This review of biblical papers delivered at the 2008 ASOR meetings clearly shows that biblical archaeology is anything but dead, even if scholars are uncomfortable with the term itself. Indeed, it illustrates the central role that the Bible continues to play in the history and archaeology of the region; a source unmatched and unrivaled in its rich detail and description of life in antiquity...

It is inevitable...predictable...almost certain. Each year, some unbelieving scholar or entertainer seemingly comes out of nowhere with an erroneous theory that supposedly debunks the historical and bodily resurrection of the Son of God. The Da Vinci Code, the Gospel of Judas, Bloodline, The Jesus Family Tomb, liberal theologians, and even some so-called 'evangelical' scholars...on and on the list goes of those who, year after year after year, fecklessly attack the central doctrine of the Christian faith.

To date, the Ark has not yet been found. Several locations for it have been proposed: Mount Ararat in northeastern Turkey; Mount Cudi (Judi) in southeastern Turkey; the so-called Durupinar site near Mount Ararat; and several mountains in northern Iran, including Damavand, Sabalon, and Suleiman...

One of the most serious problems facing the Church in the 21st century is the problem of Biblical illiteracy. Simply put, most professing Christians do not possess a sound and coherent understanding of the Bible...

Incontrovertible proof to refute Christianity?

A former graduate student of mine, Brenda, did an undergraduate degree in journalism. She recounted a statement that was made by her professor in one of her “Journalism 101” lectures. The professor said, “The two things that sell newspapers, books, and movies are sex and sensationalism!” Evangelical authors generally don’t dabble in the first (unless it’s Dr. Tim LaHaye who wrote The Act of Marriage!), but there are some who have mastered the art of the second. In evangelical circles, we are inundated by the sensationalistic archaeological claims by so-called modern day Indiana Joneses who claim to have found everything from the Ark of the Covenant with the blood of Jesus on it in Jerusalem (or in Ethiopia, minus the blood), the real tomb of Jesus on the Mount of Olives, Noah’s Ark in Iran, the real Cave of Machpelah, Pharaoh’s chariot wheels in the Red Sea, the Ten Commandments, the ashes of the red heifer, Mount Sinai in Saudi Arabia, the plan of the ages in the pyramids, the manger of Jesus, and the list goes on and on. Unfortunately for them, under close scholarly scrutiny, these claims evaporate into thin air.

The secular world is not immune to the sensationalistic approach to archaeology either, but sometimes with a more sinister twist: to try and discredit the Person and Work of the Lord Jesus Christ. One just has to read The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown (2003); The Jesus Dynasty by James Tabor (2006); and The Jesus Family Tomb by Simcha Jacobovici and Charles Pellegrino (2007). Now there is a new movie out that makes the same attempt to attack the deity of the Lord Jesus and His bodily resurrection. It is called “Bloodline,” and produced by 1244 Films (2008). The director and narrator of the movie is Bruce Burgess and the producer is Rene Barnett.

I went to the Jewish Museum on 5th Avenue in New York City on Monday, May 5, 2008, for the press conference of this new movie. As I entered the museum, there was a large poster on a tripod in the lobby that had a picture from a stained glass window in the Kilmore Church in Dervaig, Isle of Mull, Scotland of Jesus and Mary Magdalene holding hands (and Mary looking pregnant). Above the title of the movie was the provocative question: “What if the greatest story ever told was a lie?” I thought to myself, this is going to be a very interesting news conference, especially with the cast of characters on the panel - and they did not disappoint.

The premise of the movie is that they have “incontrovertible proof” that would “totally refute” Christianity. The movie claims that Jesus married Mary Magdalene and had a child, or children (the sex selling point). After the crucifixion of Jesus, Mary hid the body of Jesus and she and her child, or children, moved to France. The Knights Templar rediscovered the body of Jesus and brought his mummified body to Rennes-Le-Chateau, in southwest France. The movie suggests that the mummified body of Mary Magdalene was recently discovered in the area along with other 1st century AD artifacts from the Jerusalem area associated with the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene (the sensationalism selling point). Another version of the story is that Jesus skipped out of Jerusalem before the crucifixion and they had “incontrovertible proof” that he was living in France in AD 45 with Mary Magdalene and children [0:38:40]. The movie isn’t clear on which scenario actually happened.

A Knights Templar “tomb” was found in 1999 by an English adventurer and treasure hunter named “Ben Hammott.” This name, however, is an alias because he is afraid that some people are out to get him. Interestingly, the Hebrew meaning of his name is “son of the death.” He is also known on the Internet as Tombman. He was intrigued by the Rennes-le-Chateau mysteries after reading Holy Blood, Holy Grail. Hammott claims that the tomb of Mary, Jesus and others, along with lots of other treasures, were found by a local priest named Berenger Sauniere at the end of the 19th century. The priest reburied them in this Templar’s tomb and then blackmailed the Vatican for a “princely sum.”

The priest allegedly left a note with his last confession in a bottle that was found by “Ben Hammott.” The priest’s confession purportedly is: “The resurrection of Jesus was a trick, it was Mary Magdalene who took his body from the tomb. The Disciples were fooled. Later, the body of Jesus was discovered by the Templars and then hidden three times. The Knights protected a great secret which I have found. Not in Jerusalem. The tomb is here. Parts of the body are safe. I have abandoned and renounced my false Church [He is referring to the Roman Catholic Church - GF]. I have done what I have done to preserve the secret. Maybe in the future the time will come for the secret to be revealed.” These are pretty serious claims that are protected by a shadowy organization called the Priory of Sion.

Where’s the Beef?

Some will recall the Wendy’s hamburger commercial that compared their large hamburgers with their competitor’s very small hamburgers and the now famous question that was asked: “Where’s the beef?” With this movie, a similar question is asked, “Where’s the evidence?” But unlike the Wendy’s commercial where the competitor had at least a small beef patty, this movie has no credible evidence for its claims!

This movie purports to be a serious documentary about the proof for the bloodline of Jesus. One should be suspicious these days when “documentaries” come along that make amazing and sensational claims.

Did Mary Magdalene Make it to France?

The movie claims that there was a “thriving Jewish community” in southwest France in the 1st century AD [0:47:34]. That would be an ideal place for Mary and her children to flee from Jerusalem after the crucifixion of Jesus. Unfortunately there is no documentation for this statement, nor are any “expert witnesses” interviewed to substantiate this claim. In fact, the opposite is true, there was no thriving Jewish community living in southwest France in the 1st century AD.

Emil Schurer, in his monumental work, The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, states: “As for Southern Gaul it is possible that Jews resided there in the earlier Imperial period, since Christian communities were established in Lyon and Vienne already in the second century, and the Christian missions, at least in the New Testament times, tended to follow in the traces of the Jews. Apart from very scattered individual items of archaeological evidence, there is however no definite attestation of a Jewish settlement in Gaul until the fifth century” (1986:III.1:85). Notice Schurer’s evidence for a possible Jewish community in the 1st century is based on speculation. The hard evidence does not point to a thriving community in the area at the time of Jesus, but rather the 5th century AD.

Other scholars addressing the archaeological evidence for Jews living in France point out that of the 245 Jewish Greek inscriptions that are scattered around the Mediterranean world, none have been discovered in France (Safrai and Stern 1976:II:1043). There was, however, one Herodian lamp found in France (1976:II:673), but that could easily have been brought back to southern Gaul by a French soldier in the Roman Legion.

At the news conference in New York, one of the reporters asked Bruce Burgess what evidence there was that Mary went to France. He replied that there was no strong, hard evidence, just 800 years of “evidence.”

The earliest legends we have of Mary Magdalene living in France are from the 12th century AD, about the time the Knights Templar returned to France with their relics. As Bishop John Spong, the retired Episcopal bishop of Newark, NJ, so keenly observed at the news conference, relics are a great way to increase tourism in small villages! When people come to venerate an object in a church, they would spend money in the village to boost the local economy. John Calvin, the great reformer, wrote a book on these relics, including the tail of the donkey Jesus rode into Jerusalem on (1854: 243). He noted that Mary Magdalene had “two bodies, one at Auxerre, and another of great celebrity, with its head detached, at St. Maximin, in Provence” (1854: 265). Apparently “Mary Magdalene” was schizophrenic and Calvin was unaware of the Rennes-le-Chateau “body”!

The Parchments and Scavenger Hunt

“Ben Hammott” discovered the cave that contained the tomb with the “corpse” of Mary Magdalene, as well as a wooden chest with the relics from Jerusalem of the 1st century AD. He did this based on clues and measurements he was able to discern in the pictures and statues in the St. Mary Magdalene Church in Rannes-le-Chateau, as well as clues found in bottles that were hidden under rocks or in caves.

On his website he describes a few of the clues but not all of them. He said he will reveal them in his soon to be released book, Lost Tomb of the Knights Templar. Rennes-le-Chateau Secrets and Discoveries. Is this an infomercial for the book?

As I watched the movie it looked like an amateurish archaeological scavenger hunt. It taxed my imagination that somebody could move a rock or go into a cave and voila, there was a bottle with a note inside. What really alarmed me was how fresh looking, flexible and clean some of those “parchments” appeared in the movie. Anybody who has done any research in libraries knows how brittle and discolored pages could be in books from the 19th century. When these books are copied there is always a concern that the pages will crack. In the movie, the “parchments” unroll too easily for paper that had been rolled up for 100 years. The paper did not look faded and should have cracked when opened so quickly, if in fact, they are 100 years old.

