The Exodus (), as described in the Book of Exodus, is the departure and emancipation of the Israelite slaves from Egypt. Led by Moses and Aaron, the Hebrew slaves left Egypt to return to the Land of Israel where their forefathers had lived and which they had been promised by God. The Exodus forms the basis of the Jewish holiday of Passover.

Biblical narrative

According to the Torah, The Hebrews had moved from the land of Canaan into the land of Egypt when Joseph was vizier of Egypt. After the death of Joseph, the Hebrews spent another four hundred years growing and multiplying. At the end of these 400 years, a new king rose in Egypt who didn't know of Joseph. He enslaved the Hebrews and compelled them to perform much manual labor intensive work. The Hebrews remained in Egypt for 30 more years under these conditions. These tasks, particularly brick making, were extremely rigorous and the working conditions were harsh and oppressive. Moses, in exile from Egypt for murdering an Egyptian while defending a Hebrew slave, received a call from God to free the Hebrew people from Egypt. Returning to Egypt he attempted to negotiate with Pharaoh, who was not receptive, saying he did not know Moses' God. Moses, under God's instruction, called forth a series of ten plagues. The Pharaoh, enduring most of the plagues, would not let the Hebrews go, however the final plague, in which the firstborn sons of the Egyptians were taken, made the Pharaoh agree to free the Hebrews under Moses. The uprooting of the Hebrews from Egypt is mentioned in Exodus 12:41:

However, the Pharaoh changed his mind soon after they undertook their journey and sent soldiers after the Hebrews. They escaped however, after Moses' famed miraculous parting of the Red Sea. Once they had crossed the sea, the water returned and caught the following Egyptians as they tried to turn back. 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 account 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 aforementioned 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 Jordan River from the East.

Route

Possible Exodus Routes. In Black is the traditional Exodus Routes as agreed on by Biblical Scholars, Historians, and Geologists. Other possible Exodus Routes are in Pink and Green. More information at: Stations list

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 land bridge adjoining the Mediterranean. As the warfare with the Philistines was a concern for the Israelites, however, and given the flat denial of the northern highway, an Exodus route that crosses this land bridge seems unlikely ? especially considering the military situation that might present itself by being trapped between two hostile forces at either end. Beitak also describes a line of Egyptian forts along this King's Highway, known both from Egyptian texts and archaeology, which would most likely principally aid pursuers. 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, we might look for an Egyptian rather than a Semitic root for this name. Thus far, no satisfactory Egyptian root has been proposed, and so the Semitic translation may be correct. It should be pointed out, however, that canals connecting to a number of lakes may meet this description, so we should not press its localization too far until other nearby parts of the routes are more secure. 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 suggestions for site locations, are notable due to their popularity, and the association of Jebal Musa with Mt. Sinai, an identification only known to go back to the Third Century CE. There also would have been some doubling back involved just before 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 , place Mt. Horeb / Mt. Sinai variously at Mount Bedr or Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. However, note that 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

Numbers involved in the Exodus

Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men leaving Egypt with Moses, plus an unspecified but apparently large number of non-Hebrews ("A mixed multitude also went up with them" - Exodus 12:38); allowing for women and children, the total number involved may have been two million or more.^[1] Egypt at the time might have supported a total population of around 3-4 million, maybe even up to 6 million^[2]; in any event, the numbers given in Exodus 12:37 seem to represent something between half and almost the entire probable population of Egypt.

The logistics of the Exodus also present problems. Recent archaeological research has found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan, estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000, at the end of the march.^[3]

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 men 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, this would give a total Hebrew population of less than 20,000, something within the range of historical possibility. Nevertheless the Bible several times cites a very specific number of people as in Numbers 1:46 The total number was 603,550.

Dating the Exodus overview

Dating the exodus seems problematic, simply because there are many different views on the date on which it occurred.

Identity of the anonymous Pharaoh

In Exodus, Pharaoh is treated as a name rather than a title, and he is not otherwise named. Possible identifications for the anonymous biblical Pharaoh are:

• The 4th-century historian Eusebius identified the Pharaoh of the Exodus as Ramesses II (1290-1223 BC or 1279-1213 BC) of the 19th Dynasty. Indeed, Eusebius was responsible for the formulation of a "traditional" chronology for Egypt, based ultimately on such markers as the biblical date of the Exodus. He accordingly placed Ramesses II around 1450 BC, because of his supposed association with the Exodus (the Israelite slaves were said to have built a city named Ramesses). Thus originally the date of Ramesses depended upon the Exodus, though now the date of the Exodus is said (wrongly) to depend on an indepedently-derived date for Ramesses II. Generally unaware of the biblical origins of Egyptian chronology, most scholars still seem to favor Ramesses II, but many suggest his father Seti I. The Merneptah Stele (1208 BC) mentions "Israel" by name as already in Canaan, so it seems unlikely if Ramesses's son Merneptah I or any Pharaoh afterward is the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
• According to one way to calculate biblical chronology, the biblical Pharaoh would be one of the 18th Dynasty Pharaohs, such as Hatshepsut, Thutmose III (1490-1438 BC or 1479-1426 BC), or possibly his son Amenhotep II.
• In Against Apion, the 1st-century historian Josephus identified the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos. Thus the Pharaoh of Exodus is one of the Theban Pharaohs of the late-17th or early-18th Dynasties, who fought against the Hyksos, especially Ahmose I (1570?1546 BC or 1550-1525 BC).
• The History Channel documentary The Exodus Decoded suggests that the paroh of the Exodus was Ahmose I. The name "Ahmose" in Hebrew means "The bother of Moses" ("Ah" means brother; "Mose" means Moses). According to the documentary, Ahmose had a son who died in his youth.

Years between the Temple and the Exodus

There is little scholarly agreement as to even the century in which the Exodus should be placed. If one accepts a plain reading of , then the Exodus occurred 480 years before Solomon began to build the Temple in the 4th year of his reign; and he completed it seven years later (). The consensus of most experts dates this dedication in the range of 960-970 BCE. The date derives from the end of his reign overlapping the beginning of the reign of the biblical Pharaoh Shishaq, who is then identified with the Pharaoh Sheshonq I (943?922 BCE). (The Biblical Minimalist school of interpretation challenge the historicity of Solomon and thereby the date of the Temple.) If Solomon (970-928) dedicated the Temple in year 966, we arrive at an Exodus date of approximately 1440 BC. Unfortunately this date remains unsatisfactory for several reasons:

Some perceive other biblical data to conflict with this 480 years between the Exodus and the Temple.

• In the era of the Judges, if one adds their reigns, they exceed 480 years, thus suggesting an earlier date for the Exodus. Alternatively, if judges are understood as leaders of various localities, who rule contemporaneously, the time may be less than 480 years.
• Some understand the citation of 450 years by Paul in the New Testament (Acts 13:16-20), to refer to the period of the Judges. After adding the duration of the reigns of the kings Saul and David, a period of 580 years is given for the entire period from the exodus to the temple. This is supported by Josephus, who gave 592 years as the time between the Exodus and the Temple. However a plain reading of Acts 13:16-20 suggests that the figure of 450 years was intended to include the 400 years spent by the Israelites in Egypt prior to the Exodus, plus the 40 years wandering in the wilderness, plus the years it took to subdue the nations of Canaan. In that understanding, no reference is made to the duration of the period of the Judges.

The derivative date of around 1440 BCE for the Exodus seems to pinpoint a Pharaoh whose Egyptian records may not match the biblical description.

• 1446 falls in the reign of Thutmose III, whether his reign is dated according to earlier High Chronology or the later more-conventional Low Chronology. From archaeology, records about him do not mention him expelling Hyksos, Hebrews, Beduins, Asiatics, or any group that can be identified with Israel. Perhaps oppositely, he was said to capture Canaanite prisoners in battle to bring them to Egypt as slaves. Admittedly, the Pharaoh of the Exodus also chased the Israelites to try capture them as slaves.

An Exodus date of 1440 BC, followed by a 40-year Wandering, would result in a Conquest date of 1400 BC, which seems to match nothing in the archeology of Israel. There are many places with destruction layers dating to around 1200 BCE (and to around 1550 BCE), but little around 1400 BCE.

• At Hazor, a destruction layer is at the transition from the Canaanite Bronze Age to the Israelite Iron Age, dating to around 1200 BCE ± 50 years. This date corresponds to the Merneptah Stele that mentions Israel in this area around year 1208. A similar layer at Lachish is dated to 1150, and at Megiddo to 1145 BCE. Other "Joshua" cities have transition layers around 1250 BCE. Even so, some "Joshua" cities don't have destruction layers at all^[4].
• If the 1200 BCE destruction layers evidence the activity of Israelites under Joshua, either the biblical figure of 480 years must be discounted, or Egyptian chronology must be radically revised, or biblical chronology must be radically revised. A number of scholars have attempted to revise Egyptian chronology, but so far such revisions cause more problems than they solve.

Hyksos possibilities

Perhaps, the Conquest of Israel corresponds to the destruction layers around 1550 BCE.

• One idea that has enjoyed occasional support among scholars suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the expulsion of the Hyksos around year 1535 BCE. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion of classical writers such as Josephus, who possibly gets the identification from Manetho.
• Egyptian renderings of the Hyksos often depict them in boldly colored and patterned robes while the Hebrew story of Joseph and his "Coat of Many Colors" concerns the arrival of the Israelites in Egypt.
• Exodus 12:40 records 400 years between the arrival of Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, perhaps synchronizing the arrival of Jacob in Egypt with the Hyksos.
• However to synchronize the Exodus with the end of the Hyksos era around 1535, requires an explanation for why the proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan only emerges around 1250. Around 250 years later discounting 40 years of wandering in desert. (The earliest remains associated with Israelites appear in the central highlands no earlier than about 1400 BCE, but in the southern Judaite area no earlier than 1250.)
• A difficulty with identifying the Israelites with the Hyksos, is the difference between the biblical and Egyptian narratives. According to the eyewitness account of an Egyptian soldier, Ahmose, son of Ebana, the Hyksos left Egypt as defeated foreigners - not as escaping slaves. Despite the meaning of the word, only a tiny minority of the Hyksos were rich or noble.

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 themselves.

Placing the Exodus before the expulsion of the Hyksos 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 Ramesses in Ex. 1:11 should be associated with Ramesses II or later (Ramesses I ruled for only a year or so), are termed supporters of a Late Exodus theory. Ramesses II began his reign ca. 1290-1272 (the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannica differ on Egyptological dating{[fact}}, 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 Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. This fits well with the equation of the city of Ramesses of Ex. 1:11 with the Pi-Ramesses of archaeology; and Pithom with Pi-Atum; both of which Egyptian documents from the time of Ramesses II report construction on. Although Bietak reports finding remains from nearby Tell el-Dab'a from the time of the Hyksos (see below) until well after that of Thutmose III, he associates Pi-Ramesses with Qantir instead of Tell el-Dab'a, but shows a hiatus at Qantir during the time of the traditional Exodus. It is widely held that this supports a Hyksos era or a Late Exodus better than a traditional Exodus date. Remains from Pithom are less helpful in narrowing the Exodus date down.

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 until we have at least isolated the correct century to search for the Exodus in. Some arguments try to demonstrate a date for the Exodus using astronomical or calendrical back-projections, so that the day the sun was claimed to have stood still over Gibeon might coincide with an eclipse, or the Exodus might coincide with a Jubilee. Sometimes these methods are used to try to prove something about when the Exodus was, but they cannot tell us what century the Exodus happened in.

Rabbinical tradition typically tells a different version of events than that of the Bible. Typically, they speak of the Red Sea being divided up into twelve pieces; some in a miraculous context, but sometimes with no miraculous trappings at all. As the channels between the Bitter Lakes may have been silting up like the channel linking the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterranean sea had in the time of Ramesses II, 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.

Although many theories are possible, while archaeology has demonstrated no evidence for any miracles, as details from Exodus evidently preserve memories from the Second Millennium BCE, Exodus theories most often fall into either a Traditional or Late Exodus theory category, while a minority of scholars either support a Hyksos Exodus, or else may be biblical Minimalists, who either deny the historicity of the traditions altogether, or else place them so late as to require wholesale revisions to mainstream Egyptian and Israelite chronologies.

Traditional Exodus chronologies

The most natural point to begin seeking the date of the Exodus, in keeping with I Ki. 6:1, is some time within the decade surrounding ca. 1446 BCE. Thus, the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be a pharaoh such as Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426, if using the chronology of the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Americana) or Amenhotep II (1438-1412 or 1426-1400). Many attempts have been made to reconcile the biblical record with the archaeology of this time. Any Exodus date earlier than the time of Ramesses II but later than the time of the Hyksos can be considered as part of this section. The vast majority of scholars who would place the Exodus in this range do so in the earlier part, and arguments both for and against are often similar.

The difficulties that chronologies with Exodus dates near the traditional one face are considerable. Many archaeologists maintain that the Ramesses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11 have probably been identified, but the former was for the most part unoccupied during this period. During the reign of Horemheb, he had built the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pi-Tum under the supervision of Paramessu (later Ramesses I), though a rather large addition was made to Pi-Ramesses and a small to Pi-Tum; most archaeologists make the equation between these and Ramesses and Pithom. Originally, Pi-Ramesses was thought to be at Tanis/Zoan, but then archaeologists noticed that some of the statuary had been relocated from Qantir to Tanis. Most archaeologists now place the ancient location of Pi-Ramesses at Qantir. Some have also suggested Tell el-Dab'a, but Bietak places the core of Pi-Ramesses at Qantir, which is just to its north; whereas he identifies Tell el-Dab'a with Avaris, the ancient capitol of the Hyksos. Although he has unearthed remains from the Eighteenth Dynasty at Tell el-Dab'a, these occur only a citadel at Ez-Helmi, within the area of Tell el-Dab'a. This citadel shows occupation from the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos to as late as Amenhotep II, while agricultural leveling has removed later traces. By contrast, he shows Qantir as being having an archaeological hiatus during the expected biblical Exodus date.

While Pi-Atum is mentioned in writings of the time of Ramesses II, its location may have been at either Tell el-Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabeh. Tell el-Maskhuta was at first thought to have been Pithom, owing to Ramesside era finds there, but as with Tanis, statues from the time of Ramesses II seem to have been moved there at a later date. Based on a Roman mile marker which has been found, which says "9 miles on the road from Ero [=Pithom] to Clysma [=Suez]", a distance which supports Tell Retabeh but not Tell el-Maskhuta, the former is usually identified with Pi-Atum today. Tell el-Maskhuta seems to have been largely unoccupied from the time of the Hyksos until the Seventh Century BCE, as per Holladay, but Tell el-Retabeh shows occupation from a wide variety of eras, and so does not help us much in narrowing down the date of the Exodus.

Some writers have tried to discount the occurrence of Ramesses as a city name in Ex. 1:11. Traditionalists point out that just because the term Ramesses is used in the Bible for the site the Israelites built, it does not mean that Ramesses could not simply have been a later name for a site built just before the traditional Exodus date. One would probably have to locate Ramesses at some site other than Qantir, where the Egyptian Pi-Ramesses almost certainly was, to maintain this argument. The archaeology of Qantir more readily lends itself to a Hyksos era Exodus or a late Exodus. Alternately, some suggest that the name Ramesses had been used as a name element by pharaohs before Ramesses I, perhaps allowing a biblical Exodus date. While this is true, evidence for another city by this name in such an era is lacking. Redford claimed that Ramesses was a name for Tanis, which did not have significant occupation during the time of Ramesses II, but evidence for this conjecture is also lacking. The name Ramesses more likely refers to the Egyptian of pi-Ramesses at Qantir rather than Tanis which is not known to have been referred to by that name in other times, although statuary formerly at Pi-Ramesses does occur there. When the Bible uses the term Ramesses as a city name, it is mirroring a situation that occurred only in Dynasty XIX, an era from which a very early strata of text probably came, whether or not it has been significantly revised since.

While one reasonably argue, with some justification, that Dynasty XVIII finds might yet be unearthed at Qantir, so that the Israelites could have built a city 'Ramesses' at the traditional Exodus date, it has not been found yet, and this is not the only site to show such an occupation pattern. It had long been thought that Edom had been for the most part unoccupied until at least the Ninth Century BCE, but recent excavations there by Levy and Najjar have turned up evidence of copper mining activity from the Twelfth Century. It seemed that previous investigations only examined highland sites, whereas an older lowland mining facility had already been reported by Glueck. When this mining facility was examined, remains radiocarbon dated to the mid-Ninth to Twelfth Centuries BCE were found, but these earliest mining strata rested on bedrock, so in this case, the finds support a Late Exodus, but do not, at least as yet, have finds attributed to the traditional Exodus date. Likewise, although Seir had been mentioned in Egyptian records at earlier times, recalling Edom's Mt. Seir of the Bible, the first mention of it by the name Edom is in the Papyrus Anastasi from the time of Merenptah, (1223-1211 BCE). Since Edom had to be substantial enough to make Israel detour around the Kings Highway through it during the Wandering after the Exodus, again the archaeology works better with a Late Exodus of some sort rather than either a traditional or a Hyksos era Exodus.

The archaeology of the Conquest of Canaan also appears to be late. A stele found commemorating raids that took place late in the reign of Thutmose III describes sacking cities in Palestine from which he brought back thousands of hostages, including some from cities with rather familiar sounding names; i.e. Joseph-el and Jacob-el. This seems an unlikely action for a pharaoh so worried about Israelite overpopulation that he directs the midwives to kill the male Israelite babies and enslaves them with hard labor. Iron, which the Philistines were able to work in the early Judges era, did not come to the region archaeologically until ca. 1190 BCE; i.e. the Iron Age. Egyptian control and raiding of Canaan also would have taken place throughout the time when this chronology would place the Judges era; and yet what should have been significant Egyptian incursions worthy of mention during the Judges era are not recorded in the Bible, although a later such incursion is recorded. Finally, and most significantly, the Conquest/Settlement of Canaan by proto-Israelites appears to have taken place centuries later, to judge from archaeology. A few cuneiform writings in these earlier layers have survived, and the predecessors of these layers that predate the proto-Israelite ones do not seem to have spoken Hebrew, but languages referred to by archaeologists as Canaanite, or even perhaps Mycenaean in the case of the Phaistos Disk. Additionally, the archaeology of the cities Josephs was said to have conquered, at sites such as Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, and Bethel, show transitions from Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture in the range 1250-1140 BCE, but primarily only in the north and the central highlands at 1400 - a time when the traditional chronology would have the Conquest beginning.

In any event, the Israel Stele is a terminus ad quem for Israel to have come into existence. Contra expectations derived from the traditional Exodus date, 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 date corrections are used), and so we are compelled to conclude that Israel existed by then, so long as mainstream Egyptian chronologies are employed. Contra popular opinion about the Stele, it does not require the Exodus to already have happened; only that some Israelites were already in Canaan. 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", implying that all adult males had been killed - yet there is no such decimation of Israel by Egypt recorded in the Judges era, even though the Bible does not hesitate to list the defeats of the Israelites. This, however, is almost certainly an ahistorical boast, as the Israelites and their descendants continue to exist to this day.

Chronologies synchronizing the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos

The next most natural time to try to place the Exodus is during a time when a group of Semitic kings ruled Egypt for generations before being expelled: a people known as the Hyksos. There is also an intriguing reason based on ancient traditions to associate these peoples with the Israelites. The great Jewish historian Josephus, writing a little after the time of Jesus, records the Egyptian historian Manetho's assertion that the Israelites were among some of the diseased expelled in the time of the Hyksos. In the modern era, Bimson had until recent years been the most influential scholar to re-embrace this view, by making charts of when various proposed sites in ancient Palestine were settled, and comparing them to the biblical narrative, while rejecting the usual interpretations by archaeologists of which layers were Canaanite and which were Israelite. More recently, scholars such as Redford and Herzog have supported this idea as well.

This idea is also attractive because one of the Hyksos leaders was even named Yakub-her (similar to Ya'aqov, or Jacob).

This is not to say that this sort of chronology is not without its problems as well. The first mention of Israel thus far found in the archaeological record is not encountered until centuries later, when numerous Egyptian records of these centuries have survived. The archaeology of the sites usually associated with Joshua's conquests shows transitions to Semitic material culture only centuries later, according to most archaeologists. The Philistines knew how to work iron early in the Judges era, and yet if we put the conquest 40 years after the Hyksos expulsion, given 40 years of wandering, the Iron Age was not to arrive for centuries. This also leaves new questions to be answered: If the Hyksos were kings and they were the Israelites, why does the Bible describe the Israelites as slaves? True, Joseph is described in regal terms, but they had long been in practical slavery before the Exodus. The Hyksos had been kings right up until their defeat. This seems an unlikely editorial gloss: slaves for kings. If we on the other hand suppose the Israelites to have been a minority under the Hyksos, why is it not mentioned that Pharaoh is not Egyptian, but more closely related to the Israelites than the wider population? Why does it not tell us that all the line of the kings of Egypt were expelled upon the Exodus? Bimson has tried to argue that the date of the Hyksos layers in Egypt should be lowered to coincide with the traditional Exodus date, but Bietak, a prominent Egyptian archaeologist, rejects this idea; and attempting to do so only compounds the problem that the transition from Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture at many Joshua-associated sites happens only centuries later. Also, "Pithom" and "Ra'amses" are thought with a large amount of supporting evidence to date from the era between Horemheb to Ramses II.

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 Yigael Yadin, to have occurred ca. 1250.

Challenges to the historicity of the Exodus

Many archaeologists, including Israel Finkelstein, Ze'ev Herzog and William G. Dever, regard the Exodus as non-historical, at best containing a small germ of truth. According to Prof. Ze'ev Herzog, Director of the Institute of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University "This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.... The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events of the exodus."^[5]

In his book, The Bible Unearthed, Finkelstein points to the appearance of settlements in the central hill country around 1200, recognized by most archaeologists as the earliest settlements of the Israelites.^[6] Using evidence from earlier periods, he shows a cyclical pattern to these highland settlements, corresponding to the state of the surrounding cultures. Finkelstein suggests that the local Canaanites would adapt their way of living from an agricultural lifestyle to a nomadic one and vice versa. When Egyptian rule collapsed after the invasion of the Sea Peoples, the central hill country could no longer sustain a large nomadic population, so they went from nomadism to sedentism.^[7] Dever agrees with the Canaanite origin of the Israelites but allows for the possibility of a Semitic tribe coming from Egyptian servitude among the early hilltop settlers and that Moses or a Moses-like figure may have existed in Transjordan ca 1250-1200.^[8]

Biblical minimalists, such as Philip Davies, Niels Peter Lemche and Thomas L. Thompson, regard the Exodus as ahistorical. Hector Avalos, in "The End of Biblical Studies," states that an Exodus, as related in the Bible, is an idea that most Biblical historians no longer support.

Current late Exodus chronologies

Israeli archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor, a recent 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)

Geographic issues

The Hebrew name for the body of water crossed in the biblical story is Yam Suph. Two major possibilities for understanding this term exist. The traditional translation is Red Sea, and can be seen as early as the Septuagint translation of Exodus into Greek (approx. third century BCE), which rendered Yam Suph by Erythra Thalassa (). The other possibility, which can be seen at least as early as the 11th century CE Rabbi Rashi, and which has also received some modern scholarly interest, is to understand Yam Suph to refer to a "Sea of Reeds", perhaps an inland marshy body of water on the Sinai Peninsula. (Suph means 'reed' in Hebrew, and is used in Exodus 3:2 for the reedy water where Moses' mother placed his basket to hide him.) See Passage of Red Sea and Reed Sea for more details. It is evident from the Bible that the Hebrews understood the Red Sea to have been contiguous from the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba, and indeed, the Red Sea is called Yam Suf in the biblical account (e.g. 1 Kings 9:26). The matter cannot be considered to have been settled conclusively.

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 Jabal al-Lawz are more likely to have the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba than elsewhere.

Alternate hypotheses explaining the physical phenomena described

A number of hypotheses have been proposed to account for the occurrence of the plagues and the resulting parting of the waters, attributing them to volcanoes.

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 around 1600 BCE could have generated a giant tidal wave or tsunami that struck the Nile Delta, parting of the sea, triggered the ten plagues 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 Israelites 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 of shorelines in 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:

• Moses on the BBC
• Charles Beke (Mount Sinai, a Volcano, 1873)
• Sigmund Freud (Moses and Monotheism, 1939)
• Immanuel Velikovsky
• Mike Baillie (Exodus to Arthur 1999)
• Colin Humphreys (The Miracles of Exodus 2003)

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). Horemheb has the distinction to have been the first to have built a city named Ramesses, after his vizier and mayor of the city, Paramessu, later Ramesses I, suggesting a parallel with Ex. 1:11, as above, though Ramesses II made additions to the city.

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 renegade Egyptian priest called Osarseph. It appears this tale is a conflation of events of the Amarna period, of the earlier Hyksos expulsion, and events throughout the 19th Dynasty.

Association with Atenism

In his 1939 books Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud linked Moses to the religion of Akhenaten, i.e. 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. This idea is not generally supported by most mainstream Egyptologists. Even so, the "Hymn to Aten" on Ay's sarcophagus shows a similarity to Ps. ch. 104 which may be more than coincidence, and Ay still upheld Akhenaten's monotheism. While most archaeologists, of any stripe, do not place Moses in the Amarna era, Freud's idea that Atenism and Judaism could be related is at least more plausible.

