Five Views on the Exodus

6 authors

2/5

"It was okay"

Review

This book was the 3rd from the Zondervan Counterpoints series, in which multiple authors engage in a dialogue regarding their views on a hot topic. It’s sorta like a literary debate: each author spells out their views, then they critique each other.

In most nonfiction books, the entire point of the book is to sell a narrative, like “the early Christians generally thought X thing” or “in 1963, someone did Y for Z reasons”. So, it’s admittedly a little weird to read a book that presents a core question “if/when did the Exodus happen?” but doesn’t answer it satisfactorily. Notice I’m only calling this behavior weird, not bad. Questions regarding the historical exodus are fundamentally hard to answer, because there is so little evidence and information to work with. I hope this improves with more archaeology.

I can’t say this book really piqued my interest in Exodus archaeology and Egyptology, but it was certainly a good introduction to the topic and the various scholarly opinions. You can read my conclusion below.

My Conclusion

In my opinion, many parts of the Bible (especially the Old Testament) are not meant to be interpreted literalistically. So, the “early” 15th century Exodus view is just not attractive to me. Stripling relies on a highly literalistic interpretation of 1 Kings 6:1 to support his narrative. He insists it’s technically 479 years, so any symbolic theories are not valid, but even if this is the case, the story in 1 Kings 6:1 goes out of its way to specifically mention the number 480. Rendsburg’s assessment seems accurate:

…one cannot take at face value the years presented in the early biblical books. The numbers used are always greatly exaggerated, and at times they are imbued with symbolism (even if the exact nature of that symbolism eludes us)… The use of round numbers, especially multiples of forty, and exaggerated ones, is characteristic of the epic tradition… This same use of exaggerated numbers using multiples of forty is attested in both Egyptian and Akkadian literature… no historical reconstruction should be based on the 480-year time span mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:1.

— Gary A. Rendsburg

So, I’m left with either a 13th or 12th century exodus (among the popular views, at least). Among the 13th century authors, Hoffmeier did a commendable job establishing the plausibility of a historical Exodus, but not much time on his 13th century date. Feinman’s Hyksos-led theory is certainly interesting, but relies on too much speculation (which admittedly may be necessary to explain an event so far in the past).

Overall, I found Rendsburg’s 12th century exodus to be the most convincing, but it’s by no means a completely satisfying answer. He doesn’t address much of the Egyptian and biblical evidence the other authors do, but I suppose that’s to be expected in his limited word count. If I read more about these topics, I’d probably pick something by Rendsburg. The biggest obstacle to his view is the Merneptah Stele, which requires a minority interpretation to explain how Israel was “laid waste” whilst also remaining in Egypt. But even if a historical exodus did happen in the 12th century, I think it’s fair to say there is a probably some embellishment in the Exodus story.

The exodus narrative “will sometimes mesh reasonably well with history”… but in general these “historical fact[s], history, that is, as we know it,” are subservient to the greater goal of the writer, which in Israel’s case is not only an “ethically satisfying narrative” but also a theologically nourishing one.

— Gary Rendsburg

Of course, the scholarly consensus is that the Exodus didn’t happen at all, and I would have appreciated if the book contained at least 1 author who made that case strongly. Ultimately, I doubt this book will change the views of many. There is still no consensus on when a historical Exodus happened. Your conclusion about the Exodus will probably be based on your incoming assumptions about the Bible.

No doubt many of you have asked yourself at various points in your journey through this book, “Who do I trust?” This is understandable; we have seen different interpretations which prioritized different data and even at times reached different conclusions regarding the same evidence or artifact (looking at you, Berlin Pedestal). One expert says the exodus dates to one century, others say two different centuries, another says we cannot determine it. Sadly, there is no easy way to sort this out. If there were, this book either would not exist or would simply be One View on the Exodus. The best answer I can give is to never stop learning, draw your own conclusions, and think deeply and critically about everything you read.

— Mark D. Janzen

Preliminary Information

First, what is the Exodus? Essentially, it’s an “origin story” for the Israelites. It tries to explain where, when, and how the nation of Israel came about. Here are the highlights of the biblical story:

1. Jacob (a descendant of Adam and Abraham), escaping famine, brings his family to Egypt. They flourish for generations.
2. After some time, a new Pharaoh begins to oppress and enslave the Israelites in Egypt.
3. Moses is born, kills an Egyptian, and flees.
4. God contacts Moses via a burning bush, revealing God’s name (YHWH/Yahweh) and instructing Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt, using God’s power in plagues when necessary.
5. After 10 plagues, the Pharaoh lets the Israelites go, but changes his mind and pursues them. In the pursuit, the Egyptian army is swept up by waters in a divine intervention.
6. After their escape, the Israelites lack faith in God, and are punished by wandering in the desert for 40 years.
7. Moses dies and is replaced by Joshua, who leads the people into the land of Canaan, where they attack the local population and settle.

