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:
- 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.
- Before Saul,
Samuel judged Israel for some period of time, but we are not told how long
this was.
- 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.
- 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.
- The length of
Joshua’s administration and that of his companions (Judg 2:7) before the
cycle of the judges begins is not given.
- 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.