To add credibility to this story, the producers of the film should have a paper expert independently test the paper and ink in order to determine the age of each “parchment.” Experts in this field could examine the paper and tell the date of the paper. Chemical analysis can determine the content of the ink which could give us a date for the ink as well. Readers may recall that similar tests were done on the so-called “Hitler’s Diary” that was eventually determined to be a hoax.

There are some Rennes researchers who question the French and Latin of these parchments and suggest they were written by an Englishmen. One researcher thinks the whole movie is bogus.

The Body of Mary Magdalene

The movie, following the lead of Reverend Lionel Fanthorpe, an Anglican priest from Wales and an avid Rennes researcher, suggests that Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany are the same person [1:41:14] See also Fanthorpe and Fanthrope 1999: 231-238. The evidence for Mary Magdalene and Mary of Bethany being the same person is non-existent (Bock 2004:13-59; Witherington 2006:15-51).

“Ben Hammott” discovered a small entrance inside a cave that led to another cave complex in 1999. On his first visit, his video camera fell down the hole, but he was able to retrieve it. At the hotel he watched the video and saw what the camera had captured. It revealed what appeared to be a shrouded corpse with the red cross of the Knights Templar. A year later, they returned with better equipment and lights for the video camera. This time they clearly saw the shrouded object as well as other treasures in chests and boxes.

In December 2006, “Ben Hammott” went back to the cave with Bruce Burgess who brought along a “remote camera rig.” In the movie, Hammott has some kind of device (a knife? on a pole) that cuts the shroud in order to reveal the face of the corpse [1:32:58]. He then cuts the area where the hands are and exposes them. I do not know what the antiquities laws are in France, but the cutting of the shroud could be a deliberate desecration of an archaeological artifact. I am puzzled as to why they did not just lift the whole shroud off the body and expose the entire corpse without cutting the shroud. I suspect the shroud was cut to expose only two parts of the “body”, the head and the hands. The head was exposed in order to show that the corpse was a woman. The hands had a unique clasp that they associated with the clasped hands of Mary Magdalene on a picture on the altar of the church dedicated to her in Rennes-le-Chateau.

A hair sample was obtained and submitted to the Paleo-DNA Labs at Lakehead University in Canada for analysis. The mitochondrial DNA suggested “the Middle Eastern maternal origins of the individual based on haplotyping information.”

It was also noted that this individual was placed on a slab of marble as if she was being venerated [1:36:26]. The conclusion drawn by “Ben Hammott” is that this is the mummified body of Mary Magdalene [1:34:43; 1:39:23].

The body, however, could not be Mary Magdalene, or any other Jewish person, for that matter. During the Second Temple period (the time of Jesus), Jewish people never mummified their dead. At the burial of Jesus normal Jewish burial customs were followed (John 19:38-40). When a Jewish person died, they were taken to the family tomb and buried before sundown. The body was washed and perfume and spices put on it to counteract the decaying stench of the corpse once it started to decompose. The family would have a one week period of intensive mourning, called shiva. Then there was a less intense period for thirty days, called sholshim. At the end of the year, the family met at the tomb and gathered the bones of the dead individual, washed and anointed them, and placed them in a bone box called an ossuary. This funerary practice is called ossilegium, or secondary burial (Fanny 2000; Rahmani 1961; 1981; 1982a; 1982b; Zlotnick 1966).

The Jewish people during the Second Temple period practiced secondary burial and did not mummify their dead. The only known Israelites to be mummified were Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 50:2, 3, 26), and they were the exception to the rule. Who the mummified “person” is in the movie, I do not know, but it is not Mary Magdalene, nor are any of the other mummified bodies that are purported to be in the tomb those of Jewish people either, and for sure, not Jesus.

If the producers of the movie wanted a better Biblical connection with the burial of “Mary of Bethany, alias Mary Magdalene” (which I do not believe is the case), they should have looked to Jerusalem. In the early 1950’s the Franciscan archaeologists excavated a necropolis at Dominus Flavit on the Mount of Olives. In Loculi 70 an ossuary was found, designated no. 27, with inscriptions in Hebrew with the names “Martha and Mary / Miriam” three times! (Bagatti and Milik 1981:77-79; Fig. 3-5; Photo 77, 78). It is quite possible that this ossuary contained the bones of two sisters. We know from the New Testament that there were two sisters with these names from Bethany, on the back side of the Mount of Olives, that lived together (Luke 10:38, 39), one of them was named Mary of Bethany (John 12:1-3). If we follow the movies’ scenario, one could make a better case that this ossuary contained the bones of “Mary of Bethany, alias Mary Magdalene”, and not the so-called mummified remains in France. At least this burial followed the Jewish burial practice of ossilegium, or secondary burial.

The Wooden Chest with First Century Artifacts

There was a parchment in the fourth bottle found by “Ben Hammott” that indicated that a wooden chest could be found with “the parchments of Abbe Bigou, the cup of Jesus and Mary, and the anointing jar” [1:09:06]. The location of this chest was found by using “clues” from the church and parchments from the bottles. These all pointed to a place, known by the locals, as the “Burial Cave of the Magdalene.” Once they located the cave, they used a very unorthodox method to locate the exact spot of the wooden chest. The dowsing rod they used pointed them to the back of this cave [1:10:51]. When they dug down a few centimeters, voila, there was the wooded chest! (If only real archaeologists could be so lucky!).

Bruce Burgess commented that the chest was “extremely damp and rotten.” When I looked at it during the news conference in New York, it did not look rotten, although I did not handle it. The chest should be examined by experts and the kind of wood determined as well as a sample taken for carbon dating and it should be tested. The chest could easily have been purchased from an antique dealer recently somewhere in France. In the movie, when Hammott was using the petech (a tool used by archaeologists for digging dirt) or geologist hammer, he hit the wood of the chest. It gave a sound of a solid piece of wood with a hollow inside [1:11:23; 1:11:46-48], and did not give the sound of wood that was “damp and rotten.” If the wood was “damp and rotten” it would have crumbled or at least left a hole in the top of the chest made by the petech.

The parchment and the movie claim that these first century artifacts were connected with the wedding of Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Professor Gabriel Barkay of Bar Ilan University in Israel attested to the authenticity of these objects and stated that they dated to the time of Jesus (some of the coins, however, were earlier and later than this time). I personally looked at them during the New York news conference and I am sure they are authentic and were correctly identified and dated by Dr. Barkay. In the wooden chest was a ceramic cup, an ungenterium, a glass phial with a parchment rolled up inside, and about thirty coins. Can these items be associated with the wedding of Jesus?

Before this question can be answered, the issue of Jesus’ marriage should be addressed. This is an idea that has been popularized by The Da Vinci Code (2003), but it has been circulating in some theological circles (Spong 1992:187-199; Fanthorpe and Fanthorpe 1999:231-238; Starbird 1993). When the movie, The Da Vinci Code, came out, evangelical scholars responded to the ideas expressed in both the book and movie. The works of Dr. Darrell Bock (2004: 13-59) and Dr. Ben Witherington III (2004: 28-37) should be consulted. There is no Biblical evidence to support the claim that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene or anybody else, for that matter. Now let us turn our attention to the artifacts found in the wooden chest.

The first artifact in the chest was a ceramic drinking cup. In his analysis, Dr. Barkay described it as a “bowl with an out flaring rim and a flat base” [1:18:13], similar to what Paul Lapp identifies as a small deep bowl (Lapp 1961:175). In the press release it was described as “simple pottery drinking cup” Barkay stressed that it was “common,” thus an ordinary household item that was used everyday by everybody.

Reverend Lionel Fanthorpe states that Mary of Bethany is Mary Magdalene and she was very wealthy [1:41:15]. A case can be made that Mary of Bethany was wealthy, but not that she was Mary Magdalene. Jewish wedding during the Second Temple periods were elaborate and festive affairs. The bride and groom would not have used a common cup made of course pottery for their wedding festivities, but rather, one of silver, gold, glass, or Eastern terra sigillata pottery (Avigad 1980:91). Using a “common” cup, if it was a cup and not a bowl, would be like a wealthy bride and groom at a wedding today toasting each other with a Styrofoam cup!

The second artifact in the box was identified as an ungenterium. This object is used to hold unguents, or perfumes, and is used for domestic as well as funerary purposes. They were regularly left in tombs so that the perfumes could counteract the smell of the decomposing flesh. The first century ungenterium is called a piriform bottle in the archaeological literature (Kahane 1952a, 1952b; Lapp 1961: 199; Avigad 1980:127-129, photo 124; Vitto 2000: 88, 107, 111). This piriform bottle could not have been the object used by “Mary of Bethany, alias Mary Magdalene” to anoint Jesus for His burial for three reasons. First, the piriform bottle is made of clay, but the Bible says that the vessel Mary anointed Jesus with was made of alabaster (Matt. 26:7; Mark 14:3). Second, the piriform bottle is completely intact. The Bible says Mary broke it in order to anoint Jesus (Mark 14:3). Finally, the vessel is too small. The Bible says it contained a pound of spikenard, thus the vessel would have been much larger then the one found in the chest (John 12:3).

The third object in the chest was a glass phial, also called an alabastra. Inside of this glass vessel there was a rolled up parchment which was carbon dated by the University of Oxford radiocarbon accelerator unit. The results suggest that there was a 68.2% chance that it dated between AD 1440 and 1480, or a 95.4% chance that it was dated between 1450 and 1520. Unfortunately the test was done only on the parchment and not the ink. All that the test reveals is that the parchment was made about AD 1452, but does not tell us who wrote the message, when it was written and what their motives may have been for writing it. For all we know, somebody could have taken a blank corner of a parchment that was known to be old and wrote a “message” on it a couple of years ago, rolled it up and placed it in the glass alabastra that could have been recently bought on the antiquities market in Jerusalem!

The clues from the fourth bottle said they would find the “parchments (plural) of Abbe Bigou” in the chest [1:09:06]. Abbe Bigou is identified as the priest of Rennes-le-Chateau before the French Revolution. There are two unexplained discrepancies with this discovery. First, the clue from the fourth bottle said there would be parchments, plural, more then one. There was only one in the phial and none others in the wooden chest. Second, the French Revolution began in 1789. It is not stated what years before the French Revolution that Abbe Bigou was the priest. The movie needs to explain why there is a 300-odd year discrepancy between the carbon date of the parchment and the beginning of the French Revolution.

There were about 30 coins in the wooden chest and all the coins appear to have been minted in Jerusalem. This hoard of coins covered a range of about 1,400 years, including Hasmonean coins (second century BC), Herodian coins (end of first century BC), first century procurator coins, Byzantine coins (fifth, sixth century AD), one Umayyad (Islamic) coin and the latest was a Jerusalemite Crusader coin, probably of King Baldwin, of the 12th century AD. The last coin hints at the fact that the hoard was gathered by the Crusaders, most likely in the 12th century. If it was gathered the 12th century then it would be possible that the Knights Templar brought them back when they returned to France. However, it could also that they were gathered together in the 21st century. Anybody could have easily purchased them on the antiquities market in Jerusalem or even from the young boys outside of Jaffa Gate or near the Gihon Springs in Jerusalem who sell post cards and ancient coins.

Internal Inconsistencies

There are internal inconsistencies within the movie, but I will leave them to be pointed out by the Rennes researchers who know a whole lot more about the subject then I ever will.

Some have already noted objects in the “tomb” that have been moved about even though there is only one small entrance and nobody has supposedly been in the cave. Another is the incorrect spelling of the French and Latin on the parchments that were allegedly made by the well-educated priest, Berenger Sauniere. I think once the movie is released to the public, more inconsistencies will be discovered as it is scrutinized by the knowledgeable Rennes researchers.

Two inconsistencies I noticed are these. First, when the interview with Gino Sandri, the supposed general secretary of the Order of Priory of Sion, was finished, Bruce Burgess said they turned off the cameras. We see a man in the back of the café get up and hand Sandi a note before this mystery man walked out of the café [0:11:39]. The next scene we see Sandi holding the card with his thumb partially covering the note, but part of the note can be read. Burgess said, “Who he was and what the note says, I do not know.” Yet the note is shown in the movie. Is this a Hollywood reconstruction of the event for dramatic purposes? If so, is that really Gino Sandri in the movie or just an actor? At best, this movie should be called a docudrama, but not a documentary.

The second inconsistency was the discovery of the third bottle. In this “discovery,” “Ben Hammott” and somebody else are trying to remove a rock from the ground. When it is finally loosen, Hammott rolls down the hill with the rock. For a brief second, we see the ground that was underneath the rock and there is no bottle to be seen [1:00:53]. After Hammott stops his roll, the movie cuts back to the spot where the rock is, and there is the bottle [1:01:02]. The question that needs to be answered is who put the yellow or orange bottle there?

One burning question I have is who was the second person in the cave with “Ben Hammott” when he cut the shroud and exposed the head and hands of “Mary”? In the movie it is a night scene [1:27:19], Ben is spooked because he thinks somebody is out to get him. He leaves Bruce and his cameraman to watch the car while he walks to the cave alone with one flashlight and a large carrying case, presumably containing the remote camera equipment [1:29:27]. Once inside the cave, we see the lights on the floor of the cave from two flashlights [1:29:40] and the shadow of somebody using a video camera [1:30:03]. “Ben Hammott” could not have done that alone. Was there a fourth person in the party that we are not told about? Or did Bruce and the cameraman get scared of the wild boars and go in anyway?

Will the Tomb Ever be Excavated?

At the end of the movie it was announced that, “Planning is now underway for a full scale archaeological examination of the tomb site with Ben Hammott and the French government” [1:55:06].

At the press conference I asked Lionel Fanthorpe when the excavation will be conducted. He said it would depend on “Ben Hammott” because he is taking care of his cancer-stricken son. If his son does have cancer, we wish him well and pray for his recovery. However, this could be a very convenient excuse to postpone the “examination” indefinitely. I, for one, am not holding my breath waiting for a news conference from Paris, London or Hollywood about spectacular discoveries from some cave near Rennes-le-Chateau. My mind, skeptical from experience, doubts the possibility that the French antiquities authority, the DRAC-LR, has jurisdiction over a movie set in Hollywood, California, or even England!

The Agenda of Bloodline

Bishop Spong stated at the news conference that the premise of the movie was “nuts” and that the movie itself was “speculation” and “off-the-wall.” Normally I do not agree with the bishop’s theology, but I was shouting inside myself, “Amen, preach it!” (He even autographed one of his books for me after the press conference.)

At the end of the movie, Bruce Burgess said, “For the record, I do think that it’s possible that these discoveries, especially the chest and maybe even the tomb were somehow placed there for Ben and us to find. That doesn’t make them fake in any way. It just means that someone with an agenda wanted this material revealed, but who?” [1:49:53].

I can think of three possibilities. First, some secret organization who wants to disprove the deity and bodily resurrection of Jesus and will bump off anybody in the way of their agenda. Second, people who want to sell books (a la Lost Tomb of the Knights Templar) and movie tickets (a la Bloodline). There is a third, yet more driving, possibility. Bloodline has an agenda. The message they are trying to get out, disguised as a serious documentary, is that Jesus is not God and He did not come back from the dead.

Bruce Burgess, however, dropped some subtle hints that this movie might be a hoax. He said that when he saw the video of the shrouded corpse for the first time, he thought it looked like a movie set, and too good to be true [0:48:49]. When some locals wanted to show him parchments he said he knew it was a “scam,” but he wanted to see them anyway! [0:41:14]. When he asked Professor Barkay how the first century artifacts got to France, Barkay said they could have been bought on the antiquities market in Israel recently and brought to Europe, or they could have been brought to France by Knights Templar [1:20:04]. The “buying antiquities” remark was not edited out of the movie, even though it was omitted from the press release. Professor Barkay stressed that the antiquities were “common” objects. In other words, they are a “dime a dozen” and could easily have been purchased on the antiquities market in Jerusalem, or even on eBay®, for that matter.

The film asks the question: "What if the greatest story ever told was a lie?" Perhaps the question that should be asked is: “What if the premise and storyline in this movie is a lie?” What if somebody recently placed the parchments in bottles for the archaeological scavenger hunt in order to find the wooden chest? What if somebody recently bought some ancient coins, an ungenterium, a common clay cup, and a glass phial from one of the antiquities dealers in Jerusalem several years ago and places it in the wooden chest? What if somebody recently forged all those parchments? What if somebody recently recreated a plastic mummified “body” of Mary Magdalene (actually just her head and hands)? What if somebody had an agenda to attempt to disprove the deity of the Lord Jesus and His bodily resurrection? What if they wanted to lead people away from the truth of the greatest story ever told, and also try and cash in on the run away best selling fictitious novel, the Da Vinci Code? If this is the case, we have on our hands another Hollywood Hoax.

The movie began with this quote from the apocryphal Gospel of Thomas: “Do not tell lies for there is nothing hidden that will not be revealed, and there is nothing covered up that will not be uncovered” (Gospel of Thomas 6; for a more accurate translation, see Blatz 1991:1:118). We will end our critique of the movie with this passage. While this text was not inspired of the Holy Spirit, it speaks for itself!

The Conclusion of the Matter

Fortunately, the greatest story ever told is still true. The Lord Jesus, in love, left the glories of heaven, humbled Himself, veiled His glory and became a man in order to die on a cross outside of Jerusalem in order to pay for all the sins of all humanity (John 3:16; Rom. 5:8; Phil. 2:5-11; I John 2:2). Three days later, He was bodily resurrected from the dead and is now seated at the right hand of the Father. He left no physical bloodline because He never married Mary Magdalene or anyone else while living a perfect, sinless life here on earth as God manifest in human flesh. However, He does have a spiritual bloodline. Hebrews 2:10 says: “For it is fitting for Him [Jesus], for whom are all things and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through suffering.” Jesus’ spiritual bloodline is composed of all who have put their trust in Him and Him alone for their salvation. His spiritual children did not earn their salvation, they did not work for it, they did not join a church or be baptized, they simply trusted Jesus to forgive all their sins so He could give them His righteousness, or perfection, so they could enter a perfect Heaven and be in the presence of a holy God forever (Rom. 4:5; Phil. 3:9; Titus 3:4-7; I John 5:13).