Important Pharaohs

The Hyksos and Manetho

The Hyksos were a people group that temporarily ruled Egypt in ~1650-1540 BCE. The Egyptian word Hyksos literally means “foreign rulers”, which is an apt description. During their reign, the Hyksos probably used Avaris as their capital city.

At some point, the native Egyptians reclaimed control from the Hyksos. It’s unclear how the Hyksos were treated afterwards. It’s likely that some Hyksos stuck around Egypt, but their identity as a people group may have faded. Some scholars (e.g. Feinman) speculate that some Hyksos stuck around until an eventual historical Exodus, thus being the original Israelites.

An ancient Greek author named Manetho wrote a history of Egypt in the ~200s BCE, providing an extremely helpful context for further historical research. The original writings of Manetho are lost, but his writings survive via quotations, primarily from Josephus, a first-century CE Jewish historian. Manetho, who was anti-Hyksos, wrote that the Hyksos were attempting to conquer Egypt, used Avaris as their capital, and were eventually expulsed nonviolently like an unwanted disease. Manetho names the Pharaoh that expulsed them Amenophis, which could refer to multiple historical Pharaohs.

In another passage, Manetho writes about an Amenophis Pharaoh dealing with an Egyptian priest named Osarseph (whom Josephus and scholars like Stripling equate with Moses) that leads some people out of Egypt and form Jerusalem. Manetho never uses the words “Hebrew” or “Jew”, and it’s unclear if he considered the events of the Hyksos and of Osarseph to be during the same “Amenophis” Pharaoh or whether they’re the same people group. When Josephus writes about Manetho, he uses Manetho’s stories to claim that the Hyksos are the same as the Hebrews.

Merneptah Stele

Ancient Egyptian Pharaohs sometimes inscribed history on a stele, an upright stone/pillar. A particularly important stele in the context of the historical Exodus is the Merneptah Stele. This stele mentions victories of the Pharaoh Merneptah (ruled 1213 to 1203 BCE) over foreign groups. In the section describing people conquered in Canaan, it writes:

Israel is laid waste—its seed is no more;

The translation of “Israel” is disputed, but appears to be the scholarly consensus. This is a big deal because it implies that Israel existed as a people group in the late 13th century!¹ So, if the Exodus is historical, it probably happened during or before this.

The Merneptah Stele is frequently used to support an “early” (15th/14th century) Exodus, because presumably the Israelites would need to exit Egypt and grow into a sizable nation before Pharaoh Merneptah can brag about defeating them on his stele in the late 13th century.

An Exodus after the 13th century becomes more difficult with the Merneptah Stele. The 12th century Exodus proponent, Rendsburg, solves this issue by claiming that “Israel is laid waste” is merely a reference to Israel’s continued slave status in Egypt, not any sort of escape or destruction. But, his interpretation was highly criticized by the other authors. For example, Feinman said “To put it bluntly, this explanation doesn’t work”, and Hoffmeier said “No one would argue that the inclusion of Ashkelon, Gezer, and Yenoam indicates that these city-states were enslaved in Egypt. So why should Israel be?“

15th Century (Early-Date): Scott Stripling

Stripling represents the “traditional”, highly literalistic, interpretation of the biblical exodus. He first assumes biblical inerrancy, then analyzes the Old Testament to mathematically determine an exodus date. I think he accurately describes the interpretive traditions by saying “Early-date adherents give greater weight to the Bible, whereas late-date purveyors tend to elevate archaeology in their historiography.” I also appreciated his humility in stating that “there is no consensus among scholars who hold to a historical exodus event concerning its timing”.

Typically, when there is a lack of evidence for a historical event, the simplest and best assumption is that it didn’t happen. This is known as the argument from silence. In the introduction to the book, Mark Janzen points out that “There is no direct evidence for the Exodus, or Moses, from ancient Egypt.” Thus, the argument from silence says that because of this “silence” of evidence, the Exodus didn’t happen. Stripling argues against this, using the example of the biblical David: scholars thought he was a literary invention for a long time, until they discovered the Tel Dan Stele. He’s correct that, in that example, the argument from silence failed. He also claims that we shouldn’t expect Egyptian evidence for the Exodus, because it would make them look bad.

