Archaeology and the Date of the Exodus

April 29, 2009 Matthew Keedy Clifton Apologetics

The biblical account of the Hebrew exodus from Egypt plays a central role in Judeo-Christian religious understanding. When a severe famine in the land of Canaan brought the patriarch Jacob and his family to Egypt, God promised that He would go with him, and bring his descendants[1] out again (Gen. 46:3-4). God’s promise to Jacob is a continuation of the “promise plan,” first made to Abraham in Gen. 12. This “promise plan,” which some would say extends even further back to Gen. 3:15, is the common thread which runs throughout the scriptures from Genesis to Revelation.[2] The plan finds its main subject in the coming of the Messiah, and has its climax in the judgment.

Since the exodus narrative is part of God’s fulfillment of this promise plan, and since the event is referred to over and over in scriptures, if one doubts the exodus, one basically doubts the Bible as being the inspired, inerrant Word of God. Being such a focus of the scriptures, the exodus has for many years in turn been a focus of much controversy and discussion. Although there are some scholars and historians who doubt the biblical exodus ever happened[3], this paper will work from the assumption that an exodus of the sort described in the Bible actually did happen, a view that is taken by most scholars. The portion of the debate that will be examined in this short paper is the question of the dating of the event.

Taking the account of the exodus on faith is a simple matter for many. If the scripture alone is consulted, the exodus seems to have occurred around 1450 B.C., a date which conservative scholars would generally agree upon. To arrive at this date, one simply has to read 1 Kings 6:1, which says Solomon began building the temple in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the exodus. Since Solomon is believed to have become king in 971 B.C., this would put the date at about 1447. Also, in Judges 11:26, Jephthah (1100 B.C.) mentions that the Israelites had been in the land already for 300 years. So for those willing to take scripture alone, this would appear to be a final answer on the matter.

But what does the archaeological evidence say about the date of the exodus? Does it support such an early date? Or does the evidence lend itself more toward a date in the 13^th century, as much of modern scholarship seems to champion? The goal of this paper will be to briefly discuss the archaeological evidence that speaks toward a possible date, and whether that evidence should be interpreted as supporting a late or early dating of the exodus.

Archaeological Evidence

There is very little definitive archaeological evidence to lend weight to a specific date for the exodus. In fact, although archaeological excavations have been taking place in Egypt for more than a century, no absolute proof of the exodus has ever been found. So if archaeology has not produced a definitive proof, what has it produced? Hoffmeier says archaeology has provided the context which shows the biblical record to be at least plausible.[4] He says that there are several explanations for the absence of absolute evidence. One possibility is that the Israelites were never in Egypt, thereby making the exodus account merely a myth. This is the position taken by so many anti-inspirationalists. Another idea, however, is suggested by Hoffmeier:

A second, more likely explanation is that we have had unrealistic expectations as to what archaeology can deliver. After all, what evidence, short of an inscription in a Proto-Canaanite script stating “bricks made by Hebrew slaves” would be considered proof that the Israelites were in Egypt? Archaeology’s ability to determine the ethnicity of a people in the archaeological record, especially of the Israelites at such an early period, is quite limited.[5]

Because of this, any expectation of evidence has to be tempered by the imprecise nature of what can be gained from archaeological studies. However, if it can be shown that Semitic peoples were present in Egypt and forced to perform labor, then weight is lent to the biblical account of the exodus. If archaeological evidence can be shown consistent with the Israelite conquest of Canaan, then more support to the Bible’s account is given. If it can be shown that there were a people called “Israel” in Canaan at the proper time, there is even more support. Although one cannot “prove” the exodus or a dating thereof, one can show that there is no good reason to discount the biblical record altogether. With this thought in mind, the archaeological evidence for a date of the exodus will now be briefly examined.

Semitic Presence in Nile Delta. Archaeologists have always been aware of the habit of nomadic herders from the east to enter the Nile delta area in search of healthy grazing grounds. The Egyptian sage Neferti wrote around 1900 BC of the fact that such nomadic peoples were sneaking in and taking liberties with Egyptian resources:

All good things have passed away, the land being cast away through trouble by means of that food of the Asiatics who pervade the land. Enemies have come into being in the east; Asiatics have come down into Egypt…Men will build “Walls of the Ruler,” and there will be no letting the Asiatics go down into Egypt, that they may beg water in their accustomed fashion to let their herds drink.[6]

Hundreds of years later, the incursions continued, as evidenced by Papyrus Anastasi. This 13^th-century document contains a report from the border fort in region of Wadi Tumilat that an Edomite tribe was allowed water their flocks in the area. It is easy to see from these instances that contact between Semitic peoples and Egypt was common and long-lasting.

Additionally, it can be shown that there were Semitic slaves in Egypt at the time. A 15^th-century BC tomb painting depicts Semitic slaves making mud bricks at Thebes. The text accompanying the painting complains of “not enough straw,” just as the Israelites complained.[7] Hoffmeier cites another papyrus, Leiden 348, which mentions a people called the “‘Apiru” who were engaged in forced labor in Egypt.[8] Although it is being debated whether these people were the Hebrews, it does show the existence of Semitic laborers in the area at the time.

The Tell el-Amarna Tablets. Since it is plausible that the Israelites were in Egypt, what archaeological evidence is there that can help place them in a certain time frame, perhaps one consistent with the biblical record? The first evidence to be considered is the Tell el-Amarna tablets. Discovered in 1887 and dated between 1400-1370 B.C., these Akkadian cuneiform tablets consist of communications to the Egyptian government from Palestinian and Syrian princes. The reports in these tablets tell of fierce invaders and chaos among the various kings of Canaan.[9] In a writing from the city of Megiddo, the towns having fallen to the invaders were all in the region of Arad in the south, which was the first area invaded by the Israelites (Num. 21:1-3). The rate of coincidence would be extremely high for these invaders not to be the Israelites, especially in light of the positive dating of the city of Jericho.

The City of Jericho. The dating of the Canaanite city of Jericho remains a thorn in the side of those who push for a late date for the exodus. Since Jericho was the first city to fall to the Israelites following the exodus, a positive dating of the city’s destruction would aid greatly in setting a possible date for the beginning of the conquest of Canaan, and thus allude to a date for the exodus. Archaeologist John Garstang performed the most extensive work on the site of Jericho. He concluded that the destruction of Jericho took place about 1400 B.C. He came to the conclusion based on scarabs found at the site, bearing the name of Amenhotep III (1412-1376), the lack of Mycenaen pottery which was abundant from 1400 B.C. on, and the lack of the characteristic criteria of the reign of Amenhotep IV (1372-1362).[10] Because of these positive links, Garstang saw no reason for debate on the date. Despite the discovery of 13^th-century destruction of cities in the transjordan area, Jericho continues to stand as a stalwart and witness to a 15^th-century dating of the exodus. Kaiser reminds us that there is absolutely no evidence for a 13^th-century city at Jericho.[11]

The Merneptah Stele. If the dating of the city of Jericho seems to be conclusive, then the Merneptah Stele is just the opposite. This so-called “Israel stele” contains the only written reference to the Hebrew nation as “Israel.” This artifact, found in Thebes in 1896, has boastful accounts of the military campaigns of King Merneptah, successor to Rameses the Great. Among the military victories boasted of, one reads about a campaign in Canaan, in which the king supposedly “laid waste” to Israel. Merneptah is believed to have ruled about 1212-1202 B.C. Not only does this place Israel in Canaan at this time and before, but it also presents the possibility that Israel had built itself into a nation worthy of being bragged about defeating. It is doubtful Merneptah would have concerned himself with boasting about trampling a small, wandering tribe of ex-slaves. However, this evidence is inconclusive for an early dating of the exodus. While it is attractive to think the Israelites had been in the land a great while from this evidence, the possibility that they had only been there 70-80 years still exists.

Late 13^th Century Sites in Palestine. According to Alfred Hoerth, many of those subscribing to a late date for the exodus do so because of old archaeological information that has since been proven incorrect.[12] For instance, many have based the late dating on the work of Nelson Glueck who in the 1930′s did a “surface exploration” of the Negev and Transjordan region. During this study, he concluded that the area had not been occupied at all during the period of 1900-1300 B.C. Since there were no people there, he concluded the exodus must have happened after 1300 B.C. One obvious flaw in this reasoning is that nomadic people do not leave much mark upon the archaeological record, and some of those who harassed the Israelites in the desert could have been tent dwellers, such as were the Midiantes (Judges 6-7). Glueck’s work has also come into doubt in regard to his knowledge of pottery found in his survey area.[13]

Another reason so many have held to a 13^th-century date for the exodus is due to destruction levels found at some of the cities conquered by Joshua.[14] Many scholars assumed that Joshua caused those marks on the archaeological record, and thus dated the conquest around 1250 B.C. But there are also destruction levels around 1400 B.C. as well, which could have been caused by the Israelites. The later destruction levels in the 13^th century could be attributable to raids by the Egyptians (such as those conducted by Merneptah) or other invaders. Therefore, this line of evidence proves neither theory, although the plausibility level of the early date can be increased.