The Apostle John wrote in the introduction to his gospel: “He came unto his own, and His own did not receive Him. But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:11-13). In one of his epistles he also wrote: “Behold what manner of love the Father has bestowed on us, that we should be called children of God! Therefore the world does not know us, because it did not know Him. Beloved, now are we children of God; and it has not yet been revealed what we shall be, but we know that when He is revealed, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is” (I John 3:1, 2). Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are the true spiritual bloodline of Jesus, not some fictitious Merovingian line that claims to descend from Jesus and Mary Magdalene. Do not believe the lie of the movie “Bloodline,” but rather, believe the truth of the Word of God, the Bible. Your eternal destiny, Heaven or Hell, will be determined by what you believe.

Footnotes

I have placed the beginning of a quote or fact from the movie in brackets. For example, [1:07:33] means the quote begins at one hour, seven minutes and thirty-three seconds into the movie. I have the “For Screening Only” version, so the numbers may be different when the DVD is finally released. Some statements are taken from the press release and are not footnoted, but can be found on the Bloodline website. Others are from websites and they are listed in the bibliography.

Bibliography

Avigad, Nahman

1980 Discovering Jerusalem. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Bagatti, P. B.; Milik, J. T.

1981 Gli Scavi Del “Dominus Flevit”. Part 1. Jerusalem: Franciscan Printing

Blatz, Beate

1991 The Coptic Gospel of Thomas. Pp. 110-133 in New Testament Apocrypha. Vol. 1. Edited by W. Schneemelcher. Louisville, KY: Westminster / John Knox.

Bock, Darrell

2004 Breaking the Da Vinci Code. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.

Brown, Dan

2003 The Da Vinci Code. New York: Doubleday.

Calvin, John

1854 A Treatise on Relics by John Calvin. Edinburgh: Johnstone and Hunter

Fanthorpe, Lionel; and Fanthorpe, Patricia

1999 Mysteries of the Bible. Toronto, Canada: The Dundurn Group.

Jacobovici, Simcha; and Pellegrino, Charles

2007 The Jesus Family Tomb. New York: HarperCollins.

Kahane, P.

1952 Pottery Types from the Jewish Ossuary-Tombs Around Jerusalem. Israel Exploration Journal 2/2: 125-139; 2/3: 176-182.

Lapp, Paul

1961 Palestinian Ceramic Chronology. 200 B.C.-A.D. 70. New Haven: American Schools of Oriental Research.

Rahmani, Levi

1961 Jewish Rock-Cut Tombs in Jerusalem. ‘Atiqot 3: 93-120.

1981 Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs – Part One. Biblical Archaeologist 44: 171-177.

1982a Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs – Part Three. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 43-53.

1982b Ancient Jerusalem’s Funerary Customs and Tombs – Part Four. Biblical Archaeologist 45: 109-119.

Safrai, S., and Stern, M., eds.

1976 The Jewish People in the First Century. Vol. 2. Assen: Van Gorcum and Philadelphia: Fortress.

Schurer, Emil

1986 The History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3.1. Revised and edited by G. Vermes; F. Miller; and M. Goodman. Edinburgh: T & T Clark

Spong, John Shelby

1992 Born of a Woman. A Bishop Rethinks the Birth of Jesus. New York: Harper Collins.

Starbird, Margaret

1993 The Woman with the Alabaster Jar. Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail. Rochester, VT: Bear and Company.

Tabor, James D.

2006 The Jesus Dynasty. The Hidden History of Jesus, His Royal Family, and the Birth of Christianity. New York: Simon and Schuster.

Vitto, Fanny

2000 Burial Caves from the Second Temple Period in Jerusalem (Mount Scopus, Giv’at Hamivtar, Neveh Ya’aqov). ‘Atiqot 40: 65-121.

Witherington, Ben III

2004 The Gospel Code. Novel Claims About Jesus, Mary Magdalene and Da Vinci. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity.

2006 What Have They Done With Jesus? San Francisco, CA: Harper San Francisco.

Zlotnick, Dov

1966 ‘The Tractate Mourning’ (Semahot). Tractate New Haven, CT and London: Yale University.

Websites

Bloodline-the movie

www.bloodlinethemovie.com

The Fiction of Bloodline

http://www.rlcresearch.com/2008/05/02/bloodline-fiction

Ben Hammott

www.benhammot.com

Critique of the So-Called Jesus Family Tomb

http://www.plymouthbrethren.org/page.php?page_id=4062

A moving video on archaeology related to the Passion Week, by Joel Kramer of Sourceflix (Off site link).

 

The Ark of the Covenant is in the news again. This time it comes from a world-renowned, truly distinguished, widely published scholar who is speaking from his field of expertise. Tudor Parfitt is professor of Jewish Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London...

The 13th century exodus-conquest theory was formulated by William F. Albright in the 1930s, based largely on Palestinian archaeological evidence, and promoted by him throughout his career.¹ In the years following Albright’s death in 1971, however, evidence for the proposal dissipated and most Palestinian archaeologists abandoned the idea.² In spite of the fact that the theory runs counter to Scripture, a number of evangelicals continue to hold to this view, prompting Carl G. Rasmussen to comment, “the Late-Date Exodus/Conquest Model has been abandoned by many scholars...it seems that currently the major adherents to the Late-Date Exodus/Conquest Model are some evangelicals!”³ A strong advocate of the theory is Kenneth A. Kitchen, who recently gave a detailed exposition of it in his On the Reliability of the Old Testament.⁴

I. Basis for the 13th Century Exodus-Conquest Theory

Albright used three sites as evidence for a conquest in the late 13th century BC: Tell Beit Mirsim, which he identified as Debir,⁵ Beitin, identified as Bethel,⁶ and Lachish.⁷ All three were excavated in the 1930s and in each case a violent destruction layer was found which was dated to the end of the 13th century BC. At both Tell Beit Mirsim and Beitin the destruction of a relatively prosperous Late Bronze Age city was followed by a much poorer Iron Age I culture, which Albright identified as Israelite. At Lachish, on the other hand, the destruction was followed by a period of abandonment. Albright assigned a hieratic inscription dated to “regnal year four” found at Lachish to the fourth year of Merenptah and used it to date the conquest to ca. 1230 BC, based on the high Egyptian chronology in use at the time.⁸

A fourth major site was added to the list when Yigael Yadin excavated Hazor in the 1950s.⁹ Again, a violent destruction occurred toward the end of the 13th century BC. This was followed by a period of abandonment, which, in turn, was followed by a poor Iron Age I settlement.

II. Loss of the Archaeological foundation

For the 13th century exodus-conquest theory to be valid, the Palestinian destructions would have to occur prior to the fourth year of Merenptah, ca. 1210 BC, as Israel was settled in Canaan by this time according to Merenptah’s famous stela.¹⁰ A detailed analysis of the pottery associated with the destruction levels of Tell Beit Mirsim and Beitin, however, reveals that these sites were destroyed in the early 12th century, probably at the hands of the Philistines, ca. 1177 BC.¹¹ Inscriptional evidence found at Lachish in the 1970s indicates that it was destroyed even later, ca. 1160 BC.¹² Recent excavations at Hazor, on the other hand, have sustained the ca. 1230 BC date for the demise of the Late Bronze Age city.¹³ But was that destruction at the hands of Joshua, or Deborah and Barak?

Only three cities are recorded as having been destroyed by fire by the Israelites: Jericho (Josh 6:24), Ai (Josh 8:28), and Hazor (Josh 11:11).¹⁴ All three pose problems for a late 13th century conquest. At Jericho and Ai, no evidence has been found for occupation in the late 13th century, let alone for a destruction at that time.¹⁵ Assigning the 1230 BC destruction at Hazor to Joshua results in a major conflict with the biblical narrative. Following the 1230 BC destruction, there was no urban center there until the time of Solomon in the 10th century BC (1 Kgs 9:15).¹⁶ The defeat of Jabin, king of Hazor, by a coalition of Hebrew tribes under the leadership of Deborah and Barak is recorded in Judg 4–5. Judg 4:24 indicates that the Israelites destroyed Hazor at this time: “And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him”.¹⁷ If Joshua destroyed Hazor in 1230 BC, then there would be no city for the Jabin of Judges 4 to rule.

Five other sites in Cisjordan were destroyed toward the end of the 13th century BC: Gezer, Aphek, Megiddo, Beth Shan, and Tell Abu Hawam.¹⁸ The ancient name of Tell Abu Hawam is unknown, so nothing can be said relative to its role in the conquest. The other four sites, however, are singled out in the biblical narrative as cities the Israelites could not conquer.¹⁹

III. Additional Problems with a 13th Century-Exodus Conquest

1. Biblical chronology

The internal chronological data in the Hebrew Bible clearly supports a mid-15th century BC date for the exodus. The primary datum is 1 Kgs 6:1 which states, “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the LORD.” Working back from Solomon’s fourth year, ca. 966 BC,²⁰ brings us to ca. 1446 BC for the date of the exodus. The Jubilees data support an exodus date of 1446 BC as well.²¹

In addition, Judg 11:26 argues for a 15th century exodus-conquest. In this passage Jephthah stated in a letter to the king of Ammon, “for three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon.” Although it is not possible to calculate precise dates for Jephthah, various scholars have estimated the beginning of his judgeship between 1130 and 1073 BC,²² so the implication is that the tribe of Reuben had been occupying the disputed area from the Wadi Hesban to the Arnon River since ca. 1400 BC.

