(Mainly based on an article by S Perry to whom full credit is to be given)

For many years the date of the Exodus has been disputed and the issue has become a major discussion in the realms of Old Testament debate based on archaeology and interpretation. There are two main alternatives for the date of the Exodus, although there are a number of variations. An early date is suggested in the 15th century around 1450 BC and a late date in the 13th century around 1270 BC. Both sides believe that their respective dates fit in best with the evidence from biblical, archaeological and other data. We must therefore consider the evidence.

The Key Biblical Statement. 1 Kings 6:1.

It would probably be fair to say that the main motivation for those who support an early date is a literal acceptance of this text which states, ‘In the four hundredth and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt in the fourth year of the reign of Solomon he began to build the temple.’

As we know that this temple was built in around 965 BC going back a further 480 years before that date would give us a date for the Exodus of around 1445 BC. This is thus the first major question which faces supporters of the later date. Some late date supporters suggest that the 480 is arrived at by totalling different values for several periods which actually overlapped, and various formulae for this have been suggested. However, many late date supporters would suggest that the four hundred and eighty years was intended to indicate twelve generations, taking each generation as a theoretical round number of forty years. Such a round number of ‘forty years’ was Scripturally common as indicating a mature period. (See for example Joshua 5.6; Judges 3.11; 5.31; 8.28; 1 Samuel 4.18; 2 Samuel 2.10; 2 Samuel 5.4; 15.7; 1 Kings 11.42. See also Genesis 25.20; 26.34. Is it really likely that both Isaac and Esau would wait until they were forty to marry?). But twelve generations would in practical terms be about three hundred years which would take us back to the late date. This would also tie in with the evidence of some genealogies. For example, Joshua is revealed as being born twelve generations from Joseph (1 Chronicles 7.23ff). But genealogies are always a dangerous basis for determining lengthy periods as we never know whether every generation has been included. It was quite common to omit names from a genealogy, with only the more important names being mentioned. Consider Exodus 6.20; 1 Chron. 6.1-3 where Moses appears to be the fourth from Levi (Levi - Kohath - Amram - Moses), but in Numbers 3.27-28 Amram, son of Kohath, has probably produced over two thousand offspring contemporary with Mose, a little unlikely if it was the same Amram. We can contrast 1 Chron 2.18 ff. where we have Judah - Perez - Hezron - Ram - Amminadab - Nahshon (who was contemporary with Moses - Numbers 1.7) - Salma -Boaz - Obed -Jesse - David - Solomon making twelve generations from Judah to Solomon, and Judah - Perez - Hezron - Caleb - Hur - Uri - Bezalel, (who was also contemporary with Moses - Exod. 31.2) making seven generations from Judah to the time of Moses. Omissions from the genealogy were also probably the case with the early patriarchs in Genesis 5.

The Beginning of the Sojourn

The next point of contention is that of when the sojourn began. The late date argument allows the descent into Egypt to occur either before or when the Hyksos ruled. As the Hyksos were of a similar racial stock to the Hebrews (Semites) some see that as having been a favourable time for their reception into the country and for Joseph's promotion. G.W. Anderson2 claims that it is certain that it must be after or during the Hyksos period as a reference to a chariot in Gen. 41:45 excludes dates before this period. But he also points out that it is unlikely that under the Hyksos Joseph would have been called on to marry Asenath, a daughter of the priest of On (or Heliopolis) or would have been viewed with favour for doing so - Genesis 41.45.

However, many who accept the late date do not consider the Hyksos to be the Pharaohs when Joseph was in authority. Many who support the late date would date him prior to the Hyksos on similar grouds to those mentioned by Anderson. And they argue that the mention of a ceremonial chariot need not necessarily exclude a date before the Hyksos, for although chariots may not have been in common use for military purposes, a few ceremonial chariots may well have been imported from, or based on, chariots in Mesopotamia before that time.

The Early date could be seen as giving a date of in 19th century BC for the Sojourn under Pharaoh Senusert III who had no special reasons for supporting the Hebrews.

