Thank you for your thoughtful letter and for your desire to defend the historical truthfulness of Scripture. The concern for a literal Exodus and a real conquest is commendable. Yet the chronological revision you propose does not strengthen the biblical case. It weakens it by replacing the Bible’s own explicit time statements with a chain of reconstructions that are themselves far less secure than the Scriptural data. The biblical record still fixes the Exodus at 1446 B.C.E. and the fall of Jericho at 1406 B.C.E., and the archaeological pattern at Jericho, rightly understood, fits that date far better than the proposed revision to 1386 B.C.E.

The Biblical Chronology Fixes the Exodus Before Archaeology Ever Enters the Discussion

The first point that must be settled is methodological. The date of the Exodus does not arise from the Bur-Sagale eclipse. It does not depend on telescoping Assyrian data backward and then building Israel’s history from that external scaffold. Scripture itself gives the controlling chronological statement. First Kings 6:1 places the fourth year of Solomon’s temple project 480 years after the Exodus. When Solomon’s fourth year is placed at 966 B.C.E., the Exodus falls at 1446 B.C.E. Then the forty years in the wilderness, stated plainly in Numbers 14:33–34 and reflected in the movement from Egypt to the plains of Moab, bring Israel to the Jordan in 1406 B.C.E. Jericho, the first major city west of the Jordan, then falls at the opening of the conquest in that same year. This is the plain historical-grammatical reading of the text, not a symbolic or elastic one. The argument already set out in The Israelite Exodus in 1446 B.C.E. and the Red Sea Crossing and in Dating the Exodus: Evaluating the Biblical Chronology, Archaeological Evidence, and Egyptian Historical Framework remains decisive.

This is reinforced by Judges 11:26. Jephthah states that Israel had already occupied Heshbon, Aroer, and the towns along the Arnon for three hundred years. That statement is not poetry, not liturgy, and not numerological ornamentation. It is part of a historical defense of Israel’s territorial right. Once that notice is allowed to speak with its ordinary force, the conquest must be pushed back into the early part of Israel’s settlement period, not down into the fourteenth century’s closing decades and certainly not into a scheme created by removing more than half a century from standard first-millennium chronology. The biblical data are not vague. They are cumulative, interlocking, and remarkably resistant to chronological experimentation.

Kenyon’s Statement Does Not Establish a 1386 B.C.E. Exodus or a 1365 B.C.E. Jericho

The appeal to Kathleen Kenyon is overstated in several ways. First, her statement was an interpretive judgment, not an independent absolute date produced by an inscription naming Joshua, a king list naming the destruction, or an astronomical text tied directly to Jericho. She was giving her view of the latest Bronze Age occupation on the basis of the ceramic and stratigraphic model available to her. That matters, but it is not the same thing as establishing an uncontestable historical date.

Second, the arithmetic in the proposal is wrong. The “third quarter of the fourteenth century B.C.” is not 1375–1350 B.C.E. The fourteenth century B.C. runs from 1400 to 1301 B.C.E. Its third quarter is roughly 1350–1325 B.C.E. That means the suggested 1386 B.C.E. Exodus does not fall “squarely within Kenyon’s stated range.” It falls outside it. So even on its own terms, the argument fails before it reaches astronomy, Assyria, or Tel Rehov.

Third, Kenyon’s conclusion never had the force some have tried to give it. The lasting importance of her work was methodological rigor, especially her stratigraphic control. But the question has never been whether she found a violent destruction. She did. The real question is whether she dated that destruction correctly. Later reassessment, especially by Bryant G. Wood, challenged her ceramic conclusions rather than denying the destruction itself. That is why The Battle of Jericho — c. 1406 B.C.E. and BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY: The Walls of Jericho rightly focus on the dating problem, not on pretending Kenyon found no destruction at all.

The Archaeological Pattern at Jericho Fits Joshua 6 Remarkably Well

Once the chronological starting point is allowed to remain biblical, the Jericho evidence becomes striking. The city was fortified. The destruction was violent. The walls collapsed. The site was burned. And substantial quantities of stored grain were left in place. That combination is unusual and highly relevant. A city that endured a long siege would normally exhaust much of its food supply. A city thoroughly plundered after capture would not ordinarily leave behind abundant grain in storage jars. Joshua 3:15 places Israel’s entry at harvest time. Joshua 6 presents Jericho’s fall as sudden, not prolonged. Joshua 6:24 says the city was burned. Those details match the archaeological pattern in a way that is too specific to dismiss lightly.

The grain is especially important. It shows Jericho did not fall after a drawn-out starvation siege. The burn layer shows the city did not simply decline and disappear. The fallen mudbrick at the base of the fortification system fits the biblical description of the wall falling so that the attackers could go up straight before them. The excavated pattern does not read like a legendary memory floating free of history. It reads like a real destruction remembered with theological meaning because Jehovah brought it about. The material collected in your book and reflected in the UASV Jericho articles makes that plain. Garstang and Kenyon both found destruction. Wood’s major contribution was to show why the date of that destruction should be brought back into line with the biblical chronology rather than left in the sixteenth century.

Wood’s Reassessment Is Stronger Than Kenyon’s Final Date Judgment

Bryant Wood’s case has often been reduced unfairly to “he liked the Bible better than Kenyon did.” That is not the issue. His argument was archaeological. He reexamined pottery, stratigraphy, scarabs, and the distribution of finds. A central point was that Kenyon’s trenches sampled a limited area and that her conclusions about the absence of diagnostic Late Bronze pottery were stronger than her evidence warranted. Garstang had uncovered ordinary domestic wares consistent with the end of the fifteenth century B.C.E., and Wood argued that these everyday forms deserved greater weight than the absence of expensive imported wares in a poor area of the mound. That is not special pleading. It is exactly the sort of material reassessment archaeology requires.

Moreover, Wood’s reconstruction does not ask us to believe in some vague “general resemblance” to Joshua. It identifies a destruction horizon with the very features Joshua records: a fortified city, abrupt collapse, intense fire, and stored grain. When archaeology and Scripture converge at multiple points of detail, the responsible conclusion is not to force them apart by defending an older ceramic judgment as though it were beyond revision. The responsible conclusion is to admit that Kenyon’s dating, for all its influence, is not the last word. That is why the argument for Jericho in 1406 B.C.E. remains viable and strong.

The Bur-Sagale Eclipse Was Not Misdated to 763 B.C.E.

The astronomical argument in the letter is even weaker than the Jericho argument. The claim says the Assyrian record places the Bur-Sagale eclipse in Simanu, while June 15, 763 B.C.E. allegedly falls in the wrong month. That objection fails because it treats an ancient Mesopotamian lunar month as though it were a fixed block of the modern Julian or Gregorian calendar. Simanu was the third month of the Mesopotamian calendar and corresponds broadly to May/June, not to a rigid modern month boundary. A June 15 eclipse can fit Simanu perfectly well. Standard reference works identify Simanu that way, and Britannica explicitly notes that the Assyrian chronicle’s Siwan or Simanu is equivalent to May–June. Britannica also states that the reference must be to the eclipse of June 15, 763 B.C.E., the only large eclipse visible in Assyria over many years. NASA’s eclipse catalog independently confirms a total solar eclipse on that date, with a track running across the Near East. The discussion in Bible Chronology and Secular History is therefore in line with the larger scholarly and astronomical consensus, not at odds with it.

The proposed replacement, July 17, 709 B.C.E., does not solve the problem. It creates a larger one. That eclipse is known in connection with a Chinese historical tradition, not as the Bur-Sagale entry in the Assyrian eponym canon. It is a different record in a different setting. One cannot take a real eclipse from another culture and use it to overwrite the Assyrian limmu sequence simply because it suits a desired biblical reconstruction. That is not correction. It is substitution. The Bur-Sagale eclipse is important precisely because it belongs to a named Assyrian eponym year embedded in a continuous Assyrian administrative sequence. Once that is severed from 763 B.C.E. without compelling reason, the result is not improved chronology but chronological chaos.

