Thrust statement: The Scriptures date the Exodus as
having occurred in 1446 BC and Joshua’s conquest in 1406 BC.
Scripture reading: Exodus 14:15; 15:1-10
As one approaches the date of the Exodus, one quickly discovers conflicting opinions among scholars.[1] Some professors date the Exodus as having occurred in the thirteenth century (late date) and others assign a time to the fifteenth-century (early date). The early date, by some scholars, is based upon two factors—archaeology and the Bible. On the other hand, some interpreters assert the late date (13th century BC) as the most logical date, based, not upon the Bible’s chronology, but rather upon the interpretation of some archaeological findings and the Generally Accepted Dates (GAD) for Egyptian chronology. Some scholars, in spite of the so-called archaeological data, still rely upon the biblical data in seeking a solution to this most perplexing question as to the time frame of the Exodus. As one sifts through the various scholarly journals and books dealing with the date of the Exodus, one observes that there is no consensus as to the interpretation of the data. This essay seeks to examine both the late and early date as proposed by liberal and conservative scholars. There is no harmony as to the presuppositions set forth in order to try to arrive at a date that harmonizes with so-called archaeological findings, irrespective of the biblical data.
The objective of this study is to present the various theories advanced by late date (13th century BC) and early date (15th century BC) theologians and archaeologists. Even though this essay addresses the interpretation of the data as presented by the archaeologists in establishing the late date (based on the accepted Egyptian chronology), nevertheless, the basic presupposition of this author (Dallas Burdette) is that the Bible is the final source of authority in establishing beyond doubt the time frame assigned for the Exodus.
Late
Date (13th Century BC)
The late date is based upon the so-called archaeological finds of numerous archaeologists.[2] John Davis and John Whitcomb—both scholars accept the biblical account for the date of the Exodus—explain the position of many archaeologists this way: “Many scholars, refusing to accept the historical accuracy of the numbers of the Bible, date these events in the thirteenth century BC”[3] One such example is the distinguished archaeologist, Kathleen Kenyon, who worked for many years in Palestinian excavations. She asserted forcefully her understanding of chronology: “Chronology in Palestine cannot stand on its own feet until one is dealing with a relatively late epoch.”[4] The relatively late date (13th century) is based upon the so-called evidence from Egypt—two of the cities of Raamses (Tanis and Qantir). Also, the late date is maintained because of the political history of the 19th Dynasty.[5] This history deals with Ramses II’s Wine-Jar Sealings, his Transjordan campaign, his Hittite Treaty, and his Form of Mosaic Covenant.[6]
On the other hand, the early date is
predicated upon (1) biblical evidence: (a) chronology of 1 Kings 6:1, and (b) Judges 11:26; and (2) Egyptian chronological evidence[7]:
(a) Thutmose I [1504-1492], (b) Hatshepsut [1479-1457], (c) Thutmose III
[1479-1425], (d) Amenhotep II [1427-1397], (e) Thutmose [1397-1387], Son of
Amenhotep [1427-1397], and (f) Apiru.[8]
As one reflects upon the confusion, just where does one start in order to
establish a correct chronology upon which to base his/her understanding for the
date of the Exodus. Another scholar, John Bimson, has suggested moving the
conquest back 200 years in order to reconcile the biblical account with
chronology of the various periods.[9]
Still, another archaeologist, Han Goedicke, has also suggested the early date
(15th century) for the Exodus based upon a tidal wave. He says that
a “Tidal-like wave was transmitted by a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean
Sea.”[10]
Since the late date (13th century) and early date (15th century) are often asserted by both theological scholars as well as archaeological scholars, this essay presents both sides concerning the pinpointing of the date. This paper looks at the evidence presented by both sides in order to demonstrate the confusion among scholars in seeking to arrive at a correct understanding of the date. In seeking to pigeon hole data as it is revealed from excavations, scholars frequently adhere to the chronology established by Egyptologists.[11] Many scholars key their dating of the Exodus to the known (exceptionally vague) historical records of Egypt.[12] Nevertheless, in spite of the questionable chronology of Egypt, many theologians frequently reject the mid-fifteenth century (1446 BC) dating of the Exodus. Why? Since many of the late date scholars reject the early date (1446 BC), many scholars, without question, follow the dating scheme as advanced by others for a late date (1250 BC) based on GAD of Egyptian chronology.
As one peruses this essay, one will quickly discover that the interpretation of the archaeological evidence[13] and the Egyptian chronology[14] is highly subjective. The late date (13th century BC) is asserted upon the interpretation of data as presented by certain archaeologists and Egyptian chronologists. The scholars, as a whole, still do not know how to apply the information from the various sources without a tremendous amount of narrow-mindedness in their analysis. For instance, Siegfried H. Horn calls attention to the subjectivity on the part of scholars in their application of the data:
The fact that after more than two hundred years of critical study, scholarly unanimity in this respect has not been approached, let alone achieved, illustrates, in Beegle’s words, ‘how much subjectivity is involved in a chain of reasoning which attempts to solve inner details of tradition and their development.’[15]
THE
PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED WITH DATING THE EXODUS
Archaeologists are continuously revising their findings based upon further studies. Examples of this subjectivity on the part of scholars are found in the writings, as mentioned above, of Siegfried H. Horn. He refers to three scholars of the late date hypothesis—(1) Moshe Pearlman,[16] (2) David Daiches,[17] and (3) Dewey Beegle.[18] Horn critiques[19] these three Books by these distinguished scholars concerning the Exodus from Egypt and concludes by saying that one is impressed with how little, not how much one knows about the Exodus.[20]
He calls attention to Pearlman who accepts the 13th century date because “current historians and archaeologists” place it in that time frame.[21] Horn also asserts that Daiches puts the Exodus under Ramses II (1279-1213 BC) “as most scholars think.”[22] Beegle, too, presents some evidence—chronological and otherwise—which also appeals to a late date (13th century) in the 19th Dynasty (1295-1188 BC) in the time of Ramses II.[23] One almost stands in awe as one looks at the material available on this subject. One almost feels that he/she is entangled in a labyrinth as he/she seeks to find his/her way out of the dilemma.
