Board index ‹ The Exodus

[Nameless]

I think of all the things we can safely say, one of them is that the evidence never happened. There just is nothing to substantiate that event.

[jimwalton]

There's a lot I can say, but I'll try to give you the Reader's Digest condensed version just to get the conversation started.

Plenty of evidence of Semites in Egypt has been found, but nothing to specifically identify any of them with Israelites. One 4-room Israelite house has been found, but that's a far cry from what we're looking for.

Every cultural indicator in the book of Exodus is true to the culture of Egypt at the time. Everything about it rings true and has been verified. Somebody knew explicit details about the time and the culture, which doesn't make as much sense if the book was written 600 years later. Even the geographical references are spot on.

If you're looking for evidence of the Exodus itself, you need to understand that archaeologists don't usually dig in the middle of the desert. They dig on tells, where there is a good chance of finding something and therefore of securing funding. Nobody's digging in the desert. Besides, a nomadic people aren't going to leave much behind. They take everything with them. There really isn't much for an archaeologist to help with here.

You can't expect the Egyptians to carve into the side of their temples how they were humiliated by the Israelites. You're not going to find that record. There really isn't much for an archaeologist to help with here.

Not a single papyrus record has been found in the Nile Delta, where the Israelites allegedly lived. Not a single one, from any era, Egyptian, Semite, or Israelite. Why? Because such things don't survive in the damp and humid. They need hot and dry. Again, there's not much that an archaeologist can help with here.

And yet then we turn around and claim that the archaeologists have found nothing, and so the story of the Exodus is a crock. You know, I did a few cartwheels yesterday, but I can't prove it, a scientist can't measure it, and an archaeologist won't find evidence of it.

I agree that I wish there was more. It would be awesome to find material remains of 25,000 people having lived in Goshen 3500 years ago. But the delta is always in motion, changing it silt and its course. The Israelites were mainly shepherds, not farmers, but we'd still expect material remains, except maybe in the area of Goshen in the delta. Those are environmentally challenging situations for an archaeologist. In addition, the people wandered. They didn't stay in one place after they left Egypt, and we have very few place markers for where they were. We don't even know where Sinai was. Where do you expect an archaeologist to dig? I've been to Israel. There are archaeological remains on just about every hilltop. It's crazy. But they can only dig up so much, so they concentrate on the prominent tells. Nobody's just digging in the desert. You know the old adage: absence of evidence doesn't mean evidence of absence.

[Nameless]

The evidence used seems to be the “lack” of evidence, and the argument seems to circle around there being no evidence. So we kind of have to sift through the reasoning and see if it’s probable which you very effectively summarized.

"For writings of that time to survive the papyrus needs to be in dry conditions to have any chance of survival," — there is some truth to this, and the current oldest surviving Egyptian papyrus is the Kahun Papyrus (1800 B.C.) 309 years before the Exodus or the Ebers papyrus (1550 B.C.) which is about 60 years after the Exodus (if you subscribe to the Ussher chronology). I’m positive there are more, and bear in mind that these were medical documents so preservation techniques were probably very carefully employed to preserve them. I wouldn’t see any reason why the Egyptian people would want to preserve writings that warn of a god that can make rivers turn to blood and kill their cattle and there first born and bring about Boils and locusts and cause all there slaves to high tail it, I can’t really imagine why that kind of information would be important for future Egyptians, can you?

With that most records regarding Egyptian life would be very rare to say the least, so any writings about victories are rare but they do exist and there is basic Egyptian archeology to paint a somewhat picture and timeline although I’m sure it will remain a work in progress. The Merneptah Steele is an example which references a” house of Israel” defeat but, that’s stone, not papyrus. So there is limited writing on papyrus on some subjects but nothing regarding military losses per se or of wrathful gods laying waste In order to free a chosen captive people. I’m sure Egypt had some military losses at some point but do both these kinds of events seem equally plausible?

