article

The article Exodus discusses the events related in the book of the Bible and Torah by the same name.
The Exodus, more fully The Exodus of Israel out of Egypt, was the departure of the Hebrew slaves from Egypt under the leadership of Moses and Aaron as described in the biblical Book of Exodus. It forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover. See also Passage of the Red Sea.

Biblical narrative

The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was prime minister of Egypt. After the death of Joseph and a change in rulership, the Egyptians were now suspicious of the Israelites, particularly because they had begun to greatly increase in number. Therefore they enslaved the Israelites and used them as labor in building projects.

This work, particularly the brickmaking, was extremely rigorous and the conditions oppressively harsh. Moses, in exile from Egypt at the time, was called or felt impelled to become a leader. Returning to Egypt he attempted to negotiate with the Pharaoh, who was not receptive, saying he did not know Moses' God. Moses, under God's instruction, called forth a series of ten plagues. Eventually Pharaoh agreed to the Israelites' request for Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

However the Pharaoh changed his mind soon after they left, and sent soldiers after the Israelites to bring them back. In a miraculous escape the Israelites crossed over a "sea" which had dried out, with the water standing up on both sides of them like a wall. Once the Israelites had crossed the sea, the water returned and caught the following Egyptians as they tried to turn back, as the Lord had caused their chariots to swerve.

After their departure from Egypt, the Israelites traveled through an itinerary of perhaps 40 locations. The modern counterparts of many of the places at the beginning of the list are unknown or disputed. Significant events occurred at these early locations or 'stations', including the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, along with the remainder of Mosaic law. The Israelites finally arrive at a site which may have been located, Kadesh-Barnea. Spies eyed Canaan as a prospect for invasion, but although Joshua and Caleb returned with optimistic reports, the other ten tribal leaders advised that an invasion not be attempted. All this seemed to happen in the first year, as the accounts says the Wandering took place when Moses was between the ages of 80 and 120: "Israel was thereupon sentenced to wander forty years in the wilderness" (Nu. 14:34). (Note that as manna had just been introduced, Ex. 16:35 does not imply the forty years to have happened previously, but is a forward-looking statement.) Moses then led the Israelites through the remainder of a series of encampments known to scholars as the Stations for the afore-mentioned forty years. Only the descendants of the generation present at the start of the forty years, along with Joshua and Caleb, would be able to cross into Canaan proper; an action which ultimately culminated in the beginning of the Conquest of Canaan with the crossing of the River Jordan from the East.

Route of the Exodus

There are a number of possible routes the Exodus might have taken. Many of the listed places are not identifiable with their modern day counterparts, and the information present in Exodus and related texts do not present a lot of unambiguous information regarding geographical landmarks. The itinerary that the Israelites followed after their departure from Egypt is given in both narrative form and in itinerary form. A few of the cities at the start of the itinerary, such as Ra'amses, Pithom and Succoth, are reasonably well identified, and the journey's second half consists of more well known places. Kadesh-Barnea is presumably found, but it was reported that its earliest occupation during the Ramesside era was centuries too late for the Exodus. Although the biblical Mt. Sinai is most frequently depicted as Jebel Musa in the south of the Sinai Peninsula, no definitive evidence of the Exodus has as yet been found there, and even Sinai's location is not widely agreed upon by scholars. Dozens, if not hundreds of routes of the Exodus have been proposed; and where many of the stops in the Itinerary are located depends in no small part on where one wishes to locate Sinai and/or Horeb.

The crossing of the Red Sea has been variously placed at the Pelusic branch of the Nile, anywhere along the network of Bitter Lakes and smaller canals that formed a barrier toward westward escape, or even the Gulf of Suez (SSE of Succoth) and the Gulf of Aqaba (S of Ezion-Geber). It is apparent from scriptural usage of the "Red Sea", lit. Yam Suf, i.e. the "Sea of Reeds", that the term was used to refer to both the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez, but the meaning of the term can be easily read to refer to a papyrus marsh in Egypt as well.

Some of the more prominent routes for travelers through the region were the royal roads, the "king's highways" that had been in use for centuries, and would continue in use for centuries as well. The Bible specifically denies that the Israelites went the Way of the Philistines (Ex. 13:17), but even so, some scholars suggest a more northerly route along a more northerly narrow strip of land adjoining the Mediterranean, but as the warfare with the Philistines was a concern for the Israelites, and given the flat denial of the northern highway, an Exodus route that parallels it to the north and then crosses it seems especially unlikely, in view also of the military situation that might present itself. Pi-Hahiroth, (e.g. Ex. 14:2,7), is interpreted as the "mouth of the canal", but since Pi- may also be the Egyptian word for royal city, and it is a widely known practice that Hebrew scribes often drop or change foreign deities as parts of names, this argument is not terribly compelling. Although it is no stretch to admit the plain Hebrew meaning of the name, the original may also have read along the lines of "Pi-Seth on the canal" or some such. This leaves the Way of Shur and the Way to Seir as probable routes, the former having the advantage of heading toward Kadesh-Barnea. Finally, various southern routes, all incorporating very similar routes, are notable due to their popularity. There would have been some doubling back involved, after leaving Egypt, in addition to merely following the main highways. Three possible crossing routes at the Bitter Lakes are shown, and the Gulf of Aqaba is another popular candidate, but this crossing is not shown for the sake of clarity.

On the map at the upper right, three of the important highways and the traditional southern route are shown.

  • The Way of Shur: (blue line) This route has the advantage of leading to Kadesh-Barnea, a stop on the Itinerary which has probably, but not necessarily been identified. (A turn back toward Kadesh-Barnea is also indicated with this line, which is not part of the Way of Shur.)
  • The Way to Seir: (green line) This could be regarded as an Exodus route after crossing e.g. at the Bitter Lakes, or as part of a scenario placing the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba. A number of theories, with some support from Deu. 1:2, place Mt. Sinai variously at Mount Bedr or Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. However, note that Nu. 21:4 is most comfortably read as having Mt. Hor and Sinai west of Ezion Geber.
  • The southern route: (black line) This is the traditional route, which is based on the identification of Jebel Musa as Sinai in the third century AD (prompting the construction of St. Catherine's monastery at the time), and on the various suggestions for otherwise unknown stops on the Itinerary. Two lines lead eastward and northward, to show possible continuations to the conquest of the Transjordan.

A summary of some of the many Exodus routes as proposed by various scholars can be found at: Various Map Proposals for the Route of the Exodus

Numbers involved in the Exodus

The Biblical account in Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men as leaving Egypt and travelling with Moses. According to many Jewish sources, the total number of Israelites (including women and children) numbered around three million. The exodus also included droves of livestock.

Estimates of population suggest that Egypt might have supported around 3-4 million people during that period, maybe even up to 6 million (Robert Feather, The Copper Scroll Decoded and *). Up to comparatively recent times, the population has not been excessive. Napoleon estimated a population of 3 million when he invaded in 1798. Similarly, a simple calculation shows that a group of 3 million walking 10 abreast with 6 ft between rows would extend for around 340 miles (3,000,000 / 10 * 6 = 1,800,000 ft. = 340 mi.). Driving animals, taking children and elderly would probably have increased this distance.

Recent archaeological research has not been able to confirm the biblical account. Archaeologists have found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan during this time period. At this time the land is estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Archaeologists, however, disagree greatly among themselves on timing, such as the conquest of Jericho, based on carbon dating and pottery shards, so they can neither affirmatively disprove the Exodus.

Archaeologists and secular historians have worked in the Middle East for many years to make an educated guess of approximately how many people lived in a given area at a given time. They do this by analyzing the evidence: buildings, trash, human waste product, skeletons, traces of ancient farms and fields, clothing, documents, and, of course, historical records.

Hebrew University professor Abraham Malamat points out that the Bible often refers to 600 and its multiples, as well as 1,000 and its multiples, typologically in order to convey the idea of a large military unit. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one. The Hebrew word eleph can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.' There are thought to have been 20,000 in the entire Egyptian army at the height of Egypt's empire. And at the battle of Ai in Joshua 7, there was a severe military setback when 36 troops were killed." Therefore if one reads alaphim (plural of eleph) as military units, the number of Hebrew fighting men lay between 5,000 and 6,000. In theory, his would give a total Hebrew population of less than 20,000, something within the range of historical possibility.

Some hold that one cannot interpret the counts given for each tribe in Numbers 1-2 in this fashion. They appear in units of "thousands", "hundreds" and "tens" and in addition the total appears. Thus, no interpretation of eleph except "thousand" makes sense in that case. However, the Hebrew Bible does not always use words precisely or consistently, precluding definitive proof either way.

This by no means renders some kind of Exodus impossible. Some scholars suggest that it might not necessarily happened in the numbers claimed. In the second millennium BC, the Sinai region was much more lush than it is today, and could thus support more life. However the amount of grazing land and food needed for a migration of millions for decades at least strains credulity. The failure to find clear indications of this migration does not demonstrate that it did not happen, but the absence of evidence can be taken to have some significance. Part of the problem of finding evidence for this migration also involves a larger issue: the date of the Exodus is not known, and so it is unclear which layers might most likely represent any remnants of their migration. It is unclear if this means that a smaller migration might have given rise to the Exodus, that the migration should be sought at an unexpected time or that it happened in the numbers claimed but the evidence eludes us. One cannot conclude that it do not happen at all based on the difficulty with the large migration numbers.

Therefore, many scholars have questioned the Biblical numbers. In general, archaeologists hypothesize based on evidence available in locations. There are no other Exodus accounts in legend, inscriptions or steles currently available to dispute the numbers in the Hebrew Torah.

Dating the Exodus

In the Bible, Pharaoh is treated as a name rather than a title, and he is not otherwise named. Most prevailing theories fall into one of two categories: either was Ramesses II (1290-1223 or 1272-1213) that was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, or else the Exodus was earlier by centuries. Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426 depending on the Egyptian dating scheme employed) is suggested by the date used by orthodox theologians, although nearby pharaohs are also used (e.g. Amenhotep II; while other scholars in the modern era have taken up the idea to associate the Exodus expulsion of the Hyksos again, making the pharaoh of the Oppression one of the Semitic Hyksos conquerors of Egypt. Note that the pharaoh of the Exodus need not necessarily be the same pharaoh the one for whom they built the Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11, who need not necessarily be the same as the "pharaoh who knew not Joseph".

There is little scholarly agreement as to even the century in which the Exodus should be placed. If one accepts the orthodox account, then from I Ki. 6:1, the conclusion is that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the founding of King Solomon's temple. Fortunately, only the Biblical Minimalist school of interpretation dissents significantly from the traditional date for Solomon's temple. The consensus of most experts places it in the range of 960-970 BCE. Using, for example, 966, we arrive at an Exodus date of 1446. This is unsatisfactory for three reasons:

  1. The biblical chronology can readily be shown to be confused. The era of the Judges, when one adds their reigns, exceeds the time between the Exodus and Solomon's temple. The Apostle Paul, for his part, comes to a figure of 450 years for the Judges, the 40-year Wandering included (Acts 13:18.20), but still does not take into account the reign of the kings Saul and David.
  2. If one uses either the lower or the higher Egyptological dating schemes (although not so if a reductionist scheme is employed), 1446 falls in the reign of Thutmose III, who in archaeological records, is engaged in capturing Canaanite prisoners in battle and bringing them into Egypt, as opposed to the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who was concerned early on with the unbalanced proportion of Hebrew slaves, and
  3. The archaeology of the Conquest militates for a late Exodus.

Currently, the destruction layer at Hazor, at which a transition from Canaanite to proto-Israelite/Philistine material culture is found, is dated from 1250-1150 BCE. (A Canaanite gate there is dated ca. 1155, but that city may have been razed subsequent to its completion.) A similar boundary at Lachish is dated to 1150, and at Megiddo, about 1145 BCE. Either these classic Joshua conquests happened at a much different time than the Bible suggests, or we must employ some exotic Egyptian chronology, even though it is relatively well understood, compared to Hebrew chronology and even Babylonian chronology. Other "Joshua" cities have transition layers around 1250 BCE.

One idea that has enjoyed occasional support among scholars ignores point three, and suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the expulsion of the Hyksos. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion of classical writers such as Manetho and Josephus. The Hyksos were a Semitic people who ruled Egypt for roughly two centuries before the Eighteenth Dynasty. One cannot deny the possibility that the Hyksos might have been associated with the Habiru stock which seems to have given rise to the Hebrews of the Bible (although this link is not universally admitted), and indeed, the statement of Ex. 12:40 suggests that 400 years separated the arrival of Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, thus tempting us to synchronize the arrival of Jacob in Egypt with the Hyksos. This, however, disregards the impossibility of synchronizing the end of the Hyksos era with the emergence of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan, the earliest phases of which in the central highlands date to 1400 BCE. Furthermore, the Hyksos left Egypt as defeated kings, not as escaping slaves. If we suppose the Israelites to have fled before then, we do not encounter any notice that their captors were soon overwhelmed, nor any notice that the Pharaoh they were slaves under was not actually an Egyptian, but Semitic like their selves. Placing the Exodus before the expulsion of the Hyksos only increases the difficulty of synchronizing the evidence with the arrival of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan. Placing it shortly afterward does not allow for a very long Oppression, and also fails to explain why the Bible does not say that Pharaoh was not Egyptian for much of this time, or that the Egyptians had come back to power.

Thus it is that there are two main categories that most Exodus theories fall into: Early and Late Exodus theories. Those requiring the veracity of I Ki. 6:1, or otherwise having an Exodus at or before ca. 1446 BCE (which include the many works by Bimson, who is not a fundamentalist, and more recently Redford and Herzog), are generally known as Early Exodus Theory supporters. Those maintaining that the building of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be associated with Rameses II or later (Rameses I ruled for only a year or so), are termed supporters of a Late Exodus theory. Rameses II came to the throne ca. 1290-1272 (the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannia differ on Egyptological dating, and Bietak places them later yet), as opposed to the ca. 1446 BCE I Ki. 6:1 would require. Most archaeologists, for their part, if they believe the Exodus to be a historical event at all, support a late conquest of the "Joshua" cities, thus suggesting Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. This fits well with the equation of the city of Rameses of Ex. 1:11 with the pi-Rameses of archaeology; and Pithom with pi-Atum, which had major construction during the reign of Rameses II. Alternate hypotheses concerning synchronizing the Exodus with volcanic eruptions are at least possible, but we are under no compulsion to require synchronization with any such eruption. Rabbinical tradition often tells a less miraculous version of events than that the water stood up like a wall on each side, such as crossing the Red Sea in twelve different places, and as the channels of the Bitter Lakes may have been silting up like the Pelusic Branch in the time of Rameses, all we need do is imagine a brief drought which resulted in a silted up channel to have become dried up in one or more places in order to explain the received traditions. So, although many theories are possible, mainly Early Exodus theories support the accuracy of I Ki. 6:1, and late Exodus theories posit that the Rameses mentioned in Ex. 1:11 is not just an anachronism, but can be supported via archaeology.

Early Exodus Chronologies

Given the assumption of the correctness of I Ki., various proposals have been made to identify proposed archaeological counterparts. Typically, a pharaoh who ruled near ca. 1446 BCE is seen as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, such as Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426) or Amenhotep II (1412-1428 or 1426-1400). Recent archeological findings suggest the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ahmose I (around 1500 B.C.E). Here is a site giving all the information on the new archeological findings on the Exodus Here are some sites reviewing some of the Early Exodus scholars: Here is a site that discusses various sociological models of the Conquest in light of archaeology, some of which may or may not by used in the context of an Early Exodus: The Date of the Conquest.

The Israel Stele is a terminus ad quem for the existence of Israel. Contra biblical expectation, this first archaeological mention of Israel, it is widely agreed, documents events in the reign of the pharaoh Merenptah. Merenptah's reign was over by 1211 BCE (or a little thereafter if proposed radiocarbon date corrections are used), and so we are compelled to conclude that Israel existed by then, when mainstream Egyptian chronologies are employed. Contra prevailing opinion about the Stele, it does not require the Exodus to already have happened. Had the Exodus happened in e.g. 1446 BCE, Israel should have been settled in Canaan and long established. Yet, the Stele uses a determinative symbol which signifies a tribe in referring to Israel, instead of a city determinative, as with other peoples mentioned; allowing the possibility that the Israelites were not yet settled. Furthermore, it claims that they are "without seed", suggesting that all adult males had been killed - yet there is no such decimation of Israel by Egypt recorded in the Judges era.

Two part invasion

A Canadian scholar, Theophile Meek, suggested a two part conquest of Canaan: the first wave corresponding to the observed settlement of proto-Israelite lime covered cistern digging material culture in the central highlands beginning about 1400 BCE, and the second wave corresponding with the later destruction of Hazor, then understood based on the work of Yilgal Yadin, to have occurred ca. 1250. Yet, 1250 is an awkward destruction date for Hazor. It is too late to be synchronized with a 1446 Exodus, even after 80 years of wandering, and it is uncomfortably early to allow Rameses to be the pharaoh of the Oppression, followed by only 40 years of Wandering.

Meek's essential hypothesis of a two part Conquest still seems sound, even if his exact dating of phase two is open to question. Malamat, based largely on the work of de Moor, observes a cluster of Exodus-like events around 1190 BCE, synchronizing the Exodus with the reign of the Pharaoh Sethnakht. In his reign, there was a rebellion against him, which had conspired with foreign elements, which was ultimately defeated. During this time, it seems the vizier Beya, who had been the power behind the throne in the time of Tausert, had made himself like a king, during which time the Egyptian gods were no longer worshipped. The defeated rebels then left for the desert in a southeasterly direction. This accords well with the archaeological evidence. In view of Meek's hypothesis then, the Exodus would have happened some time before the second phase of the Conquest. This can be correlated with the fact that no southern tribes are called in the Song of Deborah (Judges ch.5) even though farther away Trans-Jordan tribes are called; but Judah's existence seems to be taken for granted during the earliest phases of the conquest in the book of Joshua. It may well be that Deborah and Joshua have been translocated in time, and that Deborah may have been among Israelites that stayed in Canaan (although the Bible does not tell us that any stayed) during the Oppression of the Israelites in Egypt. Archaeologists describe arrivals of proto-Israelites in the Central Highlands of Israel around 1400 BCE, but the transitions for cities described as first haven been conquered by Joshua from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite layers generally happens about 1250-1150 BCE, if not later.

Minimalist Theories

Biblical minimalists, such as Davies, Lemche and Israel Finkelstein, seek to identify Yadin's Solomonic gates with later eras, regarding Jerusalem in Solomon's era as a "cow town", a small seat of a small tribal confederation. By and large, they regard the "Books of Moses" as compilations of post-Solomonic priests centuries after the fact (and this is reasonable, given the findings of the Documentary Hypothesis - see esp. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible), but (more questionably) seem to regard the Exodus narrative as completely unhistorical. Davies and Lemche have been forced to modify their extremely minimalist positions, but Finkelstein is a leading Israeli archaeologist who maintains his more moderate minimalist position against the likes of Amnon ben Tor and Mazar's successors, who place some layers 50-75 years earlier, and generally uphold Yadin's identification of the Solomonic gates.

Finkelstein suggests that the later destruction layer at Hazor was resettled by a later phase of Philistine material culture, and thus was not necessarily Israelite at all. This point is not terribly compelling, since in the Judges era, the Israelites had to go to the Philistines to get their tools sharpened, and thus probably engaged in extensive trade with the Philistines at first. If he can sustain that these layers are also later than say 1145, our whole idea of the Exodus would have to be revised, Israel already having been so well settled by the time Hazor became Israelite. However, such an idea should be based not merely on Philistine pottery, but also on compelling Egyptological evidence. Finkelstein also does not uphold Yadin's identification of the Solomonic city gates. This state of affairs prompted Herschal Shanks to ask famously, "If those aren't the tenth century Solomonic gates, then where is the Tenth Century?"

Current Late Exodus Chronologies

While theories of the dating of the Exodus abound, progress is being made. Most novices think a difference among scholars of dating the Exodus over a range of a few hundred years is a moot point, since our archaeology-based chronologies are imperfect. This ignores the extraordinary degree to which Israelite chronology has been confirmed from Babylonian records back through the Babylonian Captivity, which matches as to the dates of the principal events, but also to meticulous star charts they kept that can be verified through modern astronomic calculations. The attack on Israel by the Pharaoh Shishak in the century after Solomon is synchronized by many with a raid by the Pharaoh Sishonk, and mention had been found of king Omri, driving back historical verification even further. This attitude also ignores the widespread agreement (although not unanimous) on Egyptological chronology back through the time of Sethnakht. The problem is that Israelite archaeology is pretty secure back through the time of Sishonk, and probably through the time of Solomon, and Egyptian chronology is secure even further, but archaeologists observe a surprising lack of proto-Israelite material culture between the time of Solomon and the transition from Egypto-Canaanite material culture to proto-Israelite at many sites - suggesting that the time from Solomon to the Conquest is much shorter than the Bible allows. Earlier layers of the many cities first said to have been conquered by Joshua, at sites such as Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, Debir, and Ai and Bethel if they are correctly located, are not supportive of an early Exodus. Egyptian finds of relatively recent Pharaohs are common at such sites, and indeed, Rameses II is still firmly in control of Beth-Shan, etc.) in so late a time. Since the area seems to have been under Egypto-Canaanite domination prior to and after the Amarna era (indeed, attempts to find Joseph or the Conquest in the Amarna records are unconvincing although sometimes misrepresented; since Egypt was still a widespread power in the region as late as Rameses II, and since surveys of pig bones also suggest that the inhabitants of these earlier layers did not keep kosher, working archaeologists by and large defend the emergence of a proto-Israelite material culture at a rather late date at these sites. Finds with cartouches from relatively late pharaohs are widespread, especially in southern and coastal Canaan.

Israeli archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor, an excavator of Hazor, when faced with a scholar trying to revise his chronologies, bristles at the prospect. He writes,

"I never claimed that 'Joshua was the conqueror of the city'. What I do claim is that Hazor was violently destroyed by fire, most probably sometime during the 13th century B.C. In that century, the name 'Israel' as of a people in the region is mentioned in the stele of Merneptah. In the book of Joshua (whenever the text was written or edited) the Israelites are mentioned as having destroyed Hazor by fire. Why then is it so difficult to accept the view that the (Proto-?) Israelites, perhaps in cooperation with others, may have had something to do with it?" (from the SJOT)

At least Ben-Tor is in good company. Hazor is not the only site whose archaeologists find a such a transition. A number of cities first said to have been conquered by Joshua have transition dates mainstream archaeology puts at ca. 1150-1250, and recent trends in archaeology are to lower, rather than raise the date of these transitions.

Thus it is that the archaeology of the Conquest militates for a Late Exodus, although fundamentalist scholars still hold out for an early date. If we choose to agree with the consensus of archaeologists (when they can be convinced to hazard a guess as to the historicity of the Exodus at all) that the construction of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be placed no earlier than the reign of Rameses II, then we would conclude that although the Late Exodus theory seems probable, it is nonetheless still work in progress that continues to be affected by late-breaking developments.

It is also not enough to simply translocate the biblical events to this later time. The site currently identified as Kedesh-Barnea has as yet turned up no Late Bronze Age occupation, nor any until the tenth century BCE, and others, such as Beersheba, Arad, and Edom, show the same pattern as well. Although this absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. This principle should not be scoffed at. Sometimes populations can be paltry or mounds can get leveled (although this is labor intensive) before being resettled, but on the other hand, text can be added to authentic historical accounts also. While it is true that archaeologists did not find the early settlements in Edom and Moab that they expected to find, suggesting an unhistoric text, even earlier Egyptian records do mention both an Edom and a Seir, in geographic lists that would tend to place them in the right vicinity as well. It is hard to preclude the possibility, for example, that some of the biblical tales of conquest might have originated with conflicts with semi-nomadic groups who might be inhabiting these regions; but another possibility is that some facets of the Exodus stories could belong to a later political reality.

Geographic Issues

The body of water crossed in the story has often been identified as the Red Sea, usually in Christian tradition. However, the original Hebrew described the place as yam suph - literally, the "Reed Sea". See Passage of Red Sea for more details. It is evident from the Bible that the Hebrews knew that the Red Sea was contiguous from the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba, and indeed, the Red Sea and the Reed Sea seem to be used interchangeably in the Bible. The exact location of the crossing is not recorded, and so will always be speculative. However, the location of the crossing might be related to the location of Mt. Sinai. For example, those locating the biblical Sinai in ancient Midian (i.e. on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba) at a site like Jebel al-Lawz are more likely to have the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba than elsewhere. Locating the correct site for Sinai might, however, give us more to go on in reconstructing possible sites for the crossing.

Interestingly enough, although there is much diversity as to the time to place the Exodus, most scholars seem to conclude that the archaeological sites of pi-Rameses and pi-Thom are the "treasure cities" (i.e. probably royal cities) of Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11. There is an Egyptian record of 'Apiru shipping a huge stele to pi-Rameses (although it is somewhat controversial that the 'Apiru are the Hebrew). Bietak, for his part, finds evidence of Semetic-style three roomed houses at pi-Rameses. It is now believed that many of the artifacts of those cities had been located to their current location in the reign of Rameses III, but that much of the building Rameses II had done at pi-Rameses had been over the site of the ancient Hyksos capital of Avaris. Bases of the statues and monuments which had been relocated had been found in this vicinity. It is important to discuss this issue here rather than under the separate topic headings for Rameses and Pithom, since it affects the issue of dating the Exodus so much. Bietak and others conclude that these sites, both pi-Rameses and pi-Thom, if they are located at any of the sites seriously contended by scholars, were unoccupied from the centuries from the expulsion of the Hyksos until the time of Rameses II. If these sites were unoccupied before Rameses II, then this gives us a choice - either the completion of these cities occurred during the Hyksos era, so that Aviris can have archaeological remains at pi-Rameses, and then pi-Rameses would have to be an anachronistic name; or else these cities were completed well after the accession of Rameses II. Neither choice is compatible with the date inferred from I Ki. 6:1 of 1446 BCE. Thus, one must either have the Oppression in the Hyksos era, as does Bimson, or else one is left with some form of late Exodus, to take the egyptologists at their word.

Alternate Theories

A number of theories have been proposed to account for the occurrence of the plagues and the resulting parting of the waters, attributing them to volcanoes. Also, some attempt to revise Egyptian chronologies, placing pharaohs like, e.g. Rameses II, centuries later.

Volcano Theory

One possible explanation for plagues and the parting of the water is the Santorini volcano eruption and tsunami that occurred sometime possibly coincident with the exodus.

According to tsunami experts, the massive volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini in 1600BCE could have generated a giant tidal wave or tsunami that struck the Nile Delta, parting of the sea, triggered the ten plaques during the time of Moses' escape from Egypt. Tsunamis are often preceded by the water withdrawing from the shore. A mega-tsunami caused by Santorini's volcano would siphon billions of gallons of water - not just from the shore but from connecting rivers and lakes - creating dry land for as long as two hours. This would give Moses and the Israelis enough time to cross, although maybe not 3 million of them. Heavier chariots may well have been bogged down in the mud. Evidence is based on findings along the rock beddings shores of Africa and Egypt.

Several authors have pointed out similarities between the description of Mount Sinai in Exodus and descriptions of erupting volcanoes. Authors who have espoused this theory include:

Humphreys proposes the volcano Hala-'l Badr in Arabia.

Greatly Lowered Egyptian Chronologies

A minority of writers, both of books and on the Internet, attempt to place the various dynasties of Egypt centuries later than the range of dates they are usually accorded. These theories seem to stem from Immanuel Velikovsky. He was not content to place the Ipuwer Papyrus (which is usually attributed to the Middle Kingdom or earlier and may have been the basis of the story of the Plagues of Egypt) so early as the range of dates the Middle Kingdom is generally placed. Instead, he attempted to lower Egyptian chronology to make the Middle Kingdom contemporaneous with the Exodus. Adherents also point to similarities between the names of the various Ramasside Pharaohs or contemporary figures from archaeology in Palestine, and supposed counterparts (for example, from the era of the Babylonian Captivity). Admittedly, the name Rameses had been used by pharaohs earlier than Rameses I & II, but not characteristically so, and Rameses II has the distinction to have been the first to have built a city named Rameses, after himself, suggesting a parallel with Ex. 1:11, as above.

The substance of proposed evidence consists of a handful of supposed parallel events and names, and claimed flaws in the archaeological work. Acceptance among experts will be an uphill battle for a number of reasons. It would require the archaeologists working on ancient Israeli sites to revise their chronology, since layers there containing Rameses II cartouches are generally placed before the time of Solomon. It would require Egyptologists to revise the history of Ancient Egypt drastically, leaving out entire centuries and dynasties.

In other words, it would not merely involve revising our understanding of most ancient Egyptian dynasties by centuries, but also a complete revision of the archaeology of Palestine. Serious archaeologists working on both ancient Israel and Egypt by and large do not subscribe to these revised chronologies. Against the weight of all this, it seems easier to suppose that either a copy of, or else the Ipuwer Papyrus itself, might have been made use of at a later time to have become part of the Hebrew scriptures, or else that the Jewish tale might have stemmed from another source which bore an apparent but only coincidental resemblance to the Ipuwer Papyrus.

Association with Osarseph

In his Antiquities of the Jews and Against Appion, Josephus recounts a distorted tale supposedly from Manetho, identifying the expulsion of the Jews both with the Hyksos, and with the expulsion of a group of Asiatic lepers, led by a renegate Egyptian priest called Osarseph. It appears this tale is a conflation of events of the Amarna period, of the earlier Hyksos expulsion, and events at the end of the 19th Dynasty.

Association with Atenism

In his 1939 books Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud linked moses to the religion of Akhenaten, Atenism. The exodus would then come after Akhenaten's death (ca. 1358 BC) when much of the pharaoh's monotheistic reforms were being violently reversed. Joseph Campbell also put forth such theories. Ahmed Osman went one step further, identifying Moses with Akhenaten himself. These theories are not taken seriously by most mainstream Egyptologists.

Interpretation

The findings of modern archaeologists may present a challenge for Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, as it is here, at the Exodus and the subsequent Conquest of Canaan that the chronologies of the archaeologists seem to plainly diverge from those that may be derived from known versions of the Bible; at least in overall terms of centuries and populations. We are at the boundary of verifiable history and the earlier, harder to verify histories of the Bible. Such reasoning is possible because the Israelite chronologies seem secure back through the time of Solomon, and those of Egypt much farther back. It would appear we have what may reasonably be described as proto-Israelite material culture transitions which can be dated with reasonable accuracy, and occur at unexpectedly late dates. Now, since only 40 years separate the Exodus and the Conquest, if we are talking about a Late Conquest, we are talking about a Late Exodus as well. Thus, conservative scholars within Judaism and Christianity by and large still attempt to maintain Biblical chronologies in keeping with I Ki. 6:1, rabbinical materials, or Josephus, i.e. early Exodus chronologies, whereas less literalist scholars within these traditions as well as most scholars outside of them by and large subscribe to Late Exodus chronologies. Most archaeologists working on the territories of ancient Israel now support chronologies differing from the biblical Conquest of Canaan by some centuries, and if it turns out they are right, we may have to revise our historical view of the Exodus accordingly. In spite of what appears to be a discrepency of archaeology with the Bible, the work of archaeologists does suggest the reality of the overall 'sweep of events' - e.g. an arrival in Canaan by this proto-Israelite material culture some centuries before the time of when Solomon and David are believed to have lived, and Egypt had been known to enslave Semites. Egyptologts have even discovered various Exodus-like events that could well correspond to events such as those that may have given rise to the biblical Exodus narratives. Although nothing has been found to substantiate the presence of Egypto-Israelites wandering in the Sinai so as to fix the date of the Exodus, neither has anything like a direct, unambiguous record of Joshua and his attacks, modern archaeology, at least in a philosophical sense, cannot ultimately and completely prove or disprove any sort of historical question, including the Exodus. This should not be taken as suggesting ignoring findings of an evidential nature.

Many rabbis in the Talmud stated that one should never interpret certain Torah verses literally. Later rabbis, such as Maimonides, taught that when scientific evidence contradicts a current understanding of the Gemara, we must re-interpret that Gemara in accord with science. This did not apply to the Torah. For many traditional rabbis, such a position did not count as heresy. This view exists today within Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and parts of Modern Orthodox Judaism. However, the strong negative reaction to leading Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe's 2001 Passover speech, where he plainly stated that the Exodus did not happen, indicates that this is still a controversial issue even in the liberal Jewish movements.

See also

References

  • Encyclopedia Judaica. S.v. "Population". ISBN 0685362531
  • Yilgal Shiloh. "The Population of Iron Age Palestine in the Light of a Sample Analysis of Urban Plans, Areas and Population Density." Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research (BASOR) 239, (1980): 25-35. ISSN 0003097X
  • Nahum Sarna. "Six hundred thousand men on foot" in Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, New York: Schocken Books (1996): ch. 5. ISBN 0805210636
  • Hershel Shanks, William G. Dever, Baruch Halpern and P. Kyle McCarter. The Rise of Ancient Israel: Symposium at the Smithsonian Institution October 26, 1991, Biblical Archaeological Society, 1992. ISBN 1880317052
  • Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, edited by Frerichs, Lesko & Dever, Indianapolis: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ISBN 1575060256
  • Theophile Meek, Hebrew Origins, Gloucester, MA.: Peter Smith Pub. Inc., 1960. ISBN 0844625728
  • John J. Bimson. Redating the Exodus. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. ISBN 0907459048
  • Yohanan Aharoni. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philidelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. ISBN 0664213847. This book is notable for the large number of Ramesside cartouches and finds it cites throughout Israel.
  • Johannes C. de Moor. "Egypt, Ugarit and Exodus" in Ugarit, Religion and Culture, Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Ugarit, Religion and Culture, edited by N. Wyatt and W. G. E. Watson. Münster, Germany: Ugarit-Verlag, 1996. ISBN 3927120375
  • Richard E. Friedman. Who Wrote the Bible?. HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. ISBN 0060630353. This onr not a standard reference for the Documantary Hypothesis, as Friedman is in part describing his own theory of the origin of one of the sources. Rather, it is an excellent introduction for the layman to document that there are in all probability multiple sources for the "Books of Moses".
  • Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman. The Bible Unearthed. New York: Free Press, 2001. ISBN 0684869128
  • Amnon Ben-Tor. "Hazor - A City State Between The Major Powers." Scandinavian J. of the OT (SJOT), vol. 16, issue 2 (2002): 308. ISSN 0901-8328

External links

passover | Torah events | Exodus Stations

Изход (Библия) | 2. Buch Mose | Eliro | Exode | יציאת מצרים | Keluaran | 出エジプト記 | Exodus | Uittocht uit Egypte | Księga Wyjścia | Êxodo | Исход

 

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the "The Exodus".

Home Page • arts • business • computers • games • health • hospitals • home • kids & teens • news • physicians • recreation• reference • regional • science • shopping • society • sports • world