In the previous videos, we have identified the assumption of scholarship with regards
to dating the Exodus – that it is recorded as taking place in the 13th-Century BC during
the reign of Ramses II. We also examined overall framework of ancient Egyptian chronology and
the key Bible passages that point us to the time of the Exodus.
As stated previously, the majority of the debate surrounding the date of the Exodus
is centered on the 18th & 19th royal dynasties of pharaonic Egypt, during the period historians
refer to as the New Kingdom. The reasons for this have to do with the placement of ancient
Egyptian chronology in relationship to some absolute dates preserved, or at least implied
within the Biblical text.
The result of this is that there are two major views espoused for the Exodus date – an
early date (which places in the Exodus during the 18th dynasty) and a late date (which places
it in the 19th dynasty). This may seem like a small difference on paper, however the time
period encompassed between the beginning of the 18th and the end of the 19th dynasties
is roughly 400 years. Depending on which date a scholar prefers, they will be influenced
in one direction or the other by multiple centuries. As I mentioned in the first video
of this series, this influence can have huge ramifications when considering the body of
historical and archaeological evidence – artifacts and documents that are offered as proof by
one position are disregarded by the other due to conflicting assumptions.
Before proceeding, there is one more piece of evidence we need to consider in attempting
to identify the date of the Exodus. Ramses II’s reign was approximately 65 years; one
of the longest pharaonic reigns in all of ancient Egyptian history. As such, he died
an old man and actually outlived some of his sons who would have otherwise succeeded him.
The prince who finally did succeed Ramses was named Merenptah, Ramses 13th son – himself
already an older man when he came to power. For this reason, he only ruled for around
10 years before he died. During his reign though, Merenptah erected a stele recording
campaigns (either by himself or his father & grandfather) in Libya and Canaan. Line 26
of this stele contains the phrase, “Israel is laid waste; his seed is not.” For this
reason, this stele has become widely known as the, “Israel Stele.” (The expression,
“…is laid waste; his seed is not,” is considered propagandic hyperbole on behalf
of Merenptah – a common practice in ancient Egyptian record keeping.)
The reference to Israel that is recorded is nearly unanimously accepted among Egyptologists.
There is some debate as to whether Israel is being credited with national status at
this point, or if they are referred to as a group of nomadic wanderers. Regardless,
this represents the first documentation of Israel’s existence in history by a foreign
power. It also acknowledges Israel’s existence independent of Egyptian rule or hegemony.
For this reason, the Exodus cannot be dated any later than the reign of Merenptah – ~1210
BC (by accepted chronology). We will consider further implications of the Israel Stele later,
but for now, we can reference it as establishing a fixed boundary, which the Exodus must have
occurred prior to.
With all of the key pieces of data having been considered, we can now examine the proposals
for the date of the Exodus.
Let me preface myself by saying that every position must engage in some conjecture to
make their arguments. This is not to say that such conjecture is unjustified, but that justification
for doing so must be substantiated.
Let’s start with the argument for the late dating of the Exodus – during the 13th-Century
BC in the reign of Ramses II. As stated, this is the view held to by the majority of current
academic scholarship, so it is the view you are most likely to see expressed in textbooks,
lectures and mainstream documentaries.
The late-date view gives priority of interpretation to a straightforward reading of Exodus 1:11,
which records the Israelites as having been put in to forced labor in the construction
of Pithom and Ramses. This verse is a text variant, as the Septuagint also includes the
city of On (commonly known as Heliopolis by Greek authors). However, the Septuagint reading
is likely not original in this case, as the Dead Sea Scrolls do not reflect the addition
of On.
While the location of Pithom is somewhat debated, Egyptology has confirmed the existence of
the city of Ramses in the Nile delta region of Egypt, not far from the proposed location
of Goshen, the region where Jacob and his family settled when they came to Egypt. This
city was one of the many constructed by Ramses II during his long reign as pharaoh. It is
likely that Pithom was located nearby, as Ramesside remains have been discovered at
other sites in the region (most probably Tell El Retaba).
Remember though that this verse is one of three we presented as the main passages pointing
to the date of the Exodus. How does this position accord with the other passages?
