pass by him as far as Memphis…. No man can settle down, when despoiled by the taxes of the Asiatics. I will grapple with him, that I may rip open his belly! My wish is to save Egypt and to smite the Asiatic!³⁸
8. It would be entirely plausible for a Hyksos pharaoh, ruling over a divided country, to desire to consolidate the priests, whose political influence was significant. For this cause, the Pharaoh ruling over Joseph selected for him a wife, “Asenath, the daughter of Potiphera, priest of On” (Genesis 41:45). Suggesting this pairing would have only been arranged by a native pharaoh of Egypt would constitute special pleading.

The Hyksos were eventually driven out of power by Ahmose I, the founder of the 18^th Dynasty.³⁹ The 18^th Dynasty was proud of its native Egyptian heritage and its southern (Thebes) roots and likely soon gained enough power and influence to enslave the foreign Israelites (Exodus 1:8), who did not flee from Egypt with the Hyksos (ca. 1550 B.C.), as soon as the latter had been driven out of the Delta.⁴⁰ Exodus 1:8 synchronizes perfectly with the ethnic friction between the native Egyptians and the remnant Hyksos still resident in Northern Egypt.

A careful reading of Exodus 12:40 not only aligns the verse with other biblical and extrabiblical evidence as noted above, inferring that the sojourn in Egypt lasted 215 years, but this dating and the reign of the Hyksos also correlate well with the account of Joseph, the later enslavement of the Israelites under an Egyptian pharaoh and, ultimately, an early-date Exodus.⁴¹

[Part two of this article will appear in next month’s issue of R&R.]

Endnotes

¹ See Julius Wellhausen, Albrecht Alt, and Martin Noth for examples of textual studies of the dating of the Exodus versus William F. Albright, G. Ernest Wright, and John Garstang’s archaeological approach.

² See Ayelet Gilboa and Ilan Sharon (2003), “An Archaeological Contribution to the Early Iron Age Chronological Debate: Alternative Chronologies for Phoenicia and Their Effects on the Levant, Cyprus and Greece,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, 332:7-80.

³ T. Watanabe (2001), “Doubting the Story of Exodus,” The Los Angeles Times, April 13.

⁴ See Christopher Eames (2022), “Searching for Egypt in Israel,” https://armstronginstitute.org/680-searching-for-egypt-in-israel. Deuteronomy is very similar to New Kingdom suzerainty treaties common during this period.

⁵ James K. Hoffmeier (2007), “What is the Biblical Date of the Exodus?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50[2]:236; Late Bronze (LB) Age I A corresponds to ca. 1446-1400 B.C. [Mount Sinai ca. 1446 B.C.; Wilderness Wanderings ca. 1446-1406 B.C.; Conquest ca. 1406-1400 B.C.]. LB II A = ca. 1400-1305; LB II B= ca. 1305-1173.

⁶ Scott Stripling (2021), “The Early Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Fifteenth Century B.C.,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic); Andrew E. Hill (2009), “Exodus,” in A Survey of the Old Testament, ed. Andrew E. Hill and John H. Walton, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 106.

⁷ Keith Whitelam (1997), The Invention of Ancient Israel: The Silencing of Palestinian History (Abingdon: Routledge), pp. 12-17, 22-23; Philip R. Davies (1992), “In Search of ‘Ancient Israel,’” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament: Supplement Series (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic), pp. 94-112.

⁸ E.g., recent excavations at Gezer conducted by Ortiz have concluded that its destruction in the late 13th century should be attributed to Egyptians, most likely Pharoah Merneptah. Merneptah may have also been involved with the destruction of Hazor’s upper city Stratum XIII (Stratum 1A in the lower city), dating to Late Bronze IIB. See Stripling, p. 32.

⁹ John Bright (2000), A History of Israel, 4th ed. (London, UK: Westminster John Knox), pp. 21-22.

¹⁰ Stripling, p. 22.

¹¹ Walter C. Kaiser, Jr. and Paul D. Wegner (2017), A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville: B&H Academic, revised ed.), pp. 65-73.

¹² E. Yamauchi’s counterapproach to modern scholars who argue against biblical history is valuable. See E. Yamauchi (1994), “The Current State of Old Testament Historiography,” in Faith, Tradition, and History, ed. A.R. Millard, J.K. Hoffmeier, and D.W. Baker (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns), pp. 1-36, esp. 25-36.

¹³ Randall Price (1997), The Stones Cry Out (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers), p. 46.

¹⁴ Stripling, p. 29, emp. added.

¹⁵ James B. Pritchard (1969), Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

¹⁶ Adopting the final year of Ahab’s reign as the Battle of Qarqar in 853 B.C.,  the start of his reign over Israel 22 years earlier could be associated with the 38th year of Judean King Asa (1 Kings 16:29). This places the start of Asa’s reign at 911 B.C., and by adding together the reigns of Asa’s predecessors—Abijam (3 years), Rehoboam (17 years), and Solomon (40 years)—the first year of Solomon’s reign can be traced back to 971 B.C. with the Temple construction beginning in Solomon’s fourth year (1 Kings 6:1)—thus, ca. 967 B.C. Edwin R. Thiele (1944), “The Chronology of the Kings of Judah and Israel,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies, 3:137-186.

¹⁷ Early archaeological data correspond with this dating including John Garstang’s (1941) excavation of Jericho during which he discovered evidence of severe destruction around 1400 B.C.

¹⁸ Robert G. Boling (1975), Judges: Introduction, Translation, and Commentary (New York: Doubleday), p. 23.

¹⁹ Paul J. Ray (2005), “Another Look at the Period of the Judges,” in Beyond the Jordan, ed. Glenn A. Carnagey, Sr. (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock), pp. 93-104.

²⁰ Andrew E. Steinmann (2005), “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48:491-500.

²¹ The LXX records the building of the Temple as happening in the 440th year following the Exodus. As a result, some, like Steven Collins, support 1406 B.C. as the date of the Exodus. Nevertheless, either date places the Exodus in the 15th century B.C. See Steven Collins (2019), The Harvest Handbook of Bible Lands: A Panoramic Survey of the History, Geography and Culture of the Scriptures (Eugene, OR: Harvest House Publishers), p. 89.

²² James K. Hoffmeier (2021), “Late Date: A Historical Exodus in the Thirteenth Century B.C.,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic), p. 41.

²³ Bryant G. Wood and Robert Young (2008), “A Critical Analysis of the Evidence from Ralph Hawkins for a Late-Date Exodus Conquest,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 51[2]:234, June.

²⁴ David H. van Daalen (1993), “Number Symbolism,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogen (New York: Oxford University Press), pp. 561-563.

²⁵ James K. Hoffmeier (2007), “What is the Biblical Date of the Exodus?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50[2]:237.

²⁶ Ronald Hendel (2001), “The Exodus in Biblical Memory,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 120:601-622.

²⁷ See Christopher Eames (2022), “The ‘480 Years’ of 1 Kings 6:1: Just a Symbolic Number?” https://armstronginstitute.org/762-the-480-years-of-1-kings-6-1-just-a-symbolic-number/print.

²⁸ Stripling, p. 30.

²⁹ Paul’s reference to 430 years in Galatians 3:17 indicates that this sojourning period started with the covenant of Abraham, not Jacob’s arrival in Egypt.

³⁰ Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, II.15.2.

³¹ If the sojourn of Exodus began with literal oppression in Egypt, then one should not start the 430 years of Exodus 12 until the death of Joseph (ca. 1590 B.C.). If Moses was 120 when he died, it would be a challenge for anyone to fill 430 years from this chronology. A span of 215 years in Egypt makes this scenario workable.

³² Avaris was later expanded and renamed Rameses by Rameses II. Today it is called Tell el Dab’a.

³³ Daniel Candelora (no date), “The Hyksos,” American Research Center in Egypt, https://arce.org/resource/hyksos/.

³⁴ Roberto A. Díaz Hernández (2014), “The Role of the War Chariot in the Formation of the Egyptian Empire in the Early 18th Dynasty,” Studien zur Altägyptischen Kultur, 43:109-122.

³⁵ See G. Cox (2022), “Shunning the Shishak/Shoshenq Synchrony?” Creation.com, https://creation.com/shunning-shishak-shoshenq-synchrony, where it is noted that there was not a word for chariot before the 18th Dynasty.

³⁶ Alan Gardiner (1979), Egypt of the Pharaohs (Oxford: Oxford University Press), p. 166.

³⁷ Third-century Egyptian historian Manetho identified the Hyksos as “shepherd kings” (repeated by Josephus). His claim implies a historical reality in that the Hyksos were friendly to other sheep herders like Jacob’s descendants. Scripture clearly indicates that shepherds were not an abomination to the pharaoh of Joseph’s time. See Robert Carter’s article titled, “A Response to a Long Sojourn Advocate,” at creation.com/long-sojourn-response.

³⁸ Gardiner (1979), p. 166.

³⁹ Candelora; see also M. Bietak (2010), “Where Did the Hyksos Come from and Where Did They Go?,” in The Second Intermediate Period (Thirteenth-Seventeenth Dynasties): Current Research, Future Prospects, ed. Marcel Marée, Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 192 (Leuven: Peeters), pp. 139-181.

⁴⁰ See H.N. Orlinsky (1960), Ancient Israel (New York: Cornell University Press), p. 34; Merrill Unger (1966), Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan), p. 144; et al.

