had to be used to its fullest capacity and then, if possible, recycled. Also, the portable tent encampments during those 40 years would have left few

Dt 1:1), Sinai. Note the small group of tourists in the foreground.
As with modern Bedouin, the nomadic Israelites would have left little behind which could be discovered thousands of years later. Bryant Wood.The Sturdy AnvilWe have covered only some of the evidence for the Biblically derived date of the Exodus. It seems that every year more discoveries are made that confirm the existence of Biblical persons and places. But the skeptics know what is at stake, and in this world of growing unbelief they will not be deterred from striking at the foundations of Christianity and Judaism.Although almost 200 years old, a statement by 19th-century writer H.L. Hastings regarding skeptics’ attacks on the Bible holds true:For 1800 years, skeptics have been refuting and overthrowing this book, and yet it stands today as a solid rock...The skeptics, with all their assaults, make about as much impression on this book as a man with a hammer would on the Pyramids of Egypt. When a French monarch proposed persecuting Christians, an elderly advisor told him, “Sir, the Church of God is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.” So the hammers of the skeptics have been pecking away at this book for ages, but the hammers are worn out, and the anvil still endures. If this book had not been the book of God, men would have destroyed it long ago. Emperors and popes, kings and priests, princes and rulers have all tried their hand at it; they have all died and yet this book lives on.As with the rest of the Bible, the Exodus account remains a mighty witness to a God who cares about His people and intervenes in human affairs to carry out His plan.(Reprinted by permission from Good News 7.2 [2002]: 8-11, 28.)Please help ABR continue to post these freearticles by making a donation of any size today. DonateBibliographyBimson, J.J., and Livingston, D.1987 Redating the Exodus. Biblical Archaeology Review 13.5:40–53, 66–68.Kitchen, K.A.1995 The Patriarchal Age: Myth or History? Biblical Archaeology Review 21.2:48ff.Merrill, E.H.1996 Kingdom of Priests. Grand Rapids MI: Baker.Price, R.1997 The Stones Cry Out. Eugene OR: Harvest House.Sheler, J.1999 Is the Bible True? San Francisco: Harper.Watanabe, T.2001 Doubting the Story of Exodus. Los Angeles Times, April 13.Yamauchi, E.1972 The Stones and the Scriptures. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Recommended Resources for Further StudyBible and SpadeCD-ROM Archaeology andthe Old Testament Moses andthe Gods of Egypt



The Genesis Philistines
This article was first published in the March 2006 ABR Electronic Newsletter. The Philistines we encounter in the books of Judges and 1 and 2 Samuel (11th century BC) are well known to us. Not only do we have detailed information about them in the Bible, but we have evidence from extra-Biblical sources as well. Pharaoh Rameses III recorded that the Philistines were one tribe of a coalition of “Sea Peoples” who swept across Anatolia (modern Turkey) and down the Mediterranean coast intent on taking up residence in Egypt. In his eighth year (ca. 1177 BC), Rameses III turned them back at the border and the various tribes of the Sea Peoples were forced to settle elsewhere. The Philistines ended up in one of the choicest areas of Palestine, the southwest coastal region. Archaeologists have been able to track their presence there because of their distinctively Aegean material culture, especially their pottery (Wood 1991). According to the Bible, the Philistines originated in “Caphtor” (Jer 47:4; Am 9:7), identified as the island of Crete (Hess 1992). But what about the mention of Philistines in the book of Genesis some 900 years earlier? Scholars have a ready answer: ­the Bible is wrong! For example, in The Anchor Bible Dictionary article on the Philistines, author Katzenstein states, “The references to the Philistines in Gen 21:32–34; 26:1, 8, 14–15; and in Exod 13:17; 15:14; 23:31 are all anachronisms” (1992: 326), that is, material that is chronologically out of place. Let us probe this “Bible problem” a little deeper. The Phaistos Disk An important find relating to the early Philistines is the Phaistos Disk, a 6.5 inch diameter, 0.5 inch thick, baked clay disk with undecipherable inscriptions on both sides (Robinson 2002: 297–315). It was discovered in 1908 by Italian archaeologist Luigi Pernier in the ruins of a Minoan palace in southern Crete. Based on the archaeological context, the date cannot be later than about 1700 BC. The signs, running in a spiral from the outer edge toward the center, were impressed in the wet clay with a punch or stamp, resulting in the world’s first typewritten document. No other texts in this script have since been found. The Phaistos DiskThe significance of the Phaistos Disk for our purposes is that it connects the Philistines with the island of Crete and places them there at a period far earlier than the 12th century BC. One of characters on the disk, in fact, the one that occurs most frequently, is a warrior with a feathered headdress. It is very similar to the depiction of the later Philistines in reliefs on the walls of Rameses III’s mortuary temple in Medinet Habu, Egypt (T. Dothan 1982: 22; T. and M. Dothan 1992: 35–36). This is not an isolated find, as identical signs, including frontal views of the feathered warrior, have been found inscribed on an axe found in a cave in Crete (Robinson 2002: 306–307).The name “Philistine,” therefore, may simply be the Biblical term for Aegean peoples from Crete, from any time period. Another name used in the Bible for the people from Crete is “Caphtorites.” Deuteronomy 2:23 states, “as for the Avvites who lived in villages as far as Gaza, the Caphtorites coming out from Caphtor destroyed them and settled in their place.” According to the Bible, then, peoples from Crete took over the southwest coastal area of Canaan prior to the time of Moses. That is precisely the area where Abraham and Isaac encountered “Abimelech king of the Philistines.” The Minoans The scholarly label for the ancient inhabitants of Crete is “Minoans.” This artificial appellation was coined by Arthur Evans, excavator of Knossos, a major site on Crete, based on Minos, an ancient ruler of Crete known from Greek mythology. We do not know what the ancient inhabitants of Crete called themselves. Archaeological evidence indicates that the Minoans were engaged in maritime trade throughout the Levant in the Middle Bronze period (ca. 2000&Rosetta Stone English

