hinar built a great tower, so God confounded their speech. And that tower, most probably a ziggurat, can best be dated according to our current archa

as “Assyrian” (Smith 1876:160), the legend tells of the destruction of a building on a mound in Babylon by a god. The god also confounded the speech of the builders (Boscawen 1877:303; Smith 1880:166). The badly damaged tablet has been translated as follows:... he the father of all the gods had repudiated; the thought of his heart was evil. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission (?), [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission, [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. Their walls all the day he founded; for their destruction (punishment) in the night ... he did not leave a remainder. In his anger also (his) secret counsel he pours out; [to] confound (their) speeches he set his face. He gave the command, he made strange their counsel ... (as revised by Sayee in Smith 1880:164; cf. Smith 1876:160–61; Boscawen 1876:131–132, 1877:304–308).A strong link between the Assyrian tradition and the Biblical Tower of Babel account is the use of the word uballu, translated “confounded.” This is the same word as Hebrew balal used in Genesis 11:7, meaning to confound, confuse, or mix (Boscawen 1877:311; Smith 1880:166).In the conclusion, what is important to note here is that when we theorize and do research on historical problems we need to take the biblical account of history seriously, rather than ignoring it or attempting to explain it away. In many cases, such as the Sumerian Problem, the Bible can provide solutions to otherwise vexing difficulties of historical interpretation.(Reprinted by permission from the Spring 1993 issue of Artifax, with new material added.)Editorial Footnote:1. It is ABR's view that there is no such thing as pre-history in the modern, long-age, evolutionized sense of the term. Mankind has been able to write since Adam, and was created at "the begininning of creation," as Jesus himself affirmed (Mark 10:6). Additionally, ABR does not accept all of the conventional dates attributed to the early cultures of Mesopotamia. All cultural artifacts are post-Flood, and should probablybe dated to around 3000 BC or later. Notes: 2. On these cultures, see the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History; Perkins 1949; Mellaart 1965; Nissen 1998; Roux 1992.BibliographyBoscawen, W. St. Chad1876 The Legend of the Tower of Babel. Records of the Past 7:129–32.1877 The Legend of the Tower of Babel, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 5:303–12.Cohen, Sol1973 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Jacobsen, Thorkild1997 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1.170). Pp. 547–50 in The Context of Scripture vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, Leiden. The Netherlands: Brill.Jones, Tom B.1969 The Sumerian Problem. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Kramer, Samuel N.1968 The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108–111970 Enki and His Inferiority Complex, Orientalia 39:103–10.Mellaart, James1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East,



The Walls of Jericho
This article was first published in the Spring 1999 issue of Bible and Spade.When one hears the name “Jericho” one naturally thinks of Israelites marching, trumpets sounding and walls falling. It is a wonderful story of faith and victory that we enjoy reading and telling in Sunday School class, but did it really happen? The skeptic would say no, it is merely a folk tale to explain the ruins at Jericho. The reason for this negative outlook is the excavation carried out at the site in the 1950s under the direction of British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. She concluded, It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains.…The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua (Kenyon 1957: 261–62). Thomas A. Holland, who was editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the L[ate] B[ronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I (ca. 1400 BCE...) (Holland 1997: 223). H.J. Franken, a member of the Jericho excavation staff, stated, Miss Kenyon’s work has presented scholars with the hard fact that if Joshua was active with the incoming Israelites either c. 1400 or c. 1200 B.C. he would not have been able to capture a great walled city of Jericho, because there was no city of Jericho in these periods…the huge ruins of the Hyksos city gave rise to the folktale attached to the hero Joshua (1965: 190, 200). According to Kenyon’s dating, there was no city for the Israelites to conquer at the end of the 15th century BC, the Biblical date for the event. The Jericho of Joshua’s time could not be found-it was lost! Through our research, however, we have found the lostas “Assyrian” (Smith 1876:160), the legend tells of the destruction of a building on a mound in Babylon by a god. The god also confounded the speech of the builders (Boscawen 1877:303; Smith 1880:166). The badly damaged tablet has been translated as follows:... he the father of all the gods had repudiated; the thought of his heart was evil. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission (?), [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. ... of Babylon he hastens to the submission, [small] and great he confounded (on) the mound. Their walls all the day he founded; for their destruction (punishment) in the night ... he did not leave a remainder. In his anger also (his) secret counsel he pours out; [to] confound (their) speeches he set his face. He gave the command, he made strange their counsel ... (as revised by Sayee in Smith 1880:164; cf. Smith 1876:160–61; Boscawen 1876:131–132, 1877:304–308).A strong link between the Assyrian tradition and the Biblical Tower of Babel account is the use of the word uballu, translated “confounded.” This is the same word as Hebrew balal used in Genesis 11:7, meaning to confound, confuse, or mix (Boscawen 1877:311; Smith 1880:166).In the conclusion, what is important to note here is that when we theorize and do research on historical problems we need to take the biblical account of history seriously, rather than ignoring it or attempting to explain it away. In many cases, such as the Sumerian Problem, the Bible can provide solutions to otherwise vexing difficulties of historical interpretation.(Reprinted by permission from the Spring 1993 issue of Artifax, with new material added.)Editorial Footnote:1. It is ABR's view that there is no such thing as pre-history in the modern, long-age, evolutionized sense of the term. Mankind has been able to write since Adam, and was created at "the begininning of creation," as Jesus himself affirmed (Mark 10:6). Additionally, ABR does not accept all of the conventional dates attributed to the early cultures of Mesopotamia. All cultural artifacts are post-Flood, and should probablybe dated to around 3000 BC or later. Notes: 2. On these cultures, see the first volume of the Cambridge Ancient History; Perkins 1949; Mellaart 1965; Nissen 1998; Roux 1992.BibliographyBoscawen, W. St. Chad1876 The Legend of the Tower of Babel. Records of the Past 7:129–32.1877 The Legend of the Tower of Babel, Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology 5:303–12.Cohen, Sol1973 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.Jacobsen, Thorkild1997 Emmerkar and the Lord of Aratta (1.170). Pp. 547–50 in The Context of Scripture vol. 1: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, ed. William W. Hallo, Leiden. The Netherlands: Brill.Jones, Tom B.1969 The Sumerian Problem. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Kramer, Samuel N.1968 The “Babel of Tongues”: A Sumerian Version, Journal of the American Oriental Society 88:108–111970 Enki and His Inferiority Complex, Orientalia 39:103–10.Mellaart, James1965 Earliest Civilizations of the Near East,



