Book Review David Rohl, Exodus: Myth Or History? St. Louis, MN

Book Review grant its truth for the sake of argument. mere collection of disparate source The problem with Rohl, however, is his material and alleged “oral” traditions. David Rohl, Exodus: Myth or History? methodology. It is so bad that any What is worse, he appeals to this St. Louis, MN: Thinking Man Media, crackpot can use it and come to a pastiche explanation when the Bible 2015. different conclusion from Rohl’s. This threatens to contradict some aspect of Reviewed by Vern Crisler, 2015. is not the sign of a good methodology. his chronological theory. 1. Introduction 2. Camel Races I repeat, this is not a good methodology. Example: Rohl claims For instance, whenever Rohl’s theory In reading Rohl’s new book on the that the journey to Marah from his runs up against biblical data that Exodus, I have to say that it does not chosen site of the biblical crossing at contradict it, he trashes the biblical inspire much confidence. I won’t say a the Red Sea is about sixty five miles. data. Even though he calls himself a lot about what Rohl gets right. Rohl is He further claims that for this to be biblical maximalist vis-à-vis what are a brilliant thinker, very knowledgeable true, the Israelites had to make twenty called biblical minimalists, he does not about Egyptology and archaeology, and two miles per day.1 This is an absurd accept the relevant truthfulness of the a first class writer. I agree for the most figure and Rohl admits that the reality Bible. part with his critique of the Late of so many people moving across the Bronze or Iron Age theories of the He apparently thinks that by being a desert would have been more along the Exodus and Conquest. This is the maximalist it is more acceptable than lines of six to eight miles per day. primary value of Rohl’s many books, being a minimalist like Tom and I have no problem in He says, however, that twenty two Thompson. Nevertheless, Thompson recommending them to anyone who miles could be done with camels. sets a pretty low standard, so it is not wants to get his or her feet wet on the Now, of course, the Israelites did not really saying much for Rohl’s own subject of chronological revisionism. have camels, at least not for everybody, position that he thinks it is an so how does Rohl solve this? Simple. improvement over Thompson’s. Well, However, just because Rohl may be He says that the Exodus narrative was a yes, but just about anything would be right in his critique of modern theories mere jumble of divergent sources. of the Exodus and Conquest it does not an improvement over Thompson’s mean his own theory of the Exodus and views. Conquest is correct. And even then it Rohl accepts the validity of the is not so much that Rohl’s theory is 1 discredited documentary hypothesis, Rohl, David M; Exodus: Myth or History? St. wrong. I believe it is, but I could even the notion that the Old Testament is a Louis, MN: Thinking Man Media, 2015, p. 195; hereafter, Exodus.

“[T]he evidence…points to several hands at “Whoever begins an analysis of the topography “The achievements listed in the ‘Israel Stela’ work in the compiling of the Old Testament of the itinerary of Exodus with the are not Merenptah’s personal successes but the narratives.”2 preconceived idea that Mount Sinai should be dynamic work of his father and grandfather.”6 in the region of St Catherine or in any other In this view the Exodus narrative as area in the south of the Sinai Peninsula will However, Egyptologist Aidan Dodson told in the Bible has “additions” put find it impossible to give a geographical sense states otherwise: into the text at a much later time, i.e., to the sequence of the stations of Exodus.”4 “[F]or many years the [Karnak] wall reliefs during a time when camels were used were misattributed to Rameses II as well. extensively for travel. By recognizing 3. Ramses 2 versus Merneptah However, the latest work on them, by Peter this one can clear up ostensible If disregard for the biblical text wasn’t Brand, has confirmed Frank Yurco’s earlier exaggerations, falsehoods, or assessment that they were certainly carved for bad enough, Rohl is equally ham-fisted Merenptah….”7 contradictions in the Bible, such as in his handling of the archaeological impossibly long distances between two data when it contradicts his theory. He This provides an example of why even points. trashes both the archaeology and the well-informed revisionists should not take it upon themselves to correct the So instead of admitting that his location work of archaeologists who stand in the work of Egyptologists of the Red Sea crossing, or the Exodus way of his theory. Here are some route, might not be correct, Rohl examples. 4. Lost and Found conveniently blames a later “redactor” Rohl, who never finished his degree in Rohl also speaks rather quixotically of for using camel distances to describe Egyptology, presumes to correct the Exodus journey.3 the “Lost Town of Ai.” In fact Ai is Egyptologist Frank Yurco’s ascription not lost but has been known for a long Emmanuel Anati, the archaeologist of some of the reliefs on the walls at time as et-Tell. However, since the 5 who has studied Mount Karkom for Karnak to Merneptah. He says instead archaeology of et-Tell contradicts many years, has pointed out that if you they belong to Ramses 2, the Shishak Rohl’s chronological theories, he must don’t have the correct location of of the Bible in Rohl’s theory. Rohl did look elsewhere for the city of Ai. As Mount Sinai, none of the Exodus the same thing in his earlier book, Rohl admits, “But unfortunately the itinerary is going to make sense: Pharaohs and Kings:

6 Rohl, David M; Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest, New York: Crown Publishers, 2 Rohl, Exodus, p. 199. 1995, p. 169; cf. also p. 166; hereafter, P&K. 3 Rohl, Exodus, p. 201. At a later point Rohl 4 Anati, Emmanuel, Is Har Karkom the Biblcial 7 Dodson, Aidan; Poisoned Legacy: The Fall of says that “biblical sources are unfortunately in Mount Sinai? Italy, 2013, p. 50. the Nineteenth Egyptian Dynasty, Cairo: conflict with each other.” (p. 237.) 5 Rohl, Exodus, p. 30. American Univ. in Cairo, 2010, p. 18.

2 archaeology of the place…didn’t match Rohl admits that the identification of Bethel, and readers are invited to the Conquest date at the end of the Late Khirbet Nisya with Ai “remains review their arguments.10 Bronze Age or, for that matter, my problematical.”9 5. Whither Bethel? proposed Conquest date in the Middle So that leaves one more to make up the Bronze IIB.”8 Having relocated Ai, Rohl argues that “several” scholarsBryant Wood. Bethel is not Beitin, which is the He goes on to acknowledge that “The Wood is an archaeologist who traditional archaeological site for simple fact is that et-Tell was destroyed excavated at Khirbet el-Makatir and Bethel. He argues instead for el-Bireh. at the end of the Early Bronze Age and found a “small settlement” and thinks The church historian Eusebius, in his was not occupied again for a thousand this is the site of Ai. However, Onomasticon, said Bethel was at the years [sic] until the Iron Age, leaving Livingston disagreed with this twelfth Roman milestone from the site an empty ruin during the identification, pointing out that it is not Jerusalem. To this Rohl says, “Yet Middle and Late Bronze Ages.” located in the right place. Rohl agrees Beitin lay near to the fourteenth Roman with Wood, however. One would think this would ring the milestone, so it was too far north to be death knell for Rohl’s theory and that Ziony Zevit and Anson Rainey have ancient Bethel.”11 he might start looking in a different criticized attempts to move Ai or It is not clear where Rohl got the idea stratum for the Conquest but no such Bethel from their currently accepted that Beitin was fourteen miles rather luck. Instead, Rohl mentions that locations. The main problem is that the than twelve miles, since he doesn’t “several scholars” have sought a attempt to move Ai to some other provide a source. Measurement, different site for the biblical city. location means one has also to move however, depends on the starting point. the location of Bethel. In Of course, the “several scholars” are Rohl says his starting point for the contemporary terms it means that if primarily Rohl, Bimson, Livingston, measurement of the distance between you’re going to move Minneapolis, and Bryant Wood. Rohl and Bimson Jerusalem and el-Bireh was at the main you’ve also got to move St. Paul. can be dismissed as non-archaeologists street or “Cardo” in Jerusalem. so that leaves only two to make up Zevit and Rainey have pointed out the “several.” Livingston tried to identify difficulties of trying to relocate Ai and Ai with Khirbet Nisya but after twenty 10 Zevit, Ziony; “The Problem of Ai,” Biblical four years of excavation, found no Archaeology Review, 11:02, March/April 1985. walls or other structures at the site. Rainey, Anson; Westminster Theological Journal, 33, 1970, and Israel Exploration Journal 30, 1980, pp. 249ff. 8 Rohl, Exodus, p. 283. 9 Rohl, Exodus, p. 284. 11 Rohl, Exodus, p. 284.