The Length of the Oppression

All we know for certain from the narrative is that the period must be at least greater than 80 years of Moses life plus the period of the plagues, and that at least 2 pharaohs were involved, as one died whilst Moses was in Midian. But it could easily have been more. There is no necessary reason for equating the Pharaoh of 1.8 with that of 1.15.

Gen.15:13 tells us that the enslavement would last 400 years (a round number) or ‘four generations’ (15.16) and this is supported by the four hundred and thirty years of Exodus 12.40ff. Due to the longevity of the Patriarchs a generation could at that time easily be seen as being the equivalent of 100 years. This would then take us back to either around 1850 BC or 1670 BC. This would suggest that the oppression occurred over a long period of time and over several Pharaohs, possibly commencing strongly, falling off a little, and then fluctuating in intensity as time went by. By this time all Egyptians were slaves of Pharaoh, and foreigners would suffer the most. The first Pharaoh mentioned at this juncture was the "new Pharaoh who did not know (either acknowledge, or know about), Joseph" in Exod.1:8 and he may well have been a different one from the one who was king when Moses killed the Egyptian.

This then raises the question of the dating of the time of Abraham which we will not go into here. Those who would date him around 1900-1700 BC would probably accept the later date of the Exodus on these grounds, although it must always be recognised that numbers are often intended to be symbolical rather than real. Thus 400 years may simply be intended to indicate four generations, with the four hundred and thirty years building on the four hundred and adding thirty to indicate perfect completeness. This could indicate a lesser period than four hundred years.

The Pharaoh who began the Oppression (1.8).

If we knew the identity of this character it would help in deciding the dating. He is "the new king who did not ‘know’, or ‘know anything about’, Joseph." Some early date supporters would identify him as a Hyksos ruler, suggesting that an Egyptian could not say that the Hebrews were "too numerous", while, they suggest, the Hyksos (who ruled by holding key positions over the indigenous) could. The Hyksos fear of the Israelites joining their enemies would be understandable as native Egyptians were still governing the southern part of the country the Israelites were well Egyptianised. On the other hand the fear for the Egyptians may have been that they were too numerous in one part of the country so that they might rise up and behave in the Delta region as the Hyksos had before them. Thus this Pharaoh may have been the one who first turned out the Hyksos, or his successor.

If the oppressing Pharaoh were the first of the Hyksos then the gap between the beginning of the oppression (around 1720) and the early date for Exodus would be around 270 years. One late date option is Amosis (about 1580-1558/1570-1546) who finally overthrew the Hyksos, which may well have induced a backlash against the related Hebrews. This would give an oppression of around 300 years for the late date. Thutmosis III is another contender. He ruled with his step mother Hatshepsut for 22 years but persecuted her favourites after her death. (which may have included the Hebrews). This would give an oppression of around 200 years. None of this is conclusive.

The Pharaoh of Moses Day

A further issue that we have to consider is the identity of the Pharaoh who died whilst Moses was in Midian. Early date supporters favour Thutmosis III (roughly 1504-1450/1490-1435) mentioned above as a late date oppression initiator. His reign (including the joint reign with Hatshepsut) totalling 54 years is the only one of any Pharaoh which fits in with the story of Moses' flight and 40 year stay in Midian (Exod.2:12-23). If the Pharaoh who died in Exod. 2:23 was the one whom he fled from 40 years earlier there is no suitable Pharaoh for a late date except for Rameses II (1290-1224) and some scholars, (e.g. Petrie7) do argue for this, although others see him as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

But some late date supporters see the figure of 40 years as symbolic of a generation so that Seti I (1312-1289) could have been the Pharaoh of Moses' day. In any case the Biblical records do not record that Moses returned to Egypt immediately on the death of the Pharaoh, and some time must be allowed for the plagues to occur. If the incident in Exod. 2:12 had occurred at the beginning of Seti's reign 1312-1289, Moses could have returned to Egypt 40 years later to lead an Exodus in 1270 BC.

The Pharaoh Who Initiated the Building of Pithom and Rameses

Clearly Israel must have still been in Egypt during the reign of the Pharaoh who built the store cities mentioned in Exod.1:11. This says that the Hebrews built "Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh."