Wood identifies Ezbet Helmi,

located just over one mile southwest of Pi-Ramesses, as the royal residence of the exodus-pharaoh during the Israelites’ stay in Goshen (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482). Though this site indeed may have possessed two palace structures of the 18th Dynasty (Ibid., 483; Manfred Bietak, Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos [London: British Museum Press, 1996], 68–72), there is no epigraphical evidence confirming that Amenhotep II ever resided there, even periodically. Moreover, the discovery of a scarab there with his royal cartouche no more proves his personal occupation of the city (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 484) than the discovery of a scarab with his cartouche at Gibeon proves he resided on the Central Benjamin Plateau (James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still [Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1962], 156). Memphis, a known royal residence of Amenhotep II and the headquarters for all of the Asiatic military campaigns of the era, is currently a better candidate for the site where the exodus-pharaoh resided, though Ezbet Helmi does remain a legitimate candidate. 53. Other New-Kingdom princes who were sm-priests also functioned as chief pontiffs at Memphis, such as “the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose,” who appears with his father, Amenhotep III, at his burial in the Serapeum. This prince is attested on a canopic box, where he is called “the king’s eldest son, his beloved, high priest of Ptah and sm-priest.” He doubtlessly is to be identified with the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose, who appears on a statuette in the Louvre (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111). 54. Ibid., 112, 114. 55. Ibid., 114. 56. Ibid., 110, 114. 57. Ibid., 114. 58. In Tomb 64 of the Theban necropolis is an important wall painting that displays two royal tutors: Hekreshu and his son, Hekerneheh, who are in the company of their princely charges: Thutmose and Amenhotep. Hekreshu is seated, facing right, with the young heir apparent, Thutmose, on his lap. Standing before him is Hekerneheh and a small Prince Amenhotep, who is carrying a bouquet. Hekreshu is specifically stated to be a “tutor of the king’s eldest bodily son, Thutmose,” whose nomen is represented in a cartouche. Hekerneheh’s title is “tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep.” Behind Hekerneheh appear six other princes, originally all named, but the hieroglyphs are now almost completely destroyed. One name alone can be made out, that of a certain Amenemhet. All of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, wear pectorals bearing the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV (Ibid., 114, 115). The presence of the birth name and throne-name of Thutmose IV on each of the princes drove Newberry to conclude that the child on Hekreshu’s knee was undoubtedly the later Thutmose IV, and that the other princes, including Amenhotep, were his sons. The prince named Amenhotep, according to Newberry, eventually ruled as Amenhotep III (Percy Edward Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkhe-prure’,” JEA 14 [1928], 83–84). Redford points out that Newberry’s argument is not compelling, as all of the others in the scene could easily be wearing the cartouche of Thutmose IV out of deference to the son who succeeded to the throne. He further suggests that perhaps the six princes in the background are sons of Thutmose IV, while Amenhotep could be a brother, and for that reason was singled out to be depicted in a position of honor (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 113). The problem, however, with the suggestion that the six princes are the sons of the seated Thutmose is that Thutmose and Amenhotep themselves, whoever they might be in reality, are depicted in the scene as children, and it would be odd to depict in the same scene both a father and his children as children. A possible rebuttal against Redford’s suggestion that Thutmose and Amenhotep are brothers might take the following form: Hekreshu is specifically stated to be the tutor of the king’s eldest son, Thutmose, while Hekerneheh is the tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep. Since a father-son relationship existed between the tutors, perhaps a father-son relationship existed between their charges. Redford dismisses this idea by offering a parallel depiction found in graffiti from Konosso. A king’s son, Amenhotep, is mentioned twice at Konosso, once with Hekreshu and a second time with Hekerneheh. The presence of the cartouches of Thutmose IV in the immediate vicinity lends support to the dating of the graffiti to his reign. More importantly, Amenhotep’s name is accompanied by that of another prince, Okheprure, and the parallelism in the graffiti between the two names strongly suggests a fraternal relationship. Okheprure again is shown on the knee of an unidentified scribe in Tomb 226 of the Theban necropolis, along with three of his brothers. If, as his name would indicate, he was a son of Amenhotep II, then most likely Prince Amenhotep was also his son. On the wall painting from Tomb 64, therefore, Prince Amenhotep also should be considered a brother to Thutmose IV, and not a son (Ibid.). If Princes Thutmose and Amenhotep from Tomb 64 are indeed brothers, who are the six princes in the background? Certainly the fact that all of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, are wearing pectorals that bear the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV seems to indicate that the princes are all on the same level, and therefore brothers, as was the case with the Konosso graffiti and Tomb 226. The problem that remains, then, is that Thutmose IV is universally accepted as not having been the firstborn child, which is both confirmed by Thutmose IV’s own account on the Great/Sphinx Stele and by the fact that Prince Amenhotep was shown to be the rightful heir to the throne of Amenhotep II before Thutmose IV. Thus one of two options must be true: either (1) the Tomb-64 painting is falsifying the truth by assigning Thutmose IV the status of “the king’s eldest son,” or (2) the Thutmose who sits on the lap of Hekreshu is intended to portray a different Thutmose. The former option hardly seems possible, since the tomb-wall painting is located in a deeply secluded place, not at all prominently displayed whereone would expect to see propagandistic depictions of a king’s grandeur. If Redford is correct that Prince Amenhotep, who never is called “the king’s eldest son,” was not the eldest son of Amenhotep II, and that by custom a king named “Amenhotep” would name his first son “Thutmose,” and thus that Amenhotep II did name his first son “Thutmose,” the Thutmose sitting on the lap of the royal tutor indeed may be “the eldest son” of Amenhotep II, who could have died a premature death during the tenth and most gruesome of the plagues on Egypt. The painting may be depicting the entire entourage of Amenhotep II’s sons during the time when his firstborn son was still alive. The presence of Thutmose IV’s praenomen on the pectorals of all of the princes, even on that of the long-deceased plague-son, may indicate that the painting was made during the reign of Thutmose IV. Newberry, for one, was convinced that Tomb 64 was constructed for Hekerneheh during the reign of Thutmose IV (Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest,” 82). The reason for the cartouche of Thutmose IV next to each of the princes, which could be a later addition to the painting if instead it originally was painted during the reign of Amenhotep II, may simply be that the painter wanted to demonstrate the sovereignty of Thutmose IV over all of his brothers, being that he was the only one from among them who rose to the position of pharaoh. Certainly this interpretation would better explain why Amenhotep, who was in line for the throne before his younger brother Thutmose IV, was being depicted as smaller in stature than the Thutmose who sat on his tutor’s lap. This detail is highly problematic for any view that instead purports Thutmose



