A Book Analysis of “The Exodus: Myth History?” (Part 6): The Conquest and Settlement

We now come to my last post in my book analysis series on David Rohl’s book, The Exodus: Myth or History? in which he addresses the issue of Joshua’s Conquest and the subsequent settlement of the land. So, without much of an introduction, let’s just jump right into the main points of his argument.

Let’s Get Our Chronologies Straight (and see why the Conquest didn’t happen around 1200 BC)
In order to better understand Rohl’s argument concerning Joshua’s Conquest and the subsequent Israelite settlement of Canaan, we need to get a good grasp of the dates associated with the various archeological time periods. As I mentioned in Part 1, the relevant time periods are as follows:

• The Middle Bronze Age: 2100-1550 BC (with subcategories of MB-I, MB-IIA, and M-IIIB)
• The Late Bronze Age: 1550-1200 BC (with subcategories of LB-I, LB-IIA, and LB-IIB)
• The Iron Age: 1200-550 BC (with subcategories of IA-I, IA-IIA, and IA-IIB)

Now, for clarification, the view that the Exodus happened in the mid-13^th century BC (and therefore the mid-1200s) means that, according to that view, the Exodus happened in the last part of the Late Bronze Age (LBA). Subsequently, since the wilderness wanderings are said to have been 40 years, the Conquest is believed to have happened right at the end of the LB and at the beginning of the Early Iron Age (IA). The archeological problem with that view, as Rohl and virtually every other archeologist has acknowledged, is that there is no archeological evidence for any kind of Exodus in the mid-13^th century BC/LB, and there is no archeological evidence for any kind of Conquest/Settlement in the 12^th century BC/IA, at the end of the Egyptian 19^th Dynasty. Consider the following:

1. Not only is there no evidence for any kind of “conquest” circa 1200 BC, but a detailed survey of the Palestine hill country shows clear evidence of cultural continuity between Late Bronze II B and Iron Age IA. It was just the same people, ethnically and culturally. That means there was no drastic change in the culture of Canaan shortly after 1200 BC, which would have been the case if the Israelites had taken over and settled the land at that time.
2. The Late Bronze Age cities of Palestine were not surrounded by massive defenses because Egypt had a firm control on the land. That would mean that the claims in Joshua about Canaanite cities being heavily fortified simply aren’t true, if the Conquest took place in the Late Bronze Age.
3. The cities of Jericho and Gibeon simply didn’t exist in the Late Bronze Age, circa 1200 BC.
4. Then there is the issue of, yes, pottery. (I’ll try to explain this the best I can!). Basically, there was a specific kind of pottery call Bichrome pottery and Cypriote pottery that was found in Canaan that archeologists date (according to the traditional dating methods) to the 18^th Dynasty of Egypt (circa 1550-1300 BC). In the ruins of Jericho, though, there is no pottery of that kind—yet if Joshua had conquered Jericho around 1200 BC, you’d expect there would be. (Of course, that shouldn’t be surprising because there was no Jericho there in 1200 BC anyway). The point is that the destruction of Jericho had to have happened before the introduction of this kind of pottery.

Given all of that lack of evidence for a 1200 BC date for Joshua’s Conquest, many archeologists like Israel Finkelstein and many “biblical minimalists” like Thomas Thompson, now claim that the entire account of the Patriarchs, the Sojourn in Egypt, the Exodus from Egypt, the Conquest, and the Settlement of the land, as described in the Bible, is nothing more than pure fiction.

What Rohl’s overall argument in the entire book is simple: They’re looking for archeological evidence in the wrong timeframe. Instead, if one takes the view that the Exodus happened in the mid-15^th century BC (and therefore the mid-1400s), one will find quite a lot of archeological evidence that points, not only to an Exodus in the mid-1400s, but also a Conquest and Settlement in the 1300s, and a Sojourn somewhere between the 1600s-1450 BC. The only caveat to make here, though, is Rohl also argues for a slight modification to those traditional archeological ages (as you can see in the picture) as well as a “new chronology” for the Egyptian dynasties.

What needs to be noted is that when it comes to the MB-IIB, Rohl has it overlapping on both ends of the age—with both MB-IIA and LB-I. In particular (and this relates to the settlement of the land), Rohl argues that the transition (and overlap) from the Middle Bronze Age to the Late Bronze Age happened in the following way. Basically, as recorded in Joshua, during the conquest and early settlement (circa 1400 BC and later), when the Israelites arrived in the highlands and hill country in central Canaan, they destroyed the urban centers in central Canaan and pushed the Anakim and other Canaanites into the lowlands and coastlands. What that meant is that while the Late Bronze Age began in the lowlands and coastlands, the Israelites in the central highlands, being the semi-nomadic pastoralists they were, remained living in more of a Middle Bronze Age culture.

The result is that all of this can get rather confusing. I’ll do my best to simplify things just so we can at least get a basic grasp on things. We’ve already looked at the archeological evidence Rohl points to in order to support his argument regarding Joseph, Jacob’s entry into Egypt, the Sojourn, and the Exodus itself.

The Conquest: Jericho
For the sake of clarity, I want to list what I feel are the most relevant parts to Rohl’s argument concerning the city of Jericho.

1. The Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho was fortified by large walls and there is evidence that they collapsed in an earthquake.
2. There is also evidence that the city had been set on fire after the walls had fallen.
3. In addition, it seems there had been some kind of catastrophe in Jericho just prior to its destruction. (Rohl speculates that it could have been a plague of some sort, and that could coincide to the plague that hit the Israelite camp on the Plain of Shittim in Numbers 25:1-9, shortly before they advanced into Canaan and attacked Jericho.
4. In the ruins of Jericho, there was found an abundance of grain in the city when it was destroyed. This would suggest that whatever happened, there was no long, drawn out siege. The destruction happened quickly.  Again, in the Book of Joshua, it speaks of a short, week-long siege.
5. In addition, there was evidence of houses that were built in the walls of Jericho. (In Joshua 2:15, we are told that Rahab the prostitute’s house was built in the city walls). Not only that, but a survey of the city walls that had fallen in an earthquake shows that there was a section of the wall that had not, in fact, fallen down.
6. After the destruction of the Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho, it lay in ruins until later in the Iron Age. (In I Kings 16:34, we are told that Jericho was rebuilt during the time of King Ahab, circa 850 BC).
7. There is also evidence of a limited occupation of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age, when a small palace, but no actual settlement, was built on the ruins. (In Judges 3:12-25, we are told that the palace of King Eglon of Moab was in the City of Palms, which was the site of Jericho).

Needless to say, Rohl argues that the archeological evidence found in the Middle Bronze Age city of Jericho fit very well into the biblical account of the fall of Jericho in the Book of Joshua, right around the year 1400 BC.

But there is something else regarding Jericho that Rohl brings up that I want to note. He points out that in a family tomb in the Middle Bronze city of Jericho, one in which many people were buried because of some kind of plague, there was found a tiny scarab (a beetle-shaped seal) that bears the name Sheshi. This is the name of a Hyksos king of the 15^th Dynasty—Maaibre Sheshi. According to the old chronology, his reign was around 1600 BC, but according to Rohl’s updated chronology, his reign is dated to 1410-1370 BC. Rohl also suggests that this Maaibre Sheshi could be identified with the Anakim ruler King Sheshai mentioned in Numbers 13:22, Joshua 15:13, and Judges 1:20. This would fit with Rohl’s argument that the Semitic Hyksos Dynasty rose up to dominate Egypt for about 100 years after the Exodus.  

Other Cities: Hazor, Shechem, and Shiloh
Then there is the northern city of Hazor to consider. To the point, there was no Late Bronze Age city of Hazor there around 1200 BC for Joshua to destroy. But there certainly was a Middle Bronze Age city of Hazor that was, in fact, destroyed. The city was later rebuilt (as Judges 4-5 in the story of Deborah attests to). In Judges 4-5, the king of Hazor is named Jabin. And in the ruins of Hazor archeologists found a fragment of a cuneiform tablet that contains Jabin’s name as the King of Hazor.

Then there is the town of Shiloh, located 18 miles north of Jerusalem. Shiloh was the location of Joshua’s covenant ceremony in Joshua 18. That was where the Ark of the Covenant and the Tabernacle were set up after the Israelites took over the region. Later on, after the events in I Samuel 4-6, the site at Shiloh was abandoned, but is mentioned again in I Kings 12-14 during the reign of Jeroboam.  Long story short, there is evidence that the cult center at Shiloh was destroyed by fire during MB-IIB. Rohl argues that this coincides with the Philistine destruction of Shiloh at the Battle of Ebenezer in I Samuel 4.

Then there is the site of the Middle Bronze Age temple of Baal-Berith in Shechem with a standing stone at the entrance. The ruins of the site, complete with the standing stone in front are still there. Archeologists conclude that at some point in the Middle Bronze Age the temple of Baal-Berith was destroyed and the town of Shechem was burned. After that, the town lay in ruins for over a century. Shechem is mentioned in Judges 9 as being destroyed by Abimelech. In particular, when he attacked the city, the people fled to the temple and Abimelech proceeded to destroy the temple.

Conclusion
Obviously, Rohl covers much more material in his book and goes into much more detail. Obviously, there will always be scholarly debate regarding the lengths of the various archaeological ages and the dates for the Egyptian chronology and how it relates to the biblical history in the Old Testament. And obviously, his arguments regarding all of this are not widely accepted in the larger scholarly community at this time. And the reason why the larger scholarly community doesn’t accept his arguments mostly have to do with the fact that he is suggesting some rather larger revisions to the long-accepted Egyptian chronology. Since I am not an Egyptologist, I readily admit I do not fully understand all the minutiae in those arguments.

As it stands, though, I think Rohl has absolutely shown that simply because the Exodus did not happen in the 13^th century, that does not warrant the recent “biblical minimalist reaction” that immediately jumps to the conclusion that the whole thing is just fiction. He brings up quite a lot of solid, archeological evidence that does, in my opinion, point to a very real history regarding the Patriarchs, Sojourn, Exodus, and Conquest. We can argue over dates and chronologies—maybe more work needs to be done there—but not only does the evidence Rohl point out mesh really well with the biblical story, the fact is it is actual evidence that really should be taken seriously. And it is quite clear that the modern biblical minimalists have not done that.