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the dialogue. You mentioned the Kahun Papyri of 1800 BC. Excellent point. It shows how little information we have on papyri from that entire era, and we NOTHING from the Nile Delta (papyri can't survive there). So for millennia of history have close to nothing to give us information about anything that's going on. And it's during this time that people want documentation of the Israelites in Egypt. Well, it's not a reasonable expectation, but it would be a great find. Another thing I didn't mention much is the movement of the Nile Delta. For all we know, where the Israelites stayed in 1600 BC could be under the waters of the Mediterranean Sea right now. People want all this evidence (and I'd like it too), but it just may not exist, but that doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Nameless]

I have to be honest, I think even if we had documentation of all this I would still be skeptical. Something in writing doesn’t necessarily make that event true. I have to ask myself what’s more probable and does the mere lack of evidence make exodus account more or less likely? I ask the same of miracles, does the lack of evidence for miracles make their existence more likely or less? I can’t prove 100% that these things didn’t happen but, when the lack of evidence is used as evidence (and it appears to be your strongest argument) on this subject, it just comes up short. It’s argument from ignorance plain and simple. So what’s more likely? The exodus event and every last bit of evidence is lost in time or that it didn’t happen? and is the truth probability on equal ground? And that’s one of the reasons why I always pick this part of the Bible it’s the very foundation of the religions. And an argument from lack of evidence is supposed to be compelling enough to prop up the whole belief and there’s nothing really there. And once I asked myself as honestly as I could if this cornerstone belief was rational and justified, my answer was no. As I looked thought out History and Science and Religion and other religions it just became more and more apparent, like Scientology, Mormonism, Hinduism, Taoism, paganism or may others Christianity for me slowly joined the ranks of myth.

[jimwalton]

Oh, I certainly agree with you that just because we have something in writing doesn't make the event true. One merely has to look at the propaganda of Soviet Russia and Communist China , as well as some of the ancient reliefs in Egypt and Assyria to know that people can write what they want to support their power base. We know that just because it's on TV, or in the newspaper, or on the Internet, doesn't mean that it's true. But we do have other evidences pertaining to the reliability of the Exodus account.

Archaeologists have uncovered the well-preserved village of Deir el-Medina in Egypt, 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. The description in Exodus is right on target, supporting the realism of the narrative.

And, for instance, is it realistic to think that a Semitic speaking foreigner like Joseph, and later Moses, could have risen to the highest levels of Egyptian government? James Hoffmeier, Egyptologist, answers by pointing to an Egyptian tomb discovered in Sakkara, Egypt, in the late 1980s. It contains the coffin of a Semite named Aper-el along with the coffins of his wife and children. His titles include “vizier,” “mayor of the city,” “judge,” “father of god,” “child of the nursery.” Hoffmeier points out that Aper-el’s name was the first of a high ranking, Semite official to be found there, even though Sakkara has been excavated and explored for more than a century. “If such a high ranking official as Vizier Aper-el was completely unknown to modern scholarship until the late 1980s, despite the fact that he lived in one of the better documented periods of Egyptian history [14th century], and was buried in arguably the most excavated site in Egypt, it is wrong to demand, as some have, that direct archaeological evidence for Joseph (and the Exodus) should be available if it were in fact historical." This is even more the case, he says, because Joseph lived during a period when surviving Egyptian documents of any kind are sparse and because Joseph operated in the Nile Delta, an area that remains under-excavated to this day.

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. Again, this supports the realism of the narrative. The Joseph story is easily believable given what we know about Egyptian history.

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. All of this supports the story of the Israelites as told in Exodus.

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 renegade nomadic groups, such as the Israelites, the 'Ibri.

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). In addition, the place names of Ra’amses and Pithom (Ex 1.11) in Egypt accord with the Late Bronze Age, when there was extensive construction in the Nile delta region, most likely by a large slave force.

The desert Tabernacle is described as a portable prefabricated shrine. The structure has close Egyptian parallels in the 2nd millennium BC. The Tabernacle is true to the era, and even likely to have come from people who knew about Egyptian architecture. 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.

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.

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."

The upshot is that the narrative of Exodus is eminently believable, and everything about it rings true to the era, the geography, the culture, and the history. There is actually very little justifiable historical reason to doubt the account in our hands.

In addition, we know that the cultural topography of Canaan changed dramatically in the hill country just when the Bible says Joshua entered the land and took the hill country, coinciding with the accounts of the departure from Egypt in the same era.

There is no reason to consider that the Biblical account is myth.