Rosetta Stone Italian

IV to be “the king’s eldest son,”

since Prince Amenhotep is known to have been in line for the throne before him. 59. Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 478. Shea correctly notes that “Ex 14–15 is not directly explicit upon this point,” though he subsequently takes an unjustified logical leap by extrapolating, “but it is the logical inference there [that pharaoh also drowned]” (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46). 60. Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 478. 61. Shea disagrees: “Yahweh says that he will get glory over pharaoh. While some of that glory could be maintained by his loss of troops in the Sea of Reeds, if he escaped with his own life, some of that glory could have been diminished” (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 46). This statement, though well intended, is not true whatsoever. God displayed his glory by decimating Sennacherib’s army when the Assyrians marched against Judah (2 Kgs 19:35), but his glory was not diminished when Sennacherib returned to Assyria unscathed. A far greater shame for a defeated monarch is to be left in humiliation to rule over a shell of his former empire after being defeated by God, depleted of his army, and—in the case of the exodus-pharaoh—stripped of his servantile workforce. 62. No doubt exists among Egyptologists that this mummy is the corpse of Amenhotep II. Although he was taller than both his father and his son who succeeded him, his physical features bear a marked resemblance to theirs, especially his son’s, particularly in respect to their crania and teeth (James E. Harris and Kent R. Weeks, X-Raying the Pharaohs [New York: Scribners, 1973], 138). 63. Nicholas Reeves, Ancient Egypt: The Great Discoveries (London: Thames & Hudson, 2000), 103. 64. The king’s praenomen is inscribed on one side of the jar, while the other side is inscribed with “Year 26” and “Panehsy,” the name of the king’s vintner (Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 42). 65. Redford asserts that since pottery jars are relatively porous, the wine within them was consumed not long after the bottling process, and since mortuary complexes were fully stocked with wine only after a king’s (imminent) death, the Year-26 wine-juglet was produced at the end of Amenhotep II’s life, and the mortuary temple probably was under construction until the king’s death and the stocking of the wine (Donald B. Redford, “On the Chronology of the Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty,” JNES 25:2 [Apr 1966], 119). 66. E. F. Wente and C. C. Van Siclen III, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” in Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1976), 228. 67. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 110. 68. The 12th-Dynasty pharaoh Sesostris I (ca. 1960–1916 BC) erected two obelisks in front of the temple pylon at Heliopolis on the occasion of his first sed festival, commemorating his 30th regnal year (Grimal, History of Ancient Egypt, 164). During the 18th Dynasty, Thutmose III seemingly celebrated a sed festival in his 30th year, as well; Redford suggests that the year of rest from Asiatic campaigning between Thutmose III’s sixth and seventh campaigns, which corresponds precisely to his Year 30, signifies a “holiday year” used to celebrate this landmark anniversary (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 158). 69. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 43. 70. Wente and Van Siclen III, “Chronology of the New Kingdom,” 227–228. The occurrence of a coregency under Thutmose III and Amenhotep II is essentially undisputed among conservative Egyptologists, as supporting evidence for it is plentiful. See Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 116; Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 24; and Richard A. Parker, “Once Again the Coregency of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II,” in Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, in Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 35 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), 228. Nevertheless, Shea firmly disputes the notion of such a coregency, though formerly he advocated one. His current position is built on a foundational presupposition, namely that Amenhotep II died in the Red Sea. The proof Shea presents for his position is that Amenhotep II reportedly launched two “first campaigns.” According to Shea’s theory, a successor (Amenhotep IIB) was secretly and deceitfully placed on the throne after Amenhotep IIA drowned in the Red Sea, but with the caveat that the later pharaoh used the same birth name and throne-name as his deceased predecessor, thus completing the reign of “Amenhotep II” as an imposter (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 44–46). This outlandish theory, however, is fraught with difficulties, creating far more problems than it solves, the foremost being that this entire leap of speculation is based on the false—yet completely handicapping—presupposition that the exodus-pharaoh died in the Red Sea. Since this presumption was demonstrated to be inaccurate, only Shea’s arguments stand to be evaluated. If the two “first campaigns” of Amenhotep II were actually one campaign, which will be proven subsequently, then Shea loses all impetus for his fantastic claim. Moreover, he provides no precedent in Egypt’s long history for the practice of two pharaohs ruling under the same name, with the latter using his predecessor’s nomen and praenomen as his own. Surely such an act would incite a court rebellion and turn the royal family against the officials who secretly placed the imposter on the throne. Shea also asserts that the two coronation celebrations for Amenhotep II—one after his father died on ca. 22 March, and the other on ca. 22 November, as recorded on the Memphis Stele—represent a contradiction, implying the reigns of different rulers. However, three inescapable problems plague this assertion: (1) if Amenhotep IIB was coronated on 22 November, the deception of the court officials would have been exposed; (2) the exodus occurred on 15 Nisan (25 April), which would render inconceivable Amenhotep IIB’s coronation as late as 22 November; and (3) the attestation of “two accession dates” actually supports a coregency. In The Biography of Amenemheb, it is stated that Thutmose III died on vii, 30 (ca. 22 March) of his 54th year, and that on the very next day Amenhotep II was “established on the throne of his father” (Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 20). However, both the Semna Stela and BM 10056 offer iv, 1 (ca. 22 November) as his accession date, and since on BM 10056 the year-number even changes immediately after the mention of 22 November, a definitive conclusion can be made that Amenhotep II’s regnal years were numbered from ca. 22 November, not from 23 March (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 121). Shea claims that if indeed Amenhotep II was inaugurated when he became coregent on 22 November of an earlier year, there would be no need for an installation ceremony on the day after Thutmose III died.



Actually, the Egyptian texts never refer to an installation ceremony on 23 March;

city of Jericho, the Jericho attacked by the Israelites. Aerial view of Jericho, looking south. The trenches and squares visible today are from Kath

rried out by a German team in the first decade of this century, we know that people were also living on the embankment between the upper and lower city walls. In addition, those Canaanites living in surrounding villages would have fled to Jericho for safety. Thus, we can assume that there were several thousand people inside the walls when the Israelites came against the city. Schematic cross-section of the fortification system at Jericho.The Fallen WallsThe citizens of Jericho were well prepared for a siege. A copious spring which provided water for ancient, as well as modern, Jericho lay inside the city walls. At the time of the attack, the harvest had just been taken in (Jos 3:15), so the citizens had an abundant supply of food. This has been borne out by many large jars full of grain found in the Canaanite homes by John Garstang in his excavation in the 1930s and also by Kenyon. With a plentiful food supply and ample water, the inhabitants of Jericho could have held out for several years.After the seventh trip around the city on the seventh day, Scripture tells us that the wall “fell flat” (Jos 6:20). A more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word here would be “fell beneath itself.” Is there evidence for such an event at Jericho? It turns out that there is ample evidence that the mudbrick city wall collapsed and was deposited at the base of the stone retaining wall at the time the city met its end. Section drawing of Kenyon’s west trench, showing the fallen mud bricks from the collapsed city wall (shaded area to the left of retaining wall KD).Kenyon’s work was the most detailed. On the west side of the tell, at the base of the retaining, or revetment, wall, she found, fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment. These probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank [and/or]…the brickwork above the revetment (Kenyon 1981: 110). In other words, she found a heap of bricks from the fallen city walls! The renewed Italian-Palestinian excavations found exactly the same thing at the southern end of the mound in 1997.Excavations at the outer (lower) fortification wall by the three major expeditions to Jericho. At the north end (numbers 1–5), a portion of the mud brick wall (shaded) atop the stone retaining wall survived, demonstrating that the city wall did not fall in this area. Nothing remains of the mud brick city wall at other points investigated, showing that it had collapsed everywhere else (numbers 6–13). Remnants of the collapsed city wall (shaded) were actually found still in place in three places at Jericho: number 11 (German excavation), number 12 (Kenyon’s excavation), and the 1997 Italian-Palestinian excavation extending Kenyon’s south trench at number 8. According to the Bible, Rahab’s house was incorporated into the fortification system (Jos 2:15). If the walls fell, how was her house spared? As you recall, the spies had instructed Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be rescued. When the Israelites stormed the city, Rahab and her family were saved as promised (Jos 6:17, 22–23).