Moving Bur-Sagale to 709 B.C.E. Would Break Established Synchronisms, Not Repair Them

The suggestion that the entire Assyrian framework should be shifted by fifty-four years ignores how many other chronological anchors would be damaged in the process. The first millennium B.C.E. is not hung from a single peg. It is supported by eponym lists, royal inscriptions, campaign records, biblical synchronisms, and astronomical data. UASV’s The Campaign of Shishak, Pharaoh of Egypt, into Judah: A Biblical and Archaeological Examination and Bible Chronology and Secular History both treat these synchronisms as mutually reinforcing, and rightly so. To move Bur-Sagale from 763 to 709 is not a modest adjustment. It would shift the whole Neo-Assyrian framework and distort later well-established alignments, including those tied to the divided monarchy. That kind of revision requires overwhelming evidence. The letter does not provide it. It provides only a mistaken month objection and a preferred alternative eclipse from a different historical stream.

Tel Rehov Does Not Date Shishak to 871 B.C.E.

The appeal to Tel Rehov is also misused. The published scientific discussion of Tel Rehov’s radiocarbon sequence explicitly treats the invasion of Shoshenq I, biblical Shishak, as a key synchronism at approximately 925 B.C.E. That is the opposite of the claim that the science independently forces Shishak down to 871 B.C.E. The radiocarbon work was important because it helped connect archaeological strata to a historical horizon already known from Egyptian and biblical evidence. It was not published as proof that Shishak must be redated by more than half a century. The letter’s claim turns the literature upside down. It takes data used to illuminate an already recognized late tenth-century synchronism and presents it as though it overthrows that synchronism. It does not.

And Scripture is explicit here as well. First Kings 14:25 and 2 Chronicles 12 place Shishak’s invasion in Rehoboam’s fifth year. That synchronism belongs to the divided monarchy, not to a radically lowered tenth century. Once that event is kept where the biblical and Egyptian evidence places it, the proposed 871 B.C.E. date collapses. The article The Campaign of Shishak, Pharaoh of Egypt, into Judah: A Biblical and Archaeological Examination is exactly right to hold the line here.

The Cumulative Case Establishes 1446 B.C.E. and 1406 B.C.E. Beyond Reasonable Doubt

The reason the early date stands is not that one line of evidence happens to lean that way. It stands because multiple lines converge. Scripture gives a direct chronological anchor in 1 Kings 6:1 and a strong settlement anchor in Judges 11:26. The wilderness period is explicitly forty years. That places Israel at the Jordan in 1406 B.C.E. Jericho then falls at the beginning of the conquest. Archaeology at Jericho reveals a fortified city, a sudden destruction, collapsed walls, a citywide burn, and grain left in storage. Kenyon found the destruction; Wood showed why the date should not be held to ca. 1550 B.C.E. The Bur-Sagale eclipse remains securely tied to 763 B.C.E., not 709 B.C.E. Shishak remains in the late tenth century, not in 871 B.C.E. Tel Rehov does not rescue the revised system. It undermines it.

What the letter offers is not a firmer defense of biblical history but a reconstruction that asks the reader to distrust the Bible’s own chronological statements, distrust the established Assyrian anchor, reinterpret published radiocarbon results against their stated historical horizon, and then accept a new system because it appears to harmonize a preferred reading of Kenyon. That is too high a price. Scripture does not need such rescue. The early Exodus remains the stronger case, and Jericho in 1406 B.C.E. remains the better reading of the evidence. The UASV material already assembled in The Israelite Exodus in 1446 B.C.E. and the Red Sea Crossing, The Battle of Jericho — c. 1406 B.C.E., BIBLICAL ARCHAEOLOGY: The Walls of Jericho, and Bible Chronology and Secular History points in exactly that direction.

You May Also Enjoy

Joshua’s Leadership and the Conquest Beginning 1406 B.C.E.

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS