Dating Joseph and the Exodus: In Search of a Consistent and Defensible Chronology

University Degree Historical and Philosophical studies

Thatcher

Dating Joseph and the Exodus:

In Search of a Consistent and Defensible Chronology

David Thatcher

HIST111

James Harrison

19 September 2010

We are all likely familiar with the story of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and brought down to Egypt, where he eventually ascended to a ruling position and moved all his family into Egypt, specifically the “Land of Goshen.” Over time, the Egyptian rulers enslaved the Israelites because they had become numerous and feared that they would rebel. They served the Pharaohs with hard, forced labor for many years, until God sent Moses to tell the Pharaoh to let the people go. The Pharaoh would not, and so ten plagues were sent. At the end of the tenth plague the Pharaoh relented and let the people go, but then pursued them to the sea, at which point God opened up the waters to let His people pass, but closed them to destroy Pharaoh’s army. The Israelites went on to conquer the land promised to them of God, the land of Canaan.

If there was a migration of Israel out of Egypt to Canaan, when did it happen? The date of the Biblical Exodus is a hotly debated issue for many reasons. Probably the most important reason is the view of many Christian fundamentalists who hold the Bible to be literally inerrant in all matters. For them, defending a certain view of the Exodus is tantamount to defending the faith. Not all Christians share the same view of Scripture. Many feel that the Bible was never intended to be a history book, and asking it to be precise in historical matters is unwise. I agree with Dennis Bratcher who states that the views of the Biblical Exodus “are more a clash of how people view Scripture . . . than they are a conflicting interpretation of the historical evidence.”1 Obviously, if you regard the Bible as myth then attempting to reconcile the Biblical details with known history and archeology is a pointless effort. In this paper I will first review three of the most common positions and then proceed to introduce a fourth as a way to reconcile the data. Finally, I will take a closer look at what this means for the timing and circumstances of Joseph’s entry into Egypt.

The traditional early Exodus position places the Exodus in 1440 BCE. Based on this dating, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Thutmose III of the Eighteenth Dynasty. As the position favored by Biblical literalists, this dating finds its primary support in a literal reading of Scripture. In 1 Kings 6:1 we are told that from the time of the Exodus to the building of the Israelite temple in the fourth year of Solomon, was 480 years. The temple under Solomon was built around 960 BCE.2 Therefore, the Exodus can be dated to 1440 BCE. Another Bible passage used in support of this view is Judges 11:26, which tells us that from the time of the Israelite conquest of Canaan following the Exodus, 300 years elapsed until the reign of the Hebrew judge Jephthah. Bratcher notes that based on generally accepted dates, Jephthah ruled around 1100 BCE. Adding 300 years gives us 1400 BCE, which is forty years after 1440 BCE, which allows for the forty years of wandering described in the Bible.3

Up to this point it should be fairly obvious that this position basically assumes the date based on a literal reading of the Bible. While there isn’t much archaeological evidence to support a 1440 BCE Exodus, those who hold this position have at least two pieces of evidence to point to. Excavations at the site of Hazor in Canaan support a possible 15th century conquest which would fit in with this traditional early dating.4

The second piece of evidence is found in the Amarna tablets, a record of letters written by city officials during the reign of Pharaoh Akhenaten in the city of Aten. The city of Aten was built by Akhenaten and was the capital of Egypt from 1400-1350 BCE. In these letters, the city officials ask Akhenaten for help from invaders called ‘Apiru. It is argued that these ‘Apiru are the Hebrews, which would establish that exodus occurred earlier than 1400 BCE.5

In considering the traditional early date of 1440 BCE for the Exodus, we must concern ourselves not only with the lack of archaeological evidence, but the way that promoters of this position have interpreted Biblical passages. To begin with, ancient near east chronologies and dating are notoriously complex, and we must probe possibilities like co-regencies of kings, the revision of numbers to form a specific important numerical pattern, and years that have been left uncounted for a specific reason.6 Such considerations are not truly made in dating the Exodus to 1440 BCE. In regards to the excavation at Hazor, we have no evidence to tie a 15th century destruction with the conquest of Israel. It is merely a possibility.7 As for the Amarna Tablets, it is more likely that “‘Apiru” was a general reference to bands of marauders from Canaan, rather than a specific reference to the Israelites.8

The next common position is that which holds a late date for the Exodus about 1290 BCE. This view was first advanced by William Albright in the 1930s, and also argued for by Kenneth Kitchen in his book “Ancient Orient and Old Testament” in the 1960s.9 This position seemed to be primarily an alternative to the archaeology-sparse traditional early date view.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Despite this, most that hold this position, including Kitchen, start out by appealing to Exodus 1:11. This verse tells us that the Israelite slaves built Egyptian store-cities of Pithom and Rameses. From this it is argued that Rameses was founded by Pharaoh Seti I and primarily built by his successor, Ramses II, therefore you cannot date the Exodus prior to the 13th century.10

The archaeological evidence for this position is much better. First of all, the evidence shows that the land of Edom and Moab, two peoples whom the Israelites met on the way to Canaan, was not settled until the late 14th or 13th century BCE.11 Secondly, Lachish, Debir, and Bethel, three Canaanite cities that the Bible claims were conquered by the nation of Israel, show evidence of being burned in the late 13th or 12th century.12

Historical evidence for a late Exodus appeals to the reign of the Hyksos, or “shepherd-kings.” The Hyksos were Asiatic in origin (coming from Canaan and Mesopotamia) and ruled Egypt from 1667 to 1546 BCE. It is held that the entry of Joseph and his family into Egypt was part of the Hyksos takeover.13 In Exodus 12:40, we are told that the time of the Israelites in Egypt was 430 years. If you work back from the proposed Exodus date of 1290 BCE, you arrive at an alternate early date for the beginning reign of the Hyksos, 1720 BCE. If we insist that the migration of Joseph and his family to Egypt occurred within the general migration of the Hyksos, an early date of 1440 BCE for the Exodus give the date of Joseph’s entry as 1870 BCE, far too early for that to be the case.

Each point can be argued against. The understanding of Exodus 1:11 as referring to specific cities founded and built by Seti I and Ramses II ignores the possibility that later writers used names relevant in their days while the text refers to an earlier settlement.14 Also, while Edom and Moab may not have been settled until the late 13th or 12th century, this doesn’t mean that Israel could not have encountered well-organized bands of herdsmen or warriors. With regard to the destruction of Lachish, Debir, and Bethel, the reply is similar to that of the evidence at Hazor: there is no certain link to the Israelite conquest.15

Lastly, defenders of a late Exodus appeal to the fact that Pharaohs Seti I and Ramses II warred with the Hittites in large battles that occurred through Palestine. The silence of the Bible on this is regarded as an indication that these battles occurred before Israel entered the land, therefore establishing a date of the Exodus no later than Ramses II.16 Again, this leads us to a general date of 1290 BCE.

The third common position is that the story of the Exodus can’t be dated, because it didn’t occur as the Bible portrays. Finkelstein and Silberman argue this position, and come to the conclusion that the details of the Exodus story are primarily a contribution of 6th and 7th century BCE writers intended to bolster nationalistic fervor against invasions of Egyptian pharaohs long after Israel was in the land.17

They start out in much the same way as defenders of the late date in connecting the cities of Exodus 1:11 with the cities built by Seti I and Ramses II and thereby invalidating any consideration of an early date.18 The argument continues that mass Exodus during the time of Ramses II would have been impossible as the border between Canaan and Egypt was well controlled. Therefore, we should expect to see Egyptian records of any successful Exodus.19

Furthermore, although Israel is said to have wandered forty years in the wilderness of Sinai, we find no real evidence of such encampments. This point seems most important since Israel camped in Kadesh-Barnea for 38 years. Yet no archeological findings support such an encampment at time. The same can be said for Ezion-Gezer, another encampment of Israel. In addition, Israel is said to have fought the king of the Amorites at Heshbon, and there is no archaeological evidence for this either.20

Finkelstein and Silberman also point out that many of the names used in the Joseph story only become really common in the 6th and 7th centuries, and sites like Kadesh-Barnea, Ezion-Gezer, and even Pithom became prominent during the same time.21

It is unfortunate that Finkelstein and Silberman accepted the late date understanding of Exodus 1:11 and did not consider an alternative interpretation. On the strength of this argument they dismiss any possibility of an early Exodus and do not take time to consider it. The possibility of editorial updating in Exodus 1:11 seems a very possible conclusion for them to consider especially since they are willing to cast the Biblical story of the Exodus as a 6th or 7th century textual recension. Even the Merneptah stele, an Egyptian story of a conquest of Canaan in the late 13th century BCE, is assumed to require a late date.22 Ultimately, in attempting to set up the late date position as the only possible way to understand an actual Exodus, they seem to have created a straw man.

Difficulties with a mass exodus in the time of Ramses the Great can be addressed with an earlier date. The identification of Kadesh-Barnea with the present site of Ein el Qudeirat can be called into question, as well as the identification of Ezion-Geber with Tell el Kheleifeh.23 Finkelstein and Silberman incorrectly place the battle of the Israelites against Sihon at Heshbon when Numbers 21:23 tells us that it was actually fought at Jahaz, twenty miles south; the inclusion of Heshbon in the listing of territory gained could easily be a case of later editorial updating.24,25,26

If all these views can be questioned, where is the truth? A solution proposed by Dr. Stephen Myers identifies the Exodus with the general expulsion of the Hyksos, and I will show how I believe it is the best solution, and how it solves the uncertainties above.27

One of the first considerations to be made is how to fit the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 between the exodus and Solomon’s temple if the early traditional date is not used. Myers points out how Josephus counts 592 years between the Exodus and the first temple. The difference can be accounted for by figuring that the count of 480 years does not include 111 years of oppression, or times when the people of Israel briefly came under the rule of foreign enemies. The 480 years only counts the years of the rule of the judges of Israel.28 Therefore, 591-592 years before the building of the temple in 960 BCE gets us to 1551-2 BCE, which is around the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos under Pharaoh Ahmose.29 This fuller reckoning of the years of 1 Kings 6:1 also causes problems for the traditional early date.

Because the Jews were of Asiatic origin, they would likely be classified among the Hyksos. Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian, makes the identification between the Jews and the Hyksos.30 The argument here is the reverse of the Hyksos argument made by the late date position, as it argues for identification of Israel with the Hyksos for the purpose of dating the Exodus to the Hyksos expulsion. The town of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 is in the same area as the Hyksos capital of Avaris.32 By identifying the town of Rameses with Avaris, we have another indication of this connection. This also means that there is no need to insist that the people of Israel stayed around until the time of Ramses II, as would be necessary to support a late date of 1290 BCE.

The Amarna tablets, which are used to defend the traditional date of 1440 BCE, are useful in defending this position as well. Meyers strongly argues for the identification of the ‘Apiru with the Israelites in these letters by showing how the letters were written from cities in Canaan not immediately taken by the Hebrews. The Egyptian officials in these cities expressed great concern over impending enemy attacks by the ‘Apiru, which likely referred to the surrounding Israelites.32

Finally, the Old Testament itself seems to explicitly support an Exodus as part of a larger Hyksos expulsion. In Exodus 12:38 we find that “a mixed crowd also went up with them (the Israelites), and livestock in great numbers, both flocks and herds.”33 This “mixed crowd” likely refers to the rest of the Asiatics leaving Egypt with them.

To complete our picture of the Exodus, I want to look at the circumstances and timing of Joseph’s entry into Egypt based on the dating the Exodus as occurring within the Hyksos expulsion. Meyers does not go into this much except to say that Joseph likely entered Egypt with or just prior to the Hyksos.34 I will work backward from a 15th century Exodus using time spans given in the Bible and consider other evidence.

The primary Biblical text for dating the time of Israel in Egypt is Exodus 12:40, which states that “the time that the Israelites had lived in Egypt was four hundred thirty years.”35 Taken at face value, this would be counted from Joseph to the Exodus. However, this seems to contradict the Biblical chronology that indicates that the time from Joseph to the Exodus was only 215 years. The Septuagint Old Testament text says that the 430 years also includes the time spent in Canaan before Joseph entered Egypt, and this would seem to resolve the problem. Therefore, Abraham entered Canaan 215 years before Joseph entered Egypt.36

This would place the entry of Joseph into Egypt at approximately 1767 BCE, working 215 years backwards from a date of 1552 BCE for the Exodus. What was going on in Egypt at this time? The Hyksos period did not begin until approximately 1720 BCE,37 so the king who promoted Joseph would not be a Hyksos ruler, but one of the Pharaohs of the Thirteenth Dynasty. It would another 40-50 years before the Hyksos came to power. Another clue that the ruler of Joseph’s time was not Hyksos is provided by the Biblical text. Genesis 41:14 tells us that when the Pharaoh called for Joseph out of prison, so that he might interpret the Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph took the time to change his clothes and shave.38 Charles Aling notes that the Hyksos did not place such importance on grooming, while Egyptians were offended by facial hair.39

Another Biblical text possibly supporting a non-Hyksos king over Joseph is found in Exodus 1:8-11a:

“Now a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. He said to his people, ‘Look, the Israelite people are more numerous and more powerful than we. Come, let us deal shrewdly with them, or they will increase and, in the event of war, join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land.’ Therefore they set taskmasters over them to oppress them with forced labor.”40

“A new king arose over Egypt” is indicative of a major political change, which would fit with a transition from Egyptian to Hyksos rule. Since Joseph had ruled under an Egyptian Pharaoh and brought his family into the land under the auspices of the same, it seems that the Hyksos may have came to the conclusion that they might side with the Egyptians in the event of war.

In conclusion, it appears that the Exodus, far from being an event particular to the Hebrews, was part of the greater expulsion of the Hyksos under Pharaoh Ahmose in the 15th century. Conflicts with Biblical dating of the Exodus in 1 Kings 6:1 are resolved by adding the years of the oppression. The identification of the town of Ramses with Avaris places the slavery of the Hebrews in the Hyksos time frame rather than in the time of Thutmose III or Ramses II. In contrast with the impossibility of a mass exodus under Ramses II, as noted by Finkelstein and Silberman, the exodus under Ahmose was mandatory. Details such as the names of the towns that Egyptian slaves built are best understood as examples of editorial updating.

It is highly likely that many of the finer details in the Biblical Exodus account are in fact later textual recensions as suggested by Finkelstein and Silberman.41 A review of these details is a topic for another paper. However, such considerations do not take away from the reality of the Exodus of the Jews from Egypt, and our being able to pinpoint it in history.

Footnotes

Dennis Bratcher, "The Date of the Exodus," The Voice, in the introduction, http://www.crivoice.org/exodusdate.html (accessed August 31, 2010).

Stephen C. Meyers, "Date of the Exodus," Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies, in "Josephus," http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm (accessed September 17, 2010).

Bratcher, "The Date of the Exodus," under “Judges 11:26."

Ibid., under “Historical Support for a 15th century date.”

Ibid.

K. A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966), 72-75.

Bratcher, “The Date of the Exodus,” under “Historical Support for a 15th century date.”

Ibid.

Bryant G. Wood, "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 3 (September 1, 2005): online in the introduction, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-13th-Century-Exodus-Conquest-Theory.aspx (accessed August 31, 2010).

Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 57-59.

Bratcher, “The Date of the Exodus,” under “Historical Support for a 13th century date.”

Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament, 66-67.

Bratcher, “The Date of the Exodus,” under “Logical Support for a 13th century date.”

Wood, "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory," online under “Additional Problems with a 13th century Conquest.”

Bratcher, “The Date of the Exodus,” under “Historical Support for a 13th century date.”

Ibid.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2002), 68-71.

Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 56.

Ibid., 58-61.

Ibid., 63-64.

Ibid., 67-68.

Ibid., 57.

Steve Rudd, "Solomon's Fortress at Elat, Aqaba: Tell El-Kheleifeh and Jezirat Faraun near Ezion Geber," Interactive Bible, http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-ezion-geber-elat-aqaba.htm (accessed September 20, 2010).

Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 64.

Harold W. Attridge, Wayne A. Meeks, and Jouette M. Bassler, eds., The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books with Concordance (San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2006).

NETBible, "NETBible Notes for Jeremiah 48:34," Bible.org, http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jer&chapter=48&verse=34&tab=commentaries (accessed September 20, 2010).

Meyers, "Date of the Exodus.”

Ibid., under “Josephus.”

Ibid.

Ibid.

Ibid., under “1Q Genesis Apocryphon.”

Ibid., under “The Amarna Letters.”

Attridge, Meeks and Bassler, The HarperCollins Study Bible.

Meyers, “Date of the Exodus,” under “4Q252 Commentary on Genesis.”

Attridge, Meeks and Bassler, The HarperCollins Study Bible.

Meyers, “Date of the Exodus,” under “Josephus.”

Ibid., under “1Q Genesis Apocryphon.”

Attridge, Meeks and Bassler, The HarperCollins Study Bible.

Charles Aling, "Joseph in Egypt: Part I," Artifax Magazine, Summer 2000, online, http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx (accessed August 31, 2010).

Attridge, Meeks and Bassler, The HarperCollins Study Bible.

Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed, 65-68.

Bibliography

Aling, Charles. "Joseph in Egypt: Part I." Artifax Magazine, Summer 2000. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/18/Joseph-in-Egypt-Part-I.aspx (accessed August 31, 2010).

Attridge, Harold W., Wayne A. Meeks, and Jouette M. Bassler, eds. The HarperCollins Study Bible: New Revised Standard Version, including the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books with Concordance. San Francisco, CA: HarperOne, 2006.

Bratcher, Dennis. "The Date of the Exodus." The Voice. http://www.crivoice.org/exodusdate.html (accessed August 31, 2010).

Finkelstein, Israel, and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 2002.

Kitchen, K. A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1966.

Meyers, Stephen C. "Date of the Exodus." Institute for Biblical and Scientific Studies. http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm (accessed September 17, 2010).

NETBible. "NETBible Notes for Jeremiah 48:34." Bible.org. http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=Jer&chapter=48&verse=34&tab=commentaries (accessed September 20, 2010).

Rudd, Steve. "Solomon's Fortress at Elat, Aqaba: Tell El-Kheleifeh and Jezirat Faraun near Ezion Geber." Interactive Bible. http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-route-ezion-geber-elat-aqaba.htm (accessed September 20, 2010).

Wood, Bryant G. "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48, no. 3 (September 1, 2005): 475-89. http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2008/04/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-the-13th-Century-Exodus-Conquest-Theory.aspx (accessed August 31, 2010).

Dating Joseph and the Exodus: In Search of a Consistent and Defensible Chronology

This is a preview of the whole essay

Document Details

Related Essays

How is Spiritual and Religious Awareness in the Contemporary World Reflecte...

Compare the twelfth century dramatic pieces of "The Holy Resurrection" and...

The root of the Mass is the Last Supper, a Passover meal.

Jesus of Nazareth.