Archaeologists have divided ancient history into sequential time periods, based on observed discontinuities in the cultural record. These demarcations have occurred for one or more of several reasons, such as marked regional changes in the fortification of cities, radical changes in the technology of implements employed by the societies in a region, large scale evidence of destruction over an area at a particular time, discreet changes in the affluence of the society, etc. While it is possible to distinguish between such dramatic discontinuities without necessarily setting precise dates for them, Biblical archaeologists have also attempted to assign general time frames to these cultural periods, and even broken them into smaller sub-categories, as their knowledge of ancient cultures has increased.

Biblical Archaeology really became a science when Sir Flinders Petrie excavated a tel on the basis of "stratigraphy" in 1890, coupling it with the dating of artifacts based on their association with the layers in which they were found. Later, during the period between World Wars I & II, two other major steps were taken in the science of archaeology. One was by William Albright when he developed a way to use pottery artifacts as a means for dating, and the other when methods employing field surveys were exploited to assess broad regional settlement changes in ancient cultures.

When Israel became a nation in 1948, there was a burst of archaeological activity within the Land using the techniques and methodologies just described. Of course, a logical consequence was the dating of those finds at various tels, and the assembly of data upon which a "Generally Accepted Timeline" could be based.

A portion of this cultural timeline is shown below, corresponding roughly with that period of Biblical history from the beginning of Jacob's sojourn in Egypt until the end of Israel's Old Testament kingdom. It gained general acceptance within the community of Biblical Archaeology in those early years, and remains the one accepted by the vast majority of Biblical archaeologists today.

The nomenclature used in the timeline reflects the large scale cultural discontinuities that have been observed. For example, it was discovered that a large scale change occurred from the use of bronze implements to those of iron around 1200 BC, creating the "bronze" to "iron" transition shown in the timeline. The Bible correlates well with this evidence, for it was the Philistines who brought the Iron Age to Palestine, and its use is corroborated by such Old Testament texts as (Judges 1.19, 4.3) and (I Samuel 17.7). Furthermore, the chronology of Bible history in REDEMPTIVE PLAN, as extrapolated from scholars like Edwin Thiele, is compatible with the 1200 BC cultural change observed by archaeology.

Later, archaeologists were able to further divide both the Bronze and Iron eras into the additional sub-categories shown. For example, another discontinuity was found in the fortification of cities within the land of Canaan between the Middle Bronze and Late Bronze periods. During the Middle Bronze era, Canaanite cities were typically fortified with high formidable walls that frustrated warfare using direct siege attempts, but during the Late Bronze era, most of those cities became smaller, unwalled settlements.

Yet a third major cultural discontinuity has become evident from Biblical Archaeology. Not only did 1200 BC see a change from bronze to iron implements, but it also witnessed a general deterioration in the affluence of the peoples living in the region of the Middle East during that same time frame.

Obviously, these cultural discontinuities occurred because of underlying reasons, as in the case of the Philistines and their use of iron, so Biblical Archaeology has also attempted to connect other changes with known happenings in ancient history. In this way, it became possible to propose a scenario for Israelite entrance and settlement into the Land. Here are some of the time related propositions that have come to be supporting arguments for the "Generally Accepted Timeline".

• It is generally assumed that the following few verses in the book of Exodus place the Hebrews in Egypt at the time of Pharaoh Raamses (Ramesses) II.

Now it is known from Egyptian archaeology that Raamses (Ramesses) II ruled Egypt in (1290-1224 BC), so this text, along with other supporting attributions, like one by Jewish historian Josephus that the Hyksos ruled Egypt when Jacob's clan entered (Some scholars believe the Hyksos began their rule around 1750 BC), has caused many archaeologists to conclude that Israel's 430 year stay could not have ended before the 13th Century, around 1230-1220 BC. This idea has become so entrenched in everyday thinking that even the movie, "The Ten Commandments", had Charlton Heston (Moses) growing up in the palace of "Pharaoh Raamses".

However, this whole idea that Raamses was Pharaoh at the time of the Exodus was refuted convincingly by Professor Hans Goedicke, world-famous Egyptologist, in the following paper. 

A quote from a paper by Hans Goedicke, in the Biblical Archaeology Review, September/October, 1981. "The store city of Ra'amezez is widely, but incorrectly, equated with Pi-Ramesses, the Residence of the Ramessides. The construction described in the Bible is generally associated, again incorrectly, with the building of the Residence, which occurred in the reign of Ramesses II who ruled from 1290 BC to 1224 BC. The The Residence of Ramessides was not a single building." "If Pi-Ramesses was built by the Exodus people, it is obvious that the Exodus must have occurred in the 13th century BC." "But the fact is that the store city of Ra'amezez cannot be identified with Pi-Ramesses, the Residence of the Ramessides. This identification is impossible phonetically, as has been demonstrated conclusively more than 15 years ago. Moreover, the Residence of the Ramessides is never denoted in Egyptian sources by the use of the royal name Ramesses alone. When the Residence of the Ramessides is referred to, the royal name is always connected with the Egyptian word pr, meaning house or residence: The reference is always in the form 'Per Ramesses'."

• It was also generally regarded that Israel did not make their Exodus from Egypt before the 13th century BC, because cities listed in (Numbers 33), pertaining to the Transjordan area and visited by the Israelites according to the Biblical account, apparently did not exist prior to that time.
  
  This view came from archaeology in the Transjordan (East of the Jordan River) mostly in the 1930's. An archaeologist by the name of Nelson Glueck exploited the field survey methodology mentioned above, but found no evidence for the existence of settled populations in the Transjordan between the 19th and 13th centuries BC. Hence, he concluded that the Israelites could not have made their Exodus from Egypt during that period, because the cities listed in the book of Numbers did not then exist.

However, archaeology is an evolving science, and another paper in the Biblical Archaeology Review dated September/October, 1994, describes ancient Egyptian maps that were found a few years ago, listing those very cities during the time frame of Pharaoh Thutmose III, who began to reign in 1504 BC. Bible chronology places the time of the Exodus in 1446/1445 BC, which places Thutmose III as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Therefore, this archaeological evidence now agrees with the Bible, and shows that Glueck's findings in the 1930's were incorrect.

• Based on these previous assumptions (now proved false), limited evidence, and the observation that neither the books of Joshua or Judges mention Egyptian military forays into Canaan in the Bronze Ages, though these were known to have occurred, have influenced archaeologists to associate Israel's occupation of the Land with the start of the Iron Age (1200 BC). Consequently, as the mass of digs dealing with Israel in the Land has continued to accumulate, it has been so classified with that cultural period. Thus over time, such a rendering has become almost a self-fulfilling "proof" that Israel's entrance into the Land somehow also motivated the degradation observed during the transition from the Bronze to Iron Ages.

Let's think for a moment about what this "Generally Accepted Timeline" means in terms of our ability to use Biblical Archaeology as a contributing tool in understanding the Bible. Consider the consequences of supposing that the Generally Accepted Timeline is correct.

• Initially, it would become apparent that Israel's entrance into the Land could not have occurred by conquest in the way described in the book of Joshua, because cities that fell were not even walled at the advent of the Iron Age.
  
  It should be added that this is precisely the conclusion that has been accepted by a majority of archaelolgists, causing them to construct all kinds of divergent scenarios, often in direct conflict with each other.

• It would also follow that the time period between Israel's entrance into the Land and the beginning of their Divided Kingdom could be no more than 144-134 years, if certain other time periods in the Bible are correct. This is so because Edwin Thiele's chronological work sets 931/930 BC as the date for the start of the Divided Kingdom, and the periods of the wilderness sojourn, Saul's reign, David's reign, and Solomon's reign add up to a total of 156 years, i.e.
  
  (1230 to 1220) - 156 - (144 to 134) = 931/930 BC
  
  Of course this would mean that the time periods in the book of Judges, which are reconciled in the REDEMPTIVE PLAN to total 299 years, could not possibly be correct. Additionally, this Timeline would also disagree with a statement attributed to one of the Judges by the name of Jephthah in (Judges 11.26), who claimed that about 300 years had already passed from the days of Moses. Furthermore, it would take issue with (I Kings 6.1) which states that there was a 480 year span of time between the Exodus and the fourth year of Solomon's reign. The disparity would even continue into the New Testament, where the Apostle Paul in (Acts 13.19-20) unequivocally stated that about 450 years had transpired between the Exodus and the estblishment of the Davidic kingdom. So even though all three of these Biblical statements are compatible with each other, they must all be trashed simply because they disagree with the Generally Accepted Timeline.

• In continuation, the Jubilee Calendar and Israel's Redemptive Timeline, both constructed in COMING GLORY on the basis of Biblical chronology and a 1406/05 BC entrance into the Land, would also be incorrect; this in spite of the fact that they demonstrate that Bible chronology is not happenstance, but is both elegantly structured and in harmony with prophecy.

• Finally, it would follow that the resultant projections of both the Jubilee Calendar and Israel's Redemptive Timeline to produce historical connections between major 20th century events and their prophetically dated counterparts in the Bible are likewise meaningless, even though the result demonstrates that those prophetic Bible dates obviously agree with the 20th century ones to an accuracy of one day!