2. Egyptian history

Kitchen dates the conquest to 1220–1210 BC and consequently the exodus to 1260 BC,²³ early in the reign of Rameses II (1279–1213 BC).²⁴ One of the main arguments for an early 13th century date for the exodus is the mention of the name Rameses in Exod 1:11 (see below). If the Israelites built a store city named after Rameses II, then the exodus must have occurred during his reign. But if we look carefully at the chronology of the exodus events we see that this argument is flawed. Exod 1 presents a series of events: oppression (including the building of Pithom and Rameses, vs. 11), increase in Israelite population (vs. 12a), fear of the Israelites on the part of the Egyptians (vs. 12b), command to kill all newborn Israelite males (vs. 16). This series of events is then followed by the birth of Moses (Exod 2:1). Since Moses was 80 years of age at the time of the exodus (Exod 7:7), the building of Rameses would have taken place well before Moses’ birth in 1340 BC (according to the 13th century theory), long before Rameses came to the throne.²⁵ In fact, since Rameses II was 25 years of age when he began his rule,²⁶ the Israelites built the store city called “Rameses” before Rameses II was even born!

In addition, the Bible strongly implies that the Pharaoh of the exodus perished in the yam sûp. As the Egyptians were closing in on the Israelites at the yam sûp, the Lord said to Moses, “The Egyptians will know that I am the LORD when I gain glory through Pharaoh, his chariots and his horsemen” (Exod 14:18). Then, after the Israelites had crossed the yam sûp, “The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and horsemen followed them into the sea” (Exod 14:23). The water then covered “the entire army of Pharaoh,” such that “not one of them survived” (Exod 14:28). More explicit are Pss 106:11, “The waters covered their adversaries; not one of them survived” and 136:15, “[the LORD] swept Pharaoh and his army into the yam sûp.” Obviously, Rameses II did not drown in the yam sûp, as he died of natural causes some 47 years after the presumed exodus date of 1260 BC.

IV. Kitchen's Defense of the 13th Century Exodus-Conquest Theory

1. Arguments for the theory

Kitchen gives three reasons why the exodus and conquest occurred in the 13th century BC.

a. Mention of Rameses in Exodus 1:11

Since the Israelites were employed to build a city which is called “Rameses” in Exod 1:11, Kitchen and those who hold to a 13th century exodus presume it was the delta capital Pi-Ramesse built by Rameses II.²⁷ As pointed out above, however, the Israelites were employed as slave laborers to construct the store cities prior to the reign of Rameses II. It is clear, then, that the name Rameses used in Exod 1:11 is an editorial updating of an earlier name that went out of use. There was a long history of occupation in the area of Pi-Ramesse, with several names being given to the various cities there.²⁸ The name Pi-Ramesse was in use from the time of Rameses II until ca. 1130 BC when the site was abandoned,²⁹ possibly due to silting of the Pelusiac branch of the Nile. A new capital was then established at Tanis 12 mi. northeast.

Editorial updating of names that had gone out of use is not uncommon in the Hebrew Bible. Other examples are Bethel, named by Jacob in Gen 28:19, but used proleptically in Gen 12:8 and 13:3; Dan, named by the Danites in Judg 18:29 and used proleptically in Gen 14:14; and Samaria, named by Omri in 1 Kgs 16:24 and used proleptically in 1 Kgs 13:32. Kitchen allows for editorial updating of the name Rameses in Gen 47:11,³⁰ and Dan in Gen 14:14,³¹ but not for Rameses in Exod 1:11.

b. Covenant format

Based on the formats of ancient Near East treaties, laws, and covenants from the period 2500–650 BC, Kitchen has concluded that the Sinai covenant documents of Exod, Lev, Deut, and the renewal in Josh 24, most closely match late second millennium (ca. 1400–1200 BC) Hittite treaties (see Table 1).³² However, when one looks at the formats found in the biblical covenant texts, it is seen that they are highly fluid and change continually throughout. Exodus and Leviticus are largely stipulations and religious regulations, interspersed with narrative and elements of covenant terminology. Deuteronomy is a discourse by Moses, with stipulations, and interspersed with elements of covenant terminology. The focus of Josh 24 is a call to be faithful to Yahweh, couched in covenant terminology. The biblical covenant documents do not follow any set format, as seen in Tables 2–4.³³

Table 1: Second Millennium BC Covenant Formats in the Ancient Near East⁶⁹

ca. 1800–1700 BC	ca. 1600–1400 BC		ca. 1400–1200 BC
Mari/Leilan	North Syria	Hittites	Hittite Corpus
Witness/Oaths	Title	Title	Title
Stipulations	Stipulations	Witnesses	Historical Prologue
Curses	Curses	Stipulations	Stipulations
		Oath	Deposit/Reading
		Curses	Witnesses
			Curses
			Blessings

Table 2: Covenant Format of Exodus

1:1–19:3a  Narrative	23:25–31  Blessings	34:10a  Preamble
19:3b  Preamble	23:32–33  Stipulations	34:10b–11  Blessings
19:4  Historical Prologue	24:1–2  Narrative	34:12–23  Stipulations
19:5–6  Blessing	24:3a  Recitation (=Reading)	34:24  Blessings
19:7  Recitation (=Reading)	24:3b  Oath	34:25–26  Stipulations
19:8  Oath	24:4–6  Ceremony	34:27–28  Epilogue
19:9–25  Narrative	24:7a  Reading	34:29–31  Narrative
20:1  Preamble	24:7b  Oath	34:32  Reading
20:2  Historical Prologue	24:8–11  Ceremony	34:33–35  Narrative
20:3–17  Stipulations	24:12–18  Narrative	35:1  Preamble
20:18–21  Narrative	25:1  Preamble	35:2–3  Stipulations
20:22a  Preamble	25:2–15  Religious Regulations	35:4  Preamble
20:22b  Historical Prologue	25:16  Deposit	35:5–19  Religious Regulations
20:23–26  Stipulations	25:17–20  Religious Regulations	35:20–40:19  Narrative
21:1  Preamble	25:21  Deposit	40:20  Deposit
21:2–23:19  Stipulations	25:22–31:17  Religious Regulations	40:21–38  Narrative
23:20–23  Blessings	31:18  Epilogue
23:24  Stipulations	32:1–34:9  Narrative

Table 3: Covenant Format of Leviticus

1:1–2a  Preamble	13:59  Epilogue	22:33  Historical Epilogue
1:2b–3:17  Religious Regulations	14:1–2  Preamble	23:1–2a  Preamble
4:1–2a   Sub Preamble 1	14:3–31  Stipulations	23:2b–22  Religious Regulations
4:2b–5:13  Religious Regulations	14:32  Epilogue	23:23–24a  Preamble
5:14  Sub Preamble 1	14:33  Preamble	23:24b–25  Religious Regulations
5:15–19  Religious Regulations	14:34–53  Stipulations	23:26  Preamble
6:1  Sub Preamble 1	14:54–57  Epilogue	23:27–32  Religious Regulations
6:2–7  Religious Regulations	15:1–2a  Preamble	23:33–34a  Preamble
6:8  Sub Preamble 1	15:2b–31  Stipulations	23:34b–42  Religious Regulations
6:9–18  Religious Regulations	15:32–33  Epilogue	23:43  Historical Epilogue
6:19  Sub Preamble 1	16:1–2a  Preamble	23:44  Recitation (=Reading)
6:20–23  Religious Regulations	16:2b–33  Religious Regulations	24:1  Preamble
6:24  Sub Preamble 1	16:34  Epilogue	24:2–9  Religious Regulations
6:25–30  Religious Regulations	17:1–2  Preamble	24:10–23  Narrative
7:1  Sub Preamble 2	17:3–16  Stipulations	25:1–2a  Preamble
7:2–10  Religious Regulations	18:1–2a  Preamble	25:2b–17  Stipulations
7:11  Sub Preamble 2	18:2b–29  Stipulations	25:18–22  Blessings
7:12–21  Religious Regulations	18:30  Epilogue	25:23–37  Stipulations
7:22  Sub Preamble 1	19:1–2a  Preamble	25:38  Historical Interjection
7:23–27  Religious Regulations	19:2b–36  Stipulations	25:39–54  Stipulations
7:28  Sub Preamble 1	19:37  Epilogue	25:55  Historical Interjection
7:29–36  Religious Regulations	20:1–2a  Preamble	26:1–2  Stipulations
7:37–38  Epilogue	20:2b–27  Stipulations	26:3–12  Blessings
8–10  Narrative	21:1a  Preamble	26:13  Historical Interjection
11:1–2a  Preamble	21:1b–23  Religious Regulations	26:14–39  Curses
11:2b–44  Stipulations	21:24  Recitation (=Reading)	26:40–44  Blessings
11:45  Historical Epilogue	22:1  Preamble	26:45  Historical Epilogue
11:46–47  Epilogue	22:2–16  Religious Regulations	26:46  Epilogue
12:1–2a  Preamble	22:17–18a  Preamble	27:1–2a  Preamble
12:2b–7a  Stipulations	22:18b–25  Religious Regulations	27:2b–33  Stipulations
12:7b–8  Epilogue	22:26  Preamble	27:34  Epilogue
13:1  Preamble	22:27–30  Religious Regulations
13:2–58  Stipulations	22:31–32  Epilogue