[Nameless]

Good to hear from you again,

The settlement of Deir el-Medina is very interesting and does seem to fall under the time line of the exodus of around 400 years of existence. Could this the Settlement of the Israelites? I’m Going to say no and I’ll tell you why; If the Bible is to Be accepted as the Word of God then the exodus story has to be history, it can’t be allegory and it can’t be extrapolated. If the God of the bible is real there’s no wiggle room to take out all the miracles and wonders and leave just basic history, it just won’t make the God of the bible real. These events in exodus have to be as they are if it’s to be accepted as credible history. So why not consider this settlement as the slaves? Well the bible says;

So the Egyptians put slave drivers over them to crush their spirits with hard labor. The Israelites built the cities of Pithom and Rameses to serve as supply centers for the king.12 But the more the Egyptians oppressed the Israelites, the more they increased in number and the farther they spread through the land. The Egyptians came to fear the Israelites 13-14 and made their lives miserable by forcing them into cruel slavery. They made them work on their building projects and in their fields, and they had no pity on them.

And

“When you help the Hebrew women give birth,” he said to them, “kill the baby if it is a boy; but if it is a girl, let it live.”

And

Then the LORD said, “I have seen how cruelly my people are being treated in Egypt

And

I have indeed heard the cry of my people, and I see how the Egyptians are oppressing them.

In short, according to the biblical account the Egyptians and Pharaoh in general were a bunch of A-holes and they went out of their way to bring suffering and hardship to the Israelites who regardless still multiplied like rabbits due to their faith and fear in God. And that’s not even mentioning the various supernatural events later on in the story.

To my Knowledge the Settlement known as Deir el-Medina was a village of artisan workers and I don’t think it would be a stretch to see differing backgrounds and ethnicities among the people, so some of them could have been at least Canaanites. In the Bible Pharaoh clearly labels the slaves Israelites exclusively and due to their faith and fear in God which is referenced in Exodus a few times so they were followers of the Biblical God at least to some degree. And enough to get Gods attention after a few centuries of seemingly brutal slave labor.

Deir el-Medina looked to have been a village of artisans that had an established society of skilled laborers and were by no means treated badly they were not slaves in the slightest more of a middle class, although I’m positive that there were slaves in there population. This village and the exodus account do not match at all I’m afraid if they did this settlement would have been brought up more often but once again Deir el-Medina has absolutely no references to Israelite culture or references to the biblical God at all or the subsequent mass exodus of the population, in short this was no slave camp. And no one (but you) have brought this village up as proof.

I don’t really doubt that a foreigner could rise through the ranks in Egyptian culture or that people from the surrounding area migrated to and from the Nile delta for various reasons such as drought or famine such as Joseph supposedly did. I haven’t really studied up on a historical Joseph and I have suspicions that like the Exodus itself Joseph’s existence (possibly Amenhotep-Huy) is either lost to time, was hagiography or was a literary creation.

As far as the tabernacle is concerned, I don’t really see why an Egyptian influence of the tabernacle is hard to accept with all the moving about that people did during those times and the influence of Egypt in during that time, although I’m a little perplexed as to why the Israelite God would give instructions to make Egyptian inspired cloths and Knick knacks seeing as he was not a fan of those people to begin with. If I remember correctly God “imbued” them with the knowledge of those skills (Exodus 31:3 I think?).

In order for the biblical account to be convincing, the evidence has to be more compelling. We're not just talking about basic history. The bible is telling of the redemption of his tribe of people thought multiple supernatural occurrences, even whispers of a basic foundational history come up short. Is there any mention of a Vizier named Joseph or a Moses or a massive Israelite slave population or any signs of a Israelite slave population? No. Does that mean they 100% didn’t exist? No. But why should we accept that they did, and then pile on a whole of miracles and call it “eminently believable”? If this were the account of any other religion, I’d be willing to bet you would not be convinced, that you would make the same objections. If I were instead discussing the Jesus living in America, would you not bring up the lack of archeological evidence at least as a primary reason? And would the Mormons make a case formed in the same way in which people do the exodus?

This really is a great conversation I hope you still enjoying it

[jimwalton]

Oh, I definitely agree that the Deir el-Medina site is not the site of the Israelites in Egypt. I only raised it as an example that the narrative of the Exodus rings true in every aspect. Deir el-Medina (in contrast to Funky Cold Medina) shows us a large village of Egyptian laborers that was inhabited for over 400 years. It's not where the Israelites were, but it shows that there were such places.

But let's remember while you are looking so hard for a village of Israelites: Ex. 3.22 implies that they were not living in a separate village, but in and among the Egyptians, even in their own houses. Maybe you're looking for something there is no chance of finding (because they didn't live separately), and then claiming it's not real because no separate "city" has been found.