The Walls of Jericho
This article was first published in the Spring 1999 issue of Bible and Spade.When one hears the name “Jericho” one naturally thinks of Israelites marching, trumpets sounding and walls falling. It is a wonderful story of faith and victory that we enjoy reading and telling in Sunday School class, but did it really happen? The skeptic would say no, it is merely a folk tale to explain the ruins at Jericho. The reason for this negative outlook is the excavation carried out at the site in the 1950s under the direction of British archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon. She concluded, It is a sad fact that of the town walls of the Late Bronze Age, within which period the attack by the Israelites must fall by any dating, not a trace remains.…The excavation of Jericho, therefore, has thrown no light on the walls of Jericho of which the destruction is so vividly described in the Book of Joshua (Kenyon 1957: 261–62). Thomas A. Holland, who was editor and co-author of Kenyon’s excavation reports, summarized the apparent results as follows: Kenyon concluded, with reference to the military conquest theory and the L[ate] B[ronze Age] walls, that there was no archaeological data to support the thesis that the town had been surrounded by a wall at the end of LB I (ca. 1400 BCE...) (Holland 1997: 223). H.J. Franken, a member of the Jericho excavation staff, stated, Miss Kenyon’s work has presented scholars with the hard fact that if Joshua was active with the incoming Israelites either c. 1400 or c. 1200 B.C. he would not have been able to capture a great walled city of Jericho, because there was no city of Jericho in these periods…the huge ruins of the Hyksos city gave rise to the folktale attached to the hero Joshua (1965: 190, 200). According to Kenyon’s dating, there was no city for the Israelites to conquer at the end of the 15th century BC, the Biblical date for the event. The Jericho of Joshua’s time could not be found-it was lost! Through our research, however, we have found the lost

the agreement with the Sabbatical and Jubilee data and the evidence of the Tyrian king list

