In the second half of Chapter 6 of Provan, Long, and Longman’s book, A Biblical History of Israel, Provan addresses the issue of the Exodus. Before I get into what Provan addresses in this chapter, though, I want to lay out what I feel is the two most fundamental problems when it comes to finding archeological evidence for the Exodus—this includes the passing through the Red Sea and the location of Mount Sinai.
The Major Problem: The Red Sea Crossing and Mount Sinai
The traditional site for Mount Sinai is near the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. The problem with that being the actual Mount Sinai is that there is simply no archeological evidence at all that would suggest an extended stay by the Hebrews for about a year. If you read the Exodus, you’ll find descriptions of a great altar, twelve stone boundary markers, a blackened top of Mount Sinai, etc. There’s no sign of any of that at the traditional site. Along with that, there is the question of where the Red Sea crossing would have been. The response of some scholars have been to suggest that the crossing of the Red Sea wasn’t really akin to what we saw Charlton Heston do in The Ten Commandments, but was probably more like the Hebrews traipsing through the salty marshes of the “sea of reeds” that essentially separates the main country of Egypt from the Sinai Peninsula. The fact is, that if Mount Sinai was really near the tip of the Sinai Peninsula, there really would have been no great sea between Egypt proper and Mount Sinai that the Hebrews would have encountered in the first place. And that is why the most extreme minimalist skeptics don’t even try to argue that the crossing of the Red Sea was really a wading through some marshes, but rather just declare that the entire story, from beginning to end, is just one big work of imaginative fiction.
Of course, the problem with all that is that there are some really serious questions regarding whether or not the mountain at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula is even the right mountain. After all, that mountain was declared to be Mount Sinai by Emperor Constantine’s mother during her trip to the holy land in the early 4th century—an identification not exactly deduced by rigorous study. But hey, the emperor’s mother said it was, so there you go! Other problems with that being the real Mount Sinai are the following:
First, when Moses flees Egypt, he goes to Midian, and it is in Midian where he encounters YHWH in the burning bush, who tells Moses to go back to Egypt and bring the Hebrews to this mountain—the one in Midian. The fact is that in the mid-2nd-millenium BC, the Sinai Peninsula was considered to be part of Egypt, therefore the traditional site contradicts what the biblical text tells us: Moses encountered YHWH on a mountain outside of Egypt, in Midian. And where was ancient Midian? On the other side of the Gulf of Aqaba, it what would be modern day Saudi Arabia.
Second, when we read the account of the Hebrews’ journey to Sinai in Exodus 13-19, we are told that when they first set out from Succoth, that Pharaoh thought they would take a three day journey into the Peninsula to have a festival to their God and then return. No doubt, he would have sent some people to keep an eye on them. Therefore, when they didn’t stop after three days and kept going, that would have meant that the spies would have had to travel back to Egypt and tell Pharaoh, then Pharaoh would have had to taken some time to assemble his army and then go after the Hebrews. A fair estimate would be that the Hebrews could have easily had at least a 9-10-day head start before Pharaoh set out to chase them. Even if Pharaoh doubled up the speed of the Hebrews, it would have been at least another 9-10 days before he caught up to them on the shores of the Red Sea.
Now, if we assumed the Hebrews travelled 10-12 miles a day, that would mean that after 19-20 days, they would have travelled anywhere between 200-240 miles over the course of almost three weeks—that is about how far it is from Succoth to the tip of the Sinai Peninsula. Now, one can say all this is speculative, and it is—but it certainly isn’t that far-fetched. One thing is for certain, though—to suggest that the Red Sea crossing was really a wading through the salty marshes just about 35-50 outside of Succoth makes no logical sense at all.
To cut this short, I am of the opinion that Jabal al Lawz, a mountain in modern day Saudi Arabia, is a more likely possibility for the real Mount Sinai. I think it is possible that the Red Sea crossing happened at the tip of the Sinai Peninsula across the Gulf of Aqaba into what was ancient Midian. There is actually an underwater land bridge there that could have been the mean by which the Hebrews crossed over. On top of that, there are a number of other things on the other side on the way to Jabal al Lawz that coincide with the biblical account: bitter springs (i.e. bitter springs of Marah), an oasis (i.e. Elim), among other things. And on Jabal al Lawz itself, there is an ancient altar site, 12 piles of cut stone around the mountain, and even the mountain top is charred black.
Truth be told, not all scholars believe Jabal al Lawz to be the real Mount Sinai, but a number of them do. If anything, it goes to show that even when there is archeological evidence of something, rarely will you ever have every scholar and archeologist agree on how to interpret the evidence. Now, am I convinced 100% that Jabal al Lawz is the real Mount Sinai? Of course not. But it certainly should be considered a valid possibility—if nothing else, the scenario I briefly spelled out holds together a lot more logically, is more faithful to the actual Exodus account, and has a lot more evidence for it than any other proposal.
The Plagues of Egypt
In any case, Provan primarily focuses on the three issues regarding the Exodus: (A) The plagues of Egypt, (B) The number of people who came out from Egypt, and (C) The details regarding the date of the Exodus.
Regarding the plagues of Egypt, the two main ways scholars have gone about understanding them is that they are either meant to be read as demonstrations of YHWH’s power over the Egyptian gods, with every plague affecting the domain of a specific Egyptian god, or that the series of plagues can be understood as series of natural occurrences, as Werner Keller briefly discusses in his book, The Bible As History. His outlining how each plague naturally leads to the next one (with the exception of the final plague, of course) is indeed interesting and conceivably possible. But the thrust of the plagues is to show that YHWH has complete power over the Egyptian gods. In addition, the account of the 10 plagues reflects a degree of creativity as well, with plagues 1-3, 4-6, and 7-9 following the same pattern: [1, 4, 7]—Moses appears before Pharaoh in the morning by the Nile; [2, 5, 8]—Moses “comes before” Pharaoh; [3, 6, 9]—Moses and Aaron do not appear before Pharaoh, but use a symbolic gesture. The 10th plague is completely unique.
The Numbers: How Many People Were There?
To get straight to the point, it seems that the Bible’s claim regarding the number of people who left Egypt during the Exodus is just flat out impossible. Most translations render Exodus 12:37 as there were 600,000 men, besides women and children [thus the estimate of 2 million people total]. Similarly, Numbers 1:46 and 2:32 have the number at 603,550. Thus, that would mean that an estimated 2 million people wandered in the desert for forty years, without leaving hardly any evidence behind to verify their existence. Furthermore, estimates of the population of Canaan in the mid-12th century BC stand at around 50,000-70,000 people. If that was the case, is it believable that a population of 2 million people (and 600,000 fighting men) would be overwhelmed with fear at a population ten times smaller than their fighting force? Hardly. It’s no wonder why some people come to the conclusion that the entire story is a fiction.
In light of this problem, some scholars have suggested that the inflated number is either a misplaced census number from a time later in Israel’s history, once they were in Canaan, or that the inflated number intentionally includes that later census number, as if to say, “All of Israel was present back then in the Exodus.”
Of course, Provan, as well as many others, suggests that there is significant issue regarding the translation of the Hebrew that has a huge impact on the numbers. It has to do with the Hebrew word eleph—it can mean “a thousand,” but it can also mean “clan” or “family.” Another similar word, ‘lph, means “leader” or “officer.” The result would be, taking Numbers 2:32 as an example, the population not being 603,550 men, plus women and children, but rather 603 families, plus 550 military officers. The estimate for the total population of Israelites who left Egypt, therefore, would come out to be anywhere between 20,000-22,000 people. And thus, given the population of Canaan in the mid-12th century BC (50,000-70,000 people), Israel’s comparative size fits in, and their fear would be understandable.
Dating the Exodus
When it comes to dating the Exodus, most scholars believe it happened in either the 15th century BC (1446-1406 BC) or in the 13th century BC (during the reign of Ramses II (1290-1224 BC). Related to that, of course, is the question regarding when Joseph’s family first came to Egypt. As I said in the previous post, when it comes to these questions, it is always going to be a bit foggy. That being said, I want to touch upon what Provan points out and condense everything to reflect what I am inclined to believe.
We begin by noting the rise of the Hyksos Dynasty in Egypt. They were Semitic people who came in and ruled Egypt from 1648-1550 BC. It is possible that Joseph’s family came to Egypt during the Hyksos Dynasty, and that the “king who did not know Joseph” was Ahmose I (1550-1525 BC), the pharaoh who defeated the Hyksos. Thus, when the Hyksos were driven out of Egypt in 1550 BC, it is very probable that, with a rise of Egyptian nationalism, this could have been the impetus for a later pharaoh (perhaps Thutmuse III, who ruled from 1504-1450 BC) eventually enslaving the Hebrews, since they were considered foreign Semites, like the Hyksos.
Therefore, the Exodus could have happened under Amenophis II (1450-1425 BC), or later under Ramses II (1304-1237 BC). This would mean that Ramses I (1320-1318) and Seti I (1318-1304 BC) would have been among the pharaohs who had enslaved the Hebrews. After all, Exodus 1:11 tells us that Pharaoh had the Hebrew slaves build the cities of Pithom and Rameses (the city built on the old Hyksos capital of Avaris), both of which were built somewhere during the reigns of Seti I and Ramses II. In addition, Ramses II’s son, the Pharaoh Merneptah (1213-1203 BC) erected a stele celebrating “wasting Israel.” Thus, we know that Israel must have been in Canaan by 1213-1203 BC.
Put all that together, I think it is reasonable to speculate that Jacob and his family came to Egypt during the Hyksos Dynasty (1648-1550 BC). The Hebrews were then eventually enslaved at some point after the Hyksos were driven out, possibly during the reign of Thutmuse III (1504-1450 BC) or by some later pharaoh. And then, during the reign of Ramses II, Moses led the Hebrew slaves out of Egypt during the Exodus.
Conclusion
Obviously, the Exodus account in the Bible is a well-crafted story of, I would argue, literary genius. This post, indeed, this book analysis, though, is focusing on the question regarding the evidence and arguments regarding whether or not the biblical accounts are historical. In the case of the Patriarchs and the Exodus, I am convinced that we are dealing with real people and historical events. The Patriarchal narratives accurately reflect the social customs and practices of the time. There is a reasonable chronology regarding when Jacob’s family first came to Egypt, when/why the Hebrews were enslaved, and when the Exodus happened. On top of that, the translational question regarding the number of people who left Egypt easily puts the number at a very reasonable amount that would fit with what we know about the population of Canaan at that time.
We further have a potential candidate for the place of the Red Sea crossing and the location of Mount Sinai, with actual evidence for each one that should make any reasonable person at least step back and say, “Okay, that’s interesting and should be considered.” On top of that, as Provan points out, we have another bit of extrabiblical evidence that was found in 1967 at Tell Deir ‘Alla: The Balaam Inscription. It is an inscription that dates to the 8th century BC that names the Balaam of Numbers 22-24.
Does all this mean we should read the Exodus account through the lens of Cecille B. DeMille’s Ten Commandments? Of course not. Does it mean that the Exodus account is trying to give an “objective,” blow-by-blow factual documentary-like account? No. It is a highly crafted work of literary art—but it is painting a literary portrait of real, historical events, nonetheless. At the very least, I don’t see how it is unreasonable to conclude that at some point, probably in the mid-13th century, a specific ethnic group of Semites who had been enslaved in Egypt, somehow escaped and eventually went back to the land where their forefathers once lived.
I, for one, think Moses was a historical person. I think the Hebrews really were able to cross through the Red Sea somehow. I think there was a real Mount Sinai and that they spent a good, long time as nomads in the desert before eventually going back to Canaan. The crafting of the Exodus story does not negate the basic historicity of the events in question.
Next up in this book analysis, we will focus on Provan’s take on the events in Joshua and Judges.
I like the way Kitchen organizes his book “On the Reliability of the OT. He starts with the most recent historical records in the OT and works backwards, as there is likely to be more stuff to work with doing it that way. Once one sees that the later historical stories are more than just plausible, then it is a smaller jump to go back to the previous period of time, knowing there will be less and less info and stuff over time. Going forward does not have this benefit of smaller inference jumps.
Yes, I think Kitchen’s book is really good too.
So, an interesting post loaded with speculation but no verified evidence to support a single biblical claim,and certainly nothing that would support the supernatural aspects!
Is anyone still looking for chariot wheels on the floor of the Red Sea? SMH.
One of the major problems with this type of exegeses is that once you start to inject what some might regard as ”plausible explanations” one moves further and further away from the ”God did it ” scenario. In other words, trying to find a natural cause for such things as the plagues, the Red Sea crossing, the sun standing still, quail migrating in the desert,walls of Jericho collapsing, and of course flatly denying the figures listed in Exodus and Numbers …etc etc.
After a while it becomes so convoluted it comes across as farcical.
For example, Rohl considers the dates are all wrong and even believes there is evidence of Joseph in Egypt.
Kitchen flatly disagrees with Bryant Wood who is a Young Earth Creationist(say no more, right?) who in turn flatly disagrees with James Hoffmeier, who,like Kitchen, is an evangelical Christian who believes it happened.
And you haven’t even bothered to mention Friedman and his view regarding the Levites.
But then, he is not Christian.
But what about evidence? What hard evidence has any of these people produced to support their views? And have any of their views had any marked impact on the serious scholarly and archaeological world as a whole with regard to this fundamental biblical tale?
While Kitchen is well respected in his specialized field of Egyptology, he along with other Christians of the evangelical kind (and worse, YEC) have had no impact outside of these narrowly focused Christian circles.
I am pleased, however, that you mentioned the Sea of Reeds, thus identifying the mistranslation. I am surprised that Lee, for one , did not seem aware of this.
But your use of phrases such as …
”To cut this short, I am of the opinion that …
and :
” I, for one, think Moses was a historical person. I think the Hebrews really were able to cross through the Red Sea somehow.”
speaks of faith rather than reason, where the complete lack of evidence for the biblical description of events , is hand-waved away and hard, contradictory evidence is ignored while the supernatural is quietly ushered forward to take pride of place, as if daring any rational person to raise their hand and ask …”Er …’scuse me?”
It would have been far better if you had laid your cards on the table from the outset and declared this was, in a sense an apologetic presentation.
What can I say?
”More fool me!”
Serves me right.
Ark,
But again, you are a positivist who accepts nothing else than archeological data. That presupposition and bias causes you to summarily dismiss anything else. Like I said, if you have an ancient text, written in its present form around 600 BC, and it is claiming to speak of events from 1000 years earlier, and it contains an understanding of the customs and practices of that time and culture 1000 years earlier, and given what IS said in the text can be matched up generally well to what we DO know about other ancient dynasties and rulers, and if there IS certain on the ground, archeological evidence that favor a particular site to be Mount Sinai–and despite all that, YOU continue to summarily dismiss it all, then that means it is YOU who is close-minded and ideological and who won’t let evidence and reason puncture your presuppositional bias bubble.
You’re dismissing an ancient text, you’re ignoring how it coincides with known dynasties of Egypt, you’re (oh the irony!) dismissing archeological evidence for the Red Sea Crossing and Mount Sinai, for goodness sake. You don’t care a crap about evidence. You throw all the evidence you don’t like out, and then have the audacity to say, “Where’s your evidence?”
What evidence for the Red Sea crossing?
You have presented nothing but an ancient hero style tale that is mirrored in other similar ancient texts.
You fill posts and posts with rhetoric, on the one hand suggesting veracity and in the next instant stressing there is no evidence and the figures are exaggerated and we don’t know for sure , but, but , but …. and finally wrap up the piece with your less than profound and completely unscholarly ”I think Moses was real and they all did cross the Red Sea …. somehow ( Yeah … of course they did .Yahweh parted the water and they all legged it across – all 25km. that’s assuming they crossed at Aqaba. )
As I said, it would have been far more honest if you had stated this up front and declared it for what it is. An apologetic piece.
One of the major problems with this type of exegeses is that once you start to inject what some might regard as ”plausible explanations” one moves further and further away from the ”God did it ” scenario.
What the heck does that even mean? You sit around, demanding “evidence” that demonstrates the biblical text’s historical veracity, and then when that is provided, you turn around and say, “OH, that’s the problem! As soon as you try to provide plausible explanations, you move away from ‘God did it!'”???
REALLY? When it comes right down to it, you have two fundamental problems: (1) You immediately discount or dismiss ANY evidence (including archeology) that doesn’t confirm your bias; and (2) Your ability to read and comprehend the literary artistry of the biblical texts as they provide their “portraits” of history is woefully inadequate. You simply have displayed no real evidence of an informed reading comprehension of the biblical texts.
Because if we were even able to demonstrate a natural plausible explanation then there would be no place for your god!
And this is what you have been trying to do.
And you can’t even do this with any degree of credibility of plausibility. As I said, there are so many explanations offered by Christians – especially of the evangelical and YEC variety that the entire exercise becomes a farce!
If Rohl is correct then Kitchen is wrong. But Kitchen is more qualified than Rohl, but Kitchen is an evangelical.Meanwhile Bryant Wood is a YEC and that should disqualify him from even having an opinion!
Meanwhile, Hoffmeier believes the entire episode should be considered historical.
whereas Friedman – who’s suggestion that the exodus actually involved only the Levites is possibly the most plausible of the lot, but then I believe he discounts all the miraculous crap and you won’t even consider this I’m sure.
So how on earth do you expect to have any credibility at all when the supposed top minds in the Christian field on this topic can’t even agree among themselves and have not to date produced any verifiable evidence?
And you have the temerity to berate me?
Go look up Bryant Wood and take him to task before you come across all high and mighty.
Again, you are the one playing semantics and shell games. You demand “real evidence,” but say the only real evidence is archeological evidence. Then someone presents something that includes both archeological evidence as well as logical arguments regarding things like how many miles people can walk in a day, how the biblical account lines up historically with the known dynasties of the time, and you dismiss it all and say, “Oh what’s the point in trying to prove it? Then you can’t say ‘God did it'”?
AND THEN, you go about showing how archeologists and experts can never seem to agree on anything (DESPITE the fact they are working from the same “real evidence” of archeology you seem to think is somehow the only objective means of ascertaining history!) That has been Provan’s point regarding archeological evidence! No two archeologists or scholars seem to agree on anything most of the time! That is precisely why one CAN’T rely solely on archeology. That is why one has to understand the nature of the writing of the texts, as well as numerous other factors that ARE, in fact, EVIDENCE–just not archeological evidence.
The point of the post is to show that, when it comes to history, there are enough factors and evidence that can easily lead one to conclude that yes, there was an actual exodus of perhaps 20,000 Hebrew slaves from Egypt, probably in the 13th century BC. On the strictly historical question, forgetting any oversimplistic caricatures of what you think “God did it” means, one can be convinced that there was a real exodus event.
But I get it, you don’t accept anything other than archeological evidence, the kind that you just explained no two scholars seem to agree on how to interpret. Bravo.
Except that you cannot produce a single piece of hard evidence to support such a claim. And neither has anyone else – ever.
You can’t even get something as simpler as the mistranslation of the Red Sea right.
And why should I even consider your version when there are others out there that claim just as much authority and some are at least plausible and do not require any miraculous god did it nonsense either?
Contrary to ideologues who are caught up in their own prejudices and confirmation bias, archeological evidence is not the only kind of evidence out there. Again, as you most readily agreed to before in my assessment of your view: You refuse to accept anything other than archeological evidence alone.
“My version” involves reading what the text actually says and logically deducing how far a group of people who are fleeing a country might walk in a day (no “miraculous” thing there). And then it involves doing a few simple calculations regarding how long it would take someone to catch up to that group, etc. Again, no appeal to the “miraculous” there. And that simple math automatically rules out the possibility that a group of 20,000 people fleeing Egypt and walking for about three weeks would only make it about 35 miles. And so, you should consider “my version” because it is wholly logical.
And, since you didn’t mention it before. How do you account for the extrabiblical evidence of the Balaam inscription if the whole Exodus story was just a myth?
Again, this is your problem: You demand evidence; you are provided with evidence and logical reasoning that includes no appeal to the miraculous whatsoever–just sticking to basic history; and then you reject it and say, “Oh, when you do that, you’re doing away with ‘God did it!'” and yet you turn around and immediately accuse my explanation of appealing to a “miraculous god”? Again, absolutely incoherent and self-contradictory. You can’t have it both ways.
Well, it says nothing about 20,000 slaves for one thing, which might be a problem.
Also, your argument presumes that it actually happened, yet no matter how clever you think your math is you have provided no archaeological evidence, to support your hypothetical revaluation of the text.
And if you are nailing your colours to the mast regarding the Deir Alla inscription then good luck with that!
The evidence for this underwater bridge? Never heard of this before.
Yes, it does. Provan explains the translational question, and the Book of the Exodus CLEARLY says the Hebrews were slaves.
OF COURSE it begins with the assumption that the Book of Exodus is relating real history. It only rejects the claim if there is clear evidence that it is false. I touched upon Provan’s discussion regarding the verification principle and falsification principle in an earlier post.
And AGAIN, there is more to doing history than just looking at archeology alone.
The Balaam Inscription is just one of several things I mentioned.
You’d be best to just stop your charade and say, “No amount of anything will make me change my mind. I cling to archeological evidence alone…archeological evidence that seems to back my presupposition alone. Anything else, I’m tossing out immediately.”
Just so you understand what the real position is …
Oh, and a reference to this underwater land bridge would be appreciated. I’ve not heard of this before.
Thanks.
Ark
Like I said before, there isn’t anything certain. I’m sure you can easily find things online fairly easily. But for me, I think the evidence for the crossing at the Strait of Tiran is pretty interesting. Couple that with findings of bitter springs and an oasis on the way to Jabal al Lawz, as well as what was found at Jabal al Lawz (an altar sight, twelve stone boundary markers, almond trees, a split rock)–put all that together, I can’t dismiss it all so quickly. The point is that there IS evidence and indicators for quite a lot–it’s just not 100% iron-clad certain.
You, though, because you are so certain it is all a “myth,” simply reject out of hand anything that challenges your presuppositions. Sorry, that isn’t being “objective.” That’s being an ideologue.
Of course you don’t have any interest in the Mount Sinai/Jabal al Lawz stuff–it actually has archeological evidence that a serious person should consider. Again, the likes of Cross and Shanks looked at it and found it convincing enough to note it is a viable possibility.
And, like I said, the Red Sea crossing site doesn’t prove anything by itself. It has to be considered in light of a number of other factors. Simply put, it takes critical thinking and discernment. But you don’t do that. You are presented with a number of items, you say you “have any interest” in things that have more evidence, and you instead zero in on one or two things that, by themselves in isolated fashion, are weak and not convincing. Why do you do that? It’s obvious. You’re not interested in accessing ALL the evidence. You’re only interested in nit-picking and cherry-picking the weaker points so you can maintain your confirmation bias.
Okay, Ark, you continually cast aspersions on the credentials of myself and Dr. Anderson, so tell us, what makes YOU an expert in archaeology and biblical studies? From all I can tell you’ve read a few articles on popular atheist sites by amateurs who have a decided axe to grind. I’m not sure how that qualifies as expertise.
Pax.
Lee.
ARK: Remind me to send an email to Israel Finkelstein, William Dever, Ze’ev Herzog, David Wolpe and the archaeology department at Tel Aviv university that you, Lee Freeman, consider they they are amateurs.
LEE: Did you post actual links to articles by them or simply direct us to look them up? Maybe you did, but the links I remember reading were by the atheist and amateur Zande.
Regardless, they’re scholars you already agree with, which doesn’t indicate critical thinking. Critical thinking means being able to read and seriously consider a viewpoint you don’t happen to share and making an honest assessment. I’d like to see you read just one article by a scholar you don’t agree with and honestly assess their work on its MERITS, not your already-formed conclusions about it.
Hershel Shanks is a professional. So is Iain Provan for that matter. And yet–not even having read the book–you’ve dismissed Provan as a rank amateur blinded by his faith, simply because you don’t agree with him. Dr. Anderson is a professional academic with several academics books published, and you’ve routinely insulted him and cast aspersions on his professional skills.
I have serious issues with Bart Ehrman but at least I’m willing to read his books and assess his arguments on their merits, and I respect that he’s a noted PhD. And I’m also willing to admit that I’m not infallible and there are lots of people smarter than I am (Dr. Anderson for one!).
Since you insisted I and Dr. Anderson share our credentials, why not do us a similar courtesy and share what makes you an authority on biblical archaeology..
I’ve admitted I’m an amateur at best but am able to think critically. So what about you, my friend?
Pax.
Lee.