Here the early date supporters become comparatively silent. Thutmosis III had some building projects in the Nile delta region, although he was certainly not known as a great builder. On the other hand, Seti I began work on the capital city Pi-Rameses on what is believed to be the site of what had been the Hyksos capital of Avaris in the Nile Delta, work on which was completed in the reign of Rameses II. Contemporary papyri speak of "men making their quota of Bricks daily", and officials not having enough straw to make the bricks, which fits in well with the context of Exodus chapter 5. There are also indications of work gangs having days off for religious festivals, cf. Exod. 5:3. However, early date supporters point out that the text refers to store cities not capital cities.

The Cities Themselves

But this does not alter the fact that the name of one of the cities indicates that it was constructed in honour of Rameses II (1290-1224). G.E. Wright after discussing the possibility of dating the Exodus in c.1446 on the basis of 1 Kings 6:1, writes: "Now that the site of Rameses has been located at Tanis, we are forced to conclude that this figure must be explained in another way."8 Early date supporters point out that the city Rameses has been located at other places and that its site is by no means certain.9 Some early date supporters regard Exod.1:11 as a later interpolation for identification purposes. Bimson10 argues that the text of Exodus 1:11 was altered to give a contemporary name to the city which the Israelites built hundreds of years earlier.11 Such occasions do occur several times in the OT.

Another suggestion is that the terms Rameses and Raamses (KJV) were once separate terms the latter meaning "born of Ra". Rea, Wood and Archer maintained that such names occurred from the Hyksos time onwards and should not be used to make a connection with Rameses.

The Pharaoh of the Exodus

Although there are no arguments based on the identity of this character he still needs to be mentioned as he is the figure who corresponds directly to the Pharaoh of the plagues in the biblical narrative. As expected for the late date (around 1270) he is often named as Rameses II (1290-1224) whilst an early Exodus in 1446 might identify him as Amenophis II (1450-1426). In either case the fact of the slaying of the firstborn would not necessarily have affected his son if his son was away on a military expedition. It might thus not have been seen as important enough to mention in Egyptian records which were well known for mainly recording what was positive, and ignoring what reflected badly on them.

The Merneptah Stele

This is dated in the fifth year of the reign of Merneptah, c. 1220 BC and is the earliest extra-biblical reference to Israel discovered. It reads: ‘Israel is desolate, it has no offspring (seed), Palestine has become a widow for Egypt.’

This clearly indicates the presence of Israel in Canaan, although possibly not as an established nation. All it can really be said to demonstrate was that they were in Palestine at that time.

The Evidence Concerning the Desert Wanderings

The late date argument points out that the Bible shows Moses and the Israelites as being compelled to circumvent Edom in view of the large, antagonistic Edomite forces. But scholars such as Nelson Glueck suggest from a general survey of the region an absence of evidence for sedentary occupation of this area from 1900 - 1300 BC and so cast severe doubt on a 15th century Exodus. Bright133) and G.W. Anderson14 also subscribe to this view. But Glueck’s evidence is now partially disputed.

Furthermore early Exodus supporters argue that these forces need not have been permanent urban populations, consider e.g. the nomadic Midianites (Num. 31:8; Judges 8:12) who were sufficiently organised to have kings, (de Vaux) as were the Amalekites of 1 Sam. 15:8ff.) Also references in ANE texts are often not clear in distinguishing between permanently fortified sites and temporary ones. Rea points out that the same Hebrew word 'ir' (city) is used of the Israelites temporary settlement at Kadesh (Num. 20:16), the plural of 'ir, 'arim, is used by Moses when he sends spies out to see if the cities ('arim) are camps or strongholds (Num. 13:19) The problem with this view is that the references in the text to a recognised set of borders, especially v.16 "the edge of your territory", together with agriculture, "fields and vineyards" (v.17) seem to point to a sedentary population.15

The Evidence concerning Canaan

a) The 13th Century Destruction

Albright opts for a late-date Exodus/Conquest because of evidence at Bethel which shows "a tremendous conflagration", making a complete break between the Late Bronze Age and the Iron Age, so great "that no bridge can be thrown across it, and we are compelled to identify it with the Israelite conquest." Similar finds were made at Debir, Lachish, Eglon and Hazor. But as always the problem is in deciding who the invaders were. Canaan was a country which constantly suffered turbulent times.

Early date supporters would say that similar evidence is lacking for other cities which were destroyed at the time according to the biblical narratives, e.g. Hebron and Hormah. They also point out that destruction also occurs at Megiddo and Beth-Shan where the biblical account is silent. But if the 13th century destruction was not caused by the Israelites, then who was it caused by? Wood suggests some alternatives.

(i) Incursions from the Sea-Peoples. (ii) Later Philistine invasions of the Judges period. (iii) Campaigns by Pharaohs e.g. Merneptah. (iv) Various other inter-city wars e.g. Judges 11:33 where Jephthah attacked 20 Ammonite cities after they had first threatened. Consider also the Israel/Benjamin war where Gibeah was captured (20:40) and many towns were burned (20:48).

Generally most early date supporters say, like Wood, that the various attacks can be dated throughout the 14th, 13th and 12th centuries and need not have happened in one main wave.

b) Evidence for Israelite Take-over of destroyed cities

Late date supporters point out that there is evidence of a culturally inferior people taking over the destroyed cities which fits in with the picture of invading Israelites in the 13th century. Early date supporters often regard these as the decimated populations returning to their cities, or a change of population resulting from attacks by others who were not Israelites. If cultural changes are evidence of the invasion then Kenyon reckons that the biggest change occurred c.1400. This would support an early date.

Bimson agrees and thinks that there is no way in which Israelite culture can be distinguished around that time and doubts whether the decline has anything to do with new arrivals of groups. He sees the argument as subjective and circular as it depends on the assumption of a late Exodus. In general early date supporters would explain the collapse as due to Ammonite, Philistine etc. encroachments and inter-necine strife as recorded in the book of Judges.

c) 15th Century Destruction in Canaan

Bimson argues that there is evidence to place the demise of certain cities mentioned in the biblical account in 15th century. These include Arad, Bethel, Dan, Debir, Hebron, Hormah, and Lachish. Bright also points out evidence for this in the form of the tablets found at Tel-el-Amarna in Egypt in 1887, which contain letters from Egyptian dependencies in Palestine and Syria asking for reinforcements. In them there are references to invaders called 'Habiru'. But this name is found in other documents from various parts of the near east during the second millennium denoting a loosely organised group of landless people rather than a specific ethnic unit, and could be applied to any group seen unfavourably. It has been equated with the Egyptian term for groups of labourers or mercenaries ('Aperu'). 16 If these Amarna letters are taken to mean the Joshua invasion this would give an invasion in 1400 BC implying an Exodus date of mid 15th century.But the problem is that the Amarna letters do not give the impression of a large-scale invasion, for when help is sought from Egypt it is often of only ten or so soldiers. Even mighty Megiddo only asked for one hundred.

In corroboration of the early date Prof. J. Garstang (excavator) claimed to have shown that Jericho fell in around 1400 BC. However, Dr. Kathleen Kenyon's work on Jericho put the destruction of the city that Garstang had excavated at around 1580 BC due to the lack of certain pottery types. This would be far too early for either suggested date for the Exodus and would simply mean that nothing had remained of Joshua's Jericho to allow us to date its fall, thus leaving the case inconclusive. However Wood17 has criticised Kenyon's work.18 He argues that Garstang did find such pottery (bichrome) in his survey but that at the time it's significance had not been realised in terms of dating. He argues that other datable items were found, such as scarabs, which suggest activity at least until the LBA1 period in the mid 13th century BC. These factors, coupled with Woods belief that the evidence also backs up the biblical account of the type of the conquest, i.e. that it was a sudden conquest of a strongly fortified city shortly after the harvest, means that he supports Garstang. The walls had fallen, the city was burnt and no plunder was taken. Wood therefore concludes that Garstang was correct about the date of Jericho's fall. But that does not prove that it was the same destruction as that of the Israelites, for the Jericho site was left bare for hundreds of years so that there was large scale erosion. We can only wait for further work to be done on the Jericho site on which only limited excavation has taken place.

The case for Hazor is slightly more favourable to the early date supporters. The final destruction of Hazor is placed at 1250-1220 BC which would leave no space for the destruction of Hazor by Deborah and Barak. Yadin argued for a previous destruction of Hazor in 1440 BC fitting in with the early date view. However he has since redated this, on the dating evidence of bichrome pottery, to 1550 BC which would be too early.19 This leaves us with the same problem as we have for Jericho. Nothing has remained of the Hazor of Deborah's day for us to examine.

The Problems with the Judges Period

a) The Length of the Judges period

One problem with the date of around 1270 BC is that it only allows c.170 years for the Judges period. But in Judges 11:26 Jephthah sends messages to the Ammonite King and claimed: "For 300 years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements...". As Jephthah was then followed by Ibzan, Elon, Abdon, and Samson, if 300 years had elapsed by his time (and as this was part of a diplomatic parley we may argue that it would have to be historically accurate in order to be acceptable to the other party), then it may be argued that the Judges period must be for well over 300 years. Early-daters argue that attempts to reduce this period to just 170 years by overlapping of the Judges reigns are unreasonable.

But many late date scholars have again taken the figure of three hundred years as not being literal (signifying rather ‘a complete period’, three intensified, or ‘a long time’) and have reduced the period of the Judges to 170 years by one or more of the following methods:

1) Including periods of foreign domination within the time of the judges.
2) Omitting the years of the minor Judges and the usurper Abimelech as local judges.
3) Allowing for significant overlaps in the Judges reigns often by supposing more than one group of Judges operating at the same time (e.g. Petrie suggested Three Regions: North, East and West) each group having jurisdiction over their area, thus allowing overlaps in their reigns. When the areas the Judges covered is examined each Judge seemed to be involved only in that area except for Deborah (six tribes) and Gideon (five tribes.) Hence the following rough chronology is arrived at:

1230 Conquest 1200 Othniel 1170 Ehud 1125 Deborah and Barak 1110 Gideon 1075 Abimelech 1070 Jephthah 1050 Shiloh destroyed 1040 Samuel 1020 Saul

b) The Judges and the Philistines

The Philistines incursions into Canaan are generally set at around 1200 BC on the basis of Egyptian records and archaeological data. Supporters of an early date point out that following the above evidence it would be expected that if a late entry into Canaan of around 1230 BC is accepted, the Philistines would have posed a far greater threat to Israel throughout the Judges period. However, they claim, this is not suggested by the narrative as Philistine threats do not begin to happen until the late Judges period, i.e. Samson's time (but see 3.31). But, late date supporters would argue that the Philistines were in fact still settling and organising themselves until the end of the Judges period, and that the areas where the Judges operated in were often not those closely connected with the Philistines. They thus, it is argued, would mainly not interfere with the Israelite settlement.

c) The Presence of Iron in the Judges Period Finally, late date adherents point out that narratives include references to a widescale use of iron (Judges 4:3 refers to the 900 iron chariots of Sisera, Jabin's army commander) These references have then been dated after the Philistines entry as iron was thought to have been mainly brought into that region by the Sea Peoples. On the other hand the opposing argument is that there are references to iron prior to this in the Armana letters of about 14th century BC. Also Thutmoses III list of tribute mentions 'bia' (iron) vessels in Aram in about the 15th century BC.

Conclusion

The early date argument has certainly gained increasing attention over the last few years and although the majority of scholarship still prefer the later dates, it can no longer be dismissed as simply a weak fundamentalist attempt to prove Biblical authority.

But many would still argue that on balance the majority of the evidence favours the later date for the Exodus, although all would agree that there are still too many unsolved problems for any solution to be satisfactory. Problems such as the destruction of Jericho and Hazor and the evidence of Petrie certainly seem to be indecisive and inconclusive. Until new evidence is found on these sites such evidence would appear to remain in the balance. But as it cannot be denied that the picture provided by the Amarna letters seems to be one of local invaders rather than that of a large outside force, and seems to point to a period when Egypt were exercising considerable control in Canaan, it does suggest that the invasion took place after that time.

