Board index ‹ The Exodus

[Newbie]

Not only do we not have physical evidence to support what happened but we have evidence AGAINST Exodus.

Considering this will be long anyway, I'm ignoring the fact that the Nile floods every year, making all Egyptian farmers unemployed who would instead be building the pyramids for their God-king. I'll ignore the insanity of having slaves build your God-kings burial chamber which was so critical to Egyptian culture, not to mention the Pharoah himself. I'll also skip the worker graves near the pyramids (hint: slaves don't get graves). I'll ignore the plagues and the politics. I'll even ignore the pursuit and whether it was the Red Sea or the Sea of Reeds. I'll simply focus on the actual journey itself.

Exodus 12:37 says 600,000 Jewish men escaped (plus wives, children, and elderly) escaped. Let's just round it down to total 500,000 people—way below estimates (which reach as high as 2 million). Let's assume that each person needs 6' of space to walk (2-3' to stand plus the next step). That creates a line of people 568 miles long (500,000 / (5280 / 6) ). Assuming they were standing next to each other, 100 people wide, that's a caravan of 5.68 miles long by at least 3' of width between people (or 300 feet wide). You can play with the numbers. This also excludes space for their belongins, livestock, and any other items. It also assumes everyone is walking, nobody is hunched over, elderly with canes, all at the same pace, etc, which further extends the line. Imagine the size of that mass of people. Also imagine that literally no other place except Exodus is this documented. No other caravans in the area saw this, no non-Egyptian government people recorded anything (assuming Egyptians whitewashed this, of which there is no evidence), no local tribes recording this, not a word from anyone.
Let's also examine the timeline. The journey took 40 years and none of the original group survived since only the non-slaves were meant to enter the new lands. 40 years is 41,600 days. On average, 12 people had to die every single day. Funerals are typically held soon after death but lets assume nobody stopped to grieve and the deceased were buried once a day, every day, for 40 years. This means we should find, on average, 41,600 grave sites of a dozen people in the area. Let's say they buried everyone for a whole week (which is severely against tradition). That only makes things worse, since they'd need to bury 84 people, which means a larger grave. But what about individual burial? Sure but, again, even if 1% of human skeletons survived, we'd still find 5,000 skeletons and I'll assume they wouldn't be buried naked, so we'd find at least clothes too. No such grave sites exist and we expect them to.

What about distance travelled? Well, a regular person can walk 3 miles/hour but let's say over time (plus belongings, etc), you drop it down to 1 mile/hour and you only walk 6 hours a day (when, in fact, people would walk faster and longer). So, 1 mile/hour, 6 hours/day - 6 miles/day. Lets bring up 41,600 day figure again and we get 249,600 miles walked in 40 years. But, hey, people are tired, need breaks, holidays, etc, etc, so let's severely round that down to a fifth of its size - 50,000 miles. That's still enough to walk the entire circumference of the Earth. Twice. What's the distance between Cairo and Jerusalem (land of Canaan)? It's 260 miles. With the 50,000 miles walked estimate, that's 200 completed trips walked in the area between Cairo and Jerusalem (considering Jerusalem and Cairo aren't on the edges of the actual territories). That's 100 full circles means they'd need to have completed more than 8 full circles per month, every year, for 40 years and all of this with the massively deflated and rounded down figures from above. If they rested in some place for a while, this would leave things behind - not only large graves (don't forget, every day, 12 dead people) but also remnants of civilization (poop, for example, not to mention broken things, torn clothes, garbage, etc).

Let's talk about food. Ranges of calories consumed during the Holocaust is between 200 and 1200 per day. Clearly the conditions during the Exodus were just as dire at best. Let's split the difference and round down—500 calories per day. So, all 500,000 people would be consuming 250,000,000 calories per day (and since 12 died every day, that's a decrease of 6,000 calories per day though, I suppose, others would be born and obviously pregnant women would need more). But let's keep to a stable 250,000,000 calorie requirement to be eaten by the entire population. Every day. A burger was created a few years ago, it was 777 pounds and had 1,375,000 calories. That's pretty good - you have meat, milk (cheese), maybe some bread - not an awful example of what food is like (assuming no sweets). From that, we need 141,272 pounds of food eaten. Every day. Let's say they only eat meat (since it's hard to grow vegetables when you travel 6 miles a day) and let's say their livestock is completely eaten and replenished once a year (which doesn't happen). That's ~51.5 million pounds of livestock they need to have with them (who, themselves, would not consume anything). A bull weighs 1600-2200 pounds. Let's say 2000 pound average for all livestock. That's 25,750 animals required and that's all eaten and replenished every single year without that livestock needing any food or drink. Let's also consider water. Women need 2.7 liters, men need 3.7 liters per day. Let's average that down to 3. That's 1.5 million liters of water they need to drink. Every day. A liter of water weighs 2.2 pounds. So, this giant caravan goes through 3.3 million pounds of water. Every day. While traveling in a desert. In case you're wondering, that's a total of 48,180,000,000 pounds of water drank in 40 years, assuming only the 500,000 people drank.

So can someone tell me how all this happened and didn't leave any evidence in the entire area? None of the logistics are plausible even with massively rounding down everything involved.

Or... it's simply a fantastic story told people who were enslaved that, yes, God will save you from your awful situation because look at all the power he has ... as long as you don't think about the details or waive them all away with miracles.

[jimwalton]

OK, I read your Exodus post. Here's some of my reply (there is more, but only room to write so much). Your analysis of the numbers is sensible, but it's unlikely that the numbers should be read in the way they have been, traditionally. For instance, the Hebrew word translated "thousands" can also be translated "troop," in which case there would be 600 troops, not 600 thousand men 20 or older. (Interesting that the NIV speaks of "divisions" in Ex. 12.41.) (This makes better sense of the numbers recorded in Numbers 1.20, 45.) The population of Egypt at the time was somewhere between 1.6-5 million, including slaves. The Egyptian army was no more that 20,000. If Israel was 2.6 million people, they would have a fighting force of 600,000, with no need to be afraid of the Egyptians. Besides, as I think you mentioned, the Land of Goshen couldn't possibly support a population so large. Israel could not have crossed the Red Sea in one night if there were 2.6 million of them. Nor could the wilderness sustain them, nor could there be enough water to sustain them. Etc. The numbers need to be logically reconsidered. A more reasonable estimation of the population is about 25,000 people. If we translate "thousand" as "clan," we turn up with much more sensible numbers, yielding a fighting force of about 5,550 men, which would be reason to fear the Egyptian army. That also helps to explain the paucity of graves in the Sinai, and the fear from the report of the spies.

Evidences for the Exodus itself:

1. First of all, it needs to be decided what sort of evidences you expect to find. Most archaeological remains are found in the destruction layers of cities. What would one expect to find of a people group on the move for 40 years, building no cities, subject to no little military action, and taking all their possessions with them? We have to be realistic about what one expects to find as evidence. Mostly what an archaeologist might hope maybe to find is skeletons, but since they would be scattered about, even that would be a challenge. The egalitarian nature of Israelite society, however (confirmed by excavations in Canaan during Joshua's era, when they know Israelites were present in the region) yields precious little artifacts, even skeletons of the dead. The Israelites buried in simple inhumations outside settlements, in open fields with no grave goods.

2. Archaeologists have uncovered the well-preserved village of Deir el-Medina, showing us the exact conditions under which Egypt’s own laborers worked, and it matches the conditions described in the Exodus. This village was inhabited for over 400 years. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

3. 2. We know from extra-biblical sources that immigrants regularly entered and settled in Egypt. Some are depicted in the tomb of Khnumhotep at Beni Hasan (1850 BC). The best known large-scale immigration involves a group of Asiatics we know as the Hyksos who actually ruled Egypt, at least over the northeast Delta, as Dynasties XV & XVI (1650-1550 BC). Their position did not differ much from that of Joseph as described in the Bible. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

4. About 400 years after the Hyksos, Dynasty XIX came to power in Egypt, including Pharaoh Ramesses the Great. The 430-year Egyptian sojourn could have spanned the era from Hyksos to Ramesses. The Ramesside family originated in the NE Delta and came to the throne through the office of the vizierate, the pharaoh’s prime minister and chief justice. The Ramessides certainly had some Asiatic roots, as indicated by the choice of the name Seti. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

5. In the 13th c. BC, during the reign of Ramesses the Great (aka Ramesses II), the old Hyksos capital of Avaris in the northeast Delta was rebuilt and expanded under the new name of Pi-Ramesses (Ex. 1.11). This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative.

6. The place names of Ra’amses and Pithom in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region.

7. The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the 2nd millennium BC. The ark of the covenant may be compared with the portable clothes chest found in the tomb of King Tut (1336-1327 BC). There is no reason to believe that such an artifact could not be manufactured by the Israelites.

8. The accounts of the Exodus ring true to nomadic life: nomads living in the Nile delta who were exploited for cheap labor, Moses' flight to Midian was a common escape route, Bedouins knew how to find water in the wilderness, even by striking certain rocks, Matzah had origins in Bedouin life, etc. These give credibility to the narrative.

9. A pillared, 4-room Israelite house has been found along the Nile near the biblical city of Ra'amses. It bears no similarity to any Egyptian structure, but is identical to the houses of Canaan after the Israelite presence is known. It is dated to 1200-1000 BC.

10. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name identical to the name of a midwife mentioned in Exodus: Shiphrah (Ex. 1.15). It is reasonably certain that the papyrus came from Thebes. The point is not that this is the same woman, but that such names date to that era in that area.

11. The Merneptah stele clearly shows that before the last quarter of the 13th century BC there existed an "Israel" as distinct from Egypt and outside of it, though there is a strong Egyptian presence in the land of Canaan.

12. There is abundant evidence in all eras that Egyptians were slave owners. Scholars previously though that the pyramids in the 3rd millennium BC were built by foreign slaves. Current thinking, however, is that Egyptians, possibly as conscripts or corvée, built the structures. Foreigners, captured in war, were enslaved. Pharaoh Thutmose III (1479-1425 BC) brought back almost 90,000 prisoners from his campaign in Canaan.

13. In a surviving Egyptian document called Leiden Papyrus 348, orders are given to "distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the 'Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Rames[s]es." This brings to mind Exodus 1:11, which says the Hebrews "built supply cities, Pithom and Rameses, for Pharaoh." While hotly debated, 'Apiru is believed by some scholars to refer to the Hebrews, the 'Ibri. If a future discovery of an inscription could link this word to the Hebrews, this document would prove to be our first direct extrabiblical reference to the children of Israel in slavery in Egypt.

14. Recent discoveries of military outposts on a road leading from Egypt into Canaan, built by Pharaoh Seti I and earlier kings in the 13th c. BC, shed new light on why a northern route for the Exodus would have meant war for the Israelites. Exodus 13:17 states: "When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was nearer; for God thought, 'If the people face war, they may change their minds and return to Egypt.' " Instead, the Bible explains, "God led the people by the roundabout way of the wilderness."

15. ile it is virtually impossible 3,000 years later to retrace the footsteps of a people who escaped over a sand swept wilderness, an Egyptian letter (Anastasi III) from guards at a "border crossing" between Egypt and the Sinai helps explain Moses' insistent cry, "Let my people go!" The text indicates that in the 13th c. the Egyptians maintained a tight border control, allowing no one to pass without a permit. The letter describes two slaves who—in a striking parallel to the Israelite escape—flee from the city of Rameses at night, are pursued by soldiers, but disappear into the Sinai wilderness. "When my letter reaches you," writes the official to the border guard, "write to me about all that has happened to [them]. Who found their tracks? Which watch found their tracks? Write to me about all that has happened to them and how many people you send out after them." Another inscription from the same cache of documents (Anastasi VI) records that an entire tribe gained permission to enter Egypt from Edom in search of food.

16. No one knows the exact location of Mt. Sinai, and archaeological remains are scarce in the Sinai Peninsula. There is in Midian, however, a "holy" mountain surrounded by literally THOUSANDS of artifacts and carvings relating to the time period and the situation of the Exodus. Perhaps, as scholars are still evaluating, Moses led the people in their wanderings through Midian (a theory that would make sense given that he had spent 40 years there) rather than the Sinai Peninsula, and perhaps these abundant remains are exactly what people are looking for.

The conclusion of the matter is that the Exodus is an incredibly believable narrative.

[Sure Breeze]

It proves the narrative? So does Harry Potter - London exists, cars exist, so do houses, etc. You need to talk about specific claims here.

I'll start with your first - the 600,000 people claim. For you to be correct, the following official Biblical sources are incorrect: http://biblehub.com/exodus/12-37.htm and http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0212.htm. Almost 20 sources including the popular King James version. Also other sources for the numbers later on, like Numbers 1:46, Numbers 2:32, and Numbers 26:51. All of that... incorrect.

[jimwalton]

Well, first of all I didn't say it proves the narrative. I said that the Exodus is "an incredibly believable narrative."

Let's go back to the 600,000, since that seems to be a point of your concern.

First of all, I mentioned that 600,000 fighting men (with a subsequent population of roughly 2.5 million) doesn't make any sense in any way in anybody's mind as far as Egypt, traveling, survival, the conquest, etc. So let's look deeper and be more analytical, rather than superficial and silly.

Numbers 1.20-45 say there were 603,550 fighting men (over 20 yrs of age). That makes a male population of roughly 1.2 million, and a combined male/female population of roughly 2.4 million, excluding the tribe of Levi (Num. 1.47). Add them in, and a bunch of children, and we end up easily over 2.5 million. It's not a realistic number. So what's a better answer?

In the OT, the word for "thousand" was vocalized *elep* but was written *lp*. But the word for "clan" was vocalized *alup* but was ALSO written *lp". So, what if the numbers in Numbers 1 were intended to be *alup* (lp), not *elep* (lp)? Instead, we get Reuben with 46 clans—500 men; Simeon 59 clans—300 men; Gad 45 clans—650 men, etc. A total of 598 clans, a total of 5,550 fighting men. Now this is a much more realistic number. Using this interpretation, we get a population of about 22,000, not including Levites. Add them in and we're at about 25,000, a much more believable number without having to change the text at all. Now there is reason that they feared the Egyptian army of 20,000. Now they are able to cross the Red Sea in one night. Now they are able to live in the wilderness, and now we know why we don't find bazillions of graves in the wilderness. Makes sense.

I checked your links. They're just translations of the Bible. Yeah, the KJV and NIV both say the same thing. But that's what I'm saying: the Hebrew word can be translated in two different ways. Obviously, the traditional approach is with the outrageous numbers. But now better scholarship is saying, "Hey wait, that doesn't make sense. It can just as easily be translated as this and make perfect sense." Sometimes, as you know, errors in judgment need to be corrected. It doesn't make the Bible incorrect, just the old translations.

[Sure Breeze]

> 600,000, since that seems to be a point of your concern

I just don't want to turn this into a huge essay, let's start very slow since 600k affects a lot of this.

> It's not a realistic number.

You're making my point for me

> Add them in and we're at about 25,000

So, all the sources I provided to you in that last post are wrong, is that correct? You know the answer, all those other sources are wrong?

> It doesn't make the Bible incorrect, just the old translations.

There's a Jewish source there too, not just going off of old English translations. Are they all wrong?

[jimwalton]

Yes, there's very good reason to believe the old translations are wrong. This wouldn't be the first time. During the past 150 years, archaeology has become a reliable science, and they have dug up literally MILLIONS of texts and artifacts. Add to that the eruption of technology in the last 25 years, including the Internet, that has allowed the dissemination of information like the world has never known before. We know things that have been hidden for thousands and thousands of years, things that they didn't know 300 years ago, 500 years ago, or even 2000 years ago. We have access to information to which previous generations didn't have access. There's every reason to believe our information is more accurate now, and that the previous translations are wrong.