Table 4: Covenant Format of Deuteronomy

1:1–2a  Preamble	13:59  Epilogue	22:33  Historical Epilogue
1:2b–3:17  Religious Regulations	14:1–2  Preamble	23:1–2a  Preamble
4:1–2a   Sub Preamble 1	14:3–31  Stipulations	23:2b–22  Religious Regulations
4:2b–5:13  Religious Regulations	14:32  Epilogue	23:23–24a  Preamble
5:14  Sub Preamble 1	14:33  Preamble	23:24b–25  Religious Regulations
5:15–19  Religious Regulations	14:34–53  Stipulations	23:26  Preamble
6:1  Sub Preamble 1	14:54–57  Epilogue	23:27–32  Religious Regulations
6:2–7  Religious Regulations	15:1–2a  Preamble	23:33–34a  Preamble
6:8  Sub Preamble 1	15:2b–31  Stipulations	23:34b–42  Religious Regulations
6:9–18  Religious Regulations	15:32–33  Epilogue	23:43  Historical Epilogue
6:19  Sub Preamble 1	16:1–2a  Preamble	23:44  Recitation (=Reading)
6:20–23  Religious Regulations	16:2b–33  Religious Regulations	24:1  Preamble
6:24  Sub Preamble 1	16:34  Epilogue	24:2–9  Religious Regulations
6:25–30  Religious Regulations	17:1–2  Preamble	24:10–23  Narrative
7:1  Sub Preamble 2	17:3–16  Stipulations	25:1–2a  Preamble
7:2–10  Religious Regulations	18:1–2a  Preamble	25:2b–17  Stipulations
7:11  Sub Preamble 2	18:2b–29  Stipulations	25:18–22  Blessings
7:12–21  Religious Regulations	18:30  Epilogue	25:23–37  Stipulations
7:22  Sub Preamble 1	19:1–2a  Preamble	25:38  Historical Interjection
7:23–27  Religious Regulations	19:2b–36  Stipulations	25:39–54  Stipulations
7:28  Sub Preamble 1	19:37  Epilogue	25:55  Historical Interjection
7:29–36  Religious Regulations	20:1–2a  Preamble	26:1–2  Stipulations
7:37–38  Epilogue	20:2b–27  Stipulations	26:3–12  Blessings
8–10  Narrative	21:1a  Preamble	26:13  Historical Interjection
11:1–2a  Preamble	21:1b–23  Religious Regulations	26:14–39  Curses
11:2b–44  Stipulations	21:24  Recitation (=Reading)	26:40–44  Blessings
11:45  Historical Epilogue	22:1  Preamble	26:45  Historical Epilogue
11:46–47  Epilogue	22:2–16  Religious Regulations	26:46  Epilogue
12:1–2a  Preamble	22:17–18a  Preamble	27:1–2a  Preamble
12:2b–7a  Stipulations	22:18b–25  Religious Regulations	27:2b–33  Stipulations
12:7b–8  Epilogue	22:26  Preamble	27:34  Epilogue
13:1  Preamble	22:27–30  Religious Regulations
13:2–58  Stipulations	22:31–32  Epilogue

Kitchen has selected portions from Exod–Lev, Deut, and Josh 24, and rearranged them to match the late second millennium Hittite treaty format, with the exception of the order of blessings and curses.³⁴ An example of this methodology is presented in Table 5. The result is an artificial format that does not correspond to the reality of the biblical texts. Kitchen has merely manipulated the biblical data to support his preconceived conclusion as to when the exodus took place. The format of the biblical material is varied and complex and cannot be dated to a particular time period based on ANE treaty formats.

Table 5: Comparison of Kitchen’s Rearranged Covenant Format With the Actual Format of Joshua 24

Kitchen’s Rearranged Format70	Actual Format
2a  Title/Preamble	2a  Preamble
2b–13  Historical Prologue	2b– 13  Historical Prologue
14–15  Stipulations	14–15  Stipulations
26  Depositing Text	16–18 Oath
22, 27 Witness	19–20  Curses
20c  Blessings (implied)	21  Oath
19–20b  Curses	22  Witnesses
	23  Stipulations
	24  Oath
	25–26a  Depositing Text
	26b–27  Witness

Table 6: Early Second Millennium BC Law Code Formats in the Ancient Near East⁷¹

Lipit-Ishtar(ca. 1926 BC) and Hammurabi (ca. 1760 BC)

Preamble

Prologue

Laws

Epilogue

Blessings

Curses

Moreover, oaths, which are an important component of the biblical covenant (Exod 19:8; 24:3b, 7b; Josh 24:16–18, 21, 24), only are found in Hittite treaties from 1600–1400 BC, not in the 1400–1200 BC treaties Kitchen claims are the closest to the biblical format (see Table 1).

c. Lack of a royal residence in the delta³⁶

It is clear from the narrative of Exod 2–14 that there was a royal residence in the eastern delta where the Israelites were residing at the time of the exodus. Moses was rescued from the Nile and later adopted by a royal princess (Exod 2:5–10); after returning from Midian, Moses confronted Pharaoh, both in his palace and on the banks of the Nile;³⁷ and the Israelite foremen appeared before Pharaoh (Exod 5:15–21). Kitchen claims there was no royal center in the vicinity of Pi-Ramesse from the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos, ca. 1555 BC, until Horemhab began rebuilding, ca. 1320 BC. “Thus an exodus before 1320 would have no Delta capital to march from.”³⁸

This is not the case. Excavations at Ezbet Helmi, a little over a mile southwest of Pi-Ramesse, from ca. 1990 to the present, have revealed a large royal compound occupying some 10 acres.³⁹ The compound was located just south of where the Pelusiac branch of the Nile flowed in antiquity, bearing out the biblical depiction of the royal palace being in close proximity to the Nile. It consisted of two palaces and other building complexes that were in use during the early 18th Dynasty. The northwestern palace, Palace F, originally built in the late Hyksos period, was constructed on a 230 x 150 ft. platform approximately 100 ft. from the riverbank. A ramp on the northeast side gave access to the palace. To the northeast of Palace F was a middle class settlement, including workshops. A series of royal scarabs were found there, covering the period of the early 18th Dynasty from its founder, Ahmosis (ca. 1570–1546 BC), to Amenhotep II (ca. 1453–1419 BC).⁴⁰ Southwest of Palace F were storage rooms and possibly part of a ritual complex.⁴¹

Figure 1. Royal citadel of Moses’ time at Ezbet Helmi. Excavations by the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Cairo under the direction of Manfred Bietak have uncovered a walled-in area of ca. 10 acres enclosing a complex of buildings made of mud brick, including two major palaces, workshops, military areas, and storage and cultic facilities. (Based on Bietak, Dorner and Jánosi “Ausgrabungen 1993–2000,” figs. 4, 33 and 34b.)

The main palace, Palace G, was located 255 ft. southeast of Palace F, with an open courtyard between the two. Palace G occupied an area 259 x 543 ft., or 3 ¼ acres. To the immediate southwest were workshops and further to the southwest were city-like buildings.⁴² Palace G was built on a platform 23 ft. high with entry via a ramp on the northeast side. The entrance led into a large open courtyard 150 ft. square with columns on three sides. Proceeding to the southwest, one passed through three rows of columns into a vestibule that had two rows of columns. This marked the beginning of the palace proper, which probably had one or more stories above. The vestibule led into a hypostyle hall to the northwest and a reception hall with four rows of columns to the southwest. It was undoubtedly here in this reception hall where Moses and Aaron met with Pharaoh. Beyond these rooms were the private apartments of the royal family. These would have included private reception rooms, banquet rooms, dressing rooms, bathrooms and sleeping quarters.⁴³

2. Treatment of the biblical chronological data

a. 1 Kings 6:1

To explain the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1, Kitchen appeals to the oft-repeated explanation that the figure is not a total time span, but rather 12 generations made up of ideal (or “full” as Kitchen says) generations of 40 years each.⁴⁴ There is no basis for such an interpretation, biblical or otherwise. Nowhere in the Bible is it hinted that a “full” or ideal generation was 40 years in length. Quite the contrary, in the Hebrew Bible 40 years is often stipulated as a standard period of elapsed time.⁴⁵ Moreover, there were more than 12 generations between the exodus and Solomon.⁴⁶ In 1 Chr 6:33–37, 18 generations are listed from Korah, who opposed Moses (Num 16; cf. Exod 6:16–21), to Heman, a Temple musician in the time of David (1 Chr 6:31; 15:16–17). Adding one generation to extend the genealogy to Solomon results in 19 generations from the exodus to Solomon, not 12. Using Kitchen’s estimated length of a generation of ca. 25 years⁴⁷ yields a total estimated time span of 475 years, a figure that compares well with the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1.

Umberto Cassuto made a study of the use of numbers in the Hebrew Bible.⁴⁸ He discovered that when a number is written in ascending order (e.g., twenty and one hundred), the number is intended to be a technically precise figure, “since the tendency to exactness in these instances causes the smaller numbers to be given precedence and prominence.”⁴⁹ Conversely, numbers written in descending order (e.g., one hundred and twenty), are non-technical numbers found in narrative passages, poems, speeches, etc.⁵⁰ The number in 1 Kgs 6:1 is written in ascending order, “in the eightieth year and four hundredth year,” and thus is to be understood as a precise number according to standard Hebrew usage, not as a schematic or symbolic number as some would have it.

b. Judges 11:26

Since there is no convenient way to dispose of the 300 year time period from the conquest to Jephthah in Judg 11:26, Kitchen resorts to an ad hominem argument; it was so much hyperbole from an “ignorant man”:

Brave fellow that he was, Jephthah was a roughneck, an outcast and not exactly the kind of man who would scruple first to take a Ph.D. in local chronology at some ancient university of the Yarmuk before making strident claims to the Ammonite ruler. What we have is nothing more than the report of a brave but ignorant man’s bold bluster in favor of his people, not a mathematically precise chronological datum.⁵¹ ...For blustering Jephthah’s propagandistic 300 years (Judg. 11:26)...it is fatuous to use this as a serious chronological datum.⁵²

The fact of the matter is that Judg 11:26 comports well with the other chronological data in the Hebrew Bible, as well as external data, to support a 15th century exodus-conquest.

3. Treatment of the Palestinian archaeological data

a. Jericho

Kitchen attributes the lack of evidence for 13th century occupation at Jericho to erosion: “There may well have been a Jericho during 1275-1220, but above the tiny remains of that of 1400-1275, so to speak, and all of this has long, long since gone. We will never find ‘Joshua’s Jericho’ for that very simple reason.”⁵³ Jericho has been intensely excavated by four major expeditions over the last century and no evidence has been found, in tombs or on the tell, for occupation in the 13th century BC. Even in the case of erosion, pottery does not disappear; it is simply washed to the base of the tell where it can be recovered and dated by archaeologists. No 13th century BC pottery has been found at Jericho. A very good stratigraphic profile of the site was preserved on the southeast slope, referred to as “Spring Hill” since it is located above the copious spring at the base of the southeast side of the site. The sequence runs from the Early Bronze I period, ca. 3000 BC, to Iron Age II, ca. 600 BC, with a noticeable gap ca. 1320–1100 BC.⁵⁴

b. Ai

With regard to the new discoveries at Kh. el-Maqatir,⁵⁵ Kitchen comments, “The recently investigated Khirbet el-Maqatir does not (yet?) have the requisite archaeological profile to fit the other total data.”⁵⁶ The “requisite archaeological profile” for Kitchen is, of course, evidence for 13th century BC occupation. Similar to Jericho, there was a gap in occupation at Kh. el-Maqatir in the Late Bronze II period, ca. 1400–1177 BC.

c. Hazor

Kitchen attempts to deal with the problem pointed out above, namely, if Hazor was destroyed ca. 1230 BC, there would be no city for the Jabin of Judg 4 to rule and for Deborah and Barak to conquer, since Hazor was not rebuilt until the tenth century BC. His solution is that following the 1230 BC destruction, the ruling dynasty of Hazor moved their capital elsewhere: “after Joshua’s destruction of Hazor [in 1230 BC], Jabin I’s successors had to reign from another site in Galilee but kept the style of king of the territory and kingdom of Hazor.”⁵⁷ But where would this new capital be located? Kitchen does not suggest a candidate. Surveys in the region have determined that there was a gap in occupation in the area of Hazor and the Upper Galilee from ca. 1230 BC to ca. 1100 BC, ruling out Kitchen’s imaginative theory.⁵⁸ The Bible clearly states that Deborah and Barak fought “Jabin, a king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor” (Judg 4:2), who is also referred to as “Jabin king of Hazor” (Judg 4:17). The simple (and biblical) solution is that Joshua destroyed an earlier city at Hazor (see below) in ca. 1400 BC, while Deborah and Barak administered the coup de grâce in ca. 1230 BC.

V. The Biblical Model for the Exodus-Conquest

If the biblical data are used as primary source material for constructing a model for the exodus-conquest-settlement phase of Israelite history, a satisfactory correlation is achieved between biblical history and external archaeological and historical evidence, as outlined below.⁵⁹

1. Date of the exodus-conquest

As reviewed above, the internal chronological data of the Hebrew Bible (1 Kgs 6:1; Judg 11:26, and 1 Chr 6:33–37) consistently support a date of 1446 BC for the exodus from Egypt and, consequently, a date of 1406–1400 BC for the conquest of Canaan. External supporting evidence for this dating comes from the Talmud. There, the last two Jubilees are recorded which allows one to back calculate to the first year of the first Jubilee cycle as 1406 BC.⁶⁰

2. Support from Palestinian archaeology

Evidence from the three sites that were destroyed by the Israelites during the conquest, i.e., Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, correlates well with the biblical date and descriptions of those destructions.⁶¹ Moreover, evidence for Eglon’s palace at Jericho (Judg 3:12–30), dating to ca. 1300 BC, and the destruction of Hazor by Deborah and Barak ca. 1230 BC (Judg 4:24) during the Judges period also support a late 15th century BC date for the conquest.⁶²

3. Support from Egyptian archaeology

a. Rameses

The area of Pi-Ramesse in the eastern delta has not only revealed evidence for a royal residence from the early 18th Dynasty, the time period of Moses according to biblical chronology, but also for a mid-19th century BC Asiatic settlement that could well be that of Jacob and his family shortly after their arrival in Egypt.⁶³ This supports a 15th century exodus, as Jacob would had to have entered Egypt much later, in ca. 1700 BC, with a 13th century exodus.

b. Amarna Letters

The ‘apiru of the highlands of Canaan described in the Amarna Letters of the mid-14th century BC, conform to the biblical Israelites. The Canaanite kings remaining in the land wrote desperate messages to Pharaoh asking for help against the ‘apiru, who were “taking over” the lands of the king.⁶⁴ Since the Israelites under Deborah and Barak were able to overthrow the largest city-state in Canaan in ca. 1230 BC⁶⁵ and the Merenptah Stela indicates that Israel was the most powerful people group in Canaan in ca. 1210 BC,⁶⁶ it stands to reason that the ‘apiru who were taking over the highlands in the previous century were none other than the Israelites.

c. Israel in Egyptian inscriptions

The mention of Israel in the Merenptah stela demonstrates that the 12 tribes were firmly established in Canaan by 1210 BC. It now appears that there is an even earlier mention of Israel in an Egyptian inscription. A column base fragment in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin preserves three names from a longer name list. The first two names clearly can be read as Ashkelon and Canaan, with the orthography suggesting a date in the 18th Dynasty.⁶⁷ Manfred Görg has translated the third, partially preserved, name as Israel.⁶⁸ Due to the similarity of these names to the names on the Merenptah stela, Görg suggests the name list may derive from the time of Rameses II, but adopting an older name sequence from the 18th Dynasty. This evidence, if it holds up to further scrutiny, would also support a 15th century BC exodus-conquest rather than a 13th century BC timeframe.

VI. Conclusions

With new discoveries and additional analysis, the arguments for a 13th century exodus-conquest have steadily eroded since the death of its founder and main proponent William F. Albright in 1971. Although Kenneth A. Kitchen has made a determined effort to keep the theory alive, there is no valid evidence, biblical or extra-biblical, to sustain it. Biblical data clearly place the exodus-conquest in the 15th century BC and extra-biblical evidence strongly supports this dating. Since the 13th century exodus-conquest model is no longer tenable, evangelicals should abandon the theory.

 

This article was first published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48/3 (September 2005): 475-489. Posted here with permission.

 

Endnotes

¹ On the development of the 13th century exodus-conquest model, see John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (Sheffield, England: Sheffield, 1981), 30–73; Carl G. Rasmussen, “Conquest, Infiltration, Revolt, or Resettlement?” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, eds. David M. Howard, Jr., and Michael A. Grisianti (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003) 143–4.

² Instead of considering the biblical model of a 15th century exodus-conquest, however, the majority of Palestinian archaeologists rejected the concept of an exodus-conquest altogether, in favor of other hypotheses for the origin of Israel. The most popular theory today is that Israel did not originate outside of Canaan, but rather arose from the indigenous population in the 12th century BC. For a recent discussion of this view, see William G. Dever, Who Were the Israelites and Where Did They Come From? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). For a critique, see John J. Bimson, “Merenptah’s Israel and Recent Theories of Israelite Origins,” JSOT 49 (1991): 3–29. Some scholars allow for a small “Egypt exodus group” which became the nucleus for 12th century Israel [Pekka Pitkänen, “Ethnicity, Assimilation and the Israelite Settlement,” TynBul 55.2 (2004): 165].

³ “Conquest,” 153.

⁴ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

⁵ Later excavations at Kh. Rabud have shown that this is the more likely candidate for Debir (Moshe Kochavi, “Rabud, Khirbet,” in OEANE, 4.401).

⁶ Beitin is more likely Beth Aven. See Bryant G. Wood, “The Search for Joshua’s Ai,” forthcoming.

⁷ William F. Albright, “Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest of Palestine,” BASOR 58 (1935): 10–8; idem, “Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Megiddo,” BASOR 68 (1937): 22–6; idem, “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology,” BASOR 74 (1939): 11–23.

⁸ “Further Light,” 23–4.

⁹ William F. Albright, The Biblical Period From Abraham to Ezra (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), 27–8.

¹⁰ Michael G. Hasel, “Israel in the Merneptah Stela,” BASOR 296 (1994): 45–61.

¹¹ Bryant G. Wood, "Palestinian Pottery of the Late Bronze Age: An Investigation of the Terminal LB IIB Phase" (Ph.D. thesis, University of Toronto, 1985), 353–5, 447–8, 471–2; cf. Bimson, “Merenptah’s Israel,” 10–1.

¹² David Ussishkin, “Lachish,” in OEANE, 3.319.

¹³ Kenneth A. Kitchen, “An Egyptian Inscribed Fragment from Late Bronze Hazor,” IEJ 53 (2003): 20–8.

¹⁴ Eugene H. Merrill, “Palestinian Archaeology and the Date of the Conquest: Do Tells Tell Tales?,” GTJ 3.1 (1982): 107–21.

¹⁵ On Jericho, see Thomas A. Holland, “Jericho,” in OEANE, 3.223; on Ai, identified as Kh. el-Maqatir, see Bryant G. Wood, “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1995–1998,” IEJ 50 (2000): 123–30; idem., “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 1999,” IEJ 50 (2000): 249–54; idem., “Khirbet el-Maqatir, 2000,” 246–52.

¹⁶ Doron Ben-Ami, “The Iron Age I at Tel Hazor in Light of the Renewed Excavations,” IEJ 51 (2001): 148–70.

¹⁷ All Scripture quotations in this paper are from the NIV.

¹⁸ Wood, "Palestinian Pottery," 561–71; cf. Bimson, “Merenptah’s Israel,” 10–1.

¹⁹ Gezer­--Josh 16:10 and Judg 1:29; Aphek­--Judg 1:31; Megiddo and Beth Shan­--Josh 17:11–12 and Judg 1:27.

²⁰ Kenneth A. Kitchen, “How We Know When Solomon Ruled,” BARev 27.4 (Sept–Oct 2001): 32–7, 58.

²¹ Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?,” JETS 46 (2003): 599–603.

²² Bimson, Redating, 103 (1130 BC); John H. Walton, Chronological and Background Charts of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1978), 48 (1086 BC); Leon Wood, Distressing Days of the Judges (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), 411 (1078 BC); Kitchen, Reliability, 207 (1073 BC).

²³ Reliability, 159, 307, 359.

²⁴ Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Historical Chronology of Ancient Egypt, A Current Assessment,” Acta Archaeologica 67 (1996): 12.

²⁵ Rasmussen, “Conquest,” 145.

²⁶ Peter A. Clayton, Chronicles of the Pharaohs (New York: Thames & Hudson, 1994), 146.

²⁷ Kitchen, Reliability, 256, 309–10.

²⁸ Bryant G. Wood, “From Ramesses to Shiloh: Archaeological Discoveries Bearing on the Exodus–Judges Period,” in Giving the Sense: Understanding and Using Old Testament Historical Texts, eds. David M. Howard, Jr., and Michael A. Grisanti (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2003), 258, 260–2.

²⁹ Kitchen, Reliability, 255.

³⁰ Reliability, 348, 354, 493.

³¹ Reliability, 335, 354, 493.

³² Reliability, 283–94.

³³ David A. Dorsey sees an overall similarity to ancient Near East vassal treaties in that Gen 1:11–Exod 19:2 represents a historical introduction to the treaty, Exod 19:3–Num 10:10 is the treaty itself, and Num 10:11–Josh 24 is the historical conclusion to the treaty, but he does not push the evidence beyond that general observation (The Literary Structure of the Old Testament [Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999], 47–48, 97–98).

³⁴ Reliability, 284 Table 21. Blessings always follow curses in the late second millennium Hittite treaties, whereas the opposite is the case in the biblical texts. This alone shows that the biblical writers were not slavishly following a late second millennium covenant format.

³⁵ Kitchen, Reliability, 286–7, 289, 291–3, 493.

³⁶ Kitchen, Reliability, 310, 319, 344, 353 no. 4, 567 note 17, 635.

³⁷ Exod 5:1–5; 7:10–3, 15–23; 8:1–11, 20–9; 9:1–5, 8–19, 27–32; 10:1–6, 8–11, 16–7, 24–9; 12:31–2.

³⁸ Kitchen, Reliability, 310.

³⁹ Manfred Bietak, Avaris, the Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations at Tell el-Dab‘a (London: British Museum, 1996), 67–83; idem., “The Center of Hyksos Rule: Avaris (Tell el-Dab‘a),” in The Hyksos: New Historical and Archaeological Perspectives, ed. Eliezer D. Oren (Philadelphia: The University Museum, University of Pennsylvania, 1997), 115–24; idem., “Dab‘a, Tell ed-,” in Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt 1, ed. Donald B. Redford (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 353; Manfred Bietak, Josef Dorner, and Peter Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen im dem Palastbezirk von Avaris. Vorbericht Tell el-Dab‘a/Ezbet Helmi 1993–2000,” Egypt and the Levant 11 (2001): 27–119; Manfred Bietak and Irene Forstner-Mueller, “Ausgrabungen im Palastbezirk von Avaris: Vorbericht Tell el-Dhab‘a/Ezbet Helmi, Furehjahr 2003,” Egypt and the Levant 13 (2003): 39–50.

⁴⁰ Bietak, Avaris, 72; Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen 1993–2000,” 37.

⁴¹ Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen 1993–2000,” 36.

⁴² Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen 1993–2000,” 36–101.

⁴³ Bietak, Dorner, and Jánosi, “Ausgrabungen 1993–2000,” 36–101; Bryant G. Wood, “The Royal Precinct at Rameses,” Bible and Spade 17 (2004): 45–51.

⁴⁴ Reliability, 307. As far as I can determine, this concept originated with William F. Albright in “A Revision of Early Hebrew Chronology,” JPOS 1 (1921): 64 n. 1.

⁴⁵ During the flood it rained for 40 days and nights (Gen 7:4, 12, 17); 40 days after the ark landed Noah sent out a raven (Gen 8:6); Isaac was 40 years old when he married Rebekah (Gen 25:20), as was Esau when he married Judith (Gen 26:34); the embalming of Jacob took 40 days (Gen 50:3); the spies spent 40 days in Canaan (Num 13:25; 14:34); Joshua was 40 when he went with the spies to Canaan (Josh 14:7); Israel spent 40 years in the wilderness (Exod 16:35; Num 14:33, 34; 32:13; Deut 2:7; 8:2, 4; 29:5; Josh 5:6; Neh 9:21; Ps 95:10; Amos 2:10; 5:25); Moses was on Mt. Sinai 40 days and nights the first time he received the law (Exod 24:18; Deut 9:9, 11), as he was the second time (Exod 34:28; Deut 10:10); Moses fasted 40 days and nights for the sin of the golden calf (Deut 9:18, 25); there were 40 years of peace during the judgeships of Othniel (Judg 3:11), Deborah (Judg 5:31), and Gideon (Judg 8:28); the Israelites were oppressed by the Philistines 40 years (Judg 13:1); Eli judged Israel 40 years (1 Sam 4:18); Ish-Bosheth was 40 when he took the throne following Saul’s death (2 Sam 2:10); David reigned for 40 years (2 Sam 5:4; 1 Kgs 2:11; 1 Chr 29:27), as did Solomon (1 Kgs 11:42; 2 Chr 9:30), and Joash (2 Kgs 12:1; 2 Chr 24:1); Elijah traveled 40 days and nights from the desert of Beersheba to Mt. Horeb (1 Kgs 19:8); Ezekiel lay on his right side for 40 days for the 40 years of the sins of Judah (Ezek 4:6); Ezekiel predicted that Egypt would be uninhabited for 40 years (Ezek 29:11–13); and Jonah preached that Nineveh would be overturned in 40 days (Jon 3:4).

⁴⁶ Bimson, Redating, 77, 88.

⁴⁷ Kitchen, Reliability, 307.

⁴⁸ My thanks to Peter Gentry of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary for calling this study to my attention.

⁴⁹ Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 52.

⁵⁰ Cassuto, Documentary, 52.

⁵¹ Reliability, 209.

⁵² Reliability, 308.

⁵³ Reliability, 187.

⁵⁴ Nicolò Marchetti, “A Century of Excavations on the Spring Hill at Tell Es-Sultan, Ancient Jericho: A Reconstruction of Its Stratigraphy,” in The Synchronisation of Civilisations in the Eastern Mediterranean in the Second Millennium B.C. II, ed. Manfred Bietak (Vienna: Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaftren, 2003), 295–321.

⁵⁵ For references, see note 15 above.

⁵⁶ Reliability, 189.

⁵⁷ Reliability, 213.

⁵⁸ Israel Finkelstein, The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 1988), 107.

⁵⁹ For an overview of the evidence, see Wood, “From Ramesses,” 256–82.

⁶⁰ Young, “Solomon,” 600–1.

⁶¹ Wood, “From Ramesses,” 262–9.

⁶² Wood, “From Ramesses,” 271–3.

⁶³ Wood, “From Ramesses,” 260–2.

⁶⁴ Wood, “From Ramesses,” 269–71.

⁶⁵ Wood, “From Ramesses,” 272–3.

⁶⁶ Wood, “From Ramesses,” 273–5.

⁶⁷ Manfred Görg, “Israel in Hieroglyphen,” BN 106 (2001): 24.

⁶⁸ Görg, “Israel,” 25–7.

⁶⁹ Kitchen, Reliability, 287 Table 25; 288 Table 26.

⁷⁰ Kitchen, Reliability, 284 Table 21.

⁷¹ Kitchen, Reliability, 287 Table 24.

One day a friend sent me an invitation to a church meeting and asked me if I knew anything about the subject. On the flyer was a picture of a human skeleton with crooked teeth and a rock embedded in his forehead. The title above the skull read: 'They've Found Goliath's Skull!' Needless to say, that caught my attention...