1 Kings 6:1 records the Exodus as taking place 480 years before Solomon began to construct
the temple in Jerusalem. (This verse is a text variant – the Septuagint gives a date
of 440 years. We don’t know which reading is more likely to be original, as the Dead
Sea Scrolls are not preserved at this portion of scripture.) The fourth regnal year of Solomon
is almost unanimously accepted at 966 BC. 480 years prior to 966 would be 1446 BC. If
the reading of the Septuagint is to be preferred, then 440 years before would be 1406 BC.
Herein is where the late-date view runs in to its first point of conjecture. Ramses II
reigned during the 13th-Century BC (approximately 1280-1215 BC), around 200 years after the
date recorded in 1 Kings 6. Late-date proponents therefore argue that the date recorded in
this verse should not be regarded as literal but as symbolic.
The argument goes that 480 is a multiple of 12 and 40 – two numbers that are emphasized
heavily across both the Old and New Testaments. It is true that many instances where multiples
of these numbers are used are done so with symbolic significance. The argument then proceeds
that 40 is the ideal number of years regarded for a generation. Thus, “480 years,” should
be understood as a euphemism for 12 generations. If this assumption is correct, it follows
then that most people did not actually live to be 40 years old in the ancient world. So,
if the author of 1 Kings is attempting to say, “12 generations,” a generation should
be regarded as something more like 20-25 years. This would equal a time period of 250-300
years. This understanding would place the date of the Exodus around approximately 1266-1216
BC – during the middle-to-end of the reign of Ramses II.
With this being said, are there any problems with the late-date view of the Exodus?
First, if the late-date reading of Exodus 1:11 is correct, then it means that Ramses
II is the, “pharaoh who did not know Joseph (v.8).” This also means that Moses would
have been born during the reign of Ramses II and raised in his household, perhaps as
one of his many princes. The Exodus itself would have taken place later, perhaps during
the reign of Merenptah. However, this becomes a problem, because Merenptah’s stele records
the autonomous existence of Israel in Canaan during his reign. The Exodus therefore, had
to have occurred before his time as pharaoh. This means that Ramses II must also be regarded
by late-date proponents as the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Proposing Ramses II as both the pharaoh who did not know Joseph and the pharaoh of the
Exodus has a hard time being reconciled with the Biblical testimony. Exodus 2:23 records
that the, “the king of Egypt died,” during Moses’ years of flight in Midian before
he met the Angel of the Lord in the burning bush on Mount Sinai.
Regarding the late-date reading of 1 Kings 6:1, it is highly, if not entirely, speculative.
This is not to say that it is wrong, but that it relies heavily on assumption rather than
exegesis of the Biblical text. There isn’t anything overt in the passage that tells us
to interpret, “480 years,” as a symbolic reference. Further, I believe that the presence
of a textual variant at this verse actually undermines the symbolic reading of this number.
If, “480 years,” was a reference to 12 generations, how do we account for the reading
of, “440 years,” found in the Septuagint? While there is some substance to citing 12
and 40 as ideologically important numbers for the Israelites, the same can’t be said
for 11 (the LXX reading being 11x40 according to this logic). When attempting to interpret
a passage that is a text variant, the interpretation that is likely to be correct should account
for each of the variant readings. I don’t believe that the symbolic interpretation of
1 Kings 6:1 does a sufficient job to account for the variant reading found in the Septuagint.
The late-date view also has some difficulty with Jephthah’s testimony recorded in Judges
11:26 – that Moses had led Israel into Ammonite territory 300 years before the time of his
speech. Jephthah’s lifetime is regarded as approximately 1100 BC, so 300 years prior
to his time would be around 1400 BC, again too early to coincide with a Ramesside Exodus.
Further, as Professor Israel Finkelstein mentioned, “…the attempts to locate the events (of
the Exodus) in the 13th-Century BC in the time of pharaoh Ramses II have faced insurmountable
difficulties.”
In the next video, we will consider the strengths and weaknesses of the early date of Exodus.
Please subscribe and click the notification bell so that you will be notified when I release
the upcoming videos in this series. For further reading on this subject, I recommend, “Israel
in Egypt” by James Hoffmeier and “Kingdom of Priests” by Eugene H. Merrill. You will
find links to each of these books in the description.