Horn cautions that one should not reject early date (15th century) too readily:
It is true that much historical and archaeological evidence points to a 13th-century-BC date for the Exodus, for which reason the majority of scholars currently accept this date. However, the 15th-century date should not so cavalierly be dismissed or completely ignored as our authors do, for not all the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence points to the 19th Dynasty as the time when the Exodus took place.[24]
Horn calls attention to the difficulties encountered by scholars as they seek to disentangle the confusion that exists within the world of scholarship. He drives home his point by zeroing in on the problems of source criticism. He employs Exodus 33:7-11 as an example to demonstrate the complexity of the problem in seeking a solution to the date of the Exodus. For instance, he writes:
This passage is attributed to E (the Elohist) by Walter Beyerlin, to J (the Yahwist) by Murray and to D (the Deuteronomist) by Martin Noth. The fact that after more than 200 years of critical study, scholarly unanimity in this respect has not been approached, let alone achieved, illustrates, in Beegle’s words, “how much subjectivity is involved in a chain of reasoning which attempts to solve inner details of tradition and their development (p. 249). Although there are of course many passages in the Pentateuch as to which there is great agreement, an honest and serious study can only conclude that its ancient compiler(s) used various materials and attempted to create a set of five books which give a coherent picture of what happened, just as Tatian of the second century of the Christian era and many others after him, combined the narrative material of the four Gospels of the New Testament into a Gospel Harmony which tried to harmonize the various conflicting strands of traditions about the life and work of Jesus.[25]
Horn also calls attention to two chronological statements from Scripture that attest to an early date—I Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26.[26] He then cites other evidence that supports an 18th-dynasty Exodus.[27] He argues that the conditions surrounding Moses are more favorable than under the 19th-dynasty kings “when there was no dearth of sons.”[28] Horn correctly calls attention to insurmountable problems by assigning the date of the Exodus to the 19th dynasty.[29] Having correctly argued his case for an early date (15th century BC) for the Exodus, he then proceeds to examine the number that migrated out of Egypt under Moses—2,000.000.
He rejects outright, without any evidence, the numbers in the census in Numbers (chapters 1 and 26). He then cites Exodus 12:37, where it states that the Exodus included 600,000 armed adult men, not including dependents.[30] In order to show the disparity among scholars in their denial of the biblical account, he cites Daiches’ numbers involved in the Exodus to be ‘“between two and six thousand’ (p. 82).”[31] On the other hand, Beegle believes ‘“a total of about 16,000’ (p. 142)” would be more accurate.[32]
CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARSHIP
William Shea
Scholarship is not always clear as to which position they promote. The scholars of the late date (13th century) have made inroads into the camp of those who hold to the inspiration of Scripture. For example, William Shea, a conservative scholar, calls attention to a representative summary of the dating problem:
The date of the Exodus is one of the most debated topics in the OT studies because of the ambiguous nature of the evidence. Although the biblical texts seem to require a date in the middle of the 15th cent. BC, archaeological evidence seems to point to a date in the 13th cent. BC[33]
This author (Shea) wants to hold to the 15th-century dating (early date), but his justification, so it seems, is diminished because of his presuppositions concerning methodology. His methodology is established upon comparative chronology and comparative archaeology. This supposedly is the neutral scholarship that one needs in order to make rationality of the Bible. He postulates that the mid-fifteenth century, according to the biblical text, is the date of the Exodus.[34] His conservative view of the date of the Exodus is based more upon pragmatism rather than the biblical evidence if this author (Dallas Burdette) understands him correctly. He writes:
While it is possible that these data could have been corrupted in transmission, the most reasonable approach to them is to examine in more detail the historical context in which they date the Exodus. The biblical date for the Exodus has a reciprocal relationship with the events described in Exodus as related to Egyptian history. A pragmatic approach to this date suggest a period in Egyptian history that should be examined for a possible relationship to the biblical Exodus, and considerable agreement of the evidence from Egyptian and biblical sources pointing to that period supports the accuracy of the chronological data (480) years from which that search started.[35]
He argues for a fifteen-century date, but he does not begin with the premise that this must be the case, rather he appeals to pragmatism as the beginning point of establishing the date.
Roland
Harrison
Another conservative scholar, Roland Harrison, one of the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia’s editors (1982), argues for a 13th century BC dating (late date) for the Exodus. His rationale is based upon the assumptions of the late date archaeologists who disagree endlessly about the dating of the Bronze Ages (Early, Middle, and Late). He has accepted a classification system that is based upon the 19th-century evolutionary social theory.[36] Harrison mentions that early in the twentieth century a significant change of opinions in favor of the 15th century date for the Exodus dominated the scene.[37] But, at the same time, he is not convinced of the early date (15th century); he says, “The question cannot be settled simply by an appeal to the Book of Kings in the light of an arbitrary dating for the fall of Jericho.”[38] His argument is ambiguous; his recommended chronology specifically rejects the testimony of 1 Kings 6:1.
The New Bible Dictionary (1987) does not even mention the possibility of a mid-fifteenth century date.[39] G. Ogg does not comment upon the clear-cut chronological boundaries of 1 Kings 6:1 in association to the Exodus. He confuses the issue by attempting to bring up the problem of overlapping the period of the Dynasties (There is no evidence to indicate an overlapping of the judges as there is in Egyptian chronology.). This theory of overlapping dynasties, according to many scholars, is the best solution to the Exodus problem. For a case in point, Ogg attempts to neutralize the consequence of 1 Kings 6:1 by appealing to “overlapping dynasties.” Thus, concludes Ogg:
In near eastern works involving chronology, it is important to realize that ancient scribes did not draw up synchronistic lists as is done today. They simply listed each series of rulers and reigns separately, in succession on the papyrus of tablet. Synchronisms were to be derived from special historiographical works, not the king-list or narratives serving other purposes. An excellent example of this is the Turin Papyrus of Kings from Egypt. It lists at great length all five Dynasties 13 to 17 in successive groups, totaling originally over 150 rulers and their reigns accounting for at least 450 years. However, it is known from other sources that all five Dynasties, the 150-odd rulers and 450-odd regnal years alike, must all fit inside the 234 years from c. 1786 to c. 1552 BC: rarely less than two series, and sometimes three series of rulers are known to have reigned contemporaneously.[40]
THE EARLY DATE (15th
CENTURY DATE)
The evidence for the early date (15th century) is based upon the comments of the author of 1 Kings 6:1. The following citation is the crux of determining the date of the Exodus:
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 (1 Kings 6:1).[41]
I Kings 6:1 states that Solomon began to build the
temple in the fourth year of his reign—480 years after the Exodus. The dates
for Solomon’s reign are generally assigned to 971-931 BC.[42] Armstrong and Finegan write:
There is more reason to accept the literal
accuracy of the statements concerning the length of their reigns. While the
forty-year figure again gives every evidence of a scheme, it is likely that it
is very close to the actual figure in each case. On this basis, David’s reign
over Judah would have begun ca. 1010 BC and Solomon over all Israel.[43]
The other text that is crucial to the early date is Judges 11:26:
“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?” This Scripture may be correlated with 1 Kings 6:1. In Judges 11:26,
Jephthah (ca. 1100 BC) states that the Israelites had lived in the Transjordan
for three hundred years. Thus the Conquest would be dated ca. 1400 BC and the
Exodus ca. 1450 BC.[44]
The early date is established upon biblical chronology.
Egyptian Evidence
The Egyptian
evidence is founded upon the Generally Accepted Dates assigned to Egyptian
chronology. Shea, as mentioned above,
bases his view of an 18th dynasty Exodus upon the so-called
historical data, which appears to uphold a 15th-century date for the
Exodus. The Pharaohs of this period must be dated as accurately as possible
before an attempt is made to associate the biblical events with them. The
following chronological time frames are the Generally Accepted Dates for the
various Dynasties with their kings.[45]
Even though this author (Dallas Burdette) considers the dates to be incorrect,
nevertheless, this author employs these dates in the following analysis.[46] The chronology of the 18th
Dynasty (1550-1295 BC; Shea, 1550-1295 BC) has been established by using three
types of data: (1) Sothic cycle dates, (2) new moon dates, and (3) the highest
numbered regnal years attested for each of the kings who ruled during this
period.[47]
The following analysis is based on Shea’s article—Date of the Exodus.
Moses was eighty years old when he went to negotiate with Pharaoh.
Adding these years to the date of 1450 for the Exodus, then the date for the
birth of Moses would be 1530. According to Shea, the Sothic cycle and the total
number of regnal years known for Amenhotep I would place his reign from 1553 to
1532.[48]
Since Aaron was three years older than Moses, it seems that the death decree
was not in effect during the latter reign of Amenhotep I. Thus Thutmose I would
be the Pharaoh who proclaimed the death decree. This assessment is based on the
GAD of Egyptian chronology, not the reconstruction of Egyptian chronology as
proposed by Velikovsky and Courville.
It is possible that Hatshepsut was the daughter who rescued Moses (see Exodus 2:1-10). If Moses was born c. 1530, then
Hatshepsut’s father would have been the one to order the death of all male
babies. Moses would have grown up during the reigns of Thutmose I and Thutmose
II (Hatshepsut’s husband).[49] Since Moses fled Egypt when he was forty
years old (Acts 7:23), then it was late in the reign of Hatshepsut (Shea,
1504-1482) and her coregent Thutmose III (Shea, 1504-1450) that Moses returned
to Egypt.[50]
The most significant information that has come down is that he died in
the Reed Sea at the time of the Exodus.[51]
The date of his death is recorded in the biography of Amenemhab, who served in
the Egyptian navy under several Pharaohs.[52]
The coregency of Thutmose II and Amenhotep II should be taken into
account. Amenhotep II was the son of Thutmose II. Amenemhab, after giving the
date of Thutmose II’s death, describes the coronation of Amenhotep II with a
reference to the beheading of foreign chiefs brought back to Egypt as captives.[53]
If Amenhotep II held the Hebrews responsible for the death of his father (He
was from Egypt at the time of the Exodus.), this factor would possibly explain
his reference to 3,600 Apiru[54]
brought back to Egypt from his campaigns in Syro-Palestine.[55]
As noted above, Horn sets forth 1 Kings 6:1 and Judges 11:26 to give credence to the late date (15th
century BC). It
is also significant that the NIV Study Bible’s Introduction to Judges also
relies upon this passage for an early date for the Exodus. The author of this
introduction writes:
Fixing precise dates for the judges is
difficult and complex. The dating system followed here is based primarily on 1
Ki 6:1, which speaks of an interval of 480 years between the exodus and the
fourth year of Solomon’s reign. This would place the exodus c. 1446 BC and the
period of the judges between c. 1380 and the rise of Saul, c.1050. Jephthah’s
statement that Israel had occupied Heshbon for 300 years (11:26) generally
agrees with these dates.
