Did the Exodus Really Happen?
By Kyle Pope
In the spring of 2001 David
Wolpe, the “rabbi” of Sinai Temple, the largest conservative Jewish
congregation in Los Angeles, made history by stating during a Passover sermon:
...Virtually every modern
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 (Tugend).
Students of the Bible and
biblical archaeology are not surprised by such claims. Many scholars and
archaeologist hold similar views, and this has led countless souls to choose either
to abandon faith or to refuse to consider biblical teaching at all. While Wolpe
claimed, “it doesn’t matter” if it really happened or not (Wolpe), Christians
must recognize that it matters a great deal. The Exodus was promised to Abraham
long before it took place (Gen. 15:13-14; Acts 7:6). It became the focal point
of Israelite history and the point back to which all successive generations
looked for their national identity. The Exodus prophetically foreshadowed
Jesus’ own time in Egypt when His family escaped from Herod (Hos. 11:1; Matt.
2:15). Jesus affirmed the reality of events crucial to the Exodus, including the
giving of the Law (John 7:19), manna (John 6:31-32), and Mosaic messianic
prophecies concerning the Messiah (John 5:45). Jesus’ disciples recounted the
Exodus as a historical fact (Acts 7:36; 13:17; Heb. 3:16; Jude 5) and even
compared baptism to the crossing of the Red Sea—proclaiming Jesus as the “rock”
that sustained the Israelites (1 Cor. 10:1-4). Quite simply, if the Exodus didn’t
happen the gospel itself is a myth!
Patterns of Evidence:
Exodus
In the face of
this conflict there have been many attempts to resolve these issues, but some
recent work has proposed an intriguing theory with which serious students of
the Bible should become familiar. In August of 2015 filmmaker Tim Mahoney
released a documentary entitled Patterns of Evidence: Exodus (Thinking
Man Films, 2014, Film). The film was narrated by Kevin Sorbo and features
figures as notable as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Israeli
President Shimon Peres, notable Egyptologists, archaeologists, professors, and
even David Wolpe (mentioned above). The film traces over a decade of Mahoney’s personal
travel and investigation to uncover the true nature of the evidence for the
Exodus.
At the
beginning of the film Mahoney acknowledges his own belief in Jesus, but sets
out to objectively consider the evidence related to this issue. In the first part
of the two-hour film Mahoney takes the viewer through the arguments and
evidence offered by the majority of scholars dismissing the historicity of the
Exodus. Mahoney relates his own discouragement at this stage of his
investigation in the face of such seemingly insurmountable evidence. The last portion
of the film, however, offers a collection of evidence that establishes a
compelling theory which, (if valid) forms patterns of evidence that not
only demonstrate the historicity of the Exodus but have the potential to
radically alter the traditionally accepted chronology of much of ancient
history.
The “New Chronology”
Theory
A major figure
in this investigation is Egyptologist David Rohl—a professed agnostic. In 1995
Rohl published a book and a three-part documentary featured on the Discovery
Channel entitled Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest (New York: Crown
Publishers, 1995). In these works and in the years that have followed Rohl has
argued that anomalies in traditional Egyptian chronology have added more than
three hundred years to the timeline of history affecting how we date many events
in the ancient world. According to Rohl, this has unnecessarily pushed back the
dating of events that correlate precisely with the biblical record. Mahoney
interviews Rohl throughout his film about his (so-called) “new chronology”
theory.
The first
problem rests in an assumption. Exodus 1:11 records that before the Exodus the
Israelites were compelled to build the storage cities of “Pithom and
Raamses” (Exod. 1:11), also spelled “Rameses” (Exod. 12:37). Rameses
II was one the most important Pharaohs of Egyptian history, constructing
colossal buildings and monuments and waging major campaigns into Lybia, Nubia, and
against the Hittites as far as Kadesh in Syria. This name of the storage city mentioned
in Scripture led many to assume that Rameses II must have been the Pharaoh of
the Exodus.1 As a result, many dated the Exodus to his reign, traditionally
dated from 1279–1213 BC. Unfortunately, while history has preserved an
abundance of information about his reign, it does not preserve evidence of
biblical plagues, the Exodus, or the destruction of his army in the Red Sea
during his reign.
Mahoney and
Rohl offer two compelling pieces of evidence that challenge this identification
of Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. What has long been considered the
oldest reference to “Israel” outside of the Bible is found on a granite
inscription memorializing the deeds of Merneptah II, the son and successor of
Rameses II. In listing kingdoms Merneptah conquered it lists Israel. Although Rameses
reigned more that 60 years, Merneptah reigned for less than ten years after his
father’s death (1213-1204 BC). That would not allow enough time for Israel to
be an established nation in Canaan by his time.2 In recent years an
artifact has come to light that predates the Merneptah inscription by 130 years
but also includes Israel in a similar conquest list. An 18 inch granite block housed
in Berlin was once part of the pedestal of a statue dating to the dynasty
before Rameses. This makes it clear that Rameses II could not have been the
Pharaoh of the Exodus if Israel existed in Canaan as a nation well before his
reign (Veen).
Mahoney draws
attention to an important detail in the Biblical record that comes when Solomon
began to build the temple in Jerusalem. 1 Kings 6:1 records that this work
began, “in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel
had come out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign” (NKJV).
It is widely agreed that Solomon began his reign in the year 970 BC. The fourth
year of this reign would be 966 BC. So 480 years before this would place the
Exodus at 1446 BC, some 200 years before the time of Rameses II. So, if
scholars look to the time of Rameses II for the Exodus it is no wonder they don’t
find evidence!
Significance of an
Early Dating of the Exodus
Does an
earlier dating of the Exodus provide evidence supporting the biblical account? Some
would say yes, but this is where Rohl’s “new chronology” figures into
the equation. Rohl (independent of any religious objective) argues that
additional corrections to traditional Egyptian dating resolve it completely.
Mahoney does not explain details of Rohl’s Egyptian “new chronology,” but in
Rohl’s own documentary he makes his case.
To summarize,
Rohl first offers evidence to show that two Egyptian dynasties have been arranged
consecutively when they actually overlapped. Second, he argues that an early
mistaken identification was made between the historical Pharaoh Shoshenq I the
biblical Pharaoh Shishak. In Scripture, Shishak brought 12,000 chariots and
60,000 horsemen and “people without number” against fortified cities in
Judah (2 Chron. 12:2-4) and “took away everything” from the temple and
gold shields Solomon had made (1 Kings 14:26). The problem is that a conquest
list on a wall relief in Karnak listing Shoshenq’s conquests doesn’t include
Jerusalem and records more Israelite cities than Judean cities (Levin). In the
biblical record Shishak offered refuge to Jeroboam before his reign as king of
the newly formed northern kingdom of Israel (1 Kings 11:40). Would a Pharaoh
besiege the territory of one for whom he had offered political refuge? Rohl argues
the best evidence for the biblical Shishak is actually Rameses II. On a
memorial relief of Rameses near Luxor it claims he plundered a city called
“Shalem”—the root of the name Jerusalem and an alternate name for the city (cf.
Gen. 14:18; Heb. 7:1-2). If this is correct it would change the dating of the
reign of Rameses II from 1279–1213 BC to 943-877 BC. This would also move
forward the dates scholars have assigned to many events in Egyptian and
Canaanite history.
Evidence with the
“New Chronology”
So what
evidence of the Exodus exists if the date of the Exodus is moved back, and the
chronology of events in Egyptian and Canaanite history is moved forward?
Actually, the problem has never really been one of evidence—it is a problem of
dating. Many things archaeology has uncovered coincide perfectly with the
biblical record, but because of the way things have been dated it has been argued
that they fall far too early to match the biblical account. What evidence
exists if the “new chronology” is accurate? Consider the following:
Evidence of a Conquest of
Palestine
What is
generally known as the Middle Bronze Age IIB period in Palestine would now fit
the period of Joshua’s conquest of Canaan.
•
During this period we find the destruction and burning of the
city of Hazor and a tablet with the name “Jabin” as a royal name (Ben-Tor).
This matches the biblical account (Josh. 11:1-11).
•
We find the walls of Jericho falling down and burned after the
collapse, with one section of dwellings attached to the wall left intact
(Wood). This matches the biblical account (Josh.
6:1-25).
Evidence of a Departure
from Egypt
The “new
chronology” would move the time of the Exodus to a period of Egyptian history called
the Second Intermediate Period.
•
At some point during this period something created severe
instability in Egypt allowing a race the Egyptian historian Manetho called the Hykssos
to take control without battle (Josephus, Against Apion 1.73). Some have
suggested this was the Israelites or the race of the Pharaoh who did not know
Joseph (Exod. 1:8). What if instability caused by plague, death, and the
destruction of its army in the Red Sea left Egypt vulnerable after the Exodus?
The Bible says they were still “destroyed” forty years after the Exodus
(Deut. 11:3).
•
We have a papyrus housed in the Netherlands that likely came from
this period describing the Nile turned to blood, death everywhere, and the
servants taking possession of the treasures of the rich (Gardiner). This
matches the biblical account (Exod. 7-12).
•
We have a papyrus that lists Hebrew names among lists of slaves
in Egypt (Hayes). These names include feminine forms of two of Joseph’s
brothers: Ashera=Asher (Gen. 30:13) and Sekera=Issachar (Gen.
30:18), ‘Aqoba, the feminine form of Jacob, and even Shiphrah,
the name of one of the Hebrew midwives (Exod. 1:15).
•
The storage city the Bible calls “Rameses” was also known
as Avaris (Aling). Excavations have shown that Avaris was the home of Semitic
peoples—not Egyptians. At some point there was a sudden departure of these
people from this city (Bietak). This is the city from which the Bible tells us
the Israelites departed when they left Egypt (Exod. 12:37).
Evidence of a Sojourn in Egypt
The “new
chronology” would move the beginning of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt to the
period known as the Middle Kingdom. During this period we find some interesting
things in connection with Avaris.
•
Very early in this period there is evidence of what archaeologist
call a “four-room” house that was typical of the kind of house found among the
Israelites (Bietak). The Bible tells us that Pharaoh gave Jacob and his family
a place to dwell in Goshen—the area where Avaris is located (Gen. 47:6, 27).
•
In this Semitic settlement are the ruins of a large tomb with a
statue of a Semitic man of some importance (Schiestl). The Bible says that
Pharaoh made Joseph (a non-Egyptian) second to him over all Egypt (Gen.
41:41-45). Was this statue Joseph?
Conclusion
Mahoney ends
his film acknowledging that he is a filmmaker and not an expert in these
fields, but he expresses his conviction that this evidence deserves consideration
by the public. Rohl’s “new chronology” has its critics, and only time will tell
if it withstands the test of further analysis and scrutiny. I too am no expert,
but in the face of a world quick to dismiss biblical accounts, Christians
should at least become familiar with arguments credible scholars have made and
evidence that potentially matches the very events recorded in the inspired
text.3
1It should be noted that
the name Rameses is used in the Pentateuch as a synonym for Egypt—“the land
of Rameses” (Gen. 47:11). The name means “begotten of Ra” (the name of the
Egyptian god of the Sun). According to inscriptions it was called Per-Ramses
even before the time of Rameses II (Aling).
2The hieroglyphs used for
the name of Israel in this inscription use a determinative that indicates an
ethnic group rather than a geographic territory, but that doesn’t change the
problem of Israelite chronology. For more on this inscription see my study “The
Seed of Israel” Biblical Insights 1.7 (July 2001) 23. This was written
before the publication of the Berlin Pedestal inscription from the traditional
view that Rameses II was Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Works Cited
Aling, Charles F. “The Biblical City of Ramses” Journal
of the Evangelical Theological Society 25.2 (July 1982) 129-137.
Ben-Tor, Amnon and Maria Teresa Rubiato. “Excavating
Hazor, Part Two: Did the Israelites Destroy the Canaanite City?” Biblical
Archaeology Review 25.3 (May/June 1999): 22-29, 31-36, 38-39.
Bietak, Manfred. Avaris and PiRamesse:
Archaeological Exploration in the Eastern Nile Delta. Proceedings of the
British Academy, 65 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1981).
__________. Avaris, the capital of the Hyksos:
recent excavations at Tell el-Dabʻa I (London: British Museum
Press, 1996).
Gardiner, Alan H. The Admonitions of an Egyptian
Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden. (Hildesheim: Georg Olms Verlag,
1969).
Hayes, William C. A Papyrus of the Late Middle
Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum. (New York: Brooklyn Museum, 1955).
Levin, Yigal. “Did Pharaoh Sheshonq Attack Jerusalem?”
Biblical Archaeology Review 38.4 (July/August 2012) 42-52, 66.
Schiestl, Robert. “The Statue of an Asiatic Man from
Tell el-Dabca, Egypt” Egypt and Levant 16 (2006) 173-185.
Tugend, Tom. “L.A. Rabbi Creates Furor by Questioning
Exodus Story” Jweekly.com May 4, 2001 [online]
http://www.jweekly.com/article/full/15596/l-a-rabbi-creates-furor-by-questioning-exodus-story/
Veen, Peter van der, Christoffer Theis, and Manfred
Gšrg. “Israel in Canaan (Long) Before Pharaoh Merenptah? A Fresh Look at Berlin
Statue Pedestal Relief 21687.” Journal of Ancient Egyptian Interconnections 2.4
(2010) 15-25.
Wople, David. “Did the Exodus Really Happen?” Beliefnet.com
[online]
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Judaism/2004/12/Did-The-Exodus-Really-Happen.aspx?p=1#P0Lzb5HqQAzSUf6j.99
Wood, B.G. “Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho?”
Biblical Archaeology Review 16.2 (March/April 1990): 44–58.
eBulletin Print Version