What is the Proper Date of the Exodus?
In the previous video, we considered the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal for the late-date
of the Exodus – that it occurred in the 13th-century BC, during the reign of Ramses
II.
As mentioned previously, there is another major position regarding the date of the Exodus.
In contrast to the late-date proposal, this position is known as the early-date proposal.
This position is not as prolific among current academic scholarship. However, it tends to
have a fair amount of support among Biblical scholars and interested laity.
Where the late-date proposal puts priority of interpretation on a straightforward reading
of Exodus 1:11, the early-date proposal does so instead with 1 Kings 6:1.
As I talked about in the second video of this series, 1 Kings 6:1 is the only verse in the
Bible that specifically dates the Exodus. The late-date proposal regards the time frame
recorded in this verse as a euphemism for 12 generations by ancient standards (a total
time of 250-300 years) to justify a defense of Ramses II as the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Recall though that one of the weaknesses of the late-date’s interpretation here is that
it is mostly based on speculation. With this in mind, early-date proponents respond by
reading this verse as a plain attempt by the author of 1 Kings to record the amount of
time that’s passed since the events of the Exodus. What happens if we do this?
To recap, the fourth regnal year of Solomon is almost unanimously accepted at 966 BC.
480 years prior to 966 would be 1446 BC – a date in the middle of ancient Egypt’s 18th
royal dynasty. We must remember though that 1 Kings 6:1 is a textual variant, with the
Septuagint recording a time frame of 440 years. If the reading of the Septuagint is to be
preferred, then 440 years before would be 1406 BC – still in the middle of the 18th
dynasty.
While either of these dates are far too early to accord with the Exodus taking place during
the reign of Ramses II, which of these dates is the correct one?
The short answer is that we can’t be absolutely sure either way. Normally in instances like
this, we would examine the reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls to help break the stalemate.
In the case of 1 Kings 6:1 though, the Dead Sea Scrolls have not been preserved at this
portion of scripture. Until another manuscript is discovered, the attempts to give priority
to one reading over the other are speculative.
Personally, I believe that the discrepancy between 480 & 440 is probably the result of
different scribal attempts to provide a round number for how much time had elapsed between
Solomon and the Exodus. Some may be inclined to argue for either of these dates as exact,
but I am ok with understanding them as rounded figures. Thus, if evidence for the Exodus
can be offered between or around this range of dates (say ~1450-1400 BC), I believe we
have limited freedom to pursue the most compelling examples rather than trying to nitpick at
one or two decades here or there. I would also point to the discrepancy between the
high & low ancient Egyptian chronologies to substantiate this same limited freedom from
the Egyptological & archaeological perspectives.
Proposing a date for the Exodus between the middle-to-end of the 15th-century BC seems
to accord well 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. 300 years prior to Jephthah’s time would
be around 1400 BC. Again, I am ok with reading 300 as a rounded number. Acknowledging that
Moses’ conquest of the Ammonites occurred toward the end of the 40 years of wandering
in the desert, we can therefore add on a few more decades to Jephthah’s, “300 years,”
to arrive at an approximate date for the Exodus itself. Doing so brings us into the time frame
established by the variant readings of 1 Kings 6:1.
Having said this much, late-date proponents argue that a weak point of the early-date
proposal is that it doesn’t match with 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. The city of Ramses (Pi-Ramses) was constructed during the reign of Ramses
II, from whom the city got its name. If the Exodus occurred between 1450-1400 BC, it would
be around 200 years too early to have the Israelites be forced to build this city.
This is where the roles reverse. The late-date employs some conjecture at 1 Kings 6:1. The
early-date, however, does so here at Exodus 1:11. While it is true that the city of Ramses
was constructed in the 13-century BC rather than the 15th-century BC, there was, in fact,
an older city that existed in nearly the same location as Ramses in the 15th-century BC.
That city is known as Avaris.
The response of early-date proponents regarding the record of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 is that
this was probably not the original reading of this verse; rather, that Ramses is an updated
toponym (place name) for Avaris, which was redacted for a later Israelite audience. We
must acknowledge that there isn’t anything in the context of Exodus 1 that would demand
the text to be understood in this way, so this proposal is based on some assumption.
But, there is an interesting point to consider from Genesis.
Genesis 47 records the dialogue between the pharaoh of Joseph and Jacob when Jacob’s
family came to settle in Egypt. Verses 4 & 6 record the place of Israelite settlement as,
“the land of Goshen.” Verse 11 then records that, “…Joseph settled his father and
brothers in the land of Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the
district of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded.”
For the opposition that has been raised by proponents of a late-date for the Exodus over
the city of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 being a redaction for Avaris, it certainly appears
that this is exactly what has been done here in Genesis 47:11. Everybody acknowledges that
Jacob and Joseph lived a long time before Ramses II. So it is impossible that they settled
in any place named Ramses. However, as stated, there were places in the region Ramses would
later occupy where semitic settlements have been discovered. Late-date proponents argue
that these settlements should not be equivocated with the settlement of the Israelites because
they are centuries too early to coincide with a Ramesside Exodus. However, if Ramses II
was not the pharaoh of the Exodus and it was instead a pharaoh of the 18th-dynasty, then
the case for these settlements being Israelite settlements becomes much more intriguing.
Personally, I believe that the assumption that the city of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 is
a redacted place name for Avaris or another nearby location has more warrant than assuming
that the date in 1 Kings 6:1 is a euphemism for 12 generations.
Given also the documentation of Israel in Canaan during the reign of Merenptah, I also
believe that the timeline for an early-date makes more sense than with a late-date. Setting
the Exodus somewhere around the middle-to-end of the 15th-century BC allows for Israel to
complete their wandering in the desert, to finish their conquest under Joshua and become
established in the region by the time Merenptah’s stele was produced. Setting the Exodus 200
years later in the 13th-century, during the reign of Ramses II, simply does not allow
for all of this to happen in time.
Some scholars object to this by arguing that Merenptah’s stele records Israel as a people
group rather than a state. Substance to this charge is the determinative hieroglyph for
people. Thus, the Israel of Merenptah’s stele should be understood as a nomadic group
of wanderers. I am not an authority on hieroglyphs, so I can’t speak to them one way or the
other. What I would say though is that the documentation of Israel in the context of
the other Canaanite city-states at this point in time should account for their autonomy
as being comparable to that of the other locations listed. Whether the Egyptians of Merenptah’s
day regarded Israel as a people group or a state is second to the respect given to them
as a Canaanite locale.
Further, if there is any credibility to the destruction brought on Egypt during the 10
plagues and the drowning of pharaoh’s army, then it is highly unlikely that Merenptah
would have had the economic and military power to engage in the battles that he did if his
father, Ramses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus. Proposing an Exodus date in the 15th-century
BC allows some 200 years for Egypt to gradually recover and reestablish itself as a major
power in the ancient near east.
These are the two major Biblical arguments for the date of the Exodus. In the next video
though, we will examine some interesting circumstantial evidence that could help us further identify
the time frame in which all of these events took place. 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 “Let My People Go!” by Stephen Collins. You will find links to each of these
books in the description.