It's been proved that foreigners did indeed rise through the ranks and even reign in Egypt. The entire Hyksos dynasty is an example. The name of Joseph (aka Zaphenath-Paneah) has never been found (nor has Moses), but as I mentioned, Aper-el was only recently found, and that in a thoroughly excavated site in a very well known period of Egyptian history. There is so much that still eludes even the professionals.

As far as the Ark of the Covenant, it only reveals the intriguing possibility that the design had its source in Egyptian sculpture, which again gives credibility to the idea that they had been in Egypt for a duration of time, for that design to be part of their design.

I understand that you want the evidence to be more compelling. So do I. It's one of the most important narratives in the Bible. Everything about the story makes sense, fits the cultural and historical context, and rings true to life, even to the smallest details, but we have found no material remains. I would expect that there are material remains of 25,000 people living for 400 years in Egypt, but as I said, those may be out in the Mediterranean by now. No parchment documentation has ever been found in the Nile Delta region; it's too wet. I wouldn't expect material remains in the desert (it was a carry in/carry out park). We don't know where they were, we don't know where Sinai is, and no one's digging in the desert anyway. Who knows what's really out there. The first explicit material remains we have of the Israelites (that we know of) is the conquest of the hill country of Canaan in the era of Joshua.

But we know that the situation is far more complicated and cannot just be approached simplistically or casually (as many detractors do). For one, we don't know what the Israelites were called back then. The Bible calls them the children of Israel, but what do other nations and records call them? We don't know. Maybe they didn't even have a distinct name, since they were just a family group in Canaan, and then they were in Egypt as foreigners, nomads, Bedouin shepherds. Did they even *have* a name before they left Egypt?

Second, we know that Hebrew was not "invented" as a language until about 1100 or 1000 BC. These names and places are all written for us in the OT in Hebrew, but those are transliterations at best, if at all.

Third, while we don't find any signs of an explicitly Israelite slave population in Egypt, we know that Egypt had a massive slave population, and yet only one such village has been found.

Fourth, Bedouins don't typically leave behind material remains, though a group of 25,000 might (maybe) if we just knew where to look.

My bottom line is this: there is nothing in the narrative to tell me it's untrue. If we go with innocent until proved guilty, then the narrative stands, despite the lack of material remains, until something proves it false. Nothing proves the Exodus narrative false. But if we go with guilty until proved innocent, then we assume absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and we let silence decide the case.

[Nameless]

O.K. I got ya, I wasn’t sure if you were considering the Deir el- Medina as direct Israelite evidence, so I may have jumped the gun there. My apologies. Deir el-Medina was a settlement, so it's not really a big surprise that there were villages that lasted so long, especially with the relative stability of the region. That doesn’t really lend any more credibility to having a large foreign slave population. I'm afraid I don’t really find that a relatable reason to accept the existence of a Israelite slave population. Also, it has to be taken into account that there is lots of evidence from the discovery about daily life, which is pretty dang cool.

You are absolutely right that there seems to be much more to discover, but as the years go by archeologists seem to be more and more convinced the story was a fabrication. But as you said, that doesn’t mean there’s nothing there. It just makes it seem for the moment unlikely to the ones doing the digging.

I can understand why you want it to be true, and that you need it to be true. I get that for Christianity to be true this story has to be. There is no room for allegory here—it just be history. It's the very foundation of these religions. You used all the basic elements of the arguments I’m familiar with and you did it very well, but it's telling that the one you tend to circle back around to is that the lack of evidence somehow makes it remain 100% believable. Can you honestly blame me for being reluctant to accept the story as credible? Am I being unfair for being suspicious?

[jimwalton]

It's totally fair to be suspicious. There's a certain wisdom to that. We all have to be willing to follow truth wherever it leads us, regardless of our presuppositions, biases, and experiences. If we are not willing to do that, we are just ignorant and blind (imho). I wasn't specifically saying that the lack of evidence makes it 100% believable. What I was saying is that there is no evidence that makes me doubt it; there is no evidence that shows me it is untrue or didn't happen. In other words, there is no negative evidence proving it untrue. Granted, it also lacks positive evidence to prove its historicity, but all of the positive evidence in the Bible that we do have (facts, culture, history, geography, etc.) corroborates perfectly with all of the positive extra-biblical evidence that we have (facts, culture, history, geography, etc.). That's all I was saying. There is no evidence that shows it to be false, but only a lack of evidence proving it to be true.