While an understanding of the date of the exodus will give you greater confidence in the material you will preach and teach, it is doubtful if any sustained discussion of the debate will ever be useful in a sermon. If you should ever find a need at all to mention the date of the exodus in a sermon, let it suffice to say that there are two schools of thought—the 15th Cent and the 13th Cent BC. Even in the context of an adult Bible-class, the debate needs only to be brought up in passing. As a lay-preacher, however, you should at least understand the bare outline of the debate and know where you may find the resources to response intelligently should the question be raised.
There are two main schools of thought regarding the date of the exodus, namely the 15th Cent BC (the "Early Date") and the 13th Cent BC (the "Late Date").
This school takes 1 Ki 6:1 as its starting point: "In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord." We know with a happy measure of confidence that Solomon succeeded to the throne in 970 BC.1 His fourth year would bring us to 966 BC, and 480 years previously would bring us to 1446, or the 15th Cent BC.
Further support for this date is seen in Judg 11:26. In the days of Jephthah a dispute broke out between the Ammonites and Israel. The Ammonite king claimed that "when Israel came up out of Egypt, they took away my land from the Arnon to the Jabbok, all the way to the Jordan. Now give it back peaceably" (11:13). Jephthah gave a comprehensive recounting of Israel's activities in the Trans-Jordan when they came out of Egypt, rebutting the Ammonite claim, and concluding with the question, "For 300 years Israel occupied Heshon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn't you retake them during that time?" (v26). Jephthah can be dated to about 1100 BC. 300 years previously would bring us to about the same date as derived from 1 Ki 6:1.
Many think that these arguments would seem straight-forward enough to settle the matter. Others, however, think not. Indeed, Egyptologist K. A. Kitchen calls this "the lazy man's solution."
The starting point of this view is also 1 Ki 6:1, except that it understands "the four hundred and eightieth year" differently. Proponents of this view argue that this number is symbolic. Since "40 years" is often understood in the Old Testament as 'one generation,' it is argued that what 1 Ki 6:1 means to say is 12 generations. Now, since a generation is in actual fact only about 25 years, Israel would have left Egypt 12x25, i.e., 300 years earlier. This would bring us to 1266 BC, or the mid-13th Cent, for the exodus.
It is also argued that this date fits the archaeological findings in Palestine better. First, no pharaoh by the name Rameses ruled before the 14th Cent. Second, the city of Rameses, which is today identified with modern Qantir, enjoyed its heyday in the early 13th to late 12th Cent, not in the 15th Cent. (though new discoveries by Manfred Bietak may now overturn this second claim). This date, it is also claimed, better explain the names of the cities that the Hebrew slaves were made to build, especially Rameses (Exo 1:8).
Many (if not the majority) evangelicals are proponents of the Early Date. As Ralph Hawkins would lament, some would even go to the extent of claiming that the Early Date is based on "biblical chronology" while the Late Date is simply "a theory." He demurs, "unfortunately for some, this date has become a sort of litmus test for one's evangelical orthodoxy. This is lamentable, because I believe that the 13th-century date is equally based on biblical evidence."3 There is wisdom in taking to heart Bruce Waltke's conclusion and counsel (though he was dealing more specifically with the conquest, which happened four decades after the exodus):
the verdict non liquet ["it is not clear"] must be accepted until more data puts the date of the conquest beyond reasonable doubt. If that be true, either date is an acceptable working hypothesis, and neither date should be held dogmatically.4
Whatever may be the date of the exodus, we know with certainly that by the late 13th Cent Israel was already in Canaan. When Rameses II died in 1212, he was succeeded by his son Merenptah (or Merneptah)5, who was already an accomplished general. Merenptah has left us a large commemorative granite stela in his mortuary temple in Thebes on which was inscribed reports of his victory over his enemies up to his fourth year in office. In it he boasted, among other things:
Plundered is the Canaan
with every evil,
Carried off is Ashkelon;
seized upon is Gezer;
. . . Israel is laid waste,
his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt.
Israel was already a force in Canaan to be reckoned with by 1220 BC, when the stela was set up.6
Here are a number of articles should you want to pursue the debate. As you can see from the amount of traffic in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society alone, it is foolish to think that there is a simple answer. The articles are arranged in the order they appeared. You would cover almost the entire range (though not the depth) of the issues involved in the debate if you can make your way through all the seven articles here.
B. G. Wood, "The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 48 (Sept 2005):475-89.
R. Hawkins, "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 50 (2007):31-46.
James K. Hoffmeier, "What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007):227-29.
B. G. Wood, "The Biblical Date for the Exodus is 1446 BC: A Response to James Hoffmeier,"Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50.2 (June 2007):225-47.
R. C. Young and B. G. Wood, "A Critical Analysis of the Evidence from Ralph Hawkins for a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (June 2008):225-43.
R. Hawkins, "The Date of the Exodus-Conquest is Still an Open Question: A Response to Rodger Young And Bryant Wood," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (June 2008) 245-66.
Douglas Petrovich, "The Dating of Hazor's Destruction in Joshua 11 by Way of Biblical Archaeological, and Epigraphical Evidence," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 51 (2008) 489-512.
Low Chai Hok ©Alberith, 2013