ranted, then, that the reign length data of Kings and Chronicles are historically accurate, could it be that some ancient editor was astute enough to add up the numbers and derive a 480-year figure in a fashion something like that of Wellhausen or Barnes, and then project this 480-year figure back into the time between the exodus and the start of Temple construction? In other words, those who are seeking ways to show that the Bible is not to be trusted in historical matters could say that the 480 years were deduced somehow from the regnal data, which can be accepted as historically correct. They would claim that the editor decided to stop counting either after the thirty-seventh year of Jehoiachin’s captivity (Barnes) or after the return under Cyrus (Wellhausen, Burney, and Hawkins). Then this late-date redactor, once he or she had discovered a 480-year sum in the regnal data, imposed it on the time between the exodus and the start of construction of Solomon’s Temple. One would wonder what purpose this might serve, since the pattern had to wait to modern times to be discovered. It would also imply that this editor knew nothing about the proper methods of interpreting the dates, but merely added numbers from various starting and stopping places until a nice sum was found. But let us, for now, consider this option as a possibility: namely, that the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 were extracted somehow from the regnal data. This idea cannot be right because it cannot be reconciled with what has just been established. Since the regnal data of Kings and Chronicles, covering a period of over four centuries, have been demonstrated by careful scholarship to have every mark of authenticity,[28] then how could it be that when we come to 1 Kgs 6:1, the chronological data there are suddenly no longer historical, but contrived and mythical? For those who prefer redaction criticism, if we grant that the surrounding numerical figures, including the “fourth year” of Solomon, are to be taken literally, then could any judicious approach that deals with literary genre say that the 480 years in the same verse are to be taken as unhistorical? This is particularly pertinent if we accept Cassuto’s argument that the very form in which the number is written is meant to convey exactness.[29] Some numbers in the Bible clearly are not to be taken in a strictly literal sense (the “seventy times seven” of Matt 18:22, for example). The context and literary convention being followed are usually plain enough in such cases, however, to show that a non-literal interpretation is intended. For 1 Kgs 6:1, similarly, the context and literary convention being followed dictate that the 480 years must be taken as literal in intention. There is no indication that ancient readers would have understood it in any other sense. To treat it as other than literal would open the door to the radical revisionism that no interpreter with a high view of the inspiration of Scripture could accept: the forty years of Israel in the desert would not be literal, nor the forty days of the temptation of Jesus, nor his three days in the tomb, and so on without end, so that we would no longer be able to understand the plain meaning of any factual statement in Scripture. d. The Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles show that the 480 years are literal years. Redaction criticism, such as would seek to impose a non-literal 480 years in the midst of an otherwise historical account, has been shown by its practitioners to be a very subjective methodology. It can be, and has been, bent to favor propositions that fly in the face of archaeological or historical facts. Fortunately we do not need to use this unreliable method in order to investigate whether the 480 years of 1 Kgs 6:1 are authentic. A proper way of determining their validity is to examine their agreement with the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles. Once we accept the small adjustment that Solomon died before Tishri 1 of 931 bc, instead of on or after Tishri 1 as Thiele assumed, then we not only have a correction for Thiele’s problems with the reigns of the Judean monarchs that he was never able to resolve,[30] but also, by placing the start of Temple construction in 967 bc instead of 966 bc, the Sabbatical and Jubilee years all fall into place with precision and harmony. This precision and harmony cannot be explained as the interpolations of a late-date deuteronomist and his supposed daughters (dtr1, dtr2, etc.) who were interspersing into their account the various allusions to these events in order to fool readers into thinking that the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles were observed in Israel’s past. Although interpolations by a “deuteronomist” are the standard wisdom of rationalist scholarship, it is clear that any deceiver who was interspersing allusions in this fashion could never have gotten all the dates right. The principle of the Jubilee years, first presented in JETS in 2003,[31] was cited in Wood’s “Rise and Fall” article (pp. 477, 488) and by Steinmann in the same issue of JETS[32] as an important argument in favor of the early date for the exodus. It is also important in demonstrating the integrity of all the chronological data of Kings and Chronicles and in establishing the date for the composition of Leviticus. The argument, however, has never been addressed by advocates of a thirteenth-century exodus, even though there have been several expansions of the basic thesis and additional information in its support since the original presentation in JETS. These later articles have provided new evidence to show that Israel’s priests were keeping track of the Jubilee and Sabbatical cycles all the time that Israel was in its land, and that the start of counting must have been in 1406 bc. Since these various later articles dealing with the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles may not be readily available to all readers, a summary will be given here of their findings. This will be a brief summary only; for more complete information the articles referenced must be consulted. The reader may also wish to compare the dates that will be given with the dates for the kings of Judah given in Young’s “Tables of Reign Lengths” article.[33] The simple thesis that Israel’s priests began counting for the Sabbatical and Jubilee cycles when they entered the land in Nisan of 1406, as they were commanded to do in Lev 25:1–10, explains the following facts: First, for the Jubilee years: The Hebrew text of Ezek 40:1, by saying that it was both Rosh HaShanah (New Year’s Day) and the tenth of the month, establishes that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of a Jubilee year. Only in a Jubilee year did the year start on the tenth of the month (Lev 25:9). The date was the Day of Atonement, Tishri 10 of 574 bc.[34] Since the Jubilee year was identical to the seventh Sabbatical year,[35] the first year of this cycle must have been forty-eight years earlier, starting in 622 bc. 1406 bc, the year that Israel entered Canaan that can be derived from the chronological note of 1 Kgs 6:1, was 784 years, or sixteen Jubilee cycles earlier than this date, thus showing that 1406 would have been the first year of a Jubilee (and Sabbatical) cycle. This is in agreement with an entry into Canaan in that year, since Israel was to start counting the cycles when they entered the land of Canaan (Lev 25:1-10).[36] Entirely consistent with this, the Talmud and the Seder ‘Olam explicitly state that Ezekiel’s Jubilee was the seventeenth Jubilee.[37] The Seder ‘Olam, the older of these sources, does not cite the fact that Rosh HaShanah was on the tenth of Tishri in Ezek 40:1 as an argument establishing that it was a Jubilee year. Rabbi Yose simply states that Ezekiel saw his vision at the beginning of the seventeenth Jubilee, apparently based on historical remembrance. The Seder ‘Olam and the Talmud state that another Jubilee was observed in the eighteenth year of Josiah.[38] According to Judean Tishri-based reckoning, Josiah’s eighteenth year began in Tishri of 623 bc, which was forty-nine years, or exactly one Jubilee cycle, before Ezekiel’s Jubile

language learning