The Proposed Dates for the Exodus
There are mainly two dates that are considered by scholars for the date of Israel's exodus from Egypt--the so-called Early Date of ca. 1446 B.C. and the Late Date of 1290 B.C. It is not within the scope of this paper to deal with the arguments for the Late Date. This paper will focus on the arguments for the Early Date.(1)
The Priority of the Biblical Record Concerning the Exodus
The historical and archaeological evidence for the Early Date of Israel's exodus from Egypt must be seen in light of the biblical record. The reason is because there is no clear historical or archaeological evidence, outside of the biblical record, that Israel ever was in Egypt and that an exodus actually occurred.(2) The exodus event is solely based on the narrative recorded in the Old Testament book of Exodus and the subsequent references throughout the Bible. The historical and archaeological evidence can only function as circumstantial evidence. Therefore, a brief introduction to the biblical evidence for the Early Date is necessary.
The Biblical Evidence for the Early Date of the Exodus
It is stated in 1 Kings 6:1 that the exodus preceded the time when Solomon began to build the Temple (ca. 966 B.C.) by 480 years. The 480 years added to 966 B.C. yields a date of 1446 B.C. for the exodus. Jephthah's statement in Judges 11:26 that Israel had possessed the land of Canaan by his time for a period of 300 years. Jephthah's own date is ca. 1100 B.C. That means that Israel was in the land since ca. 1400 B.C. and adding 40 years for the wilderness wandering yields an exodus date of ca. 1440 B.C. The apostle Paul stated in Acts 13:19-20 that time from the exodus to Samuel the prophet was 450 years. David, who was anointed King of Israel by Samuel, captured Jerusalem ca. 995 B.C.(3) Adding 450 years to ca. 995 B.C. yields a date for the Exodus at ca. 1445 B.C. Also, an analysis of the length of the Judges Period requires a total time much longer than possible with the Late Date. Subtracting the 40 year wilderness journey, approximately 20 years for Joshua's conquest, and another approximate 20 years for Samuel's leadership prior to Saul amounts to roughly 80 years. Therefore, enough time must be allowed for these 80 years in addition to the Judges Period. The Late Date allows for less than 150 years, while the Early Date allows for just over 300 years. It is not possible to compress the Judges Period to 150 years without seriously reworking its historical structure. There is no way to reconcile all of this biblical data with the later date of ca. 1290 B.C. without denying the original accuracy and inerrancy of the Bible.
There is much historical and archaeological evidence that can correlate to the biblical data. But this external evidence does not reveal, much less prove, the exodus. It can only provide evidence that demonstrates the plausibility of the exodus as found in the biblical record by showing that the circumstances surrounding the exodus, and its date, cohere with what is known from history and archaeology.
Contemporary Defenses of the Early Date
In recent years, many conservative scholars have provided compelling defenses for the Early Date of the exodus by their maximalist approaches to archaeology and the Bible. The following shall summarize the contributions of some of these scholars.
Bruce Waltke's Defense of the Early Date
Bruce Waltke examined the Palestinian artifactual evidence to determine whether the Exodus of Israel from Egypt occurred at ca. 1440 B.C. or ca. 1290 B.C.(4)
Waltke's premise is the Old Testament textual evidence (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26) regarding the date of the Exodus which yields a mid-fifteenth century B.C. date. With this thought in place, he examined the Palestinian artifactual evidence to determine if it actually supports the biblical testimony. Waltke examined the tells that were occupied by the Israelites without burning and those that were burned (Ai, Jericho, and Hazor). Regarding the tells that were not burned, the artifactual evidence demonstrates that the sharpest change in the material culture occurs at the transition from Late Bronze I to Late Bronze IIA (ca. 1400 B.C.). With regard to the cities burned on their tells, the ancient site of Ai has not been conclusively located. So Waltke focused his attention on Jericho and Hazor. Jericho displays a "streak" of burnt debris that dates between 1400 and 1350 B.C. and also the evidence shows that the city was not occupied during the mid-thirteenth century B.C., thereby precluding the late date of ca. 1290 B.C. The evidence from Hazor allows for and the correlating OT textual data demonstrates that Joshua's destruction of the city occurred at ca. 1400 B.C. Waltke's conclusion is that there is no convincing support from the Palestinian artifactual evidence for a Conquest in the mid-thirteenth century. On the other hand, the evidence from Jericho and Hazor decisively refutes the late date theory. The literary account of the Conquest coincides with the Palestinian artifactual evidence pointing to the Israelite conquest occurring at ca. 1400 B.C. Waltke, therefore, concluded that the Bible can be trusted and that there is no reason to use alternative methods of interpretation of the numbers regarding the history of Israel presented in the Bible than the normal literal, historical-grammatical approach.
Charles Dyer's Defense of the Early Date
Charles Dyer reexamined the evidence for the two main theories for the date of Israel's exodus from Egypt--1445 B.C. and 1290 B.C.(5)
He began by looking at the evidence for the Late Date which includes the cities of Pithom and Raamses, the status of Edom and Moab, the situation in Western Palestine (Jericho and Hazor), and the location of Pharoah's residence. For each area he found the evidence for the Late Date to be weak and at times actually favoring the Early Date (especially Jericho and Hazor). He then discussed the evidence for the Early Date beginning with the biblical testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26. The dates given in these passages, if taken literally, clearly point to a mid-fifteenth century B.C. exodus. The next piece of evidence Dyer covered was the "dream stele" of Thutmose IV which records a promise from a god that he would inherit the throne of Egypt. Some believe this means he had an older brother who was the first born who must have died or the promise was meaningless. This argument from silence is not convincing either for or against the Early Date. The Habiru mentioned in the Amarna letters, according Dyer, can confirm but do not prove the Early Date. Dyer briefly mentioned other Early Date evidence such as the names of the Pharaohs recorded by Josephus. Another is the correlation between Moses' chronology and the contemporaneous Pharaoh. Dyer placed more emphasis on the biblical evidence for the Early Date than on the archaeological evidence which can be variously interpreted.
Douglas MacCallum Lindsay Judisch's Defense of the Early Date
Judisch argued that the date of the Israelite exodus from Egypt is one of the watershed issues which clearly distinguishes the conservative exegete from the critic.(6) The debate usually lands on the conservatives arguing for an early date in the middle of the fifteenth century before Christ (the flashpoint of which is the testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 which says that the construction of Solomon's temple was 480 years after the exodus) and the critics arguing for a late date within the thirteenth century before Christ which they refer to as the "generally accepted date" (the main argument stemming from their interpretation of the Palestinian archaeological evidence). Between these two sides falls what Judisch called "the compromising theologians" who attempt to mediate between the "assured results" of modern science and the "explicit testimony of Holy Writ." Their reasoning to do so is to protect the integrity of the biblical record in light of modern scientific theories. Or, in other words, to make the Scriptures fit the mold of the modern critics. Judisch gave four reasons why the mediating position is in error: (1) Scripture can only have one meaning interpreted in its natural sense. Therefore the testimony of 1 Kings 6 means 480 years as literal years. (2) The interpretation of any word or assertion must accord with its context, which in the case of 1 Kings 6 is found in the book of Kings and is "from first to last in sober historical prose." (3) The assumption of the mediating scholars that the OT people conceived of forty years as representing a generation has never been proven. (4) The fallacious method of interpreting Scripture on the basis of archaeological evidence. Judisch completed his argument by stating that the Christian Scriptures, vastly unlike the religious texts of other religions, are unique in making the validity of their theology completely dependent upon their historical truthfulness. He contended that the testimony of Scripture must take precedence over any circumstantial evidence.
John Bimson's Defense of the Early Date
John Bimson, and co-author David Livingston, part company with the majority of biblical scholars and archaeologists regarding the date that the Israelites entered Canaan which is set at about 1230-1220 B.C.(7) The main reason is because they believe that in almost every case the archaeological evidence (for the Late Date) is inconsistent with the biblical evidence. They argue for a return to the biblical date for the conquest of Canaan (shortly before 1400 B.C.) and a lowering of the date for the end of the Middle Bronze Age from 1550 B.C. to shortly before 1400 B.C.(8) The result of this is that "two events previously separated by centuries are brought together: the fall of Canaan's MB II cities becomes the archaeological evidence for the conquest. These twin proposals create an almost perfect match between the archaeological evidence and the Biblical account."(9)
The destroyed cities in Canaan have been dated about 1550 B.C. because is assumed that they were destroyed when Egyptians drove out the Hyksos, a hostile nation that dominated Egypt for several centuries. Bimson suggested that moving the end of the Middle Bronze Age up shows that the destruction was done by the Israelites, not the Egyptians. The Middle Bronze Age was characterized by fortified cities (this fits exactly the biblical description of Canaan at the time of the conquest); the Late Bronze had mostly smaller, unwalled settlements. The period division is based on the destruction of these fortified cities, which coincidentally fits the biblical description. "Indeed, generally speaking, the area in which destruction occurred at the end of [the Middle Bronze Period] corresponds with the area of Israelite settlement, while the cities that survived lay outside that area."(10) Bimson and Livingston use the Biblical record to guide them in interpreting the archaeological data and the result is much more coherent than the traditional minimalist perspective.
Bryant Wood's Defense of the Early Date
Bryant Wood has carefully reinterpreted the relevant archaeological data concerning Jericho and proposed that John Garstang's initial dating of the destruction of Jericho's "City IV" to about 1400 B.C. is correct rather than Kathleen Kenyon's later proposal of 1550 B.C.(11) In defense of this, Wood has offered the following correlation between the archaeological evidence and the biblical narrative in support: (1) The city was strongly fortified (Joshua 2:5, 7, 15; 6:15, 20). (2) The attack occurred just after the harvest time in the spring (Joshua 2:6; 3:15; 5:10). (3) The inhabitants had no opportunity to flee with their foodstuffs (Joshua 6:1). (4) The siege was short (Joshua 6:15). (5) The walls were leveled, possibly by an earthquake (Joshua 6:20). (6) The city was not plundered (Joshua 6:17-18). (7) The city was burned (Joshua 6:24).
Wood found that Kenyon had incorrectly dated City IV because "no imported Cypriote ware--diagnostic for the ensuing Late Bronze I period--was found at Jericho."(12) Kenyon herself acknowledged that the inhabitants of City IV were "simple villagers" with "no suggestion of luxury." Wood stated that "she based her dating on the fact that she failed to find expensive, imported pottery in a small excavation area in an impoverished part of a city located far from major trade routes!"(13)
Wood then proposed four lines of evidence in support of John Garstang's conclusion that City IV was destroyed in about 1400 B.C. (Kenyon believed Jericho was destroyed in the mid-16th century and not inhabited throughout the Late Bronze Age). First, the ceramic data. Found by Garstang at Jericho City IV were many pieces of pottery all characteristic of the Late Bronze Age, including a large amount of what appears to be the imported Cypriote bichrome ware that Kenyon was looking for and did not find.
Second, the stratigraphy of City IV between what Kenyon believed fit between 1650 to 1550 B.C. displayed 20 different architectural phases. "If Kenyon were correct that City IV met its final destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze period (c. 1550 B.C.E.), then all these 20 phases would have to be squeezed into a mere 100 years (Middle Bronze III). It is hardly likely that all of this activity could have transpired in the approximately 100 years of the Middle Bronze III period."(14)
Third, an excavation of a cemetery northwest of the city by Garstang "recovered a continuous series of Egyptian scarabs extending from the 18th century B.C.E. (the XIIIth Dynasty) to the early 14th century B.C.E. (the XVIIIth Dynasty). . . . The continuous nature of the scarab series suggests that the cemetery was in active use up to the end of the Late Bronze I period."(15)
Fourth, and finally, "one Carbon-14 sample was taken from a piece of charcoal found in the destruction debris of the final Bronze Age city. It was dated to 1410 B.C.E., plus or minus 40 years, lending further support to the view that the destruction of City IV occurred around the end of the Late Bronze I period, about 1400 B.C.E."(16)
Wood's response to this data is, "If the Hyksos did not destroy Jericho and the Egyptians did not destroy Jericho, then who did? The only written record to survive concerning the history of Jericho in the Late Bronze Age is that found in the Hebrew Bible. When we compare the archaeological evidence at Jericho with the Biblical narrative describing the Israelite destruction at Jericho, we find a quite remarkable agreement."(17)
Conclusion
On its own, the historical and archaeological evidence for the Early Date of the exodus is subject to various forms of interpretation. But when viewed in light of the testimony of the Bible, the evidence takes intelligible shape. One cannot learn about the exodus from the external evidence alone, and this evidence does not prove the Bible's testimony (nor does it disprove it as there are no contradictions between the Bible and history or archaeology), but it does give the reader of Holy Scripture confidence that God's Word corresponds to the real world. The Early Date for the exodus is to be accepted on the testimony of the Bible and the fact that the historical and archaeological evidence supports that testimony.
1. It should be stated that some scholars believe the Early Date is no longer an option and those who still argue for it are dismissed as "Fundamentalists;" see William G. Dever, "Is There Any Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus?" in Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, eds. Ernest S. Frerichs and Leonard H. Lesko (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997), 69; also, William G. Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research, (Seattle and London: University of Washington Press, 1990), 44-45 . Another recent source does not even bother to mention the Early Date option, see Walter E. Rast, Through the Ages in Palestinian Archaeology: An Introductory Handbook (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1992), 42-43.
