The dating of the Exodus and Israel’s entrance into Canaan is a focal point of Old Testament historical scholarship. The discussion centers around how biblical chronology aligns with Egyptian history and archaeological discoveries. Scholars such as Dr. Bryant G. Wood have presented evidence supporting a 15th-century BCE Exodus, while others, such as David Rohl, propose radical revisions to Egyptian chronology that place Israel in Egypt much earlier than mainstream models. This article offers a detailed examination of the key issues, evidence, and scholarly interpretations.
Biblical Chronology and the Exodus Date
Biblical chronology provides clear temporal markers. 1 Kings 6:1 states that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the construction of Solomon’s temple, which began around 966 BCE. This places the Exodus in 1446 BCE and the entrance into Canaan around 1406 BCE after 40 years in the wilderness. This traditional, conservative view is supported by internal biblical data and corroborated by scholars such as Dr. Bryant G. Wood.
Archaeological Corroboration: Jericho and Hazor
Dr. Wood’s archaeological reevaluation of Jericho challenges earlier conclusions by Kathleen Kenyon. Her assertion that Jericho was uninhabited at the time of the conquest was based on a limited ceramic analysis. Wood found Late Bronze I pottery consistent with destruction around 1400 BCE, aligning with the biblical date. Additionally, the presence of burn layers and collapsed walls matches the description in Joshua 6. Similar evidence exists at Hazor and other Canaanite cities mentioned in the conquest narratives.
Egyptian Chronology and Its Challenges
Modern Egyptian chronology relies on king lists (e.g., Palermo Stone, Turin Papyrus), astronomical data (e.g., Sirius cycles), and the writings of Manetho. However, these sources are incomplete and sometimes contradictory. Manetho’s accounts, preserved only through later historians such as Josephus and Eusebius, are particularly problematic due to inconsistencies and mythical embellishments.
Egyptologist T. Nicklin and historian W. G. Waddell have noted that dynasties may have ruled concurrently in different regions rather than sequentially. This would inflate the total reign years if taken as linear. Moreover, scribes often omitted defeats and modified inscriptions to glorify reigning pharaohs, leading to historical distortions.
The Absence of Egyptian Records on the Exodus
Critics argue that no Egyptian record confirms the Exodus or Israel’s presence. However, Egyptian scribes frequently erased or omitted events that portrayed Egypt negatively. Thutmose III’s erasure of Hatshepsut’s legacy is a prime example. Therefore, the lack of documentation on Israel’s sojourn and departure is not unexpected.
Proto-Sinaitic Inscriptions and Linguistic Considerations
The Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions, discovered in Serabit el-Khadim and dating to the mid-12th dynasty, are sometimes interpreted as early Hebrew. While some characters resemble Hebrew script and Semitic vocabulary, linguistic analysis suggests these inscriptions reflect a primitive Northwest Semitic dialect rather than standard Biblical Hebrew. The debate remains open, but most scholars do not see these as evidence of Israelites in Egypt during this period.
David Rohl’s New Chronology
David Rohl proposes a radical reordering of Egyptian chronology. He suggests overlapping dynasties and reinterprets the 21st and 22nd dynasties as contemporaneous. This adjustment places the Exodus in the late 13th dynasty, during the decline of Egyptian power and before the Hyksos period.
While Rohl’s model aligns with certain biblical passages—such as Deuteronomy 11:4, which suggests Egypt’s army remained destroyed during Israel’s wilderness period—it is speculative and lacks wide academic acceptance. It would require a complete overhaul of ancient Near Eastern chronology, affecting Hittite, Mesopotamian, and Assyrian timelines.
Interpreting Deuteronomy 11:4
Deuteronomy 11:4 emphasizes God’s deliverance and the total defeat of Egypt’s military at the Red Sea. This may be interpreted as theological affirmation rather than a military census. While the text states the army remained destroyed “to this day,” it may not necessitate a 40-year Egyptian military vacuum. Egypt’s strategic withdrawal or focus on internal matters could explain their non-engagement with Israel during this period.
