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. 1 “[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” scholarsBryant 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.