Dating of the Exodus

by

Martin Murphy

Will the real date of the exodus please stand up or who can know the truth are possible titles to this difficult task of examining the date of the Israelite exit from Egypt. The battleground lies between the two poles of a late date (1266 B.C.) and an early date (1466 B.C.).¹ The controversy is not so much the date as it is the philosophical expression of the two divergent dictions.

The arguments for a late date of the exodus fall into four categories:

"(1) the identification of Pithom and Raamses, (2) the 13th century destruction of Palestinian towns mentioned in the conquest narratives, (3) the archaeological evidence from Middle Bronze and Late Bronze Age Transjordan, and (4) the military campaigns of Seti I and Ramses II."²

Eugene Merrill has argued that the Israelites could have built a city called Rameses long before the kingship of Rameses II of Egypt.³ There have been many arguments set forth to try and prove the deterioration of the Palestinian Society during the proposed date of the exodus. These arguments are primarily based on archaeological data or more specifically a lack of archaeological data. Nelson Glueck is noted for his extensive archaeological research in the Transjordan and has concluded that:

"1. There was a strong Bronze Age civilization in ancient Moab between the twenty-third and the eighteenth centuries B.C., when it completely disappeared.

2. Between the eighteenth and the thirteenth centuries B.C. there is an almost complete gap in the history of settled communities in the region visited.

3. There was a highly developed Moabite civilization, which seems to have flourished especially between the middle of the thirteenth and end of the ninth centuries B.C."⁴

The Glueck's "gap hypotheses" has been challenged and scholars have concluded that Glueck's proposals are purely hypothetical. The arguments for an early date are inconclusive and must be considered in light of the arguments for an late date (1266 B.C.).

Leon Wood argues for an early date. His sources begin with Scripture:

"I Kings 6:1. The first reason listed for the early date is the statement of I Kings 6:1 that the Exodus preceded the time when Solomon began to build the Temple (c. 966 B.C. ) by 480 years. Adding 480 years to 966 B.C. gives the date 1446 B.C."⁵

Those who argue for a late date do not believe the Scripture speaks of a literal 480 years. "The correctness of the number 480, as contrasted with the 440th year of the LXX and the different statements made by Josephus, is now pretty generally admitted."⁶ Other scriptural evidence cited was considerations in the Book of Judges. Biblical evidence may be first on the mind of those who are advocates of an early date, but it is by no means the only evidence. Gerald Mattingly has said, "it appears that the archaeological data from the Late Bronze Age Transjordan have become neutral in the debate on the date of the exodus-conquest."⁷ Eugene Merrill says, "The Old Testament insists on 1446; denial of that fact is special pleading based on insubstantial evidence."⁸ The date of the exodus will of course have a direct effect on the length of Israel's bondage in Egypt.

The length of the sojourn in Egypt is divided two ways: a short sojourn (215 years) and a long sojourn (430 years). The evidence for the sojourn in Egypt lies in the genealogies and chronological accounts in Biblical history. Both sides have substantial evidence to defend their position.

The Biblical evidence for an early date exit from Egypt seems to out weigh the evidence for a late date exit from Egypt. The Puritan exegete, Matthew Brown, offers as good a chronology as can be expected for the 480 years mentioned in I Kings 6:1. "Allowing forty years to Moses, seventeen to Joshua, 299 to the Judges, forty to Eli, forty to samuel and Saul, forty to David and four to Solomon before he began the work, we have just the sum of 480."⁹ The words of Scripture are inspired, but the apologetic is not. The Bible seems plain enough for me to accept an early exit from Egypt and a long sojourn while the Israelites are in Egypt. The only Biblical conflict I can see is the allusion Paul makes to the 430 years in the Book of Galatians. Bible scholars have made much to do over Paul's statement, but the reading is plain and simple. Paul said 430 years later, but he does not say later than what! William Hendriksen said "It may not be unreasonable to suppose that it was from such a time, at which the promise was confirmed (to Jacob) that Paul is measuring the interval which extends to the giving of the law at Sinai."¹⁰

I conclude that the early date (1466 B.C.) is accurate. Although the evidence is not infallible, it is certainly compelling.

Endnotes:

Eugene H. Merrill. Kingdom of Priests. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 67.
Gerald L. Mattingly. "The Exodus-Conquest and the Archaeology of Transjordan: New light on an old problem," Grace Theological Journal 4.2 (1983): p. 246.
Merrill, p. 70.
Mattingly, p. 249.
Leon Wood. A Survey of Israel's History. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing Co., 1982), p88.
C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on The Old Testament, trans. James Martin, (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), The Book of the Kings, p. 67.
Mattingly, p. 243.
Merrill, p. 75.
Matthew Brown, Commentary on the Bible, ed. Leslie F. Church, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan). p. 369.
William Hendriksen. New Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1968), p. 139.