: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? S

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. 2000–1500 BC). Some of this evidence suggests that they established trading colonies in Syria, Canaan and Egypt. A small, but growing, number of finds in Palestine provide tangible evidence for contacts between Canaan and Crete long before the 12th–11th century Philistines. Gerar (Tel Haror)Abimelech, the Philistine king or kings Abraham and Isaac had dealings with, ruled at Gerar (Gn 26:1). Ancient Gerar has been identified as Tel Haror, 17 miles east of Gaza in the western Negev (Oren 1992: 989). The Middle Bronze urban settlement there is one of the largest in southern Canaan, occupying an area of about 38 acres. It was enclosed by an elaborate system of earthen ramparts fronted by a deep ditch (Klenck 2002: 30; Oren et al. 1996: 91). Within the city a sacred precinct was excavated, including a “migdol temple,” remains of animal sacrifice, and cultic and imported pottery (Klenck 2002; Oren et al. 1996: 91–92). Also found within the fortified enclosure was a 10 foot diameter well, excavated to a depth of 38 feet (Klenck 2002: 34; Oren 1993: 581). The wells of Gerar were a major issue between both Abraham (Gn 21:25) and Isaac (Gn 26:17–22), and the Philistines.Of particular interest is a Minoan graffito found in the sacred precinct dating to ca. 1600 BC. Analyses of the sherd determined that it originated in Crete, most likely the south coast (Day et al. 1999; Oren et al. 1996). There are four Minoan signs on the graffito, inscribed prior to firing, which represent a bull’s head, cloth, branch and figs (Oren et al. 1996: 99–109). In addition to the graffito, an unusual chalice of Canaanite shape and fabric was found in a room on the east side of the sacred area. What makes the chalice unusual is its high arching handles, a well-known feature of Minoan chalices, but not of Canaanite (Oren et al. 1996: 95, 96; Oren 1993: 581).Maritime Trade Between Crete and the LevantThe similarity of harbors in Crete and the Levant in the Middle Bronze I (=IIA), period, ca. 2000–1750 BC, strongly suggests contact between the two areas: the sea crossing between Crete, Egypt and the Levant was not only theoretically easy and simple, but had been used as such since early days…The data…suggest a close technical and conceptual resemblance for the type of siting and the layout of the portal installations in the Aegean, Crete and the Levant…the soaring demand for maritime facilities which [was] instigated by the rapid urbanism of the Levantine coast and the palatial economy of Crete…had brought about the new type of estuarian harbours, the extensive artificial remodification of coastal topography and the introduction of stone blocks [sic] quays in Crete and in the Levant (Raban 1991: 145). There were harbors all along the Canaanite coast in Middle Bronze I and it is highly likely that it was commerce that brought the Minoans to Canaan. The harbors of Tel Ridan, 12 miles southwest of Gaza, and Ashkelon, 12 miles north-northeast of Gaza, would have served Gerar, which, in turn, acted as a gateway for transshipping goods throughout southern Canaan (Marcus 2002: 248). At Ashkelon, a sherd of a decorated Minoan cup from ca. 1800 BC was found (Merrillees 2003: 136).Harbors at Yavneh Yam, 10 miles south of Tel Aviv, and Tel Gerisa, 2 miles east of Tel Aviv, provided anchorages for central Canaan. Further north, Dor, 14 miles south of Haifa; Tel Nami, 9 miles south of Haifa; Acco 8 miles north of Haifa; and Achziv, 17 miles north of Haifa, met the maritime needs of the northern sector.At Tel Nami, excavators found 259 charred seeds of the legume Lathyrus clymenum in four storage jars and on the floors of two storerooms dated to the Middle Bronze I period (Kislev, Artzy and Marcus 1993). The seeds are exotic on two counts. First, they are not native to the Near East, but to the Aegean and regions further west, and thus were imported. The Tel Nami seeds most closely resemble samples from Crete (Kislev, Artzy and Marcus 1993: 148). Secondly, the seeds contain a toxic substance that causes permanent paralysis of the lower limbs if consumed in large quantities.


