Response to Critique by Michael Smith Concerning the Dating of the Exodus

Recently, a Christian brother reached out to me with a critique of one of my lectures. Although I disagree with his findings, he did a good job explaining his position. I thought that my readers would do well to see his brotherly response and to compare his findings with my own interpretation of the date of the Exodus. You can find his critique here: guest article written by Michael Smith. Below is my response to his critique.

___________________

Thank you so much for your email! I think that your critique is excellent, and I am glad that you took the time to reach out to me. I don’t have the time to go through every single detail of your argument, but hopefully I can find the time later to do it justice. For now, allow me to discuss the Hazor conundrum. 

The Problem

Firstly, you are correct that it is a major problem for a 15th c. Exodus, at least in the popularly accepted explanation given by many scholars and lay people who hold to an early date for the Exodus. To recap the problem, Joshua 11:11 states that after Joshua seized Hazor, he burned it with fire. Given that very, very many commentators believe this to mean a complete and total destruction of the city (cf. CJB: “he burned Hatzor to the ground” and Keil and Delitzsch: “Hazor, which Joshua conquered and burned to the ground”), and given that the archaeological record does not reveal a complete destruction of the city at that time, either the Bible is wrong, there is something wrong with our interpretation of the archaeology, or there is something wrong with our interpretation of the passage. Many Bible-believing individuals choose to reinterpret the passage, understanding the event not as an LB I event but rather as having occurred in the 13th c. B.C., that is LB II. This is becoming a standard approach, even though very many High Maximalists, like myself, continue to hold to the standard 1446 B.C. date of the Exodus and 1406 B.C. date of the Conquest. 

You are correct that I had not yet read the most current excavation reports before I wrote that lecture, but I have now read Bechar et al, and Runjajić et al who discuss Bechar et al, as well as the material that you have graciously supplied and whatever I could find online or have on-hand. You mentioned that Bechar found no evidence of destruction in LB I except for localized destruction at the gate at Area P and a casemate wall near the gate in Area K. This is true. Bechar et al correspond the destruction of the gate in Area K, found in Stratum 1B, to LB IB-LB IIA, this having a date that stretches from ~1457/6 to 1300 B.C. (Runjajić et al 2023: 2). Note that Bechar believes that the conflagration of the site seen in Stratum 1B dates to around 1300 B.C., much later than a 1406 B.C. complete destruction of the site would allow. 

At present, the archaeological record does not support a complete destruction of Hazor at the end of the 15th century B.C., but unlike Jericho and Ai, Hazor and other cities were not placed under the “ban,” or ḥerem [חֵרֶם], meaning that the spoils of war and the city were able to be seized. In fact, Joshua 11:10, before the mention of burning the city, states that Joshua had seized (וַיִּלְכֹּ֣ד) the city, the same word used in reference to seizing cities that had not been burned and were meant to be used by the Israelites (cf. Joshua 10:42; 11:12; etc.). 

Excavated Site of Hazor

Hazor Burned with Fire

Still, Joshua 11:11 does state that Hazor was “burned with fire.” While the word שָׂרַף can at times mean to burn completely (cf. HALOT), for example in Numbers 19:5 when the red heifer is turned to ash, it more often means to “absorb with fire,” which is to say simply “to burn” (cf. Gesenius). This more common meaning is understood through the many uses of the word within the text, which may or may not include a total consumption of the object. For example, wood (cf. Isaiah 44:16,19) can be assumed eventually to be completely destroyed by fire, but unless the reader is specifically told that a total destruction occurs or evidence of that total destruction is given (e.g., wood in Isaiah 44:19 is said to have been turned into coals), the assumption cannot be verified. Rather, שָׂרַף signifies the state or condition of “burn.”

In Deuteronomy 12:31 is found an admonition against worshipping false gods, noting that the gods require a sacrifice of children. It is stated that יִשְׂרְפ֥וּ [they burn] their sons and their daughters in the fire. Of note, the Tophet at Carthage, regularly associated with Phoenician child sacrifices, contains inconsistent cremations of children. Often the bones of individual children show nonuniform patterns of charring, even containing both maximal and minimal evidence of burning on the same body (Schwartz et al. 2010: 6). These irregular and inconsistent burnings suggest that a complete and utter incineration of the child was not the intention of the act of burning.

In many biblical instances, the term שָׂרַף signifies making an object unusable rather than completely destroying it. For example, in Judges 9:52, Abimelech sets fire to a tower door to gain entrance, not to utterly destroy it. The idea is not completely to destroy the door but rather to gain entrance to the tower. Closer to this passage, Joshua 11:6 and 9 refer to the burning of chariots, no doubt making these objects unusable in future battles rather than ensuring a complete and total destruction, though a complete destruction is still possible. Leviticus 8:17 describes the burning of leftover materials from a sin offering, namely the hide, fat, organs, etc.; these are taken to a ceremonial clean place and burned, rendering the hide, fat, etc. unusable, whether or not any physical remnants remain. Similar can be said of the Asherah pole (2 Kings 23:6), making the pole unusable for worship rather than completely destroying it. 

To further the idea that שָׂרַף means simply “to burn,” Joshua 6:24, in reference to Jericho, adds certain words that would allow the readers to understand a destruction beyond a simple burning, namely the added emphasis in the following: “But they burned the city and all that was in it, except for the silver, gold, and bronze and iron items they put in the treasury of the Lord’s house.” Interestingly, even this total destruction of the city did not mean a complete destruction as the precious metals were kept from the destruction, but the entire city of Jericho was placed under the “ban,” meaning that everything within the city, except Rahab and her family, were to be turned over to God.

