John bimson redating the exodus

He illustrates these points with examples from the archaeology of Egypt, in which excavation has failed to produce remains from sites which are known, on the basis of textual evidence, to have been occupied at the relevant time.

Hence he has suggested that 13th-century BC Jericho has been entirely eroded away, that the LBA burials at Gibeon may indicate an occupation which has been missed by the excavator, and that the site of LBA Ai still awaits discovery.[24] Indeed, Kitchen has repeatedly stressed that 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence', that lack of occupation cannot be assumed simply because no trace of it is found.

Since Kathleen Kenyon's excavations at Jericho (1952-8) it has been widely accepted that no traces of the city attacked by Joshua are to be found.'There have been only two important views of the conquest of Palestine by ancient Israel', wrote G. Mendenhall in 1962, in an article in which he offered a third.[1] Since then hypotheses have proliferated, and the question of Israel's origins has become a vastly complex one.The purpose of this article is twofold: to provide some account of the development and current standing of the main theories on offer, and to assess their relative merits.Those evangelical scholars who have adopted the Baltimore School's scenario have tried to be more rigorously scientific in their defence of its weak points.Kitchen has emphasized that evidence of occupation can be eroded away during periods of abandonment, or simply missed by the excavator when (as is usually the case) limited areas of a mound are explored.

Leave a Reply