A Book Analysis of “The Exodus: Myth History?” (Part 2)–More Chronological Questions!

In my previous post, I began to go through David Rohl’s book, The Exodus: Myth or History, by plotting out some of the main issues that need to be addressed when looking at the question of the historicity of the Exodus. Let me recap in the simplest terms. When it comes to dating the Exodus, there are two suggested dates:

(A) Mid-13^th century (circa 1246 BC)—That is largely based on Exodus 1:11 that says the Hebrew slaves built the storage cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesse. That connects the Exodus to the reign of Rameses II, who reigned from 1279-1213 BC. The problem with that date, quite simply, is there is just no archeological evidence that shows a Semitic population living in Egypt in the 13^th-14^th centuries, or any kind of event in the 13^th century resembling the Exodus, or any kind of “conquest of Canaan” happening in the 12th century, when Joshua’s Conquest would have had to occur.

(B) Mid-15^th century (circa 1446 BC)—That is based on I Kings 6:1 that says Solomon began building the Temple in Jerusalem in the fourth year of his reign, 480 years after the Israelites came out of Egypt. Due to the dating of the Israelite chronology, that would place Solomon’s building of the Temple to 966 BC, and hence the Exodus to 1446 BC. The seeming problem with that, though, is that Rameses II didn’t reign in the mid-15^th century. That being said, if the Exodus is dated to 1446 BC, that would make the Pharaoh at that time Thutmose III (reigned 1479-1425 BC).

And that is where I left off. As a spoiler alert, I am convinced that 1446 BC is the correct date of the Exodus. I haven’t yet, though, addressed the question of archeological evidence regarding the Exodus at that time, or the archeological evidence regarding the Patriarchs and the Conquest in the time periods stemming from a 1446 BC date for the Exodus. I’m getting there. Before I get there, though, there’s a bit more stuff we need to cover regarding further chronological problems. So, let’s dive in!

Shishak of Egypt in I Kings 14/II Chronicles 12
A key element in trying to figure out a coherent chronology for the Old Testament that adequately corresponds with what we know about the surrounding nations of the ancient Near East is that of trying to figure out the identity of King Shishak of Egypt mentioned in I Kings 14:25-26 and II Chronicles 12:1-9. In a nutshell, those passages tell us that Shishak invaded Judah in the fifth year of King Rehoboam and plundered the Temple. Given what we know about the Old Testament chronologies of the kings of Israel and Judah, we know that Rehoboam ascended to the throne when Solomon died in 930 BC. Therefore, that would mean Shishak’s attack would have happened in 925 BC.

So, the simple question is, “Who was Shishak?” Long story short, the generally accepted answer is that the biblical Shishak refers to Pharaoh Shoshenk I of the 22^nd Dynasty, which is dated between 945-715 BC. After all, we have his own records about his campaign into Canaan in his 20^th year as king, in which he mentions “Judah the Kingdom.” There you go! Cased closed! Put all that together and you get Shoshenk’s campaign into Canaan in his 20^th year, which was Rehoboam’s fifth year, which was 925 BC. Thus, Shoshenk came to the throne in Egypt in 945 BC. It’s amazing how easily one can start figuring things out when you have just one or two fixed dates to hang your hat on!

There’s just one little problem with all that, though—well, two actually. First, Rohl argues that the phrase that was thought to say, “Judah the Kingdom,” actually says, “The hand of the king” (in the original language, the two phrases are similar), and thus it wasn’t referring to the kingdom of Judah, but rather to a commemorative monument that he set up in (wait for it!) northern Israel. Second, we know this because all the other cities mentioned that he took during the campaign were in northern Israel. According to Shoshenk’s own records, his campaign into Canaan involved taking some cities south of Judah and some cities north of Judah (in the northern kingdom of Israel), but he did not venture into the kingdom of Judah! Simply put, Shoshenk’s campaign was not the same campaign as Shishak’s—they’re not the same person.

That is more than just a curious thing, for as it turns out, the entire Egyptian chronology in relation to the Israelite chronology hinges on identifying Shishak with Shoshenk I. 925 BC was that “fixed peg” upon which scholars extrapolated the rest of the Egyptian chronology around. And here is where things get really interesting. Again, there is more in the book to what I’m going to say here, but Rohl argues that the Shishak in I Kings 14/II Chronicles 12 is none other than Rameses II. Essentially, in the Egyptian language, our name “Rameses” is actually Riamashisha—and thus “Shishak” was essentially a nickname based off the second half of Riamashisha.

Identifying Shishak with Rameses II, therefore, completely changes the entire Egyptian chronology by about 200-300 years. Instead of reigning in the 1200s, Rameses II would have reigned in the 900s. As for Shoshenk I, Rohl argues that he would have reigned in the 800s, and thus his campaign into northern Israel was to retake certain cities in Israel that had been sacked by Aram in that 9^th century. He points out Shoshenk would have been the “savior” mentioned in II Kings 13:3-5 who “saved Israel” from Aram’s attacks.

Instead of trying to explain the difference between the “old chronology” that has been generally accepted in academia and Rohl’s proposed “new chronology,” I will just share the visual charts from the books for you to look at. As you can tell, not only are the dates for the various dynasties different, but the “old chronology” has two major “intermediate” periods in which it doesn’t specify when the various smaller dynasties reigned.

The reason for that is simple: the Egyptian dates for those dynasties are really, really murky! The Egyptian 18^th, 19^th, and 20^th Dynasties are charted out with a certain amount of specificity because they are all based off of the two assumptions that (A) Rameses II was the pharaoh during the Exodus, and (B) Shishak is Shoshenk I. But the further away scholars get from those Dynasties, they realize things get really murky, so they essentially through a whole bunch of other dynasties into the “bookend buckets” of the Second Intermediate Period and Third Intermediate Period. Thus, they are like the two closets in your house where you’ve jammed a whole mess of things that you don’t know what to do with! The mess in those closets is so daunting, you just make sure you never open them! But the cold, hard truth that Rohl is trying to get more scholars to realize is this: If your assumptions regarding (A) and (B) are wrong, then your entire chronological edifice falls apart. You might have to go into those closets and start trying to reorganize the mess.

A Couple More Chronological Bits!
Rohl also brings up two other interesting bits of chronological information that have bearing on all of this (stick with me!). First, Rohl refers the famous Hammurabi of Babylon, who according to Babylonian records, attacked Mari and destroyed the palace of Zimrilim, who reigned from 1540-1526 BC. In the ruins of his palace, archaeologists have found a “gift list” in which it is recorded that Zimrilim had received a gold cup from King Yantin of Byblos (circa 1535 BC). It turns out that Yantin’s overlord was Neferhotep I of the 13^th Egyptian Dynasty. From that, and the list that we have of the kings in the 13^th Dynasty, Rohl calculates that the start of the 13^th Dynasty (and thus the end of the 12^th Dynasty) took place in 1626 BC.

Second (and I found this really interesting!), Rohl points out that in Antiquities of the Jews, by of the Jewish historian Josephus, as well as in the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch, Exodus 12:40 reads differently than in the Masoretic Text (the Hebrew text upon which your English Bible is based). In the Masoretic Text, Exodus 12:40 says that the Israelites had “sojourned” in Egypt for 430 years. Yet in Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch, they all say that the 430 years refers to the “sojourning” of both the Patriarchs in Canaan and the Israelites in Egypt, and that the actual time the Israelites had been living in Egypt was 215 years.

And here’s the kicker that I can’t believe I hadn’t seen before: Rohl points out that the Apostle Paul himself, in Galatians 3:15-17, refers to these 430 years, but says that the giving of the Torah came 430 years after YHWH’s covenant with Abraham…not “430 years since Jacob and his family came into Egypt.” All this, thus, has a significant impact on the historical question regarding the time of the Exodus, the time of the Hebrews in Egypt, the Patriarchs, as well as the time of the Conquest.

If we put all those considerations together, a tentative timeline of events, if we assume a 15^th century BC date for the Exodus, looks like this:

• 1446 BC is the date of the Exodus (based on I Kings 6:1—Solomon began building the Temple 480 years after the Exodus)
• 1406 BC would thus be the beginning of Joshua’s Conquest (based on the 40 years in the wilderness)
• 1662 BC would thus mark when Jacob’s family moved to Egypt (based on the 215 years mentioned in Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch). According to Rohl’s new chronology, this would have happened in the late 12^th Dynasty of Egypt, during the reign of Amenemhat III.
• 1683 BC would thus mark when Joseph first came to Egypt (based on the years mentioned in the Joseph story in Genesis). According to Rohl’s new chronology, that would have happened in the later years of Amenemat III’s father, Senuseret III.

Yes, I realize the names of those Egyptian pharaohs probably mean nothing to you at this point, and the talk of the various Egyptian dynasties is still foggy. But here is what all this comes down to. If these dates are correct, we are now in a position to look in the archeological evidence to see if all this bears out. Is there evidence of a Semitic population in Egypt between 1662-1446 BC? Is there evidence of anything that might correlate to the events of the Exodus around 1446 BC? And is there evidence of some kind of conquest of Canaan that happened around 1400 BC and shortly later?

Wow…it only two me two posts to lay the groundwork. Hopefully, this has been enough to show two things: (1) The 13th century proposal for the Exodus isn’t backed by any archeological evidence and is based on two problematic assumptions regarding Rameses II being the pharaoh of the Exodus, and Shishak of I Kings 14 being Shoshnek I of the 22nd Dynasty; and (2) There does seem to be a valid chronological argument for the 15th century proposal for the Exodus. Now, all we need to do is see if there is any archeological evidence for it. In Part 3, I’ll discuss Rohl’s argument and findings regarding Joseph and the Hebrews living in Egypt…and we might get to Moses and the Exodus itself (although that might not come until Part 4).