The addition of attributive words to a specific term are often ways of explaining beyond the lexicographical limits of a term. For instance, Joseph was given a coat or tunic [כְּתֹ֥נֶת] that was passim [פַּסִּֽים]. Whatever the meaning of the word (Many colors? Long sleeved?), the average coat or tunic was not of that design; it was not passim. In a similar fashion, 2 Samuel 23:7 discusses the complete or utter burning of evil people. In order to make the Hebrew word שָׂרַף mean a complete and utter destruction, an infinitive absolute [שָׂר֥וֹף] is added right before the word, making the expression as follows: וּבָאֵשׁ שָׂרוֹף, to “burn burn” or “completely burn” (NASB), also “utterly burn” (KJV). The concept is that the word itself may not contain the connotation of a complete destruction and so additional words are used to explain how, in this instance, a total destruction is meant to be understood. 

At Hazor and other sites, only the people who remained in the city were placed under the “ban” and therefore were to be completely destroyed/killed. The city itself, though burned, was never said to be completely burned. Thus, I see nothing within the biblical text that demands that Joshua completely destroyed the city, especially in light of the comparison of the biblical text to other archaeological discoveries as noted below. 

Other Notable Cities Said to Have Been Burned

The biblical text describes several cities as having been burned, and the archaeological evidence sometimes supports this. For instance, 2 Kings 25:8-9 describes the burning of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, and archaeological evidence supports this destruction. Additionally, Amos 1:7-8 describes the destruction of Ashdod, and archaeological evidence shows massive destruction by fire around 1050 B.C.

On the other hand, there are other examples of cities being said to have been burned, but the evidence does not seem to match the scale assumed of the biblical text. Judges 9:45-49 describes how Abimelech set fire to the tower of Shechem, killing a thousand people within. While evidence at Tell Balata shows significant destruction, evidence of burning is minimal and inconsistent with a reading of a total and complete destruction by fire. At Gezer, although there is much evidence of destruction by fire, 1 Kings 9:16 describes a pharaoh of Egypt, likely Siamun, having burned the city and then given it over to Solomon as a wedding present. Evidence that Siamun was the pharaoh who took Gezer is found at the well-known and well-understood fragment of a triumphal scene at Tanis in Egypt (Kitchen 2003: 108-09), yet evidence for the destruction by fire prior to Solomon’s fortifying of the city is scarce and controversial (cf. Webster et al. 2023: 27).

Thus, it cannot be argued that absence of evidence means evidence of absence (to borrow a phrase). Moving back to Hazor, yes, Joshua set it on fire, but there are too many uncertainties associated with that. It is uncertain to what extent the fire was intended. It is also uncertain to what extent the fire spread. Archaeologically, it is uncertain how much of the city at that time was burned, and it is uncertain if the areas associated with the time period are in fact proper associations. 

Concerning Hazor’s eventual complete destruction, it can be assumed, based on Judges 4, that after Deborah and Barak defeated Sisera’s army, that they returned to Hazor and razed it. Specifically, Judges 4:24 mentions that after Israel’s power grew, they defeated Jabin of Hazor, and unless the people of Hazor simply handed over their king, it can be assumed that the seat of the king was where he was defeated. This defeat most likely aligns with the 13th c. complete destruction that can be seen archaeologically, leaving the previous partial destruction to Joshua. 

Ḫabiru and Hazor

I disagree with those who argue that the Ḫabiru/Apiru are the Israelites. We know that the Ḫabiru were enemies of Egypt attempting to destroy the Canaanite feudal system (Waterhouse 2001: 32), and they were non-sedentary and lived in the hill country of the southern Levant (Gonen 1992: 217). While that sure sounds like the Hebrews, the oldest sources that discuss the Ḫabiru come from Kaniš, a city in Anatolia that contained an Assyrian exchange outpost dating to the nineteenth century B.C. (Lemche 1992: 7), long before the Israelites entered Canaan and in fact while the Israelites were in Egypt. In the Amarna Letter EA 318, the name appears alongside the term “robber,” and in EA 290, it would appear that one could become Ḫabiru through warlike challenges to the then present political powers (Akers 2012: 693). It would appear that the term Ḫabiru is not an ethnic designation but a name representing a social class of individuals (Naʾaman 1986: 271), in other words, bad guys. So, while the Ḫabiru were not Israelites, the Israelites could have been referred to as Ḫabiru, meaning bad guys who are doing bad things. 

Interestingly, Joshua 11 mentions that Joshua and his men chased the remaining army of Sisera all the way to Sidon, and EA 148 of the Amarna Letters reveals the king of Tyre, Sidon’s neighbor, saying that the Ḫabiru have taken Hazor (Eames 2023: 31). This could be understood to mean that the Ḫabiru have captured Hazor, possibly destroyed Hazor, or that Tyre heard of the destruction of Sisera’s army, as noted in Judges 4, and therefore could assume that Hazor had been taken. From the biblical text, we know that Jabin of Hazor was later defeated, and the archaeological evidence supports a destruction at the site at that time, as noted by Bachar and others. 

Conclusion

In summary, I believe this analysis addresses the concerns you raised about Hazor’s destruction. While I acknowledge the archaeological uncertainties, I find that the biblical text does not demand complete destruction, as shown through the nuanced understanding of שָׂרַף and the broader context of the narrative.

I do apologize that I have not been able to write more at this time, but I am preparing for an additional class this spring and will be writing lectures for that. I do appreciate you reaching out to me, though. Hopefully, I can do more later. As of right now, I do not see anything within the biblical text that demands that Hazor had been completely destroyed by Joshua. 

Check out the Bible Land Explorer!

[This is a response to the critique of a lecture written for the course 'HIST 262: History of the Ancient Near East,' taught Spring 2024 at God's Bible School and College, a regionally accredited College in Cincinnati, Ohio.]