Other Evidences for Future Study. Archaeological work continues to be performed, of course. There are other new discoveries that need to be weighed and examined. Ralph Hawkins, in the course of presenting an idea on how “evangelicals” can accept a late date for the exodus, also discusses new finds of scarabs at Mt. Ebal which may lend support to a late dating of the exodus and conquest.[15] Manfred Bietak suggests that four-room houses identified in Medinet Habu are Israelite homes.[16] Frank J. Yurco has suggested that a scene found on a wall of ruins in Thebes is a depiction of ancient Israelites.[17] These types of finds, as well as the proposed re-dating of some archaeological periods by John Bimson and David Livingston,[18] are still being debated as to their effects upon the dating of the exodus.

Conclusion

Is it possible to come to a conclusion? Working from the archaeological evidence alone, it appears that there is no definitive solution. There seems to be three general “schools” of thought on the issue. Those holding a high view of scripture seem to hold fast to the early dating of the exodus, since the biblical record seems to speak of an exodus around 1450 B.C. Those totally rejecting the inspiration and authority of scriptures seem to rely on the evidence of settlements in the Transjordan area in the 13^th Century, and think the Bible record should be seen as “flexible” or “mythical.” Then there are those in between, who wrestle with the archaeological data, but still hold to the inspiration of the scriptures.

In this writer’s view, it seems proper to regard the Bible as accurate, since archaeological finds are constantly turning up that may shed more light on our base of knowledge. The information that can be ascertained from excavations help us to understand the people of biblical times, but should never be relied upon as a “perfect revelation,” especially when it conflicts with the biblical record. Interpretations of archaeological evidence are subject to change as research comes in. The word of God, however, stands forever.

WORKS CITED

---

[1] Hamilton, Victor P., The Book of Genesis, Chapters 18-50, NICOT (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1995), p. 592. Hamilton gives this passage as an example of the “oscillation between the individual and the collection” in reference to “you/your” in Gen. 46:4. God promised not to bring Jacob out alive, but that he would bring his descendants out. Hamilton says this is a well-known feature of OT thought.

[2] See Kaiser, Walter C., Toward Rediscovering the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 83-100 for a good discussion on the “promise-plan” as the unifying theme of the entire Bible.

[3] See Dever, William G., What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2001), p. 121. Here Dever refers to the “Exodus-Conquest” cycle of stories as “largely mythical.”

⁴ Hoffmeier, James K., “Out of Egypt: The Archaeological Context of the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 33:01, Jan/Feb. 2007.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Neferti, The Prophecies of Neferti, http://nefertiti.iwebland.com/texts/neferti.htm.

[7] Sarna, Nahum M, “Israel in Egypt: The Egyptian Sojourn and the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review,

[8] Hoffmeier, James K., Israel in Egypt (London: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 114.

[9] Archer, Gleason L., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), pp. 184-185.

[10] Garstaang, John, The Story of Jericho ((London: Marshall, Morgan and Sctott, 1948), p. 122.

[11] Kaiser, Walter C., The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Exodus (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1990), p. 289.

[12] Hoerth, Alfred J., Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1998), p. 180.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid, p. 181.

[15] Hawkins,Ralph K., “Propositions for Evangelical Acceptance of a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest: Biblical Data and the Royal Scarabs from Mt. Ebal,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Mar 2007, 50:1, pp. 38-46.

[16] Bietak, Manfred, “Israelites Found in Egypt: Four-Room House Identified in Medinet Habu,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 29:05, Sept/Oct. 2003.

[17] Yurco, Frank J., “3,200-Year-Old Picture of Israelites Found in Egypt,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 16:05, Sept/Oct. 1990.

[18] Bimson, John J., David Livingston, “Redating the Exodus,” Biblical Archaeology Review, 13:05, Sept/Oct 1987.