When and Where Was Israel’s Sojourn in Egypt? The Long and Short of It (Part 2)

Jonathan Moore, D.P.M., Ph.D.

Inspiration of the BibleArchaeology

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the February issue of R&R. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.]

Understanding the Time Spans

Considering the above passages, do the 400 and 430-year periods correlate or contradict? Although both periods end with the Exodus, one must consider their beginnings to understand these time spans fully. As Paul indicates in Galatians 3:16-18, the 430-year period began with the Lord’s promise to Abraham. Genesis 15:13-16 conveys that the 400-year period began with the affliction upon Abraham’s descendants, namely, Isaac’s first affliction.

Although Abraham received several divine calls as recorded in Genesis, pinpointing the precise timing of the initial promise is challenging. Genesis 12:1-4 states that when Abraham was called out of Haran to Canaan, he was 75 years old—but it is unclear if the initial promise was made the same year or some time before. Abraham was 100 years old (Genesis 21:5) when Isaac was born. If the divine promise was imparted to Abraham 30 years before Isaac’s birth, this elucidates the periods of 400 and 430 years. Alternatively, if the promise was given when Abraham was 75 years old and if Isaac was five years old when he was weaned and began to be mocked by Ishmael (Genesis 21:9), then there is no discrepancy. (Add 25 years from the promise to Isaac’s birth and five more until Isaac’s first affliction to account for the 30 years.1)

Thus, upon the writing of Genesis 15, the 400 years of affliction would have started with the weaning of Abraham’s first descendant, Isaac (430 years minus 30 years), not upon the initial promise made to Abraham when he was 75. So, both the 430 years and the 400 years are correct but have different starting points. The time between the promise to Abraham (at 75) and the Exodus leads to 430 years, and the time span between the weaning and affliction of Isaac (Genesis 21:9) and the Exodus results in 400 years.

Fourth Generation

Genesis 15:16 also records that the Lord told Abraham that “in the fourth generation they shall return here” to Canaan. Numbers 14:33-34 records that the older generation would be left to die in the wilderness due to their disobedience to God. The question is whether this fourth-generation reference best fits within a 430-year span or 215 years. Again, this issue continues to be hotly debated, but for our purposes, we will be succinct.

This passage is part of God’s covenant with Abraham, where God is telling Abraham about the future of his descendants. It is generally understood that the “fourth generation” mentioned here refers to the actual descendants of Abraham, not the number of generations (i.e., time) that passed after they entered Egypt. In other words, God is telling Abraham that his descendants will return to the land promised to him after four generations of living in a foreign land, which is later revealed to be Egypt.

Though “in the fourth generation” sounds ambiguous or even theologically symbolic, it would be impossible to count these four generations from Abraham as this only gets you to around the time Jacob and his family entered Egypt. From Jacob, however, it is only four generations to Moses (though he did not enter Canaan) and only four generations from the sons and/or grandsons of Jacob who went down into Egypt and then returned to Canaan. Yet, this would preclude missing generations and only works in the short sojourn model.

Based on the scope of this analysis, it is important to acknowledge that while the initial generation designated to return to Canaan was the fourth, the fifth generation—descendants of the fourth—were also present upon arrival in Canaan. The primary constraint from the given text is that the fourth generation was the earliest generation to make the return to Canaan. Nevertheless, their progeny, who lived during the same period, were going to be arriving at the same time.

One striking example of how these chronologies demonstrate real problems for those who support the long sojourn position is the generation of Levi. Detailed information regarding their ages at death and birthplaces allows us to construct a chronological timeline. According to the biblical account, Levi was born in Haran well before the Israelites’ arrival in Egypt, as documented in Genesis 29. Notably, Levi’s grandson Amram married Levi’s daughter, Jochebed (Amram’s aunt), as stated in Exodus 6:20, thus making Levi both the grandfather and great-grandfather of Moses and his siblings. Following the pattern set forth above, the fourth generation of Levi’s descendants that came into Canaan includes Moses’ sons Gershom and Eliezer (1 Chronicles 23:14-17). Moving backward, Moses, their father, died at 120; Moses’ father, Amram, died at around 137; and Kohath, the son of Levi, died at around 133.

Kohath, son of Levi, to Gershom and Eliezer (four generations)

1st      Kohath (death at age 133)

2nd     Amram (death at age 137)

3rd      Moses (80 years old at Exodus; death at 120)

4th      Gershom and Eliezer (generation that entered Canaan)

Even if one stretches the available data to its maximum limits, this timeline does not work in the context of a 430-year-long Egyptian sojourn. The provided genealogy suggests that even if Levi arrived in Goshen at the age of 50 with his newborn son Kohath (as mentioned in Genesis 46:11), and if Kohath had his son Amram at the old age of 133—the year he died—Amram’s lifespan of 137 years would still not bridge the gap to 400 or 430 years since Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus. The most you can get out of Moses’ genealogy is 350 years (133 plus 137 plus 80), leaving an unaccounted 70 to 80-year gap.

The dilemma of the generational timeline deepens upon closer scrutiny. First, it is exceedingly unlikely that these men had children the year of their death. So, since they likely sired their children younger in life, the overall available time span would decrease further. Additionally, taking into account that Jochebed would have eventually reached menopause, her lifespan would not be enough to cover the gap to her own children, especially if it mirrored that of her contemporaries. If one adheres to the view that the Israelites endured 400 years of Egyptian oppression, this period could not commence before Joseph’s death. This leads to the implication that the 400-year countdown began with the onset of oppression during Moses’ generation and ended with the Exodus. However, this poses a chronological challenge because Moses only lived to be 120 years old, making it unfeasible for him to span the entire 430 years.

It is, therefore, impossible for a 430-year sojourn to fit within the four generations unless one claims gaps in the genealogy, which is what long sojourn advocates must do out of necessity.2 Robert Carter and Lita Sanders correctly state, “[T]he biblical genealogy would be incredibly opaque if the people recording the data were skipping over random people. It would not even be easy to do if they were skipping over only specific people, because so many siblings, uncles, nieces, etc., are mentioned.”3 On the other hand, when we consider a shorter sojourn period of 215 years, the available data aligns much better without the need for interjecting missing names or families. In this scenario, it is plausible that Miriam, who nearly lived through the 40-year Exodus, could have had early memories of Kohath, who was born prior to the Israelites’ arrival in Egypt. A shorter sojourn is simply better substantiated by the available data.

Dating the Sojourn

The Pharaoh of Joseph’s Time: Sesostris III or the Hyksos?

For those that support a long sojourn along with an early-date Exodus, ca. 1446/1445 B.C., the full 430 years is added, resulting in ca. 1876/1875 B.C. as the year Jacob would have entered Egypt in the United Middle Kingdom during the reign of Sesostris III.4 However, as noted previously, if the 400-year affliction of Genesis 15 started 71 years after Jacob arrived in Egypt, when Joseph died and the people were enslaved, that would lead to an Exodus at the end of this period occurring ca. 1406 B.C. (1876/1875 B.C. + 70 years = 1805 B.C. + 400 years of affliction = 1406 B.C.). However, an Exodus date of 1406 B.C. is not consistent with the biblical text.

According to supporters of the short sojourn along with an early-date Exodus, Jacob entered Egypt in 1660 B.C. (1446/1445 B.C. + 215 years). If Jacob entered Egypt ca. 1660 B.C., he would have arrived during the Egyptian 2nd Intermediate period when the Hyksos ruled a divided Egypt (ca. 1650-1550 B.C.). The Hyksos people were a Semitic people, like the Israelites, not native Egyptians, which may explain the willingness of the pharaoh of Joseph’s time to place him in a position of power.

Additionally, the narrative of Joseph rising to power is well articulated within the biblical text. Kenneth Kitchen,5 who maintains a mild degree of ambiguity on this particular issue, seems to support the notion of Joseph’s ascension during the Hyksos era ca. 1650 B.C. He further remarks on the introduction of chariots during the Hyksos reign, which seems to affirm that the Hyksos period, rather than the Middle Kingdom era, is a more suitable context for the events of Genesis 41:42-43:

Then Pharaoh took his signet ring from his finger and put it on Joseph’s finger. He dressed him in robes of fine linen and put a gold chain around his neck. He had him ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, “Make way!” Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt.

Kitchen acknowledges that the type of war chariot referred to in Genesis 41 did not exist before the Hyksos period.

The Pharaoh Who Knew Not Joseph: Ahmose I or the Hyksos?

Due to the prosperity of the Israelites in Egypt during Joseph’s time, the affliction referenced in Genesis 15 must have started after the rise of a pharaoh who did not know Joseph. After Joseph’s death, we have recorded:

And the Egyptians were in dread of the people of Israel. So they ruthlessly made the people of Israel work as slaves and made their lives bitter with hard service, in mortar and brick, and in all kinds of work in the field. In all their work they ruthlessly made them work as slaves (Exodus 1:12b-14, ESV).

Following the short sojourn dating, Jacob’s death 17 years after his arrival in ca. 1660 B.C., as well as the death of his son Joseph years after that, would place the enslaving of the Israelites after ca. 1590 B.C., only 64 years before the birth of Moses. The maximum period of hard bondage was less than 130 years. (Joseph’s death year minus the year of the Exodus, ca. 1573 B.C. – 1446 B.C. = 127 years.) The minimum length of hard bondage was 80 years, from Moses’ birth to the Exodus, at which time he was 80 years old (Exodus 2:1-12; cf. 7:7).

The best evidence points to Ahmose I (ca. 1550-1525 B.C.) as the pharaoh who knew not Joseph (Exodus 1:8). During the beginning of his reign, ca. 1550-1540, the Hyksos rulers were defeated and expelled from Egypt. However, those of Jacob’s lineage who lived in and around Goshen did not leave. Instead, they stayed in their rich surroundings, ultimately finding themselves enslaved and hated by their native Egyptian conquerors, who likely perceived the Hebrews as being aligned with their enemies, the Hyksos.

In Exodus 1:8, the “new king” “arose…over Egypt.” In Hebrew the verb qum plus the preposition ‘al often has the meaning “to rise against” (e.g., Deuteronomy 19:11; 28:7; Judges 9:18; 20:5; 2 Samuel 18:31; 2 Kings 16:7)—inferring a violent military overthrow. This interpretation fits well with Ahmose I who defeated the Hyksos militarily. However, it could not be said of the Hyksos who assumed rule over a long period of time without an invasion or violence.6

The statement found in Exodus 1:10 becomes more comprehensible within this framework: “come, let us deal shrewdly with them, lest they multiply, and it happen, in the event of war, that they also join our enemies and fight against us, and so go up out of the land.” Which adversaries could the Egyptians have been wary of as they observed the burgeoning numbers of the Hebrews? The context provided by this verse is particularly cogent if the foes in question were a group that had been recently expelled from Egypt after a century of dominion: the Hyksos. This pharaoh’s concern was not only that the Hebrews had become too numerous but that with their numbers, along with their prior rulers, the Hyksos could retake control of lower Egypt.

Some have questioned how Ahmose I (the native Egyptian King who began the 18th Egyptian Dynasty), if he were the “new King who knew not Joseph” according to Exodus 1:8, could truthfully say that the Israelites were more and mightier than the Egyptians. In answering this question, it is essential to understand that verse 7 of Exodus 1 indicates that the Israelites were exceedingly fruitful, and they multiplied greatly, such that the land was filled with them. The Israelite people who remained after the Hyksos were removed would have certainly outnumbered by far the native Egyptians.

Some advocates of the long sojourn believe that with Jacob/Joseph having arrived well before the Hyksos (ca. 1875 B.C.), the “new king who did not know Joseph” was indeed the inaugural Hyksos ruler.7 This view posits that a Semitic Hyksos king enslaved and persecuted a kindred Semitic group who had been granted land in the same region where the Hyksos earlier established their capital Avaris. This line of reasoning stretches the bounds of credulity. Additionally, proponents of the long sojourn theory face the challenge of identifying a plausible enemy that could have allied with Israel to mount an offensive against Egypt.

Conclusion

The duration of the Israelites’ sojourn in Egypt is a topic of intense debate among scholars due to varying approaches to Egyptian chronology and the biblical text. Despite this, a consensus tending toward the short sojourn perspective is quite evident reaching back from the earliest Jewish chronologists (Hillel) to John Calvin, Ussher, Newton, and Hoffmeier, along with a host of other scholars. Though there is a considerable amount of data that was not discussed in this article, numerous aspects of the biblical texts and Egyptian history corroborate the short sojourn hypothesis:

1. Adhering to the long sojourn interpretation complicates our understanding of passages like Galatians 3:17, which unequivocally declares that the interval from the covenant with Abraham to the giving of the Law at Sinai was 430 years.
2. The concept of a short sojourn aligns with the scriptural records, especially when considering various ancient texts (LXX) that refer to the sojourn encompassing both Egypt and Canaan.
3. Many places in Scripture (Exodus 12:40; Genesis 17:8; 28:4; and Exodus 6:4) indicate that Canaan was considered part of the sojourning of Abraham and his descendants—not Egypt alone.
4. The 430-year timeframe does not conflict with the 400-year affliction. Rather, the 430 years encompasses the period from Abraham’s covenant in Genesis 12 to the giving of the Law after the Exodus. Within this timeframe, there is a 400-year period where Abraham’s descendants, starting with Isaac’s oppression by Ishmael, experienced adversity, leading up to the final afflictions in Egypt preceding the Exodus.
5. The genealogies among those who entered Egypt and were involved in the Exodus better support the 215-year sojourn, and in some ways function against 430 years.8 
6. Under the premise of the short sojourn, Joseph would have risen to power under the Hyksos (15th Dynasty, ca. 1650-1550 B.C.) and not during the time of native Egyptian pharaohs (long sojourn). Numerous synchronizations exist that better explain the Joseph narrative including that he is depicted using a chariot (Genesis 41:43; 46:29). This aligns with the historical understanding that chariots did not exist in Egypt prior to the Hyksos, consistent with the short sojourn.
7. Ahmose I’s military defeat of the Hyksos fits well with the Hebrew language describing the pharaoh who did not know Joseph in Exodus 1:8, implying a military conquest. This description does not fit with long sojourn advocates’ suggestion that the new king was a Hyksos pharaoh.

When the biblical narrative is interpreted holistically and rationally, the perceived discrepancies typically associated with the sojourn’s duration are resolved. While one should remain non-dogmatic on every detail regarding the genealogies and Egyptian chronology (which seems to change daily), evidence for the short sojourn is extremely well-supported and makes much more sense textually and historically, especially when it comes to the narrative of Joseph.9

Endnotes

1 See Martin Anstey (1913), The Romance of Bible Chronology (London: Marshall Brothers), pp. 114,117.

2 See Paul J. Ray (2012), “The Duration of the Israelite Sojourn In Egypt,” Associates for Biblical Research, January 5; Karl F. Keil and Franz Delitzsch (1952) “The Pentateuch 1,” in Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament, trans. by James Martin (Grand Rapids MI: Eerdmans), p. 469.

3 Robert Carter and Lita Sanders (2021), “How Long were the Israelites in Egypt? Using their own Family Tree to Resolve a Debate,” Creation, https://creation.com/how-long-were-the-israelites-in-egypt.

4 Thiele argues that by adding the 430 years mentioned in Exodus 12:40 to the date of the Exodus (1446 B.C.), we arrive around 1875 B.C. See Edwin R. Thiele (1965), The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, revised edition (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 52. This period, specifically 1878-1843 B.C., corresponds to the reign of Sesostris III, who is thought to be contemporary with Abraham (Genesis 12). Whitcomb, Payne, and Wood hold that it was Jacob, referenced in Genesis 47, who arrived during the reign of Sesostris III, not Abraham. See J. Barton Payne (1954), An Outline of Hebrew History (Grand Rapids: Baker), p. 47; John C. Whitcomb, Jr. (1968), “Old Testament Patriarchs and Judges” (Chicago: Moody Press), explanatory sheet; Leon Wood (1970), A Survey of Israel’s History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan), p. 114. Long Sojourn advocates must maintain that the 430 years of sojourning according to Exodus 12 and Galatians 3 must be accounted for entirely within Egypt. However, their rationale, as detailed in their scholarly work, fails to persuade.

5 Kenneth Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans), p. 349.

6 John Rea (1961), “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Grace Journal, 2[1]:5-14, Winter.

7 See John Rea (1960), “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Bulletin of the Evangelical Theological Society, 3[3]:58-66, Summer.

8 See B. Hodge (2016), “Long or Short Sojourn by Chronological Derivation Strictly via the Biblical Text,” Biblical Authority Ministries, July 15, https://biblicalauthorityministries.wordpress.com/2016/07/15/long-or-short-sojourn-by-chronological-derivation-strictly-via-the-biblical-text/.

9 Many critics of the short sojourn approach erroneously assume that all supporters of the short sojourn theory also endorse Rohl’s “new chronology” perspective. Rohl suggests that the sojourn began around 1662 B.C. (a date likely incorrect) and connects it to Amenemhat III’s reign during Dynasty 12 (a connection also considered to be inaccurate). As a proponent of the short sojourn theory, I want to clarify that I do not endorse Rohl’s new chronology or his theology, nor do I see the need to compress Egyptian history to defend our position

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.