This article is the second of two in a consideration of the date of the Exodus. Typically, only two dates are considered viable: c.1440 BCE (the ‘early date’),[1] and c.1280 BCE (the ‘late date’). Arguments for these dates are here reviewed and compared.
Summary of Key Arguments
The following tables summarize the key arguments for the early date, together with criticisms, along with relevant quotations in footnotes and my emphasis.
| Arguments For an Early Date Exodus (c. 1440 BCE) | |
|---|---|
| Argument | Criticism |
| The 480 years of 1 Kings 1:6 indicates an early date |
· This is only a relative chronology, and the number does not agree with the years recorded in the Judges[2] [3] · The number may be symbolic for 12 generations[4] · This disagrees with the date for Abraham[5] |
| Some destruction layers in Canaan support an early date[6] |
· Destruction and occupation layers provide more support for a late date[7] · No evidence for Edom and Moab existing at an early date[8] |
| Reference to the Habiru in the 14th century Amarna letters[9] |
· Extensive study has revealed no direct correspondence between the Habiru and the Hebrews, thus the Armana letters do not support the early date[10],[11] · Armarna correspondence contradicts early date destruction of Hazor[12] |
| No evidence for 13th century occupation or destruction of Jericho, Ai, or Hazor[13] | · Hazor was occupied and destroyed in the 13th century,[14] reliable excavation of 13th century Jericho is challenged by extensive erosion,[15] and the archaeological data for Ai is difficult to reconcile with both early and late dates;[16] these are insignificant archaeological challenges for the late date |
The following tables summarize the key arguments for the late date, together with criticisms.
| Arguments For a Late Date Exodus (c. 1280 BCE) | |
|---|---|
| Argument | Criticism |
| Destruction of Hazor in 13th century[17] | · The archaeological evidence may indicate the destruction in Judges 4:24[18] |
| Pithom and Rameses in Exodus 1:11 are evidence for events under Pharaoh Rameses II (1279-1213 BCE)[19] [20] |
· This requires Rameses to be built before Rameses II even began to rule[21] · Unlike the pharaoh of the Exodus, Rameses II did not die in the Red Sea[22] · The sites were built earlier; one was later renamed ‘Rameses’, and an editor of the book of Exodus updated the text with this name[23] |
| Covenant formulas in the Law of Moses closely match those from 1400-1200 BCE[24] | · There is an insufficient match to date the Biblical covenants precisely[25] |
| The Merneptah Stele (13th century), is the earliest reference to Israel in Canaan[26] | · Egyptologist Manfred Görg has suggested an Egyptian inscription he dates to the 13th century, contains a reference to Israel which may have been copied from an 18th Dynasty record (16th-13th centuries BCE), implying Israel was in Canaan before the 13th century[27] |
| Egypt occupied Canaan until the 12th century[28] | · This remains unaddressed by key proponents of the early date;[29] this contradicts completely a late date for the Exodus |
| A very large population entered Canaan in the late 13th century[30] | · This remains unaddressed by key proponents of the early date;[31] there is no evidence for such a population entering Canaan in the 15th century |
Review of Arguments
The early date is highly vulnerable to a range of criticisms, and has the least archaeological support. In particular, the occupation and control of Canaan by Egypt until the end of the 13th century, the lack of any evidence for a new population entering Canaan in the 15th century, the Armana correspondence, the non-existence of Edom and Moab in the 15th century, and the evidence for destruction of Canaanite sites matching a 13th century conquest rather than a 15th century conquest, are formidable challenges to the traditional late date.
Objections to the late date are less substantial. There is no evidence that Rameses as a place name in Exodus 1 is a later editorial gloss.[32] Görg’s suggestion of an Egyptian reference to Israel earlier than the Merneptah Stele is problematic. [33],[34] Wood’s attribution of the 13th century Hazor destruction level to Deborah and Barak fails to provide evidence.[35],[36] His dating of Pithom and Rameses on the basis of the birth of Moses being described later in Exodus 1, assumes an unnecessarily strict chronological sequence for the narrative.
The pharaoh under whom Pithom and Rameses were built died while Moses was in the wilderness before the Exodus[37] (matching Rameses II and a late date Exodus). Additionally, Hoffmeier argues Exodus does not represent the pharaoh of the Exodus as dying in the Red Sea,[38] whereas an early date pharaoh would have to be Thutmose III or Amenhotep II, neither of whom died by drowning.[39]
Conclusion
Although vigorous debate over date of the Exodus is ongoing,[40] the 13th century date continues to be held widely among those scholars who accept the historicity of the Exodus.[41] As early as 1999, Hoffmeier observed, “Dating the period of the oppression and exodus to the fifteenth century B.C. has largely been replaced in favor of a thirteenth-century date”.[42]
[1] [Ed AP]: A book length study for the early date would be J. J. Bimson, Redating the Exodus and Conquest (2nd ed.; Sheffield: Almond Press, 1981).[2] The years of the judges, if added sequentially, result in 633-650 years between the exodus and the reign of Solomon, compelling supporters of the early date to read the years in Judges less literally, in order to read the years in 1 Kings 6:1 more literally. “To get around the dilemma caused by the difference between 480 and 633-650 years, advocates of the 15th-century (and the later date) exodus date are forced to harmonize the conflicting data by proposing some overlap between judgeships to bring the 480-year figure into alignment with the 633–650 year total. By doing this, one abandons a straightforward, literal reading of the Judges through Exodus narratives.”—J. K. Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50/2 (2007): 225-247 (228).
[3] “When one seeks to reconstruct the numbers given in the biblical accounts, consistently and literally, they do not add up to the number 480 given in 1 Kgs 6:1.”—R. K. Hawkins, “Propositions For Evangelical Acceptance Of A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data And The Royal Scarabs From Mt. Ebal” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50/1 (2007), 31-46 (35).
[4] “It has long been thought that the 480-year figure of 1 Kgs 6:1 might be a symbolic figure that derives from 12 times 40-40 years being a symbolic number for a generation—thus signifying that 12 generations had elapsed between the exodus and Solomon’s 4th year. Since men were usually married and had children by age 20–25, 60 a period closer to 300 years would be more accurate. When one adds 300 to 967 BC, an Exodus date around 1267 BC (20 years into the reign of Ramesses II) results.”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 236.
[5] “A 15th-century B.C. date presents problems for the chronology of Abram. Archaeological evidence relating to the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah seems to date Abram’s arrival in Canaan around 1900 B.C. The Genesis narratives place Jacob’s migration to Egypt about 215 years later. On the basis of the 430 years of Exodus 12:40 it would seem that Abram came to Canaan about 2086 B.C., some 645 years before the exodus. That would date his birth (cf. 12:4) about 2161 B.C. If the Sodom and Gomorrah evidence is correct, Abram’s arrival in Canaan would harmonize with a 13th-century B.C. date.”, Harrison, “Exodus, The”, in Elwell & Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (1988), 743-744.
[6] “According to Wood, some archaeological findings—such as destruction layers from Jericho, Ai and Hazor—support a 15th-century exodus (Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” 488–89; Wood, “From Ramesses to Shiloh,” 256–82).”, Thornhill, “Exodus”, in Barry & Wentz (eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary (2012).
[7] “The destruction and occupation layers of many conquest cities (e.g., Lachish, Debir, Hazor, Bethel, etc.) favor the 13th-century dating.”, ibid.
[8] “Excavation findings seem to indicate that Edom and Moab (compare Exod 13:15; Num 20:14–21) were not yet established peoples during the mid-14th century.”, ibid.
[9] “Wood also cites the mention of the ‘ (‘)apiru in the Canaanite Amarna letters of the mid-14th century, as well as an inscription dating to the 18th Dynasty. This inscription appears to mention Ashkelon, Canaan, and Israel (Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” 489).”, Thornhill, “Exodus”, in Barry & Wentz (eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary (2012).
[10] “The relationship between the “Habiru” of the Amarna letters, the “Apiru” in 13th-century B.C. Egypt, and the biblical Hebrews has been examined minutely by scholars. Widely differing opinions have been offered. Some believe that the three are variations of the name of one people. To others, however, it seems far from clear that there was any significant relationship between the names. Such disagreement also tends to intensify the problem.”, Harrison, “Exodus, The”, in Elwell & Beitzel, Baker Encyclopedia of the Bible (1988), 744.
[11] “The ʿapiru (sometimes ḫapiru or ḫabiru) are considered to be warlords, brigands and disenfranchised peoples on the outskirts of society. Rainey has demonstrated that the term cannot be etymologically related to “Hebrew,” and the range of use of the term makes it clear that the ʿapiru cannot be equated with Israelites. Nevertheless, some would contend that it does not entirely rule out the possibility that Israelites, along with other peoples, could have been designated by the term.”, Walton, “Exodus, Date of”, in Alexander & Baker, Dictionary of the Old Testament: Pentateuch (2003), 263.
[12] “According to the Wood, the marauding Habiru of the Amarna Letters could be the Hebrews. Abi-Milku, however, makes clear that Hazor was an ally of the Habiru rather than being the destroyers of Hazor. This information from the Amarna correspondences demonstrates that Hazor during the LB IIA was a major player in the region and does not sound like a city that had just been demolished and burnt by Joshua and his forces.”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 245.
[13] “Only three cities are recorded as having been destroyed by fire by the Israelites: Jericho (Josh 6:24); Ai (Josh 8:28); and Hazor (Josh 11:11). All three pose problems for a late 13th-century conquest. At Jericho and Ai, no evidence has been found for occupation in the late 13th century, let alone for a destruction at that time.”, B. Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48/3 (2005): 475-489 (477).
[14] “In Canaan, the drastic destruction of Hazor (level 13) in the later 13th century B.C. (despite misconceptions to the contrary) may well reflect Joshua’s exploit.”, Kitchen, “Exodus, The,”, in Freedman (ed.), Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1992), 702.
[15] “…at Jericho, nearly half a millennium of erosion has long since removed virtually all pertinent evidence.”, ibid., p. 702.
[16] “Ai remains an enigma on any view”, ibid., p. 702.
[17] “In Canaan, the drastic destruction of Hazor (level 13) in the later 13th century B.C. (despite misconceptions to the contrary) may well reflect Joshua’s exploit.”, Kitchen, “Exodus, The,”, in Freedman (ed.), Anchor Yale Bible Dictionary (1992), 702.
[18] “Following the 1230 bc destruction, there was no urban center there until the time of Solomon in the 10th century bc (1 Kgs 9:15). The defeat of Jabin, king of Hazor, by a coalition of Hebrew tribes under the leadership of Deborah and Barak is recorded in Judges 4–5. Judges 4:24 indicates that the Israelites destroyed Hazor at this time: “And the hand of the Israelites grew stronger and stronger against Jabin, the Canaanite king, until they destroyed him.” If Joshua destroyed Hazor in 1230 bc, then there would be no city for the Jabin of Judges 4 to rule.”, Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, 477.
[19] “Egyptologists have long understood the reference to Rameses to refer to Pi-Ramesses, the delta metropolis built by Ramesses II, the 19th Dynasty monarch who reigned from 1279–1213 BC.”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 231.
[20] “The archaeological data is now unequivocal: Pi-Ramesses is located at modern-day Qantir, near Faqus, and was built by Ramesses II beginning around 1270 BC”, ibid., pp. 232-233.
[21] “Since Moses was 80 years of age at the time of the exodus (Exod 7:7), the building of Rameses would have taken place well before Moses’ birth in 1340 bc (according to the 13th-century theory), long before Rameses came to the throne.”, Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, 478.
[22] “Obviously, Rameses II did not drown in the yam sup, [commonly translated ‘Red Sea’] as he died of natural causes some 47 years after the presumed exodus date of 1260 bc.”, ibid., p. 478.
[23] “It is clear, then, that the name Rameses used in Exod 1:11 is an editorial updating of an earlier name that went out of use.”, ibid., p. 478.
[24] “Scholars have understood for some time, since the work of Mendenhall, Kline, and Kitchen, that the book of Deuteronomy has the literary and legal form that characterized late second millennium BC Hittite international treaties.”, J. Niehaus, “Covenant and Narrative, God and Time”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 53/3 (2010): 535-559 (550).
[25] “The format of the biblical material is varied and complex and cannot be dated to a particular time period based on ANE treaty documents”, Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, 480-481.
[26] “The Merneptah stela is also cited as evidence for this date, since Israel is referenced as a people group rather than a nation.”, Thornhill, “Exodus”, in Barry & Wentz (eds.), The Lexham Bible Dictionary (2012).
[27] “Due to the similarity of these names to the names on the Merneptah stela, Gorg suggests the name list may derive from the time of Rameses II, but adopting an older name sequence from the 18th Dynasty. This evidence, if it holds up to further scrutiny, would also support a 15th-century bc exodus-conquest rather than a 13th-century bc timeframe.”, Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, 489.
[28] “In trying to work out an evangelical understanding of the emergence of Israel, Mark Chavalas and Murray Adamthwaite have recently noted that certain conditions in the archaeology of Palestine appear to mitigate against the traditional early date positioning of the Exodus/Conquest. They note that, at a series of sites all over Palestine, ‘the clear picture is that Egyptian occupation continued until the end of the Late Bronze Age (1200 BC).’”, Hawkins, “Propositions For Evangelical Acceptance Of A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data And The Royal Scarabs From Mt. Ebal”, 34.
[29] For example, it is never mentioned by Bryant Wood (foremost proponent of the early date), in his key articles “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 48/3 (2005), 475-489, and “The Biblical Date For The Exodus Is 1446 BC: A Response To James Hoffmeier”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 50/2 (2005), 249-258.
[30] “The implication seemed clear that a new population group had arrived in the Central Hill-Country during the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age I.”, Hawkins, “Propositions For Evangelical Acceptance Of A Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data And The Royal Scarabs From Mt. Ebal”, 34.
[31] “While this material has seemed to point toward a late date for Israel’s emergence in Canaan, it has largely gone unnoticed by evangelical scholars writing histories of Israel or commentaries on Joshua.”, ibid., p. 34.
[32] “The toponym Rameses (רַעַמְס) occurs five times in the OT, in Gen 47:11; 53 Exod 1:11; 12:37; and Num 33:3, 5. In none of these cases is the formula “old name + הוא + new name” used, nor does a longer explanatory gloss with the word לָרִאשֹׁנה—“at the first” occur with any of the five citations. In other words, there is no evidence within these five passages to suspect that “Rameses” is an editorial gloss.”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 234.
[33] “Görg’s reading of this name as “Israel” is plagued by serious linguistic and orthographic problems that preclude it from being Israel.”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 241.
[34] “Especially given the absence of Israel from the Armana evidence, this seems intrinsically unlikely, given the early date and lacking a full reading.”, D. E. Fleming, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 241.
[35] “A close reading of the text indicates that God gave Israel victory over her oppressors in a major battle 25 miles away from Hazor, but the text is absolutely silent regarding any military action against Hazor itself. Furthermore, the terminology used in 4:23–24 is not found in Joshua or Judges to indicate attacks on cities. Consequently, there is no basis to believe that the destruction of the final LB IIB (late 13th century) city was caused by Deborah and Barak’s triumph over Jabin and Sisera”, Hoffmeier, “What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood”, 244.
[36] “From the Amarna letters, written to the pharaohs Amernhotep III and Akhenaten between 1390–1340 BC, we learn that Hazor was thriving during this period.”, ibid., p. 245.
[37] Exodus 2:23—“During that long period of time the king of Egypt died, and the Israelites groaned because of their slave labour. They cried out, and their desperate cry because of their slave labour went up to God”.
[38] “Psalm 136:15 may be the closest to suggest that pharaoh drowned in the seas, but that may be due to misleading English translations, e.g. JB: “Drowned Pharaoh and his army”; NIV: “swept pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea”; KJV and NAS: “He overthrew Pharaoh. .. into the Red Sea.” The key word here is נאר, which is the word used in Exod 14:27. נאר, means to “shake off” (Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament [Leiden: Brill, 2001] 707). Nothing in this term suggests that pharaoh drowned in the sea. In fact, there is nothing to suggest in the various texts, especially in Exodus, that pharaoh led the chariot corps in pursuit of the escaping Hebrews. Perhaps people have been influenced by Cecil B. DeMille’s portrait of angry Ramesses (Yul Brynner) leading the attack at the sea. But even in The Ten Commandments, Ramesses does not follow the Israelites into the sea!”, Hoffmeier, ‘What is the Biblical Date For the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood’, 239.
[39] “The second problem for Wood’s exodus pharaoh drowning in the sea is that the mummy of Thutmose III was found in the Deir el-Bahri cache, while Amenhotep IIs was actually discovered in his tomb, one of only a few royal mummies discovered intact. In fact, all the mummies of the 15th century are accounted for. According to the X-rays and investigations of these mummies, none indicate a death by drowning.”, ibid., p. 240.
[40] [ED AP]: For an example, see A. Gibson, Text and Tablet: Near Eastern archaeology, the Old Testament and new possibilities (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2000), 173-213; Gibson opens his treatment by saying, “I suppose that the data and questions relating both to early and later dates are more complex, less firmly resolved and much more indeterminate, than the standard theories allow.” (173).
[41] “The need for discussing the latter premise is that many biblical scholars who affirm the historicity of the exodus now date it to the thirteenth century B.C., questioning concrete numbers in the Bible that taken literally would place the exodus in the fifteenth century B.C.”, D. Petrovich, “Amenhotep II And The Historicity Of The Exodus-Pharaoh”, The Master’s Seminary Journal, 17/1 (2006), 81-110 (83).
[42] “Dating the period of the oppression and exodus to the fifteenth century B.C. has largely been replaced in favor of a thirteenth-century date, although a few adherents to the earlier date have followed Jack’s thesis.”, J. K. Hoffmeier, Israel In Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 125.
A Perspective on how Archaeology can help us understand the Bible