When was the Exodus?/Amarna Letters

When was the Exodus?

In trying to date the events of the second millennium B.C., the first major decision is when to date the exodus. These are some of the reasons this is difficult to do:

1. Saul was the king before David, but there is no clear indication how long he reigned. 1 Sam 13:1 looks as if it was intended to tell us how long Saul reigned, but part of the verse seems to have been lost. Acts 13:21, which was written more than a thousand years later, says Saul reigned forty years.
2. Before Saul, Samuel judged Israel for some period of time, but we are not told how long this was.
3. Before Samuel, a long series of judges ruled in Israel, as described in the book of Judges. Judges does provide some chronological information, but the judges appear to be regional in their influence rather than national. They may have overlapped each other, or there may have been some time between judges not mentioned.
4. The events described in the end of the book of Judges (Judges 17-21) appear to have occurred not at the end of the period of the judges, but closer to the beginning. This must be so, since Phineas is still the High Priest (Judg 20:28), and Phineas is only the grandson of Aaron, the brother of Moses.
5. The length of Joshua’s administration and that of his companions (Judg 2:7) before the cycle of the judges begins is not given.
6. Unlike the later books of the Bible, none of the Pharaohs in Genesis or Exodus are named. This was in keeping with Egyptian custom at the time, but it is most unfortunate for historians. The unnamed Pharaohs include the Pharaoh who attempted to take Abram’s wife (Gen 12:15), the Pharaoh who knew Joseph (Gen 41-50), the Pharaoh who did not know Joseph (Exod 1:8), the Pharaoh who forced Moses to flee to Midian (Exod 2:15), and the Pharaoh of the exodus. Particularly frustrating for the historian is that the Bible actually names the midwives who thwarted Pharaoh in Exod 1:15, but does not name the Pharaoh. This makes it difficult to correlate the Bible’s chronology with an Egyptian chronology.

The Merneptah Stele is a record of Pharaoh Merneptah’s (1213-1203 B.C.) military campaigns, including a campaign into Canaan, in which it says “Israel is laid waste and his seed is not.” This is an extra-Biblical record that places Israel in Canaan prior to 1200 B.C. As a result, no reasonable theory can put the exodus or the conquest of Canaan after 1200 B.C.

There are two prominent theories on the date of the exodus. The first is that the exodus occurred in the 15^th century B.C. and the second is that the exodus occurred in the 13^th century B.C.

The early exodus theory, the theory that the exodus occurred in the 15^th century B.C., is based on the verse in 1 Kings 6:1, which says that Solomon’s Temple was built exactly 480 years after the exodus. Using a date of 966 B.C. for Solomon’s Temple (a date that is at least close to correct), this would place the exodus at 1446 B.C. and the battle of Jericho 40 years later in 1406 B.C. This chronology finds support from Jepthah’s line in the book of Judges (Judges 11:26), indicating that it had been 300 years since the events of the exodus.

The later exodus theory, the theory that the exodus occurred in the 13^th century B.C., is based on a mix of archeological evidence and the Bible’s identification of the cities of Rameses (Gen 47:11, Exodus 1:11, 12:37, Numbers 33:3, 33:5). Ramesses II, who reigned from 1279 to 1213 B.C. according to the standard Egyptian chronology, then becomes the Pharaoh of the exodus.Popular movies such as The Ten Commandments and Prince of Egypt reflect the later exodus theory.

Both theories have been critiqued. Critics of the early theory point out that the verse in 1 Kings was written more than 500 years after the exodus, calling into question its accuracy as a historical record. Also, the number 480 could be considered symbolic in biblical numerology (12x 40). Jepthah’s 300 year statement could also be considered as coming from a less than reliable source. Critics of the late theory point out that the city or district of Ramesses may have existed before it was given that name, or the Biblical scribes may have updated the names to be contemporary. Also archeologists do not agree on the chronology or meaning of their evidence (Hazor was burned for sure, but was this when Joshua burned it, or when Sisera was defeated by Deborah and Barak, or some other time? Etc.)
Fortunately, there is another line of evidence available that can be used to choose between the early and late theories. This set of evidence is the Amarna Letters.
-->

Amarna Letters
The Amarna Letters are correspondence from various Middle Eastern rulers to Pharaoh, starting in the last decade of the reign of Amenhotep III, who ruled from 1388 to 1351 B.C, and ending prior to when Amarna was abandoned in 1332 B.C. Many of these letters were from cities in Canaan. Because the dates for the Amarna Letters fall between the early exodus theory and the late exodus theory, they can be used to choose between the theories. If the Amarna Letters match the Biblical description of Canaan at the time of the Judges, shortly after Joshua, then the early theory is correct. If not, then the late theory is correct.

Dating the Amarna Letters
The astute reader will realize that it is first necessary to verify that the dates given above for the Amarna Letters are correct, because if those dates are unreliable, then the Amarna Letters themselves will not give reliable evidence on the date of the Exodus. The date range of 1388 to 1332 is based on the Standard Egyptian Chronology. This chronology represents the majority view among scholars, but it is not without its detractors.
-->
Here are four reasons why we can date the Amarna Letters to around 1350 with confidence:
      1.  This is the date according to the standard Egyptian chronology.

2.     The letters cross-correlate with Babylonian records. For example, the Babylonian king Burna Buriash II wrote letter EA#6 to Pharaoh Amenhotep III. Burna Buriash II reigned from 1359-1333 B.C. and Amenhotep III from 1391-1353 B.C., using the most standard chronologies.

3.     The letters cross-correlate with Assyrian records. For example, the Assyrian king Ashur-uballit I wrote EA#15 to Pharaoh Akhenaton. Ashur-uballit I reigned from 1365-1330 and Akhenaton from 1353-1336, using the most standard chronologies.

4.     The Philistines are absent from the Amarna Letters. Letters sent from cities like Gaza, later a major Philistine city, instead come from Canaanite vassals to Egypt. This matches the historical record that the Philistines began to settle in Canaan around 1175 B.C.

5.     The Amurru kingdom (in what is modern day Lebanon) figures into multiple Amarna Letters. The Amurru kingdom was destroyed in 1200 by the Sea Peoples.

More reasons for a 1350 date for the Amarna letters could be offered, but this list should be sufficient, especially when we demonstrate, as we shall now endeavor to do, that this date is also consistent with the Biblical record.

Note that in dating the Amarna Letters, we have also strengthened the case for the conventional chronologies of Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria going back as far as the 14^th century B.C.
Despite agreeing that the Amarna letters were written in the 1388 to 1332 date range, scholars have oddly failed to reach a consensus as to whether they indicate an Israelite presence in the land. The central issue revolves around a people named the “Habiru” who are enemies of the Canaanites. Letters from Canaanite kings include numerous complaints about these “Habiru,” but scholars have split over whether Habiru = Hebrew in a Canaanite context.

Two prominent theories have identified the Habiru with the Hebrews. In one, a rascally character named Labayu with Habiru connections in the Amarna letters is identified with the Biblical King Saul of Israel. Note that this theory requires a highly unorthodox chronology, since Saul reigned around 1020 B.C., more than 300 years after the conventional chronology of the Amarna Letters. In the second theory, Labayu is identified with the Biblical Abimelech of Judges 9. This second theory fits the chronology better, and also fits the fact that both Abimelech and Labayu are associated with the city of Shechem.

Most scholars have rejected the Habiru = Hebrew connection, and do not believe that there was an Israelite presence in Canaan when the Amarna Letters were written. They point out that the linguistic connection between “Habiru” and “Hebrew” is not as strong as it sounds in English, and consider the identification of Labayu with Biblical characters to be fanciful.

This may be a case where scholars have understandably reacted against some fanciful theories, but have otherwise had difficulty seeing the forest for the trees. Therefore, we will make a brief overview of the geopolitical situation in the time of the Judges according to the Bible, then we will compare that to the geopolitical situation described in the Amarna Letters and see how good the match is.

The Bible names 28 cities that were under Israelite control early in the time of the Judges. This is not an exhaustive list of Israelite cities, it is only a list of those cities that appear in Biblical accounts:

-->

Beersheba (Judg 20:1)

Bethel (Judg 1:22-26)

Bethlehem

Beth Millo– uncertain location

Bezer (Deut 4:43) – uncertain location

Bochim (Judg 2:1) – uncertain location

Eshtaol (Judg 13:25)

Gibeah (Judg 19:12)

Gilgal– uncertain location

Golan (Deut 4:43) – uncertain location

Hebron

Jabesh-Gilead (Judg 21:9)

Kamon– uncertain location

Kedesh (Judg 4:6, etc.)

Mizpah (Judg 10:17)

Ophrah (Judg 6:11)

Penuel

Pirathon (Judg 12:13-14) – uncertain location

Ramah (Judg 19:13)

Ramoth-Gilead

Seirah (Judg 3:26) – uncertain location

Shamir (Judg 10:1)

Shechem

Shiloh

Succoth (Judg 8:5) (Deir Alla)

Thebez (Judg 9:50)

Timnath-heres

 Zorah (Judg 13:1)

-->

Below is a map of the Israelite cities. 

