The Date of the Exodus

Several weeks ago, I received an email from Prof. James K. Hoffmeier, Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, informing me of his soon-to-be published article on the date of the Exodus. His email was prompted by a post in which I wrote that Hoffmeier accepted the 15th-century date for the Exodus.

In his email, Prof. Hoffmeier said that he had not taken a definite position on the date of the Exodus, but that his forthcoming article would clarify his position on this topic which has been the focus of intense scholarly debate. Prof. Hoffmeier’s article “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus?: A Response to Bryant Wood” was published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007) 225-247. Hoffmeier’s article is a response to an article by Bryant Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” The Journal of the Evangelical Society 48 (2005) 475-489.

In this post, I want to summarize the arguments Prof. Hoffmeier presents for the date of the Exodus. Then, I will give my view of his argument and on the date of the Exodus. First, for those who are not familiar with the controversy, let me present the two proposed dates for Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Those who follow a higher chronology say that the Exodus occurred in the 15th century, that is, 1446 B.C. Those who follow a lower chronology believe that the Exodus occurred in the 13th century, that is, 1270-1260 B.C. Both dates are based on biblical information.

For many evangelicals and conservative scholars, the 15th-century date for the Exodus has been a determining factor of whether one’s theology is conservative or liberal. The 13th-century date for the Exodus has been considered by many to be one of the evidences that a person is theologically liberal and that one accepts biblical criticism.

The most important text that supports a 15th-century date for the Exodus is 1 Kings 6:1: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.”

Prof. Hoffmeier correctly points out that the dates found in the book of Joshua through 1 Kings do not add up to 480 years. Prof. Hoffmeier calculated the number of years for Joshua, the judges and the kings of Israel up to Solomon and the numbers added up to 630-650 years. Those who accept a 15th-century date for the Exodus, have to harmonize the text by presupposing overlaps in the years some of the judges ruled in Israel.

Another way of arriving at a 15th-century date for the Exodus is using the chronological information provided by Shishak’s invasion of Judah in the 5th year of King Rehoboam, Solomon’s son. By synchronizing the date of Shishak’s and Rehoboam’s reigns, the date for the invasion would be 925 B.C. Thus, the death of Solomon would be in 930 B.C. and the fourth year of his reign would be 966 B.C. Adding to this date the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, then, the date of the Exodus would be 1446 B.C. However, Prof. Hoffmeier says that the biblical data would put the Exodus during the Hyksos’ occupation of Egypt.

The 13th-century date for the Exodus is based on Exodus 1:11 which says that while in Egypt, the Israelites built for Pharaoh the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses. Although the book of Exodus never identifies the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this statement in Exodus 1:11 would place the Exodus in the reign of Rameses II, the Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty who ruled from 1279-1213 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1290-1224 B.C).

A 13th-century date for the Exodus also finds support in the Merneptah Stela, a monument celebrating Merneptah’s military victories in Canaan. The Merneptah Stela is also known as the “Israel Stela” because it contains the first reference to Israel outside the Bible. Since Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213-1203 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1224-1211 B.C), the reference to Israel indicates that during his reign Israel was already in Canaan.

Another evidence presented by Prof. Hoffmeier is the geographical references that appear in the book of Exodus. According to him, the names Pithom (Exodus 1:11), Migdol (Exodus 14:2), and Yam suf (“Sea of Reeds”) “are attested beginning in the 19th Dynasty sources, but are not found prior to the 13th century” (p. 235). In addition, Prof. Hoffmeier also says that toponyms such as Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zaphon (Exodus 14:2) also begin to appear in 13th century documents.

Prof. Hoffmeier raises an important problem in the discussion of the Exodus. The problem he mentions is the absence of any reference to Egyptian military presence in Canaan in the books of Joshua and Judges. According to him, Merneptah’s presence in Canaan was due to Israel’s expansion in the days of the judges. After Merneptah’s invasion, Egypt’s influence in Canaan began to diminish because of the arrival of the Philistines.

Prof. Hoffmeier believes that a veiled reference to Merneptah may be found in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15. In these two passages the Hebrew words עין מי נפתוח are translated as “The Springs of Waters of Nephtoah.” However, he believes that the words for “spring” and “waters” are redundant and should be translated as “The Spring of Menephtoah,” a name identical to Merneptah.

In his article Prof. Hoffmeier discusses the issue of large and symbolic numbers, dealing primarily with the number 480 and the use of the number 40 in the Bible. He also discusses the problem of the Pharaoh of the Exodus and issues related to the conquest of Canaan.

In his conclusion, Prof. Hoffmeier says that there are biblical and archaeological evidence for a 13th-century for the date of the Exodus. I agree with his conclusions. The biblical evidence points to a 13th-century date for the Exodus and so does the archaeological evidence, as Prof. Hoffmeier has demonstrated. As for the large number in 1 Kings 6:1, it can be interpreted in different ways, as Prof. Hoffmeier also shows in his article.

I also concur with Prof. Hoffmeier's admonition at the end of his article: “I ... urge evangelical biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists not to expend all their energies on defending a date for the exodus when the real debate today is whether the books of Exodus-Judges contain any history at all and if there was a sojourn and an exodus.”

Prof. Hoffmeier’s article deals with many important issues related to the 13th-century date of the exodus. This is an article worth reading.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, James Hoffmeier, Rameses, Merneptah

Ancient Israel in Sinai

I have been making a list of the books I am planning to read this summer. One of the books in my list is James K. Hoffmeier’s Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. James K. Hoffmeier is Professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern Archaeology, Trinity International

The following is a description of the book supplied by the publisher:

In his pathbreaking Israel in Egypt James K. Hoffmeier sought to refute the claims of scholars who doubt the historical accuracy of the biblical account of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt. Analyzing a wealth of textual, archaeological, and geographical evidence, he put forth a thorough defense of the biblical tradition. Hoffmeier now turns his attention to the Wilderness narratives of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. As director of the North Sinai Archaeological Project, Hoffmeier has led several excavations that have uncovered important new evidence supporting the Wilderness narratives, including a major New Kingdom fort at Tell el-Borg that was occupied during the Israelite exodus. Hoffmeier employs these archaeological findings to shed new light on the route of the exodus from Egypt. He also investigates the location of Mount Sinai, and offers a rebuttal to those who have sought to locate it in northern Arabia and not in the Sinai peninsula as traditionally thought. Hoffmeier addresses how and when the Israelites could have lived in Sinai, as well as whether it would have been possible for Moses to write down the law received at Mount Sinai. Building on the new evidence for the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, Hoffmeier explores the Egyptian influence on the Wilderness tradition. For example, he finds Egyptian elements in Israelite religious practices, including the use of the tabernacle, and points to a significant number of Egyptian personal names among the generation of the exodus. The origin of Israel is a subject of much debate and the wilderness tradition has been marginalized by those who challenge its credibility. In Ancient Israel in Sinai , Hoffmeier brings the Wilderness tradition to the forefront and makes a case for its authenticity based on solid evidence and intelligent analysis.

The published also included reviews of the book written by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., co-editor of Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations; Richard H. Wilkinson, Professor and Director, Egyptian Expedition, The University of Arizona ; Ellen F. Morris, Department of Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology, University of Wales Swansea; and Baruch Halpern, Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies, Penn State.

Later in the summer, I will write a post and review the claims of the book.

I want to thank Kevin at biblicalia for the tip about the book.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Ancient Israel, Egypt, Exodus, Sinai, Wilderness Tradition

The Hyksos in Egypt

The National Geographic has published a news report announcing that Egyptian archaeologists have found documents that date to the time of the Hyksos in Egypt. The following is an excerpt of the article:

Egyptian archaeologists have announced that they have unearthed traces of solidified lava on the northern coast of Sinai that date to around 1500 B.C.-supporting accounts that ancient Egyptian settlements were buried by a massive volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean, they say.

The archaeological team, led by Mohamed Abdel Maqsoud of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, found houses, military structures, and tombs encased in ash, along with fragments of pumice, near the ancient Egyptian fortress of Tharo, on the Horus military road. Tharo is located close to El Qantara, where the Nile Delta meets the Sinai peninsula.

The new find seems to confirm accounts from ancient artwork and documents that recount the destruction of coastal cities in Egypt and Palestine during the 15th dynasty (1650-1550 B.C.), when foreigners known as the Hyksos ruled Egypt.

The archaeological mission also found a fort with four mud-brick towers dating to Egypt's 18th dynasty (around 1550 to 1307 B.C.).

In addition, an Egyptian archaeologist said:

The fort corresponded to reliefs found in the ancient temple of Karnak in Luxor. The sculptures describe Egypt's strategy to defend its eastern borders against future invasions by the Hyksos, who are thought to have been Semitic nomads from Syria and Palestine.

"It's very significant," said Salima Ikram, a professor of Egyptology at the American University in Cairo. "There are only a limited number of sites linked to the Hyksos." Ikram added that the site also contains some of the earliest known remains of horses found in Egypt.

The Hyksos occupy a very important place in the history of Egypt and Canaan in the 18th century B.C. According to John Bright (59-65), around 1710 B.C., the Hyksos, an Asiatic people, conquered Egypt and established their own government that included Canaan and southern Syria. They established their capital in the city of Avaris in the Nile Delta.

The name “Hyksos” means “foreign chiefs.” This name was given by the Egyptians to the invading people, who later adopted the title to designate the foreign elements who ruled Egypt for about 150 years.

The Hyksos were able to conquer Egypt because of their advanced weapons, which included the war chariot and the laminated bow. Many of the names associated with the Hyksos are Semitic. For this reason, some scholars have said that some of the ancestors of the Israelites who entered Egypt may have been associated with the Hyksos.

If Joseph entered Egypt during the time the Hyksos occupied the land, then, the settlement of Jacob and his family in the land of Goshen was made possible because of the affinity between the two groups. The Hyksos domination of Egypt came to an end when Ahmose I in 1570 B.C. attacked Avaris and expelled the Hyksos from Egypt.

Ahmose established the Eighteenth Dynasty, a dynasty that lasted through the end of the Amarna period, a time when, according to the book of Exodus, Israel was in Egypt.

Thus, the discovery of a site that confirms the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt is significant because it helps archaeologists shed light on a very debatable period in the history of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Exodus, Hyksos,

The Exodus from Egypt: A New Explanation

According to an article published in The New York Times, Dr. Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s chief archaeologist, has declared that the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a myth. According to him, the Exodus did not happen because there is no historical evidence for the presence of Israel in Egypt.

People who follow the archaeological debate about the historicity of the Exodus and even of the facts about early Israel know that many archaeologists and biblical scholars deny the events mentioned in the book of Exodus because there is no evidence for the pharaoh and his army being killed during the exodus.

However, another Egyptian archaeologist has developed a theory that may explain the reason no evidence has been found in archaeological discoveries for the defeat of the pharaoh of Egypt. What follows is an excerpt of the article published in The New York Times:

Recently, diggers found evidence of lava from a volcano in the Mediterranean Sea that erupted in 1500 B.C. and is believed to have killed 35,000 people and wiped out villages in Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula, officials here said. The same diggers found evidence of a military fort with four rectangular towers, now considered the oldest fort on the Horus military road.

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of the excavation, seemed to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt.

“A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army.

“This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”

The Egyptians and most nations of the past did not document their crises. This statement could explain why there is no record of pharaoh and his army drowning in the sea.

Come to think of it, this is an old explanation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, Moses, Red Sea, Zahi Hawass