Five Views on the Exodus

Historicity, Chronology, and Theological Implications

Zondervan, Mark D. Janzen

• Verlag: Zondervan Academic
• Jahr: 2021
• ISBN:
  9780310108757
• Thema: Theology & Religion
• Thema: Biblical Studies

Gain a thorough understanding of the competing views on the historicity, chronology, and theological implications of the exodus.

The biblical account of the Israelite exodus from Egypt is one of the most enduring narratives ever told and is a foundational event for several world religions. It resonates across cultures with its timeless themes of redemption and deliverance. It is also the only explanation the Bible gives for Israel's origin.

Despite its unique legacy, many scholars regard the exodus as fictitious or a cultural memory that may not be a historical event. Even among those who believe the exodus happened, there is no consensus regarding its date.

Five Views on the Exodus brings together experts in the fields of biblical studies, Egyptology, and archaeology to discuss and debate the most vexing questions about the exodus. Each offers their own view and constructive responses to other leading views:

• Early Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Fifteenth Century BC (Scott Stripling)
• Late Date: A Historical Exodus in the Thirteenth Century BC (James K. Hoffmeier)
• A Hyksos Levite Led Exodus in the Time of Ramesses II (Peter Feinman)
• Alternative Late Date: The Exodus Took Place in the Twelfth Century BC (Gary A. Rendsburg)
• The Exodus as Cultural Memory: A Transformation of Historical Events (Ronald Hendel)

The Counterpoints series presents a comparison and critique of scholarly views on topics important to Christians that are both fair-minded and respectful of the biblical text. Each volume is a one-stop reference that allows readers to evaluate the different positions on a specific issue and form their own, educated opinion.

CHAPTER ONE

THE FIFTEENTH-CENTURY (EARLY-DATE) EXODUS VIEW

SCOTT STRIPLING

The biblical authors inexorably link the identity of the ancient Israelites with a miraculous deliverance from Egyptian slavery, but many scholars, such as Bernard F. Batto, challenge the historicity of the exodus: “The biblical narrative in the books of Genesis through Joshua owes more to the folkloric tradition of the ancient Near East than to the historical genre and cannot be used to reconstruct an authentic history of ancient Israel.”¹ However, four of the five authors of this book believe that an exodus of Hebrews from Egypt to Canaan actually occurred, albeit at different times. Clearly, intelligent and sincere people can arrive at different conclusions after evaluating the same data. Discussions concerning when this watershed event happened evoke great passion, and at times conflict, even among those who believe that Scripture is historically reliable.

If we consider the biblical text in isolation, most biblical scholars agree the internal biblical chronology points us to a fifteenth-century BC exodus. Though the biblical evidence seems clear, it must also be considered in light of the archaeological evidence. Historical matters are seldom simple. Having directed excavations at two important sites in the highlands of Israel—Khirbet el-Maqatir (Ai?) and Shiloh—I am grateful for archaeology. However, while the material culture at these and other sites illuminates the biblical text, it often raises more questions than it settles. Despite the good work of scores of archaeologists in Egypt and the territories to its north, a staggering amount of ancient ruins remain unexcavated. Vandalism, urban sprawl, war, natural disasters, politics, and lack of funding limit what the trowel can reveal. The unexcavated remnants of antiquity may contain critical evidence that could clarify the timing of the exodus and conquest. As of this writing, there is no consensus among scholars who hold to a historical exodus event concerning its timing.

Methodological Approach to the Exodus Dilemma

The ancient Egyptians almost never recorded events which portrayed them unfavorably, so it would be surprising to find a record of the exodus. Regardless of their impulse to omit these events, there are written sources and archaeological remnants that can establish the historicity of the exodus, but it is critical that we assign proper weight to these written sources and the material remains. Proper epistemology enables reliable historiography. In this essay I argue that the written text is less subjective than human interpretations of the material culture, and therefore it ought to receive primacy in our considerations. Hill juxtaposes the differences in methodology between early-date versus late-date advocates when he writes, “At issue in the controversy over the date of the Exodus is the interpretation of the biblical and extrabiblical data. Proponents of the early-date position emphasize the literal interpretation of the biblical numbers . . . and selectively appeal to archaeology for support (e.g., both camps cite archaeological evidence from Jericho and Hazor in support of their positions). Those holding to the late-date view understand the biblical numbers symbolically and place priority on the extrabiblical historical information and archaeological evidence.”²

Hill correctly summarizes the methodological divide among scholars. Early-date adherents give greater weight to the Bible, whereas late-date purveyors tend to elevate archaeology in their historiography. In this essay I will argue that strong archaeological evidence supports the early date as well, but the case for an early date begins with the text of Scripture. Archaeological excavation, properly conducted, illuminates the written word of God, and vice versa, but if the two appear to conflict, early-date advocates will defer to the biblical text.

In the case of the exodus, the Bible serves as the most complete ancient written source, and it should be read as a historically reliable account. Any proposed discrepancy must be evidence-based, not an argument from silence. Consider the minimalist argument about the existence of King David. The argument that King David may not have existed evaporated in 1993 when Avraham Biran’s team at Tel Dan recovered the “House of David” inscription.³ Whenever legitimate textual discrepancies occur, the historian may rightly seek extrabiblical clarification. However, I am unaware of any instances in which extrabiblical texts contradict biblical texts, although they do at times provide a different perspective. Such is the case with Sennacherib’s account of his Jerusalem siege versus the Chronicler’s account (2 Chr 32).⁴ The New Testament evangelists certainly differ in details, yet the diversity enhances the authenticity. Eyewitnesses rarely report identical details of an event.

The Pentateuch is clearly of ancient origin. The late seventh-century BC Silver Scrolls/Amulets from Tomb 25 at Ketef Hinnom preserve small portions of Exodus and Numbers. Undoubtedly, Ketef Hinnom II quotes the Priestly Blessing (Num 6:24–26). At Kuntillet Ajrud, Pithos B, which dates one century earlier, echoes or paraphrases the same passage.⁵ Moreover, Ketef Hinnom I (lines 3–6) likely quotes or alludes to Exod 20:6. Similarly, the Deir ‘Alla Plaster Inscriptions (also known as the Balaam Inscription) date at least to the eighth century BC and synchronize with the Num 22–24 narrative. The dates of these sources testify to the antiquity of the pentateuchal narratives. The fragments that I have mentioned did not just appear out of thin air in the eighth century, suggesting that the exodus account existed in the First Temple period (1200–586 BC), and likely much earlier. But the Bible is not our only written source for the exodus.

Before the twenty-first century AD, epigraphers had failed to identify a single extrabiblical literary source besides the Deir ‘Alla Plaster Inscriptions relating to the biblical account of the exodus and sojourn. That changed at the turn of the new millennium with the publication of the Berlin Pedestal.⁶ Then, in 2016, Douglas Petrovich presented sixteen inscriptions from the Sinai, three of which purport to document the exodus and associated people and events.⁷ The Amarna tablets and Merenptah Stela also provide germane inscriptional evidence that deserves consideration.⁸

Archaeological evidence also supports a date for the exodus sometime in the Eighteenth Dynasty (1550–1292 BC). I see sites like Tell el-Dab‘a in the Egyptian delta as a possible synchronism between the archaeological data and the exodus account (Exod 2–12). I also see evidence at Mount Ebal in Israel’s highlands. As we will discover, Tell el-Dab‘a, Mount Ebal, and other pertinent sites such as Jericho, Ai, and Hazor offer vital data.

Pseudoarchaeology complicates the issue and confuses the general public. Since about 1990, a cadre of self-proclaimed researchers have made sensational claims about the exodus and other biblical events. They claim to have found proof of the exodus. Refuting the unfounded claims of chariot wheels at the bottom of what might be the biblical yam sûp lies outside the purview of this chapter. Yet while nonsensical claims like these distract us from serious academic debate, fortunately there is real archaeology that can illuminate the exodus and its associated events for us.

