Board index ‹ The Exodus

[Teagan]

The Exodus and Conquest of Canaan as written are swiss cheese, historically. Thus all the appeals Yahweh makes to them to motivate his followers lose force.

What reason do we have to believe it did happen? Why should we believe the fanciful tale in the Bible?
Archaeologists haven't produced enough evidence to back the story as written.

For one: the numbers involved in the Exodus are absolutely absurd and yet we have no trace of these people, despite them being millions strong

As for conquest (which is the second part of the tandem): the amount of places that were actually destroyed in the correct period as claimed by Joshua are very limited (I know Bruce Halpern claims one or two fit the period but Dever and Finkelstein provide many examples that weren't and almost none that do). Most places were not or may not have even been occupied at the time. The later writers used their own context and projected it back, and it didn't always work out or match the archaeological record.

Scholars nowadays think that Israelites were not some horde that swept in, separate from Canaanites. They were either Canaanites or Canaanites plus some nomadic groups that settled down in what we consider "Israel's" territory. It's actually hard to distinguish them from canaanites early on, despite all their claims to special status and 500 years of Egyptian living.

Moreover: in the appropriate time period Egypt still had control over Canaan. Enough slaves to populate a nation ran from Egypt through Egyptian controlled forts to Egyptian territory and no one notice or it isn't mentioned? Some have suggested that this Egyptian control of Canaan would be a good seed for a narrative of Egyptian dominance being ended by Yahweh without needing a horde of Hebrew slaves actually be in Egypt.

Moreover, it was not necessary to have lived in Egypt to suffer from Egyptian oppression. In a series of landmark essays, Ronald Hendel has advanced the thesis that memories of late Bronze Age (fifteenth to twelfth century) Egyptian colonial rule in Canaan survived in the Exodus story.28 The Exodus myth could have drawn its key motifs from an anticolonial, “nativist” resistance movement against the colonizing power,29 gaining all the more in forcefulness and emotional impact from the mid-eighth century onward, as colonial oppression resumed under the Assyrians and continued unabated under the Babylonians, Persians, Seleucids, and Romans.

Assmann, The Invention of Religion

The version of the story we have seems to be deliberate nation-making propaganda from Judahite and post-Exilic powers.

The truth is that virtually every archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all....When we look for convergences, how do the various books of the Hebrew Bible fare as a history? A story on this very topic appeared in The New York Times on July i9, 2000, entitled “The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests.” But does it? Perhaps the books of Exodus and Numbers do, because as we have seen their accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence. That may make many uncomfortable, but it is a fact, one from which no openminded person can escape. There is little real history in these books, although there may be some vague memories of actual events, as I shall argue presently. For example, we may suppose that a historical figure like the biblical Moses did exist and was recognized as a leader among a group of Semitic slaves in Egypt, someone who indeed seemed to be a miracleworker, and perhaps the mediator of knowledge about the new deity Yahweh

William Dever, Who were the Israelites and where did they come from.

And Dever himself notes that he's more charitable than others might be.

He also said:

But of course that doesn’t mean that we agree about everything.) The conquest model is not subscribed to by most biblical scholars today—certainly no one in the mainstream of scholarship—and that’s been true for some time. Moreover, there isn’t a single reputable professional archaeologist in the world who espouses the conquest model in Israel, Europe or America. We don’t need to say any more about the conquest model. That’s that

\

Such questions about historical reality end in a blind alley. The biblical stories contradict each other, while extrabiblical sources are in short supply. The “historical Moses” has vanished into thin air and a verifiable exodus cannot be reconstructed from the stories.

Assmann This time.

Putting aside the possibility of divinely inspired miracles, one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications into the desert and then into Canaan in the time of such a formidable Egyptian presence. Any group escaping Egypt against the will of the pharaoh would have easily been tracked down not only by an Egyptian army chasing it from the delta but also by the Egyptian soldiers in the forts in northern Sinai and in Canaan.

...

The conclusion—that the Exodus did not happen at the time and in the manner Kadesh-barnea for thirty eight of the forty years of the wanderings. The general location of this place is clear from the description of the southern border of the land of Israel in Numbers 34 . It has been identified by archaeologists with the large and well-watered oasis of Ein el-Qudeirat in eastern Sinai, on the border between modern Israel and Egypt. The name Kadesh was probably preserved over the centuries in the name of a nearby smaller spring called Ein Qadis. A small mound with the remains of a Late Iron Age fort stands at the center of this oasis. Yet repeated excavations and surveys throughout the entire area have not provided even the slightest evidence for activity in the Late Bronze Age, not even a single sherd left by a tiny fleeing band of frightened refugees.

...

The pattern should have become clear by now. Sites mentioned in the Exodus narrative are real. A few were well known and apparently occupied in much earlier periods and much later periods—after the kingdom of Judah was established, when the text of the biblical narrative was set down in writing for the first time. Unfortunately for those seeking a historical Exodus, they were unoccupied precisely at the time they reportedly played a role in the events of the wandering of the children of Israel in the wilderness.

Israel Finkelstein.

[jimwalton]

> For one: the numbers involved in the Exodus are absolutely absurd and yet we have no trace of these people, despite them being millions strong

Right. The numbers are a problem of the Masoretic text. In Moses, the word for “thousand” was vocalized “elep” but was written “lp” (Gn. 20.16). But a similar word vocalized “alup” (meaning clan, or troop, or chief) was also written “lp” (Gn. 36.15; Judges 6.15). If the numbers shown were intended to use “alup” instead of “elep”, then the population of Israel during the exodus is about 25,000, a realistic number, not 2.5 million, a ridiculous number on so many counts.

> As for conquest (which is the second part of the tandem): the amount of places that were actually destroyed in the correct period as claimed by Joshua are very limited

The Bible says only 3 cities were destroyed: Jericho, Ai, and Hazor. The Bible says that the Israelites would get to occupy cities they had never built, which is difficult to do if you destroy them. Instead, they occupied cities and displaced the people, just as archaeology and the Bible say.

> Scholars nowadays think that Israelites were not some horde that swept in, separate from Canaanites. They were either Canaanites or Canaanites plus some nomadic groups that settled down in what we consider "Israel's" territory.

Some do think this, but even Finkelstein describes the new "invaders" of the Canaanite highlands as a different people group, building new settlements in a new style of housing and different cultural expressions (pottery, unfortification, dearth of public buildings, different cultural practices, etc.)

> Moreover: in the appropriate time period Egypt still had control over Canaan.

At the time, Egypt's control over Canaan was waning. The local kings were exercising their muscle, the Hittites were making advances, and the land was more in chaos than in previous eras. It was actually an ideal time for an invasion.

> “The Bible, as History, Flunks New Archaeological Tests.”

Yeah, I disagree with this assessment and conclusion.

> Perhaps the books of Exodus and Numbers do, because as we have seen their accounts of escape from Egypt, of wandering in the wilderness, and of massive conquests in Transjordan are overwhelmingly contradicted by the archaeological evidence.

This is not true at all. 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. Even the geographical references are spot on. Every single element of the Exodus story is corroborated by history (except the specifics about the Israelite exodus itself), and Joshua describes the conquest as mostly a defensive battle. They conquered and destroyed Jericho and Ai—the heartland. Then they were attacked by a coalition of kings from the north and won, thus inheriting the cities of the north. Then they were attacked by the kings of the south and won, thus inheriting the cities of the south. Then they fought against Hazor and burned it (as the Bible claims and archaeology shows).

But there are reasons I wouldn't expect the Israelites to leave artifactual evidence to be found 3K years later. I wouldn’t expect a group of poverty-stricken slaves wandering in the desert, living in makeshift tents or whatever, to have left much behind for archaeologists to find. Almost everything archaeologists discover is the remains of cities, on tells. Since the ancient Israelites were pastoralists and not urbanites, I don't think much would have been left behind. 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.

> one can hardly accept the idea of a flight of a large group of slaves from Egypt through the heavily guarded border fortifications into the desert and then into Canaan in the time of such a formidable Egyptian presence.

The biblical text specifically says they took a road to avoid the fortifications.

> Kadesh-Barnea

Most of the Israelite stay (38 of their 40 years) was in the region of the Paran Desert. You're right that there is no artifactual evidence of their presence, but that's not totally unexpected. There was no settlement there, they didn't own many possessions, and I don't know (being genuine: I don't know) how deep archaeologists have dug to find, what, bones?

I've had to be brief. So, lets' talk.

[Teagan]

> "population of Israel during the exodus is about 25,000, a realistic number"

except in Exodus 1:6-12 it says the Israelites were multiplying so much they even overwhelmed the egyptians.

> "The Bible says only 3 cities were destroyed: Jericho"

jericho was unhinabited at the time, and this is known since the 1950s. Ai too. And Pithom in egypt. Hazor does seem to have been destroyed, so it seems the authors attributed unrelated events all to Joshua.

> "building new settlements in a new style of housing and different cultural expressions (pottery, unfortification,...)"

The scholars are in agreement that pottery developed from previous canaanite forms ad have struggled to find much to differentiate the early israelites from their compatriots other than the absence of pig bones. Finkelstein believes the shape of hilltop settlements could indicate another ethnic marker but he still believes it was still an ethnogenesis out of canaanite groups.

> "Egypt's control over Canaan was waning"

maybe so, but there was still egyptian control until 11th century bce, and the verse specifically refers of a raid in which "Israel's seed is no more" in the 1209 bc egyptian stelle. That hardly sounds like a defeated empire. And there is no record anywhere of a pharaoh dying in a slave revolt. No record of Jacob either. Though the authors certainly knew the region, as details like manna from heaven show, which is most likely the tamarisk honeydew of Sinai.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the conversation. It's always fun.

> except in Exodus 1:6-12 it says the Israelites were multiplying so much they even overwhelmed the egyptians.

We have to look at ALL the information, not just one isolated passage.

V. 9: The pharaoh said, "The Israelites have become much too numerous for us." Let's be honest. If the Israelites were 600,000 fighting men (and therefore population of ~ 2.5 million, we're into a ridiculous scenario. The total population of Egypt at the time is calculated to be somewhere between 1.6-5 million, including slaves. The Egyptian army was no more than 20,000. If the Israelites were 2.5 million, and with a fighting force of 600,000, Israel has no need to be afraid (Ex. 14.10). They could conquer the Egyptians easily. It's impossible that's the picture.

Back to 1.6-12. Numbers, not strength, are what's going on. They had come down as 70 people, and now numbering in the tens of thousands (I mentioned about 25,000). I can see where the language fits a growth from 70 to 25,000.

"So that the land was filled with them" is obviously hyperbole. I say my body is filled with mosquito bites when I have about 20. Obviously the Egyptians felt outnumbered in some parts of the land (viz., Goshen).

Egypt would never have chased after them (Ex. 14) if there were 600,000 fighting men vs. 20,000 Egyptians.

Instead, if we read 'lp as "clans" and not "thousands" (as the MT has translated), we get a much more realistic picture throughout the whole text.

> jericho was unhinabited at the time, and this is known since the 1950s.

Kathleen Kenyon's work of the 1950s has been questioned. She dated Jericho's destruction to 1570 BC, but Bryant Wood (director of the Associates for Biblical Research) discovered evidence in her findings that sometimes contradicts her own conclusions. (A major factor in her conclusion involved the *absence* of Cypriot bichrome pottery—representing questionable logic and scholarship. Since Jericho is not on a mojo trade route, why should we expect to find Cypriot pottery? But there were also low-grade imitations of this pottery that were relatively abundant. Also, Kenyon excavated on a small portion of the tell. Can we really trust Kenyon's date?). In addition, John Garstang dated the destruction to about 1400. In other words, the case is far from settled and still being debated. Unfortunately, the site is not being excavated now.

> Ai

You can't conclude it didn't exist at the time, because the site of Ai has not been found. One site thought to be Ai (et-Tell) shows no habitation during Joshua's era—that is, IF, in fact, this is where ancient Ai was located. (The topical features of et-Tell don't match what the Bible says Ai was like.) Alternative sites are still being theorized (such as Khirbet El Maqatir), though no strong candidates have yet emerged. In other words, possibly we haven't found Ai yet.

> Pithom

Here I would have to disagree with you. 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. The locations, however, are still debated (Tell-el-Retabeh [Pir-Atum], or, less likely, Tell el-Mashkuta). Some archaeologists even speculate whether Pithom was moved to a new location.

> Hazor... so it seems the authors attributed unrelated events all to Joshua.

????? "Pithom" doesn't appear in the biblical Joshua/Conquest account.

> pottery developed from previous canaanite forms

It should be no surprise that a people group (the Israelites) of Aramean descent, who spent several centuries in Canaan (during the era of the patriarchs) to show some similarity to Canaanite forms. The pottery of the Israelites was simple, and imported goods were absent. Finkelstein noted a difference between Israelite and Canaanite pottery.

> Finkelstein believes the shape of hilltop settlements could indicate another ethnic marker but he still believes it was still an ethnogenesis out of canaanite groups.

Correct, but the shape of the hilltop settlements led him to write that "the implication seems clear that a new population group had arrived."

> there was still egyptian control until 11th century bce

Correct. The biblical account describes the occupation of Canaan as gradual. The Israelites only took possession of the hill country, and even that a little at a time. The biblical account accords with what we know from history and archaeology.

> and the verse specifically refers of a raid in which "Israel's seed is no more" in the 1209 bc egyptian stelle.

Yes, another piece of ancient warfare rhetoric and hyperbole, common in the ANE.

• Egypt’s Tuthmosis III (later 15th c.) boasted that “the numerous army of Mitanni was overthrown within the hour, annihilated totally, like those (now) not existent.” In fact, Mitanni’s forces lived on to fight in the 15th and 14th centuries BC.
• Hittite king Mursilli II (who ruled from 1322-1295 BC) recorded making “Mt. Asharpaya empty (of humanity)” and the “mountains of Tarikarimu empty (of humanity).” It's not true.
• The “Bulletin” of Ramses II tells of Egypt’s less-than-spectacular victories in Syria (1274 BC). Nevertheless, he announces that he slew “the entire force” of the Hittites, indeed “all the chiefs of all the countries,” disregarding the “millions of foreigners,” which he considered “chaff.”
• Moab’s king Mesha (840/830 BC) bragged that the Northern Kingdom of “Israel has utterly perished for always,” which was over a century premature. The Assyrians devastated Israel in 722 BC.

> And there is no record anywhere of a pharaoh dying in a slave revolt.

The Bible doesn't say Pharaoh died. It says his army drowned (Ex. 14.28). "Not one of them survived"—another piece of ANE warfare rhetoric and hyperbole. Enough of the army was killed that they turned back. Then we get the rhetoric of "Not one of them survived" indicating a convincing victory at the hand of their God, their Divine Warrior (14.30-31).

> No record of Jacob either.

Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

> Though the authors certainly knew the region

Correct.

[Franko]

> "The Israelites have become much too numerous for us"

exactly, according to the narrative, why would the egyptians be worried if they were a mere 25,000? The figure is unrealistic but its very likely the authors wanted to make a point that God delivered on his promise to make the children of Israel "as numerous as the stars in the sky". Furthermore, another important piece of evidence is that the number 600,000 is the gematria value for "bnai Israel"

> "In other words, the case is far from settled and still being debated."

Kenyon's work is the scholarly consensus. It should be noted also that Wood works for a project "commited to the use of archeology to prove the historical reliability of the Old and New Testaments". This is not a serious scientific pursuit, it is apologetics. No wonder he will reject anything that doesnt fit his preconceived conclusions.

> "possibly we haven't found Ai yet."

The consensus is that it is at Et-Tell. The evangelicals agreed, until it didnt fit with their expectations.

> "a new population group had arrived."

a new population group that happened to speak the same language as the canaanites and showed no unusual egyptian influence?

> "The biblical account describes the occupation of Canaan as gradual"

Kinda, but there is no mention of Egyptian incursions during that time, when in reality we know that this was taking place.

> "Pithom"

I didnt mean to put Pithom in Canaan, rather in the list of places that are anachronistic to the supposed time of the events.

> "The Bible doesn't say Pharaoh died."

Its dubious. But it says Pharaoh went in the raid. Exodus 14:4-18 seems to imply he died. So does Psalm 136. Keil and Delitzsch agree that Pharaoh died in their commentary of 15:19.

"Correct. But absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Nor do we know when the last pterodactyl died, and there is no evidence of it, but we know it happened."

I meant to say Joseph, not Jacob. You could argue they destroyed the records of the reign he participated in, but that doesnt help our endeavour. The pterodactyl analogy is not very accurate since we have many real pterodactyl bones, and the question for us is whether there existed the biblical pterodactyl in the first place, not when exactly it died.

I think the reality of Exodus is that, like most of the Bible, it mixes facts from folk memory and myth.

[jimwalton]

> according to the narrative, why would the egyptians be worried if they were a mere 25,000?

Great question. Thanks for asking. There is no particular inference by the text that the Egyptians considered the Israelites to be a military threat, though that seems to be in their minds. We know that the land of Goshen could only support a given population, and if there are 25,000 Israelites, they were too numerous for that region and spilling out elsewhere in the land. The Egyptians were becoming minorities in some regions of their own country. Archaeologists tell us that it was common for Bedouin groups to come to Egypt for work and food, but this is different. The Israelites were becoming an economic force to be reckoned with, along with a potentially rebellious people group large enough to cause a problem for the kingdom of Egypt. If there were to be an uprising, it could be potentially dangerous for the stability of the country.

> The figure is unrealistic but its very likely the authors wanted to make a point that God delivered on his promise to make the children of Israel "as numerous as the stars in the sky".

This is true. At least part of the intent of the author is to show that God blessed his people into becoming a great nation.

> Kenyon's work is the scholarly consensus.

For the time, yes, but it is being reexamined and questioned. Most scholars still hold to Kenyon's conclusions. You question Wood's work, and you're entitled to do so. Remember I also said that John Gerstang questions Kenyon's dating. Kevin Miller also questions her dating. The truth is that there is still much excavation work to be done in Jericho to get the more complete and more accurate story.

> Ai - The consensus is that it is at Et-Tell.

You're right again, but the problem is that the excavations at at et-Tell have revealed no specific evidence that this is Ai. It is regarded as such because of its proximity to Jericho, not for any positive evidence. Just for the record, Beth Aven has not been found, either (Joshua 7.2). There is reason to question the identification of et-Tell.

> a new population group that happened to speak the same language as the canaanites

I'm curious what evidence you have that the new population group spoke the same language as the Canaanites?

> and showed no unusual egyptian influence?

The ark of the covenant is like Egyptian artifacts. A similar-sized chest with rings (for carrying with poles) was found in Tutankhamun's tomb. In Egyptians festivals the images of the gods were often carried in procession on portable barques. In Egypt it was also common for important documents that were confirmed by oath to be deposited beneath the feet of the deity (the tablets of Moses were put in the ark of the covenant).

The Israelite tabernacle itself shared some features with Egyptian sacred spaces. Portable structures of similar design (curtains hung over gold-gilded beams or poles) are found in Egypt as early as the mid-3rd millennium. Egyptian royal tents of the 19th dynasty were a two-roomed tent with an outer chamber twice the length of the inner. The framing of the chambers is similar to the pavilion of Hetep-heres.

In contrast, though, the Israelites were always a separate people group with their own dietary rituals (as mandated by Torah Law), cultic rituals (Ex. 8.26: the offerings sacrificed by the Israelites were abominable to the Egyptians), and moral practices. Gn. 46.34 says that the shepherding lifestyle of the Israelites was "an abomination" to the Egyptians. It seems there was a substantial separation of cultures. What similarities might you expect?

> Kinda, but there is no mention of Egyptian incursions during that time, when in reality we know that this was taking place.

Correct. Nor does the Bible deny such incursions. The narrative ignores them; they were not part of the story the writers were telling and were peripheral to the Conquest. Remember, the Israelites (according to the Bible and to archaeology) had only taken and occupied the hill country. Are you aware of any contradictory evidence saying that these Egyptian incursions were taking place in the hill country and the Bible is telling a different story?

> I didnt mean to put Pithom in Canaan, rather in the list of places that are anachronistic to the supposed time of the events.

This is what I'm trying to determine from what you're saying. Pithom in Egypt is not anachronistic. There was extensive construction in Nile Delta in the late Bronze Age. As I mentioned, the site off Pithom is still being determined, but there are a few worthy candidates.

> I meant to say Joseph, not Jacob.

Oh, Joseph. Yeah, there's no record of him, either, but that's not evidence that he didn't exist. My notation about Aper-el shows that there's a lot to discover and learn about the era and its officials. We know that there was an era of Hyksos officials in Egypt. After Ahmose I drove the Hyksos from Egypt, however, the 18th Dynasty destroyed almost all evidence of the Hyksos presence. Only a limited amount of history can be reconstructed from the little available data. In a certain dating schema, Joseph lived during a period when surviving Egyptian documents of any kind are sparse.

Joseph's Egyptian name, Zaphenath-Paneah (Gn. 41.45), has not been found. Doug Petrovich claims that he has found the name of Joseph's wife, Asenath, in proto-consonantal inscriptions in Sinai 375a, dating to the 15th c. BC, but his research and interpretation are contested.

> The pterodactyl analogy is not very accurate since we have many real pterodactyl bones, and the question for us is whether there existed the biblical pterodactyl in the first place, not when exactly it died.

My point in the pterodactyl analogy is that just because we don't a historical record of an event doesn't mean it didn't happen.

> I think the reality of Exodus is that, like most of the Bible, it mixes facts from folk memory and myth.

You are welcome to your opinion and interpretation. I obviously disagree, and that's what makes for good discussion! Thanks for adding a worthy section of good discussion about these things. I obviously don't agree with the OP that the Exodus and Conquest of Canaan are "swiss cheese," and you obviously do. That's OK. We find out everything we can in our quest for the truth. We'll both keep reading and researching as more is discovered.