The historicity of the Exodus

Faith & Science Conversation
35

@Jonathan_Burke, Okay … here goes …[My responses in bold brackets.]

[1] Egyptian hegemony. This is the only data point you address, and you make it your entire argument.
[You continue to dismiss the issue of hegemony. Incredible. Even the Bible scribe says the refugees of Exodus were avoiding the Philistines.]

[2] Immigration of new population into Canaan. You claim this is impossible because of the Egyptians, but the archaeological record shows it happened.
[People moved in and out of Canaan all the time … but a significantly numerous OUTLAW group could not have established an unmolested presence in Canaan.]

[3] Destruction layers indicating conflict between non-Egyptian ethnic groups. Again, this shouldn’t be happening according to your theory, but the archaeological record shows it happened.
[Even Dever allows for non-Egyptian ethnic groups. Even during the Amarna period you saw graphic accounts of hostilities and take-overs. Sometimes, all Egypt cared about was the punctual delivery of tribute/taxes. This is not the same as tolerating an Outlaw nation setting up a rival kingdom within Egypt’s frontier! ]

[4] Change of material culture showing Hebrew ethnic group moving into Canaan. Once more, this never happened according to your view, but the archaeological record shows it happened.
[I am perfectly happy with the idea that the predecessors of the Jews moving into Canaan. But if they weren’t molested prior to the arrival of the Philistines, then obviously they were not an outlaw group.]

[5] The Armana letters show Canaanite vassals of Egypt appealing for help because they are being overrun, yet Egypt fails to send troops to protect them and they fall. This is contra-indicatory to your theory of Egyptian supremacy in the region.
[What the Amarna letters show is that even at the very DEPTH of Egyptian complacency about Canaan, the Canaanite towns still considered Egypt “in charge”.]

[6] Egypt was unable to prevent Shasu incursions into the Nile Delta during this period, despite its fortifications. This undermines your theory of Egyptian military strength.
[In the ancient period, it was impossible to stop every raid, especially by nomads. Are you suggesting that 30,000 Hebrew dwelling in towns were as elusive as Shasu raiders?]

[7] Incursions of the Sea Peoples (including the Philistines), during the LBA taking territory from the Egyptians. This is contra-indicatory to your theory of Egyptian supremacy in the region.
[Jon, the Sea People was a highly numerous foe - - which was eventually defeated. Egyptian activity in Canaan from immediately after the defeat of the Sea People have been found. Many of the Sea People were re-settled and/or abosrbed into Egyptian mercenary forces. It appears that the final struggle, with the Sea People group called the Pelest, which finally broke Egypt’s hold over Canaan.]

[8] And the bonus question. Who conquered Hazor, burned it to the ground, and destroyed its cultic images?
[Hazor was significant Bronze Age settlement at the very northern tip of what we would eventually call Israel. Israel Finkelstein’s answer (from The Bible Unearthed) suits me just fine: “. . . the destruction of Hazor was the result of civil strife, attacks by the Sea Peoples, and/or a result of the general collapse of civilization across the whole eastern Mediterranean in the Late Bronze Age.” ]

Jon, you attempt to sweep the severe chronology problems away by your frequent emphasis that that Canaan was NOT as well policed or as tranquil as the Egyptian town of Memphis. On the latter, I concur! Canaan was hardly an example of uninterrupted tranquility. It was not some suburb of an Egyptian temple district. But do we really expect that in any outlying portion of an ancient Empire? It had lots of different people living there. But if a large armed force attacked Egypt, they would not be able to find sanctuary by setting up shop on the Levantine coast. . . . At least … not until the Philistines established themselves in their Pentapolis!

Your continual assertions or implications that they could ruins your reputation for objectivity. Redford describes temple plantations run and harvested in Canaan. Egyptian AND Hittite historical records show that Egypt treated Canaan as part of their empire. Compare this to the tone and content of the Biblical narrative about Canaan from the time of Abraham (who cavorted with Philistines) all the way to the time of Solomon. During that entire period, the Bible mentions a military exercise by Egypt just ONCE: the taking of Gezer, which the Bible says Pharaoh promptly gave to Solomon’s wife, the Pharaoh’s daughter.

If this multi-book narrative is an example of the Hebrew scribes to capture historical information, it would seem apparent that the Hebrew history of Palestine is highly flawed, and not to be relied upon.

Conversely, the books of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Exodus, Numbers, Joshua and Judges seem to adequately show that the Hebrew history is a fragmented collection of stories that have been pieced together to form a legendary chronology - - reflecting no genuine awareness of the pre-Philistine time period, as recently concluded as 1130 BCE.

36

Reading this discussion, I am surprised at the amount of credibility and the weight of importance given to the sense of some words in a letter sent to Egypt, and such like. Empires come and go, sometimes in very short periods of time. Only 40 years separated David large conquered kingdom from a separation of the tribes of Israel. The impact of a large portion of Pharaoh’s army destroyed in the Red Sea by a flood would have lasted for a while. Later we know the final kingdoms of Judah were variously affected by Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Egypt and Pharaoh(Shishak). In every empire, various outlying areas would be affected in various ways by the so-called empire rulers. Sometimes it was to their advantage to allow fighting between sub-nations, tribes, factions, etc. Sometimes they didn’t even have time or manpower to collect tribute from outlying subjects for several years. There is no single format for empires or their influence or power, and for Israel, the tales of the ten plagues, the death of the firstborn and the destruction of the egyptian army preceded them into the lands of Canaan, and would have impacted the desire of Egypt to pursue them so far away. This is the larger context that must be considered.

Any letter asking for help would have implied a subjection, but alliances and even wishful thinking for alliances should not be automatically equated to subservient empire subjects. We have a good example of Judah’s kings asking for help in various warring situations, from whoever they could attempt to engage.

37

No. Saying that about the Bible, is pointing to a large undifferentiated body of data and requiring the other person to deduce your argument from it without explaining which data is relevant and how it supports your argument. That’s not what I’m doing. I’m pointing to a short article with a small data set which has already been organized, and a clearly articulated argument demonstrating how the data supports the conclusion.

I have already made my own argument, based on my own knowledge. Humphrey is making a different but complementary argument based on his specialized knowledge, which I do not have. You don’t have to read it, just please don’t complain I’m not providing an answer to your question.

That’s ok, those hyperbolic statements are mitigated by the more sober statement that the real threat they feared was Israel joining an enemy of Egypt as a fifth column inside Egyptian borders.

You could include all the area from the Sinai Peninsula to the shore of the Euphrates, there would have been no one able to stop an army of 600,000 men. No one in the region could have fielded an army even half that size, even if everyone joined together. The largest battle in this region, around this era, fought between the two largest empires (Egypt and the Hittites), involved around 75,000 men. That is the sum of the armies on both sides. And both Egypt and the Hittites were only able to field armies that size by calling on their vassal states and mercenaries.

Completely certain. The Biblical text agrees with the archaeology.

Even more so.

Yes and no. They were beaten off on some occasions. On other occasions they deliberately avoided conflict. On some occasions they easily defeated their enemies, but we are never told they did so by fielding armies of over 100,000 men. We are told they fielded much smaller armies. They were also incredibly upset at very small casualty rates of less than 50 men, and thought it indicated they weren’t strong enough to fight the people in the land. That would not have been significant if they had an army of around 600,000.

Yes, and I’ve done that.

1 Like
38

This is a PERFECT description!

1 Like
39

Thanks for your responses. I agree suggesting you read the bible is not analogous to reading one study… anyway, you don’t have to explain Humphreys if you don’t want to. With regard to Israelites being upset at losing 50 men, it seems to me the psychology behind that is not much different than when the twelve spies entered the land and were afraid of the “giants” and people in general, even though they had fought no battles and lost no men there yet. Yet Caleb thought Israel could defeat them all. Although Moses indicated an army of 600,000 men, it should be remembered that this was all the men, including the old and very old, and they were not a trained army, but merely all men over 20. Under normal circumstances perhaps half or 2/3 of these might be considered to be actual well-armed fighting men, although the rest were not discounted.

The lopsidedness of the battles was also unusual. For example the battle with the Midianites, by only 12,000 Israelite soldiers, decimated the Midianites. Yet they took 32,000 female slaves, probably under the age of 16. Captured almost 700,000 sheep and more than 70,000 cattle. And they did not lose one single soldier in the process.

When destroying Og of Bashan, they took 60 cities just in that one kingdom, and many more villages. I wonder how large those cities were…

I still wonder how you can use one method for interpreting numbers of men in one case, and a different method in another case… ie. the number of Levites between 30 and 50 years of age who served in the temple, for example, or the numbers that died in various plagues.

40

@johnZ

It’s called CONTEXT.

41

Normally I would agree that context is essential. But in this case, scripture seems to verify itself in terms of the numbers, so it is difficult to argue context. And applying context to the writing of numbers seems a stretch in this case.

42

New exhibition at the Israel Museum chronicles the meeting of ancient Israel and Egypt in the ancient world…

“Every child knows the details of the story of the Exodus but few people outside the academic world know that ancient Egypt ruled over the land of Israel for hundreds of years before the period of the Israelite settlement and kingdom in the second millenium B.C.E. The exhibits, from Israeli and Egyptian archaeology, tell a complex story of the meeting of cultures and the exchange of ideas, gods, technologies and products between the Canaanite provinces and the Egyptian empire.”

"These were groups of lawbreakers who are mentioned in documentation from Canaan during the period of the Egyptian empire. For many years there was a theory stating that after the Egyptians retreated from Canaan, the law-breaking Hafiru became an ethnic group we know today as the “Hebrews.”

If the theory is correct, then it was the Egyptians who left Canaan and made possible the establishment of ancient Israel — and not the Israelites who left Egypt and were transformed from groups of slaves into a nation on their way through the desert."

43

I once suggested that Christian historians who are convinced that Exodus happened well before the arrival of the Philistines should examine Egyptian history in 50 year “chunks” - - starting in 1550 (shortly after the expulsion of the Hyksos) to see just where an Exodus context in the Sinai/Canaan would be possible.

It is my contention that any time between the expulsion of the Hyksos before 1550 BCE and 1130 BCE, it is virtually impossible to find an uninterrupted period of time where stories of Exodus/Numbers/Joshua/Judges and right up to the Egyptian taking of Gezer (and gifting to Solomon) in 1 Kings would be possible.

For most of these 400 years or so, Egypt was projecting its power well north of Canaan … in its ongoing struggle with other powers over northern Syria! The depths of the Sinai wilderness? Kadesh Barnea? Hebron? Shiloh? These would hardly be protection against Egypt.

Below is my summary of Egyptian hegemony from 1550 BCE to 1130 BCE:

Expulsion of the Hyksos
1550 - Starting with Ahmose I in his 22nd year of reign

1500 - Thutmose I raiding as far as the Euphrates

1450 - Thutmose III (d. 1425) conquering Niya in northern Syria, consolidated by Amenhotep II,
followed by Thutmose IV, called the Conqueror of Syria.

1400 - Amenhotep III, one of his foreign wives was daughter of king of Ammia (Syria) and
2 different daughters of the Mitanni royal house (died 1351).

1350 - Akhenaten and the Amarna period (to 1330’s).

1300 - Horemheb’s restoration (died ca 1292).

1250 - Elderly Rameses I names son, Seti I (battled Hittites in Syria). Ramesses II dies about 1213 BCE;
followed by Merneptah (Israel Stele) who died around 1203 BCE. Amenmesse dies around 1198 BCE.

1200 - Seti II (time of Tale of Two Brothers); Twosret and Siptah’s names found associated with the turquoise mines at Serabit el Khadim and Timna (in the Sinai). Rameses III (ruled from 1186 to 1155 BCE) - controversial assertion that he “allowed” Sea People to settle in southern Canaan. Worked the Copper Mines of Timna in Sinai. Harris Papyrus comes from Rameses IV period (died 1149 BCE).

1150 - Rameses V dies 1145 BCE. Rameses VI dies 1137 BCE. Last king of Egypt’s New Kingdom whose name is attested in the Sinai.

= = = = =
1130 BCE - Philistine dominance over the region is established by this date.

^^^ Great list, yes?!?!?!

44

@Jonathan_Burke

I thought you would enjoy this recent notice - - about the Egyptian occupation of the Judaean highlands during the reign of Rameses II … before the Philistines cut Egyptian access to the Levant!

The Egyptian artifacts date to the 13th century B.C.E., during the 19th Egyptian Dynasty that included the reign of Ramesses II. Peter van der Veen writes, “Egypt was not new to Canaan in the 19th dynasty … Canaan was in effect an Egyptian province during the 14th century B.C.E.” In the famous Amarna letters, Abdi-Heba, the puppet-king of Jerusalem, proclaims that “the king has placed his name in Jerusalem forever.” While Bronze Age Jerusalem was not situated on Canaanite trade routes, Peter van der Veen notes that it controlled north-south traffic between Hebron and Shechem, as well as east-west traffic from the Via Maris to the King’s Highway. The Egyptians established a garrison at Manahat, just two miles southwest of Bronze Age Jerusalem.

Here’s a map image from an earlier post in this thread. [ CLICK ON THE ^ symbol to the right to expand the link to see the map! ]

45

Yeah but this is not the scholarly consensus. There’s something wrong with your picture. An exodus and entry into Canaan fits into the thirteenth century BCE. That is precisely why the Egyptians reported the Hebrews as an established people in Canaan, by the end of the thirteenth century. If as you say it was impossible for Israel to be there at the time, how is it that the Egyptians found them there?

There are two reasons. One is Egypt’s rapidly declining influence in Canaan during the Late Bronze Age.

  1. “From at least as early as the second millennium, Egypt regarded Palestine as part of its own sphere of influence, an influence that is most clearly documented for us in the Amarna letters, as a weak Pharaoh was losing control over his nominal vassals in the cities of the region.”, Philip Davies, Rethinking Biblical Scholarship: Changing Perspectives 4(2014), 113.

  2. “The Amarna Letters, a corpus of diplomatic exchanges from the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV (ca. 1403–1347 B.C.E.; the latter is better known as Akh-en-Aton), demonstrate that Egypt was losing control of this region and also that intercity warfare was on the increase, augmented by the presence of groups, called “Habiru,” who were alienated from the established political structure.”, M. Jack Suggs, ‎Katharine Doob Sakenfeld, ‎James R. Mueller, The Oxford Study Bible: Revised English Bible with Apocrypha (1992), 35

  3. “There are at least four possible explanations why there are no documents in ancient Near Eastern sources about the Iron I hill country (Schafer-Lichtenberger 1996:79). The first explanation, that there was “no one up there,” has been disproved by the foregoing archaeological analysis. The second explanation is that the only hegemonic power capable of extending its claim to power into that region, Egypt, was in fact incapable. Egyptian control in the highlands collapsed even before the end of the reign of Rameses III, and surely had by the end of Rameses IV (1134 B.C.: Singer 1985:117; Kuhrt 1995:209). Only a few items from times later than Rameses IV have surfaced in Palestine, all of them north of the study area (Weinstein 1992:146). “As is the case with empires forced to retreat from their colonies, Egypt did not document its withdrawal from Canaan” (Singer 1994:283).”, Robert D. Miller, Chieftains of the Highland Clans: A History of Israel in the Twelfth And Eleventh Centuries B.C. (2005), 91.

The other is the fact that Israel had settled in the highlands, where the Egyptian presence was non-existent, and which the Egyptians typically avoided.

  1. “Redford (1992, 269) observes, “The sparsely populated hill country of central Palestine, already partly stripped of its inhabitants under the eighteenth Dynasty, held little attraction for the Egyptians who felt basically disinclined to police it.””, Daniel Fleming, *The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition" (2012), 259.

  2. “David Hopkins, in a thorough study of the agricultural possibilities of the highlands, emphasizes the poor agricultural potential of those territories. It would therefore have been less worthwhile for the Canaanite kings to try to control them as they did so the better agricultural lands of the valleys. Also, the ruggedness of the highlands would have made it difficult for the chariot armies of the cities and the Egyptians to control the highlands.”, John J. McDermott,What are They Saying about the Formation of Israel? (1998), 48.

  3. “The Egyptians created a kind of power vacuum, so to speak, in the highlands by not getting themselves involved in any serious way.”, Niels Peter Lemche, The Israelites in History and Tradition (1998), 70

I noticed you quoted van der Veen talking about Egypt being strong in Canaan in the fourteenth century, but not the thirteenth. You also cited the Armana letters, talking about the Egyptian puppet king in Jerusalem, again, in the fourteenth century. But although you quote that article, you do not quote what it goes on to say, which is this.

It seems that the Egyptian pharaohs of the 19th dynasty used local vassal rulers to run daily affairs in Late Bronze Age Jerusalem, as did their predecessors in the Amarna period. But there is almost no evidence of an Egyptian presence in Jerusalem just prior to David’s conquest, around 1000 B.C.E.

And again.

Peter van der Veen poses the question: “Was David able to conquer Jerusalem (in about 1000 B.C.E.) because it was defended only by the Jebusites/Canaanites, without any Egyptian presence in the city?”

1 Like
46

@Jonathan_Burke

You don’t seem to understand my position.

Of COURSE “…there is almost no evidence of Egyptian presence in Jerusalem just prior to David’s conquest, around 1000 BCE”

My position is that Egypt is more or less evicted from the Levant by 1130 BCE !!!

And so it is only AFTER 1130 BCE could the fleeing Hebrew (if at all historical) could have hoped to have avoided further military prosecutions by the Egyptians. If Rameses II had a GARRISON 2 miles SE of Jerusalem, it is pretty far-fetched to think that the Hebrew dwelled in and around Jerusalem with impunity any time prior to 1130 BCE.

47

Your theory still doesn’t address these facts.

  1. The collapse of Egyptian power in Canaan in the thirteenth century, making it possible for the Hebrews to enter.
  2. The documented presence of Israel as a nation in the thirteenth century. How was it possible that Israel was already an established power in Canaan by the end of the thirteenth century, if (as you claim), it wasn’t possible for them to even be there until one hundred years later?
48

@Jonathan_Burke,

  1. If Exodus occurred significantly BEFORE 1130 BCE… then the vast narrative from Exodus to the rise of Solomon would have, INEVITABLY, encountered vigorous Egyptian missions INTO or THROUGH the Levant… right up to the arrival of the Philistines. Instead, what we read is that the Philistines were there as early as Abraham (not possible)… and that the Egyptians have virtually no activity in the Levant until the time Solomon (supposedly) marries a daughter of Pharaoh.

  2. But the only truly vigorous enemy to the Hebrew in Palestine are the Philistines!

  3. This narrative is only possible because it was based on a post-1130 BCE view of the Levant… when the Biblical writers had no real understanding of how vigorous the Egyptians were in the Levant PRIOR to the Philistines.

4) If Rameses II had a garrison just outside of Jerusalem… settling in Kadesh Barnea for 40 years would NOT have been a safe option for the Hebrew… until AFTER 1130 BCE!

CONCLUSION? Something has to give in the biblical narrative. I suggest that we RETAIN the post-1130 BCE reality … and adjust the narratives accordingly.

49

George you’re not addressing those two facts. You keep saying Israel couldn’t have been in the land before 1130 BCE. So how do you explain the fact that the Egyptians encountered and fought the Israelite nation in Canaan, 100 years earlier?

50

@Jonathan_Burke,

Yes… I forgot to treat that particular concern:

This is a case where an EGYPTIAN record contradicts the chronology of the Biblical narrative.

You think Israel must have experienced an Exodus PRIOR to 1130 BCE because you think Exodus is real.

I would propose that either the Bible narrative is “informed” by including REAL elements of history from the REAL Israel, and adding these elements to a fictional narrative.

We have two choices:

  1. The Israel which Egypt defeated was NEVER inside Egypt, and a surviving group of priests wrote a completely different story, where Israel not only SURVIVES Egypt’s armies, but DEFEATED THEM (with the help of God) by successfully coming right out of Egypt.

or

  1. The Israel which Egypt defeated WAS inside of Egypt, and they escaped Egypt, and then were attacked in the Levant and dramatically defeated. Survivors of the attack RE-WRITE history, writing what SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED if Israel had been more devoted to its Gods or God.

Notice the common denominator is a recital of facts exactly as I’ve described about Egyptian hegemony over the Levant:

In BOTH scenarios, and in the reporting by Egypt, Israel was dramatically defeated (even if they weren’t destroyed as a nation)…

The Bible narrative clearly doesn’t present this reality. To me, this favorite fact of yours is the clearest indication that the Bible narrative is not historically reliable.

51

No it isn’t. The Biblical narrative supports the late date Exodus (see my papers on the dating).

Yes. But both of them contradict your claim that it was impossible for the Hebrews to be in Canaan before 1130.

52

@Jonathan_Burke… my position has been that any fleeing group from Egypt would have no safety from Egyptian military reprisal…if tge Egyptians so chose.

The defeat of ‘Israel’ is EXACTLY what i said would happen.

And the absence of this event from the Biblucal narrative is EXACTLY what i said is cibsistent with a fictional biblical narrative.

You dont have any place to stand where you can make a convincing Truth out of a true story that contradicts the Bible … and a false Bible narrative that cant contradict the truth.

53

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.