A Book Analysis of “The Exodus: Myth History?” (Part 5): The Exodus Route Itself

We’re now in Part 5 of my look at David Rohl’s book, The Exodus: Myth or History? Of all the posts in his series, I think this will be my least favorite, for in chapters 11-13 of his book, Rohl carefully plots out his argument regarding what he feels is the most likely route of the Exodus, first from Egypt to Mount Sinai, and then eventually to Kadesh Barnea on the edge of Canaan. Now, you might think, “Why would that be your least favorite thing?” To the point, all of it (as is true with just about every theory regarding the Exodus route) is just about 100% guesswork.

Don’t get me wrong, I think Rohl makes a good argument for the Exodus route. But in the end, it is going to be one of those topics that will probably never achieve any degree of agreement. Whereas the in the previous posts there were actual records and archeological evidence that we can look and compare to what we find in the biblical account, when it comes to the Exodus route, there isn’t much stuff in that regard. Most of the places mentioned in the biblical account are just names without any clear geographical point. And so, anyone who attempts to chart out the route ends up pointing to some place in the Sinai Peninsula and essentially saying, “Well, some of the vague details in the text might fit this place!” Okay—maybe.

Now that I’ve completely lowered your expectations as to what Rohl argues for in chapters 11-13 of his book, let me try to succinctly crystalize his theory in this post. He goes into a whole lot of geographical detail regarding the terrain of his proposed route, to the point where my head was sometimes spinning. The best way to get an idea of the proposed route is to actually see some maps with the proposed route imposed on them.

The Proposed Route
According to Exodus 13:20, the Israelites left Succoth and went to Etham, which was on the edge of the wilderness. Even though we are certain of the location of Succoth, starting with Etham, virtually everything is a guess. Nevertheless, Rohl’s proposed location of Etham is reasonable, being that it is literally on the edge of the wilderness of Etham.

But then in Exodus 14:1-2, we are told that the Israelites “turned back” to camp in front of Pi-hahiroth, between Migdol and the sea, in front of Baal-zephon. Well, that’s simple! No one is sure where any of those places are! Nevertheless, Rohl argues a number of things. First, he argues that the reason they “turned back” was because when they got to Etham, looking for a place to pass into the wilderness, they found there was a canal (dated to the 12^th Dynasty) that connected the Balla lakes in the north and the Bitter lakes in the south. And since there were Egyptian outposts to the south, that Moses led the Israelites north.

Rohl then points out that the terrain in this region in Egypt was considerably different 3,500 years ago. In the mid-15^th century, there was a complex terrain of desert areas, man-made canals, and open water representing lakes. As you can see in the picture, Rohl has identified the locations of Baal-zephon, Pi-hahiroth, and Migdol. Baal-zephon is located at the site of Tell Defana. Pi-hahiroth is located at the mouth of two canals flowing from the Balla lakes (which were there 3,500 years ago but are almost all gone today). This Balla lakes region is directly east of Goshen, and Rohl argues, should be identified with Yam Suph, the Reed Sea. The reason for this is found in Exodus 10:14-20, where we are told that the west wind that blew the locusts away, blew them out over the Yam Suph. Finally, Migdol is identified with Tell el-Kadu.

What all this means is that Rohl believes the crossing of Yam Suph happened up in the Bella lakes region. To support his argument, he cites an account from a 19^th century British officer who saw how the waters of Lake Menzala were literally blown back a distance of seven miles when a strong easterly wind came through.

After the crossing, Rohl argues that the Israelites travelled south, beside the lakes and canals down to the Gulf of Suez and eventually into the heart of the Sinai Peninsula to the traditional site of Mount Sinai. Along the way, he charts the possible course, including the location of bitter spring of Marah, the oasis of Elim, and eventually to Mount Sinai. I’m not going to give all those details, but I will say much of it “works” as the possible route.

Dophkah, Hathor, and that Orgy at Sinai with the Golden Calf
Instead, I want to focus on one particular thing. If you look at the next map of Rohl’s proposed Exodus route, you will see the location of Dophkah. This is known as the place of the Mountain of Turquoise (Serabit el-Khadim). In this region was a temple of Hathor, and Rohl’s points out that Amenemhat III (the pharaoh whom he says made Joseph the vizier of Egypt) was active there, and that many of the workmen in that region were Semites. Among the ruins there, on a statue of Senuseret III, there is even the name of an official recorded on it: Levi, a Hebrew name.

There are also some inscriptions found there that are of Proto-Sinaitic/Canaanite script that read, “Beloved of the Lady” and “Beloved of Hathor, Lady of Turquoise.” To be clear, Hathor was an Egyptian cow goddess—a heifer—associated with the Canaanite goddess Baalit, who was the goddess of love and fertility. What this suggests is that many of the Hebrews in Egypt were not exactly strict monotheists at this point. In fact, other inscriptions elsewhere in Egypt speak of El (the God of Abraham) supplying food and wine for a banquet for Anat, who was often equated with Hathor. That should shed some light on what eventually happened at Mount Sinai, when the Israelites made a golden calf and had a “festival to YHWH.” Rohl argues that the golden calf episode involved, not a young bull, but a heifer, and that the Israelites were having a festival very similar to the banquet of El and Anat.

The Journey from Sinai to Kadesh
In chapter 13 of Rohl’s book, he attempts to trace the journey of the Israelites mentioned in the Book of Numbers. They stayed at Sinai for about a year, and then eventually made their way to Kadesh. The location of Kadesh, though, has been a point of controversy among biblical scholars and archaeologists. Again, Rohl provides plenty of details and arguments, but I am not going to go through them. The bottom line is that he questions the general scholarly opinion that Kadesh should be identified with the oasis of Ain el-Kudeirat along the southern border of Judah. Simply put, the ancient historians Eusebius of Caesarea and Josephus, along with the Jerusalem Targum, don’t locate it there. Instead, they locate it near what is today known as Petra, which is on the frontier of Edom. Like I said, there is more do this part of Rohl’s argument, but I’ll be honest, the location of Kadesh Barnea didn’t interest me all that much!

Conclusion
So, what can I conclude in this short post? I think Rohl’s proposed Exodus route certainly has meri and accounts for everything in the biblical text. On top of that, the findings at Dophkah are particularly interesting. I have heard other proposals for the Exodus route that are intriguing, but I have to say that I think Rohl’s proposal might be the most convincing. If nothing else, I think it is safe to say that there is enough “stuff out there” that should prevent anyone from trying to dismiss the entire Exodus story as fiction. Indeed, it seems the prevailing (or most popular) view within Biblical Studies today is the minimalist view that questions the historicity of just about everything in the Old Testament before the time of David, or among the most extreme minimalists, the time of Josiah.

Well, I am not a minimalist by any stretch. Quite frankly, I think the minimalist view is uncritical, sophomoric, and downright stupid. I’ve always thought there was real historical people and events behind the stories of the Conquest, the Exodus, and the Patriarchs. When I covered these topics in my Old Testament Introduction course in the past, I’d always tell the students that I thought there was history behind these stories, but admittedly the historical details and dates “tended to be a bit foggy.”

After reading Rohl’s book, I think that fog has lifted a bit, where we can get a slightly clearly perspective of the landscape.

There is going to be one more post on Rohl’s book though, for in his final two chapters, he deals with Joshua’s Conquest of Canaan.