At the north end of the tell of Jericho,
archaeologists made some astounding discoveries that seem to relate to Rahab.The German excavation of 1907-1909 found that on the north a short stretch of the lower city wall did not fall as everywhere else. A portion of that mudbrick wall was still standing to a height of 8 ft (Sellin and Watzinger 1973: 58). What is more, there were houses built against the wall! It is quite possible that this is where Rahab’s house was located. Since the city wall formed the back wall of the houses, the spies could have readily escaped. From this location on the north side of the city, it was only a short distance to the hills of the Judean wilderness where the spies hid for three days (Jos 2:16, 22). Real estate values must have been low here, since the houses were positioned on the embankment between the upper and lower city walls. Not the best place to live in time of war! This area was no doubt the overflow from the upper city and the poor part of town, perhaps even a slum district.After the city walls fell, how could the Israelites surmount the 12–15 foot high retaining wall at the base of the tell? Excavations have shown that the bricks from the collapsed walls fell in such a way as to form a ramp against the retaining wall. The Israelites could merely climb up over the pile of rubble, up the embankment, and enter the city. The Bible is very precise in its description of how the Israelites entered the city: “The people went up into the city, every man straight before him” (Jos 6:20, KJV). The Israelites had to go up, and that is what archaeology has revealed. They had to go from ground level at the base of the tell to the top of the rampart in order to enter the city.Dr. Wood points to collapsed mud bricks from the city wall that fell to the base of the retaining wall at Jericho. His left foot rests on part of the fallen wall. (Italian-Palestinian excavation, 1997, location 8.)Destruction by FireThe Israelites “burned the whole city and everything in it” (Jos 6: 24). Once again, the discoverrried out by a German team in the first decade of this century, we know that people were also living on the embankment between the upper and lower city walls. In addition, those Canaanites living in surrounding villages would have fled to Jericho for safety. Thus, we can assume that there were several thousand people inside the walls when the Israelites came against the city. Schematic cross-section of the fortification system at Jericho.The Fallen WallsThe citizens of Jericho were well prepared for a siege. A copious spring which provided water for ancient, as well as modern, Jericho lay inside the city walls. At the time of the attack, the harvest had just been taken in (Jos 3:15), so the citizens had an abundant supply of food. This has been borne out by many large jars full of grain found in the Canaanite homes by John Garstang in his excavation in the 1930s and also by Kenyon. With a plentiful food supply and ample water, the inhabitants of Jericho could have held out for several years.After the seventh trip around the city on the seventh day, Scripture tells us that the wall “fell flat” (Jos 6:20). A more accurate rendering of the Hebrew word here would be “fell beneath itself.” Is there evidence for such an event at Jericho? It turns out that there is ample evidence that the mudbrick city wall collapsed and was deposited at the base of the stone retaining wall at the time the city met its end. Section drawing of Kenyon’s west trench, showing the fallen mud bricks from the collapsed city wall (shaded area to the left of retaining wall KD).Kenyon’s work was the most detailed. On the west side of the tell, at the base of the retaining, or revetment, wall, she found, fallen red bricks piling nearly to the top of the revetment. These probably came from the wall on the summit of the bank [and/or]…the brickwork above the revetment (Kenyon 1981: 110). In other words, she found a heap of bricks from the fallen city walls! The renewed Italian-Palestinian excavations found exactly the same thing at the southern end of the mound in 1997.Excavations at the outer (lower) fortification wall by the three major expeditions to Jericho. At the north end (numbers 1–5), a portion of the mud brick wall (shaded) atop the stone retaining wall survived, demonstrating that the city wall did not fall in this area. Nothing remains of the mud brick city wall at other points investigated, showing that it had collapsed everywhere else (numbers 6–13). Remnants of the collapsed city wall (shaded) were actually found still in place in three places at Jericho: number 11 (German excavation), number 12 (Kenyon’s excavation), and the 1997 Italian-Palestinian excavation extending Kenyon’s south trench at number 8. According to the Bible, Rahab’s house was incorporated into the fortification system (Jos 2:15). If the walls fell, how was her house spared? As you recall, the spies had instructed Rahab to bring her family into her house and they would be rescued. When the Israelites stormed the city, Rahab and her family were saved as promised (Jos 6:17, 22–23).



