Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Dear Oun Kwon,

I'll try to summarize the "mainstream" view of both possibilities, and then
let Jim, Karl and others address additional theories.

The first thing to remember, is that there is NO specific evidence, either
archaeological or written, for ANY of the SPECIFIC events described by the
Bible all the way until after the death of Solomon. None of the biblical
characters until this time are mentioned in contemporary sources, nor does
the Bible give the name of anyone known from non-biblical sources (calling
all the Egyptian kings "Pharaoh" does not help). For this reason, there is
no certain way to date any of the events described, or to tie them into
"secular" ANE history.

The very first historical character who is known from both contemporary
sources and from the Bible is Shishak/Sheshonq I King of Egypt, and the very
first event known from both contemporary sources and from the Bible is
Shishak's invasion of Israel, which according to 1 Kings 14:25 occured
during the 5th year of Rehoboam, son of Solomon, and according to Sheshonq's
own inscriptions happened about 925 BCE (although there are different
oppinions about this date as well). So this is the key: Rehoboam became king
c. 930 BCE, Solomon 970, David (still in Hebron) in 1010. And even if those
"perfect 40's" look suspicious, we're still somewhere in the tenth century.
That's as far as we can go counting backwards in the Bible, because 1 Sam.
13:1, which says that Saul was a year old when he became king and ruled for
two years, is obviously problematic (just compare the different
translations!). And then there are no details for Samuel's "judgeship". In
any case, the END of the "time of the Judges" is about 1000 BCE.

However, there is one more relevant number: 1 Kings 6:1 gives the date of
the building of Solomon's Temple as the fourth year of his reign, which was
the 480th year since the Exodus. IF one takes all of those numbers
literally, than 970-4+480=1446, so their's your fifteenth century Exodus.

Now this figure has its attractions. If one assumes that the Patriarchs
lived during the Middle Bronze Age II, than Joseph and Jacob might have
arrived in Egypt during the so-called "Hyksos" period (c. 1750-1550), when
Lower Egypt was controlled by Semitic conquerors. This might explain why
Jacob and family were welcomed by the rulers of Egypt. When the Hyksos were
expelled c. 1550, the Israelites were considered "collaborators with the
enemy" and enslaved ("the arose a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph"). They
then escaped about 100 years later, wandering for 40 years and arriving in
Canaan c. 1400. And then, IF one considers the "Habiru" of the Amarna
letters to actually be the Israelites attacking Canaanite cities, it all
seems to come together perfectly. Which is why this scenario was so popular
with scholars two generations ago, and is still popular in some circles
today.

However, there are a lot of problems with this reconstruction:
1. The dates don't REALLY fit the biblical data: According to Ex. 12:40, the
Israelites were in Egypt for 430 years. Even if Jacob arrived at the very
beginning of the Hyksos period, 1750-1440 is still only 310 years. And of
course, since Moses was only three or four generations removed from Jacob,
even this seems too long (Rabbinic tradition, by the way, recognized this
and counted the 430 years from Abraham's journey to Egypt, making the time
from Jacob's arrival to the Exodus only 210 years).

2. Plus, if the Israelites left Egypt in 1440 and arrived in Canaan in 1400,
they were still fighting the same Canaanite towns 40-60 years later, which
is when the Amarna letters were written. This conradicts the biblical story
of a relatively quick non-conquest.

3. And then there are historical and archaeological considerations. 1400 BCE
is right smack in the middle of the Late Bronze Age, a time in which Canaan
was ruled by Egypt. While the were ups and downs, the Egyptians were still 
in charge over 200 years later, after 1200 BCE. This we know from both many 
inscriptions and from archaeological data. The Bible, on the other hand, 
says nothing of this - when Joshua invaded the land, he fought against 
independent Canaanite kings.

4. From an archaeological point of view, there really was not much going on 
around 1400 BCE. No destroyed cities, no changes in settlement patterns, no 
evidence of a new material culture - in short, if the Israelites DID invade 
in 1400, they did so without leaving any impression on the land for the next 
2 centuries. Which of course is very different that what the Bible says.

On the other hand, there are huge changes in the area around the year 1200, 
or what archaeologists call the transition from the Late Bronze Age to the 
Iron I period. Egypt went into decline and gradually pulled out of Canaan, 
leaving a vacuum. Not just Egypt, but also the Mycenean culture in Greece, 
Hatti and other cultures disapeared. Ugarit, along with many other major and 
less major towns, were destroyed. Hundreds of new tiny villages appeared in 
the hill-country, with architechture, pottery and eating habbits that were 
distinct from those of the Canaanites - including a total lack of pig-bones! 
And, of course, the one and only mention of a people called "Israel" in an 
Egyptian incription, in where Merneptah claims to have destroyed them - 
another event not mentioned in the Bible.

So, while the match is not perfect, the most logical time for an Israelite 
conquest (or whatever historical process came to be described as the 
conquest) is around 1200, with the Exodus occuring around 1240 BCE. Of 
course, there IS no actual evidence of either...

Yigal Levin


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Oun Kwon" <kwonbbl AT gmail.com>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:54 AM
Subject: [b-hebrew] Year of Exodus


> Hi Jim and
>
> I am reading your posts and replies. (still do not have clear hold on
> 'middle bronze' 'late bronze' allocation of those events in the O.T.)
>
> I am not quite sure what year would be the Exodus from each one's
> point of view.  I know there are two opinions (around 1200's and
> 1400's B.C.), if I discount those claims that the Exodus is not
> historical.
>
> Thank you very much.
>
> Oun Kwon.
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.6/1887 - Release Date: 11/01/2009
17:57