Copyright © 1986 by
THE DURATION
OF
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
PAUL J. RAY, JR.
From possibly as early as the LXX (ca.
250-150 B.C.1), there has
been
a tradition that the 430 years in Exod 12:40 (or apparently
rounded
to the 400 years of Gen 15:13) represent only 215 actual
years
of Israelite sojourn in
ing
the sojourn in
verses,
however, appears to indicate that the total years constituted
the
full period of time of the sojourn in
The Jewish historian Josephus (first
century A.D.) provides a
divided
testimony--one time apparently following the LXX, and
thus
associating the rise of Joseph to power as vizier of
the
Hyksos (Dynasties 15-16, ca. 1730-1575 B.C.2), and another time
following
the MT.3 Rabbinic tradition as
reflected in Seder ‘Olam
(second
century A.D.)4 and Rashi (eleventh century A.D.)5 allows
but
210
years for the sojourn in
The NT also appears to be divided on the
subject. In Acts 7:6-7,
Stephen
uses essentially the same wording as the Genesis passage,
which
appears to allocate a full and literal 400 years to the Israelite
sojourn
in
the
430 years extended from Abraham to the giving of the Law,7
1 I.e., if MSS B and h, which
carry this tradition, reflect that early a form of the
text.
2 Josephus,
3 Josephus,
4 Edgar Frank, Talmudic and Rabbinical Chronology (New
York, 1956), pp. 11,
19.
For a list of those who hold this position in rabbinic tradition, cf. H. H.
Rowley,
From Josephus to Joshua (
5Rashi, Pentateuch with Rashi's Commentary, vol. I, ed. A. M. Silbermann
and
trans.
M. Rosenbaum and A. M. Silbermann, (
2,
p. 61.
6 Midrash Rabbah, trans. H. Freedman and M. Simon (
7
points
out that Gal 3:16 says it was "not only to Abraham but to 'his seed"
which the
231
232
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
rather
than representing the totality of the sojourn in
he
appears to be following the LXX of Exod 12:40.8 Acts 13:17-20 is
a
further NT passage that is sometimes seen as having a bearing on
this
question though its reference to "about 450 years till Samuel
the
prophet pertains to a period of time subsequent to the Sojourn.9
Among the Early-Church Fathers there is
also division of
opinion
on the interpretation of the chronology in these biblical
references. For instance, Tertullian supports the short
chronology,
whereas
Hippolytus favors the long one.11
Since different versions of the OT have
carried these two tradi-
tions,
and commentators have aligned themselves accordingly to one
tradition
or the other, it is necessary to examine the various ancient
texts,
in order to discover the preferable reading.
It is also necessary
to
take a look at the history, archaeology, and other biblical data
which
may have some bearing on the text, so as to ascertain the best
setting
for the events dealt with in Gen 15:13-21 and Exod 12:40.
Depending on the interpretation given to
the 400 (430) years,
the
events of Gen 15 happened either during Middle Bronze Age I
(2200-1950
B.C.) or during Middle Bronze Age IIA (1950-1800 B.C.)--
or
more specifically, about 2095 B.C. or. 1880 B. C., respectively.
Therefore,
Abraham came to
Dynasty
(ca. 2112-2004 B.C.) or during the First Dynasty of Babylon
(ca.
1894-1595 B.C.).12 (Through
the years considerable attention has
covenant
promises were spoken; and indeed, just before Jacob went down into
they
were spoken to him for the last time (Gen 46:2-4)--exactly 430 years before the
Law
was given, if the long chronology is allowed.
8 This is disputed by Herman N.
Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the
Churches
of
9 Harold w. Hoehner, "The
Duration of the Egyptian Bondage," BSac 126
(1969):
313-314; Jack R. Riggs, "The Length of
Theological
Joumal 12 (1972): 29-30; James R. Battenfield, "A Consideration of the
Identity
of the Pharaoh of Genesis 47," JETS 15 (1972): 79. On the basis of MSS B, x:
A,
and C, the text should indicate, according to B. F. Westcott and F. J. A. Hort
a,
period
of "about 450 years" (or more precisely 447 years)--i.e., 400 years
of bondage
in
and
Hort, The New Testament in Original Greek
(New York, 1948), p. 276.
10 Tertullian, An Answer to the Jews 2 (ANF, 3:153).
11 Hippolytus, Expository Treatise Against the Jews 6
(ANF, 5:220).
12 The foregoing dates are based on the
Middle chronology for the beginning of
Hammurabi's
reign (i.e., 1792 B.C.), and follow J. A. Brinkman, "Mesopotamian
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
been
devoted to the date of the Exodus, and I have obviously opted
for
an early dating. On this point, see my
further discussion in
“Excursus
A" at the end of this article.)