At the north end of the tell of Jericho,
archaeologists made some astounding discoveries that seem to relate to Rahab.The German excavation of 1907-1909 found that on the north a short stretch of the lower city wall did not fall as everywhere else. A portion of that mudbrick wall was still standing to a height of 8 ft (Sellin and Watzinger 1973: 58). What is more, there were houses built against the wall! It is quite possible that this is where Rahab’s house was located. Since the city wall formed the back wall of the houses, the spies could have readily escaped. From this location on the north side of the city, it was only a short distance to the hills of the Judean wilderness where the spies hid for three days (Jos 2:16, 22). Real estate values must have been low here, since the houses were positioned on the embankment between the upper and lower city walls. Not the best place to live in time of war! This area was no doubt the overflow from the upper city and the poor part of town, perhaps even a slum district.After the city walls fell, how could the Israelites surmount the 12–15 foot high retaining wall at the base of the tell? Excavations have shown that the bricks from the collapsed walls fell in such a way as to form a ramp against the retaining wall. The Israelites could merely climb up over the pile of rubble, up the embankment, and enter the city. The Bible is very precise in its description of how the Israelites entered the city: “The people went up into the city, every man straight before him” (Jos 6:20, KJV). The Israelites had to go up, and that is what archaeology has revealed. They had to go from ground level at the base of the tell to the top of the rampart in order to enter the city.Dr. Wood points to collapsed mud bricks from the city wall that fell to the base of the retaining wall at Jericho. His left foot rests on part of the fallen wall. (Italian-Palestinian excavation, 1997, location 8.)Destruction by FireThe Israelites “burned the whole city and everything in it” (Jos 6: 24). Once again, the discover