⁴¹ See Kyle Butt (1995), “How Long was the Israelites’ Egyptian Sojourn?,” Reason & Revelation, 21[7]; I do not support David Rohl’s new chronology hypothesis as often quoted on this topic in various publications. Rohl’s radical new chronology places the biblical conquest in the Middle Bronze IIB period and the Amarna period contemporary with the United Monarchy. See David M. Rohl (1995), Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown Publishers); David M. Rohl, (1995), “A Test of Time,” The Bible: From Myth to History (London: Century), 1:299-325. I agree with Wood when he notes: “Rather than enhancing the connections between archaeology and the Bible, his [Rohl’s] new chronology would destroy the many strong correlations that exist when the standard chronology is followed.” See biblearchaeology.org/research/conquest-of-canaan/3196-david-rohls-revised-egyptian-chronology-a-view-from-palestine.

The post The Date of the Exodus: What Does the Bible Say and Why Does it Matter? (Part 1) appeared first on Apologetics Press.

[Editor’s Note: Dr. Jonathan Moore is a board-certified podiatric physician and surgeon. Moore also holds Masters degrees in Medical Education and Biblical Studies and completed a Ph.D. at Amridge University in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Biblical Archaeology. In addition to practicing medicine part-time, Moore teaches, guides, and provides intensive biblical education around the world. Moore is an adjunct faculty member within the Freed-Hardeman University Graduate School of Theology and has been a square supervisor for the Associates of Biblical Research excavating in Shiloh for the past four years.]

For the last century, scholars have been debating Israelite occupation in Canaan with much division over where they came from and how they came to form a nation. As Eliezer D. Oren notes, “The origin of ancient Israel, their settlement in the land of Canaan and transformation into an organized kingdom is one of the most stimulating and, at the same time, most controversial chapters in the history of early Israel.”^[1]

Stemming back to the turn of this century, marked “revisionism”^[2] and biblical skepticism have created a widespread loss of confidence in the historical reliability of the biblical text. These postmodernists claim that there are no real facts, but only interpretations. Modern revisionist scholars have rejected much of the biblical narrative as “too late” to be reliable. In fact, according to these scholars, the Hebrew Bible was entirely a product of the Persian/Hellenistic period. In short, the Hebrew Bible was not composed by eyewitnesses but instead was a late “foundation myth” of a defeated and beset Jewish community in the Hellenistic-Roman era, seeking some sort of self-identity.^[3] Among some biblical scholars, the concept of “cultural memory” is becoming popular, noting that, as we do not have reliable sources for writing any real history of events, we must instead rely on how these supposed “events” were remembered—the story or the tradition. This scholarly, nonsensical construct can be illustrated by a theory conjured by Lorenzo Nigro, the latest secular archaeologist who excavated the ancient city of Jericho:

One may imagine that the terrible destructions suffered by the Canaanite city both in the 3rd and 2nd millennium B.C. had surely become part of the local shared memory, and possibly were narrated as the Jerichoans had been able to overcome them almost every time. There is no way, however, to link them directly to the Bible, except for the fact that the biblical author may have reused one of these stories to validate the historicity of his narration.^[4]

According to the biblical account, after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, the Israelites’ arrival in the Promised Land marked a pivotal moment for the nation that tested their mettle and faithfulness to God and His instructions. God had explicitly directed Moses and the people to cast out the Canaanite nations and obliterate their idols and areas of worship:

When you have crossed the Jordan into the land of Canaan, then you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land from before you, destroy all their engraved stones, destroy all their molded images, and demolish all their high places; you shall dispossess the inhabitants of the land and dwell in it, for I have given you the land to possess (Numbers 33:51-53).

Although the Israelites successfully overthrew many cities under Joshua’s leadership, toward the end of Joshua’s life, the Lord told him, “You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed” (Joshua 13:1). He then went on to list the regions still under Canaanite control (Joshua 13:2-6). Judges 1:27-35 records the cities that the Israelites had not conquered. Manasseh had neglected to conquer Beth-shean, Taanach, Dor, Ibleam, and Megiddo (Judges 1:27-28). Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanites of Gezer (Judges 1:29). Zebulon was still living among the inhabitants of Kitron and Nahalol, using them for labor (Judges 1:30). Asher had not conquered Acco, Sidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, or Rehob (Judges 1:31-32). Naphtali subjected the Canaanites of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath to forced labor (Judges 1:33). And in Dan’s allotted land, Mount Heres, Aijalon, and Shaalbim were still occupied by the Amorites (Judges 1:34-35). It was not until the time of David that the land was subjugated by the Israelites, and even during this time, the Philistines remained.

For many modern scholars, however, these biblical accounts of the Exodus and Conquest are simply myths created to rationalize theological beliefs. Within this anti-biblical perspective, scholars have suggested many theories to explain the emergence of the Israelite people in Canaan. This article focuses on a few of the more significant hypotheses: the peaceful infiltration model, the revolt model, the collapse model, and the cyclic model. Of these theories, only the peaceful infiltration model is an exogenous model, viewing Israel as entering from outside Canaan. The others are all endogenous models, proposing that the Israelites were formed in various ways from inhabitants within Canaan.

Even those scholars who support the biblical account of the Conquest are divided between a 13^th and 15^th century Exodus. Late date (13^th century) supporters assert various dates between ca. 1240 and 1290 B.C., while most early date (15^th century) advocates place the Exodus in 1446 B.C.^[5] The theories concerning Israel’s arrival in Canaan have been expounded upon in detail in many publications, so the sections that follow will focus on the most pertinent aspects of each model.

Peaceful Infiltration Model

The peaceful infiltration model espoused by German scholars Albrecht Alt and Martin Noth and Israeli archaeologist Yohanan Aharoni envisages groups with diverse origins settling at different times in various areas of Canaan. Alt proposed that these nomadic groups peacefully immigrated to Canaan over a considerable length of time—maybe even a few centuries. In this model, only after the settlement of these disparate groups did they coalesce into the entity known as Israel. The infiltration theory relegates clashes with the Canaanites to a later stage in the process of Israel’s formation. Though Alt first described the infiltration model, it was later supported and developed by Noth, who used literary-critical approaches to the text to reconstruct the complex process of tribal settlement. Noth saw the book of Joshua as an etiological tale—a myth told to justify the existence of customs, beliefs, or aspects of the natural world. Neither Alt nor Noth focused on the archaeological findings.

Although the infiltration theory does make use of specific biblical traditions, it clearly rejects the overall picture of Israel’s origins found in the hexateuch.^[6] The theory has been critiqued for a flawed portrayal of nomadic life.^[7]

(Peasant) Revolt Model

George Mendenhall proposed this first endogenous model. He suggested that the nation of Israel was not formed from an outside Conquest but through an internal sociocultural revolution among native Canaanite peasants who sought to overthrow their political overlords, the rulers of the Late Bronze Age city-states. The catalyst for change did, however, begin with a population of outsiders: “A group of slave-labor captives succeeded in escaping an intolerable situation in Egypt. Without any other community upon which they could rely for protection and support, they established a relationship with a deity, Yahweh.”^[8] In Mendenhall’s view, the influence of this small group of religious zealots encouraged some indigenous Canaanites to join them in their religious movement to overthrow the kings of the region and become part of this newly-formed community with “common loyalty to a single Overlord,” which ultimately granted them “deliverance from bondage.”^[9] In this interpretation of the formation of Israel, the nation coalesced around a shared religion but not ethnicity as descendants of Abraham, as the biblical account describes.

Mendenhall acknowledged that his anthropological theory was an “ideal model” that lacked evidence but stood to reason because of parallel examples within other societies throughout world history. He rejected the biblical texts’ historicity because of the theological component, noting, “[t]his biblical emphasis on the ‘acts of God’ seems to modern man the very antithesis of history, for it is within the framework of economic, sociological and political organizations that we of today seek understanding of ourselves and consequently of ancient man.”^[10]

Scholars have expressed a great deal of criticism for the revolt theory. Some, like Niels Peter Lemche, have discussed the model’s substantial lack of evidence and understanding of nomadic societies^.[11] On Mendenhall’s viewpoint of the biblical text, Provan, Long, and Longman note, “Reductionism, however, is a charge from which Mendenhall himself is not immune—both in his dismissal of the biblical evidence…and in his assumption that human understanding can and must be sought first and foremost in…‘economic, sociological, and political organizations.’”^[12] Concerning Mendenhall’s claim that Israel was a nation bound by religion and not ethnicity, Provan, Long, and Longman argue that “Mendenhall’s insistence on the former to the exclusion of the latter seems unfounded and unnecessary” as “[t]here is nothing inherently improbable in the notion that Israel began as a family, which, as it grew, became the core into which other people were incorporated.”^[13]

Collapse Model

Archaeologist William Dever has suggested that the Israelite nation emerged endogenously following a collapse of Canaanite civilization in the lowland region. Dever’s theory relies on evidence of a shift between the Late Bronze Age (LB) and the Iron Age (IA) I period in which populations expanded in the mostly uninhabited hill country. He observes that “in the heartland of ancient Israel about 300 small agricultural villages were founded de novo in the late 13^th-12^th centuries.”^[14] According to Dever, archaeological findings of silos, cisterns, and hill terracing indicate that a group of rural Canaanites moved to the hill country.^[15] Unlike Mendenhall, Dever sees these findings as well as the dearth of pig bones and temple structures as indications of the group’s ethnic ties.^[16] However, Dever does share Mendenhall’s viewpoint that the larger group of indigenous Canaanites included a smaller group with Egyptian origins. Like most supporters of endogenous models Dever views the accounts of the Exodus and Conquest as myths. However, he does acknowledge that this connection to Egypt might signify some truth within the biblical texts, but views it as a distorted truth wrongly applied to “all Israel” when the larger group was comprised of native Canaanites.^[17]

Cyclic Model

Archaeologist Israel Finkelstein has also written extensively on the emergence of Israel. Like Dever, Finkelstein reinterprets the biblical text when it does not harmonize with his understanding of the archaeological evidence:

Theoretically speaking, scholars can use two tools to decipher these riddles: text and archaeology. The importance of the biblical source, which dominated past research on the rise of Early Israel, has been dramatically diminished in recent years. The relatively late date of the text and/or its compilation—in the 7^th century B.C.E and later—and its theological/ideological/political agenda, make it irrelevant as direct historical testimony. Of course, though it reflects the religious convictions and interests of people who lived centuries after the alleged events took place, some historical germs may be disguised in it.^[18]

With scant evidence for his assertion, Finkelstein believes that the late date of the biblical text and/or its compilation (7^th century B.C. and later) along with its theological, ideological, and political agenda make it “irrelevant as direct historical testimony.”^[19] Unlike Dever, Finkelstein does not believe that Israel emerged from societal collapse, rejecting the idea that their origin may be sought in the lowlands of Canaan. Instead, Finkelstein contends that “recent studies have shown beyond doubt that the lowland population had never reached close to a ‘carrying capacity’ point, and hence there were no land-hungry population surpluses eager to expand into new frontiers.”^[20] He further notes that the lowlands lack archaeological evidence of a surplus population that would necessitate moving elsewhere. Instead, he theorizes that the Iron Age I hill-country villages are indications of a period in which the people settled into agrarian life. In this period, natives alternated between subsistence on herding and farming, which spread over the course of many centuries. Finkelstein observes “plow-agriculture subsistence (more cattle) in the periods of settlement expansion—Middle Bronze (MB) II-III and Iron I—and pastoral oriented society (more sheep/goats) in the crisis years—Intermediate Bronze and Late Bronze Ages.”^[21] Finkelstein maintains that these shifts are not related to immigration of new cultural groups as “the material culture of these regions shows clear local features with no clue for large-scale migration of new groups from without.”^[22] For Finkelstein, this lack of a distinct material culture also precludes the idea that these Iron Age I highland settlers were ethnically distinct from the local Canaanites. He does note the absence of pig bones, though, which he concedes may be an indication of a distinct ethnic group.^[23]

Finkelstein’s model presents serious concerns for some scholars. One major point of contention is his claim that Israelite culture should be recognizable due to distinct material evidence. In contrast, Richard S. Hess asserts that “material culture is distinctive to a particular region (i.e., the hill country), not necessarily to a particular ethnic group (e.g., Israelite rather than Canaanite)” and “the assumption that every ethnic group must have a distinct, archaeologically observable culture is not well founded.”^[24]Finkelstein himself has previously acknowledged as much:

[T]he material culture of a given group of people mirrors the environment in which they live; their socio-economic conditions; the influence of neighboring cultures; the influence of previous cultures; in cases of migration, traditions which are brought from the country of origin; and equally important, their cognitive world.^[25]

Provan, Long, and Longman point out that, “By these criteria, one would expect early Israel to have left little archaeological mark, except perhaps in terms of their ‘traditions’ and ‘cognitive world,’” such as the tradition of a pig taboo.^[26] Nevertheless, the revisionist picture painted by Dever’s and Finkelstein’s deconstructions of the biblical text remains unproven and merely theoretical.

Biblical critics also take issue with Finkelstein’s evaluation of the biblical texts. Provan, Long, and Longman argue that his claim on “the late datings of biblical texts, including Joshua and Judges are based upon unmerited pre-suppositions [that] build upon the minimalistic underpinnings of modern scholarship with the goal of invalidating the text’s capacity to carry historical information” and that “theological slant need not vitiate the historical usefulness of the texts, so long as that slant is understood and allowance is made for it.”[^27]

Conquest Model

This model is aptly named for the Israelite’s use of military force in conquering Canaan (see Numbers 32:20-22; Deuteronomy 2:5,9,19,24; Joshua 1:14; 10:40-42; 11:23; and 12:7, among many others). Although advocates of this model generally agree with the biblical account of Israel’s Conquest, they are divided into two camps concerning the dating with most proponents supporting a “late” Conquest in the 13^th century B.C. and a smaller group favoring an “early” 15^th-century Conquest.

This divide began within the first few decades of archaeological work in Israel. John Garstang was one of the first archaeologists who conducted excavations at Jericho in the 1930s. His findings aligned with the biblical account of Joshua’s siege of the city, including Canaanite pottery and large ash deposits from the LB IB/IIA horizon.^[28] However, when Garstang’s colleague Kathleen Kenyon took over the Jericho excavations in the 1950s, she concluded that evidence for the destruction of the city had occurred in 1550 B.C., 150 years before the purported arrival of the Israelites. Most within the scholarly community adopted Kenyon’s analysis. At the time, some, like William Albright, had been searching for tell-tale signs of Conquest: destruction, a population surge, and evidence of a new—and in this case distinctly Israelite—culture. When the findings did not align with their expectations, those like James Hoffmeier^[29] proposed that the Israelites must have arrived in the 13^th-century B.C.^[30] Despite the work of archaeologist Bryant Wood and Scott Stripling, which pointed out serious errors in Kenyon’s dating and analysis processes, most modern scholars have not been deterred from unwavering support of her conclusions.

The Late Conquest Model (13^th Century B.C.)

The late Conquest model is most closely attributed to American scholar William F. Albright and his disciple, Israeli archaeologist Yigael Yadin. Many other archaeologists have also adopted this viewpoint including the excavators of Hazor and Gezer, Amnon Ben-Tor and Steve Ortiz respectively, and Egyptologists Kenneth Kitchen and James Hoffmeier. Many of the late date supporters have attempted to align the Israelites’ arrival (and the Bible itself) with archaeological evidence dated to the 13^th century B.C. G. Ernest Wright, for instance, concludes that “the manifold evidence for the terrific destruction suffered by the cities of Bethel, Lachish, Eglon, Debir, and Hazor during the 13^th century certainly suggests that a planned campaign such as that depicted in Joshua 10-11 was carried out.”^[31] This dating, however, does not align with the dates outlined in Scripture. First Kings 6:1 is often referenced as an explicit piece of textual evidence concerning the dating of the Exodus: “Now it came about in the four hundred and eightieth year after the sons of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel…he began to build the house of the Lord.” The year Solomon began construction on the Temple is commonly recognized as 966-967 B.C.^[32] Basic addition then places the Exodus at 1446 B.C. and the Conquest at 1406 B.C. To account for this discrepancy, Wright suggests that the 480 years must not be literal years but a figurative number representing 12 generations of 40 years each. He then explains that 40 was an idealized number and that generations were more likely 20-25 years long, which means that Solomon’s fourth year occurred around 300 years after the Exodus, and the Israelite’s arrived in Canaan around 1270 B.C. Another piece of textual evidence often discussed is Judges 11:26 in which Jephthah states that Israel had been living in Canaan for 300 years: “While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its villages, in Aroer and its villages, and in all the cities along the banks of the Arnon, for three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?” Using the Solomonic date as a starting point and tracing back the time periods recorded for David, Saul, Samuel, Eli, and the judges, Jephthah likely lived in the early 11^th century,^[33] again placing the Israelites already in Canaan by the 14^th century—long before the supposed Exodus championed by late date advocates.

For many scholars, the 13^th-century Conquest model presents several concerns. The foremost of these problems for biblically minded researchers is misinterpretation of the biblical text in both overanalyzing (by hypothesizing figurative interpretations to justify the dating conflict with 1 Kings) and under-analyzing (by disregarding crucial details concerning Joshua’s account of the Conquest). In response to the figurative explanation of the 40-year generations, Wood observes that such an interpretation has no precedent or parallel elsewhere in the Bible. Forty years is often seen as a typical period in biblical texts, though not challenged as being literal elsewhere.^[34] As for issues of insufficient analysis, advocates have assumed that a militaristic takeover must have involved widespread destruction of cities in Canaan. On the contrary, the book of Joshua simply lists 31 Canaanite kings who were “defeated” (Joshua 12:7-24), without any reference to the destruction of property. The only exceptions are three burned cities—Jericho, Ai, and Hazor.^[35] While it would be logical to search for evidence of destruction in these three cities, as Provan, Long, and Longman aptly state, “to insist on wide-scale destruction in Canaan as evidence of an Israelite Conquest is a misguided quest based on misread texts.”^[36]

Those who have completely discounted the historicity of the Israelite Conquest, such as Finkelstein and Silberman, state that “archaeology has uncovered a dramatic discrepancy between the Bible and the situation within Canaan at the suggested date of the conquest, between 1230 and 1220 B.C.E.”^[37] This may be entirely correct—that the account of the Israelite Conquest under Joshua is quite different than the archaeological picture of Canaan near the end of the 13^th century B.C. The reason for this is that if a series of events is considered to be partially historical, and the search for supporting evidence is sought in the wrong time period or geographical location, then the correct data will not be discovered. As a result, this lack of evidence or incorrect data will then be added, as it has been, to the argument that the events are unhistorical or partially historical at best. If a series of events is assumed to be unhistorical because of earlier interpretation errors, then any data that may relate to it will not be associated with the supposed mythical event. Thus, when new data comes to light, it has minimal chance of being evaluated as relevant to the Israelite Conquest because of the a priori assumption that any possible data must fit a 13^th-century B.C. Conquest theory or a no Conquest theory. Conversely, if a series of events written of in antiquity and passed on is examined at face value and allowed the possibility of being historically accurate, relevant archaeological and historical data may be discovered and applied.