Synthesis: Two Competing Models
Conservative Biblical Chronology (Dr. Wood):
Exodus: 1446 BCE
Conquest: 1406 BCE
Jericho destruction aligns with archaeological findings
Accepts standard but critically assessed Egyptian chronology
Rohl’s New Chronology:
Exodus during late 13th dynasty
Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions possibly Hebrew
Egyptian dynasties overlap rather than follow sequentially
Limited scholarly support due to sweeping changes required
By adhering to a literal biblical chronology and harmonizing it with archaeological and textual evidence, a compelling case can be made for the 15th-century BCE Exodus and conquest. While alternate models such as David Rohl’s are innovative, they remain outside mainstream scholarship. The biblical account, supported by scholars like Dr. Bryant G. Wood, stands on firm chronological and archaeological foundations.
For students of Scripture and history, this debate underscores the importance of a high view of biblical authority and the necessity of critical engagement with ancient sources. As archaeological discoveries continue and chronological models are refined, Scripture remains the ultimate standard for interpreting history.
Archaeologist Bryant G. Wood’s Critical Contributions (1980s-1990s)
Linking Archaeology to Scripture
Dr. Bryant Wood’s Case for 1446 B.C.E. Exodus and 1406 B.C.E. Destruction of Jericho
1. Establishing the Exodus Date via Biblical Chronology
Dr. Bryant Wood’s model begins with a literal reading of biblical chronology. The anchor is 1 Kings 6:1, which records that Solomon began building the temple in his fourth regnal year, 480 years after the Exodus. Many conservative scholars synchronize Solomon’s fourth year with 966 B.C.E., making the Exodus fall in 1446 B.C.E. (966 B.C.E. + 480 years) and, by deduction, the wilderness period of forty years ending in 1406 B.C.E.
This sequence establishes a timeline:
1446 B.C.E. – Exodus from Egypt
1446–1406 B.C.E. – Forty years wandering
1406 B.C.E. – Entry into Canaan, conquest begins
By confidently linking biblical chronology to archaeological strata, Dr. Wood restores coherence between text and fieldwork.
2. Reassessing Jericho
2.1. Kenyon’s Earlier Conclusions
In the 1950s, Dame Kathleen Kenyon excavated Jericho and concluded that the city’s walls collapsed around 1550 B.C.E., aligning with early constraints but not with the biblical date. She identified pottery assemblages she dated to the Middle Bronze II to Late Bronze I transition, but did not tie them to a mid–15th century destruction layer.
2.2. Wood’s Reinterpretation
Dr. Wood revisited Kenyon’s data, arguing:
Pottery Misidentification Kenyon labeled certain pottery as LBI B – transitional—dated ca. 1550 B.C.E. Wood contended that many of the bowl sherds she had aggregated into LBI B were actually Late Bronze I proper (ca. 1400 B.C.E.).
Cypriot IIIB Ware Kenyon largely overlooked imported Cypriot pottery. Wood highlighted the presence of White Slip II, White Slip III, and Base Ring I & II. These are characteristically LBI artifacts, widely attested in the eastern Mediterranean 1400–1250 B.C.E. Their presence indicates that the start of the Late Bronze I occupation—and its attendant destruction—aligns not with ca. 1550 but with ca. 1400 B.C.E.
Stratigraphic Context The collapse layer containing these sherds overlies a transitional phase that Kenyon did not properly isolate chronologically. Wood reorganized the chronology to show the destruction stratum attributed to Joshua corresponds to ca. 1406 B.C.E., congruent with biblical expectation.
3. Supporting Archaeological Indicators
Wood marshals other material culture as corroborating evidence:
Scarabs and Seals The scarab and seal corpus from around that period reflects Egyptian cultural and administrative contact, indicating regional complexity and organized political control during the Late Bronze I period.
Middle Bronze II Continuity A clear occupational gap exists between Middle Bronze II and Late Bronze I in Jericho, consistent with destruction and an interregnum preceding Israelite settlement.
Stratified Pottery Sequence Ceramic typology across levels 2–3 shows a stable transition from Bronze Age to Israelite-relevant pottery, further validating the 1400 B.C.E. horizon.
4. Evaluating Criticism
Dr. Wood’s work faces skepticism, especially from those who favor kenyon’s original chronology or hold to later Exodus dates (like 13th or 15th century models). Critics raise these objections:
Reliance on One Urban Center While Jericho provides a strong case, critics note that broader Canaanite sites haven’t uniformly supported the 1406 B.C.E. destruction—some show no signs of invasion or display different timelines.
Interpreting White Slip Pottery Some archaeologists suggest White Slip I–III persists into the 13th century B.C.E. They argue ceramic assemblages were misunderstood by Kenyon and reinterpreted by Wood, but critics maintain her dating of some WSIII forms holds.
Silence in Neighboring Contexts Some scholars point out that other key towns (e.g. Ai, Hazor) do not show clear destruction layers in the same period, complicating the narrative of a widespread Israelite conquest.
Biblical Chronology Debates While 480 years in Kings has historical precision for many, others argue for symbolic numerology, opening the door to a later Exodus date—again outside Dr. Wood’s model.
5. Implications if Wood is Correct
If Wood’s model is valid, several transformative conclusions follow:
The Bible’s internal chronology is archaeologically dependable.
The Late Bronze I period in Canaan corresponds to Israelite conquest and settlement.
High biblical chronology (15th century Exodus) gains firm archaeological support.
A 1446 B.C.E. Exodus reinforces biblical confidence and invites reevaluation of competing models such as Rohl’s or conventional 13th-century timings.
6. Summary Table
Event
Biblical/Pottery Date
Archaeological Justification
Exodus
1446 B.C.E.
Basing on 1 Kings 6:1–38 and standard chronologies
Dr. Wood’s synthesis of biblical chronology and archaeological data presents the most robust case yet for a literal Exodus and conquest timeline. For those who accept Scripture’s authority, his work demonstrates remarkable alignment between God’s Word and material remains.
However, scholarly caution demands that we continue expanding data from additional sites, integrate region-wide surveys, and test the model in statistically significant ways. Still, Wood’s contribution remains central and persuasive—grounding Israel’s formative moments in tangible history.
1. Dr. Bryant G. Wood’s Chronological Anchor
Dr. Wood’s methodology aligns archaeological findings with the biblical timeline:
Exodus (1446 BCE): Based on 1 Kings 6:1, which places Solomon’s temple construction 480 years after the Exodus and his reign circa 966 BCE. Counting back 480 years sets the Exodus in 1446 BCE.
Conquest of Jericho (1406 BCE): With a documented 40 years in the wilderness, Israel would have entered Canaan in 1406 BCE. Wood reevaluated Kathleen Kenyon’s claims and found credible Late Bronze I pottery in the city’s destruction layer, consistent with this date.
This reconstruction has gained acceptance among those who take a literal biblical chronology and see the archaeological evidence at Jericho supporting the scriptural account.
2. Egyptian Chronology: Strengths and Weaknesses
Mainstream Egyptology constructs its timeline using:
King lists: Sourced from the Palermo Stone, Turin Papyrus, and later Manetho (via Josephus, Eusebius, etc.). Inconsistencies, legendary attributions, and time conflation plague these records—even W. G. Waddell and J. A. Wilson note their limitations.
Astronomical dating: Based on lunar cycles and the star Sirius, which can be affected by interpretive uncertainty.
Royal synchronisms: Tied to neighboring states (Hittites, Assyria), but regional rulers and overlapping reigns are common and not always understood in ancient records.
Such challenges open the door to alternative models like David Rohl’s “New Chronology,” which proposes overlapping dynasties and adjusts the placement of Israel’s Exodus—but it remains a minority view due to the substantial restructuring it demands across Near Eastern history.
3. Deuteronomy 11:4 and the Fate of the Egyptian Army
Let’s revisit the verse you mentioned:
“…what He did to the army of Egypt… how the Lord has destroyed them to this very day.” — Deut 11:4
This reads as a poetic expression affirming a complete defeat of Pharaoh’s forces. Interpreting this as meaning that no army whatsoever existed in Egypt for the next 40 years is a possibility—but not the only one. Other proposals include:
The verse emphasizes God’s covenantal defense and deliverance, not a technical history of Egyptian military readiness.
Egypt may have chosen not to pursue Israel or was otherwise preoccupied, politically or militarily.
15th to 14th century BCE Egypt was indeed powerful, but Egypt’s military strategy might have prioritized internal stability over deep desert campaigns.
Still, this verse does lend a certain weight to the idea that Egypt was significantly impacted in a way that limited their engagement with Israel.
4. Reconciling Biblical and Egyptian Timelines
If one aligns the Exodus with 1446 BCE and the conquest with 1406 BCE (via Wood’s framework), the placement of the Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions becomes clear: they predate the Israelite sojourn by several centuries.
But if one follows Rohl’s chronology—which compresses dynastic timelines—then the inscriptions might coincide with a hypothetical Israelite Egyptian presence. Here’s why that’s anticipated but remains contested:
Egyptian sources are uncertain: As noted, Manetho’s dynasties are fragmentary and sometimes legendary. Synchronous vs. consecutive reigns is debated.
Overlaps vs. sequential dynasties: Scholars like T. Nicklin and Waddell argued that dynasties overlapped geographically and chronologically. Rohl leverages this to align biblical and archaeological events—but mainstream voices remain skeptical.
Biblical markers like Deut 11:4: These strengthen the idea of an Egypt diminished or non-combative for a period—but do not alone demand a new Egyptian chronology.
5. Synthesis: Two Viable Models
Model 1: Standard Egyptian Chronology
Exodus ~1446 BCE, conquest ~1406 BCE (per Wood)
Proto-Sinaitic across the Sinai Basin used by non-Israelite Semites long before
Egyptian kingdom continues uninterrupted; no comprehensive collapse
Model 2: Rohl’s New Chronology
Exodus placed in later dynastic context (13th dynasty overlapping 21st/22nd)
Egyptian military effectively neutral for multiple decades
Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions may then correspond to Israelite presence
6. Conclusion and Witness for Faithful Inquiry
Archaeological and text-critical support for the 1446 and 1406 BCE timeline rests on strong biblical and material grounds.
Understanding Egyptian chronology as fluid and regionally overlapping is wise, but Rohl’s model demands extensive acceptance beyond Egypt.
Deut 11:4 supports an interpretation of long-term Egyptian military defeat—but by itself is not decisive on chronology.
The Proto-Sinaitic evidence, while historically significant, remains linguistically and contextually inconclusive for Hebrew authorship.
In the end, one must weigh the totality of biblical, archaeological, philological, and extra-biblical data. Dr. Wood’s model aligns strongly with the biblical record and offers credible support within current archaeological and chronological frameworks. Rohl’s chronology is provocative and worth further scholarly attention—but it remains provisional and requires broader corroboration.
Egyptian Chronology and Biblical History
Egyptian history intersects with the history of Israel at several key points. Based on a literal Biblical chronology, we establish 1728 BCE as the year Israel entered Egypt, with the Exodus occurring 215 years later in 1446 BCE. Other significant intersections include Pharaoh Shishak’s invasion of Jerusalem during Rehoboam’s fifth year in 926 BCE, King So of Egypt as a contemporary of Hoshea’s reign (circa 732–723 BCE), and Pharaoh Necho’s battle, which led to Josiah’s death, likely in 609 BCE (1 Kings 14:25; 2 Kings 17:4; 2 Chronicles 35:20–24). These dates, derived from Biblical reckoning, differ from those proposed by modern historians, with discrepancies of up to a century for the Exodus, narrowing to about 20 years by the time of Pharaoh Necho. The following discussion explains why we adhere to the chronology rooted in the Bible’s timeline.
Modern historians primarily base their Egyptian chronology on ancient documents such as king lists and annals. These include the Palermo Stone, a fragmented record covering what are considered the first five dynasties; the Turin Papyrus, a highly damaged list of kings and their reigns from the Old Kingdom to the New Kingdom; and various incomplete stone inscriptions. These sources have been organized into a chronological framework using the writings of Manetho, a third-century BCE Egyptian priest who categorized Egyptian rulers into 30 dynasties, a system still employed by Egyptologists today. Additional support comes from astronomical calculations tied to Egyptian texts referencing lunar cycles and the heliacal rising of Sirius (the Dog Star).
Challenges in Egyptian Chronology
Significant uncertainties plague these sources. Manetho’s works survive only through quotations by later historians, including Josephus (first century CE), Sextus Julius Africanus (third century CE), Eusebius (fourth century CE), and Syncellus (eighth or ninth century CE). As scholar W. G. Waddell notes, these quotations are often incomplete and distorted, making it difficult to distinguish authentic material from later corruptions. Manetho’s sources included unreliable traditions and legends that prioritized heroic narratives over chronological accuracy. Waddell further points out that many of Manetho’s reign lengths are implausible, and some names and sequences conflict with monumental evidence (Manetho, introduction, pp. vii, xvii, xx, xxi, xxv).
Moreover, the assumption of strictly successive reigns in Manetho’s dynasties is questionable. T. Nicklin’s Studies in Egyptian Chronology (1928, p. 39) argues that these dynasties often represent concurrent rulers or regional princes rather than a single line of kings ruling all of Egypt. Waddell similarly suggests that multiple kings likely ruled simultaneously in different regions, inflating the total years when interpreted as sequential (Manetho, pp. 1–9). This overlap accounts for the excessively long timelines proposed by some historians.
The Bible places the global Flood in 2370 BCE, meaning Egyptian history must postdate this event. However, modern historians often extend Egyptian history back to 3000 BCE or earlier, likely due to the chronological issues outlined above.
Egyptologists place greater trust in ancient inscriptions than in Manetho’s accounts. Yet, the reliability of Egyptian scribes is questionable. As historian J. A. Wilson observes, Egyptian inscriptions were steeped in a worldview of divine myths and miracles, and scribes often manipulated chronologies to glorify the reigning pharaoh. Wilson advises historians to approach these records cautiously, ready to revise interpretations as new evidence emerges (The World History of the Jewish People, 1964, Vol. 1, pp. 280–281).
Lack of Egyptian Records About Israel
The absence of Egyptian records mentioning Israel’s 215-year sojourn or the Exodus is unsurprising. Egyptian scribes routinely omitted events that reflected poorly on their nation and even erased records of prior rulers if they were unfavorable to the current pharaoh. For example, after Queen Hatshepsut’s death, Thutmose III ordered her name and images removed from monuments. This practice likely explains the lack of Egyptian documentation of Israel’s presence or departure.
The Bible does not name the pharaoh of the Exodus, leaving identification speculative. This contributes to the wide range of dates proposed by modern historians for the Exodus, spanning from 1441 to 1225 BCE—a variance of over 200 years.
Conclusion
By adhering to a literal Biblical chronology, we establish a timeline that aligns with the Scriptural account, placing the Exodus in 1446 BCE and other events accordingly. The uncertainties in Egyptian records, including fragmented sources, concurrent reigns, and scribal biases, underscore the reliability of the Bible’s chronology as a foundation for understanding these historical intersections.
EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220+ books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).
SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW
BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM
BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION
