The Date of the Exodus and the Conquest

2002-03-12

Introduction

The Exodus is the event when God, in His redeeming power, brought the enslaved Israelites out of Egypt to the Promised Land, through the leadership of Moses, to Canaan (modern day Israel/Palestine). The event is recorded in the book of Exodus, though the wandering in the desert continues to the early chapters of the book of Joshua. The date of the Exodus is one that is argued amongst scholars of the Levant. There is evidence that supports a date as early as the 15th Century B.C., and one as late as the 13th Century B.C. From a historical standpoint and a quick observation of the events of those days, either one of these could seem plausible. It is a challenge to determine these things, being that there is no extra-Biblical evidence of the Exodus. There is no mention of the Exodus because ancient Egyptian records do not record major failings of their people, their kings, and their gods at any point in their history. However, there are implications of the authenticity of the Biblical narrative if one chooses one date over the other. Further examination of Egyptian history in light of the Biblical narrative will allow one to piece together when these things might have taken place. It is important to keep in mind, however, that this historical event is the great event of salvation that stands at the forefront of Israelite history; it includes the majestic wonders and judgment of the living God. Finally, according to the Biblical text, it is very apparent which date is correct, but we will find that secular history also testifies of this correct date.

The Basis of the Early 15th Century Date

One of the most important contributions to this point of view is 1 Kings 6:1, which states that the laying of the Temple foundations occurred 480 years after the Exodus. This is foundational to this view; the number of years is to be taken literally, not allegorically to mean a certain number of generations. Merrill states that the date of this event in 1 Kings was 966 BC, which would put the Exodus at 1446 B.C. (Merrill 58). The Pharaoh that did not know Joseph was probably Ahmose (Amosis) who expelled the Hyksos. This identifies the Pharaoh of the oppression as Thutmose III, and the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep II. With these things in mind, there is a period of over four hundred years where Israel wandered in the wilderness, conquered Canaan, was ruled by a long line of judges, until Samuel and his anointing of Saul.

The Basis of the Late 13th Century Date

The point of view from 1 Kings 6:1 is that 480 years is representative of twelve 25-year generations, which would mean about 300 years before the lying of the Temple foundations would approximate the date for the Exodus. Bright concludes that there is no way to identify the actual year of the Exodus (Bright 123). The Pharaoh that would have appointed Joseph would have been a Hyksos king. This could make sense, since Asiatics were generally not favorable in the eyes of the Egyptians, so an Asiatic king may likely favor a fellow Asiatic. According to the lengths of the reigns of the Egyptian kings’ reigns, Rameses II of the nineteenth dynasty would be a likely candidate (Bright 124). As the Egyptian hold in Syria was waning, which included events such as Rameses’ pact with the Hittites, it would perhaps make the land of Canaan more vulnerable for attacks. The rise of the Philistines (the sea peoples) contributed to the waning of the Egyptian empire in later years, which would have also helped the situation in the youngest years of the Israelite theocracy.

The Evidence of the Late 13th Century Date

An argument for the late date is the abundance of archaeological evidence in Palestine. There is evidence that there was great devastation to Palestinian cities in the late thirteenth century that many hold to be the conquest of Canaan (Bright 130). Accordingly, it seems quite plausible that the Exodus would have taken place sometime before that point, if the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness took forty years.

Many areas of southern Palestine were allegedly destroyed during this time. Bright mentions Debir, also called Kirjath-sepher, and Lachish (Bright 131). The former was destroyed by fire and the latter was ravaged and left desolate. Hazor seems also to have been destroyed in the late Bronze Age. It is not known whether these were destroyed by the hands of the Israelites, but the devastation of many areas of Palestine around the same time would make sense to be the conquest.

Another support for this hypothesis would be that the Hebrew slaves built cities such as Pithom and Raamses. The latter name suggests kings that began to rule in the nineteenth dynasty. Rameses I came to rule in 1320 B.C., chosen by Horemheb, who had no heir, the last king of the eighteenth dynasty (Steindorff 247). With this in mind, it would seem unusual for the name of the city to be used if the king for which the city was named would not rule for almost a century later. The encounter of the Edomites and the Moabites in Numbers 20-21 seem also anachronistic for an early date, since there seemingly is a great population among these peoples in the text (Bright 124).

