Bryant G. Wood<\/b><\/p>\n
Bryant Wood on Jebel Abu Ammar. The broad valley behind him may be the valley where Joshua and the Israelite forces camped on the eve of their victory over Ai (Jos 8:11, 13). In the distance is Kh. el-Maqatir, Wood\u2019s candidate for the Ai of Joshua.<\/b><\/p>\n
We know where most secular scholars stand on the issue of the Conquest. \u201cIt never happened,\u201d they say. But what about evangelical scholars? Two recent review articles attempt to formulate an evangelical position. The result? Chaos and confusion! These articles underscore more than ever the crying need for the research the Associates for Biblical Research is engaged in.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Hill Country Is Not Enough For Us: Recent Archaeology and the Book of Joshua\u201d appeared in the Southwestern Journal of Theology<\/i> (vol. 41, issue 1, 1998, pp. 25\u201343). The author is Daniel C. Browning, Jr., who holds the Ph.D. degree in Biblical Backgrounds and Archaeology from Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, Ft. Worth TX. He is currently Associate Professor of Religion at William Cary College, Hattisburg MS.<\/p>\n
Browning rightly maintains, \u201cthe application of archaeological data to the study of the book of Joshua has become an increasingly difficult task in recent years\u201d (p. 25). He adds, \u201cThe conservative interpreter, in particular, is hard pressed to reconcile the archaeological data with the text of Joshua\u201d (p. 39). After reviewing the evidence, Browning concludes,<\/p>\n
In order to defend\u2014in a credible way\u2014a military invasion, the conservative interpreter must be willing to concede that the book of Joshua is a glorified account of relatively small military encounters with an occasional major victory. The interpreter must further accept the possibility of etiological elements and editorial expansion of the story and the likelihood that some elements which composed Israel had their origin within the land itself (p. 42).<\/p>\n
In other words, evangelicals must concede that the Biblical account of the Conquest is less than accurate and so must be reinterpreted in order to come into agreement with the supposed \u201cassured\u201d results of archaeological research. But is the problem with Scripture, or is it with scholars\u2019 interpretations of archaeological evidence? I believe it is the latter.<\/p>\n
One major difficulty\u2014of both evangelical and secular scholars\u2014is that they are looking in the wrong time period. It is clear from Browning\u2019s assessment of the archaeological data that he considers the Conquest (if it ever occurred) to have happened in the late 13th century BC:<\/p>\n
The emergence of Israel and the fading away of the Canaanite culture coincide with the end of the Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age [i.e., ca. 1200 BC] (p. 26).<\/p>\n
Nearly all participants in this discussion now place the emergence of Israel\u2014represented by the hill country villages\u2014in the late 13th or early 12th century B.C.E. (p. 29).<\/p>\n
This is a holdover from W.F. Albright\u2019s immensely influential 13th century (late date) theory for the Exodus and Conquest. Evidence for this scenario dissipated in the 1980s. The internal chronology of the Old Testament clearly places the Conquest at the end of the 15th century BC. Therefore, it <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 2<\/p>\n
stands to reason that evidence will not be found at the end of the 13th century BC.<\/p>\n
Browning is aware of ABR\u2019s research, but he largely writes it off. Concerning Jericho, he states,<\/p>\n
Wood\u2019s arguments are well researched and merit consideration. But while Wood\u2019s work provides the possibility of reconciling the Joshua account with a 1400 B.C.E. destruction of Jericho, it does not allow for a destruction at the end of the Late Bronze Age, the consensus horizon for the emergence of Israel (p. 30).<\/p>\n
It appears that Browning believes we need to find evidence that matches the theories of scholars rather than the Bible. According to him, conclusions should be based on the word of man rather than the Word of God! He goes on,<\/p>\n
It should be noted that an early Exodus is part of the agenda for Wood and his organization, the Associates for Biblical Research (p. 30).<\/p>\n
I should hope so, because that is what the only surviving written record of the event tells us! With regard to Ai, the other major problem site for the Conquest, Browning says,<\/p>\n
But the topographical situation of et-Tell and its proximity to Bethel\/Beitin make it the only reasonable candidate in the area for identification with Ai…Nevertheless, the Associates for Biblical Research have conducted work in recent years at Khirbet el-Maqatir, which they hope to identify with Ai…Given the Associates for Biblical Research\u2019s commitment to a fifteenth-century date for the Exodus, it seems most unlikely that the results at Khirbet el-Maqatir will persuade many scholars to identify the site with Ai (pp. 32\u201333).<\/p>\n
What Browning is saying is that even if evidence for the destruction of Ai in 1400 BC is found, in agreement with the Bible, it will not be accepted because the majority of scholars have decided that the Conquest took place 200 years later! He brings this point home in the following statement:<\/p>\n
It is unfortunate that the primary active defenders of the conquest model in recent years [ABR!] have sought to justify a fifteenth-century date for the events in Joshua and, consequently for the Exodus. The \u201cearly date\u201d is simply no longer tenable or apologetically defensible (p. 42).<\/p>\n
Biblical scholarship is in a sorry state. Browning\u2019s opinions resemble more those of a secular, man-centered, humanist interpreter than a \u201cconservative interpreter.\u201d<\/p>\n
The cover story of the September 7, 1998, issue of Christianity Today<\/i>, \u201cDid the Exodus Never Happen?\u201d (pp. 44\u201351), fares little better. Author Kevin D. Miller, journalist and Associate Editor of CT<\/i>, focuses largely on the work of evangelical Egyptologists James Hoffmeier of Wheaton College and Kenneth Kitchen of Liverpool University, England. Regarding current scholarly attitudes, Hoffmeier correctly points out the bias of secular scholars. They regard Biblical accounts \u201cas fictional until proven factual, guilty until proven innocent\u201d (p. 46).<\/p>\n
Although Miller speaks of a debate among conservative scholars over an \u201cearly\u201d and \u201clate\u201d date for the Exodus, the article focuses on a 13th century dating, reflecting the views of Hoffmeier and Kitchen. Concerning Jericho, Miller points out,<\/p>\n
there is archaeological agreement on three important points that correspond directly with the biblical record: Jericho was destroyed violently sometime in the second millennium B.C.; it was occupied briefly and partially during the period of the Judges (a small palace from that period has been identified); and it was rebuilt completely in the days of King Ahab in the ninth century. The point of difference is over exactly when that first destruction occurred, and by whom (p. 51).<\/p>\n
Our work on Jericho is given a \u201cjournalistic spin\u201d in order to fit the 13th century reconstruction presented in the article:<\/p>\n
Kenyon dated Jericho\u2019s destruction to 1570 B.C….Bryant Wood, director of the Associates for Biblical Research, discovered evidence in her findings that sometimes contradicts Kenyon\u2019s own conclusions…these artifacts make dating Jericho\u2019s destruction feasible between the fifteenth and thirteenth centuries when most conservative scholars believe the Exodus occurred (p. 51).<\/p>\n
That is not the case at all. The pottery evidence will allow only a late 15th century dating of the destruction of Jericho. The site was deserted following the short-lived late 14th century occupation, which correlates with the account of Ehud and Eglon in Judges 3:12\u201330, until the Iron Age. There was no occupation in the 13th century BC at Jericho, a major problem for those who maintain a 13th century date for the Conquest.<\/p>\n
Although he didn\u2019t mention ABR\u2019s research, Hoffmeier indicates an open-minded approach to Ai.<\/p>\n
\u201cPart of the problem is that, in the Bible, Ai and Bethel are always mentioned as being close to each other, and the identification of Ai has been based on the proposed identification of the site of Bethel\u2014neither of which has been clearly demonstrated. We may be looking in the wrong place\u201d (p. 50).<\/p>\n
The most notable flaw in the article is the treatment of Hazor. Reference is made to Amnon Ben-Tor\u2019s current excavation of a Canaanite palace at the site. It is located in the upper city and clearly related to Stratum XIII, the final Late Bronze Age city destroyed ca. 1230 BC.<\/p>\n
…current excavations have uncovered a palace with a small chapel area. Littered across its floor are the heads of decapitated statues of Canaanite deities and an Egyptian sphinx with the name of the pharaoh hacked out. \u201cThe palace was destroyed in such an inferno that many of the mud bricks actually turned to glass,\u201d says Hoffmeier. \u201cNo <\/p>\n
BSP<\/i> 12:1 (Winter 1999) p. 3<\/p>\n
Thirteenth century BC Canaanite palace at Hazor currently being excavated by Israeli archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor. Violently destroyed by fire, this is almost certainly the palace of Jabin destroyed by the Israelites under Deborah and Barak (Jgs 4:24).<\/b><\/p>\n
Canaanites would destroy their own deities, and no Egyptians would deface their monuments.\u201d Only the account in Joshua 11:11 of the Israelites burning \u201cHazor with fire\u201d fits the evidence (p. 50).<\/p>\n
But wait a minute, what about Judges 4\u20135? There we have the record of a second assault on the forces of Hazor by the Israelites. The prophetess Deborah and her general Barak led a coalition of five Israelite tribes against the Canaanites. They were successful, since the account ends with the statement, \u201cAnd the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him\u201d (Jgs 4:24). Extensive excavations at Hazor have shown that the city was not rebuilt until the time of Solomon in the tenth century. If Stratum XIII was destroyed by Joshua, then there would be no Hazor for Deborah and Barak to attack\u2014another serious difficulty for 13th century advocates. If, on the other hand, we follow Biblical chronology and date the Conquest to the end of the 15th century BC, Stratum XV becomes the city destroyed by Joshua and Stratum XIII currently being excavated the city destroyed by Deborah and Barak. Hoffmeier is right in that the only logical agent for the destruction of the Canaanite palace at Hazor is Israel\u2014not under Joshua, however, but under Deborah and Barak.<\/p>\n
The Biblical model for the settlement of Israel in Canaan is clear and straightforward:<\/p>\n
1) A unified military conquest of the central hill country under Joshua at the end of the Late Bronze I period, ca. 1410\u20131400 BC (Jos 1\u201312).<\/p>\n
2) The Israelites lived initially as pastoralists under the leadership of judges in the Late Bronze II period, ca. 1400\u20131200 BC (Jgs 1\u20135).<\/p>\n
3) In the 12th century BC, still under the leadership of judges, the Israelites went through a process of sedentarization. This was a wide-spread phenomenon resulting from the collapse of the Late Bronze urban culture. The proliferation of small agricultural villages in the Iron Age I was the result of this process (Jgs 6\u201310).<\/p>\n
Most scholars ignore item (2) in the above equation and attempt to combine items (1) and (3). That simply won\u2019t work. At the present time, it appears that many evangelicals are off-track by not giving the Bible its just due and following an antiquated theory for which there is no evidence. With proper field work and in-depth research, it is possible to resolve the seeming contradictions between archaeological evidence and the Biblical record. ABR is leading the way in that research. In this issue of Bible and Spade<\/i> we present the results of ABR\u2019s search for the lost city of Ai. In future issues we will deal with additional aspects of the Conquest, as well as other findings that authenticate the veracity of Biblical history.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bryant G. Wood Bryant Wood on Jebel Abu Ammar. The broad valley behind him may be the valley where Joshua and the Israelite forces camped on the eve of their victory over Ai (Jos 8:11, 13). In the distance is Kh. el-Maqatir, Wood\u2019s candidate for the Ai of Joshua. We know where most secular scholars … Continue reading “BENEATH
\nTHE SURFACE
\nAN EDITORIAL COMMENT”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-15253","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-sermons"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15253","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=15253"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/15253\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=15253"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=15253"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.biblia.work\/sermons\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=15253"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}