I would not describe Stripling as a fundamentalist scholar completely blinded by theological commitments, but his bias does come through.

Evidence

As Stripling says, the 15th Century Exodus view is largely based on biblical interpretations: specifically, 1 Kings 6:1.

In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites left Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, during the month Ziv (the second month), he began building the Lord’s temple.

— 1 Kings 6:1 (NET)

1. From Assyrian records, we know that Solomon’s First Temple began construction in 967 BCE.
2. 1 Kings 6:1 says the Exodus happened 479 years prior (“in the 480th year” would be 479)

Feinman’s description of Stripling’s approach is accurate: “[Stripling] starts with an inappropriate interpretation of the biblical text to determine his date of the exodus and then turns to the archaeology to prove it… The recognition that 1 Kgs 6:1 should not be taken as a literal number invalidates the basis of Stripling’s approach.” Rendsburg also criticized this literalistic approach of the 480 years, saying “it flies in the face of all that we know about biblical narrative style and parallel writings from the ancient Near East.”

Some other biblical evidence is provided:

• Judges 11:26: “…we are fortunate to start with an agreed-upon date, approximately 1100 BC, for Jephthah. From here, the math is simple: 1100 + 300 = 1400 BC.”
  • Hoffmeier took issue with his analysis of Judges, and claims it refutes Stripling’s math.
• 1 Chronicles 6:33-37: “Wide agreement exists among scholars today that a generation averages twenty-five years, so an approximate equation for estimating this time looks like this: 19 generations × 25 years = 475 years. When 475 is added to 967 BC (Solomon’s fourth regnal year), we land in the mid-fifteenth century (1442 BC).”

Stripling discusses a myriad of extrabiblical, archaeological, and literary evidence, including Manetho’s mention of “Pharaoh Amenophis” which could point to multiple pharaohs around the 15th century, archaeological evidence for abandonment at Pi-Ramasses, a mention of “Moses” in Wadi Nasb, the Soleb Hieroglyph, the Berlin Pedestal, the Merneptah Stele, the walls of Jericho, and several more examples. Several of these are criticized by some other authors, like the Berlin Pedestal.

Regarding Stripling’s choice of extrabiblical evidence, Rendsburg throws heavy criticism, saying “[Stripling] is not au courant on the scholarly literature; he does not seem to understand the basic workings of Biblical Hebrew language and literary style; he picks and chooses data points as he likes, without a critical eye; and most crucial, the approach suffers in the extreme from special pleading.” Hendel also criticized Stripling’s interpretation of “Moses”, calling it “an example of the pseudoarchaeology that Stripling warns about,” then goes on to say “His other examples are either dubious or irrelevant to the question of the date and historicity of the exodus.” Several authors also criticized Stripling for equating Habiru and Hebrew.

13th Century (Late-Date): James K. Hoffmeier

Hoffmeier emphasizes the importance of the Exodus’s historicity: the Hebrews clearly speak of it as a historical event, and it’s mentioned in almost every part of the Old Testament. I would agree, at least, with his statement that “Biblical Israel’s religion and theology is based on history and intertwined with it… historical events were interpreted through a religious lens.”. Ancient Israel took the stories of its neighbors, and the events of its past, and re-wrote them with “a religious lens.”

…there is a general distrust of the Bible as a reliable source for history, a distrust that has been with us since the Enlightenment and has been renewed in the current postmodern milieu. If the Bible were not still held to be sacred by Jews and Christians, it probably would not be treated in such a condescending and dismissive manner. In some cases this is because of anti-religious bigotry. Because of this hermeneutic of suspicion, the Bible is not treated in the same way as are other historical sources.

— James K. Hoffmeier

Hoffmeier does an admirable job showing the plausibility of an Exodus event occurring, but doesn’t take the secondary step of proving it really happened. For example:

• Egypt took captive slaves from foreign nations and used them for labor
• Several biblical names are Egyptian in nature (e.g. Moses, Aaron, Merari, Miriam, Phineas, Putiel, Assir, etc.)
• Biblical instructions for the tabernacle use Egyptian technical terms
• We see a clear Persian influence in the Bible, but Egyptian influence is stronger
• Moses basket birth story mirrors that of Sargon the Great. Exodus 2:3, describing this, uses many Egyptian terms.
• The city the Hebrews built, Pi-Ramesses, was discovered via archaeology to be close to Tell el-Dab’a (the old Hyksos capital at Avaris)
• The path the Hebrews take out of Egypt in the Bible contains places that seem literarily Egyptian
• Merneptah Stele mentions Israel

Hoffmeier, as well as several other authors, address the population problem in Exodus 12:37: a plain translation means the Hebrew population was ~3 million at the time of the exodus, but Hoffmeier points out that this is “logistically impossible… six hundred thousand able-bodied Hebrew men would have outnumbered the entire Egyptian army by a rate of between fifteen and twenty-four to one. The Israelites could have walked off the job and easily overwhelmed their masters!” Instead, he (and others) suggests translation the Hebrew “elep” as “clan” instead of a number of people.

Hoffmeier makes a point that the Hebrew bible spends a lot of time mentioning the historicity of the exodus, so that should be evidence that it really happens. But, Hendel points out that this is not necessarily the case; a realistic narrative is not enough. Plausibility does not mean evidence. The presence of, e.g. Egyptian names or a plausible route, doesn’t preclude a much later authorship of Exodus. Hendel also says the presence of Egyptian loanwords “says nothing about the date or historicity of the exodus or the composition of the book of Exodus.”

13th Century (Late-Date) Hyksos-Led: Peter Feinman

As discussed above, the Hyksos were foreign rulers that ruled Northern Egypt from 1650—1540. They were eventually driven out in a somewhat peaceful expulsion, but Peter Feinman speculates that the Hyksos stuck around Egypt before eventually being led out by Moses during the reign of Ramesses II. The Battle of Qadesh (year 5 of Ramassess II’s rule) showed a weakness in pharaoh Ramesses II that the Hebrews took advantage of before his rule ended. The son of Ramesses II, Merneptah, erected the Merneptah Stele to celebrate going after the Hebrews in Canaan; it was a fake victory to restore the honor of Egypt after the embarrassing Exodus during his father’s rule. Feinman’s view of this “Hyksos-led Exodus” is apparently reminiscent of Richard Elliot Friedman’s views.

Feinman uses the writings of Manetho and Josephus to link the Hyksos with the Jews, which garnered criticism from Stripling. It’s unclear if Manetho conflates the Hyksos and the Jews, but Stripling thinks not: “Feinman rests his case on Josephus’s conflated account even though Manetho, Josephus’s source, contradicts the basis of his account.”

Feinman also uses a highly speculative interpretation of the “Quarrel Story” to support his narrative, even going so far as to imagine the ending of the story (which is lost). This speculation in multiple sources was deservedly criticized by the other authors, but Rendsburg says it best: “At this point, even more teetering cards have been placed one upon the other, so that the edifice, constructed from a series of speculations, collapses to the ground.”

Feinman’s account was pretty interesting as a story, and does make sense of some of the evidence, but ultimately rests on too much speculation. Particularly, his view that the Hyksos stuck around in Egypt to eventually become the Hebrews seemed highly contested.

12th Century: Rendsburg

Like Feinman, Rendsburg supports a 12th century exodus, but not Hyksos-led. And like Stripling, Rendsburg argues that the abundant mention and importance of the Exodus in the Hebrew Bible means there is probably at least a “historical kernel” of truth, “especially when there exists sufficient historical and archaeological material to corroborate the biblical account.”

There are a few specific details that lead Rendsburg to an exodus under Ramesses III, who ruled 1187 — 1156 BCE:

• Archaeological evidence
  • A rapid growth of settlements in Canaan in the 12th century
  • New elliptical-style settlements in Canaan in the 12th century
  • Archaeological evidence for battles in Canaan in the 12th century
  • Stripling argues against this evidence, claiming the Hebrews would have overtaken and re-used Canaanite housing
• Ramasses III was vulnerable
  • Distracted by several important matters during his reign
  • Military forces were busy defending against other groups

Importantly, Rendsburg must answer the Merneptah Stele, which supports the existence of the Israelites as a people group in the late 12th century (1213-1203) before Rendsburg’s 12th century exodus ~80 years later. His answer: “this singular reference does not imply… that the core group of Israel who had been enslaved in Egypt had already left Egypt prior to ca. 1210 BCE”. He says the stele is simply a reference to Israel’s slave status within Egypt. This minority interpretation was heavily criticized by the other authors.