The Evidence of the Early 15th Century Date/A Refutation of the Late Date

Archaeology is not as much a factor for looking for the date of the Exodus in the early date hypothesis. The main argument for the early date lies in how the Exodus is reconciled in Egyptian history (not to mention a literal interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1), as discussed below. The evidence of the late date that many archaeologists and scholars hold is not strong. First, the period of Judges would have to be compressed into a period of no more than two hundred years. As David began to rule in the late eleventh century, all events from the conquest until the time of Samuel would be in this short period of time.

During the time of Jephthah, as Merrill notes, he states to the Ammonites that there has been no contestation of the Transjordanian land since the defeat of Sihon (see Judges 11:26; Merrill 68). This cannot be reconciled as generations as written in 1 Kings 6:1; this must refer to literal years. This would give us a date close to that of the early date of a 1446 B.C. Exodus, as Merrill proposes.

Merrill argues also for the use of the city name Raamses. Some scholars would say that this could be considered as inspired updating, such as the use of the familiar name Dan in Genesis 14:14. Dan is not given this name until the migration of the tribe of Dan in period of the Judges. Merrill has an alternate point of view, that the Ramessids, in which Rameses I was a descendant, were known during that time. The Ramessids have an ancestry that is traced back to the days of the Hyksos. Regardless, the use of the name Raamses is not a problem with the hypothesis of an early date.

When dealing with the archeological findings, Bright admits that there is no way to identify those who destroyed the cities of Palestine (Bright 132). This would be more adequate to be described as a demonstration God’s wrath through the neighbors of the Israelites during the Judges period. Merrill argues from Joshua 24:13 that they rest in a land for which they did not work. If this is the case, the “silence of archaeology” is a testimony to the late date (Merrill 74).

There is also extra-biblical evidence of Merenptah (Merneptah) king of Egypt who put down a “minor revolt” in Palestine, “which he put down with little difficulty” (Steindorff 252). In a song of victory, it is written that “Israel is laid waste and has no seed.” This is the only Egyptian inscription that mentions Israel. Since Merenptah is the successor of Rameses II, the supposed Pharaoh of the late Exodus, Israel would have very few years to go through the wilderness and settle, and then be defeated by Merenptah king of Egypt in the mid-to-late 1220’s. This fits more with the waxing and waning of Israelite faithfulness to God that was judged via a foreign power. When they were faithful, a few men could defeat the fiercest of enemies. When they were unfaithful, they were defeated, and very bitterly at that.

The Proposal of the Early Date Within Egyptian and Biblical History/Chronology

For the late date, Merrill argues, the Pharaoh that sought Moses’ life would have to rule almost forty years. This is because Moses’ sojourn in the land of Midian was forty years. The candidates we have are Thutmose III and Rameses II, also both kings from the two different periods the scholars argue. But if this king were Rameses II and he were to die which allowed Moses to return to Egypt, then the Exodus would happen too late to satisfy anybody, after 1236 (Merrill 62).

The king that did not know Joseph in Exodus 1 was probably Ahmose. His brother Kamose began the work of expelling the Asiatic Hyksos rule, but died before he completed the work. Ahmose was the king who pushed the Asiatics out of the land and restored the Nile Valley to Egyptian rule. In Exodus 1:10, as Merrill suggests, could be a paranoia that the Hebrews might side with the Hyksos if they were to return, since both groups were Asiatics. Thutmose I, who came to power in 1526, the year of Moses’ birth, proposed infanticide to keep the numbers of the Hebrews from expanding (Merrill 60). Aaron does not seem to be subject to this as Moses’ older brother, who was born before Thutmose I became king. His daughter Hatshepsut, who was to become Pharaoh after his son Thutmose II, could quite possibly be the one to draw Moses from the waters. Though this could not be proven, this is a brilliant observation and a perfect fit.

The joint reign of Hatshepsut and Thutmose III until 1483 B.C. would then keep Moses in a favorable light. But when Thutmose III, who despised his mother-in-law, was about to rule alone, he was probably tired of having competition in the rule of Egypt. Since Moses was adopted into the royal family, he could be one who could come to power in his place. The killing of the Egyptian in Exodus 2 could have been just an excuse to finally get him out of the way, politically speaking. If Thutmose III’s anger might have subsided after a while otherwise, Moses might have returned to Egypt. Moses would have known that Thutmose saw him as a political rival. Free from political rivals with Moses gone and Hatshepsut dead, he could carry out the amazing conquests in the east and north to satisfy his desire for power.

