From the Call of Abraham to the Exodus (Heb. text)
215 + 430 = 645 years
From the Flood to the Call of Abraham (Heb. text) 365 "
From the Creation of Man to the Flood (Heb. text) 1656 "
----
From the Creation of Man to the Exodus (Heb. text) 2666 "
On these figures the following remarks may be made:--(i.) In Genesis the
chronology of the Priestly Narrative ("P") is not consistent with the
chronology of the other parts of the book ("JE"). Three or four
illustrations will suffice: (a) The author of Gen. xii. 10-20 evidently
pictures Sarai as a comparatively young woman, yet according to P (xii.
4, xvii. 17) she was 65 years old. (b) In Gen. xxi. 15 it is clearly
implied that Ishmael has been carried by his mother, yet according to
xvi. 16, xxi. 5, 8, he must have been at least 15 years old. (c) In Gen.
xxvii. Isaac is to all appearance on his death-bed (cf. ver. 2), yet
according to P (xxv. 26, xxvi. 34, xxxv. 28) he survived for _eighty_
years, dying at the age of 180. Ussher and others, arguing back from the
dates in xlvii. 9, xlv. 6, xli. 46, xxxi. 41, infer that Jacob's flight
to Haran took place in his 77th year. This reduces the 80 years to 43
years, though that is scarcely less incredible. It involves, moreover,
the incongruity of supposing that _thirty-seven_ years elapsed between
Esau's marrying his Hittite wives (xxvi. 34) and Rebekah's expressing
her apprehensions (xxvii. 46) lest Jacob, then aged seventy-seven,
should follow his brother's example. (d) In Gen. xliv. 20 Benjamin is
described as a "little one"; in P, almost immediately afterwards (xlvi.
21), he appears as the father of ten sons; for a similar anomaly in
xlvi. 12, see the _Oxford Hexateuch_, i. p. 25n. (ii.) The ages to which
the various patriarchs lived (Abraham, 175; Isaac, 180; Jacob, 147),
though not so extravagant as those of the antediluvian patriarchs, or
(with one exception) as those of the patriarchs between Noah and
Abraham, are much greater than is at all probable in view of the
structure and constitution of the human body. (iii.) The plain intention
of Ex. xii 40, 41 is to describe the Israelites as having dwelt in Egypt
for 430 years, which is also in substantial agreement with the earlier
passage, Gen. xv. 13 ("shall sojourn in a land that is not theirs, ...
and they shall afflict them 400 years"). It does not, however, accord
with other passages, which assign only four generations from Jacob's
children to Moses (Ex. vi. 16-20; Num. xxvi. 5-9; cf. Gen. xv. 16), or
five to Joshua (Josh. vii. 1); and for this reason, no doubt, the Sam.
and LXX. read in Ex. xii. 40, "The sojourning of the children of Israel
in the land of Egypt, _and in the land of Canaan_, was 430 years,"
reducing the period of the sojourn in Egypt to half of that stated in
the Hebrew text, viz. 215 years. This computation attained currency
among the later Jews (Josephus and others; cf. the "400 years" of Gal.
iii. 17). The forced and unnatural rendering of Ex. xii. 40 in the A.V.
(contrast R.V.), which was followed by Ussher, is intended for the
purpose of making it possible. From the facts that have been here
briefly noted it must be evident how precarious and, in parts, how
impossible the Biblical chronology of this period is. (iv.) It has been
observed as remarkable that 2666, the number of years (in the Hebrew
text) from the Creation of Man to the Exodus, is, in round numbers, just
two-thirds of 4000; and the fact has suggested the inference that the
figure was reached by artificial computation.
_The Date of the Exodus._--Is it possible to determine this, even
approximately, upon the basis of external data? (i.) The correspondence
between the Egyptian governors established in different parts of
Palestine and the Egyptian kings Amen-hotep (Amenophis) III. and IV. of
the 18th dynasty, which was discovered in 1887 at Tel el-Amarna, makes
it evident that Palestine could not yet have been in the occupation of
the Israelites. It was still an Egyptian province, and the Babylonian
language, in which the correspondence is written, shows that the country
must have been for a considerable time past, before it came into the
possession of Egypt, under Babylonian influence. Now one of the kings,
who corresponds with Amen-hotep IV., is Burnaburiash (Burna-buryas),
king of Babylon, and Egyptologists and Assyriologists are agreed that
the date of these monarchs was c. 1400 B.C. The conquest of Canaan,
consequently, could not have taken place till after 1400 B.C. (ii.) It
is stated in Ex. i. 11 that the Israelites built in Egypt for the
Pharaoh two store-cities, Pithom and Rameses. The excavations of M.
Naville have, however, shown that Ramses II. of the 19th dynasty was the
builder of Pithom; and though the other city has not at present been
certainly identified, its name is sufficient to show that he was its
builder likewise. Hence the Pharaoh of the Exodus is commonly supposed
to have been Ramses (Rameses) II.'s successor, Merenptah (Mineptah).
Egyptian chronology is unfortunately imperfect; but Professor Petrie,
who has paid particular attention to the subject, and who assigns the
reign of Amen-hotep IV. to 1383-1365 B.C., assigns Ramses II. to
1300-1234 B.C.[31] In Merenptah's fifth year the Delta was invaded by a
formidable body of Libyans and other foes;[32] and it has been
conjectured that the Israelites took the opportunity of escaping during
the unsettlement that was thus occasioned.
Alternative dates for Ramses II.: Maspero, _The Struggle of the
Nations_ (1897), p. 449, c. 1320-1255; Breasted (1906), 1292-1225;
Meyer (1909), 1310-1244. Attempts have been made to identify the
Khabiri, who are mentioned often in the Tel el-Amarna letters as foes,
threatening to invade Palestine and bring the Egyptian supremacy over
it to an end, with the Hebrews. The Exodus, it has been pointed out,
might then be placed under Amen-hotep II. (1448-1420 B.C., Breasted;
1449-1423, Petrie), the successor of Thothmes, and more time would be
allowed for the events between the Exodus and the time of David (c.
1000), which, if the date given above be correct, have been thought to
be unduly compressed (see Orr in the _Expositor_, March 1897, p. 161
ff.); but there are difficulties attaching to this view, and it has
not been adopted generally by scholars. There may be some ultimate
connexion between the Khabiri and the Hebrews; but the Khabiri of the
Tel el-Amarna letters cannot be the Hebrews who invaded Canaan under
Joshua.
The mention of Israel on the stele of Merenptah, discovered by Petrie in
1896 ("Israel [Ysirael] is desolated; its seed [_or_ fruit] is not"), is
too vague and indefinite in its terms to throw any light on the question
of the Exodus. The context speaks of places in or near Canaan; and it is
possible that the reference is to Israelite clans who either had not
gone down into Egypt at all, or had already found their way back to
Palestine. See Hogarth's _Authority and Archaeology_, pp. 62-65.
2. _From the Exodus to the Foundation of the Temple (in the fourth year
of Solomon_, 1 Kings vi. 1).--In the chronological note, 1 Kings vi. 1,
this period is stated to have consisted of 480 (LXX. 440) years. Is this
figure correct? If the years of the several periods of oppression and
independence mentioned in the Book of Judges (Judges iii. 8, 11, 14, 30,
iv. 3, v. 31, vi. 1, viii. 28, ix. 22, x. 2, 3, 8, xii. 7, 9, 11, 14,
xiii. 1, xv. 20, xvi. 31) be added up, they will be found to amount to
410 years; to these must be added further, in order to gain the entire
period from the Exodus to the foundation of the Temple, the 40 years in
the wilderness, x years under Joshua and the elders (Judges ii. 7), the
40 (LXX. 20) years' judgeship of Eli (1 Sam. iv. 18), the 20 or more
years of Samuel (1 Sam. vii. 2, 15), the y years of Saul (the two years
of 1 Sam. xiii. 1 [R.V.] seem too few), the 40 years of David (1 Kings
ii. 11), and the first four years of Solomon, i.e. 144 + x + y years, in
all 554 years, + two unknown periods denoted by x and y--in any case
considerably more than the 480 years of 1 Kings vi. 1. This period might
no doubt be reduced to 480 years by the supposition, in itself not
improbable, that some of the judges were local and contemporaneous; the
suggestion has also been made that, as is usual in Oriental
chronologies, the years of foreign domination were not counted, the
beginning of each judge's rule being reckoned, not from the victory
which brought him into power, but from the death of his predecessor; we
should in this case obtain for the period from the Exodus to the
foundation of the Temple 440 + x + y years,[33] which if 30 years be
assigned conjecturally to Joshua and the elders, and 10 years to Saul,
would amount exactly to 480 years. The terms used, however ("and the
land _had rest_ forty years," iii. 11, similarly, iii. 30, v. 31, viii.
28), seem hardly to admit of the latter supposition; and even if they
did, it would still be scarcely possible to maintain the correctness of
the 480 years: it is difficult to harmonize with what, as we have seen,
appears to be the most probable date of the Exodus; it is, moreover,
open itself to the suspicion of having been formed artificially, upon
the assumption that the period in question consisted of twelve
generations,[34] of 40 years each. In the years assigned to the
different judges, also, the frequency of the number 40 (which certainly
appears to have been regarded by the Hebrews as a round number) is
suspicious. On the whole no certain chronology of this period is at
present attainable.[35]
3. _From the Fourth Year of Solomon to the Captivity of Judah._--During
this period the dates are both more abundant, and also, approximately,
far more nearly correct, than in any of the earlier periods;
nevertheless in details there is still much uncertainty and difficulty.
The Books of Kings are a compilation made at about the beginning of the
Exile, and one object of the compiler was to give a consecutive and
complete chronology of the period embraced in his work. With this
purpose in view, he not only notes carefully the length of the reign of
each king in both kingdoms, but also (as long as the northern kingdom
existed) brings the history of the two kingdoms into relation with one
another by equating the commencement of each reign in either kingdom
with the year of the reign of the contemporary king in the other
kingdom.
The following are examples of the standing formulae used by the
compiler for the purpose:--"In the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of
Israel began Asa to reign over Judah. And forty and one years reigned
he in Jerusalem" (1 Kings xv. 9, 10). "In the third year of Asa king
of Judah began Baasha the son of Ahijah to reign over all Israel in
Tirzah (and reigned) twenty and four years" (_ibid._ ver. 33).
In these chronological notices the lengths of the reigns were derived,
there is every reason to suppose, either from tradition or from the
state annals--the "book of the chronicles of Israel" (or "Judah"), so
constantly referred to by the compiler as his authority (e.g. 1 Kings
xv. 23, 31, xvi. 5); but the "synchronisms"--i.e. the corresponding
dates in the contemporary reigns in the other kingdom were derived, it
is practically certain, by computation from the lengths of the
successive reigns. Now in some cases, perhaps, in the lengths of the
reigns themselves, in other cases in the computations based upon them,
errors have crept in, which have vitiated more or less the entire
chronology of the period. The existence of these errors can be
demonstrated in two ways: (1) The chronology of the two kingdoms is not
consistent with itself; (2) the dates of various events in the history,
which are mentioned also in the Assyrian inscriptions, are in serious
disagreement with the dates as fixed by the contemporary Assyrian
chronology.
(1) That the chronology of the two kingdoms is inconsistent with itself
is readily shown. After the division of the kingdom the first year of
Jeroboam in Israel coincides, of course, with the first year of Rehoboam
in Judah; and after the death of Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah
in battle with Jehu (2 Kings ix. 24, 27), the first year of Jehu in
Israel coincides similarly with the first year of Athaliah in Judah;
there are thus in the history of the two kingdoms two fixed and certain
synchronisms. Now, if the regnal years of the kings of Israel from
Jeroboam to Jehoram be added together, they will be found to amount to
98, while if those of the kings of Judah for the same period (viz. from
Rehoboam to Ahaziah) be added together, they amount only to 95. This
discrepancy, if it stood alone, would not, however, be serious. But when
we proceed to add up similarly the regnal years in the two kingdoms from
the division after Solomon's death to the fall of Samaria in the sixth
year of Hezekiah (2 Kings xviii. 10), we find in the southern kingdom
260 years, and in the northern kingdom only 241 years 7 months. This is
a formidable discrepancy. Ussher, in order to remove it, has recourse to
the doubtful expedient of artificially lengthening the northern series
of years, by assuming (without any authority in the text) an
"interregnum of 11 years" after the death of Jeroboam II., and an
"anarchy for some years" between Pekah and Hoshea (see the margin of
A.V. at 2 Kings xiv. 29; xv. 8, 29).