2. Some scholars do not even believe the exodus is an historical event: ". . . after a century of modern research neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the Mosaic era," Dever, Recent Archaeological Discoveries, 5; see also idem, Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, 67-86. Those who are skeptical of the biblical record unless confirmed by external evidence are called "minimalists." Minimalists believe the biblical record to be ideologically and theologically driven and so late in composition as to be useless for historical investigation. For more discussion on the skepticism and the ideological nature of historical minimalists, see Iain Provan, "Ideologies, Literary and Critical: Reflections on Recent Writing on the History of Israel," Journal of Biblical Literature 114 (1995), 585-606.
3. Gleason Archer suggested that the 450 years run to ca. 995 based on Deuteronomy 12:10, "which states that the choice of a holy city for Jehovah's sanctuary will be revealed after 'He giveth you rest from all your enemies'--including apparently, the Jebusites in Jerusalem," Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 239.
4. Bruce K. Waltke, "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus," Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (January-March 1972): 33-47.
5. Charles H. Dyer, "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined," Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (July-September 1983): 225-43.
6. Douglas MacCallum Lindsay Judisch, "Critical Chronology and the Exodus," Concordia Theological Quarterly 49/4 (October 1985): 267-271.
7. John J. Bimson and David Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," Biblical Archaeology Review 13/5 (September/October 1987): 40-53, 66-68.
8. John J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 2d ed. (Sheffield, England: The Almond Press, 1981), 135.
9. Bimson and Livingston, "Redating the Exodus," 51.
10. Ibid., 46.
11. Bryant G. Wood, "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence," Biblical Archaeology Review 16:2 (March/April 1990), 45-58.
12. Ibid., 50.
13. Ibid., 50.
14. Ibid., 52.
15. Ibid., 52-53.
16. Ibid., 53.
17. Ibid., 53.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Archer, Gleason L. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, updated and revised edition. Chicago, Ill.: Moody Press, 1994.
Bimson, John J. Redating the Exodus and Conquest. 2d ed. Sheffield, England: The Almond Press, 1981.
________. "A Reply to Baruch Halpern's 'Radical Exodus Redating Fatally Flawed,' in BAR November/December 1987." Biblical Archaeology Review 14/4 (July/August 1988): 52-55.
Bimson, John J. and David Livingston. "Redating the Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 13/5 (September/October 1987): 40-53, 66-68.
Courville, Donovan A. The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications. 2 vols. Loma Linda, Calif.: Challenge Books, 1971.
Dever, William G. Recent Archaeological Discoveries and Biblical Research. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 1990.
Durham, John I. Exodus. Word Biblical Commentary. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1987.
Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140 (July-September 1983): 225-43.
Frerichs, Ernest S. and Leonard H. Lesko, eds. Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence. Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Goslinga, C. J. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. Translated by Ray Togtman. Bible Student's Commentary. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1986.
Govier, Gordon. "New Evidence for Israeli Exodus." Christianity Today, 3 April 1995, 87.
Hill, Andrew E. and John H. Walton. A Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991.
Hoffmeier, James K. Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1997.
Judisch, Douglas MacCallum Lindsay. "Critical Chronology and the Exodus." Concordia Theological Quarterly 49/4 (October 1985): 267-71.
Kaiser, Walter C. Jr. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars. Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publisher, 1998.
Malamat, Abraham. "Let My People Go and Go and Go and Go: Egyptian Records Support A Centuries-Long Exodus." Biblical Archaeology Review 24/1 (January/February 1998): 62-66, 85.
Rast, Walter E. Through the Ages in Palestinian Archaeology: An Introductory Handbook. Philadelphia, Penn.: Trinity Press International, 1992.
Youngblood, Ronald. "A New Look at an Old Problem: The Date of the Exodus." Christianity Today, 17 December 1982, 58, 60.
Waltke, Bruce K. "Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus." Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (January--March 1972): 33-47.
Wood, Bryant G. "Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archaeological Evidence." Biblical Archaeology Review 16:2 (March/April 1990): 45-58.
Wood, Leon T. "Date of the Exodus." In New Perspectives on the Old Testament, Edited by J. Barton Payne, 66-87. Waco, Tex.: Word Books, 1970.
This page was printed from http://www.frontlinemin.org.
Copyright © 2002-2008 D. Massimiliano Lorenzini.
Permission granted to copy for not-for-sale reproduction in exact form, including copyright.
All other uses require written permission. Write info@frontlinemin.org.
This publication may be downloaded from www.frontlinemin.org.
Printer Friendly Page Copyright © 2002 Programmed by Pete Yagmin