A REFLECTION ON THE EARLY/LATE EXODUS DEBATE

USING NUMERICAL SYMBOLISM IN JUDGES

David Gerick
Dr. Manor
BOLD 309, 2:00 p.m.
April 3, 2013

The book of Judges contains some of the most exciting stories in the Bible.
Through a readers perspective, this book is packed full of action and drama, from Jael
driving a tent spike into the head of Sisera to Samson dragging off the gates of Gaza. For
1

many scholars however, the view of Judges is instead full of problems and contradictions.
Placed between the exodus of Israel and the construction of Solomons temple, this book
sits at the crux of a major, ongoing debate. This debate stems from two possible dates
scholars give for the time Moses brought Israel out of Egypt. The early date exodus rests
in 1445 B.C. while the late date is set around 1290 B.C. These different dates, separated
by around 150 years, have created major complications over how one properly
understands many passages in the Old Testament. The supporting evidences for each side
of the debate continue to leave scholars in opposition as they seek to rectify this situation
and place Judges in its correct chronological period.
One factor contributing to this historical problem is the intervals of time described
in Judges. Throughout this book, Israel frequently undergoes periods of oppression,
followed by periods of peace and rest. Several of these periods are recorded as covering
a timespan of forty years. As seen throughout the Bible, many numbers are often used
symbolically. This use of numerical symbolism is known by many scholars to involve
the number forty in its discussion. Since these forty year timespans are involved in the
dating of the exodus, it is necessary to consider the possible use of forty as symbolic,
rather than literal, in this process. In the pursuit for a resolution between the early and
late dates of the exodus, this paper will serve as an examination of the symbolic use of
the number forty, found in the book of Judges and other Old Testament passages, to see if
an alternative understanding can be fruitful for this debate. It is my hope that this
examination will correctly direct any thoughts concerning this discussion, that it may
enrich ones interpretation of the text, and that it may provide a helpful consideration for
this historical impasse.
2

To help with this examination, it is necessary to provide a better orientation both

to the problems with dating the exodus and to the influence numerical symbolism has in
the Bible. As mentioned above, the early/late exodus debate differs on whether the
exodus of Israel took place in 1445 B.C or 1290 B.C. The former date is originally
derived from the date of the construction of Solomons temple, which is widely
considered to start at or around 965 B.C. From here, 1 Kings 6:1 is used to construct the
early date at 1445 B.C. The latter date is developed more from archeological findings
and is held by the majority of biblical scholarship, though it greatly contradicts the dating
described in Judges and 1 Kings 6:1.
Both sides of the debate have their fair share of evidence. One of the strongest
arguments for the late date comes from the archeological finds of destruction in various
Palestinian cities dated around the second half of the 13th century B.C.1 The Israelite
conquest would agree with this destruction and helps place the exodus toward the
beginning of the 13th century. There is, however, also evidence of destruction dated
around the late 15th and early 14th centuries which would favor an early date exodus.2 In

1 Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140, no.
559 (July 1, 1983): 230-33

2
Ibid.

addition to the 13th century findings, more evidence for a late date is given through
comparing the book of Numbers with other archeological findings. In Numbers 22:1, 4
the author speaks of inhabitants of Moab and Edom. Archeological findings in these
areas show that they were uninhabited from 1800 to 1300 B.C., favoring a late date.3
This point has been refuted though only through the clich, The absence of evidence is
not the evidence of absence.
The most convincing evidence for an early date exodus comes from the 1 Kings
6:1 passage mentioned earlier which states that the temple of Solomon began
construction 480 years after the exodus.4 Some late date scholars interpret the 480 years
symbolically, though others argue there is no indication in the text that the author had

3
Ibid, 227-30.

4
Ibid, 235-36.

intended this passage to be symbolic.5 Another piece of evidence is found from

Jephthahs speech in Judges 11. In 11:26, Jephthah mentions Israel inhabiting the land of
Canaan for 300 years, a timeframe that does not, even remotely fit a late date exodus.6
As a response, some scholars argue over the authority and wisdom Jephthah actually had
in his speech,7 while others claim this reference was probably added in a later stage of
transmission.8 In an article on the chronology of Judges, David Washburn notes that,
5
Rodger Young and Bryant G. Wood, "A Critical Analysis of the Evidence from Ralph
Hawkins for a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest." Journal of the Evangelical Theological
Society 51, no. 2 (June 1, 2008): 228.

6
Dyer, 236-37.

7
Kenneth Kitchen, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids; Cambridge: Eerdmans, 2003),
209..

any attempt to juggle the dates of the judges based on the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1 or the
300 years of Judges 11:26 is doomed to artificiality.9 Regardless of evidences given on
either side, the problem remains.
Now that this debate has been more properly addressed, the idea behind numerical
symbolism will now be addressed. At the risk of sounding redundant, numerical
symbolism can be explained as a figurative or rhetorical association of numbers to
meaning. Numerical symbolism should be separated from the ideas of biblical numerics
and, to an extent, numerology as these terms can connote a sort of mysticism and
gematria.10 While numerical symbolism involves an interpretation of what is already

James Martin, The Book of Judges, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975),
142.

9
David Washburn, The Chronology of Judges: Another Look, Bibliotheca Sacra 147, no. 588 (October 1,
1990): 417.

10

William Varner, "The Christian Use of Jewish Numerology," Master's Seminary Journal
8, no. 1 (March 1, 1997): 55-56.

given in Scripture, numerics arbitrarily looks for connections between the number of
words, letters, and syllables in passages to find hidden understanding. With ideas of
numerics and numerology, one can jump to exaggerated conclusions such as Alfred
Holcombe and Karl Sabiers; one who used numerology to confirm the validity of the
Bible11 and the other who claimed his numerological book gave indisputable proof for
divine inspiration.12 The ideas that follow should not be considered as hidden or
mystical, but rather would have easily been understood by readers in the ancient world.
Numerical symbolism can be found all over the Bible and was used regularly by
Hebrew writers. Numbers such as three, four, ten, and twelve are just a few of the
numbers often seen as symbolic to the Ancient Near Eastern audience, each with its own
significance. For example, the number seven is often connected with a sense of
completeness, as the two words derive from the same root word in Hebrew.13
Alternatively, Mikeal Parsons indicates that some numbers may be considered symbolic,
11
Alfred Holcombe, "Biblical Numerology Confirms the Spiritual Validity of its Contents," Journal of
Religion and Psychical Research 20, no. 1 (January 1, 1997): 33.

12
Oswald Allis, Bible Numerics, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1944), 5.

13
Arvid Kapelrud, "Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts," Vetus Testamentum 18, no. 4 (October 1, 1968): 495.

not in what they are, but in what they are not- six is not sevenand ninety-nine is not
one hundred.14 In addition to these ideas, numbers are also combined to compile their
meanings or add emphasis.
Though forty is not the most common number in the Bible, it does appears over
150 times in the Old Testament and is included in the stories of many biblical figures
including Noah, David, Gideon, Jonah, Solomon, Othniel, and Jesus. Since this number
can be constructed in different ways (140, 220, 410, and 58) there are different
theories about the numbers symbolism. One possible interpretation given by Ethelbert
Bullinger is found in the extension of numbers five and eight.15 According to Bullinger,
four is seen as a representation of grace and eight as a form of renewal. The combination
of these two numbers into forty can be understood to reflect periods of trial or probation
toward a specific entity. Examples of this can be seen under the judging of Othniel and
Gideon as the land of Israel had peace for forty years (Judges 3:11 and 8:28,
respectively).

14
Mikeal Parsons, "Exegesis By the Numbers: Numerology and the New Testament," Perspectives in
Religious Studies 35, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 42.

15
Ethelbert Bullinger, Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual Significance (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1967), 266.

In addition to the interpretation above, Bullinger discusses another idea of

symbolism for the number forty through its connection between four and ten, rather than
five and eight. Here, forty is used to represent peaceful unity throughout a nation, as four
is seen to represent the corners of the earth and ten as a symbol of Divine perfection.16
This thought can be seen under the reigning of King David and Solomon (1 Kings 2:11
and 11:42).
Though these interpretations seem to fit in some passages, they do not come
without criticism. In an article on numerical symbolism found in Scripture, Larry
Pechawer warns readers against Bullinger saying his explanations serve as an
unfortunate prelude to some of the more recent Gematria/Theomatics approaches.17
Pechawer also gives a symbolic interpretation for forty and connects it with passages
involving times of testing or endurance.
Regardless of interpretation, the number forty is almost always associated with a
period of time, whether it is the proclamation of forty days until judgment which Jonah
gives to Nineveh, Jesus forty day fast in the wilderness, or the forty year wandering
around the desert by the Israelites. As for the book of Judges, both Bullinger and
16
Ibid.

17
Larry Pechawer, "Symbolic Numbers in Scripture," in Christ's Victorious Church, ed. Jon Weatherly,
(Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2001), 76.

Pechawer would most likely agree with James Martin in his commentary as he states,
the usual deuteronomistic time reference is forty years after the successful activity of
any given judge18 Additionally, David van Daalen argues that, whenever forty years
is mentioned in Scripture, it can be implicitly associated with the concept of a
generation.19 Looking back at Judges 3:11, then, and understanding forty years as a
generation, the forty years of peace Israel experienced under Othniel, was a calm which
lasted for this one generation which had learned to rely on God.20 This form of
symbolism can be seen throughout the Old Testament and especially in Judges.
Admittedly, not all scholars take hold to this idea as Rodger Young greatly diminishes an
association of forty years with a generation.21
18
Martin, 51.

19
David van Daalen, Number Symbolism, in The Oxford Companion to the Bible, ed. Bruce Metzger and
Michael Coogen (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 561-63.

20
John Kachelman Jr., Studies in Judges: The Love and Discipline of God, (Abilene, Texas: Quality
Publications, 1985), 57.

21
Rodger Young and Bryant Wood, 227-28.

10

Despite these interpretations, many scholars continue to use the number forty
literally in the dating of the exodus. With the strictest literary composition, Judges
engulfs a period of 410 years. This extended period is problematic for both early and late
date exodus theories. Thus scholars have formulated different hypothesis to lower such a
large timespan. This is usually done by overlapping the times of oppression and peace,
by assigning judges as contemporaneous with each other, or by both. Wanting to be true
to 1 Kings 6:1, Wolfgang Richter gives his reconstruction of the chronology of Judges but
at the cost of arbitrarily assigning the book of Joshua five years.22
Robert Chisholm Jr., wishing to maintain an early date exodus, gives a more
interesting proposal. Using linguistic parallelism in Judges 3:7 and 6:1, Chisholm
proposes the stories in Judges should be broken into two panels occurring concurrently.23
Thus the stories of Othniel and Gideon are parallel. Ehud and Deborah then follow
Othniel while Jephthah and Samson follow Gideon. Chisholm seemingly defends his
theory well, leaving himself subject only to Jephthahs speech discussed earlier.

22
Jan Alberto Soggin and John Bowden, Judges: A Commentary, (Philadelphia: SCM Press; Westminster
Press, 1981), 10-12.

23
Robert Chisholm Jr., "The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to Solving a Pesky
Problem," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no. 2 (June 1, 2009): 251.

11

Regardless of how these scholars decide to reconstruct the chronology of Judges,

most of them do so by keeping a literal interpretation for the forty year periods.
However, it seems more than mere coincidence that forty years is mentioned so
frequently. Because of its frequency and context in Scripture, it should be more proper
not to always consider this number as literal, but rather as a symbolic expression of time.
These forty year timespans cannot be confined as strictly as many scholars seem to hold
them. Without doubt, some periods were shorter than forty as others were longer.
If it is better to interpret forty years as symbolic, how does this understanding
play a role with respect to the exodus debate? Instead of simply disregarding one theory
or the other, can an alternative explanation be developed? Though it is difficult to
accommodate for a 150 year gap between the theories, an understanding of the number
forty as symbolic in terms of generations may help in this resolution.
Earlier, I mentioned the 480 year period from the exodus to the construction of
Solomons temple described in 1 Kings 6:1 and how some scholars see this as symbolic.
This symbolism is seen by Ralph Hawkins and others as a representation of twelve
generations in Israel, assigning forty years for each generation.24 Clyde T. Francisco
agrees with Hawkins and points to these twelve generations as given in 1 Chronicles 6.25

24

Rodger Young and Bryant G. Wood, 227.

12

(1 Chronicles 6: 3-8 shows twelve generations between Amram, the father of Moses, and
Zadok, one of the priests serving Israel during Solomons reign.)
There are, however, some discrepancies to this view. First, the gospel of Matthew
gives fourteen generations from Abraham to David. This genealogy can be reconstructed
by looking at 1 Chronicles 2:1-15. When one compares this lineage with the one given in
1 Chronicles 6:3-8, the former supposes only ten generations instead of twelve (assuming
Perez son of Judah was somewhat contemporary to Kohath son of Levi). Additionally, 1
Kings 4:2 says Azariah son of Zadok also served as a priest during Solomons reign,
furthering the inconsistency from twelve to thirteen generations. Moreover, looking back
at 1 Chronicles 6, Azariah is seen as Zadoks grandson instead of his son, proposing a
fourteenth generations instead of twelve.
These genealogical reconstructions, along with several other ideas, give scholars
good reason not to agree with the symbolic approach for 1 Kings 6:1. Nevertheless, it
does not seem out of the ordinary for biblical writers to use poetry when writing a
chronology, as John Willis describes.26 Additionally, in an article explaining the
genealogy of Jesus, George Moore states, The use of generations as the basis of a
25
Clyde Francisco, "Exodus in its Historical Setting," Southwestern Journal of Theology 20, no. 1
(September 1, 1977): 12.

26
John Willis, 223.

13

schematized chronology is common.27 Thus, although scholars may disagree, a symbolic

understanding for 1 Kings 6:1 and elsewhere of forty years as a generation is certainly
plausible. Furthermore, an interpretation such as this may certainly contribute to the
dissolution of the 150 year gap between theories.
If one is to associate forty years as a symbolic term for a generation, how does
this symbolism affect biblical chronology and to what degree? To answer this question,
one must look at how others describe a generation, as there seems to be a differing of
opinions as to how long a generation actually was in the Ancient Near East. George
Moore notes the ancient Greek historian Herodotus, who equated three generations to one
century, making one generation approximately thirty-three years. 28 George Mendenhall
lowers this number even further in his Tenth Generation Hypothesis.
This theory was developed by Mendenhall to show that very few specific sociopolitical organizations of the ancient world survived for more than 250 to 300 years
without undergoing radical change, if not total destruction.29 This 250-300 year period
is indicative of ten generations, making one generation equal to somewhere around
twenty-five to thirty years. Though this hypothesis has been critiqued, using the nation of
27
George Foot Moore, "Fourteen Generations: 490 Years: An Explanation of the Genealogy of Jesus,"
Harvard Theological Review 14, no. 1 (January 1, 1921): 101.

28
Ibid.

14

Israel as the prime reasoning against his theory, those who do so only argue against the
degree of what Mendenhall calls a radical change.30 The ten generation timespan does
not seem to receive any criticism. Thus, if one were to interpret 1 Kings 6:1
symbolically, instead of literally, the 480 years could be constructed into a generation of
twenty-five to thirty years, instead of forty. Accordingly, 480 years becomes 300-360
years, the difference of which equates to somewhere around 150 years, an amount very
similar to the time separating the early and late dates for the exodus.
Though this is in no way a claim to have resolved the exodus debate, this
deductive reconstruction provides an argument worth considering. The proper
understanding of symbolism in numbers is of obvious significance and an interpretation
of forty years as symbolic can certainly play a role in this debate. Whether or not it
actually helps the debate, numerical symbolism definitely needs to be examined closely,
especially when used for a chronological reconstruction.
29
George Mendenhall, "Change and Decay in All Around I See: Conquest, Covenant, and the Tenth
Generation," Biblical Archaeologist 39, no. 4 (December 1, 1976): 152.

30

Norman Gottwald, "The Hypothesis of the Revolutionary Origins of Ancient Israel: A

Response to Hauser and Thompson," Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 7,
(1978): 37-40.

15

As the search for the resolution of the early/late date of the exodus continues, it
may be beneficial to consider the ideas presented above. A proper chronology of the
timespan surrounding Judges may never fully be constructed. Due to vast differences in
evidence, there seems to be no clear cut way to solve the problem. Additionally, any
suggestion, no matter how strong an argument, will still certainly be lacking in some
fashion.
If one is to understand the chronology of this book as completely literal, a late
date exodus is simply impossible. On the other hand, if one is to accept some form of
numerical symbolism for forty years here and elsewhere, doors of interpretation may be
opened. It is my hope that this paper has been valuable for a better understanding of the
Old Testament text, especially when dealing with symbolism in numbers. Additionally, I
hope this paper has correctly considered the exodus debate and has provided useful and
relevant information for this situation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Allis, Oswald T. Bible Numerics. Chicago, Illinois: Moody Press, 1944.

Bullinger, Ethelbert W. Number in Scripture: Its Supernatural Design and Spiritual
Significance. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Kregel Publications, 1967.
Chisholm, Robert Jr. "The Chronology of the Book of Judges: A Linguistic Clue to
Solving a Pesky Problem." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 52, no.
2 (June 1, 2009): 247-255.
Dyer, Charles H. "The Date of the Exodus Reexamined." Bibliotheca Sacra 140, no. 559
(July 1, 1983): 225-243.
16

Francisco, Clyde T. "Exodus in its Historical Setting." Southwestern Journal of Theology

20, no. 1 (September 1, 1977): 7-20.
Gottwald, Norman K. "The Hypothesis of the Revolutionary Origins of Ancient Israel: A
Response to Hauser and Thompson." Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
7, (1978): 37-52.
Holcombe, Alfred D. "Biblical Numerology Confirms the Spiritual Validity of its
Contents." Journal of Religion and Psychical Research 20, no. 1 (January 1,
1997): 30-34.
Kachelman, John Jr. Studies in Judges: The Love and Discipline of God. Abilene,
Texas: Quality Publications, 1985.
Kapelrud, Arvid S. "Number Seven in Ugaritic Texts." Vetus Testamentum 18, no. 4
(October 1, 1968): 494-499.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. On the Reliability of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids; Cambridge:
Eerdmans, 2003.
Martin, James D. The Book of Judges. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975.
Mendenhall, George E. "Change and Decay in All Around I See: Conquest, Covenant,
and the Tenth Generation." Biblical Archaeologist 39, no. 4 (December 1, 1976):
152-157.
Moore, George Foot. "Fourteen Generations: 490 Years: An Explanation of the
Geneology of Jesus." Harvard Theological Review 14, no. 1 (January 1, 1921):
97-103.
Parsons, Mikeal C. "Exegesis by the Numbers: Numerology and the New Testament."
Perspectives in Religious Studies 35, no. 1 (March 1, 2008): 25-43.
Pechawer, Larry. "Symbolic Numbers in Scripture." In Christ's Victorious Church,
Edited by Jon Weatherly, 68-100. Eugene, Oregon: Wipf and Stock Publishers,
2001.
Soggin, Jan Alberto, and John Bowden. Judges: A Commentary. Philadelphia: SC Press;
Westminster Press, 1981.
Van Daalen, David. Number Symbolism. In The Oxford Companion to the Bible Edited
by Bruce Metzger and Michael Coogen, 531-63. New York: Oxford University
Press, 1993.

17

Varner, William. "The Christian Use of Jewish Numerology." Master's Seminary Journal
8, no. 1 (March 1, 1997): 47-59.
Washburn, David L. "The Chronology of Judges: Another Look." Bibliotheca Sacra 147,
no. 588 (October 1, 1990): 414-425.
Willis, John T. World and Literature of the Old Testament. Edited by John Willis. Austin,
Texas: Sweet Publishing Company, 1979.
Young, Rodger, and Bryant G. Wood. "A Critical Analysis of the Evidence from
Ralph Hawkins for a Late-Date Exodus-Conquest." Journal of the Evangelical
Theological Society 51, no. 2 (June 1, 2008): 225-243.

18