on the so-called second step of the mountain.&rdquo

An altar at this location could not have been part of a covenant ceremony in the Shechem pass since it was too far away and completely out of view.[64] The narrow pass where ancient Shechem is located at the modern city of Nablus, view west. Mt. Gerizim is on the left and Mt. Ebal on the right. Zertal's altar is 3.2 km. away, making it impossible for the covenant ceremony to occur at the altar mentioned by Hawkins. c. The size and shape problem. Zertal’s altar is of monumental proportions. It is rectangular in cross-section, 9.0 x 6.8 m,[65] not square as prescribed by Mosaic law, and 3.27 m high.[66] In comparison with two contemporary Israelite altars, that of the tabernacle and one discovered in a sanctuary in Arad, it is much larger. The Lord told Moses in Exod 27:1 to make the tabernacle altar 5 x 5 cubits, ca. 2.5 x 2.5 m, [67] and 3 cubits, ca. 1.5 m, high (cf. Exod 38:1). The Arad altar, erected in Str. XII, the late twelfth–early eleventh century, conforms to these dimensions, 2.5 x 2.5 m,[68] and 1.5 m high.[69] It makes little sense that Joshua would erect an altar as large as Zertal’s for a one-time ceremony, particularly in view of the fact that it would have been totally out of keeping with known Israelite altars of the period. III. CONCLUSIONS Hawkins’s arguments for a late date for the exodus-conquest do not hold up to critical analysis. The 480th-year datum of Exod 6:1 has been demonstrated to be a valid historical figure, not a symbolic number. The Iron Age I settlement data point to the Israelites having been in the land for a considerable length of time, rather than arriving ca. 1200 bc. Hawkins’s “new archaeological evidence,” the presumed altar found on Mt. Ebal, the centerpiece of his arguments for a late date, cannot be related to the altar erected by Joshua in Josh 8:30–31. It was built in the wrong time period, it is too far from the ceremony site, and it is too large. Hawkins’s paper provides no support for a late date exodus-conquest. The theory is dead. Let us bid it adieu and relegate it to the place it deserves—an interesting footnote in biblical scholarship, but nothing more. It is time to move on to more productive research, recognizing that the biblical data are true and correct as they stand and should not be manipulated—the Israelites left Egypt in 1446 bc and, after forty years in the Sinai, began the conquest of Canaan in 1406 bc. Recommended Resources for Further StudyBible and SpadeCD-ROM 100 Reasons to Trust OT History Giving the SenseFootnotes:[1] For a presentation of the problems, see Bryant G. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” JETS 48 (2006) 475–89; idem, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier,” JETS 50 (2007) 249–58. [2] Ralph K. Hawkins, “Propositions for Evangelical Acceptance of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data and the Royal Scarabs from Mt. Ebal,” JETS 50 (2007) 46. [3] 1 Kgs 6:1 states that Temple construction began in year 480 les ē’t benê yi?rā’ēl mē’eres misrayim: “Of the going-out (exodus) of the people of Israel from the land of Egypt.” The preposition le (“of”) here is often wrongly rendered “after,” but this sense is not consistent with its proper meaning and its usage in this phrase. In the Pentateuch the exodus from Egypt is considered as starting an era. The exodus itself occurred in year one (not year zero) of the exodus-era, and Aaron’s death occurred in year forty of this era (Num 33:38), i.e. thirty-nine years after the exodus. See the further discussion in Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?” JETS 46 (2003) 602. In the present paper, the term exodus-era will frequently be used when referring to the 480-year figure of 1 Kgs 6:1. From this verse we learn that Temple construction began in the 480th year of the exodus-era, i.e. 479 years after the exodus. [4] Paul J. Ray, “Another Look at the Period of the Judges,” in Beyond the Jordan (ed. Glenn A. Carnagey, Sr.; Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 93–104; Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” JETS 48 (2005) 491–500. [5] Ibid. 496–97. [6] “Propositions” 35: “When one seeks to reconstruct the numbers given in the biblical accounts, consistently and literally, they do not add up to the number 480 given in 1 Kgs 6:1. . . . The aggregate total of all these numbers [from the exodus to the end of Judges] is 515.” In a similar fashion, Hoffmeier (“What is the biblical Date of the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” JETS 50 [2007] 227–28) adds all timespans mentioned from Solomon back to the exodus to get a total of 633 years, and then goes on to say that anyone who recognizes an overlap between some of the narratives “abandons a straightforward, literal reading of the Judges through Exodus narratives” (p. 228). But it is Ray and Steinmann, not Hawkins and Hoffmeier, who look at the texts in a “straightforward, literal” manner and do not read into them what they do not say. When the correct process is followed, it is clear that the texts are consistent with a fifteenth-century exodus and incompatible with a thirteenth-century exodus. [7] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 209. [8] David H. van Daalen, “Number Symbolism,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogen; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 561–63. [9] Ibid. 562–63. [10] TWOT 1.187. [11] Wood, “Rise and Fall” 484, 486. Neither James Hoffmeier (“Response to Wood”) nor Hawkins has produced any evidence to show that the author of 1 Kgs 6:1 intended his readers to understand that the 480 years were twelve generations, nor did they address the statement on p. 486 of Wood’s article that 1 Chr 6:33–37 gives nineteen generations from Korah, who opposed Moses, until the time of Solomon, thus indicating a more reasonable twenty-five years per generation. If the exodus were in approximately 1270 or 1260, the nineteen generations to the time of Solomon (300 years) would require less than sixteen years per generation for the family line of Heman (1 Chr 6:33). This is entirely unreasonable, especially when we consider that this is not a genealogy of all the first-born, such as we might expect for kings; Heman’s grandfather Samuel was born several years after Elkanah’s first-born (1 Sam 1:2–8). [12] Hawkins ends these years in 966 bc, apparently unaware of the careful demonstration (Young, “Solomon” 589–603) that Thiele’s dates for Solomon are one year too late, based on his unwarranted assumption that Solomon died after Tishri 1 in the fall of 931 bc, instead of allowing for the possibility that he died in the months immediately preceding. Making this adjustment puts Solomon’s years one year earlier by Judah’s Tishri-based reckoning. This one-year correction dates the start of Temple construction to the spring of 967, not 966 as accepted by Hawkins. The correction resolved problems that Thiele had with the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah, and Athaliah. It is additionally important in showing the exactness of the data for the Jubilee and Sabbatical years. The demonstration of this exactness provides one of the strongest arguments against a late-date exodus and in favor of the accuracy of all the chronological data of the books of Kings, as will be discussed further below. [13] “Propositions” 35–36. [14] Charles F. Burney, The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes, and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix (New York: KTAV, 1970; Judges first published London: Rivingtons, 1918, Kings first published Oxford, England: Clarendon, 1903) 59–60. Burney is following Wellhausen, who apparently conceived this theory about the origin of the 480 years (Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [New York: World, 1961;

Rosetta Stone Spanish

10 Mar 11 The Benefits of ASP.Net Excel

The Benefits of ASP.Net ExcelBy: Mark Fitsen .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet In business, spreadsheets have bee a necessity. They are used for a wide range of purposes, including calculations and tracking. But how do you know which version is being used by end users when you send out a spreadsheet-related application or documentation? Some users may have Excel, others may have Open Office, and still others might not even be using spreadsheet software at all on their puter. What can you do to ensure your program or files are still going to operate? One option might be a program supporting ASP.NET Excel.Finding the Right Spreadsheet OptionWhen you're working on spreadsheets, you need to feel fortable with the software. You don't want to worry about whether or not you'll open it on a different puter using different software and end up losing all of the formatting. You also want more convenient options so you can use the data in other ways and can convert the files into other formats, such as text files. This isn't always possible with current spreadsheet software.Another mon problem with spreadsheets is that each software program tends to have their own calculation functions so you won't necessarily be able to read the calculations made from one program in another spreadsheet. That can be a real problem if you need to continue on the work someone else started. The bottom line is that whether you're looking at paid software or open source programs, you're going to run into many of the same limitations, especially when you're working with a wide range of people who are using different programs or versions of spreadsheet software. You need some way to ensure consistency no matter what. Otherwise, you could end up with poorly formatted spreadsheets and unprofessional-looking finished products. You don't want that to happen so you should look for an ASP.NET Excel program.The Right Alternative for YouBytescout Spreadsheet SDK (bytescoutbytescoutspreadsheetsdk.html) is just such as ASP.NET Excel program. You can use this program on any puter without even needing to have another spreadsheet program installed. Even without Open Office or Excel, you'll be able to open spreadsheets saved in their file formats and can read, modify, change, or export those files into other formats, including XLS, XLSX, CSV, HTML, and TXT format for added flexibility and convenience.With Bytescout Spreadsheet SDK (bytescoutbytescoutspreadsheetsdk.html), you can still use dozens of mon functions for calculations and can still do cell formatting as needed. The program can also be used as part of ASP.NET, Visual Basic.NET, and Visual C. The number of file formats that can be read and altered using the program, as well as the number of export file formats supported makes it one of the most versatile and useful programs available for spreadsheet users.Even better, purchasing the program entitles you to free one year of free updates and technical support, as well as royalty free distribution with your application. This means you won't have to worry any longer about which spreadsheet program is being used by end users. With the ASP.Net Excel program, they can use your application or view your documentation even if they have no such program installed.Article Source: abcarticledirectoryMark is the freelanced .NET and ASP.NET developer, with experience on different ASP.NET Excel and other back office projectsNote: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Mark FitsenRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About ASP via RSS!Additional Articles From - Home Web Development AspWedding Shower Decorations with the Bride-to-be and Expense in Mind- By : minerva97miChoosing Your Wedding Invitations to Create a Permanent Impression- By : minerva97miHire ASP NET Web Developer, ASP NET Programmers- By : Rishi MandloiUseful Social Networking Site Development with ASP Dot NET Development- By : Jessica WoodsonGauge Control For Asp Net- By : Huong NguyenAll about Dotnetnuke- By : Dave Bush5 Dave Bush5 Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!

5 Mar 11 Setting Up An Affiliate Marketing System

Setting Up An Affiliate Marketing SystemBy: Chairil Maxum .... Click author's name to view profile and articles!!!Retargeting by ChangoTweet Affiliate programs will enable a business to generate a lot of traffic and therefore boost sales through promotion by third party sales or sites. It's also a cost effective way to NHL Shop
advertise your products and services as you pay only for the efforts that actually turn into sales.Setting up your own affiliate system can be either easy or overwhelming, all depending on how many affiliates you want to recruit, as well as your payment policy and the type of product that you are offering.As for your affiliate systems, there are two options for your business - outsource the entire system or run your own affiliate system through your own web host. Each one boasts its own advantages as well as disadvantages.If you have a small amount of affiliates, then you can run your own affiliate software. If you plan to recruit a large number of affiliates, then you will probably need to outsource. The reason for this, is because you'll find it easy to deal with a large number of sign ups, track payments, monitor clicks, etc.Types of affiliates There are numerous types of affiliates out there to choose from. There's the pay per sale, there an individual is paid only if a sale is generated from the affiliate's link. It's the least attractive to people, unless the product is in high demand and the most profitable for business.Another type is the pay per lead, where you pay only for traffic. With this type, the affiliate is paid only if a visitor is generated from the site of the affiliate. It's attractive to affiliates although costly to web site owners due to the possibility of non sale visits.Considerations When setting up an affiliate, something to consider is whether or not you'll approve affiliates manually or automatically. It's normally recommended to start affiliate programs with your established customer sites then progress to new ones.If you are dealing with pay per clicks, you may have to control the affiliates as the quality of visitors will be a huge factor when it comes to the generation of sales. By manually reviewing, you'll also be able Toronto Maple Leafs jersey
to judge the website or individual affiliates to see if it's in the best interest of your company.If you decide to use your own affiliate system, one of your biggest challenges will be how to pay affiliates a percentage of what you end up receiving from customers. To do this, you can rely on software such as Affiliate shop to help you track and manage commissions.Article Source: http://www.shop-on-sale.com To learn more about my automated marketing system.Feel free to distribute this article in any form as long as you include this resource box. You can also include your affiliate link when you sign up at my Affiliate Cash Secrets website. FREE REPORT reveals all.Note: The content of this article solely conveys the opinion of its author, Chairil MaxumRetargeting by ChangoDid You Like This Article? Share It With YourFriends!Please Rate this Article 5 out of 54 out of 53 out of 52 out of 51 out of 5 Not yet Rated Click the XML Icon to Receive Free Articles About Affiliate Programs What Cloth Diaper Provides The Top Match For Newborns?- By : mirtagaylWhat is Affiliate Marketing and Why You Should Do It?- By : James A AndersonEarning Money Quickly With Email Marketing - True or False?- Maple Leafs jersey
By : chad buistMoney Creating Tips For Individuals Involved In An Online Affiliate Marketing Home Business- By : Johnny BarrellGlobal Success Club And How To Make Money Online- By : Don SeanMake Cash Over The Internet With Affiliate Marketing- By : Leroy WheelerWhich Affiliate Networks To Look Out For When Promoting ?- By : Elsa Braxton Still Searching? Last Chance to find what you're looking for. Try using Bing Search!