Creation or the Flood? A Study of Several Passages of Scripture
The Importance of Biblical InterpretationOne recent discussion I took part in examined how to understand Psalm 104:5–9. This passage reads (all Scripture quotations from the NASB, except as noted):5 He established the earth upon its foundations, So that it will not totter forever and ever.6 You covered it with the deep as with a garment; The waters were standing above the mountains.7 At Your rebuke they fled, At the sound of Your thunder they hurried away.8 The mountains rose; the valleys sank down To the place which You established for them.9 You set a boundary that they may not pass over, So that they will not return to cover the earth.The focus of discussion was whether or not these and similar verses refer to the Flood of Noah. At stake is whether certain creationary models of the formation of the Earth are biblically valid. How so? If the “boundary” spoken of in 104:9 was set up after the Flood as part of God’s promise never to send a worldwide flood again, this passage allows for a number of possible scientific models involving a complete restructuring of the surface of the Earth during the Flood. However, if the boundary was an unalterable one God established for the seas at Creation, then the Flood was just a temporary suspension of that boundary for the purpose of executing judgment on a sinful world, with an eventual return to the previously-ordained boundaries after the judgment was over.Key creationist models impacted by this exegetical question include the Hydroplate Theory and Catastrophic Plate Tectonics. Completely apart from the scientific plausibility of these two models is the question of whether their scriptural justification is solid. So it is crucial that Ps. 104:5–9 and similar passages first be carefully examined as to their grammar and context, or else we are in danger of starting with a scientific model and then hunting for shaky proof texts to support it. Our search for truth must start first with an accurate understanding of Scripture.God is the ultimate AuRosetta Stone Japanese