However, when the starting point is at a fourteen miles between Jerusalem and that the Israelites during their gate rather than a center point, such as Beitin. Wandering phase stayed at the the Cardo, distances make more sense. traditional archaeological location of In addition, Rainey points out that it is As Rainey says with respect to an Kadesh-barnea. The location is either specious to move the name Bethel from earlier mistaken attempt to measure at the site of Ain el-Kudeirat in the the impressive site at Beitin to the distances: “Livingston and Bimson Negev, or at the nearby site of Ain el- much less impressive village site at el- have evidently accepted the specious Kadeis.12 Rohl claims instead that the Bireh. He says, “If Bethel is not Beitin, argument that one may measure these location of Kadesh-barnea is one of the then there is no Historical Geography distances from the Muristan, a square “thorniest issues” in regard to the of the Bible.” in the midst of the Old City of wilderness wanderings of the Israelites. Jerusalem. Thus they claim to pull the Rainy also points out that the letter “n” As far as I can tell, however, it is only a twelve-mile marker back southward to replaces the letter “l” in Arabic, so thorny issue for Rohl and the reason is the town of el-Bireh, where they want Beitin was originally Beitil, which is that there isn’t a shred of pottery to place Bethel.” equivalent to Bethel. (Other examples: indicia at Kadesh-barnea that Ishmael to Isma‘in, and Jezreel to Further, “It just so happens that at corresponds to Rohl’s MB IIA period Zer‘in.) about twelve Roman miles north of the for the Exodus, or the MB IIB period Damascus Gate (already past the town 6. What’s in a Name? for the Conquest. So in the face of of el-Bireh) there is a turnoff to the archaeological investigations that place northeast and that road leads one Following Martin Noth, Rohl claims Kadesh-barnea in this region, what directly to a town called today Beitin.” that Ai means “ruin.” However, even does Rohl say? Well, he says, “this (My emphasis.) though the name Ai resembles the makes no sense to me….” Hebrew word for ruin, Zevit pointed So like Livingston and Bimson, Rohl out that the name Ai has no One might point out that regardless of eludes the force of Eusebius’s words by etymological link to the Hebrew word whether it satisfies Rohl’s notion of changing the starting point of the for ruin. Based on similar Arab words, sense, this is where archaeologists twelve mile measurement from the gate Ai was probably a topological place it, and Rohl needs to deal with to somewhere internal to the city. And reference to the height of the city. the facts on the ground. Instead he by changing the starting point of the appeals to a non-archaeologist (and measurement two miles back from the 7. Double trouble at Kadesh-barnea biblical skeptic) named Walter Mattfeld gate of the city Rohl gets his alleged As another glaring example of Rohl’s

poor methodology, he disputes the view 12 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 240, 242, 243.

4 to redraw Judah’s “fourth boundary Ain el-Kudeirat…before returning back Second, Rohl thinks the biblical location after Kadesh.” And what this to the Araba and the Dead Sea? This is mention of four locations between does for Rohl is to “rule out completely plainly nonsense.”14 Kadesh-barnea and the Torrent of the identification of Ain el-Kudeirat Egypt (Wadi el-Arish) demonstrates One can speculate all day long about with Kadesh….”13 that Ain el-Kudeirat could not be the motivations of ancient people who Kadesh-barnea.15 Rohl says it is only It is pretty obvious that no responsible are no longer alive to contradict one’s sixteen miles between Kudeirat and the archaeologists is going to accept the speculations. However, it would not Arish, whereas if Kadesh-barnea is views of a non-archaeologist, so Rohl’s have taken an army “days on end” to go located at Petra, the distance is 75 reliance on a non-archaeologist as an to Kadesh-barnea then down to the miles. authority on archaeology or topology is Gulf of Aqaba. another example of his shoddy However, no argument is provided for Second, the fact is, Kadesh-barnea is in methodology. any of this. It is likely that the four a central location in the Negev and the locations are mentioned between Nevertheless, in order to see just how purpose of the Mesopotamian invasion Kadesh-barnea and the el-Arish inadequate Rohl’s methodology is, we was to send a message. It would be because they were part of a “map” and can explore the reasons that are something similar to (say) General the sacred writer is after all giving us provided by Rohl for not thinking Sherman’s march through Atlanta, then the boundaries of Judah’s allotment.16 Kadesh-barnea is where archaeologists to Savanah, then up through South place it. Carolina. The purpose was to Third, Rohl wants to re-identify the destabilize and demoralize the enemy. biblical Ascent of Scorpions. At this First, he thinks it doesn’t fit with the point, I’ve grown weary of Rohl’s re- Genesis 14 campaign of the five So also the Mesopotamian kings had as identifications. Suffice it to say that Mesopotamian kings, who marched their goal the “pacification” of the Israeli topologists recognize Nagb es- down the King’s Highway along the south country. The defeat of Kadesh- Sfar (or Zafir) as the site of Scorpion Dead Sea before “wheeling around” to barnea in the south country would have Pass, and there is no good reason to go through Kadesh, then go back to the furthered this goal. Of course, when reject this. Dead Sea to fight the kings of that there is no evidence one way or region. “What would have possessed another, one can speculate to one’s Fourth, Rohl makes a big to-do about them to trek for days on end all the way heart’s content about the motives of the fact that the order of the wilderness through the Desert of Paran to reach ancient kings. 15 Rohl, Exodus, p. 244. 13 Rohl, Exodus, p. 246. 14 Rohl, Exodus, p. 243. 16 Book of Joshua, 15:104.

5 wanderings in the Book of Numbers redactors/editors confused the two This does not mean that there could not contradicts the itinerary given in the Kadesh locations….”19 be two different locations by the name Book of Deuteronomy. However, it is of Kadesh. After all, there is another Petra, however, was not settled until likely that the Numbers list has not famous Kadesh associated with Ramses about the fourth century B.C. In terms been transmitted in its original order in 2 and his battle with the Hittites. This of its archaeology, it has indicia from the case of the sites of Bene Jaakan and Kadesh was too far north to be relevant, the Upper Paleolithic, Neolithic, Iron Moseroth. but it may be the case that that the Age (Edomite ware), and from biblical descriptions of Kadesh in the The actual order per the Book of Hellenistic and later times.20 So if two Wilderness of Zin, and the Kadesh in Deuteronomy was from Hashmonah to million Israelites, or even thousands in the Wilderness of Paran are really two Bene Jaakan, then to Moseroth.17 The Rohl’s view, stayed at or around Petra ways of distinguishing two sites that Book of Numbers, however, has for 38 years, why is there no pottery were very close together. Moseroth first, then Bene Jaakan. This indicia to document their stay? is probably a transmission error in the The Bible might be saying that the In fact, the only significant pottery Numbers list (an error made by northern site is in the Wilderness of Zin found at traditional Kadesh-barnea was copyists, easy to do in a list) and there and the southern site is in the from Albright’s MB1.21 There is no is no need on the basis of this faulty Wilderness of Paran. I conjecture that MB IIB pottery at all at either order to invent a “Lesser Kadesh” in this may have been the Bible’s way of traditional Kadesh-barnea or Rohl’s contradistinction to a “Greater distinguishing the sites of Ain el- Petra so it is difficult to understand Kadesh,” nor is there any need to add Kudeirat and Ain el-Kadeis how this helps his chronology. It rather anything to the text to clear things up as respectively. The former was located seems to provide a counter-instance to Rohl has done.18 within the southern boundary of the it. Wilderness of Zin while the latter was Nevertheless, Rohl thinks there were located within the northern boundary of two Kadeshes, one at Ain el-Kadeis or the Wilderness of Paran. Ain el Kudeirat, and the other at Petra. “So it was near Kadesh/Petra that 19 Rohl, Exodus, p. 254. Others have argued that the Wilderness Miriam died…and where Aaron 20 Stern, Ephraim, ed., entry for “Petra,” by of Zin and the Wilderness of Paran Avraham Negev, in The New Encyclopedia of died….However, later biblical Archaeological Excavations in the Holy Land, overlapped, which is why Kadesh is Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1993, described in two different ways. 17 Compare Numbers 33:38 and Deuteronomy Vol. 4, pp. 1181, 1183. Nevertheless, I think it might be more 21 10:6-7. See, Beno Rothenberg, God’s Wilderness: likely that the use of two descriptions 18 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 250, 251. Discoveries in Sinai, 1961, pp. 39-42.

6 to name Kadesh may be an indicator Karnak reliefs, nor to relocate Ai or through a failure of the fortification that they were different sites but too Bethel, nor biblical Kadesh-barnea system….The reason for the close to one another to avoid different from the Ain el-Kudeirat or Ain el- destruction of Jericho is unknown.” descriptions. Kadeis area. Tampering with Rohl then comments archaeology in this way is not based on 8. Mount Hor independent evidence but only on the “Bienkowski’s last sentence no longer applies As part of his Kadesh = Petra theory, needs of Rohl’s chronological theory. thanks to the work of Dr. John Bimson . . . and the revised archaeological date for the Rohl places Mount Hor at the location Rohl does not adjust his theory to 22 destruction of MBA Jericho provided by of Gebel Harun. If, however, Kadesh conform to the evidence, but rather [Rohl’s] New Chronology. Both have is located at the traditional site in the forces the evidence to fit his theory. determined that Middle Bronze Age Jericho Negev, then in my opinion, Mt. Hor is That is the definition of bad was attacked and destroyed by invading 24 more likely to be at the site of Bir methodology. Israelites.” Rekhme. 10. Conquest and Confusion It seems that Rohl believes along with Bir Rekhme is situated near the modern Bimson that the widespread destruction Rohl is at his methodological worst in town of Yerukham. This location of of cities at the end of the Middle his discussion of the Conquest and its Mount Hor was also the view of Bronze Age should be assigned to the relation to Middle Bronze Age Yohanan Aharoni: “Israelite entry into Canaan” that took archaeology. I have to admit that place at the time of Joshua’s conquest. “The fact that Mount Hor is mentioned as being Rohl’s discussion of Middle Bronze on the borders of Edom accords with its being Age archaeology in general gives me a Now, in standard archaeological not too far from Kadesh-barnea, which also is headache. It is because his discussion terminology, the end of the Middle described as a city on the uttermost border of Bronze Age is correlated with what is Edom (Num. xx. 17).”23 seems to be both confused and confusing. called the Middle Bronze IIC pottery 9. Summary Judgment horizon. So the end of the Middle In his earlier book Pharaohs and Kings Bronze Age is at the end of MB2c in All of these examples illustrate Rohl’s Rohl quoted Piotr Bienkowski to the standard terminology. Therefore, less than inspiring methodology. There effect that Jericho was destroyed at the logically, Rohl must place the Conquest is simply no reason to reclassify the end of the Middle Bronze Age. at the end of MB2c. “Jericho was destroyed,” said

22 Bienkowski, “at the end of the MBA, Rohl, Exodus, p. 256. 23 Yohanan Aharoni, in Rothenberg, God’s probably by enemy action and possibly Wilderness, p. 141. 24 Rohl, P&K, p. 305.

Here’s the confusing part. Rohl makes the foundation of the Greater Hyksos reality captured by the b and c the following claim about the Exodus 15th Dynasty.”26 terminology. and Conquest: The Hyksos dynasty is assigned to Hence, when an archaeologist uses “The New Chronology postulates that the MB2c by archaeologists.27 So Rohl is MB2b to refer to both MB2b and Exodus took place during the 13th Dynasty here saying that the Conquest took MB2c, he wants it to refer to earlier (that is at the end of the archaeological phase place before MB2c (the Hyksos strata). and later, so that MB2b (earlier) refers known as MB IIA). The Conquest would then have taken place during the MB IIB.”25 So, if the Conquest took place before to the old MB2b, and MB2b (later) the time of the Hyksos, i.e., before the refers to the old MB2c. So there is no So here Rohl places the Exodus at the MB2c strata, how could the Conquest change in the physical reality. There end of MB2a, and the Conquest occurs have been at the end of the Middle was a gradual evolution of pottery 40 years later during the MB2b phase. Bronze Age? styles throughout the Middle Bronze What is going on here? The Conquest Age. It is that gradualism that has led In order to be at the end of the Middle is either at the end of the Middle some to want to speak only of one Bronze Age, the Conquest would have Bronze Age (end of MB2c), or it is 40 period divided into an earlier and later. years into MB2b. How are these two to be at the end of MB2c. If so, then views to be reconciled? The Conquest the Conquest would be after the time of In addition, the lack of any catastrophic th was either at the end of the Middle the Hyksos, not “well before” the 15 pottery style changes means that the Bronze Age or it wasn’t. Dynasty Hyksos. culture of the Middle Bronze Age never changed. Even the destructions If Rohl was using MB2b to refer to 11. A Single MB 2? at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, both MB2b and MB2c, and he placed presumably brought about by the It might be thought that Rohl was using the Conquest before the Hyksos 15th Egyptian kings of the Late Bronze Age, the term MB2b to cover both MB2b dynasty, then he would have to bring did not significantly change the culture and MB2c. However, this does not the Conquest to somewhere near the of the Middle Bronze Age. clear up the problem because (a) Rohl middle of MB2b, not at its end. This is claims that the Exodus is at the end of because a single MB2b terminology This is a major problem for those who MB2a, which means the Conquest would still refer to the same physical would place the Exodus and Conquest cannot be far from the beginning of in the Middle Bronze Age. It is the MB2b, i.e., not at its end; and (b) Rohl same problem facing the Late Bronze says that the Conquest is “well before 26 Age Exodus and Conquest theory. Rohl, P&K, p. 309. 27 Mazar, Amihai, Archaeology of the Land of 25 Rohl, P&K, p. 309. the Bible, New York: Doubleday, 1990, p. 196.

The problem is that even with evidence And yet, if the Conquest was not at the Dynasty would have to be his MB IIB of destruction of towns during various end of Rohl’s MB2b, then it would not (later) phase. parts of the Middle Bronze Age or Late be at the end of the Middle Bronze So if the Conquest is very early on in Bronze Age, the succeeding culture Age. That would mean Rohl’s reliance Rohl’s MB IIB (earlier), before the grew out of the preceding culture. Of on Bienkowski or Bimson is irrelevant Hyksos 15th dynasty, it cannot have course, this is the complete opposite of since they correlated the destructions of been at the end of the Middle Bronze what happened with regard to the cities to the end of the Middle Bronze Age. And yet that is what we were led Exodus and Conquest as described in Age. Let us consider the following to believe by Rohl when he made his the Bible. chart: initial claim that the destruction of

Rohl himself criticizes the Late Bronze Jericho at the end of the Middle Bronze Chronology, Archaeolo Archaeolo and Iron Age Exodus theory for this Location gical Phase gical Phase Age was the same Jericho destroyed by very reason, i.e., for ignoring the Rohl MB IIB MB IIB Joshua. indigenous development of culture Terminology (earlier) (later) Albright MB2b MB2c 12. Clearing up the Muddle? during this time, a development at odds Terminology with the biblical account of the Exodus Egyptian 13th 15th, Has Rohl cleared up this problem in his and Conquest.28 So this criticism Dynasty Hyksos new book? No, he has not in the would apply equally to Rohl’s Middle Bible History Conquest? Conquest? slightest. In fact it is worse than it was (Rohl) (Bimson) before. Let us examine his discussion Bronze Age theory of the Exodus and City Jericho Conquest. City 4 to see what I mean. He still has the City Hazor 16 “invasion” of the Israelites in MB IIB. Returning to Rohl’s claims about the City Shechem He then points to the destruction of Hyksos dynasty, if Rohl placed the 15 Jericho City 4 as the city that was th Conquest before the Hyksos 15 sacked by the Israelites.29 dynasty, then it must be at least in the As you can see Rohl’s single MB IIB Kenyon said of this level: “This final middle of Rohl’s MB2b, not at its end, terminology, with its earlier and later for even with a single MB2b periods, would correspond with stage of the Jericho Middle Bronze Age terminology, the Hyksos dynasty must Albright’s terminology of MB2b and town was destroyed by a violent be part of MB2b-later. MB2c respectively. The 15th Dynasty fire….Since, as will be seen, the [burnt] is the Greater Hyksos Dynasty and it is contents seem to go down to the end of archaeologically placed in MB2c. In th 28 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 265ff. Rohl’s terminology, the Hyksos 15 29 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 274, 276.

9 the Middle Bronze Age and not beyond, Let us look further. In P&K Rohl Conquest after the Greater Hyksos it is probable that this destruction is reported the destruction of Hazor at the dynasty, not before it. connected with the disturbances caused end of stratum 16: “This stratum XVI 13. The Temple of Doom by the expulsion of the Hyksos from marks the end of the MBA city and, in Egypt.”30 the New Chronology, would be the city The situation is muddled further with destroyed by Joshua.” He sums up: the problem of Migdol Shechem. In Jericho 4 is assigned to the final stage “The city destroyed by Joshua’s army P&K Rohl identified this fortress- of Jericho, so the destruction of this was MB IIB Hazor, burnt at the end of temple with the time of Abimelech. It city was at the end of the Middle stratum XVI.”31 is the “Temple of Baal-Berith which is Bronze Age. In addition, the expulsion now recognized as the MB IIB of the Hyksos was at the end of the There is a problem with this. temple.”32 I agree that this is the Middle Bronze Age. So once again, According to Yiguel Yadin, the Temple destroyed by Abimelech. since Rohl has the Conquest prior to excavator of Hazor, Stratum 16 is the However, the destruction of this temple the Hyksos period, the Conquest could last stratum of the MB2c pottery was assigned by the excavators of not correlate with the city destructions horizon. As can be seen in the chart Shechem to the end of the MB2c at the end of the Middle Bronze Age, above, this would be at the end of the (stratum 15).33 In fact the whole city including the destruction of Jericho 4. Middle Bronze Age, or Rohl’s MB2b- was destroyed at this time. So the later. Also, Rohl says Jericho 4 was destruction would have to be MB IIB- “apparently” destroyed by an And yet if Stratum 16 was destroyed by later in Rohl’s terminology. earthquake but he did not provide a Joshua, then the Conquest could not In his new book, Rohl no longer source for this claim. I did not see have been before the Hyksos 15th discusses the archaeology of the anything in Kenyon’s discussion that dynasty but only after it. This is Migdol Temple. He mentions that the ascribes the destruction to an because the destruction of Stratum 16 is Temple was burned during the time of earthquake, although I may have also the destruction at the end of MB2c, Abimelech but doesn’t say anything missed it. and the end of MB2c correlates with the end of the Hyksos era. So if Rohl believes Hazor 16 was destroyed by

30 Kenyon, Kathleen, Cambridge Ancient Joshua, he’ll need to place the History, II:1, pp. 92-93; emphasis added. She 32 Rohl, P&K, p. 323. made the same point again in her entry for 33 Stern, entry for “Shechem,” by Edward F. “Jericho” in Stern, New Encyclopedia, Vol.. 2, Campbell, in The New Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 680. 31 Rohl, P&K, pp. 315, 316, 317. pp. 1347, 1351.

10 about what archaeological strata saw its Apparently, Rohl finally realized that terminology. Kenyon’s terminology destruction.34 something was wrong and he now seems simpler, MB I, MB II, and MB includes a chapter in his new Exodus III, although my preference would be to If you look at the chart above, you can book entitled “Conquest – IIB or not use non-Latin numbering: MB 1, MB 2, see the problem. On Rohl’s original IIB.” and MB 3. view, the destruction of Shechem by Abimelech occurs at the end of the 14. A Rose by Any Other Name However, Albright’s MB2a, MB2b, Middle Bronze Age. As we’ve seen, and MB2c is in widespread use. It I ask again, has Rohl cleared up the however, Rohl in following Bimson should also be noted that the current problem with his new chapter? He says believed this was the phase that saw the Italian excavators use Sultan that “many scholars” do not hold to the invasion of the Israelites. So Rohl has subdivision (after the site name Tell es- idea of a division between MB2b and c, the destruction of Abimelech’s Migdol Sultan). Nevertheless, they still but want to use just the MB2b Temple and Joshua’s Conquest correlate these subdivisions to both terminology. occurring in the same archaeological Kenyon & Albright’s terminology.37 stratum! “There is no reason to divide the latest pottery development into two phases (Albright’s MB For what it is worth, Wikipedia uses It was in fact this faulty view of IIB and IIC or MB II and III) since we observe Albright’s MB2a, MB2b, and MB2c Shechem that led me to criticize Rohl only a gradual evolution of the same basic terminology under its entries for on the New Chronology list, a cyber pottery styles. Kathleen Kenyon herself did not “Bronze Age” and “Biblical hangout where Rohl’s acolytes get recognize a division and treated it as one period Archaeology.” 38 (her MB II). As a result, this alternative view together to discuss his views. I did not proposes that we accept an MB IIA, followed In any case, the problem is not receive a response from Rohl nor much by MB IIB (early) and MB IIB (late) with no 36 terminological. Even Kempinksi and of a response from anyone else. distinct boundary in MB IIB.” Bienkowski still recognize a physical Nevertheless, a few months later, John As far as I can tell the “many scholars” subdivision of the strata, i.e., earlier Bimson raised the same issues, though 35 Rohl mentioned are mainly Aharon and later pottery indicia, and Rohl much more thoroughly than I did. Kempinski and Piotr Bienkowski. In fact, archaeologists to a great extent 37 Marchetti, N. Nigro, L. Sarie, I.; 34 Rohl, Exodus, p. 368. still use either Kenyon or Albright’s “Preliminary Report on the First Season of 35 My criticism ran from October 30, 2002, Excavations of the Italian-Palestinian message 16087 through November 11, 2002 Expedition at Tell Es-Sulton/Jericho, April- message 16258. Bimson brought up the subject Bimson followed up on August 7, 2003 May 1997,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly, on May 18, 2003 message 17200 and Rohl message 17527. 130, 1998, p. 9. responded on July 23, 2003 message 17459. 36 Rohl, Exodus, p. 293. 38 Accessed, 11/22/2015.

11 seems to accept this. Indeed, if there earlier and later assemblages in this dangerous hangover from the Albright and was a “gradual evolution” of pottery period.” Mazar concludes: “It appears Kenyon era, when an arbitrary link between the start of the 18th Dynasty and the end of the styles it means there was a change from to me that a general division of the Middle Bronze Age was made, without any an earlier style to a later style. It is this entire MB II period into three phases historical foundation.”40 change that is picked up in the (A, B, C) is well documented on the terminology of MB2b and MB2c. basis of stratigraphy, pottery typology, We point out again that it is and development of other artifacts.”39 presumptuous for even a well-informed I have no quarrel with anyone who amateur to take it upon himself to re- wants to use the single MB2b Summing up then, we can say that yes, assign the destruction level of a city terminology, in which the pottery MB2b and MB2c show gradual such as Jericho. Archaeologists study indicia is divided into earlier and later. development and it is difficult to tell the facts on the ground and report them, There certainly is pottery continuity but when one ends and the other begins, and it is not the place of a it is not a static continuity, so the use of but there is still a pattern of earlier and chronological revisionist to “correct” earlier and later, or the use of b and c, later that can be discerned by trained the work of archaeologists. are each capable of representing the archaeologists. facts on the ground. Rohl further says, “The destruction of 16. More Entanglement Jericho City IV (and other cities of the 15. Mazar’s View Now let us return to our previous Conquest, including his [Wood’s] Ai) did not take place towards the end of Amihai Mazar wrote the standard text question. I ask a third time, has Rohl 41 on the archaeology of the Holy Land untangled the confusions of his earlier LB I but sometime in the MB IIB.” and he uses Albright’s terminology of discussion in Pharaohs and Kings? So, again, Rohl thinks he has the MB2a, b, & c. He relates that Kenyon Has he responded to his critics? He professional authority to correct studied the MB2b-c tombs at Jericho says: archaeologists, not only with respect to and divided them into five succeeding “[W]hen books refer to ‘the end of the Middle the timing of the destruction of Jericho, groups. The pottery assemblages Bronze Age’ this tends to be based on the old but also with respect to the “other showed “gradual changes,” were idea that MB IIB came to an end with the cities” that were destroyed at the same “slow,” and there was “much destruction of Jericho, which Albright and time. overlapping.” Kenyon erroneously attributed to the Egyptian army of Ahmose . . . after the expulsion of the He points out that Groups 1-2 are Hyksos….What we have here, then, is a different from Groups 4-5, so that 40 Rohl, Exodus, p. 294. “there is evidence for the existence of 39 41 Mazar, pp. 193, 195. Rohl, Exodus, p. 298; emphasis added.