I hope that such irreconcilable conflicts trouble you as much as they do me, for the admission of the Generally Accepted Timeline now in vogue, essentially forces a disconnect between Biblical Archaeology and much of the Old Testament, along with confirmations of Bible prophecy relative to the End Times.

SO WHAT ARE WE TO DO WITH SUCH AN IMPASSE THAT THE SCIENCE OF "BIBLICAL" ARCHAEOLOGY HAS IMPOSED UPON ITSELF ?

Well, I suppose our reaction will have much to do with our fundamental regard for the Bible. If that regard is high, we will be compelled to earnestly look into this matter, seeking some logical resolution. Conversely, if that regard is low or non-existent, we will quickly cast the Bible aside as irrelevant to either ancient or 20th century history, and begin to conceive our own private scenarios.

Unfortunately, the latter approach has been the typical response of many archaeologists, so that today Biblical Archaeology is in danger of becoming a "playground" for unsupported theories, and a source of confusion for lay people who seek a meaningful output from this discipline, built on any kind of consensus. Perhaps the very real plight of Biblical Archaeology has recently hit home in a form that everyone can understand --- MONEY. Here is a recent quote by an acclaimed archaeologist on this matter, who himself bends decidedly toward liberal tendencies with respect to the historicity of the Bible.

Yes, we are sorely in need of a "revived" Biblical Archaeology that has returned to its "safe haven", so as to be worthy of its name. In an apparent effort to move toward that goal, a paper was originally published in 1981, and later appeared in the Biblical Archaeology Review, September/October 1987, by John Bimson and David Livingston, titled "Redating the Exodus". In that paper, a date for the Exodus that generally conforms to the Biblical date was chosen. Then as a second step, adjustments were made in the Generally Accepted Timeline to better reconcile it with the evidence available from archaeology itself, other disciplines, and the Bible. The traditional and revised timelines are compared below.

You will notice that all of the changes in the Revised Timeline occur during the Bronze periods, the dates for the Iron Ages remaining unchanged. The main purpose for the modifications was to move the end of the Middle Bronze period later in time to about 1420 BC, causing it to line up roughly with the Biblical date of 1406/05 BC when Israel entered the Land under the leadership of Joshua. The benefit of this shift is to cause the transition between Middle and Late Bronze to roughly coincide with the Biblical date for Israel's conquest of the Land. Since archaeological evidence confirms wide spread destruction of cities within Canaan at the end of Middle Bronze IIC, and the Bible describes Israel's campaign under Joshua to be one of military conquest, this single shift serves to bring the Revised Timeline into general agreement with both the Bible and archaeological evidence, amassed in recent years.

Naturally, such a timeline shift as this did not go uncontested within the community of Biblical Archaeology. The publishing of the Revised Timeline produced a counter article by Baruch Halpern in the next issue, and a whole spectrum of other reactions from praise and agreement on the one hand, to redicule on the other. The minor "earthquake" created within Biblical Archaeology reverberated through the Biblical Archaeology Review until the summer of 1988 when BAR permitted Bimson to disassemble Halpern's caustic paper point by point.

It is fair to say that such a proposed revision to a timeline that was accepted for decades, requires drastic changes in one's accustomed thinking about what happened to who, when and where. For example, Biblical Archaeology presently accuses the Egyptians of the destruction of Canaanite cities at the end of Middle Bronze IIC, though hard evidence is non-existent, but this revision would require Israel to be charged instead. However, beyond the observation that the traditional mindset of decades' old thinking is always hard to sway, the "volleys" exchanged among Biblical Archaeologists over this issue demonstrated that Bimson had done his homework, and that the Revised Timeline could be convincingly defended against its most strident antagonists.

Certainly it is true that some issues with this Revised Timeline remain, however none have been offered to discredit it. That fact must be weighed along with the extreme benefits of now having a strategic "model" for Biblical Archaeology that potentially allows it to be reconciled with the Bible in all major respects. Therefore, this Revised Timeline will be the one used in ERETZ ISRAEL.

As for the assumptions and existence of preliminary evidence that originally created the Generally Accepted Timeline, certain archaeological results now available will be brought to light in the individual Sessions of ERETZ ISRAEL, to show the probable fallacies in those former pre-dispositions. And as for the need to continually "defend" the Bible against spurious forms of "Biblical" Archaeology, I will simply give an "amen" to a quip reportedly made by a past Bible scholar when he was asked how he "defended" the Bible.

ERETZ ISRAEL