Interpretation

The findings of modern archaeologists may present a challenge for Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians. 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.

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.

Egyptologists 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 ever been found.

Many rabbis in the Talmud stated that one should not always interpret certain Torah verses literally. Later rabbis, such as Maimonides, taught that when reality contradicts a current understanding of the Gemara, we must re-interpret that Gemara in accord with science. For many traditional rabbis, this did not apply to the Torah, and such a position would count as heresy. This view exists today within Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and parts of Modern Orthodox Judaism.

See also

• Moses
• Book of Exodus
• Exodus Decoded
• Passage of the Red Sea
• Biblical Mount Sinai
• Tabernacle
• Thera (Santorini) eruption Association with the Exodus
• The Exodus Journey start
• Plagues of Egypt
• Torah portions telling the Exodus story: Va'eira, Bo, and Beshalach
• Higher criticism
• Exodians the name derived from the Exodus experience.
• Prophets

Notes

Further reading

• Encyclopedia Judaica. S.v. "Population". ISBN 0-685-36253-1
• 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 0003-097X
• Nahum Sarna. "Six hundred thousand men on foot" in Exploring Exodus: The Origins of Biblical Israel, New York: Schocken Books (1996): ch. 5. ISBN 0-8052-1063-6
• 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 1-880317-05-2
• Manfred Bietak. Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos: Recent Excavations, London: British Museum Pubs. Ltd, 1995. ISBN 0-7141-0968-1. Here, Bietak discusses Thutmose III era finds in the vicinity of the later city of pi-Ramesses.
• Thomas E. Levy and Mohammed Sajjar. "Edom & Copper", Biblical Archaeological Review (BAR), July/August, 2006: 24-35.
• Exodus: The Egyptian Evidence, edited by Frerichs, Lesko & Dever, Indianapolis: Eisenbrauns, 1997. ISBN 1-57506-025-6 See esp. Malamat's essay there.
• Theophile Meek, Hebrew Origins, Gloucester, MA.: Peter Smith Pub. Inc., 1960. ISBN 0-8446-2572-8
• John J. Bimson. Redating the Exodus. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1981. ISBN 0-907459-04-8
• Yohanan Aharoni. The Archaeology of the Land of Israel. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1982. ISBN 0-664-21384-7. 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 3-927120-37-5
• Richard E. Friedman. Who Wrote the Bible?. HarperSanFrancisco, 1997. ISBN 0-06-063035-3. (an introduction for the layman to the view 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 0-684-86912-8
• Amnon Ben-Tor. "Hazor - A City State Between The Major Powers." Scandinavian J. of the OT (SJOT), vol. 16, issue 2, 2002: 308. ISSN 0901-832
• Dever, William G. Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From?

External links

• 
• ''Those Amazing Biblical Numbers: Taking Stock of the Armies of Ancient Israel''
• ''Playing the Numbers Game A Critique of Attempts to Rationalize the Population Numbers of Exodus'' Revised 2005.
• ''Me'am Loez on Beshallach IV'': Me'am Loez on Beshallach IV: 50 Miracles, no. 7, says that the Israelites crossed the Red Sea in twelve paths, one for each of the tribes, and cites Ps. 136:13 which has it that the Red Sea was divided into parts during the Exodus.
• ''The Book of Jasher'': The midrashic Book of Jasher is a candidate for being the "Book of Jasher" mentioned twice in the Jewish Bible
• ''Rashi's Commentary'': The regarded eleventh century Talmud scholar called 'Rashi' made the comment that the Red Sea had been split "asunder in twelve pieces for the twelve tribes" to his commentary on the Psalms. Rashi's Commentary, Rabbi Shlomo Yitzchaki or Rabbi Shlomo Yarchi, commentary on Ps. 136:13.
• ''Book of Exodus'' article (Jewish Encyclopedia)
• Is Bryant Wood's chronology of Jericho valid? A recent refutation of Wood's attempt redate an early fall of Jericho to the traditional Exodus date.
• The Megiddo Expedition Israel Finkelstein's site on the excavation.

de:Auszug aus Ägypten en:The Exodus fr:L'Exode it:Esodo (evento storico) he:????? ????? nl:Uittocht uit Egypte ru:????? sv:Uttåget ur Egypten yi:????? ?????