Bienkowski, in agreement with prior at the end of the Middle Bronze Age speculations, I think that for the time excavators, dated the destruction of but some considerable time earlier.”43 being their reputations are safe. Jericho 4 to the end of the Middle If we use standard archaeological Unfortunately for Rohl’s re-dating, Bronze Age. On Albright’s terminology, Rohl is wanting to place there is no archaeological evidence of terminology, this would be at the end of the Conquest at the end of Albright’s widespread destruction of cities at the MB2c. In Bienkowski’s terminology, MB2b. However, since Rohl places the transition between MB2b and MB2c it would MB2b-later. Exodus near the end of MB2a, I think (or his MB IIB, earlier and later). So Rohl, however, disagrees: “I would go Rohl would actually have to place the now Rohl is attempting to re-assign all even further and argue that Jericho City Conquest closer to the beginning of of the destructions at the end of the IV was destroyed not close to the end Albright’s MB2b, i.e.., 40 years after Middle Bronze Age to an earlier time. of MB IIB but long before the end of the Exodus, or 40 years after the end of The defective nature of Rohl’s the Middle Bronze Age.”42 MB2a methodology is seen clearly at this So not content to correct archaeologists Rohl sums up his theory and in the juncture. Rohl does not have an in general, Rohl takes it upon himself process takes a swipe at the work of advanced degree in archaeology, but is to correct Bienkowski in particular. two of the most accomplished nevertheless now informing the This is certainly what the British would archaeologists of the twentieth century: professional archaeology community call cheek. that they got it wrong. They have “In effect, the Middle Bronze Age IIB mistakenly correlated the widespread 17. Rohl’s Solution? continued long after the fall of Jericho and Jericho’s demise did not mark the end of this city destructions in the Holy Land to Rohl believes Jericho 4 was destroyed archaeological period as has so often been the end of the Middle Bronze Age. by the Israelites at the time of the claimed. Kenyon and Albright’s now Instead, they should have placed these discredited view [sic] that Jericho fell at the destructions in an earlier part of the Conquest, and he believes the Conquest hands of Ahmose’s Egyptian army did much to took place in an earlier part of MB IIB, incorrectly establish the end of MB IIB at the Middle Bronze Age. not in the last part. It was “long fall of Jericho, along with the contemporary 44 Rohl seems not to have realized that by before” the end of the Middle Bronze destruction wave across the whole region.” re-assigning the destructions at the end Age. In addition, “Jericho and the Since Kenyon and Albright have “now” of the Middle Bronze Age to an earlier other cities of the Conquest did not fall only been discredited by Rohl’s point in the Middle Bronze Age, he has also re-assigned the destruction of the 43 Rohl, Exodus, p. 306. Migdol Temple at Shechem which he 42 Rohl, Exodus, p. 299. 44 Rohl, Exodus, p. 312.

13 previously thought was destroyed The short answer is he re-assigns the while Sheshi presumably ruled at during the days of Abimelech. With destruction of Jericho 4, and therefore Avaris in northern Egypt? Rohl’s revised archaeology, there is all the other cities, on the basis of a He claims that biblical Sheshai fled now no longer a Temple and City that single scarab.45 I will return to this in a after the Conquest and took up can be associated with the destruction moment. residence in the Philistine lowlands, wrought by Abimelech. The long answer is that Rohl rearranges then later went to Sharuhen, then to The only way Rohl can preserve his the Hyksos dynasties to his liking. This Avaris in Egypt.47 He bases this on the views on Shechem is to keep the is another area in which Rohl’s Book of Joshua 11:21-22. However, all destruction of the Migdol Temple at the discussion gives me a headache. Why this verse says is that the Israelites end of the Middle Bronze Age while is he doing this? Why choose a destroyed the giants, or Anakim, in the placing the destruction of the other different arrangement of the Hyksos mountainous areas, and the only ones cities during the middle of the Middle dynasties from the generally accepted who remained were in the cities of the Bronze Age. Such a procedure would, arrangement? Doesn’t it just add more Philistines. It doesn’t say anything at of course, be entirely arbitrary, but it confusion to the whole period in all about Sheshai. would be interesting to see what question? One can only conclude that Rohl’s just- criterion Rohl would use to separate The reason is first, that Rohl wants to so story regarding Sheshai’s supposed some MB2c destructions from others. get the Hyksos pharaoh Sheshi away flight and subsequent reign as a Hyksos The answer to our question at long last from the 15th dynasty, and as far away king is merely historical gossamer. is that Rohl may have cleared up some from the end of the Middle Bronze Age 19. Sharuhen and the Giants of the confusions of his earlier as possible. Second, Rohl wants to discussion in Pharaohs and Kings, but identify Sheshi with biblical Sheshai, Rohl follows Aharon Kempinksi in he has done so only at the cost of one of the three Anakim brothers who correlating Tell el-Ajjul with biblical discrediting his theory entirely. ruled at Hebron, and who were Sharuhen. The latter city is where the defeated at the time of the Conquest.46 Hyksos fled in order to escape Ahmose, 18. Chaos in the Middle Bronze Age the 18th Dynasty king. Rohl calls in How does Rohl account for the fact that So what gives Rohl the chutzpah to go Claire Epstein for support of the view biblical Sheshai was a ruler of Hebron contra mundum against the whole of that scarabs of Sheshi were found in the archaeological profession, including City 3 of Ajjul. Kempinski, however, Bienkowski? What is the basis for 45 such cheek? Rohl, Exodus, p. 299. 46 Rohl, Exodus, p. 308. 47 Rohl, Exodus, p. 309.

14 said the Sheshi scarabs were found in We should also note that Tell el-Ajjul Sharuhen with Tell El-Far‘ah South.51 building deposits for City II, not in City might not be Sharuhen but could be Perhaps the city has not yet been found III.48 Epstein was writing in the late ancient Gaza, one of the cities of the or has simply not been recognized. 1950s whereas Kempinski was writing Conquest. This city was given to the The bottom line is that there is no one in the 1990s and his work would tribe of Judah, but later turned into a definitive viewpoint on the location of normally have priority over an earlier Philistine city. Current researchers Sharuhen, nor what city is represented work. have located the changing sites of Gaza by Tell Al-Ajjul. In other words, the during its existence in the Early, In order to shore up Epstein’s early archaeologists are in disagreement with Middle, and Late Bronze Ages: views, Rohl relied on Bob Porter, a one another on the site location. So it Rohl-supporter.49 While Porter is well- “Tell Es-Sakan in the Early Bronze Age, Tell is not part of a sound methodology to informed on archaeological issues and Al-Ajjul in the Mid-Bronze Age and finally the base any far-reaching chronological city of Gaza, which was built in the Late carbon dating, Rohl should not have conclusions on such an ambiguously Bronze Age and still stands. Tell Es-Sakan, five relied on him vis-à-vis Kempinksi. In kilometres [3 miles] south of present- identified site. addition, Porter himself based his views day Gaza City, began as an Egyptian fortress 20. The Short Form on Petrie’s reports, which is not a good built in Canaanite territory during the Early 50 idea since Petrie was writing too early Bronze Age I….” Now, back to the “short” in the history of archaeology to be The original excavator, Petrie, also answerRohl’s single scarab. (At authoritative on how strata are to be adopted the view that Gaza was located least this was a “short” answer when I interpreted. at Tell Al-Ajjul. first started.) Most archaeologists would caution that using scarabs for It is entirely possible that Rohl and As far as the location of Sharuhen is Porter are correct in their placement of dating purposes is not free from danger. concerned, Anson Rainey believes it is The reason is that they were popular the Sheshi scarabs. What I am Tel Heror (or Haror), although in our objecting to here rather is Rohl’s poor items, used as heirlooms. This means opinion Tel Haror might instead be they were kept as keepsakes over long methodology in preferring an older biblical Gerar. Yael Yisraeli identified archaeological report to a more recent periods of time and hence show up in one, or by relying on one of his own widely dispersed archaeological periods. supporters to prove a point. 50 Filfil, Rania and Louton, Barbara, “The 48 Stern, entry for “‘Ajjul, Tell El-,” New Other Face of Gaza: The Gaza Continuum,” 51 Stern, entry for “Far‘ah, Tell El- (South),” by Encyclopedia, Vol. 1, p. 53. This Week in Palestine, Sept 2008, Issue 125; Yisraeli, Yael, New Encyclopedia, Vol. 2, p. 49 Rohl, Exodus, p. 307. emphasis added. 441.

In addition, the wide dispersion of man was buried much later than the developed based on large groups of scarabs cannot automatically be FDR administration, say during the scarabs in clear archaeological evidence for widespread rule. Gardiner days of Richard Nixon or Jimmy Carter contexts, but even so such a typology is says: “[T]he wide distribution of such or even later. not without controversy. Fortunately, easily portable and marketable objects in the case of the “Hyksos” scarabs, the Rohl, however, thinks the scarab found as scarabs is worthless as evidence [of foreign kings who ruled in Egypt were at Jericho 4 is absolved of any of these the type of rule involved].”52 regarded as illegitimate, so there was problems. It is true that scholars have not as much posthumous veneration. So the problem of “posthumous been able to develop a scarab typology Hence, their dating is more veneration” means that one must be for chronological purposes, but such chronologically useful.54 cautious in using scarabs for dating typologies are not always reliable. In purposes, as well as for determining the some cases, scarabs were produced The scarab discussed by Rohl had the nature and extent of a king’s rule. after the time of the king whose name name of the king Sheshi, so it shows at is on the scarab. least that Jericho stratum 4 could not Isolated scarabs can provide a terminus have been earlier than the time of post quem date, a cannot-be-earlier- For example, the destruction deposit at Sheshi. Nevertheless, how much later than date. For instance, the presence of Gezer, dated to the end of the Middle is Jericho 4 after the time of Sheshi? a scarab in a tomb tells us the burial Bronze Age, “contained a seal ring could not have been earlier than the bearing the royal name Khyan One problem for Rohl is that time of the king depicted on the scarab. (Khyran), the third king of the Fifteenth Egyptologists are divided as to when It does not always show how much [Hyksos] Dynasty….The presence of Sheshi ruled. Some identify him with later the burial was after the time of the this gold-inlaid ring in the destruction 15th Dynasty Salitis, others that he king depicted on the scarab. layer shows that it remained in use until ruled after 15th Dynasty Khyan, while the days of Apophis or possibly later, others think he was a 14th Dynasty To use a modern example, if someone until the reign of Khamudy….”53 ruler. And scholars are not exactly sure were buried with a campaign poster how these dynasties relate to one from an FDR election campaign, it Daphna Ben-Tor points out that a another. There is a lot of overlapping, means he could not have been buried reliable scarab typology has to be for instance. In addition, Sheshi has during the presidency of Grover Cleveland. But it is possible that the 53 Kempinski, Aharon, “The Middle Bronze 54 Daphna Ben-Tor, Scarabs, Chronology, and Age,” Ben-Tor, Amnon, ed., The Archaeology Interconnections: Egypt and Palestine in the 52 Gardiner, Alan, Egypt of the Pharaohs, of Ancient Israel, Open Univ of Israel, 1992, p. Second Intermediate Period, Gottingen: London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1961, p. 159. 189. Academic Press Fribourg, 2007, pp 1, 2.

16 scarabs all over the place, whether However, Rohl does not do this. He corresponds with stratum E/1 at Tell el-Daba, under the name Sheshi or under the merely states that Sheshi was far earlier which is dated by the excavators to the advanced Fifteenth Dynasty….This is name Maaibre. There are hundreds of than Dab‘a stratum D/2, which is the 55 supported by two stratified examples from Tell el- these scarabs. last stratum, and represents the end of Daba, which come from strata D/3 and D/2 of the the Middle Bronze Age. late Fifteenth Dynasty [MB2c].”58 Rohl, however, follows Ryholt in thinking Sheshi was an early king who Rohl concludes on the basis of the fact Ben-Tor’s point is that the immediate reigned long before the main Hyksos that Sheshi’s reign “does not fall post-Sheshi designs begin at the same line. He lived “well before the Hyksos anywhere near the end of the Middle time as Dab‘a E/1, which is during the age,” says Ryholt. In fact, Ryholt Bronze Age” that “Jericho was also main Hyksos dynasty. So the Sheshi believes, based on a seal of Sheshi destroyed long before the end of MB scarabs may not be as early as Ryholt found in the destruction layer of the IIB [Albright’s MB2c], since Sheshi’s thinks. In addition, Ben-Tor says: Mergissa Fortress, that Sheshi reigned scarab was found in one of the last th “It is also important to note that design 7C, during the time of the early 13 burials at the site before its destruction which dominates the scarabs of Yaqubhar and 57 dynasty, and was a contemporary of by the Israelites.” Sheshi, is in Palestine attested only in the late Neferhotep 1.56 This would be Tell el- series. The early Palestinian series displays 21. Sheshi and Jericho Dab‘a stratum F, which reflects the only imitations of the late Middle Kingdom MB2 a & b transition. paired scroll border design 7B. The absence of So Rohl’s position is that Jericho 4 was design 7C in the early series supports the destroyed during the middle of the So if Rohl is going to follow Ryholt’s chronological range proposed by Ward and Middle Bronze Age rather than at its argues against dating the scarabs of Yaqubhar placement of Sheshi during stratum F at 59 end. In response to Rohl, we can say and Sheshi to the Fourteenth Dynasty.” Dab‘a, he should also date Sheshi to the first of all, not all archaeologists agree time near the beginning of MB2b. That The bottom line for our purposes is that with Ryholt’s placement of Sheshi. As is because, as noted, stratum F at Dab‘a Rohl is basing a far reaching against Ryholt, Ben-Tor says of the correlates to the MB2 a&b transition. chronological conclusion using data scarab typology that comes after that is in dispute among archaeologists. Sheshi’s scarabs: 55 See Wikipedia entry for “Sheshi”; (accessed 58 11/28/2015). “The important point, which argues in favour of Ben Tor., D. “Sequences and chronology of 56 Kim Ryholt, The Political Situation in Egypt the sequence proposed by Ward, is that, when occurring in Second Intermediate Period royal-name During the Second Intermediate Period, the Palestinian series, these designs are not attested scarabs,” in Maree, Marcel, ed., The Second University of Copenhagen: Museum earlier than Jericho Group IV. The latter Intermediate Period, Leuven, Paris, Walpole, Tusculanum Press, 1997, p. 42. For an MA, 2010, pp. 102-03. Note also that Ben-Tor alternative view of the Mergissa dating, see uses Albright’s terminology of MB2 a, b, & c. Ben-Tor, “Sequences…” pp. 94, 95. 57 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 305, 306. 59 Ben-Tor, p. 103.

Once again, this reflects a poor intruders. The existence of a king of In addition: “The other issue that needs methodology. the Fourteenth Dynasty at Xois, and to be addressed in view of the perhaps also of a Hyksos prince at discovery at Tell Edfu is the internal 22. Contemporary Kings Avaris, lends colour to the statement of chronology of the Second Intermediate Another problem with Rohl’s Artapanus (first century b.c.) that King Period and the overlap of various conclusion that Jericho was not ‘Chenefres’ (=Khaneferre?) was ‘ruler dynasties. The presence of the nine destroyed at the end of the Middle of the regions above Memphis, for Sobekhotep IV sealings in the same Bronze Age is that recent research casts there were at that time several kings in closed context as the Khayan ones doubt on the traditional placement of Egypt’.”61 suggests that these two rulers reigned the main Hyksos line in relation to the probably not too far apart from each Indeed, new archaeological work by 13th Dynasty. other or were even contemporary.” Moeller, Marouard, and Ayers, has Egyptologists have long recognized shown that Sobekhotep 4 of the 13th “Following the traditionally proposed that the 14th, 15th, 16th, and to a great dynasty was a contemporary of Hyksos order of reigns, Sobekhotep IV and extent, the 17th dynasties were more or king Khyan of the 15th dynasty. As the Khayan are separated by about 100 less contemporary with one another. It authors point out: years, but this cannot be correct in view of the stratigraphic evidence from Tell seems that divided rule was the chief “During the most recent fieldwork seasons in characteristic of Egyptian political life 2010 and 2011, excavations continued Edfu.” th 60 in the 13 and succeeding dynasties. northwards from the columned hall and led to They rule out the possibility of later the discovery of another large adjoining hall. The Cambridge Ancient History says of Sealings showing the cartouche of the Hyksos usage: “The possibility of a much later the time of Sobehotep 4: “We know, in ruler Khayan have been found here within a re-use of a Sobekhotep IV scarab for any event, that within a very few years large sealing corpus together with sealings these seal-impressions has to be after the accession of this king the naming Sobekhotep IV. These finds come excluded according to the ceramic from a secure and sealed archaeological context evidence as well as the 14C date….” ancient town of Avaris, twelve miles and open up new questions about the cultural south of Tanis, was in the hands of the and chronological evolution of the late Middle And finally: “Thus the conclusion is Hyksos, and we must suppose that even Kingdom and early Second Intermediate 62 that Khayan must date earlier than during his reign Egyptian authority in Period.” the Delta was being gradually overshadowed by that of the Asiatic and Early Second Intermediate Period History 61 Cambridge Ancient History, II:1, pp. 50-51. and Chronology in Relation to the Khayan 62 Moeller, Nadine, Marouard, Gregory, Ayers, Sealings from Tell Edfu,” Egypt and the 60 Gardiner, p. 150. Natasha, “Discussion of Late Middle Kingdom Levant, 2011, Vol. 21, pp. 87-121.

18 previously thought and there might absolute dating. The destructions at the By cross-comparing enormous amounts have been an overlap between the late end of the Middle Bronze Age were of archaeological data such as the 13th Dynasty and the early 15th correlated to archaeological indicia, above, archaeologists can more or less Dynasty.” such as pottery that existed at the end tell when urban structures existed and of the Middle Bronze Age. Mazar when they ceased to exist. These cross- So Rohl’s discussion of the Hyksos says: comparisons have led archaeologists to kings is not in keeping with the latest divided the Middle Bronze Age into research on this period. Sheshi may be “W. F. Albright and G.E. Wright divided the three main periods, MB2a, MB2b, and closer to the end of the Middle Bronze period into two major subphases, denoting them ‘MB IIB’ and ‘MB IIC’, the latter MB2c (or MB I, MB II, MB III, or Age than Rohl thought, and this means comprising the last hundred years of the period. MB2a, MB2b-early, MB2b-late). Sheshi may be much closer to Jericho 4 This subdivision is mainly based on refined than Rohl would like him to be for ceramic typology and the relative sequence of It is ultimately this comparative purposes of theory. phases, particularly at Shechem and at approach that provides a relative date 63 Gezer.” for the destruction of a cityand 23. It Is All Relative Subphases are distinguished because of Jericho 4 had characteristic pottery of The final problem with Rohl’s re- “refined ceramic typologies” which the MB2c horizon when it was dating of Jericho comes in two parts. archaeologists are trained to recognize. destroyed. In other words, as Kenyon One, it is a non-sequitur. Even if On the basis of this ceramic inventory, pointed out, it was destroyed at the end Sheshi’s reign were much earlier than, they are able to correlate similar strata of the Middle Bronze Age. or far distance from, the end of the over time. However, as opposed to relative dating, Middle Bronze Age, this does not in absolute dating cannot depend on itself have any bearing on the time of Relative dating also involves pottery typology but has to be Jericho’s destruction. There is of fortifications, city gates, temples, correlated to a reconstructed Egyptian course, the problem of dating a stratum tombs, weapons, art, jewelry, and timeline in order to arrive at a fixed on the basis of one scarab. This is writing, etc. These can all be dated in calendar date: never a good idea, especially if it has terms of standard Middle Bronze Age such far-reaching effects. Such re- terminology. They are relatively dated “The absolute chronology of the beginning and dating should be left up to professional based on comparing them with similar the end of MB IIB-C depends on correlations to 64 archaeologists. indicia in other cities. Egyptian and Mesopotamian chronologies.” Two, Rohl is guilty of a subtle confusion of relative dating with 63 64 Mazar, p. 193; emphasis added. Mazar, p. 193.

This means the relative chronology created a ghost century for the Hyksos, In reality, the reason there was no stays the same, no matter what the an impossible situation. famine during Amenemhet’s reign is absolute chronology is. It would not due to the high Niles that occurred. To sum up then, there are three main matter if the absolute date for the end How does Rohl deal with this? Simple: problems with Rohl’s claim that city of the Middle Bronze Age were dated he merely claims that high Niles can destructions at the end of the Middle to the time of Socrates. It would still result in famine. Indeed, he speaks of Bronze Age should be re-dated to the be the end of the archaeological stratum the high Niles under Amenemhet 3 as middle of the Middle Bronze Age. known as MB2c (or Rohl’s MB IIB- being a “terrifying threat to the survival First, archaeologists are not in late). of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom.”65 agreement as to when Sheshi ruled. He goes on to claim that the “Nile So on a purely archaeological basis Second, Khayan and Sobekhotep 4 may floodwaters swept over the valley like a Rohl cannot simply roll back the be contemporary or close in time, thus tsunami, bursting levees, drowning destruction of Jericho 4 to the middle shortening the distance between Sheshi livestock, washing away the mudbrick of the Middle Bronze Age, without also and Jericho 4. Third, the dating of villages built on the low-lying, sandy pulling the pottery with it. And that is cities to the last stratum of the Middle mounds along the valley floor. not feasible if the science of Bronze Age is based on pottery indicia, Temples were flooded, tombs filled archaeological stratigraphy has any and it is not permissible for Rohl to with detritus, the whole land came to a meaning. separate a city from its pottery. grinding halt as people struggled with Or to put it another way, if Jericho 4 is 24. Other Problems the consequences of the abnormally correlated to the MB2c horizon based gigantic flood….Famine threated Egypt I won’t spend a lot of time with Rohl’s 66 on characteristic pottery indicia, then on an unprecedented scale.” speculations as to the identity of Rohl cannot re-date the destruction of Joseph. The main problem is that there Rohl does not provide the slightest bit Jericho 4 to an earlier pottery horizon, is no evidence of a famine during the of evidence from any reliable sources such as MB2b. If he did that then the days of Amenemhet 3. In Rohl’s for this claim. He merely states it. one hundred or so years that are chronology, this is the pharaoh whom Once again my head is starting to allotted to the 15th Dynasty (1663 BC Joseph served under, so this would pound. The fact is, in Egypt famines to 1555 BC on conventional dating) seem to represent a refutation of Rohl’s are associated with low Niles not with will have existed without a pottery placement of Joseph in Egyptian horizon. By such re-arrangement of history. archaeological strata, Rohl will have 65 Rohl, Exodus, p. 95. 66 Rohl, Exodus, pp. 95-96.

20 high Niles. As Kathryn Bard points the ground contradicts his historical I’ve always felt that the Admonitions of out: reconstruction, he tries to explain it Ipuwer is very similar in tone to the away. And what is worse, this curses listed in the biblical Book of “[T]here were relatively low floods after 2900 BC [sic], with a brief minimum ca. 2200 BC, and explanation is entirely gratuitous in that Deuteronomy. The difference is that exceptionally high floods ca 2150-1900 BC. nowhere does Rohl provide any Ipuwer is describing an already existing Low Nile floods would have meant less land documentation to support it. This is not state of affairs, the topsy-turvy nature under cultivationand lower crop good scholarship. of Egyptian society, whereas in yields….With such a large population in the Deuteronomy, this topsy-turvy situation later Old Kingdom and problems in agricultural Rohl also makes a mistake in claiming would only come about if the Israelites yields, famine for some may have been the that the Ipuwer Papyrus is describing were disobedient to the law of God. result. Possibly the state could have responded the time of travail at the close of the to environmental problems of low Nile floods Compare these lines from Ipuwer who 13th dynasty.69 He references Van with technological intervention, such as describes the ironic reversals of Seeters for this claim, but most sponsoring irrigation works, but this did not Egyptian society: happen.”67 Egyptologists refer the content of Ipuwer to the Old Kingdom, even if “Indeed, poor men have become owners of In addition, the time of Amenemhet 3 they might be guarded about how wealth, and he who could not make sandals for was a time of prosperity, with no hint himself is now a possessor of riches.” truthful it is in its descriptions. of any major economic problems. Redford points out: “[T]he well-born man...through lack of Peter Clayton says of Amenemhet that: recognition, and the child of his lady has “The extant copes of Ipuwer all date to the New “His reign was the apogee of economic growth become the son of his maidservant.” Kingdom, but a passage was excerpted as early in the Middle Kingdom. Interest in the as the 12th dynasty for inclusion in the “All these years are strife, and a man is agricultural potential of the Faiyum Instruction of Amenemhet; and the historical murdered on his housetop even though he was increased….Above all, Amenemhet III milieu of the piece clearly points to the period vigilant in his gate lodge.” exploited the quarries of Egypt and the between Pepy II and the rise to power of the turquoise mines in Sinai.”68 11th Dynasty for its formulation.70 And now just one of many curse This is another example of Rohl’s poor passages in Deuteronomy: methodology. When the actual data on “You shall betroth a wife, but another man 69 Rohl, Exodus, p. 150. shall lie with her; you shall build a house, but 70 Redford, Donald B. Egypt, Canaan, and you shall not dwell in it; you shall plant a 67 Bard, Kathryn A., An Introduction to the Israel in Ancient Times, New Jersey; Princeton vineyard, but shall not gather its grapes.”71 Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, UK:Wiley Univ. Press, 1992, p. 66; also p. 63. See also, Blackwell, 2015, pp. 176-77. Gardner, Alan, Egypt of the Pharaohs, 1961, p. 68 Clayton, Peter, Chronicle of the Pharaohs, 110; also Dodson, Aidan, Monarchs of the Nile, UK: Thames and Hudson, 1994, p. 87. Cairo: American University, 2000, pp. 43, 44. 71 Book of Deuteronomy 28:30.

In order to put Ipuwer’s lamentations So the increase in tombs really proves comes to describing the facts on the into a curse formula, one would merely nothing about which level at Jericho ground in these regions, or with city need to make them promissory, e.g.: saw the presence of the Israelites. The ascriptions. “Poor men will become owners of tomb expansion would be a dependent In addition, if a revisionist hopes to wealth, and a shoemaker will become a variable, not an independent demonstrate his views to the rich man”; or “The children of the well- verification of the presence of the satisfaction of the professional born will become the sons of Israelites at the time of the Conquest. scholarly and archaeological maidservants”; or “A man who is One would have to determine that community, he will attempt to show vigilant at the gates of his house will be actual Israelite level before one could first, that his theory accounts for the murdered on the rooftop.” use the tomb data as a possible archaeological and biblical data, and verification. In any case, regardless of whether second that it doesn’t contradict these Ipuwer is describing the First 25. Conclusion sources. Intermediate Period or Second It is my opinion that chronological As noted above, Rohl’s methodology Intermediate Period, it is not sound revisionists, especially those who don’t leads him to do both, to contradict both methodology to rest any great historical have advanced degrees in relevant the Bible and archaeology. For this conclusions on it since its content is in subjects such as Holy Land reason, his Middle Bronze IIB dispute among some Egyptologists. archaeology or Egyptology, should be Conquest theory looks to me like a Rohl also makes the claim that the as scholarly as possible when dead end. I don’t think Christians increase in tombs at the end of Jericho discussing revisionism. should appeal to it in support of biblical 4 is best explained by a plague that history nor should revisionists adopt I am not saying that professional struck down so many Israelites just Rohl’s methodology. scholars or archaeologists are infallible before the Conquest. However, there when it comes to describing the strata I have been studying chronology and was a similar increase in tombs during and pottery of Egypt or of the Holy archaeology for many years now. It is the earlier MB1 period where north of Land. And they are certainly not my opinion that a sound, scientific the town there was a “tremendous always correct in their identification of methodology has the best chance of expansion of tombs during the E.B.- various sites in the Holy Land with discovering the true chronology of M.B. [MB1] period.”72 biblical cities. Nevertheless, the ancient historyif one is even possible revisionist should not ordinarily be given the fragmentary nature of the disagreeing with archaeologists when it data. 72 Cambridge Ancient History, II:1, 93.

Rohl’s chronology strikes me as Addendum: Israelites’ Conquest of Canaan occurred during 73 impossible in the same way the last phase of the Middle Bronze Age. I published a much shorter “Reader’s Velikovsky’s chronology struck many Digest” version of this review at the What does Rohl mean by the “last of his followers as impossible. They Amazon website for Rohl’s book phase of the Middle Bronze Age”? To went on to develop their own Exodus. Rohl responded and the reader make it plain as day, Rohl says in a “Glasgow” chronology. Rohl has taken can follow up on Rohl’s response and footnote on the same page: the lead in developing a chronology of my counter-response. One thing Rohl the Israelite Sojourn, Exodus, and “The last phase of the Middle Bronze Age said that needs criticism is his claim (otherwise known as MB II-C or MB III) Conquest, while others have been that he never said the Conquest was at extends into and therefore overlaps with LB I- content to deal only with Israel’s later the end of the Middle Bronze Age. A (which starts within the Greater Hyksos history. Dynasty in Egypt).”74 According to Rohl: I think it is high time for Rohl and his So clearly Rohl believed that the last “I never said that the Conquest took place at the followers to abandon any chronology end of the Middle Bronze Age. Are you unable phase of the Middle Bronze Age was that places the Exodus and Conquest in to read? I frequently state ‘towards the end of identical to the standard archaeological the Middle Bronze Age, just as they the Middle Bronze Age’, i.e. around the middle terminology of Albright’s MB IIC or have argued it is time for modern of the MB IIB (after MB I, MB IIA and the Kenyon’s MB III. It was the Hyksos historians to abandon the idea of a Late first part of MB IIB). Perhaps the reason you 15th Dynasty, which is correlated to are more than a little confused is that you Bronze Age or Iron Age Exodus and simply don’t understand very much about MB2c in standard terminology, i.e., the Conquest. archaeology or ceramics?” last phase of the Middle Bronze Age. If Rohl had to adopt such an inadequate Despite Rohl’s assurances, however, he This means logically for Rohl the methodologyas we have documented clearly placed the Conquest in the Conquest must have happened during abovein order to defend a Middle stratum the signals the end of the MB2c. To be consistent, Rohl’s new Bronze Age Exodus and Conquest, then Middle Bronze Age. In his book The designation “towards the end of the perhaps it is time to start thinking Lost Testament Rohl said: Middle Bronze Age” would therefore have to mean towards the end of MB2c. outside the box and to reconsider other “In the New Chronology, however, the possibilities that have not perhaps been Conquest took place during the last phase of given a fair hearing in the debates over the Middle Bronze Age (MB II B c. 1440-1353 73 Rohl, David, The Lost Testament, UK: chronological revisionism. BC)….The archaeological evidence is Century, 2002, p. 240. unambiguous. The momentous events of the 74 Rohl, D., Lost Testament, p. 240; my Finis emphasis.

If it occurred at an earlier point, it in which Kempinski dated the fall of Jericho would no longer be the “last phase” of significantly earlier than the end of MBIIB [i.e., end of Middle Bronze Age] is a book that the Middle Bronze Age. It would be an predated the full publication of Kenyon’s “earlier phase” of the Middle Bronze excavations, specifically those volumes Age. containing the pottery from the tell.76 Here again, the headache re-surfaces. So if the early Kempinski was confused Rohl’s current placement of the on the subject, and if Rohl was relying Conquest in the middle of the Middle on him, it is no wonder that Rohl was Bronze Age is not what would likewise confused. With his new book normally be interpreted as towards the I say once again that Rohl has actually end of the Middle Bronze Age. There made things worse if that were does seem to be a satisfying possible. His earlier books had only explanation for this, however, even if it been confused but his new book adds doesn’t work as well as aspirin. impossibility into the mix.

I think Bimson had it right when he criticized Rohl for relying on an early 1983 work of Kempinski, who placed the fall of Jericho 4 to a time considerably before the end of the Middle Bronze Age.75 Bimson says of Kempinski’s work:

“[T]his was written before volumes of the Jericho excavation report containing pottery from the tell (as distinct from tombs) were published. Later, and perhaps in the light of those, he seems to have changed his mind….But the bottom line is that the context

76 Bimson, John, New Chronology List, “When 75 Kempinski, A., Syrien und Palastina Did MB Jericho fall?” August 7, 2003 message (Kanaan) in der letzten Phase der Mittelbronze 17527, Section 3. Accessed: November 12, IIB-Zeit (1650-1570, v. Chr), 1983, pp. 151-65. 2006.