New Evidence Supporting the Early (Biblical) Date of the Exodus and Conquest

Share/recommend this article:

Excerpt Evangelical scholars are divided as to when the Exodus-Conquest events took place—some say the 15th century BC, while others hold to the 13th century BC. Continue reading

Related Articles
Like this artice?

Our Ministry relies on the generosity of people like you. Every small donation helps us develop and publish great articles.

Please support ABR!

Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover & PayPal

The Berlin Topographical Statue Base Relief


The chronological data in the Bible, however, clearly indicates that these events transpired in the 15th century BC, the Exodus occurring in 1446 BC and the Conquest 1406–1400 BC (Wood 2008: 100). Now, for the first time, we have evidence from an Egyptian source which supports the earlier Biblical dating.

Ludwig Borchardt

That source is an inscription housed in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. It appears on a gray granite block 18 in (46 cm) high, 16 in (39.5 cm) wide and of unknown thickness since it was cut from a larger piece. According to the Museum’s records, the block, most likely part of a statue base, was acquired in 1913 by Ludwig Borchardt from an Egyptian merchant. Borchardt (1863–1938) was a German Egyptologist who is best known for his excavations at Tell el-Amarna where he discovered the famous bust of Nefertiti, queen of Akhenaten (ca. 1350–1334 BC).


The inscription is comprised of three name rings superimposed on Western Asiatic prisoners, the rightmost of which is only partly preserved due to substantial damage, probably incurred when the block was removed from its original context. Above the heads of the prisoners is a partial band of hieroglyphs which reads “…one who is falling on his feet…” The inscription was first published in 2001 by Manfred Görg, Professor Emeritus of Old Testament Theology and Egyptology at the University of Munich (Wood 2005a). The first two names are easily read—Ashkelon and Canaan. The name on the right, however, is less certain. Görg restored the right name as Israel and dated the inscription to the reign of Ramesses II (ca. 1279–1212 BC) in the Nineteenth Dynasty, based on a similarity of names to those on the Merenptah Stela (ca. 1210 BC).1 Görg also concluded, based on the spellings of the names, that they were copied from an earlier inscription from around the time of Amenhotep II (ca. 1453–1419). Israeli Egyptologist Raphael Giveon (1916–1985) previously dated the inscription to the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1386–1349 BC) (1981: 137). If these two scholars are right, this extra-Biblical Egyptian inscription would place Israel in Canaan at about the time of the Biblical date for the Conquest.

Bust of Nefertiti from Tell el-Amarna, now in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. (Photo by Michael Luddeni.)

The Berlin inscription now has been analyzed in greater detail and republished by Görg and two other German scholars—Dr. Peter van der Veen, Instructor of Old Testament and Biblical Archaeology at the University of Mainz, and Christoffer Theis, M.A., Lecturer at the Institute of Egyptology, University of Heidelberg (2010). The new study confirms the earlier conclusions of Görg.

The authors point out that the names Ashkelon and Canaan largely were written consonantally and thus are closer to Eighteenth Dynasty examples from the reigns of Tuthmosis III (ca. 1504–1450 BC) and Amenhotep II, than to those from the times of Ramesses II and Merenptah (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 16). In addition, ethnic renderings (“Canaanites”) in the inscriptions of Amenhotep II are similar to the name on the Berlin fragment, providing further evidence for an early date (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 16). 

The third name presents difficulties because of the broken nature of the right side of the inscription. A detailed examination of the relief, however, allowed the authors to reconstruct the name as Y3-šr-il (“Ishrael”), a name very close to Biblical yśr’l (“Israel”) (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 17–18). The theophoric element il, “God,” at the end of the name is written in a shortened form which again argues for an early date since the shortened form was in use prior to the reign of Amenhotep III (ca. 1386–1349 BC) (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 16).

Topographical statue base relief fragment depicting three Canaanite place names superimposed on Western Asiatic captives. The relief was purchased in Egypt in 1913 and is now in the Egyptian Museum in Berlin. (Photo from van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 16.)

The major difference between the name on the inscription and the Biblical name is that the inscription has “sh” rather than “s.” This difference caused James Hoffmeier to reject the identification of the name on the inscription as that of the Israel of the Old Testament (2007: 241). But the authors point out that there is no known candidate for the name in the vicinity of Canaan and Ashkelon other than Biblical Israel (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 18–19, 20). It is entirely possible that the "sh" spelling is an archaic form, or perhaps the cuneiform rendering (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 19). Moreover, Egyptian scribes were not consistent in their usage of the hieroglyphs for "sh" and "s", and quite often interchanged them (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 19–20).

Reconstructed third name ring with the name “Ishrael” (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 18).


In summary, the authors of the new study believe that the name on the Berlin statue base fragment is that of Israel and that it was part of a name list originally written in the Eighteenth Dynasty. This is much earlier than the appearance of the name Israel on the Merenptah Stela. Furthermore, they conclude that their findings “indeed suggest that Proto-Israelites had migrated to Canaan sometime during the middle of the second millennium BCE” (van der Veen, Theis and Görg 2010: 21).






1. For a discussion of the Merenptah Stela and associated pictorial wall reliefs, see Wood 2005b.




Giveon, Raphael


1981  Three Fragments from Egyptian Geographical Lists. Eretz Israel 15: 137–139 and Plate 22.1 (Hebrew); English summary 81*.


Görg, Manfred


2001  Israel in Hieroglyphen. Biblischen Notizen 106: 21–27 (German).


James Hoffmeier


2007  What is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood. Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50: 225–47.


Veen, Peter van der, Christoffer Theis, and Manfred Görg


2010  Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merenptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin Statue Pedestal Relief 21687. Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2.4: 15–25. (Offsite link).


Wood, Bryant G.


2005a  Extra-Biblical Evidence for the Conquest. Bible and Spade 18: 98–99.


2005b Pharaoh Merenptah Meets Israel. Bible and Spade 18: 65–82.


2008  Recent Research on the Date and Setting of the Exodus. Bible and Spade 21: 97–108.

11_11_11 New Evidence Supporting the Early (Biblical) Date of the Exodus and Conquest.pdf (468.37 kb)

Comments Comment RSS

11/24/2011 8:03 AM #

Dr. Wood's review of the evidence for the dating of the levels of destruction for Jerico have shown that the early date for the Exodus is consistent with what archeology reveals there.  While seeking to review the military campaigns of Amenhotep II in relation to those of his father, I found this very good article regarding the evidence that supports the traditional (early) date for the Exodus that was written by Douglas Petrovich, of the Novosibirsk Biblical Theological Seminary, Novosibirsk, Russia:  "Amenhotep II and the historicity of the Exodus-Pharaoh".  (On the Internet.)  Given the firey cloud that appeared on top of Mt. Sinai, and the pillars of cloud and fire that the Israelites followed in the desert, it appears that this gives us a clue for the actual date of the eruption of Santorin - with its seeming connection to the ten plagues.

David Doerr - 11/24/2011 8:03:19 AM

11/25/2011 2:30 PM #

In November of last year I was involved in a discussion of this stela in an Internet forum. I asked why the article constantly refers to “proto-Israel” rather than just saying “Israel.” Peter van der Veen replied, “What I mean in the article is the core group with whom other groups associated later (that is a biblical thought, think of the mixed multitude at the Exodus . . .)”

It is curious that scholars will write of proto-Israel, but never of proto-Assyria or proto-Egypt. Why then is it “proto-Israel” and not simply “Israel”? Is this because it would indicate that there really was a people called Israel in the 14th century BC, descendants of the patriarch Jacob/Israel, and to admit this would be conceding too much to the historical veracity of the Bible?

I don’t see any hieroglyphs for “proto” in this or the Merneptah inscription  Smile. For the Egyptians, “Israel” was just “Israel.” Shouldn’t it be the same in modern histories?

Here is an anecdote related by David Rohl on the “proto” in “proto-Israel.” (Rohl basically accepts the biblical account of the Exodus, and dates it to 1447 or 1446 BC, but he revises the Egyptian chronology so that the Exodus occurred at the end of Egypt’s 14th Dynasty rather than during the 18th Dynasty.) Rohl wrote,

“A few years back I had a conversation with one of the grandees of Egyptology during a reception in the British Museum after a lecture by Dorothy Arnold on the so-called 'Joseph Statue' at Tell ed-Daba. That professor I was having the chat with said he had no problem in envisaging the cult statue and tomb found in Tell ed-Daba Area F being the source for the Joseph story in Genesis ... so long as we refer to the owner as a 'Proto-Joseph' and his people as 'Proto-Israelites'. He insisted upon this to distinguish between these people being the SOURCE for the biblical tradition rather than being the actual HISTORICAL people the Bible calls 'Israelites'. Now the distinction may be lost on most people, but what it does is allow academics to come round to the idea that the biblical stories of Sojourn, Exodus and Conquest may be based on events that occurred in the Middle Bronze Age rather than the Late bronze Age but, crucially, without conceding the need for a revised chronology. In other words the stories/legends about these MBA people were adopted/borrowed by the later biblical chronographers to flesh out early 'Israelite history' and give the nascent Israelite state a cultural foundation.’
My response to him was another question: ‘So, if we are looking at a Proto-Joseph and Proto-Israelites, does that mean we also have a Proto-Moses, Proto-Joshua and Proto-Conquest?’ I think the prof got the message.”

End of quote from David Rohl.  

Incidentally, although Peter van der Veen did his advanced study in Germany, he is Dutch by nationality.

Rodger C. Young, St. Louis

Rodger C. Young - 11/25/2011 2:30:12 PM

11/28/2011 12:30 PM #

Also notice the length of the beard as measured against the 'neck-rope'. I have found Egyptian hieroglyphs to be quite, you might say, anthological.

Joseph F. Gambino - 11/28/2011 12:30:58 PM

1/15/2012 1:42 PM #

Great Article!  Thanks for sharing this information.  I am leaning to the earlier date for the Exodus and I will research this lead further.  Thanks!

Ken Mafli - 1/15/2012 1:42:55 PM

7/13/2012 1:34 PM #

The reason "Proto-Israel" is used is because there is wide scholarly agreement that a people known as "Israel" existed in Canaan apart from any who may or may not have emigrated from Egypt.

Paul Forbes - 7/13/2012 1:34:37 PM

Research RSS Feed

AddThis Feed Button

Recent Articles

In this article we will discuss why the decree of Daniel 9:25 must be identified with one issued by the...
II. Analysis and Discussion 3. Liber Biblicarum Antiquitatum 4. Augustine’s Renegade Scribe Theory 5....
II. Analysis and Discussion 2. Straw Men and Ad Hominems
II. Analysis and Discussion 1. The Rabbinic Deflation of the MT’s Primeval Chronology
Associates for Biblical Research
  • PO Box 144, Akron, PA 17501
  • Phone: +1 717-859-3443
  • Toll Free: 1-800-430-0008
Friend ABR on Join us on Twitter Join us on Twitter