on the so-called second step of the mountain.&rdquo

An altar at this location could not have been part of a covenant ceremony in the Shechem pass since it was too far away and completely out of view.[64] The narrow pass where ancient Shechem is located at the modern city of Nablus, view west. Mt. Gerizim is on the left and Mt. Ebal on the right. Zertal's altar is 3.2 km. away, making it impossible for the covenant ceremony to occur at the altar mentioned by Hawkins. c. The size and shape problem. Zertal’s altar is of monumental proportions. It is rectangular in cross-section, 9.0 x 6.8 m,[65] not square as prescribed by Mosaic law, and 3.27 m high.[66] In comparison with two contemporary Israelite altars, that of the tabernacle and one discovered in a sanctuary in Arad, it is much larger. The Lord told Moses in Exod 27:1 to make the tabernacle altar 5 x 5 cubits, ca. 2.5 x 2.5 m, [67] and 3 cubits, ca. 1.5 m, high (cf. Exod 38:1). The Arad altar, erected in Str. XII, the late twelfth–early eleventh century, conforms to these dimensions, 2.5 x 2.5 m,[68] and 1.5 m high.[69] It makes little sense that Joshua would erect an altar as large as Zertal’s for a one-time ceremony, particularly in view of the fact that it would have been totally out of keeping with known Israelite altars of the period. III. CONCLUSIONS Hawkins’s arguments for a late date for the exodus-conquest do not hold up to critical analysis. The 480th-year datum of Exod 6:1 has been demonstrated to be a valid historical figure, not a symbolic number. The Iron Age I settlement data point to the Israelites having been in the land for a considerable length of time, rather than arriving ca. 1200 bc. Hawkins’s “new archaeological evidence,” the presumed altar found on Mt. Ebal, the centerpiece of his arguments for a late date, cannot be related to the altar erected by Joshua in Josh 8:30–31. It was built in the wrong time period, it is too far from the ceremony site, and it is too large. Hawkins’s paper provides no support for a late date exodus-conquest. The theory is dead. Let us bid it adieu and relegate it to the place it deserves—an interesting footnote in biblical scholarship, but nothing more. It is time to move on to more productive research, recognizing that the biblical data are true and correct as they stand and should not be manipulated—the Israelites left Egypt in 1446 bc and, after forty years in the Sinai, began the conquest of Canaan in 1406 bc. Recommended Resources for Further StudyBible and SpadeCD-ROM 100 Reasons to Trust OT History Giving the SenseFootnotes:[1] For a presentation of the problems, see Bryant G. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” JETS 48 (2006) 475–89; idem, “The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier,” JETS 50 (2007) 249–58. [2] Ralph K. Hawkins, “Propositions for Evangelical Acceptance of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data and the Royal Scarabs from Mt. Ebal,” JETS 50 (2007) 46. [3] 1 Kgs 6:1 states that Temple construction began in year 480 les ē’t benê yi?rā’ēl mē’eres misrayim: “Of the going-out (exodus) of the people of Israel from the land of Egypt.” The preposition le (“of”) here is often wrongly rendered “after,” but this sense is not consistent with its proper meaning and its usage in this phrase. In the Pentateuch the exodus from Egypt is considered as starting an era. The exodus itself occurred in year one (not year zero) of the exodus-era, and Aaron’s death occurred in year forty of this era (Num 33:38), i.e. thirty-nine years after the exodus. See the further discussion in Rodger C. Young, “When Did Solomon Die?” JETS 46 (2003) 602. In the present paper, the term exodus-era will frequently be used when referring to the 480-year figure of 1 Kgs 6:1. From this verse we learn that Temple construction began in the 480th year of the exodus-era, i.e. 479 years after the exodus. [4] Paul J. Ray, “Another Look at the Period of the Judges,” in Beyond the Jordan (ed. Glenn A. Carnagey, Sr.; Eugene OR: Wipf & Stock, 2005) 93–104; Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” JETS 48 (2005) 491–500. [5] Ibid. 496–97. [6] “Propositions” 35: “When one seeks to reconstruct the numbers given in the biblical accounts, consistently and literally, they do not add up to the number 480 given in 1 Kgs 6:1. . . . The aggregate total of all these numbers [from the exodus to the end of Judges] is 515.” In a similar fashion, Hoffmeier (“What is the biblical Date of the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood,” JETS 50 [2007] 227–28) adds all timespans mentioned from Solomon back to the exodus to get a total of 633 years, and then goes on to say that anyone who recognizes an overlap between some of the narratives “abandons a straightforward, literal reading of the Judges through Exodus narratives” (p. 228). But it is Ray and Steinmann, not Hawkins and Hoffmeier, who look at the texts in a “straightforward, literal” manner and do not read into them what they do not say. When the correct process is followed, it is clear that the texts are consistent with a fifteenth-century exodus and incompatible with a thirteenth-century exodus. [7] Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 209. [8] David H. van Daalen, “Number Symbolism,” in The Oxford Companion to the Bible (eds. Bruce M. Metzger and Michael D. Coogen; New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) 561–63. [9] Ibid. 562–63. [10] TWOT 1.187. [11] Wood, “Rise and Fall” 484, 486. Neither James Hoffmeier (“Response to Wood”) nor Hawkins has produced any evidence to show that the author of 1 Kgs 6:1 intended his readers to understand that the 480 years were twelve generations, nor did they address the statement on p. 486 of Wood’s article that 1 Chr 6:33–37 gives nineteen generations from Korah, who opposed Moses, until the time of Solomon, thus indicating a more reasonable twenty-five years per generation. If the exodus were in approximately 1270 or 1260, the nineteen generations to the time of Solomon (300 years) would require less than sixteen years per generation for the family line of Heman (1 Chr 6:33). This is entirely unreasonable, especially when we consider that this is not a genealogy of all the first-born, such as we might expect for kings; Heman’s grandfather Samuel was born several years after Elkanah’s first-born (1 Sam 1:2–8). [12] Hawkins ends these years in 966 bc, apparently unaware of the careful demonstration (Young, “Solomon” 589–603) that Thiele’s dates for Solomon are one year too late, based on his unwarranted assumption that Solomon died after Tishri 1 in the fall of 931 bc, instead of allowing for the possibility that he died in the months immediately preceding. Making this adjustment puts Solomon’s years one year earlier by Judah’s Tishri-based reckoning. This one-year correction dates the start of Temple construction to the spring of 967, not 966 as accepted by Hawkins. The correction resolved problems that Thiele had with the reigns of Jehoshaphat, Ahaziah, and Athaliah. It is additionally important in showing the exactness of the data for the Jubilee and Sabbatical years. The demonstration of this exactness provides one of the strongest arguments against a late-date exodus and in favor of the accuracy of all the chronological data of the books of Kings, as will be discussed further below. [13] “Propositions” 35–36. [14] Charles F. Burney, The Book of Judges, with Introduction and Notes, and Notes on the Hebrew Text of the Books of Kings, with an Introduction and Appendix (New York: KTAV, 1970; Judges first published London: Rivingtons, 1918, Kings first published Oxford, England: Clarendon, 1903) 59–60. Burney is following Wellhausen, who apparently conceived this theory about the origin of the 480 years (Julius Wellhausen, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel [New York: World, 1961;

Rosetta Stone Chinese