References

1 John Bright, [A History of Israel, 3rd edn. London: SCM, 1981, p.123] and Albright suggested that the idea of 480 years is symbolic of 12 generations (of traditionally 40 years; e.g. 40 years in the desert). If 25 years is used then a more realistic amount of 300 years is obtained to provide an Exodus of c.1270 BCE. Petrie even suggested 17½ year generations to allow for 210 years giving a date of 1220 BC. Opponents to these theories would question the amount of generations. Why should twelve generations be so embedded in the writers mind that he chose this number to make such an important estimate? Harrison accounted for the twelve generations by linking it to the twelve generations of high priests from the 1st temple to Zerubbabel's restoration. It is suggested that a post-exilic writer sought to balance this by allowing for 12 generations of priests from the Tabernacle to the 1st temple. Critics point out, however, that the suggestion of 12 high priests is unconvincing especially as it involves a suggestion that 1 Chron.6:1-15 is mistaken in attributing the first temple to the wrong Azariah. A similar idea to the above is that the 480 years is to balance the time between the 1st temple and the 2nd. 966+480=486 BC, although in fact the temple was built in 536 and finished in 515 BC. While the dates do not fit it is argued that as the initial amount of 480 years is only attempting to roughly balance the period it is questionable if 60 years make much difference.

2 G.W. Anderson, The History and Religion of Israel Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1966. p.25.

3 G.W. Anderson, 12.

4 From reading the work in question it seems that G.W. Anderson actually used this argument to hint that the date was probably later than the Hyksos period. For example he also says that the names included (Potiphar, Asenath, Zaphenathpaneah,) are typical of the 10th century. But this is very much open to question.

5 G.W. Anderson, 25.

6 G.W. Anderson also points out that in the latter passage the Greek and Samaritan texts give this value to include covering the sojourn of the Patriarchs in Canaan as well, perhaps to reconcile the fact that it appears that only 4 Generations covered the sojourn (Gen. 15:16, Exod. 6:14-27.

7 Hence the 12 generations of 17½ years mentioned earlier as this date for the Exodus is very late and requires a separate explanation to reduce the 480 years mentioned in 1 Kings to around 210 years.

8 G.W. Anderson and Bright point out that the late date is certainly upheld by this idea

9 Namely Quantir, Tell-er-Retebah, Tell-el-Masquta, and Pelusium. Rowley and Kitchen concluded that the location was at Quantir but as they found no evidence for a 15th century city they decided that a late Exodus was evident.

10 J.J. Bimson,Redating the Exodus and Conquest, 2nd edn. Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981. p. 38.

11 Bimson uses the example of Gen.47:11: "So Joseph settled his fathers and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses." Here the reference to Rameses would seem to be an updating, for the very latest critical date for the commencement of any sort of Egyptian sojourn is 1350 BC. which precedes even Rameses I. The same principle could be seen as having been applied to Exod.1:11.

12Bright, 123.

13 Bright, 123.

14 G.W. Anderson, 26.

15 Other similar criticisms of Glueck's findings have come from Kenyon who calls the gap "a most unlikely state of affairs", while G.L. Harding writes "There is no doubt that surface surveys can be very deceptive...perhaps we should now consider the case...as not proven." Bimson also points out that the settlements may not have been permanent, but also points out that in the North of the area occupied by Edomites/Moabites a gap may never have occurred.

16 G.W. Anderson, 26. He goes on to point out however that "if these terms are related to Hebrews then the Hebrews must only have been a part of the Habiru." and therefore may involve attributing the destruction of some of the cities in the biblical account to none Hebraic groups.

17 L.T. Wood, 'Redating Jericho', Biblical Archaeology Review (March/April, 1990): 45.

18 "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!", Wood, 50.

19 P.T. Davies, Old Testament C.D.R.S. and Degree Notes: The Date of the Exodus. Nantwich: Elim Bible College, 1992. p.11.