Some maintain, however, that the number 480
in 1 Ki 6:1 is somewhat artificial arrived at by multiplying 12 (perhaps in
reference to the 12 Judges) by 40 (a conventional number of years for a
generation). They point out the frequent use of the round number 10, 20, 40 and
80 in the Book of Judges itself. A later date for the exodus would of course
require a much shorter period of time for the judges (see Introduction to
Exodus: Chronology).[56]
Hans Goedicke
rejects the biblical data in his postulation of the late date. Rather, his
theory is based upon a volcanic eruption that created a tsunami, which drowned
the Egyptians. He sets forth his presuppositions in the following words:
THE CROSSING OF THE RED SEA in which the
Egyptians drowned was an actual historical event that occurred in 1477 BC. The
miraculous episode took place in the coastal plain south of Lake Menzaleh, west
of what is now the Suez Canal. The drowning of the Egyptians was caused by a
giant tidal-like wave known as a tsunami which swept across the Nile delta,
over Lake Menzaleh, inundating the plain south of the lake. The tidal-like wave
was transmitted by a volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean Sea.[57]
This citation is the thrust of Hans Goedicke’s presuppositions
concerning the events surrounding the drowning of the Egyptians, which is
totally at variance with an eyewitness account. Hershel Shanks summarizes the
so-called findings of Goedicke, world-famous Egyptologist, who postulates the
early date upon new evidence and new conclusions.[58]
His so-called evidence for the early date is not based upon the biblical
evidence, but rather upon his weird interpretation of a volcanic eruption that
created a tidal wave that occurred in the Mediterranean Sea. He rejects the 13th-century
date as not in keeping with other archaeological evidence, which does appear as
sound reasoning. Goedicke believes that the Exodus occurred in 1477 BC, but, at
the same time, he denies the biblical account of the Exodus. Shank summarizes
the basic presuppositions of Goedicke in the first paragraph of his review:
The miraculous episode took place in the
coastal plain south of Lake Menzaleh, west of what is now the Suez Canal. The
drowning of the Egyptians was caused by a giant tidal-like wave known as a
tsunami which swept across the Nile delta, over Lake Menzaleh, inundating the
plain south of the lake. The tidal-like wave was transmitted by a volcanic
eruption in the Mediterranean Sea.[59]
Shank objects to his theories, if I
understand him correctly, since his conjectures go against the bulk of
scholarship that advances a late date (13th century BC). Goedicke’s
theories are diametrically opposed to a massive body of prevailing scholarly
thought. Shanks does not cite, as a whole, the work of Goedicke’s essay, but
rather, he paraphrases the substance of his arguments.[60]
One cannot argue with every statement of Goedicke, because some of his
arguments are in harmony with the Genesis and the Exodus accounts of the
background preceding the Exodus and immediately following. But, on the other
hand, one cannot agree with his wild conjectures—no evidence—about what really
happened. He refuses to consider the eyewitness testimony of Moses who records
the events surrounding the Exodus.
In the following analysis, Shanks examines
the basic concepts postulated by Goedicke as follows: (1) The Pharaoh of the
Exodus was a woman—Hatshepsut, who ruled Egypt from 1487 BC to 1468 BC;[61]
(2) the Israelites were invited to Egypt through the mediation of one of the
group’s members—Joseph; (3) one of the chancellors of Egypt was none other than
Jacob who was chancellor to a Semite (Hykos) king named Apophis;[62]
(4) Pithom cannot be identified with Tell Mashkhuta, but Tell el-Rataba, which
dates to the Middle Bronze Age II (1700 BC—1500 BC);[63]
(5) the store cities of Ra’amezez is incorrectly equated with Pi-Ramesses, the
residence of the Ramessides. He affirms that the construction mentioned in the
Bible is generally associated with the reign of Ramesses II who ruled from 1290
BC to 1224 BC, which he says is incorrectly read from the biblical text. If the
Exodus people built Pi-Ramesses, it is obvious that the Exodus must have
occurred in the 13th century BC.[64]
(6) The store cites of Ra’amezez cannot be identified with Pi-Ramesses, the
residence of the Ramessides.[65]
The identification is impossible phonetically. When the royal residence is
always referred to, the royal name is always connected with the Egyptian word pr, meaning “house” or “residence.” The
reference is always in the form per Ramesses;[66]
(7) another reason why the Exodus could not have occurred in the 13th
century is that the earliest reference to Israel outside the Bible is in the
Merneptah stele.[67]
Merneptah was the successor of Ramesses II. This stele records his military
achievements to the fifth year of his reign (1219 BC). By that time Israel had
become a significant people, a 13th century Exodus would not allow
enough time for Israel to become numerous;[68]
(8) by looking for the cause of the flash flood, one will find evidence for
dating the Exodus.[69]
Goedicke, instead of accepting the biblical
account, believes that “The miracle of the Sea” must be seen as a “real
experience and not simply from literary imagination.”[70]
This statement is true. The miracle of the Sea is not a fiction; it actually
happened. But, on the other hand, he refuses to accept the account of Moses—who
was there. Instead he postulates that the destruction of the Egyptians came
about as a result of a volcano, which erupted about 1475 BC on the island of
Thera/Santorini, thirty miles north of Crete.
This eruption, according to Goedicke, triggered a huge tidal-like wave
(called a tsunami) that drowned Knossos. Then this tsunami reached the Nile
Delta and flooded it (621 miles away from the volcano eruption).[71]
Following this devastation, the tsunami passed through the shallow Lake
Menzaleh and drowned the Egyptians waiting to confront the Israelites.[72]
Shanks concludes his paraphrase of Goedicke’s conclusions:
At this tense moment, when destruction seemed
imminent, a miracle happened. Caused by an outbreak of the volcano Thera, a
tidal-like wave rolled through the southeastern Mediterranean, passing through
Lake Menzaleh and filling the plain where the Egyptians were encamped. In the
early morning hours of a spring day in 1477 BC. Professor Goedicke concludes, the earth
did not “swallow up the footprints” of those who had opposed Hatshepsut as she
claimed, but instead the pharaoh’s troops were drowned, “And Israel was born in
the ‘miracle of the Sea,” the theophany of its God.”[73]
When something novel is advanced, it appears that the more outlandish
one’s presuppositions happen to be, someone will accept the theory as if it
were true. One such writer and scholar is Ian Wilson. In his commentary on
Exodus, he expresses the views of Goedicke.[74]
Wilson gives documented evidence as to the effects that a volcanic eruption
generates, which appears to give credence to Goedicke. But this proves nothing
except the fact that a volcano erupted on an Island north of Crete. In
conjunction with Goedicke’s hypothesis, Wilson draws attention to the volcanic
activities of Mount St. Helens.[75]
Yet, his presuppositions are not supported by an eyewitness account of what
actually happened in 1446 BC. He, like Goedicke, does not accept the biblical
account. For example, Moses, an eyewitness and a participant, writes:
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the
sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and
turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the Israelites went through the
sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their right and on their left. 23
The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and
horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down
from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into
confusion. 25 He made the
wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the
Egyptians said, “Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for
them against Egypt.” 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out
your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and
their chariots and horsemen.” 27 Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its
place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the LORD swept them into the
sea. 28 The water flowed
back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had
followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. 29 But
the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on
their right and on their left. 30 That
day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the
Egyptians lying dead on the shore. 31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD
displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust
in him and in Moses his servant (Exodus 14:21-31).
