A Critical Analysis Of The Evidence From Ralph Hawkins For A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest -- By: Rodger C. Young
Journal: Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
Volume: JETS 51:2 (Jun 2008)
Article: A Critical Analysis Of The Evidence From Ralph Hawkins For A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest
Author: Rodger C. Young
JETS 51:2 (June 2008) p. 225
A Critical Analysis Of The Evidence From Ralph Hawkins For A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest
* Rodger C. Young, who wrote section I, is a retired systems analyst residing at 1115 Basswood Lane, St. Louis, MO 63132; Bryant G. Wood, who wrote sections II and III, is Director of Research at the Associates for Biblical Research, P.O. Box 144, Akron, PA 17501.
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.
In a recent issue of JETS, Ralph Hawkins sidestepped the insurmountable problems associated with a late-date exodus-conquest and offered five arguments which he suggested “may open up the possibility of a renewed consideration of the Late Date Exodus-Conquest as a viable choice for evangelicals.”1 Three of the arguments are textual and two are archaeological. The present paper addresses these five issues.
I. Hawkins’s Textual Arguments: The 480 Years Of 1 Kgs 6:1 Are Symbolic Or Artificial
1. First wrong textual argument: the 480 years are inconsistent with the chronology of Judges. The 479 years of elapsed time indicated in 1 Kgs 6:12 are entirely consistent with the chronology of the book of Judges, as Paul Ray, Andrew Steinmann,3 and other authors have shown, whereas a thirteenth-century exodus cannot be reconciled with its time spans and sequences. The various pericopes of Judges can be divided into two classes, the sequenced and those that might be called unprovenanced, to use a term familiar to
JETS 51:2 (June 2008) p. 226
archaeologists. Sequenced stories are those that are connected to what immediately precedes or follows by a time-sequence phrase (some are connected at only one end). An example is Judg 10:1–2 (niv): “After the time of Abimelech a man of Issachar, Tola son of Puah, the son of Dodo, rose to save Israel… . He led Israel twenty-three years.”
Unprovenanced pericopes are those that are not related by a sequence-expression to either what precedes or to what follows. Examples are the story of Samson (Judges 13–16), the story of Micah and the Danites (You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe