Board index ‹ The Exodus

[Sgt. Foxbox]

I'm a Christian, and this question has been bugging me for a while. How do you reconcile the fact that the Israelites' exodus from Egypt is not a historical event?

[jimwalton]

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 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—and we KNOW the Israelites were there then. The Israelites buried in simple inhumations outside of settlements, in open fields with no grave goods. What evidence are you thinking an archaeologist will find?

2. Archaeologists, though, 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. This doesn't prove the Exodus or give evidence for it, but it supports the realism of the narrative of the early chapters of Exodus. The author knew what he was talking about.

3. 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. The Joseph story is easily believable given what we know about Egyptian history.

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. The book of Exodus fits easily into the framework of Egyptian history.

5. An Egyptian tomb discovered in Sakkara, Egypt, in the late 1980s, 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." This tells us that a Semitic-speaking foreigner like Joseph, and later Moses, could have risen to the highest levels of Egyptian government.
James 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 should be available if he were in fact a historical figure." 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 "underexcavated" to this day

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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. The text of Exodus rings true to the culture and era.

12. 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.

13. The Wisdom of Merikare and the Prophecy of Neferti, ancient Egyptian documents, report influxes of thousands of Semites into the Nile Delta between 2200 and 2000 B.C. Similar patterns of settlement recurred over the next thousand years, creating a "significant Asiatic population" in the Delta region. The Merikare document explains that these Asiatic, Semitic speaking peoples, like Jacob and his sons, had come to the fertile Delta area in search of food during times of famine.

14. 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. In other words, the Egyptians were known for large groups of foreign slaves. Exodus fits these facts.

15. 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.

16. 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."

17. While 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. Compare that with Gen. 42.3.

18. 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 (tens of 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 such as you are looking for.

19. For two centuries ending in 1550 B.C., a foreign Asiatic people called the Hyksos actually ruled Egypt. After their expulsion, the new pharaoh extended his rule into Canaan and Syria, transporting back to Egypt many prisoners of war. After the expulsion of the Hyksos ruling and military elite, Pharaoh Ahmose and his successors discovered large numbers of Semitic speaking peoples, including the Hebrews, in the Delta, who were subsequently forced to work alongside the POWs. This shift in status from being tolerated immigrants to an enslaved population described in Exodus 1:8 may represent the transition from the Hyksos period to the eighteenth Dynasty. It's also true that the practice of using forced labor for building projects is only documented for the period 1450 to 1200, the very time most biblical historians place the Israelites in Egypt. The realization that there were others enslaved along with the Hebrews may explain who the "mixed multitude" of Exodus 12:38 are who joined the "freedom train."

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

[Wooster]

> "What would one expect to find of a people group on the move for 40 years, building no cities, subject to little military action, and taking all their possessions with them? We have to be realistic about what one expects to find as evidence..."

A lot! Have you ever been to a music festival or other forms of gatherings of people? Even for a short time? Have you seen the amount of trash left? A large group of people would need to eat on a regular basis which requires preparation and cooking. Pottery from such is always found where there have been migrations.
Such a large group of people moving slowly from place to place would have been known. They would not magically find food but would've had to buy, steal or pillage for food along the way and such things would've been noted by the locals and such a large movement of people recorded.

I don't have the time nor energy to take on the rest of your wall of text but when the first is so wrong, I do not expect the rest to be any better!

[jimwalton]

You are making an anachronistic mistake. The disposable trash of our culture had no place in a "migrant" culture 3300 years ago. When you're on the move with no place to call your own, you pack light and learn to conserve. Archaeologists often dig in mounds (tells), where remains are fairly certain to be found, and they find them. It's rare that you'll find an archaeologist just digging here and there in Sinai or Midian looking for, oh anything that might just happen to be there.

We know that eating in the wilderness is not an exercise that generates a lot of waste material. Looking at the culture of the native Americans, they learned to use just about every part of an animal to survive and provide for their needs. We are told that the Israelites ate manna, a sort of common desert manifestation, either the secretion of aphids or perhaps the liquid of the hammada plant. In either case, there's going to be nothing left behind for archaeologists to find. We also know they ate quail on occasion. Again, nothing really left behind. They would most likely cook on open fires and take their stuff with them. Obviously occasional pots would break, but nothing really for an archaeologist to find.

> Such a large group of people moving slowly from place to place would have been known.

Very possibly they were. Edom denies passage (Num. 20.14-20), and Israel turns away. That isn't necessarily going to show up in royal records. They fight against Arad (Num. 21.1ff.), and Sihon and Og (Num. 21.21ff.). Most of the places named in Numbers 21 are as yet unknown. (There just isn't the staff, time, and money to excavate the entire Middle East.) There's no proof that they weren't known, nor is there any that they were, except the Biblical record. So the jury is still out.

Too bad you didn't read the rest. I hate to be evaluated on just one corner to a whole building.

[Baron]

I would expect to find about 2,000,000 graves, or at least hundreds of mass burial sites, for the approximately 2 million people who left Egypt but never made it to the promised land. I would also expect to find enormous debris fields of the billions/trillions of quail that allegedly fed the wandering Hebrews.

[jimwalton]

Let's talk about the numbers. It's unlikely that the numbers should be read in the way they have been, traditionally.

Numbers 1.20-45 say there were 603,550 fighting men (over 20 yrs of age). This 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. A fighting force that large 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)? They are both written the same. Instead of Reuben with 46,000 men, we get Reuben with 46 CLANS—about 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 the nation at 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.

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, and had a fighting force of 600,000, there was no need to be afraid of the Egyptians. Besides, 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.

Without changing the text by even one letter, we end up with what makes sense.

[White Noize]

Why are there no mentions of this or the plagues in Egyptian recordings?

[jimwalton]

There are no surviving papyrus documents from Egypt's Delta. It's too wet. Papyrus is where most of the records were kept, except for the carvings on the inside of the tombs of the great achievements of the king, and the plagues and exodus are not the kind of things kings want to proclaim as their legacy for history to read. The inscriptions that are on statues and temple facades tend to be propagandistic. Where papyrus records have survived, they tend to be from desert areas. So we have very few of the day-to-day court records of 3,000 years of Egyptian history.

[Maxwell's Hammer]

If you have lots of evidence for a hypothesis, then a single piece of evidence comes along that indicates the hypothesis is inaccurate, do you know what that means? It means you're wrong.

Egyptian soldiers controlled canaan during the time Exodus is set, so there could be no Exodus. That's the end. Any evidence that seems to indicate the Exodus did occur is actually evidence of something else—just like all those points in your comment are actually just descriptions of how the stories of Exodus aren't too far off from how Egypt may have looked at the time.

[jimwalton]

You're too quick to close the book and walk away.

As I said, Pharaoh Seti I and earlier kings in the 13th c. BC built military outposts on the northern road leading from Egypt to Canaan, which is 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 (the northern route where the outposts were), although that was nearer. The text says, '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." So that makes sense, given what you've said.

And what you've said is true. There is considerable evidence to support an Egyptian presence in Canaan and even Jerusalem toward the end of the Late Bronze Age (about the 13th century), and more specifically during the 19th Dynasty, which included Ramesses II. From the Amarna letters, we know that Canaan was in effect an Egyptian province during the 14th century BC. So you're right: Egyptian controlled Canaan. But their control of Canaan probably relates to trade routes. Jerusalem controls north-south traffic on the central highlands between Hebron (south) and Shechem (north), and also east-west traffic from Via Maris to the King's highway through the Ajilon Pass. Egypt had a fortified house for archers at Manahat, about 2 miles SW of Jerusalem. We can assume that the Egyptians considered Jerusalem to be important.

The Egyptians also controlled the coastal regions until about 1200 BC when the Sea Peoples invaded and took it from them. Egyptian power in the area was decreasing.

That might explain why, when the Israelites went to enter the land, the people were afraid. You'll remember that because of their lack of faith, they lived in the wilderness for 40 years. By the time they returned under Joshua, the political situation was much more favorable for a break-through into Canaan. The Sea Peoples had weakened Egypt's grip. History records that Egyptian occupation in Canaan waned in the Late Bronze Age. At Lachish, Megiddo, and Beth-Shean there are some indications of only minimal Egyptian occupation of these sites. (There is at least indication of Egyptian taxation during this era.)

In the north, the power of the Hittites was also weakening. The land of Canaan was mostly populated with little kings and local princes, and there were strong rivalries with no national oversight. Inter-city skirmishes were common. (Joshua 12 alone enumerates 31 kings who were overthrown by Israel.)

Now, you'll remember that in the Israelite conquest, they only took the central hill country, not the coastlands, and not Jerusalem. (Jerusalem wasn't taken until the time of David, several centuries later.) The story in the Bible squares adequately with what we know of the history of the area.

So you see, it's not so simple, and you're too quick to declare "It means you're wrong."