Historical Synchronisms and the Date of the Exodus

This article was first published in the Spring 2004 issue of Bible Spade. For those that hold a high view of Scripture and believe the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt actually happened, there are two major positions today regarding when that event occurred: the so-called Early Date, which places the Exodus in the mid-15th century BC, most probably during the reign of Amenhotep II, and the so-called Late Date, which posits Rameses II (ca. 1279–1212 BC) as the Pharaoh confronted by Moses. Much has been written in defense of both these views. It is the purpose of this article to take a fresh look at Rameses II as Pharaoh of the Exodus in light of both Biblical and Assyrian chronologies. Is it likely, or even possible, that Rameses II could have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus? First, let us observe Biblical events and personages between the Exodus and a known date in Near Eastern history, the date of the famous Battle of Qarqar, where a coalition of western kings defeated Shalmaneser III of Assyria. It is accepted, thanks to astronomical data and our solid knowledge of Assyrian chronology, that the battle took place in 853 BC. It is also known that Ahab, king of Israel, was a participant in the battle. Shalmaneser III tells us so in his records regarding Qarqar. Ahab almost certainly died later that same year.1 How long a period of time does the Bible demand between the Exodus and the death of King Ahab of Israel? If we take the Biblical year totals seriously, quite a lengthy period is required. The Exodus was followed by 40 years of wandering in the wilderness, and then by a long but not absolutely calculatable period for the Conquest and the period of the Judges. While it is likely that there is some overlap among the judges, it still seems necessary to allot between 300 and 400 years for the wanderings, conquest, and days of the judges. Rameses II, ruler of Egypt for 67 years, ca. 1279–1212 BC. Called “the Great” because of his military exploits and construction projects, his statues and buildings can still be seen in Egypt today. Even his mummy is on display at the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. He also had a great family by his several wives—at least 45 sons and 40 daughters! The tomb of his sons has recently been found in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes. According to the popular, but anti-Biblical, theory of a 13th century Exodus, Rameses II is thought to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Statue from Thebes, now in the British Museum. Credit: Bryant Wood After the judges, the period of the United Monarchy lasted ca. 120 years (according to the Bible, 40 years each for Saul, David, and Solomon). After the death of Solomon, the kingdom of Israel divided into northern and southern kingdoms, Israel and Judah. From this division to the death of Ahab, using the most probable calculations on divided monarchy chronology, was just short of 80 years. Combining all of these numbers and assuming only 300 years for the time before the United Monarchy, we see that, if we take the Biblical numbers as realistic, the time between the Exodus and the battle of Qarqar was approximately 500 years. But if we expand the period of the wanderings, conquest, and judges to 400 years, we would need 600 years. The point is this: if Rameses II reigned from 1279 to 1212 BC, as most Egyptologist now believe, there are not enough years for all of the periods mentioned above. If the Exodus occurred about 1250 BC, in the middle of the reign of Rameses II, there would be about 400 years between him and the Battle of Qarqar. This is at least a full century too little, and perhaps twofull centuries if we use 400 years for the ages between the Exodus and the United Monarchy. Either way, Rameses II is unacceptable. When calculations of this kind are undertaken, it is a good thing to check our work from a different angle. Today there are those who would abandon orthodox Egyptian chronology and replace it with one of a number of radical reconstructions. While these reconstructions seem totally without merit, it is still worth our while to examine the possibility that Rameses II did not really live in the 13th century BC at all. Kurkh Stela depicting Shalmaneser III king of Assyria. Found in Kurkh, Turkey, now on display in the British Museum this stone monument records campaigns against the Arameans in Syria. The campaign of year six, 853 BC mentions Ahab, king of Israel, as being a member of an anti-Assyrian coalition that confronted the Assyrians at Qarqar in western Syria. The section referring to Ahab reads, “I approached the city of Qarqar. I razed, destroyed and burned the city of Qarqar, his [Irhulēni the Hamathite’s] royal city. 1,200 chariots, 1,200 cavalry, (and) 20,000 troops of Hadad-ezer (Adadidri) of Damascus; 700 chariots, 700 cavalry, (and) 10,000 troops of Irhulēni, the Hamathite; 2,000 chariots, (and) 10,000 troops of Ahab, the Israelite...” (Younger 2000:263). There is a way to verify the century of Rameses II using the well-know and well-accepted Assyrian chronology.2 This involves the use of synchronisms, or established contacts between rulers of different nations that prove they were contemporaries. Using the modern world as an example, we know that Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany was a contemporary of Woodrow Wilson, the President of the United Sates. We know that because they fought each other in World War I. Similarly, Robert E. Lee was a contemporary of Abraham Lincoln, for the same reason. They fought each other in a war. Another form of proof that two rulers were contemporary comes from correspondence. If two men wrote letters to each other, or concluded treaties, they must live at the same time. Or, if they both correspond with a third party, all three must live at the same time. Let us take these principles back to the time of Rameses II. Rameses II was a great Egyptian king who ruled 67 years, built lavishly, fought wars with the Hittites and other nations, and concluded international treaties. His reign is well known. One of his major accomplishments was a major treaty with the great Hittite king Hattusilis III. We have both the Egyptian and the Hittite versions of this famous document. Closeup of Shalmaneser III, on the famous Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser found at Nimrud, ancient Calah, Iraq, in 1846. This 2m (6 ½ ft) tall, four-sided polished black stone monument is now on display in the British Museum. Although not mentioning Ahab, the obelisk’s cuneiform text does mention another king of Israel. On one side, the second register from the top depicts a man kneeling before Shalmaneser with the inscription, “Tribute of Jehu son of Omri.” Jehu ruled ca. 841–814 BC and he probably paid tribute to Shalmaneser in the first year of his reign. Note that in order to formulate such a treaty, both of these kings would have to have ruled at the same time. But the interesting part of all this is the following: Hattusilis III also corresponded with the Assyrian king Shalmaneser I (ca. 1275–1245 BC). Consequently, Shalmaneser I must have been a contemporary of Rameses II as well. And we know roughly how many years there are between Shalmaneser I and his namesake Shalmaneser III: slightly over 400. Since we know that Shalmaneser III lived in the 800’s, Shalmaneser I and hence Rameses II must have lived in the 1200’s. One of the Egyptian copies of the treaty between Rameses II and the Hittites carved into a wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak. After 20 years of fighting, the treaty was concluded in Rameses II’s 21st year, ca. 1258 BC, corresponding to the later part of the period of Judges in Biblical history. Thirteen years later the treaty was further cemented by the marriage of a Hittite princess to Rameses II. A Hittite copy of the treaty was discovered on two clay tablets written in Babylonian cuneiform found at the Hittite capital of Boghazköy in Turkey. In conclusion, it seems nearly impossible to date the Exodus in the times of Rameses II. There is simply not enough time for all the periods of Biblical history between that seminal event and the last years of Ahab, King of Israel. (Reprinted, with permission, from Artifax 17.2 [2002]:19) Recommended Resources for Further StudyBible and SpadeCD-ROM Archaeology andthe Old Testament Moses andthe Gods of EgyptEndnotes1. For evidence and details for all this, see any standard history of Israel, or a good history of Assyria, such as Saggs, 1990. 2. There are some possible revisions in middle Assyrian chronology, but none of the propose changes extend about a decade. Bibliography Saggs, Henry W.F.1990 The Might That Was Assyria. New York: St. Martins. Younger, K. Lawson, Jr.2000 Neo-Assyrian Inscriptions: Shalmaneser III (2.113), Kurkh Monolith (2.113A). Pp. 261–264 in The Context of Scripture 2, ed. William W. Hallo. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill.Please help ABR continue to post these freearticles by making a donation of any size today. Donate



learn french