But, Rendsburg makes an important point: if the Hebrews were already an established nation in Canaan when Merneptah supposedly “laid waste” to them, why don’t we see evidence of that in the biblical record? His narrative at least solves that problem (because they weren’t in Canaan yet), but the simpler answers are that either the Merneptah Stele is a lie, or the biblical authors chose not to that describe negative event.

It is far better to assume that the Israelites left Egypt during the reign of Ramesses III, during the turmoil generated by the Sea Peoples invasion (ca. 1180 BCE), thereby bringing them to the land of Canaan about twenty-five years later, at the very point when there was no longer a strong Egyptian presence in the land. This would explain why the Bible never mentions the Egyptians beyond Exod 14–15. Again, people of all sorts are encountered—Amalekites, Edomites, Moabites, Ammonites, and Canaanites—but not Egyptians.

— Gary A. Rendsburg

Another major biblical clue that Rendsburg picks up is the discussion of the Sea Peoples invation in Exodus 13:17: “if there is any historical reality to the biblical tradition recorded in Exod 13:17, everything points to the Sea Peoples invasion during the reign of Ramesses III ca. 1180 BCE as the probable background for the statement.”

Regarding 1 Kings 6:1, “480 years”, Rendsburg concedes that Stripling’s 1440 BCE Exodus is the most literalistic interpretation of the evidence. However…

…one cannot take at face value the years presented in the early biblical books. The numbers used are always greatly exaggerated, and at times they are imbued with symbolism (even if the exact nature of that symbolism eludes us)… The use of round numbers, especially multiples of forty, and exaggerated ones, is characteristic of the epic tradition… This same use of exaggerated numbers using multiples of forty is attested in both Egyptian and Akkadian literature… no historical reconstruction should be based on the 480-year time span mentioned in 1 Kgs 6:1.

— Gary A. Rendsburg

Instead of 480 actual years, Rendsburg first calculates that an actual average generation would be ~30 years, then visits a specific genealogy in Ruth 4:18-22 and 1 Chronicles 2:5-15: Nahshon → Salmon → Boaz → Obed → Jesse → David. He appeals to “scholarly consensus” that David lived ~1000 BCE, putting Nahshon at ~1150 BCE, which is within the Ramasses III reign he supports.

Why choose this specific genealogy? Rendsburg argues it’s “the only one in the Bible that can be used for the purposes of dating the exodus… Of all the characters alive ca. 1000 BCE, David and Saul are the only two figures with genealogies reaching back multiple generations.”

Cultural Memory: Hendel

Hendel’s essay doesn’t fit easily into the structure of the other authors. Rather than arguing for a specific date, or a specific story, Hendel sticks to vague statements, like that the Exodus is “a collection of cultural memories in which historical events and social changes have been transformed into legend, theology, and literature”. He also compares the Exodus story to the Thanksgiving story— both are used as a tool for a nation’s culture. The stories are adapted to fit the needs of the nation as it changes over time, with little regard to what actually happened. Similar to how we repeat a biased version of the Thanksgiving story to our kid, the Bible teaches to remember and recount the Exodus.

At some points, Hendel makes pointed criticism of evangelical biblical scholarship, which largely seeks to de-miracle-ize the Bible. He draws on evangelical explanations of the plagues that try to scientifically define e.g. how the water turned to “blood”. Hendel argues that we overly analyze these stories that are clearly meant to, basically, not make scientific sense. The whole point is that they’re miracles from God. It’s obvious that Hendel has a bone to pick with traditional evangelicals, and the other authors took some of the criticism personally and spent time defending their perspectives.

For Hendel, the Exodus served as a common story for all Israelites in Canaan to bond over: “All of the early Israelites… could share a memory of Egyptian oppression.” In sum, “[the Exodus] is not plain history, nor is it pure fiction. It is a mixture of reminiscences of historical events and circumstances, traditional motifs, and narrative imagination.” He ends on a humble point, admitting that “…this model of the exodus as cultural memory is not something that I can empirically prove… the model sketched here accounts for all the evidence we have… [this model] is therefore subject to correction, revision, or rejection, according to better analyses or new textual or archaeological discoveries.”

Stripling rightly criticizes Hendel’s hands-off approach: “If proof is irrelevant, what then is the goal of our inquiry? At the very least should we not seek to determine where the weight of evidence lies? Plausibility is a worthy pursuit for historians.”