Goedicke, almost nonchalantly, comments on the “pillar of cloud” and the “pillar of fire” as associated with a phenomenon to the north of Egypt, not with the supernatural from God. He writes:
In Exouds 13:21-22 and in Exodus 14:19 we
learn that a “pillar of cloud” by day and a “pillar of fire” by night stood
before the departing Israelites. These two signs are of a conspicuously
volcanic nature. Moreover, these phenomena stood in front of the emigrants
moving north. It is thus necessary to look for the source of the volcanic
phenomena somewhere to the north of Egypt, that is, in the Mediterranean Basin.[76]
He seems not to make a distinction between the two phenomena—“pillar of cloud” and the “pillar of fire.” One cannot help but wonder how the “pillar of cloud” (volcanic ash) from the volcano—621 miles from Egypt—managed to settle in front of the Israelites and not in front of the Egyptians. On the other hand, the primary source—the Book of Exodus—gives another account of this event:
By day the LORD went ahead of them in a pillar of cloud to guide them on their way and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light, so that they could travel by day or night. 22 Neither the pillar of cloud by day nor the pillar of fire by night left its place in front of the people (Exodus 13:21-22).
Both “pillars” were to guide the children of Israel in their journey. One guided them by day and the other by night. As one reflects upon Goedicke’s statement about the “pillar of Cloud,” one cannot help but wonder how this cloud of ash from the volcano was able to stand in front of 2,000,000 Israelites[77] and move behind them to protect them from the approaching army of Pharaoh. Moses comments upon this “pillar of cloud” in his Book of Exodus (1406 BC):
Then the angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind them, 20 coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other side; so neither went near the other all night long (14:19-20).
Goedicke wants, so it appears, to hold on to certain things about the Exodus, as recorded by Moses in the Book of Exodus, but, on the other hand, one witnesses his discarding the primary source (Book of Exodus) for his own fanciful theory. One immediately recognizes a hermeneutical inconsistency of the worst kind. Goedicke’s hermeneutics are clearly dictated by a theological a priori (a/-pre\-åo\r-e\'), that is to say presumptive—formed or conceived beforehand.
The editors of Biblical Archaeology
Review invited Charles Richard Krahmalkov to respond to Hans
Goedicke’s article.[78] Just a brief perusal of Krahmalkov’s essay
also reveals that both accounts concerning the origin of the Exodus are
examples of speculation. Neither explanation accepts the biblical description
as recorded in the Book of Exodus. Yet, both men refer to the story in the Book
of Exodus to refute each other’s theories, but then both men discard the
details as given by Moses. Krahmalkov criticizes Goedicke for relying upon his
imagination and not upon the biblical text. He correctly criticizes Goedicke’s
article for his failure to rely upon the data in the Book of Exodus—the
original, or primary, source. He writes:
Let us begin with a fundamental difficulty:
In none of the Biblical descriptions of the Exodus is there anything remotely
suggesting a huge wave. One may of course respond that the Biblical accounts
were written long after the event and, as a result, misunderstand or
misrepresent what actually occurred in what was, even then, a remote antiquity.
But among the biblical descriptions, at least one is a primary source describing the great event.
. . . Professor Goedicke insists that there are “no primary sources such as
documents, public inscriptions, or representations which can be connected with
the Exodus account.” He must therefore rely on secondary sources and inferences
from circumstantial evidence.[79]
Krahmalkov is correct in calling attention to
the biblical descriptions as reported by Moses. He then censures Goedicke for
relying upon secondary sources from which he draws inferences from
circumstantial evidence. Then, on the other hand, Krahmalkov incorrectly
nullifies Exodus 14:15-31 with the poetic song eyewitness account that immediately
follows (15:1-10).
He says, “The ancient eyewitness account (15:1-10) must take priority over later Biblical traditions (14:15-31).” He seeks to set aside the narrative
account (14:15-31)
with the poetic account (15:1-10). This explanation is a classic example of liberalism
among the scholars.[80]
Since Moses wrote both accounts, one wonders why Moses would have listed both
accounts (narrative & poetic sections) if he thought that the song
contradicted his narrative version of the Exodus.[81]
Krahmalkov argues for a 13th century date rather than a 15th
century date (as advocated by Goedicke) based on the “poetic song” as reported
by Moses, an eyewitness account (15:1-10). Krahmalkov expresses his disagreement with Goedicke with
the following words:
This poem presents a far different picture of
the Exodus from that inferred by Professor Goedicke. Exodus 15 speaks not of a
huge wave, but a raging storm at sea which claimed the lives of Israel’s
pursuers. Moreover, it places the event not in the 15th century, but
at the end of the 13th century or beginning of the 12th
century BC[82]
Just a perusal of Krahmalkov’s essay also reveals that he, too, has jumped to a number of unjustified conclusions—conclusions not based upon the biblical text, but rather upon his own presuppositions. He then proposes—a position as preposterous as the tsunami—to offer a solution to the problem of crossing the Red Sea:
When the Egyptians overtook Israel encamped
at the sea (Exodus 14:9), they found that their intended victims had already
departed by ship. The Egyptians vowed to continue the pursuit by sea. But while
at sea a sudden storm arose, capsizing the Egyptian pursuit vessels and hurling
horse, chariot and rider into the deep waters with great loss of life (Exodus
15:1-5).[83]
Unlike Goedicke—who postulates a tidal wave theory—Krahmalkov advances
the notion that they boarded ships to cross the Red Sea. One must stand in awe
as he/she reads the two reports, especially Krahmalkov’s criticism of Goedicke
for not staying with the biblical account. One can hardly keep from laughing at
such scholarship. This is somewhat like the “pot” calling the “kettle” black.
Krahmalkov builds his whole theology of the Exodus upon a misreading of the
“Song of Moses and Miriam” (15:1-21). Yet, he is honest enough to admit that his theory is
“pure conjecture,” which one can appreciate.
He candidly admits: “Needless to say, the reconstruction is pure conjecture.
But it is far better grounded in the Biblical text than in Professor Goedicke’s
version.”[84] It is evident that neither author allows the
Scriptural passages to instruct his polemic.
Krahmalkov seems to rely upon Frank Moore
Cross’ essay concerning barges in the stormy sea.[85]
Krahmalkov builds his theory upon the poem (Exodus 15:1-21) and, in essence, dismisses the account
in Exodus
14:15-31. Cross,
too, dismisses Exodus 14:15-31 as from another time period. He develops his arguments for
boats from the poem, not the narrative, which he dismisses. He writes:
The absence of these traditional motifs is
surprising and requires explanation. So far as we can tell, the Egyptians are
thrown from barks or barges into the stormy sea; they sink in the sea like a rock
or a weight and drown.[86]
His arguments for a denial of Exodus 14:15-31 are based upon the Graf-Wellhausen
Documentary Hypothesis.[87]
One wonders where the ships came from that
could transport 2,000,000 Israelites across the Red Sea, plus Pharaoh’s army and
chariots. Once the Israelites got across, did they take some of the ships back
for the Egyptians to pursue them? This theory, too, is just “pure conjecture.”
Moses did not mention anything about ships in the narrative, not even in the
poem. Since Moses was there, perhaps it would be well to read his own account
of how the Israelites crossed the Red Sea:
21 Then Moses stretched out his hand over the
sea, and all that night the LORD drove the sea back with a strong east wind and
turned it into dry land. The waters were divided, 22 and the
Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on their
right and on their left. 23
The Egyptians pursued them, and all Pharaoh’s horses and chariots and
horsemen followed them into the sea. 24 During the last watch of the night the LORD looked down
from the pillar of fire and cloud at the Egyptian army and threw it into
confusion. 25 He made the
wheels of their chariots come off so that they had difficulty driving. And the
Egyptians said, “Let’s get away from the Israelites! The LORD is fighting for
them against Egypt.” 26 Then the LORD said to Moses, “Stretch out
your hand over the sea so that the waters may flow back over the Egyptians and
their chariots and horsemen.” 27 Moses
stretched out his hand over the sea, and at daybreak the sea went back to its
place. The Egyptians were fleeing toward it, and the LORD swept them into the
sea. 28 The water flowed
back and covered the chariots and horsemen—the entire army of Pharaoh that had
followed the Israelites into the sea. Not one of them survived. 29 But
the Israelites went through the sea on dry ground, with a wall of water on
their right and on their left. 30 That
day the LORD saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians, and Israel saw the
Egyptians lying dead on the shore. 31 And when the Israelites saw the great power the LORD
displayed against the Egyptians, the people feared the LORD and put their trust
in him and in Moses his servant (14:21-31).
Another scholar, Eliezer D. Oren, a prominent Israeli Archaeologist,
censures Goedicke’s theories as existing “only in Dr. Goedicke’s imagination.”[88]
Yet, all three scholars—Goedicke, Krahmalkov, and Oren—engage in subjectivity
in their analysis of the Exodus event. For example, the editor of the journal (Biblical Archaeology Review) summarizes
the basic presuppositions of Goedicke, Krahmalkov, and Oren concerning the
location of the drowning of the Egyptians:
Professor Goedicke, a distinguished
Egyptologist and chairman of the department of Near Eastern Studies at John
Hopkins University, placed the drowning of the Egyptians in the eastern Nile
Delta. Professor Krahmalkov place it in the large body of water south of the
Sinai known as the Red Sea. In this issue of BAR, Professor Eliezer D. Oren, a
prominent Israeli archaeologist and chairman of the Department of Archaeology
at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, presents his views. Professor Oren
places the drowning of the Egyptians in the Lake Bardawil area of the northern
Sinai.[89]
Oren deals with the utter foolishness of Goedicke’s arguments in a
forthright manner. One such argument advanced by Goedicke deals with the cloud
and fire, as analyzed above, which followed the Israelites. Goedicke attributes
this phenomenon to the volcano Thera that erupted on an island 30 miles north
of Crete, which was 621 miles from the eastern Nile Delta.[90]
Oren correctly disapproves of this conjecture:
Literary descriptions and “poetical
reflections” aside, it is most difficult to imagine how fire and smoke
emanating from an island hundreds of miles away could be observed not only from
the eastern Nile Delta but also from different localities (at different times)
in the Sinai desert. Let it be remembered, the Israelites experienced the
pillar of fire and smoke as being among them, in their very presence (Even the
eastern Nile Delta is about 621 miles (1000 km) from Thera.[91]
Oren’s arguments against Goedicke’s arguments about the “pillar of cloud” are sound reasoning. The biblical account credits this observable fact of the “pillar of cloud” to an act of God, not to the volcano Thera. Again, one stands in amazement at how the smoke from the volcano (621 miles away) could move from the front of Israel’s army and move to the back in order to separate the Egyptian army from the Israelites. On one side of the “pillar of cloud,” there was light, but on the other side, there was darkness. Hopefully, repetition may be pardoned here, for the priesthood of liberalism, which prevails in many scholarly journals and commentaries by which the truths of God are undermined or openly denied, leavens the minds of many. Moses gives the following note concerning this miracle:
19 Then the
angel of God, who had been traveling in front of Israel’s army, withdrew and
went behind them. The pillar of cloud also moved from in front and stood behind
them, 20 coming between the armies of Egypt and Israel. Throughout
the night the cloud brought darkness to the one side and light to the other
side; so neither went near the other all night long (Exodus 14:19-20).
Again, Oren attacks Goedicke’s over-all
position about the Exodus as “totally confused and has very little to do with
the biblical record.”[92]
Once more, he correctly assesses the tenor of Goedicke’s essay in his criticism
of his position concerning Hebrew builders as “militarily experienced
mercenaries pursuant to a “contractual agreement” with pharaohs who engaged the
Hebrews as frontier guards”[93]:
Fanciful theories aside, the only source we
have for the Hebrew oppression in Egypt is the Biblical text. That text,
however, is very explicit: the Hebrews were subjected to shameful servitude and
compulsory labor in connection with public building projects.[94]
Oren’s analysis is an excellent refutation of Goedicke’s essay. After a thorough analysis of the arguments presented by Goedicke, Oren concludes with the following succinct observation:
I regret to say that very little of a
positive nature can be said about Dr. Goedicke’s hypothesis. It is a good
illustration of how a theory is conceived and formulated on the basis of an
arbitrary and often misleading culling of selective support from various
sources—from the Bible, from Egyptian records, and from archaeological
materials. Above all, Dr. Goedicke lacks first-hand control over any of his
prime source material. Overall, one cannot help but feel that for Dr. Goedicke,
Biblical study, as a scholarly discipline based on explicit textual, stylistic
and linguistic guidelines, is completely irrelevant.[95]
Since liberal chronology does not harmonize with biblical chronology, a brief overview of biblical chronology should shed more light in dealing with the problems of Egyptian chronology. This study sets forth a brief account of biblical chronology in order for one to have some standard by which to judge the correctness or incorrectness of dates assigned to the biblical date for the Exodus. One cannot study biblical chronology without exposure to scholars who deny biblical chronology, as stated above, as well as the genuineness of the Old and New Testament Books.[96] The study of biblical chronology is essential to the dating of the Exodus from Egypt. In one’s study of the Older Testamental writings, one must consider the puzzling question, what Is Liberalism? Those scholars who generally reject biblical chronology also reject the basic Christian doctrines of the church as well as the reliability of the biblical text. Perhaps, the following paragraph explains what is meant by liberal scholarship:
Liberal Protestantism is a modern movement
that reinterprets the biblical and historic doctrines and practices of
Christianity. Reluctant to endorse orthodox doctrines such as the virgin birth,
the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the need for renewal by the Holy Spirit and
the infallibility of the Bible, liberal Protestants are more interested in
adapting religious ideas to modern culture and thought. . . . Following
theologians like Rudolf Bultmann (1884-1976), liberal Protestants insist that
modern men and women cannot understand or accept the outdated teachings of
Christianity in a world so changed by modern science. This is a thinly disguised naturalism—in Bultmann’s case a
strident anti-supernaturalism—which insists that the Bible must be
“demythologized,” freed of symbolic myths such as the atonement or miracles and
reinterpreted to see what Jesus or the Bible’s writers really taught. Biblical Christianity is precisely the story
of a great miracle—the resurrection; this view destroys any real possibility of
belief in God.[97]
Based upon the above definition, liberalism
is the denial of the virgin birth, the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the
infallibility of the Bible, Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the miracles
of the Bible, the atonement, and so on.
This is liberalism!
Liberalism is a denial of the inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. Liberalism denies that “prophecy never had
its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried
along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:21).
Every Christian must be concerned about liberalism. Jesus also confronted liberalism among the religious leaders in
His day:
“But do not
think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your
hopes are set. If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote
about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to
believe what I say?” (John 5:45-47).
To understand liberalism today, one must go back to the seventeenth
century. The modern-day liberal
biblical theology movement has its origin in the writings of Baruch Spinoza
(1631-1677) and Richard Simon (1633-1712)—a Catholic priest in France. La Payrene, a French Calvinist, who
challenged the commitment to biblical infallibility by creating hypotheses that
contradicted biblical teaching, influenced both of these men.[98] During the time of Spinoza and Simon,
another leader arose, Jean Le Clerc (1657-1736), who also questioned the
authorship of the Pentateuch.[99] Le Clerc’s denial of Mosaic authorship was
so radical that even Simon was offended by his proposals. Another liberal, Jean Astruc (1684-1766)
reflected upon the Simon/Le Clerc controversy (1685-1686) as one of the most
intense confrontations in the history of ideas about the Bible.[100]
Even though others, from time to time, denied Mosaic authorship, Astruc
did not. Nevertheless, Jean Astruc
paved the way for later criticism of the Pentateuch (Genesis, Exodus,
Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy).
Up until the second half of the eighteenth century, Mosaic authorship
remained the generally accepted position.
Although Astruc, a French medical doctor, still held to Mosaic
authorship, he laid the groundwork for such men as Graf (1815-1869) and
Wellhausen (1844-1919) in their Documentary Hypothesis, that is to say, the
dividing of the Pentateuch into four sources (JEDP), thus denying Mosaic
authorship. Astruc maintained that
there were repetitions and contradictions in the Pentateuch, and, as a result,
he concluded that Moses used various sources in compiling the Pentateuch.
Originally, the key for sources (JEDP) turned upon the use of the names
“Lord” (J
[Y]ahweh) and “God” (Elohim). [101] To this day the different use of names for
God is the chief characteristic of source splitting, that is, dividing the
Books of Moses into four sources, thereby denying Mosaic authorship. Herbert Livingston calls attention to these
various sources in the naming of the documents:
From Astruc on, the criterion of two divine names, Elohim and Jehovah, has been elemental to analysis of the Pentateuch and the basis for three of the four documents. The sources E and P has the name Elohim, and J had Jehovah; each of these sources or documents has separate histories. . . .
Julius Wellhausen is the scholar generally
credited with resolving the issue of dating sequence. Drawing heavily upon the implications of Hegel’s
postulates—thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in the processes of history—Wellhausen
opted for the sequence JEDP. In his
famous Book, Prolegomena to the History of Ancient Israel, first published
in 1878, Wellhausen argued so persuasively for his position that he won the
day. His theory became standard in Old
Testament liberal circles for more than half a century and still is a powerful
voice.[102]
The Graf-Wellhausen Documentary Hypothesis[103] has had tremendous influence upon modern day scholars. One such scholar is Robert B. Laurin, former professor of Old Testament at the American Baptist Seminary in Covina, California. Thus, Laurin explains that
Three famous sources were used in the formation of the bulk of Genesis through Numbers. The first is called the “J” source because it tends to use consistently the proper name “Jahweh” (usually spelled “Yahweh”) for God; it probably comes from the tenth century BC during the reign of Solomon. The second source is called the “E” source because it uses the name “Elohim” for God, and perhaps comes from the Northern Kingdom of Israel about a century later, that is, in the ninth century BC shortly after the breakup of Solomon’s kingdom. The third source is termed the “P” source because of its dominant priestly interest in worship and law; it appears to have been gathered together during the exile in Babylonia in the sixth century BC . . . The Priestly History comprises Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. Sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem gathered together some of the older narrative sources, particularly “J” and “E.” . . . The motive for the formation of this history was Israel’s own situation. . . . Second, the recognition of sources shows us that the main characters of the Books are the heroes, not the authors, even though a given Book may bear the name of Moses or Samuel or Joshua, this does not mean that it is the product of his hand. The Books are all anonymous, the products of centuries of gradual collection. . . . Thus, scholars have concluded that such expression as “the Lord said to Moses”: or “Moses said” are not indications of authorship, but rather only general formulas to introduce collections of literature.[104]
During this period of skepticism, beginning with Spinoza
and Simon, other men of prominence also stand out as major players in the
development of cynicism regarding the Bible: Voltaire (1694-1778), Hume
(1711-1776), Rousseau (1712-1778), Diderot (1713-1784), Lessing (1729-1781),
and Kant 1724-1804).[105] Another important name that played an
important role in the development of the modern-liberal theology movement was
Johann Philip Gabler (1753-1826).
Gabler was essentially a rationalist, and his approach to biblical
theology prevailed for approximately fifty years. With this rationalistic technique of Gabler, scholars began to
view the Bible as any other Book. No
longer was the Bible the Word of God—it was now just one more Book.[106]
In the mean while, Hegel’s (1770-1831) views were put to use in the
study of the Scriptures. The comments
of Livingston may be added for further confirmation of this statement: “The
views of Comte, father of logical positivism, and Hegel, champion of logical
progression after the pattern of a thesis-antithesis-synthesis sequence, were
particularly influential among Old Testament Scholars.”[107] Livingston explains how Hegelian philosophy
was applied to the Pentateuch:
How then did the Wellhausen theory date the four documents? Since the D document was declared to be written in the seventh century and made public in Josiah’s reform of 621 BC, that document became the keystone for the procedure. It was decided that D knew about the contents of J and E, but not of the Contents of P; hence, J and E were written before 621 BC, and P, at a later date.
Dialectically, the J document, with its naïve
concepts, could be dated before E, and the early phases of the divided kingdom
seemed to provide a good historical setting.
It could be argued that J was the kingdom of Judah’s reaction against
the establishment of the kingdom of north Israel. The purpose of J, then, was to provide Judah with a “historical”
document that would justify Judah’s and Jerusalem’s claim to be the
governmental center of all Israel.
Likewise, E would be the antithetical production of the Kingdom of north
Israel, led by the tribe of Ephraim, to show that there were historical
antecedents in the Patriarchs and in Joshua for the governmental center to be
located in the north.
The theory continued to conclude that after
the destruction of the northern kingdom of Israel, in 721 B. C., broadminded
men during the reign of Manasseh (first half of seventh century BC) felt that
the E document was too valuable to lose, so they blended it with the J
document. This new JE document became a
new thesis and the D document its antithesis.
The thinking of the D document is said to have triumphed, substantially,
during the Exile in Babylon and colored the composition of the historical Books
Joshua through II Kings. However, the
“Holiness Code,” tied with Ezekiel, arose as another antithesis to D; and
slowly, for perhaps a century, the priests in exile and then in Jerusalem put
together the P document and made it the framework of a grand synthesis, the
Pentateuch.[108]
Scholars applied the thinking of Hegel to the study of the Bible. Before the time of Hegel, truth was
conceived on the basis of antithesis.[109] For example, truth, in the sense of
antithesis, is related to the idea of cause and effect. In other words, if anything is true, the
opposite is false. In plain English,
absolutes[110]
imply antithesis. Hegel departed from
the classical methodology of antithesis.[111] No longer did men think of thesis and
antithesis; now, men thought in terms of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.[112] He and his followers shifted the concept of
truth and modern man was born.[113]
According to liberal scholarship, the words of Scripture are no longer
God’s revelation. Thus, there is no
absolute standard by which right and wrong are determined. No longer is the Word of God viewed as the
Word of God, but now the Scriptures are simply looked upon as the words of
men. Scholarship, influenced by Hegel,
forgot that historic Christianity stands on a basis of antithesis. Without antithesis, then Christianity is
meaningless. Without antithesis there
is no way of determining what is right and what is wrong. If there are no absolutes, then who is to
determine what is right and what is wrong?
The Christian view is that God and God alone is the answer to what is
right and what is wrong. God alone is
authoritative. Isaiah calls attention
to the fact that it is God’s Word that is the determinant factor as to what is
right and what is wrong: “To the law and to the testimony! If they do not
speak according to this word, they have no light of dawn” (Isaiah 8:20). God revealed Himself through His Holy Spirit
and the Holy Spirit revealed God’s will through His prophets and through the
apostles of Christ.
In order to understand the impact of the Graf-Wellhausen
Documentary Hypothesis[114]
upon the church today, one must understand something of the time frame within
which the liberals assign to the Books of Moses. Liberals deny not only Mosaic authorship, but also the
authenticity of other Books of the Old Testament as well as New Testament
Books. Again, the question is: What is
the Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis? The
following explanation sets forth in a nutshell the basic theory:
Graf-Wellhausen Hypothesis. A theory concerning the origins of the Pentateuch which, though having numerous antecedents, was most persuasively