As I present in the following section, reasonable evidence places Jacob’s descendants (the Israelites) in Egypt some time during the five-hundred-year period from the Twelfth to the Eighteenth Dynasties—from the nineteenth to the fifteenth centuries BC (1900–1400 BC). Similarly, a scholarly consensus among evangelicals, with rare exceptions, situates the Israelites in Canaan no later than the Late Bronze Age II (ca. 1400–1200 BC). Advocates for the early date favor their arrival at the end of the fifteenth century, or the Late Bronze Age IB in archaeological parlance. If the evidence I present proves accurate—that both the Bible and archaeology place the Israelites in Egypt for hundreds of years and then locate them in Canaan for more than one millennium—then it appears obvious that they left Egypt at some point on this timeline. In the Bible the exodus account precedes and follows historically verifiable accounts; therefore, no reason exists to view the account itself as etiological. The biblical and extrabiblical evidence both attest to the historicity and chronology of the early Israelites and their fifteenth-century exodus from Egypt.

Biblical Evidence for an Early Exodus

The ancestral narrative in Genesis reveals that Joseph became the second most powerful person in Egypt, the world’s ancient superpower. Joseph likely served as Egypt’s vizier (chief administrator). He settled his family in the choice land of Goshen, in the Egyptian delta. However, a shift in the political climate plunged Jacob’s descendants into slavery. Several biblical passages verify that the Israelite deliverance from slavery occurred in the fifteenth century. These excerpts include 1 Kgs 6:1, Judg 11:26, 1 Chr 6:33–37, Ezek 40:1, and Acts 7:29–30. Taken together, their weight tips the exegetical scale decisively toward the early date.

Evidence from 1 Kings 6:1

Solomon began to build the First Temple in the 480th year after the exodus (1 Kgs 6:1). Synchronization with Assyrian records places this construction in 967 BC. A primary principle of archaeology is to move from the known to the unknown. This principle works for chronology as well. To the known date of 967 BC, we add 479 years to arrive at the biblical date of 1446 BC.

Unlike the Hebrew text, which places the exodus in the 480th year before the building of Solomon’s Temple, the Septuagint states that the exodus occurred in the 440th year. For this reason, some archaeologists, such as Steven Collins, favor 1406 BC as an exodus date.⁹ Regardless, both chronologies see a mass migration occurring in the fifteenth century BC. Others, such as David Rohl, embrace the 1446 BC date but argue that Egyptian history must be downdated several centuries and that the exodus occurred late in the Middle Bronze Age.¹⁰ When I refer to the early date of the exodus, I am referring to 1446 BC, in the middle of the Late Bronze I period.

Agreeing with W. F. Albright, late-date adherents see little or no evidence in the archaeological record of a conquest at the end of the fifteenth century, so they violate Occam’s razor and form a metaphorical equation in which 480 really means 300.¹¹ They postulate that the writer of 1 Kings was referring to twelve idealized generations of forty years when he arrived at the number 480, but because a generation is really twenty-five years, the number should be 300 instead (12 generations × 25 years = 300 years).¹² Scholars like Kenneth Kitchen use this formula to place the exodus in the thirteenth century, where they see stronger evidence for the exodus and conquest.¹³ With this approach to dating, late-date advocates would have us believe that the biblical writer was either confused or practicing hyperbole. I find both of these unlikely.

Evidence from Judges 11:26

According to Judg 11:26, Jephthah declares to the Ammonite king, “For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them during that time?” Once again, we are fortunate to start with an agreed-upon date, approximately 1100 BC, for Jephthah. From here, the math is simple: 1100 + 300 = 1400 BC. This date closely harmonizes with the 1 Kgs 6:1 date because the Israelites did not conquer the region of Ammon until the end of the forty-year wilderness sojourn. Do we have another confused biblical writer or speaker? If so, the ...