-->

This is a list of 26 Cities that, according to the Bible, were under Canaanite control early in the time of the Judges, at the time of the Amarna letters:

Achzib (Judg 1:31)

Ahlab (Judg 1:31)

Aijalon (Judg 1:34-35) – in Amarna letters

Akko (Judg 1:31)

Akhrabim Ascent

Aphik (Judg 1:31)

Beth Shean (Judg 1:27)

Beth Anath (Judg 1:33) – location uncertain

Beth Shemesh (Judg 1:33) – but came under Israelite control by the time of Samson

Gaza

Gezer (Judg 1:29)

Har Heres (Judg 1:34-35) – location uncertain

Harosheth Hagoyim (Judg 4:2)

Hazor (Judg 4:2)

Helbah Judg 1:31) – location uncertain

Ibleam (Judg 1:27)

Jerusalem (Judg 1:12)

Kitron (Judg 1:30)

Megiddo (Judg 1:27)

Nahalol (Judg 1:30)

Rehob (Judg 1:31)

Sela

Shaalbim (Judg 1:34-35)

Sidon (Judg 1:31)

Taanach (Judg 1:27)

Timnah

 

--> The fact that the Israelite cities outnumber the Canaanite cities 28 to 26 does not mean that there were more Israelite cities at this time; the numbers may be tilted since the Bible stories focused on the Israelites.

A glance at the maps will show that the Israelites tended to cluster in the hill country, while the Canaanites controlled the lower lands and all of the coastal plain near the Mediterranean Sea. Israel never exercised significant control of the coastal plain until the time of David and Solomon. The significance of this lies mainly in the fact that the main trade route through Canaan was up the coastal plain. As long as Egyptian trade could move unmolested through Canaan, through territory controlled by its vassal kings, the Egyptians could rightfully feel that they controlled Canaan. This was the geopolitical situation in the early days of the Judges.

So how do the Amarna Letters compare with this geopolitical situation? The Canaanite kings appear to be subservient to Egypt. Six Canaanite cities that appear on one of the lists above sent letters to Egypt – Akko, Jerusalem, Megiddo, Gezer, Hazor and Shechem. All six would eventually be controlled by the Israelites, but in the early Judges period, the first five are controlled by Canaanites, and only Shechem is controlled by Israel. Looking at the Amarna Letters, the first five all have Canaanite kings, while Shechem has as its king the very controversial Labayu, who appears to either be a Habiru or have some Habiru connection:
“I did not know that my son was associated with the Habiru” – Labayu [EA#252-254],
“Now shall we do as Labayu, who gave the land of Shechem to the Habiru?” – Abdu Heba of Jerusalem
”“The sons of Labayu have given the country to the Habiru” – Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem [EA#287])
 If Habiru does equal Hebrew, then this is a perfect six for six match with the early period of the Judges as described in the Bible. In fact, it may be likened to flipping a coin six times, calling heads fives times and tails once, and getting it right every time. However, advocates of the late exodus theory could respond by saying that their theory also predicts the first five, and the Habiru rule over Shechem is a lucky coincidence.

There is a second fact that can be offered into evidence. The king who complains about the Habiru by far the most is king Abdu-Heba of Jerusalem. In a typical example, writing to Pharaoh he says:

“May the king direct his attention to the archers, and may the king, my lord, send troops of archers, the king has no more lands. The Habiru sack the territories of the king. If there are archers (here) this year, all the territories of the king will remain (intact); but if there are no archers, the territories of the king, my lord, are lost!” [EA#286]

A quick glance at the Judges’ map offers a reason for Abdu-Heba’s concern – unlike the other Canaanite cities, Jerusalem is surrounded on all sides by Hebrew settlements, including several right on the doorstep of Jerusalem.

   -->

Opponents of the Habiru = Hebrew connection argue that the Habiru of the Amarna Letters and other Ancient Near East documents appear to be simply a nomadic people associated with lawlessness. But perhaps we should allow “Habiru” to be a pejorative term that can refer to Hebrews as well as others. It is worth noting the Bible actually hints at this usage as well: “See, he has brought in to us a Hebrew to mock us” (Gen 39:14, see also Gen 39:17), according to Potiphar’s wife, who was probably not thinking exactly of House of Jacob when she said “Hebrew.”

In summary, the Amarna Letters are consistent with the early period of the Judges, and tend to favor the early exodus theory.