At the death of the Thutmose III, Moses returned with a vision for Israel that God gave him. He returned and confronted Amenhotep II son of Thutmose III. The records of this king says he was one of extraordinary strength and well educated and even trained in archery, hunting, aquatics, and horsemanship, and also one of a “democratic spirit toward his people” (Steindorff 69). This does not seem to apply to the Hebrews, but he did seem to allow Moses to speak on their behalf. There is much to say about the records of his conquering exploits and suppressing revolts in the north. However, as many of the Egyptian kings would suppress their losses, there is no record of the defeat of his gods in the ten plagues, the death of his first-born son, which would have been the heir to the throne, and the major loss of his warriors at the Red Sea.

The Proposal of the Late Date Within Egyptian and Biblical History/Chronology

In light of the late date, the Hyksos would have been the ones to accept Joseph as his royal counsel, Seti I would have been the Pharaoh who sought Moses’ life, and Rameses II would have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus. It is hard to see the number of Pharaohs that would have ruled during Moses’ young life, as he would have been born during the reign of either Ay, who was the vizier for young Tutankhamun (“King Tut”) towards the latter half of the eighteenth dynasty, or Tutankhamun himself. The Biblical text does not give much insight that this many kings ruled during this time, which would have included possibly Tutankhamun, Ay (Tutankhamun’s vizier), Horemheb (Tutankhamun’s general), Rameses I and Seti I. It is hard to see that there would be this many rulers of Egypt during the first forty years of Moses’ life, and the Bible makes no indication of such change. The dynastic shift as viziers and a general come to power due to lack of heirs cannot be seen in the narrative in any way.

As said earlier, if Rameses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, then they would have less than forty years to not only wander in the wilderness, but also defeat the Canaanites, assign the land to the twelve tribes, and settle when his successor Merenptah would come and defeats Israel. We also need to compress the time of the Judges into a 200-year period to make time for a united kingdom by the late eleventh century.

The Tell el-Amarna letters dated during the reigns of Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), or approximately early to mid-fourteenth centuries B.C. There is a description of violence in the Canaanite city-states and these people called ‘apiru that take different sides at different times (Merrill 72). Though we ought not to equate necessarily the ‘apiru with the Hebrews, how can we put the Exodus in the thirteenth century B.C. after such conquest?

Think about Amenhotep IV, who went contrary to all of his fathers in Egypt, and switched from a polytheistic religious system to a monotheistic religion, under the god Aten, and had unusual religious devotion. It is quite reasonable, that within recent historical memory, there was only a single God, that could darken the sun (the main god in the Egyptian religion), and caused the plagues of Egypt that the magicians could not mimic (Exodus 8:18; et al.)?

Chronological Summary

If the Exodus happened in 1446 B.C., the wandering in the wilderness would have been for forty years afterward. They would have conquered in those years Sihon king of the Amorites and Og king of Bashan (Numbers 21). Around 1406, they would have entered the Promised Land, conquered many of the Canaanite cities, and settled there. After this the men entered the land and chose to serve the Lord (Joshua 24:16ff), there would have been a fluctuation of the faith of their children, which would have caused a period of peace, and then a period of invasion which would bring about repentance, and then a judge would deliver them, so they would return to peace. This would bring them to the time of Samuel, when the people would demand a king, in the eleventh century.

Keeping in mind the literal meaning of the Bible, such as a literal meaning to 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26, and a literal forty-year wandering, we have a foundation to knowing God and how He worked in the ancient Near East to bring about a people dedicated to Himself. If we try to declare the infallibility on archaeology and the human wisdom in its place, the authority of God’s witness in His word is diminished. Archaeology and history are tools to help us understand the Bible better, and not the opposite.

It is interesting how the Biblical account coincides so well with secular historical records. As God promised to lead Israel from slavery to freedom to a land “flowing with milk and honey,” God promises true freedom today: eternal life that is found in the Lord Jesus Christ. As confirmed by many fulfilled prophecies, Jesus died for our sins on the cross of Calvary. He rose again on the third day and was exalted to heaven. And this salvation is available to all people of every nation.

Bibliography

Bright, John. A History of Israel, Third Edition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1959.

Merrill, Eugene H. Kingdom of Priests: A History of Old Testament Israel. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987.

Steindorff, George and Seele, Keith C. When Egypt Ruled the East. Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1957.