It will be pertinent to begin our analysis
with the two OT
passages
which are the most relevant to our discussion, Exod 12:40
and
Gen 15:13-21, noted at the outset of this article. The former is
given
within a chronological statement in the context of the account
of
the Exodus itself, and the latter is in the setting of God's ratifica-
tion
of his covenant with Abram, which included both the con-
firming
of the promises of the seed (vss. 13-17) and the land grant
(vss.
18-21).15
I. Textual Evidence on Exodus 12:40
In Exod 12:40, the extent of
the
MT as 430 years (the more exact amount for the round number of
Gen
15:13).14 The major
manuscript evidence for the LXX,15 plus
the
Samaritan Pentateuch,16 supports the addition of "and their
fathers"
to the phrase "the children of
other
ancient versions.17
As
for the time period itself, the 430 years are divided between
Canaan
and
and
in an obelus of the Syro-Hexapla, as well as in all known
manuscripts
of the Samaritan Pentateuch. The
Vulgate, Peshitta,
and
the Targum follow the MT. Although when
the Samaritan
Chronology
of the Historical Period" in A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient
13Gerhard F. Hasel, "The
Meaning of the Animal Rite in Genesis 15," JSOT 19
981):
67-70. See also M. Weinfeld, "Berith,"
TDOT (Grand Rapids, Mich., 1975), 2:
9-260;
and "The Covenant of Grant in the OT in the Ancient Near East," JAOS 90
970):
196-200.
14 The ancient versions follow
the MT for the most part in Gen 15:13-21.
However,
the LXX (all MSS except 82*) adds the phrase "and humble them," to
the
list
of things that will happen to Abram's seed during the 400 years (300 years, MS
79*). There are a few other minor variations that
also affect the meaning of this
passage
very little, if at all. In essence, it
is only Exod 12:40 that has a bearing
textually
on the problem under consideration.
15 MSS AFM a-tv-c2. The fact that the various manuscripts place
this phrase in
two
different locations in this verse would seem to indicate its secondary
character.
16 MSS ABCD4EFG1HINPQW3X1BDCF
(=) dln.
17 Armenian, Bohairic, Ethiopic,
Syro-Hexapla, Eusebius-Chron.
234
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
Pentateuch
and the LXX coincide they are usually considered to be
preferable
to the MT, the manuscripts in this case do not reflect the
exact
same original. They are divided in terms
of their order of
elements,
with LXXB reading "in the
of
Canaan,” whereas LXXh reads "in the
which
occurs in all known manuscripts of the Samaritan Pentateuch.
Interestingly, LXXB also
originally added an extra five years to,
the
sojourn, here and in vs. 41, whereas the other LXX manuscripts,
as
well as the other ancient versions, are agreed on 430 years. This
deviation
of LXXB and the afore-mentioned one suggest that LXXB
is
evidently not to be taken as the original and better reading of this
verse. Table 1 gives an overview of the textual data
on Exod 12:40:
TABLE 1
Summary of Textual
Data on Exod 12:40
Variant
MT Samaritan Josephus
LXX Other Ancient
Versions
Egypt
All known --
(only)
MSS a-gi-
Aeth, O.
tv-c2 Latz
Tg,
Pesh
Canaan & All
known h
Egypt
& Ant.
2.15.2 B Syro-
(obelus)
As can be seen from these data in Table 1,
the majority of the
ancient
texts lend support to the long chronology (for the sojourn in
support
for that chronology, it does indicate a direction of prob-
ability
as to the original. The LXXBh
and Samaritan Pentateuch,
readings
seem, therefore, to be Midrashic exegesis, as is Rashi.18
18 U. Cassuto. A Commentary on the Book of Exodus,
trans.
(Jerusalem.
1967). pp. 85-86. Indeed, Rashi is
somewhat dependent on the LXX (cf.
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
2. Interpretational
Problems in Genesis 15:13-21
With regard to Gen 15:13-21, there are two
interpretational
matters that
have a specific bearing on this investigation; namely,
(1) the
question of who is the oppressor of the descendants of
Abraham for
the "400 years" (vs. 13); and (2) the significance of the
term
"fourth generation" in designating the time of return from
captivity
(vs. 16).
Who
Oppresses Whom?
Although Abraham and his descendants were
sojourners (ger)
in both
Canaan and
record of
their being servants to the Canaanites, or being in any way
oppressed by
them. In fact, these patriarchs were
treated well and
were allowed
to travel freely throughout the land.
It has been pointed out by those favoring
the short chronology
for the
Egyptian sojourn (i.e., 215 years, with the previous 215 years
in
from Esau,
and that Joseph was sold as a slave by his brothers.19
However,
these events or situations were intra-family quarrels and
hardly
qualify for the expression "they will oppress them." That
expression
requires an entirely different entity as the oppressor (cf.
the inverted
parallelism of vs. 13). The Egyptians
are the only ones
who would
appear truly to qualify for this role.
A further indication that the oppression
must relate to the
Egyptian
sojourn emerges from the fact of God's promise to Abraham
in vs. 15
that Abraham would not be involved in these tragedies, but
would die in
peace. Abraham lived for a century after
the events
described in
Gen 15, Jacob and Esau being 15 years old when he died
(Gen 25:7,
26). Oppression to the patriarch's
descendants would
Rashi, 2:61).
It is also interesting to note that it is an anachronism to call Abraham,
Isaac, and
even Jacob himself "children of
and
Samaritan Pentateuch) before Jacob had sons at
name on his
way back to
years
(1913-1880 B.C.)--or the time of Jacob's return to
went down to
to William
H. Shea for this observation.)
19 Cf. Martin Anstey, The
Romance of Bible Chronology (
117; also
Francis D. Nichol, ed., Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary, 1
(Washington,
D.C., 1953): 314.
236
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
have
been oppression to the patriarch himself; and thus, whether
oppression
had come from his own family or from outsiders
Abraham
would have had a difficult time dying in peace if, indeed,
as
the short chronology necessitates, where was already oppression to
the
patriarch's descendants during his own lifetime.
Problem
of the Four Generations
"And in the fourth generation they
will return here" (Gen
15:16). The time reference in vs. 13 is the "400
years"; therefore, the
meaning
in vs. 16 appears to be four generations of 100 years each.
This
length for a generation does not occur elsewhere in the OT, but
this
is possibly so because people in patriarchal times were recog-
nized
as living to be 100 years of age and older, as a general rule.20
However,
there is a more simple solution to this matter.
The
Hebrews,
like other ancient peoples, dated long periods of time in
terms
of lifetimes,21 or the cycle of a person's lifetime,22
the word dor
coming
from a root meaning "to go in a circle."23 This is to be
contrasted
with the word toledot which is also translated as "genera-
tions,"
but in the biological sense of descendants.24 Therefore, dor
should
be seen as a circle or cycle of time, rather than generation(s),
as
both etymology and context would suggest.25
Starting from at least the time of Rashi,26
and using the tradi-
tional
definition of a generation to mean from the time of a man's
birth
to the birth of his offspring, those who have favored the short
20
K. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, The Pentateuch, vol. I, trans. James
Martin, in
Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament.
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1952),.p. 216.
21
D. N. Freedman and J. Lundbom, "dor," TDOT (Grand Rapids,
Mich., 1978).
3:170, 174; W. F. Albright, "Abram the
Hebrew: A New Archaeological Interpreta-
tion," BASOR, no. 163 (1961), p.p.
50-51; and Robert Baker Girdlestone, Synonyms
the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1948), p. 315.
22
R. Laird Harris, Gleason L. Archer, and Bruce K. Waltke, eds., "Dor,"
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament
(
23
William Gesenius, Hebrew and Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament,
trans.
Samuel P.. Tregelles (Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1982), p. 193.
24
William L.
Testament (Grand Rapids, Mich.,
1971), p. 387.
25
Cognates in Akkadian (daru) and Arabic dara) also bear this
out (cf. Freedman
and Lundbom, pp. 170, 172).
26
Rashi, 1:61.
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
chronology
have pointed to Exod 6:16-27, which would indicate
four
generations from Levi to Moses.27
Furthermore, a comparison
with
another four-generation genealogy in Num 26:57-62 would
seem
to strengthen their case. On the basis of these two apparently
rather
weighty pieces of evidence, it would seem that 400 (430) years
would
be far too long a period of time between Jacob's descent into
between
the leaving of Canaan (obviously into
interpretation)
and the return into
There are indications, on the other hand,
that both of the above
four-generation
genealogies of Moses are stylized and incomplete.
Exod
6:14-27, which gives genealogies for Reuben, Simeon, and
Levi,
begins by saying, "These are the heads of their fathers'
houses,"
a technical term for a collection of families (or more
accurately,
kin-groups) denominated by a common ancestor, i.e., a
lineage.28 Also included are the names of such sons as
were founders
of
families: mispahot (i.e., lineage
segments). Thus, stated in another
way,
the names included in this genealogy are "the heads [ra'se] of
the
father's-houses of the Levites according to their families" (vs.
25b--not
each individual. The heads of families,
thus, are: Levi
(actually
the tribal or lineage founder), the first generation; Kohath
(with
his brothers Gershon and Merari), the second generation; and
Amram
(and his brothers Izhar,
generation. However, this is where the heads of families
conclude.
The
name Amram of vs. 20 may be a conflation of the name of
the
Amram who was the head of one of the third-generation families
of
Levi, with the name of a later Amram who was the father of Moses
"and
Aaron.29 There was a tendency
among the Levites to name their
sons
after their forefathers (cf. 1 Chr 6:7-13; Luke 1:5, 59-61). Thus,
several
generations appear to have been telescoped here, with
27
This assumes the validity of basing the fulfillment of this verse on Levi's
genealogy.
28
Keil and Delitzsch, 1:469.
29
Those listed as sons of Izhar and Uzziel, vss. 21-22, are possibly several
generations later, the term "son" thus
indicating a later descendant, with the most
important names listed first in that they appear
in current events surrounding the
Exodus (cf. Lev 10:4; Num 3:30; 16:1). For examples of this phenomenon elsewhere,
cf. Gen 11:26,32; 12:4; 46:16-18, 24-25.
238
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
Amram,
the father of Moses and Aaron, probably being at least the
grandson
of the original Amram, if not even a later descendant.30
(See
Table 2.) According to Num 3:27-28,
after the numbering of
people
in the wilderness in the second year after the Exodus, the
Kohathites
were divided into four families (mispahot).
These
families
of the Amramites, Izharites, Hebronites, and Uzzielites
consisted
of 8600 men and boys (not including women and girls), of
which
about a fourth (or 2150) were Amramites.
This would have
given
Moses and Aaron that incredibly large a number of brothers
and
brothers' sons (brothers' daughters, sisters, and their daughters
not
being reckoned), if the same Amram, the son of Kohath, were
both
the head of the family of the Amramites and their own father.31
Obviously,
such could not have been the case.
The genealogy of Num 26:57-62 is also
incomplete (possibly rep-
resenting
a harmonization with Exod 6). After the
list of eight fam-
ilies
(mispahot), there is a break at vs. 58.
Again Levi, Kohath, and
Amram
are first-through-third generations, respectively. Jochebed is
not
the daughter of Levi, but rather a daughter of Levi--that is,
"Levitess"
(cf. Exod 2:1; the Hebrew of the two verses is the same
bat
Levi).
Further evidence pertinent to the Levi genealogies
may be
found
in the fact that the genealogies of
Ephraim
(Num 26:35-36; 1 Chr 7:20-27) indicate seven and eight
generations,
respectively, 52 for the same or a slightly lesser time
period
than that encompassed in the four-generation genealogies of
Levi
in Exod 6:16-27 and Num 26:57-62. At the very end of each of
these
other genealogies, we find reference to several contempora-
neous
individuals from the three tribes. Thus,
these more-extended
genealogies
of Judah and Ephraim would seem to indicate incom-
pleteness
in the Levi genealogies.
30
An alternative view is that there is only one Amram, thus leaving the parents
of
Moses and Aaron unnamed; cf. W. H. Green,
"Primeval Chronology," BSac 47
(1890): 293.
31
Keil and Delitzsch, 1:470.
32
The genealogical comparisons of this section of the paper (including Table 2)
reflect only the data given in the biblical
text. I am not attempting here to do a
thorough historical reconstruction of these
genealogies, which would of necessity
include all instances of genealogical fluidity;
cf. Robert R. Wilson, Genealogy and
History in the Biblical World
(New Haven, 1977), pp. 27-36.
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
My reconstruction of the genealogical data
is summarized in
Table
2, and further elaboration is provided in Excursus B at the end
of
this article.
TABLE 2
Summary of Genealogical
Data
Gen., Num26:35-36 and I Chr 7:20-27 Exod 6:16-27 I Chr 2:1-20
1
Joseph Levi
2
Ephraim Kohath Perez
3 Shuthelah
Becher Tahan Amram Hezron
(Bered)
4
Eran & Tahath Laadan ? Ram
Caleb
5
Eleadah Ammihud Amram = Jochebed Amminadab
Hur
6
Tahath Elishamat* Aaron*
= Elisheba Nahshon* Uri
7
Zabad Nun* Bezaleel*
8
Shuthelah Joshua*
9
Ephraim
10
Ezer & Elead & Beriah
11
Rephah & Resheph
12
Telah
*Contemporaries during the Exodus and after.
Italics indicate founders of families.
3. Historical Setting
In the previous two sections, we have
dealt with the biblical and
textual
data as well as the interpretational problems which accom-
pany
them in presenting a case for the long chronology. It was
found
that these data allow for such a reconstruction. In the present
section
we deal briefly with historical and archaeological data that
have
significant implications for the "long-chronology" view pre-
sented
here. These relate to the historical
setting for Abraham and
for
Joseph, and to the time of the oppression of the Israelites in
Abraham
The long chronology for the sojourn of
the Israelites in
would
place the birth of Abraham ca. 2170 B.C., and thus would
locate
the events of his first year in Canaan, his visit to
the
events of Gen 15 ca. 2095 B.C. The basic
question to be asked here
240
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
is
this: Are the conditions in Canaan and
compatible
with the narratives in Genesis? Indeed,
the case seems to
be
such that we can answer in the affirmative.
Both
lated.34 In the Negev, there was settlement from the
twenty-first to
the
nineteenth centuries B.C., but not before or afterwards (cf. Gen
20:1,
24:62; 28:20).35 However, in
the central hill country there was
apparently
a sparseness of population, reflected by the fact that
Abraham
could move freely between Shechem and
where
he could pitch his tent and graze his flock as he pleased, as did
Isaac
and Jacob. Archaeological findings
reveal the same condition
particularly
in the interior of
during
the nineteenth century the cities west of the
again
occupied.37 It is
interesting, moreover, that Asiatics during
33
On Shechem, see G. Ernest Wright, Shechem: The Biography of a Biblical City,
(New York, 1964), pp. 110-112; and William H.
Shea, "Famines in the Early History,
of
pp. 151-152.
On
sidered," WTJ 33 (1970): 20-44, and "Traditional Site of Bethel
Questioned," WTJ 34
(1971): 39-50.
34
M. Ibrahim, James A. Sauer, K. Yassine, "The
1975," BASOR,
no. 222 (1976): 51-54.
35
Nelson Glueck, "The Age of Abraham in the Negeb," BA 18 (1955):
6-9;
"Exploring Southern Palestine (The
Desert (New York, 1959), pp.
60-101. Cf. William G. Dever, "The
EB IV-MB I
Horizon in Transjordan and
also R. Cohen and W. G. Dever, "Preliminary
Report of the Second Season of the
'Central Negev Highlands Project,'" BASOR,
no. 236 (1979), pp. 42, 57-58; and
"Preliminary Report of the Third and Final
Season of the 'Central Negev Highlands
Project,'" BASOR, no. 243 (1981), p.
61.
36
Both Gen 12:6 and 21:31 use the term maqom("place")
rather than 'ir ("city")
for these sites, as does Gen 28:19 for
to
those particular times (i.e., MBI for the
former, and MBIIA for the latter).
37
G. Ernest Wright, Biblical Archaeology (
Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A
Historical Geography, trans. A. F.
Rainey (
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
region
with relative ease.38 Thus,
it would not have been difficult for
Abraham
to enter the unguarded borders of
Joseph
If the long chronology puts Abraham in
then
it also puts Joseph in
1991-1782
B.C.), instead of (as with Josephus and tradition) during
the
Hyksos Period. Likewise, it brings Jacob into
Again,
it is necessary to see if this period correlates with what we
know
from the narratives in Genesis and Exodus.
From this point of view, the Beni-Hasan
Asiatics (depicted on a
wall
of the tomb of the nomarch Khnum-hotep III) reflect the time
of
Jacob and Joseph, rather than that of Abraham.39 There is also
mention
of famine during the Twelfth Dynasty.40 These circum-
stances
correlate with the biblical evidence.
According to Gen 37:2, Joseph was sold
into slavery and
brought
down into
according
to my suggested reconstruction, in 1902 B.C., or late in the
reign
of Amenemhat II (1929-1895 B.C.). There is concurrence with
Egyptian
history in that during the Twelfth Dynasty slavery of Syro-
Palestinians
was growing.41 Joseph was
purchased by an Egyptian
official
named Potiphar (Gen 37:36), and was made a domestic
servant
or steward, something which was quite common during the
Middle
Kingdom (Dynasties XI-XII, ca. 2022-1782 B.C.).42
When Joseph became vizier to Pharaoh,43
he was given
Pharaoh's
second chariot (Gen 41:43; cf. 46:29).
This fact may seem
to
pose a problem in that the Hyksos brought the horse (cf. Gen
47:17)
and chariot to
38
Alan Gardiner,
39
Percy E. Newberry; Beni Hasan, Part 1 (
40 Shea, "Famines," pp. 69-71,
l7l-173; Gardiner, p. 129.
41
William C. Hayes, ed., A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the
Museum (
42
Charles F. Aling,
34-36.
43
See J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte (
44
J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archaeology, 3d ed. (
1982), p. 44. For doubts concerning this
longstanding argument, cf. John Van Seters,
242
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
antedating
the Hyksos Period has been found at Buhen in
from
ca. 1875 B.C.45 The wording "second chariot" in Gen 41:43
may
suggest,
of course, that chariots were uncommon.46
Joseph's marriage to the daughter of a
priest of On (
as
arranged by the Pharaoh (Gen 41:45), is also significant. On was
the
center of worship of the sun-god Re, and Joseph's father-in-law
was
no doubt a priest of Re. Although the
Hyksos did not suppress
the
worship of Re, they venerated Seth, who was their primary deity.
If
Joseph had lived during the Hyksos Period, he probably would
have
received a wife from the family of a priest of Seth, rather than of
Re.47 It is also possible that Joseph's land
reforms during the famine
(Gen
47:20-26) may be connected with the breaking of the dominance
of
the great nomarchs of the land by Pharaoh Sesostris III (ca. 1878-
1843
B.C.) at this very time.48
A further argument put forward for the
view that Joseph was
ruler
of
Avaris
was in the Delta, and this is coupled with the fact that Joseph
told
his father to dwell in the
near
him (Gen 45:10).49 However,
the land of
if
it were in a part of
Joseph
resided (see especially Gen 46:29, 31, telling of Joseph's
going
to
Pharaoh).
During the Twelfth Dynasty, the capital was at It-towy
(Lisht),
a site compatible with the conditions of the narrative, which
require
a capital neither too near to, nor too far from, Goshen.50
There
was also a secondary capital, possibly at Qantir.51 (Both the
"
The Hyksos: A New Investigation
(New Haven, 1966), p. 185, and T. Save-Soderbergh,
"The Hyksos Rule in
45
Walter B. Emery,
46
Aling, p. 45. However, a viable alternative is "second" in the order
of
procession.
47
Aling, pp. 45-46; d. also Wood, p. 38, n. 45.
48
Battenfield, pp. 82-84.
49
Nichol, 1:462.
50
Battenfield, p. 81.
51
lbid., pp. 81-82. See also Manfred Bietak, Avaris and Piramesse:
Archaeological
Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta
(
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
[probably
Tell er-Retabeh]52 and Per Ramses [probably Qantir],53
which
were built well before the birth of Moses,54 are probably
insertions
of later names by a copyist to identify
the
storage cities to readers who would not know the original
locations.55)
As can be seen from the above
reconstruction, the Israelite
Patriarchal
period spans the transition between MBI and MBII.
When
MBI came to be recognized as a discrete historical period, it
was
suggested by Nelson Glueck and W. F. Albright that this was
the
period of the Patriarchs.56 Since then, this conclusion has been
disputed
by Thomas L. Thompson and J. Van Seters.57 A recent
survey
of the archaeological data,58 however, supports the position
of
those initial conclusions for MBI as the period of settlement in the
Jacob
narratives belong to MBIIA. It would seem, then, that these
achaeological
data support a biblical chronological framework
based
on the long chronology.
The
Time of Oppression
We turn our attention next to the time of
the Oppression of the
Israelites
after the death of Joseph, when there arose over
new
king who "did not know Joseph" (Exod 1:8). In Hebrew, the
verb
qwm plus the preposition ‘al
often means "to rise against" (cf.
Deut
19:11; 28:7; Judg 9:18; et al.), and as such would not indicate a
52
Alan Gardiner, "The Delta Residence of the Ramessides;" JEA 5 (1918): 268. T.
Eric Peet,
53
Bietak, pp. 230, 268-271, 273, 278-283.
54
John Rea, "The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus," JETS 3 (1960):
62.
55
Nichol, 1:473, 497-498; Aling, p. 95.
56
Nelson Glueck, "The Age of Abraham in the
Desert, p. 68; W. F.
Albright, The Archaeology of
83; "Abraham the Hebrew," pp. 36-54.
57
Thomas L. Thompson, The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives (New
(New Haven, 1975), pp. 104-112.
58
J. J. Bimson, "Archaeological Data and the Dating of the Patriarchs,"
in Essays
the Patriarchal Narratives,
ed. A. R. Millard and D. J. Wiseman (
244
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
peaceable
accession to the throne of a nation.
This statement would,
therefore,
fit more precisely with a situation in which the Hyksos or
other
outsiders were taking over the Egyptian throne than it would
with
the rise of a native Egyptian Dynasty.59 Although possibly, as is
sometimes
suggested, it could refer to Ahmose I (ca. 1575-1553 B.C.),
the
first king of the Eighteenth Dynasty (ca. 1575-1318 B.C.), in
taking
back a throne that was rightfully his, other considerations
seem
to go contrary to this. For instance, in
Exod 1:9-10, the new
king
says: "Behold, the people of the
children of
mightier
than we: come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they
multiply,
and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war,
they
also join themselves unto our enemies and fight against us, and
go
up from the land."
This statement may well have been made
long before
finished
multiplying to the population peak which they reached just
prior
to the Exodus. The Israelites were, in fact, never more numeri-
ous
and mighty than the native Egyptians; but they were indeed so,
in
comparison to the Hyksos, who were never very numerous in
numbers.
If the new Pharaoh "who knew not Joseph" was a Hyksos
ruler,
he could expect war with the Egyptians at any time; and since
Joseph
and the Hebrews had been on friendly terms with the
Egyptians,
he could also expect the Hebrews to join themselves to
the
Egyptians.6o
There are other reasons which support the
suggestion that it
was
the Hyksos who began the oppression of
Ahmose
had been the Pharaoh of the oppression, it would seem
illogical
that the Egyptians would fear the Israelites after the
Egyptians'
successful expulsion of the Hyksos, pushing them back
into
Hyksos
had enslaved the Hebrews, the latter would certainly have
had
no desire to leave with the Hyksos; and since the Jews were on
friendly
terms with the Egyptians, a clear distinction would be
made.61
59 Rea, p. 60.
60 Ibid., p. 61.
61 Ibid., pp. 60-61.
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
It seems, therefore, that the Hyksos were
the ones who enslaved
the
Hebrews.62 They forced them
to build the storage cities Pithom
and
Per-Ramses (cf. Exod 1:11), the latter of which (if at Qantir) has
finds
from the Hyksos Period and earlier (associating it with Avaris)
and
which also has finds from the Nineteenth Dynasty (ca. 1318-1209
B.C.),
including bricks with the name "Ramses," as well as ostraca
which
have the name "Per-Ramses."
These finds correlate well with
the
literary sources concerning Per-Ramses.63
There is no need, then, to try to
circumvent the lack of
Eighteenth-Dynasty
remains at Qantir,64 for it was not during this
period,
but rather during the Hyksos Period, that the Hebrews were
forced
to build these cities. The Hyksos
oppression, therefore,
probably
began about 1730 B.C.65 The
difference between that date
and
1450 B.C., the date of the Exodus, is 280 years. When 40 years for
the
wilderness wanderings are added, the time is 320 years--or "in
the
fourth generation or cycle of time" (cf. Gen 15:16), when
turned
to
Indeed, an even earlier, but lesser period
of oppression can be
seen
as existing at the beginning of the reign of Amenemhat III
(1842-1797
B.C.), or during a possible coregency between him and his
father
Sesostris III,66 since this was the approximate time that
Asiatic
slaves appeared in Egypt.67 This oppression may be dated to
ca.
1850 B.C., in fulfillment of the 400 years of Gen 15:13,68 with a
more
intense period of oppression during the Hyksos domination,
as
mentioned above. Subsequent to the Hyksos domination, the
62
If the tradition in Josephus is correct, the Hyksos did make some people
slaves;
cf. Ag. Apion 1.14.
63
Aling, pp. 66-69; d. Shea, "Exodus," pp. 231-232.
64 Bietak, pp. 236, 268.
65
Rea, p. 61.
66
G. Goyon, Nouvelles Inscriptions rupestres du Wadi Hammamat (
p. 22; James Henry Breasted, A History of the
Ancient Egyptians (
p.160; and W. K. Simpson, "Historical and
Lexical Notes on the New Series o£
Hammamat Inscriptions," JNES 18 (1959):
20-37; and William J. Murnane, Ancient
Egyptian Coregencies
(
67
Georges Posener, "Les Asiatiques in Egypte sous les XIIe et
XIIIe dynasties,"
68
Battenfield, p. 84.
246
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
Egyptian
rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, evidently after a brief
period
of relaxation from the Hyksos oppression, found it to their
advantage
to oppress the Hebrews.69
Thutmose I (ca. 1532-1518 B.C.)
who
acceded to the throne in 1532 B.C., would be a likely candidate
for
the Pharaoh of the death decree,70 If we reckon an Exodus of ca.
1450
B.C. According to Exod 1:15-22 and 7:7, this decree was probably
issued
about half way between the birth of Aaron and the birth of
Moses.
4. Summary and
Conclusion
Ever since the appearance of LXXBh,
with variant translations
of
Exod 12:40, there has been a division among scholars as
whether
the sojourn of the Israelites in
long,
as the variant reading claims, or 430 years long, as the Hebrew
text
gives the time period. Although, along
with Gen 15:13-21, Exod
12:40
is our primary source, evidences other than the variants of the
ancient
translations of the Scriptures are needed in order to reach
decision
with respect to whether the long chronology or the short
one
for the Israelite sojourn in
A comparison of various genealogical data
reveals that while on
two
sons of Joseph, reveal six, seven, and eight generations for the
same
time period, evidencing that there are some missing genera-
tions
in the genealogy of Moses. Thus, this
genealogy in Exod 6:16-
27
should not be taken as support for the 215-year view. The
genealogical
data favor, instead, a longer time period.
The historical and archaeological
evidence also seems to have
closer
correlation with the biblical data if the 430 years are taken to
be
the length of the Israelite sojourn in
the
career of Joseph seem to fit well into the Twelfth-Dynasty
circumstances
in
varying
intensities bridging the reign of Amenemhat III, the Hyksos
Period,
and the Eighteenth Dynasty. Also, Abraham appears to fit
just
as well, if not better, into the twenty-first century, than into the
nineteenth
century. Moreover, not only are the
evidences from these
various
directions compatible with Palestinian and Egyptian
69 Rea, p. 61.
70 Shea, Exodus, p. 233.
THE ISRAELITE SOJOURN IN
history,
but they also seem to provide preferable explanations for-
or,
at least, to avert--some of the problems that arise in connection
with
the short chronology (such as the lack of Eighteenth-Dynasty
remains
at Qantir, and the reference in Num 3:27-28 to 8,600
brothers
and cousins of Moses and Aaron).
In short, the various lines of evidence
would seem to indicate
that
the 430 years should be taken at face value for the Israelite
sojourn
in
particular
reconstruction is tenable and defensible, and that it
deserves
attention as an alternative to the "short-chronology"
interpretation.
EXCURSUS A
DATE OF THE EXODUS
The dating of the Exodus is very
controversial. There are two main
periods
which have been suggested as fitting best the evidence for this
event--one
at the end of the Late Bronze Age I, and the other at the end of
the
Late Bronze Age II. A thirteenth-century
date has been favored by most of the scholarly world, with either a low date of
ca. 1220 B.C. (cf. W. M. F.
1280
B.C. (cf. W. F. Albright, From Stone Age to Christianity [Garden City,
N.Y.,
1957], p. 256).
However, a fifteenth-century-B.C. date is
preferred by other scholars.
These
scholars, too, hold either to a high date of ca. 1470 B.C. (cf. J. Bimson,
"Redating
the Exodus and Conquest," JSOT 5 [1978]: 144) or a low date of
ca.
1445 B.C. (cf. J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus [
p.
199).
I have opted for the fifteenth-century
"low date," as recently modified to
ca.
1450 B.C. by W. H. Shea, "Exodus, Date of the," ISBE, rev. ed.
(Grand
Rapids,
article
are based on this date for the Exodus.
EXCURSUS B
THE GENEALOGIES OF EPHRAIM, LEVI, AND JUDAH
In
Table 2 in the preceding main article, I have summarized my
reconstruction of data from several genealogical
lists: for Ephraim (begin-
ning with his father, Joseph) in Num 26:35-36
and I Chr 7:20-27; for Levi in
Exod 6:16-27; and for
248
PAUL J. RAY, JR.:
to provide a detailed analysis, a few of the
specifics deserve mention,
and this excursus is devoted to them.
Nahshon, the sixth generation from
year after the Exodus and was at that time the
prince or leader (nasi; cf.
Num 2:3; 7:12) of the tribe of
Elisheba (Exod 6:23). Since Levi was Jacob's third son (Gen 29:34)
and at
least presumably married before Judah71
(who took a long time to have a
surviving male offspring in Perez [Gen 38]), it
is unlikely that Aaron would
be the fourth generation of Levi while taking a
wife from the sixth
generation of
least the sixth generation from the sons of
Jacob. It may be noted also that
Bezaleel (Exod 31:2), one of the builders of the
Tabernacle and a contem-
porary of Moses and Aaron, was of the seventh
generation of
Ephraim was the second son of Joseph (Gen 41:52). Taken together,
Num 26:35-36 and 1 Chr 7:20-27 indicate four
family lines for this tribe,
two of which are treated in detail.72
The family of Shuthelah is carried down
for twelve generations into the days of the
Judges (1 Chr 7:21b-24), whereas
the family of Tahan is traced eight generations
up through Joshua, who was
also contemporary with Moses and Aaron. The sixth generation from
Ephraim is indicated as Elishama (Num 7:48), who
was the leader (nasi') of
the tribe of Ephraim at that time. Indeed, it is
possible that the high number
of generations for Ephraim might be explained by
the population explosion
toward the end of the 430 years, or that some of
the names represent the sons
of one and the same individual. In any case,
however, the first generation of
Ephraim himself and the last four generations
are clearly continuous (Num
7:48; 13:16), reducing Ephraim to six
generations, at the most.73
This is
consistent with what we have seen for the
genealogy of
seems to be the case for Levi also.
On
the basis of the above evidence, it would seem plausible that the
genealogies of Levi in Exod 6 and Num 26 are
incomplete. As such, they are
consistent with a view that the 400 (430) years
could refer to the Israelite
sojourn in
accommodate the above data; however, 400 (430)
years would accommodate
those data rather well. It would seem, then,
that the expression "in the fourth
generation [dor]" should be
understood as "in the fourth cycle of time," as
suggested in Section 2 of the main article.
71
Levi and Judah were probably only about 1 year apart in age. In fact, it would
seem that all eleven sons born to Jacob in his
exile, exclusive of Benjamin, were born
within a seven-year period (Gen 29:28-30:28;
31:38).
72
Keil and Delitzsch, The Books of Chronicles, trans. Andrew Harper, in Biblical
Commentary on the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, Mich., 1952), pp. 139-142.
73
Before he died, Jacob prophesied that Joseph's descendants would be fruitful
(Gen 49:22).
There are also six generations from Joseph to Zelophehad for the tribe
of
Manasseh (cf. Num 26: 28-33, 21:1, and Josh
11:3).
This material is cited with gracious
permission from:
SDA Theological
Berrien Springs
http://www.andrews.edu/SEM/
Please report any errors to Ted
Hildebrandt at: