The historicity of the Exodus

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 3:16am

Yes, I mentioned this. However, Dever also says this.

“I’m even willing to grant that a small nucleus of people who became Israelites had originally been in Egypt, as Baruch Halpern suggests in his analysis of the literary tradition.”

William Dever, How to tell a Canaanite from an Israelite, in The Rise of Ancient Israel, ed. Hershel Shanks (Washington, DC: Biblical Archaeology Society, 1992).

No. In that section you quote he is addressing the issue of the destruction layers, and determining which group or groups they are best attributed to. He is not discussing the population increase, which he elsewhere attributes directly to the Hebrews in the book you’re looking at (see pages 98-100), and in “What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?” (2001).

I am not. I said explicitly “he believes most of the Hebrews originated from Canaan”.

gbrooks9 · February 23, 2016, 3:26am

@Jonathan_Burke,

Jon, no matter what kind of spin you attempt to put on population increases, the bottom line is that Canaan was the front yard of Egypt during the very time that you want to assign Exodus. Egyptian forces ran through the territory on a regular basis… taking hostages, enforcing treaties and harvesting from the economies of the Levant.

Below is a series of paragraphs which consistently show Egyptian activity and hegemony right up until the arrival of the Philistines.

EGYPTIAN Hegemony Extends Past Canaan
all the way to Northern Syria:

Many of the Egyptian campaign accounts between
c. 1400 and 1300 BC reflect the general
destabilization of the region of the Djahi. The
reigns of Thutmose IV and Amenhotep III were
undistinguished, except that Egypt continued
to lose territory to Mitanni in northern Syria."

Ramesses II (b. c. 1303 BC - 1213 BC)
“During Ramesses II’s reign, the Egyptian army
is estimated to have totaled about 100,000 men;
a formidable force that he used to strengthen
Egyptian influence.”

" Ramesses II into Canaan:
His first campaign seems to have taken
place in the fourth year of his reign and was
commemorated by the erection of what became the
first of the Commemorative stela of Nahr el-Kalb,
near modern Beirut. The inscription is almost totally
illegible due to weathering. Additional records tell
us that he was forced to fight a Canaanite prince
who was mortally wounded by an Egyptian archer,
and whose army was subsequently routed.
Ramesses carried off the princes of Canaan as
live prisoners to Egypt. Ramesses then plundered
the chiefs of the Asiatics in their own lands,
returning every year to his headquarters at
Riblah to exact tribute. In the fourth year
of his reign, he captured the Hittite vassal
state of Amurru during his campaign in Syria."

“Egypt’s sphere of influence was now restricted to
Canaan while Syria fell into Hittite hands. Canaanite
princes, seemingly encouraged by the Egyptian
incapacity to impose their will and goaded on by
the Hittites, began revolts against Egypt. In the
seventh year of his reign, Ramesses II returned
to Syria once again. This time he proved more
successful against his Hittite foes. During this
campaign he split his army into two forces. One
was led by his son, Amun-her-khepeshef, and it
chased warriors of the Šhasu tribes across the
Negev as far as the Dead Sea, and captured
Edom-Seir. It then marched on to capture
Moab. The other force, led by Ramesses,
attacked Jerusalem and Jericho. He, too, then
entered Moab, where he rejoined his son. The
reunited army then marched on Hesbon,
Damascus, on to Kumidi, and finally recaptured
Upi (the land around Damascus), reestablishing
Egypt’s former sphere of influence.”

“The treaty was concluded between Ramesses II
and Hattusili III in year 21 of Ramesses’s reign.
(c. 1258 BC) Its 18 articles call for peace between
Egypt and Hatti and then proceeds to maintain
that their respective gods also demand peace.
The frontiers are not laid down in this treaty
but can be inferred from other documents. The
Anastasy A papyrus describes Canaan during
the latter part of the reign of Ramesses II
and enumerates and names the Phoenician
coastal towns under Egyptian control. The
harbour town of Sumur, north of Byblos, is
mentioned as the northern-most town
belonging to Egypt, suggesting it contained
an Egyptian garrison.”

“No further Egyptian campaigns in Canaan are
mentioned after the conclusion of the peace treaty.
The northern border seems to have been safe
and quiet, so the rule of the pharaoh was
strong until Ramesses II’s death…”

And here is the conventional map showing how far north the Egyptian frontier could extend…

So - - you are going to have to put the Exodus (if it actually ever occurred) AFTER 1130 BCE… when the Philistines were strong enough to DENY Egypt’s access to the rest of the Canaanite coast.

I’m certainly not going to spend the rest of my days disputing it with you. If you can’t accept this reality, then the only practical thing for me to do is to say: “Oh! You are right, Jon… I’ve been so wrong.”

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 3:46am

I’m not putting any spin on it. I’m pointing out the facts on the ground. If you read Dever’s work you will find him addressing this issue directly. He points out that the areas into which the Hebrews moved were largely not populated, and actually avoided military confrontation.

And look at what you just quoted.

That’s speaking of the Egyptian/Hittite treaty. The Egyptians had to settle for peace because they had to withdraw their army and were unable to take the territory from the Hittites. And after that “No further Egyptian campaigns in Canaan are mentioned”. And this is the mid-thirteenth century, just before the proposed late date of the Exodus. The Hebrews weren’t due in the land for another 40 years or so. And with no more Egyptian campaigns in Canaan, that was obviously going to be a lot easier.

No, their Exodus fits the thirteenth century. Their later entry into Canaan and settlement there, came later, as demonstrated from the archaeological evidence. What you’re trying to do is say “Egypt was so strong during era X, that people Y couldn’t have entered region Z’, despite the very clear archaeological evidence hat people X actually did enter region Z during era X”. So there’s something wrong with your theory, and you need to sort that out. In the fourteenth and thirteenth century, the Egyptians couldn’t even stop Shasu incursions into Goshen, despite their well established line of fortifications, so their grip on Canaan was hardly solid.

gbrooks9 · February 23, 2016, 3:53am

Jon… military campaigns were not necessary … because Egyptian hegemony was not in question.

Redford describes Egyptian plantations in Canaan.

Even Kadesh Barnea is well within the casual reach of the Egyptians … it’s not even protected by the elevations of the hills. And yet even in the highlands, the Amarna texts tell us that Egypt had sway over Jerusalem!

Egyptian sway continues (with greater and lesser intensity) right up to when the Philistines arrive …After all… don’t we read that the fleeing Egyptians choose NOT to go the Way of the Philistines?

Stop thinking like an Evangelical … and think like an Historian …

The story of Exodus is a post-Philistine story …

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 6:48am

We both know I don’t think very much like an evangelical, even at the worst of times. The issue here is that there are multiple data points to address, and your theory addresses only one of them. Let’s look at the data points.

Egyptian hegemony. This is the only data point you address, and you make it your entire argument.
Immigration of new population into Canaan. You claim this is impossible because of the Egyptians, but the archaeological record shows it happened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

“These newcomers, who may have been responsible for the destruction of coastal Canaanite cities, finally settled in Canaan at the close of the Late Bronze Age, signaling an end to Egyptian hegemony over Canaan.” Near East: Iron Age Civilizations in the Southern Levant, The Oxford Companion to Archaeology volume 1 (2nd. ed. 2012), 467.

You need to address all of these data points, not just pin your entire theory on your interpretation of one of them. The fact is that we have a lot of data indicating the Egyptian hegemony was not as strong in Canaan as you represent, and it was unable to stop inter-territorial warfare, and the capture of cities owned by its own vassals.

Here’s a soft ball for you. Who conquered Hazor, burned it to the ground, and destroyed its cultic images?

gbrooks9 · February 23, 2016, 12:46pm

@Jonathan_Burke,

Egyptian hegemony is rather basic to understanding Canaan. Do you think it reasonable to think the Pilgrims could have FLED the Anglican church by moving to Sussex?

The problem is not that immigrant populations couldn’t appear in Canaan… the problem is that an OUTLAW immigrant population supposedly established a community for a generation in Kadesh Barnea. Really? All at the same time the Pharaoh was able to COMPEL Canaanite kings to send hostages to Egypt … with just messengers and a few soldiers?

And when the Hebrew decamp from Kadesh Barnea … they don’t settle in the EAST of Jordan (Moab and Ammon) … but on the WEST side of the Jordan … the side Egyptian political influence was most keenly felt.

Jon, if you want to assert that the Hebrew Exodus was not a hostile pursuit … but was in fact an INVITATION by the Egyptians to leave their empire … that would be pretty much the remaining option to place the Exodus PRIOR to the Philistine settlements at the Pentapolis.

But how can you justify such a claim in the face of this introductory statement:

Exodus 13:17
And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the Way of the Land of the Philistines, . . . <<<<<<< !!!

**. . . . although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. . . **

I stand by the natural and plain sense of what we see in Egyptian history, and what the Bible actually SAYS about the setting of the Exodus.

How is it you are so DRIVEN to place the Exodus where it will not fit?

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 1:00pm

I agree. The problem is you’re not actually understanding it.

No. But this is not analogous to the Egyptian hegemony in Canaan.

Ok well you haven’t addressed those data points yet, so I’ll leave you to consider them.

I’m not. The scholarly consensus is that if there was any Exodus, it fits right there.

gbrooks9 · February 23, 2016, 2:27pm

@Jonathan_Burke

Hmmm… looks like we are still speaking past each other. So I’ll entertain that the problem is on MY side of the discussion.

What POINTS do you think I’ve ignored? Please be specific … then I can be equally SPECIFIC about whatever you think I’m skipping over …

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 2:50pm

See my previous post. Here we go again.

The issue here is that there are multiple data points to address, and your theory addresses only one of them. Let’s look at the data points. Note in particular the ones in bold.

Egyptian hegemony. This is the only data point you address, and you make it your entire argument.
Immigration of new population into Canaan. You claim this is impossible because of the Egyptians, but the archaeological record shows it happened.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

And the bonus question. Who conquered Hazor, burned it to the ground, and destroyed its cultic images?

johnZ · February 23, 2016, 4:38pm

While I agree that there is not much discussion of an after life in the pentateuch, (perhaps this is why the argument between pharisees and saducees on a resurrection…), yet there is an indication of something in the reference to Enoch, who is not indicated as having merely died, but that God took him, as someone who specially walked with God. Later, although not in a book of Moses, we have a reference to Elijah being taken up in a whirlwind to heaven, another apparent indication of something beyond mere materialism on earth. We have an indication of Saul talking to Samuel who had died … But admittedly, references to an afterlife are scarce.

johnZ · February 23, 2016, 5:14pm

Nevertheless, my question is not answered. They apparently were indicated to be possibly more numerous than the Egyptians, and so were not likely a small number. In addition, the number of people who died in some of the battles were very numerous… why would these seven nations together not be more numerous than the Israelites? Keep in mind that the Israelites were turned back by the Edomites and did not think to prevail against them, even though at the time they had about 600,000 men/troops/untrained soldiers (Numbers 11:21) (Numbers 20:21). They did strike down the Amorites (Numbers 21:23-26). They could attack one group or nation at a time, but not all at once.

GB suggests that applying linguistic rules which appear to diverge does not solve the problem. However, without reasonable linguistic rules, the lingual does not have the confidence of meaning anything at all, other than what a reader might want to impute by his own volition. This would make study of the text meaningless. I would suggest rather that the text ought to be taken as valid archeological and historical information, recognizing potential inaccuracies or incompleteness in other sources, and in other methods of extrapolation. This would be especially true when the biblical text verifies and repeats the numbers given, as it does in the pentateuch.

Jonathan_Burke · February 23, 2016, 5:35pm

I think Humphrey’s paper addresses your question.

We are told in Deuteronomy, twice, that they were a small number. They are never said to be more numerous than the Egyptians.

Because we are told that all seven nations were more numerous. We are not told “these seven nations all put together are more numerous”.

If they had 600,000 men of war they could have simply marched into the entire land of Canaan all at once, and over-run the entire place. They would have been entering Canaan with an army at least six times larger than the entire population of Canaan.

But you need to address all the data points, including the Bible texts which show us the Israelites were smaller in number than any of the peoples occupying Canaan at the time.

johnZ · February 23, 2016, 6:21pm

It may, but I shall not read it. Your response is similar to me saying that the Bible will answer all your questions on this topic. Feel free to use Humphrey as a source, but not substitute himself for yourself.

True enough, in Deuternomy, which is why I said, “possibly”, since the fear was that they would eventually be a problem. But I acknowledge that it was a fear of joining with their enemies that created the fear. However, the statements made by Pharoah, king of Egypt were: “the children of Israel are more and mightier than we”(NKJ) or “Israelites have become too numerous for us”(NIV) or “the people of Israel now outnumber us and are stronger than we are” (NLT) Exodus 1.

Truth in this, there seems to be an indication that Israel is least of all of them. Nevertheless, Israel defeated them one at a time, and smaller numbers can defeat larger numbers with good training, motivation, and incentive, circumstance, and God’s will.

I’m not sure if you are including all the lands and nations on the outside of the land of Canaan, or how inclusive this area is. Or if you are considering alliances, etc. Much of Israel ended up living east of the Jordan, for example. In addition, some of these nations, such as the Ammonites had fortifications, which offsets mere population size. Furthermore, how certain are you of the accuracy of your sources for this? Is it written with the same detail and verification as the accounts in Numbers and Deuteronomy? Once they entered the land west of the Jordan, they did pretty well over-run the place, didn’t they?

Perhaps. But you need to do the same… including Exodus 1.

gbrooks9 · February 23, 2016, 8:54pm

@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.

johnZ · February 23, 2016, 11:12pm

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.

Jonathan_Burke · February 24, 2016, 12:48am

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.

gbrooks9 · February 24, 2016, 12:50am

This is a PERFECT description!

johnZ · February 24, 2016, 3:13am

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.

gbrooks9 · February 24, 2016, 12:21pm

@johnZ

It’s called CONTEXT.