The Early Conquest Model (15^th Century B.C.)

On the other side of the argument, the number of archaeologists who regard the Israelite Conquest as an historical event beginning in ca. 1400 B.C. has dwindled since the 1950s. Garstang believed the evidence pointed to an Israelite Conquest beginning in ca. 1400 B.C.^[38] More recently, Wood and Scott Stripling are among the few archaeologists currently excavating in Israel and Palestine arguing for an historical Israelite Conquest beginning in ca. 1400 B.C.^[39] This is a view that has not sufficiently been addressed with the volume of new archaeological evidence uncovered in recent decades. Though secular archaeologists like Finkelstein continue to assert that the evidence for the historical Conquest of Canaan by the Israelites is weak, Finkelstein and Silberman importantly note that archaeological data can clarify history:

Did the conquest of Canaan really happen? Is this central saga of the Bible—and of the subsequent history of Israel—history, or myth? Despite the fact that the ancient cities of Jericho, Ai, Gibeon, Lachish, Hazor, and nearly all the others mentioned in the conquest story have been located and excavated, the evidence for a historical conquest of Canaan by the Israelites is, as we will see, weak. Here too, archaeological evidence can help disentangle the events of history from the powerful images of an enduring biblical tale.^[40]

This question of whether the Conquest of Canaan really happened can help us add evidence that supports the historical reliability of the Bible, and to do this the archaeological evidence related to the Conquest must be impartially explored. As more sites have been excavated and as more previously excavated sites have been re-examined, evidence has mounted in favor of a 15^th century Exodus/Conquest. Among the sites of the Conquest referred to in Scripture, all have been previously excavated by those who either hold a late date Exodus or no Exodus at all, but with closer examination of these sites with fresh eyes and new technology, serious discrepancies have arisen. With a more comprehensive library and knowledge of Late Bronze Age pottery along with new and better techniques in excavation, time will tell if more scholars and archaeologists will be willing to let go of firmly held dogma that have influenced generations of thought leaders in biblical archaeology. [NOTE: We plan to explore many of these evidences in future articles.]

Conclusion

The debate among the scholarly community concerning these Conquest models underscores the problem of interpretation errors and binary reasoning that leads to faulty conclusions that often suppress alternative approaches. To summarize the issues concisely (albeit imperfectly), many archaeologists and historians who believe in at least part of the biblical Conquest have either sought evidence in the wrong time or at the wrong site leading to erroneous and or confusing conclusions.

The methodology of minimalist archaeologists^[41] is chiefly based on the false assumption that archaeology is completely objective without any prejudices or assumptions. In fact, many of these secularists sustain their “factual” propositions using “negative” evidence. This “nothing” evidence has been called “silent” evidence by Amihai Mazar,^[42] while Miller calls it “negative archaeological evidence.”^[43] Miller perfectly illustrates the fallacy of thinking that interpretation and evidence are one and the same: “If the Bible and archaeology are to be correlated vis-à-vis the conquest, the claims of the biblical account will have to be modified in some fashion and/or some of the archaeological evidence will have to be explained away.”^[44]

It is our contention that making something out of nothing in archaeology is poor methodology. Thus, finding nothing is nothing, not something. David Merling notes that “to assume that one has disproved a specific point of ancient literary account because one does not know of, or cannot find any evidence of, its historicity, is a historical fallacy. To admit that one has found nothing is only proof that one has found nothing.”^[45]

Although many skeptics and Bible critics have raised doubts about the historicity of the Bible, their challenges may not be evidence of incongruities or fabrications within the biblical account. Rather, it is evidence of presuppositional bias against the biblical date. The Bible should be treated like any other ancient source, but unfortunately it often is not. Biblical texts are commonly rejected as tendentious, theological, and ideological, while ancient non-biblical texts, which are tendentious, theological, and ideological, escape the “hermeneutics of suspicion” and are readily accepted without question as historical evidence.^[46] Finally, there could not be a better illustration of post-modern self-absorption than to assume that ancient writers would or could leave the evidence for which scholars seek or else they are justified in concluding that those stories are fiction. As Merling points out, in many places the biblical writers provided us precious little detail, but instead recorded what was necessary to convey their message.^[47] It was not their objective to write what their future audience needed in order to “prove” their point.

In truth, at the heart of the debate over the historicity of the Conquest is the question of the Bible’s inspiration and, therefore, reliability. Can the Bible truly be trusted? Is it really a product of the mind of God? A preponderance of evidence is available to substantiate the inspiration of Scripture.^[48] The Conquest, therefore, happened, and yet the claims of many leaders in the archaeological community over the past several decades have caused many to reject the Bible’s inspiration without further investigation into its many proofs.

Archaeology and Apologetics

Postmodernism and biblical minimalism constitute a dangerous cocktail that, if left unchecked, will result in the disintegration of the very foundation of the Christian faith, casting doubt upon the truth of Scripture in the minds of many. Like Darwinian evolution, this approach to history and the Bible has become the “enlightened” and “scholarly” approach touted in universities, seminaries, and schools of higher learning across the world. It is imperative for the Church today to defend the veracity and historicity of Scripture and continue to reach the lost through the Gospel. While there are several tools at our disposal to defend God’s Word, archaeology is one of the most powerful. Though many today use archaeology to seed doubt in the historical reliability of Scripture, the material evidence continues to mount in favor of the amazing accuracy and truthfulness of the Bible.

Without a doubt, archaeology together with a proper reading of the biblical text can quickly silence the minimalist agenda. With a profound number of new and exciting archaeological discoveries over the last 20 years, it is our view that biblical revisionism and extreme minimalism will eventually crumble under the weight of the accumulating archaeological data being discovered in Israel. In the meantime, those of us who are serious about the historical reliability of the Bible must equip ourselves with the evidence so we can properly handle the questions and doubts that may arise and stand up to those who seek to undermine our faith.

Endnotes

¹ Eliezer D. Oren (1998), “Opening Remarks,” in The Origin of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives: Irene Levi-Sala Seminar, 1997, eds. Shmuel Aituv and Eliezer D. Oren (London: Institute of Archaeology, Institute of Jewish Studies, University College), p. 1.

² By “revisionists,” we mean those who compromise or distort biblical or historical truth in order to uphold a secular, modern theology or agenda.

³ William G. Dever (2018), “Hershel’s Crusade, No. 2: For King and Country: Chronology and Minimalist,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 44[2].

⁴ Lorenzo Nigro (2020), “Sapienza, The Italian-Palestinian Expedition to Tell es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho (1997-2015): Archaeology and Valorisation of Material and Immaterial Heritage,” in Digging Up Jericho Past, Present and Future, eds. Rachael Thyrza Sparks, Bill Finlayson, Bart Wagemakers and Josef Mario Briffa (Oxford: Archaeopress Archaeology), p. 202.

⁵ For the latest research, see Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications (2021), ed. Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic).

⁶ I.E., the first six books of the Old Testament.

⁷ K. Lawson Younger, Jr. (1999), “Early Israel in Recent Biblical Scholarship,” in The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, eds. David W. Baker and Bill T. Arnold (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker), pp. 180-181.

⁸ George E. Mendenhall (1962), “The Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” Biblical Archaeology, 25[3]:73-74.

⁹ Ibid., p. 74.

¹⁰ Ibid., p. 66.

¹¹ Niels Peter Lemche (1985), “Early Israel: Anthropological and Historical Studies on the Israelite Society before the Monarchy,” Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Leiden: E.J. Brill), p. 37.

¹² Iain Provan, V. Philips Long, and Tremper Longman III (2015), A Biblical History of Israel, second edition (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press), p. 196.

¹³ Ibid., p. 196.

¹⁴ William G. Dever (2001), What Did the Biblical Writers Know, and When Did They Know It?: What Archaeology Can Tell Us about the Reality of Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans), p. 110.

¹⁵ William Dever (1992), “Israel, History of (Archaeology and the ‘Conquest’),” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), p. 548.

¹⁶ Ibid., pp. 549-550.

¹⁷ Dever (2001), p. 121.

¹⁸ Israel Finkelstein (1998), “The Rise of Early Israel: Archaeology and Long-Term History,” in The Origin of Early Israel—Current Debate: Biblical, Historical and Archaeological Perspectives: Irene Levi-Sala Seminar, 1997, eds. Shmuel Aituv and Eliezer D. Oren (London: Institute of Archaeology, Institute of Jewish Studies, University College), pp. 9-10.

¹⁹ Ibid., pp. 9-10.

²⁰ Ibid., pp. 24-25.

²¹ Ibid., p. 26.

²² Ibid., p. 25.

²³ Ibid., p. 16.

²⁴ Richard S. Hess (1993), “Early Israel in Canaan: A Survey of Recent Evidence and Interpretations,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 125:129-130.

²⁵ Finkelstein (1998), p. 16.

²⁶ Provan, Long, and Longman (2015), p. 146.

²⁷ Ibid., p. 200.

²⁸ John Garstang (1941), “The Story of Jericho: Further Light on the Biblical Narrative,”The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, 58[4]:368-372.

²⁹ James K. Hoffmeier (2021), “Late Date: A Historical Exodus in the Thirteenth Century BC,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic). He notes that, “If one limits biblical chronology to 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years from Solomon’s third year [967 B.C.] back to the exodus) and Judges 11:26 (300 years since arrival of Israelite settlers in Transjordan), then a fifteenth-century date seems obvious.” As Hoffmeier does not accept a straight-forward reading of the text, he believes that early date advocates hyperbolize the 480th year mentioned in 1 Kings 6:1 despite the fact that the 1446 B.C. date remarkably synchronizes with other biblical passages and archaeological evidence.

³⁰ Bryant G. Wood (2005), “The Rise and Fall of the 13th Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48[3]:475, September.

³¹ G. Ernest Wright (1962), Biblical Archaeology, new and rev. ed. (London: Gerald Duckworth), p. 84.

³² For an in-depth defense of this date, see Rodger C. Young (2003), “When Did Solomon Die?,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 46[4]:589-603.

³³ Although it is difficult to calculate precise dates for Jephthah, various scholars have estimated the beginning of his judgeship to be ca. 1100 B.C. So, the inference is that the tribe of Reuben had been occupying the land from the Wadi Hesban to the Arnon River since ca. 1400 B.C. By adding another 40 years for the wilderness wandering, this leaves a date of approximately 1440 B.C for the Exodus. This area was conquered in the last year of the wilderness period, just months before the entry into the land. If the conquest of this area, therefore, was late 1406 B.C., 300 years later would be 1106 B.C. This time reference, along with the one in 1 Kings 6:1, again suggests that the Exodus took place about 1446 B.C. rather than about 1280 B.C. Advocates of the 1280 B.C. date of the Exodus usually take the 300 years as a round number indicating several generations, as they also interpret 1 Kings 6:1, or as a total of overlapping periods. See also Kenneth A. Kitchen and T. C. Mitchell, “Chronology of the Old Testament,” New Bible Dictionary, pp. 186-193.

³⁴ For example, the duration of the Flood (Genesis 7:4,12) was 40 days; Israel wandered in the wilderness for 40 years (Exodus 16:35); and the reigns of both David and Solomon were each 40 years long (1 Kings 2:11; 11:42).

³⁵ See Joshua 6:24 for Jericho, Joshua 8:28 for Ai, and Joshua 11:11,13 for Hazor.

³⁶ Provan, Long, and Longman, p. 140. Note that, according to Deuteronomy 6:10-11, when the Israelites conquered Canaan, they would inherit cities, wells, vineyards, and olive trees, implying that many areas of Canaan would not be decimated.

³⁷ Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman (2002), The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Ancient Texts (New York: Simon & Schuster), p. 76.

³⁸ Garstang, pp. 368-372.

³⁹ Bryant G. Wood (March-April 1990a), “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence,” Biblical Archaeological Review, 16[2]:44-58; Scott Stripling (2021), “The Early Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Fifteenth Century BC,” in Five Views on the Exodus: Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications, ed. Mark D. Janzen (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic).

⁴⁰ Finkelstein and Silberman, p. 73.

⁴¹ Biblical minimalists argue that the Bible is not a reliable guide to ancient Israelite history and that, in fact, the concept of “Israel” itself is historically dubious. Lemche exemplifies this dogma when he notes, “The Israelite nation as explained by the biblical writers has little in the way of a historical background. It is a highly ideological construct created by ancient scholars of Jewish tradition in order to legitimize their own religious community and its religio-political claims on land and religious exclusivity.” See Niels Lemche (1998), The Israelites in History and Tradition (Westminster: John Knox Press), pp. 165-166.

⁴² Amihai Mazar (1992), Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 BCE (New York: Doubleday), p. 281.

⁴³ J.M. Miller (1977), “Archaeology and the Israelite Conquest of Canaan: Some Methodological Observations,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, 109:88.

⁴⁴ Ibid., p. 88.

⁴⁵ David Merling (2004), “The Relationship Between Archaeology and the Bible,” in The Future of Biblical Archaeology: Reassessing Methodologies and Assumptions, eds. James K. Hoffmeier and Alan Millard (Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans), p. 34.

⁴⁶ James K. Hoffmeier (2005), Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press), pp. 20-21.

⁴⁷ Merling (2004), p. 237.

⁴⁸ Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

The post Current Perspectives on the Historicity and Timing of the Conquest of Canaan appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Are creationists “science deniers,” as some contend?¹ While we cannot speak for all Christians, we love science. The amazing things that science has done for mankind, the evidence science provides for the existence and defense of God, the things that we can learn about God and the things He has done, the value that Scripture places on science, and the pure fun of engaging in science compel us to use it and encourage others to do so as well. As would be expected by Creation scientists, legitimate scientific findings never contradict a proper understanding of Scripture. But what about those cases where modern scientists arrive at conclusions that are diametrically opposed to the pronouncements of Scripture? Should the supposed “findings” of science (e.g., evolutionary or deep time science) supersede the proclamations of Scripture when the two are in disagreement? Should the research and conclusions of scientists be trusted over the writings of the Bible’s penmen?

Among Bible believers, the answer to the question in the title of this article probably seems obvious, at least on the surface. “Of course, Scripture should supersede science!” However, to most of us in the 21^st century, science has a special place of authority in our hearts—perhaps too prominent a place if we are being completely honest with ourselves. Whether subconsciously or consciously, science often takes precedence over Scripture in the minds of many Christians today. Should it?

Should physics trump Scripture when it says someone cannot walk on liquid water and, therefore, Jesus could not have done so? Does archaeology trump Scripture in our minds when it provides no evidence of over a million wandering Jews in the 1440s B.C., prompting a “re-interpretation” of Scripture? Does archaeology outweigh the Bible when Scripture mentions the existence of ancient nations or individuals for which archaeologists have not discovered physical evidence? Should contemporary cosmology trump Scripture when it says the Big Bang, not Creation, explains the Universe? Should the claims of conventional paleontologists trump Scripture when they claim that the fossil record proves humans evolved from non-human, ape-like creatures or that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed? Should modern astronomy trump Scripture when it says the Universe must be billions of years old in order for distant starlight to have reached Earth? Should chemistry trump Scripture when it claims rocks are billions of years old? Should conventional geology supersede the Bible when it claims that a global Flood did not happen? Should biology trump Scripture when it “substantiates” that life cannot come from non-life, and therefore Jesus’ resurrection did not occur? Should naturalistic biology be accepted as the ultimate authority if it claims that humans evolved from single-celled organisms over millions of years rather than having been created by God fully functional and mature in a single day? If science does not support something which we believe, how likely are we to adjust our belief and reinterpret Scripture accordingly? Should science trump the Bible when it is said to “prove” something to be or not to be the case?

First, note that we have thoroughly addressed the issues above (and continue to do so), illustrating that true science in fact always (without exception) harmonizes with Scripture. Science is a great tool in the Christian’s workshop. Once the underlying, erroneous assumptions of each of the above conclusions are exposed and assessed for their validity, one is forced to conclude that the Bible is perfectly reliable and should be trusted in what it forthrightly teaches. Rest assured, however, that other “issues” will arise in the future that will, no doubt, pressure Christians to question and reinterpret Scripture. How, then, should the Christian respond to such issues when they arise? Should the “findings” of conventional (i.e., naturalistic²) science be favored over the teachings of Scripture?

In Science We (Dis)trust?

A study of 10,000 Internet users from 24 countries was reported in Nature in 2022. They found that, “People are more likely to believe a cryptic claim if it comes from a scientist than from a spiritual guru…. The researchers found that regardless of their country or level of religiosity, participants regarded absurd claims from a scientist as more credible than those from a spiritual leader.”³ Our world increasingly puts its trust in the claims of modern science, even though the bulk of the scientific community today is naturalistic (i.e., anti-supernatural) in its thinking, pro-evolution, and its leaders even openly anti-God. And yet, from outright fraud⁴ to bumbling blunder⁵, evolutionary theory has been riddled with reminders that its findings should not be taken as “gospel,” no matter how much “consensus” or lack thereof favors or disfavors a position. Famous skeptic Michael Shermer, ex-monthly columnist for Scientific American, acknowledged the hoaxes and blunders that have been made by evolutionists over the years. “Hoaxes like Piltdown Man and honest mistakes like Nebraska Man, Calaveras Man, and Hesperopithecus are in time exposed. In fact…, it was scientists who did so.”⁶ He explained one of the reasons mistakes have been made (intentionally or unintentionally) in evolutionary paleoanthropology sometimes comes down to a scientist’s desire to make a big find.

If you want to get your fossil find published in Science or Nature, and you want the cover illustration, you cannot conclude that your fossil is yet another Australopithecus africanus, for example. You had better come up with an interpretation indicating that this new find you are revealing to the world for the first time is the most spectacular discovery of the last century and that it promises to overturn hominid phylogeny and send everyone back to the drawing board to reconfigure the human evolutionary tree. Training a more skeptical eye on these fossils, however, shows that many of them belong in already well established categories.⁷

Whether a scientist’s mistake was intentional or not, and whether or not “a more skeptical eye” later uncovers bad science, the problem is that society at large has often been too quick to “accept evolutionists’ word for it,” trusting their claims long before those claims have been thoroughly vetted. By the time the truth surfaces, society has accepted the initial claims as true, oftentimes publishing the false information in textbooks, where society is influenced by the false information for decades. In the words of famous Harvard evolutionary paleontologist, Stephen Jay Gould, concerning the false information about horse evolution found in textbooks to prop up evolution:

Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts. (I have written two essays on this lamentable practice: one on the amusingly perennial description of the eohippus, or “dawn horse,” as the size of a fox terrier, even though most authors, including yours truly, have no idea of the dimensions or appearance of this breed…).⁸

Concerning the lack of transitional fossils needed to prove the validity of evolution, he admitted, “[T]he extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches: the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of the fossils.”⁹ Given the significance of such testimony by perhaps the leading evolutionary paleontologist of the 20^th century, which effectively falsifies Darwinian evolution, the critically minded, rational person should question how many other “trade secrets” exist in evolutionary science. How many people have been convinced that evolution and deep time are true and biblical Creation is false by erroneous claims made by naturalistic scientists over the decades, from Ernst Haeckel’s fabricated embryonic recapitulation to the forged fossils of Piltdown Man?

JWST: A Recent Example of the Fallibility of Evolutionary Science

The latest highlight of mainstream science’s fallibility with regard to cosmic evolutionary theories (e.g., the Big Bang Theory) is seen in the explosive images being made by the new, extremely powerful James Webb Space Telescope, which is taking pictures of distant galaxies from space. The discoveries of “mature” galaxies that should be infant galaxies if the standard Big Bang model were true “challenge existing ideas about the earliest galaxies.”¹⁰ If the findings are correct, according to New Scientist, they could “break our models of galaxy formation and evolution.”¹¹

Under the article title “Breaking Cosmology,” Scientific American reported that “theorists and observers have been scrambling to explain” the unexpected results. The discovery of massive galaxies, which would have had to have formed less than 500 million years after the supposed Big Bang based on their distance from Earth, “defies expectations set by cosmologists’ standard model of the universe’s evolution…. ‘Even if you took everything that was available to form stars and snapped your fingers instantaneously, you still wouldn’t be able to get that big that early,’ says Michael Boylan-Kolchin, a cosmologist at the University of Texas at Austin.”¹²

In 2022, four galaxies thought to date “to about 350 [million] years after the big bang”¹³ were found, which was explosive news since galaxies are thought to have taken a billion years or so to start forming after the Big Bang. Those galaxies, however, “were far smaller” than the more recent discoveries. The telescope has now “detected what appear to be six massive ancient galaxies, which astronomers are calling ‘universe breakers’ because their existence could upend current theories of cosmology…. If confirmed, the findings would call into question scientists’ understanding of how the earliest galaxies formed.”¹⁴ “‘These objects are way more massive than anyone expected,’ said Joel Leja, an assistant professor of astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State University…. ‘We expected [i.e., predicted—JM] only to find tiny, young, baby galaxies at this point in time, but we’ve discovered galaxies as mature as our own in what was previously understood to be the dawn of the universe.’”¹⁵ According to astrophysicist of the University of Colorado Boulder, Erica Nelson, “These galaxies should not have had time to form.”¹⁶

“The most startling explanation” for the discovery of mature galaxies that are so far away, Scientific American explains, “is that the…[standard] cosmological model is wrong and requires revision. ‘These results are very surprising and hard to get in our standard model of cosmology,’ Boylan-Kolchin says. ‘And it’s probably not a small change. We’d have to go back to the drawing board.’”¹⁷ Admittedly, the results are still relatively new and must be confirmed, but the “sheer number” of discovered early, mature galaxies is compelling. The lead scientist of the Cosmic Evolution Early Release Science Survey, Steven Finkelstein (University of Texas at Austin), said, “The odds are small that we’re all wrong.”¹⁸ Any way we look at the results, something in modern cosmological theories appears to be broken in this case.

Retractions and Reproducibility: A Continuing Crisis

But the propensity for errors is not a problem that is quarantined to evolutionary sciences. The problem is much broader, affecting modern science in general. If a scientific study has been completed honestly, unbiasedly, and correctly, a separate group of scientists should be able to follow the same steps as the first group and arrive at the same results and conclusions. If a different result follows the study, it calls into question the validity of at least one of the studies. Reproducibility, therefore, is one of the most powerful tools the scientific community has at its disposal to weed out bad science. “Replicability is the basis of all good science…. ‘When you publish a paper, it is your ethical duty to make sure other people can reproduce it,’” says Regius professor of chemistry at the University of Glasgow, Lee Cronin.¹⁹ Alarmingly, however, as we have documented extensively in a separate article,²⁰ the scientific community has in recent years acknowledged that a surprisingly small number of scientific studies are able to be reproduced by other laboratories—possibly far fewer than 50%. Whether because of fraud, bias, bad science, insufficient information, or accidental mistakes, the conclusion is the same: scientists are fallible and their work and findings should not even begin to be accepted without serious investigation and, even then, should almost always be viewed as tentative (as will be discussed later).

Bottom line, scientists are not as impartial, dispassionate, and perfection prone as they might like the world to believe. In the words of Sonia Cooke, writing in New Scientist concerning scientists and irreproducible research:

Science is often thought of as a dispassionate search for the truth. But, of course, we are all only human. And most people want to climb the professional ladder. The main way to do that if you’re a scientist is to get grants and publish lots of papers. The problem is that journals have a clear preference for research showing strong, positive relationships—between a particular medical treatment and improved health, for example. This means researchers often try to find those sorts of results. A few go as far as making things up. But a huge number tinker with their research in ways they think are harmless, but which can bias the outcome. This tinkering can take many forms…. You peek at the results and stop an experiment when it shows what you were expecting. You throw out data points that don’t fit your hypothesis—something could be wrong with those results, you reason. Or you run several types of statistical analysis and end up using the one that shows the strongest effect. “It can be very hard to even see that biases might be entering your reasoning,” says psychologist Brian Nosek at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville, who led the team trying to replicate 100 psychology studies…. You might think that journals, which get peers from the same scientific field to review papers, would pick up on such practices. But, say critics, the system isn’t up to the task [since reviewers do not generally dig into the nitty-gritty details of the research—JM]…. All this helps explain why so many studies don’t hold up when others try to replicate them.²¹

Atheistic evolutionist, prominent science writer, and director of the Knight Science Journalism Fellowship at M.I.T., Boyce Rensberger, admitted:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.²²

With such an arrogant, blind faith in one’s own ideas, is it surprising that mistakes will be made in science? Christians: should science trump Scripture?

If the reproducibility crisis in the scientific community does not cause a person to question the supposed infallible conclusions of the scientific community, he is revealing his own blind faith—that he is not interested in truth arrived at by evidence. Keep in mind that many of the claims of today’s God-less scientists—that must be true in order to prove Darwinian evolutionary theory, the Big Bang Theory, and old Earth theory—are not based on studies where reproducibility has been achieved. Why? Because, by their very nature, such cannot be achieved.

For instance, a scientist may hypothesize a way to cause laws of science, matter/energy/life/genetic information to originate on their own in nature, but such goals cannot be repeated in a laboratory, because there is no evidence that they can happen at all, much less that they can be replicated by others!²³ Consider: have the claims of the Big Bang Theory been witnessed, much less replicated? Has Big Bang Inflation, a necessary invention to solve other Big Bang issues,²⁴ been observed? Have scientists witnessed anything coming from nothing before it could expand in the Big Bang?²⁵ Have scientists witnessed the spontaneous formation of a galaxy or even a star, which would have to be able to happen if the Big Bang were true? Have scientists witnessed one type of lifeform morph into or give birth to another type of life form, as Darwinian evolution claims has happened millions of times?²⁶ No, on every count. Replicability is essential to helping the scientific community arrive at truth in science. Yet many of the most important claims of evolutionary science, that provide the very foundation of the entire model, indeed have no evidence to substantiate them, much less having been replicated by scientists. Should the findings of secular science—which are often mere claims, hypotheses, and conjectures—be taken as “gospel” by the Christian? To ask is to answer.

The Very Nature of Science

Even where scientists have not been intentionally deceptive, made grandiose, baseless assumptions that underlie their theories, or made inadvertent mistakes in their research or experimentation, few today seem to realize that, according to modern naturalistic scientists themselves, observational or experimental science carries with it an inherent “tentativeness.” Those things scientists discover, explore, and “determine” are always understood to be uncertain. In other words, it is recognized that current scientists may be found at a later point to have been wrong in their current scientific interpretations and conclusions, because they are always working with limited information. Scientists are not omniscient. We recognize that there may be a set of unknown circumstances or new evidence that could, for example, disprove a current theory²⁷—which is why it is a “theory.”

Especially tentative are those theories that scientists have developed that pertain to historical science (science as it relates to events of the distant past that we were unable to witness or study). The process of experimental or observational science requires observation or experiment in the present, so those things that are in the past or might happen in the future generally cannot be known with certainty.²⁸ In the observational science championed by naturalists, all conclusions about the past and future must be based on circumstances in the present, which may or may not have applied in the past or will apply in the future.²⁹ Understanding that fact makes using naturalistic science as the ultimate standard of “truth” a dangerous prospect. That concept is precisely what famous Harvard evolutionist of the 20^th century, George Gaylord Simpson, was alluding to concerning the nature of science, when he said:

We speak in terms of “acceptance,” “confidence,” and “probability,” not “proof.” If by proof is meant the establishment of eternal and absolute truth, open to no possible exception or modification, then proof has no place in the natural sciences. Alternatively, proof in a natural science, such as biology, must be defined as the attainment of a high degree of confidence.³⁰

Naturalistic science deals in levels of confidence—not certainty. Scientific conclusions about what happened in the distant past, what will happen in the future, and why that is the case can never be known with certainty. The only way to know with certainty that a scientific conclusion about the distant past is correct is if there is an ultimate source of truth that can validate the conclusion. The only source capable of such a feat is called the Bible. Accepting that source of authority, however, would (1) acknowledge that Scripture should supersede modern, naturalistic scientific interpretation and (2) acknowledge that naturalistic science is fundamentally false.

Scientists are not inspired by God to give perfect truth to the world, but the Bible writers were inspired by the omniscient Creator of the Universe to articulate perfectly absolute truth.³¹ Everything they wrote down, therefore, can be known to be accurate, unlike the limited, tentative findings of science. “[K]nowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21, ESV). Scientists must rely on their own imperfect interpretation of the limited evidence they have examined, but the teachings of Scripture do not rely on human interpretation. In other words, man, not being the originator of prophetic material, does not establish its meaning/interpretation. The teachings of Scripture are the absolute truth: all of them (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

But Can the Bible Be Correctly Interpreted?

Development of the heliocentric model of the solar system is often credited to the work of the famous astronomer and mathematician Nicolaus Copernicus in the 1500s.³² The Catholic Church at the time championed the belief that Scripture teaches that our solar system operates geocentrically, i.e., the Earth, not the Sun, is the center of the solar system. When Galileo signed on as a believer in Copernicus’ model in the 1600s, the Catholic Church convicted him of heresy.³³ According to some, the Galileo incident is an example of how Scripture can be misinterpreted³⁴ and must sometimes be re-interpreted to stay in keeping with science—i.e., science should override Scripture.

Can Scripture be properly interpreted, or are we left to guess its meaning, or adjust it to suit the times in which we live or our whims? We have thoroughly addressed this question elsewhere,³⁵ and will only summarize the subject here. As mentioned earlier, 2 Peter 1:20-21 states in no uncertain terms that the meaning of the information in Scripture is based on the intended meaning of its Author, the Holy Spirit. It does not originate in the minds of man. Peter goes on to warn in the following verse, however, that “false prophets” and “false teachers” would arise that would not accept that truth, but would originate “destructive heresies” and “bring on themselves swift destruction” (2:1). Unfortunately, he warned that “many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed” (2:2). That sad truth immediately calls to our minds those self-proclaimed Christians who have sometimes been our most outspoken critics. Because they have joined forces with the God-less scientists around them against Christians, they cause “the way of truth” to be “blasphemed,” playing into the hands of the ultimate enemy, who no doubt glories in yet another victory.

Consider, why would Jesus tell the Pharisees to go learn what Hosea 6:6 means if one cannot do so or if there was not a single meaning they needed to ascertain (Matthew 9:13)? Why, if God’s Word cannot be properly interpreted, would Jesus state that anyone who wants to do His will can “know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority” (John 7:17)? Paul highlighted in 2 Timothy 2:15 that the “word of truth” can be “rightly divid[ed]” or handled rightly/correctly/accurately (ESV, NIV, NASB), and in 1 Thessalonians 5:21 stated that truth can be proved through testing (ASV), which the Bereans demonstrated through diligent examination of the Scriptures for doctrinal accuracy (Acts 17:11). Jesus and Paul explicitly stated (John 8:32; 2 Timothy 3:7; 1 Timothy 2:4) that the truth can be and must be known—not made up to suit our personal beliefs. If we are incapable of properly interpreting God’s Word, why would such statements be found in the Bible? How could God’s Law have a “lawful” way to handle it, if it cannot even be known with certainty (1 Timothy 1:8)?

It is certainly the case that the Bible can be misinterpreted and misused by mankind if we fail to apply the appropriate diligence to ascertaining God’s meaning (2 Timothy 2:15), which takes extensive study (Acts 17:11). God’s Word can be handled deceitfully (2 Corinthians 4:2; 1 John 4:1), perversely (Acts 20:30; Galatians 1:7), with resistance to its message (2 Timothy 3:7-8) and distortion of its truths (2 Peter 3:16). Scripture warns the interpreter not to go beyond its message,³⁶ which implies that it has a particular message that we can know and must not go beyond. We are tasked with having authority from the Lord (gained from His Word) for what we do and say in life (Colossians 3:17; Acts 4:7), again implying that we must be able to understand and properly interpret its truths in order for it to govern our lives.

The Catholic Church doubtlessly twisted certain passages beyond their meaning or went beyond what was written in its adamance that the Earth is the center of the solar system (binding where God had not bound), but their violation of Scripture at the time does not mean that God’s Word cannot be understood and properly interpreted. Indeed it can. Man can “come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4) about many things.

Scripture Overrules Scientific Assertions

Scientific hypotheses and theories are regularly disproved and adjusted to fit with the ever-expanding compendium of information gained through scientific investigation. While science is valuable, unlike the words of scientists, however, God’s Word “cannot be broken” (John 10:35). It is God’s Word that will judge us in the last day—not the ever-changing words and theories of naturalistic scientists (John 12:48). The Bible is what will save us in the end, not science (James 1:21).³⁷ Obedience to God’s Word, not the findings of science, will save a person in the end (Hebrews 5:9). So, which should be prioritized? It is God, through His Word—not secular scientists, through their tentative theories—that provides mankind “all things that pertain to life and godliness” (2 Peter 1:2-3). Scripture should always trump the claims of naturalistic science when the two are irrevocably in contradiction. Our lives must be lived based on the authority of God in His Word (Colossians 3:17), not the condescending edicts of fallible scientists. Allowing the scientific pronouncements of worldly scientists to supersede Scripture in our beliefs is a failure to heed the warning of Paul:

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables. But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:3-5).

The teachers (e.g., professors) who have been “heaped up” by unbelievers that allow them to “follow their own desires” are many, influential, authoritative, intimidating, and, by the world’s standards, “mighty,” causing many a Christian to begin questioning Scripture when it contradicts the latest scientific “consensus.”³⁸ This often leads the believer to “bow” to modern naturalistic science and twist Scripture to accede to the mighty word of scientific consensus. But to do so invites “destruction,” according to the infallible Word of God (2 Peter 3:16). The one who builds his house on the shaky sands of naturalistic science will watch his house fall, but the one who builds his home on the rock of God’s Word will enjoy a house unscathed by the same storms of life that obliterate the houses built on the words of fallible men (Matthew 7:24-27).

Does that mean that Christians should disregard science—that it has no value? Should science be a consideration at all, biblically speaking? Certainly. God has revealed a portion of Himself to us through creation (Romans 1:20; Psalm 19:1)—a form of revelation we term “general revelation” (as opposed to Scripture, which is “special revelation”). By studying the things He has done in creation (i.e., engaging in science), we can learn about Him (Acts 14:17) and the amazing things He has done. He expects us to do so (Psalm 111:2). We must learn about Him to be able to defend His cause (1 Peter 3:15; 1 Thessalonians 5:21). We must learn to subdue and have dominion over the Earth (Genesis 1:28), so that we can be good stewards of the things with which God has entrusted us (Genesis 2:15; Luke 12:41-48; Proverbs 12:10).³⁹ Science can be very valuable to the Christian, but where “science” and “Scripture” are at odds, assuming the Bible has been studied sufficiently to ensure its proper meaning in that instance, Scripture must take precedence, and the science should be re-assessed for its validity. After all, once again, while the Bible can be known with certainty to be true, observational/experimental science is extremely limited in what it can know about occurrences in the distant, unobserved past. If accepting the teaching of Scripture leads to a denial of scientific “consensus,” the faithful follower of Christ must take His side over that of the World. After all, 3,500 years ago, God, through Moses, warned about the potential dangers of “consensus” thinking: “You shall not follow a crowd to do evil; nor shall you testify in a dispute so as to turn aside after many to pervert justice” (Exodus 23:2). In the continual conflict between the world and the Church, the non-believer and the Christian, Satan and God, the believer must be extremely careful how he testifies in the dispute. In the words of the prophet Jehu, spoken to King Jehoshaphat of Judah in the ninth century B.C., “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Therefore the wrath of the Lord is upon you” (2 Chronicles 19:2).

Unfortunately, God hasn’t revealed everything to us that we might want to know about the Universe’s past, present, or future (Deuteronomy 29:29). He has given us what we need to know to get to heaven (2 Peter 1:3). If we want to know more about the Universe, science can be a valuable tool to try to answer certain questions and fill in information gaps. Once again, however, experimental science generally must do so without certainty in those cases. We cannot formally validate or invalidate every theory in science by going to God’s Word, but through His Word, He has revealed truth and extensive information that has scientific implications. We know that the truths of Scripture, not science, can set us free (John 8:32). So if conventional geology—the science of rocks—claims to disprove the Word of God, the Christian should remember the words of God in Jeremiah 23:29. “‘Is not My word like a fire?’ says the Lord, ‘And like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces?’” Ultimately, a deeper study of the geologic claim will uncover the truth and result in the realization that true geology always supports Scripture. Science seeks to study heaven and Earth, but Jesus warned, “Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will by no means pass away” (Matthew 24:35).

“All flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you. Therefore, laying aside all malice, all deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and all evil speaking, as newborn babes, desire the pure milk of the word, that you may grow thereby, if indeed you have tasted that the Lord is gracious (1 Peter 1:24b-2:3).

Endnotes

¹ E.g., Lee McIntyre (2019), “Flat Earthers, and the Rise of Science Denial in America,” Newsweek on-line, February 28, https://www.newsweek.com/flat-earth-science-denial-america-1421936.

² By “naturalistic” science, we mean science that disregards the possibility of supernatural involvement in the Universe. Naturalistic science is the “consensus” perspective in the scientific community and, therefore, is often used today interchangeably with the word “science.” We would argue that science is not synonymous with naturalistic science. Scripture does not trump true science since they will always harmonize. Scripture trumps naturalistic science.

³ “Credibility Score: People Put Their Trust in Scientists” (2022), Nature, 602[7897]:365, February 17.

⁴ E.g., Ernst Haeckel’s faked embryos to prove embryonic recapitulation; the “Piltdown Man” creation to provide an evolutionary missing link [Wayne Jackson (2009), “Frauds in Science,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/frauds-in-science-312/]. 

⁵ E.g., Java Man, Nebraska Man, Flipper Man, Orce Man, Java Man 2, Southwestern Colorado Man, Calaveras Man, disproven Big Bang Inflation evidence, etc. [Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub (2003), The Truth About Human Origins (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press), pp. 88-91; I. Anderson (1983), “Humanoid Collarbone Exposed as Dolphin’s Rib,” New Scientist, April 28, p. 199; Miquel Carandell Baruzzi (2020), The Orce Man (Leiden, Netherlands: Koninklijke Brill NV); Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1506w1.pdf].

⁶ Michael Shermer (2007), Why Darwin Matters: The Case Against Intelligent Design (New York: Henry Holt), Kindle edition, p. 85.

⁷ Ibid., p. 147.

⁸ Stephen Jay Gould (2000), “Abscheulich! (Atrocious),” Natural History, 109[2]:42-50, March, paren. in orig., emp. added, p. 45.

⁹ Stephen Jay Gould (1977), “Evolution’s Erratic Pace,” Natural History, 86[5]:12-16, May, p. 13, emp. added.

¹⁰ Stephen Ornes (2023), “A Fresh Eye on the Beginning of Time,” Discover Magazine, 44[1]:28, January/February.

¹¹ Leah Crane (2022), “Cosmic Celebration,” New Scientist, 256[3417/3418]:27, December 17/24.

¹² Jonathan O’Callaghan (2022), “Breaking Cosmology,” Scientific American, 327[6]:36, December.

_¹³ Hannah Devlin (2023), “James Webb Telescope Detects Evidence of Ancient ‘Universe Breaker’ Galaxies,” The Guardian on-line, February 22, https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/feb/22/universe-breakers-james-webb-telescope-detects-six-ancient-galaxies?mibextid=unz460.

¹⁴ Ibid., emp. added.

¹⁵ Ibid.

¹⁶ As quoted in Devlin, emp. added.

¹⁷ O’Callaghan, p. 38, emp. added.

¹⁸ As quoted in O’Callaghan, p. 38.

¹⁹ Jonathon Keats (2021), “Life Hack,” Discover, 42[7]:36, November, December, emp. added.

²⁰ Jeff Miller (2023), “In Science Should We Trust? The On-going Reproducibility Crisis,” Reason & Revelation, 43[5]:50-59, May, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/2305-web.pdf.

²¹ Sonia van Gilder Cooke (2016), “The Unscientific Method,” New Scientist, 230[3069]:40-41, April 16-22, emp. added.

²² Boyce Rensberger (1986), How the World Works (New York: William Morrow), pp. 17-18, emp. added.

²³ Jeff Miller (2017), Science vs. Evolution (Apologetics Press: Montgomery, AL), revised and expanded.

²⁴ Jeff Miller (2015), “Big Bang Inflation Officially Bites the Dust,” Reason & Revelation, 35[6]:62-65, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1506w1.pdf.

²⁵ Jeff Miller (2013), “Evolution and the Laws of Science: The Laws of Thermodynamics,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-and-the-laws-of-science-the-laws-of-thermodynamics-2786/.

²⁶ Jeff Miller (2014), “God and the Laws of Science: Genetics vs. Evolution [Parts 1-2],” Reason & Revelation, 34[1-2]:2-10, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1401ww.pdf.

²⁷ Or even our current definition of a scientific “law.”

²⁸ A rare exception would be the logical, evidence-based conclusion in the present that the Universe exhibits design features, implying a prior Designer of those features at some point in the past (Romans 1:20), although that process was not observed.

²⁹ To claim the circumstances applied or will apply is an assumption that cannot be known with certainty.

³⁰ George G. Simpson and William S. Beck (1965), Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World), p. 16, emp. added.

³¹ Cf. Kyle Butt (2022), Is the Bible God’s Word? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); Dave Miller (2020), The Bible Is From God: A Sampling of Proofs (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press); and the “Inspiration of the Bible” section of the Apologetics Press website.

³² Although ancient Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos hypothesized such a system in the third century B.C.

³³ History.com Editors (2022), “Galileo Is Accused of Heresy,” History.com, April 12, https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy.

³⁴ Mario Livio (2020), “When Galileo Stood Trial for Defending Science,” History.com, May 19, https://www.history.com/news/galileo-copernicus-earth-sun-heresy-church.

³⁵ Dave Miller (2003), “Hermeneutical Principles in the Old Testament,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/hermeneutical-principles-in-the-old-testament-967/.

³⁶ Cf. Deuteronomy 4:2;12:32; Proverbs 30:5-6; 1 Corinthians 4:6; Galatians 1:6-8; 2 John 9; Revelation 22:18-19.

³⁷ Cf. Acts 11:14; 1 Corinthians 15:1-2; Ephesians 1:13; John 8:51.

³⁸ For a response to the argument that scientific consensus should be accepted, see Jeff Miller (2012), “‘Evolution Is the Scientific Consensus—So You Should Believe It!’” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/evolution-is-the-scientific-consensusso-you-should-believe-it-4518/.

³⁹ Cf. Jeff Miller (2012), “Science: Instituted by God,” Reason & Revelation, 32[4]:46, https://apologeticspress.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/1204r.pdf.

The post Should “Science” Trump Scripture? appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For dogs have surrounded Me; The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me. They pierced My hands and My feet (Psalms 22:16).

Then they will look on Me whom they pierced; yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn (Zechariah 12:10).

The first prediction obviously has as its setting the scene of the cross. The timeframe of the second is less certain, but undoubtedly refers back to the same crucifixion event. In any case, the allusion to being “pierced” is confirmed by the first century apostle John. Describing the crucifixion scene, specifically, the incident pertaining to the breaking of the legs of the two thieves, John reports concerning Jesus, who was already dead: “But one of the soldiers pierced His side with a spear, and immediately blood and water came out” (John 19:34). John immediately identifies the incident as a fulfillment of the prophecy of Zechariah (vs. 37). He later alludes to this same piercing in connection with the coming of Jesus (Revelation 1:7).

Jesus experienced two distinct “piercings” on the occasion of the crucifixion. First, His hands and feet were pierced by the nails driven into His hands and feet and into the wooden cross by the Roman soldiers. Second, we are informed that shortly after He expired, a Roman soldier pierced His side, as if to ascertain for certain that He was deceased. None of the Gospel writers refers explicitly to Psalm 22:16 in connection with the crucifixion. Yet, the connection is all too obvious, not only because His hands and feet were, in fact, pierced by nails, but from the fact that Psalm 22 is riddled with several other Messianic predictions, including the ridicule heaped upon Him, the wagging of His enemies’ heads, and the dividing of His garments, as well as the graphic description of His depleted physical condition that characterized a crucifixion (i.e., the stretching of the skeletal framework, the extreme thirst, and the impact on the heart and chest cavity).¹

The question to consider is how could the Psalmist (cir. 1000 B.C.) and Zechariah (cir. 500 B.C.) anticipate that hundreds of years into the future the Messiah would be executed, and that that execution would include “piercing”? Stoning was the prevailing form of execution that typified Jewish society (Exodus 19:13; Leviticus 20:27; 24:14,23; Numbers 15:36; Deuteronomy 17:5; Joshua 7:25; 1 Kings 12:18; et al.). They certainly did not use crucifixion as a form of execution,² and the Roman Empire did not exist. Even if the Psalmist and Zechariah were familiar with crucifixion, how could they possibly predict with minute precision the piercing that Jesus endured? With so many forms of execution possible, what are the odds that both prophets would select “piercing”? Such specificity discourages guesswork. The charlatan remains vague and ambiguous rather than risk detection due to particularity. Since the Old Testament canon was complete two and a half centuries before Christ came to Earth, how could the Psalmist and Zechariah make such an exact prediction hundreds of years in advance? The only rational conclusion is that, as they claimed, they were supernaturally guided in their pronouncements.

Endnotes

¹ For the medical aspects of the crucifixion of Christ, see William Stroud (1847), Treatise on the Physical Cause of the Death of Christ and Its Relation to the Principles and Practice of Christianity (London: Hamilton & Adams), p. 153. See also B. Thompson and B. Harrub (2002), An Examination of the Medical Evidence for the Physical Death of Christ (Montgomery AL: Apologetics Press); W.D. Edwards, W.J. Gabel, and F.E. Hosmer (1986), “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ,” Journal of the American Medical Association, 255[11]:1455-1463, March 21.

² “Among the modes of Capital Punishment known to the Jewish penal law, crucifixion is not found”—Emil G. Hirsch (1903), The Jewish Encyclopedia (New York: Funk & Wagnall), 4:373.

The post The Piercing of Jesus appeared first on Apologetics Press.