What Archaeology Reveals about the Historicity of the Exodus

[SWalt]

Nice presentation and compelling evidence. 1 hour long but is just fine watching at 1.25x speed, as you should know how slow these presentations go.

https://youtu.be/P2r2xXGzx4U?

[Darto]

Another good one is this. John Ankerberg show. The point here isn't that the resurection is proved. The point is that the resurrection and divinity of Jesus was taught by the Christian apostles 2 years after Jesus' death.

Opponents of the Church used to teach that the theology in the New Testament originated 150 years after Jesus' death. This is no longer taught by almost any scholar. They now know it was taught from the beginning by the disciples who walked with Jesus a few years before his death and then taught immediately after that death.

[Darto]

I played the OP video in message 1 at 1.5 speed (he talks slow). Very interesting archeology findings.

[M1NM]

I always liked the Naked Archeologist programs. He challenged a lot of the establishment deniers.

[Darto]

What is the OP SWalt video all about? It's about whether Israel came to power in Caanan around 1400 B.C. (as the Old Testament says). and from Egypt. Or whether Israel came to Caanan from the moutains on the edges of Caanan (they were already there, they did not come from Egypt).

Early archaelogists (Albright) said 1400 B.C. (Albright is not mentioned in that video). Then the scholars changed their mind and said 1000 from the mountains. Thus the Jewish Passover, and words of Jesus in the Gospels are based on myths, not reality.

This video is showing evidence for the Albright theory (If you went to a "Bible College" your history of Israel textbook was probably one by Albright).

in the video:
around minute 17:

The well documented and accepted Lady Pharaoh Hatsheput speaks of Asiatic nomads in the Egyptian city of Avaris (a well documented city for slaves in Egypt). Everyone agrees this is city for slaves in Egypt. Hatsheput inscription says the slaves are "Asiatics" (what Egyptian records call the Caananites) who are nomadic shepherds). The video shows where in the Bible it describes Egyptians disdaining the Israelites as "shepherds". The Bible calls the city that Moses led his tribe out of was Pi-Rameses which is right next to Avaris on maps.

About minute 40: New cities in Caanan: The people in these cities are different than the peoples in old cities. And they are older than 1000 B.C.

There are no idols (who except Israel has no idols?), no pig bones (who except Israel doesn't eat pork in those days where food is scarce).

The guy on the right (archaeologist) found "Yaweh" inscribed on detailed plates carved in rock walls. Location is maybe half way between Egypt delta (P-Rameses / Rameses) and Caanan. Where a migration out of Egypt would live for years during the "40 years" Israel remained outside of Caanan after leaving Egypt.

About 43:

Amenhotep III (Pharaoh who ruled Egypt at the highest point in their history.) He is father to Akhenaten (who changed Egypt's religion over to one god instead of many gods and moved the capital city. Akhenaten is King Tut's father).

Amenhotep temple in the Sudan mentions that he has defeated "The land of the nomads (shepheards) of Yaweh". This Pharaoh everyone agrees reigned about 1400 BC, not 1000 BC. Who else but Israel were under a God called Yaweh? Thus Israel in Caanan is not there after coming down from the mountains around 1000BC, but were there in 1400 BC (as the Bible clearly states).

Around 50: Amenhotep II (not the III) says on his monuments in Egyptian records that he pursued over 100,000 slaves. Are these the Israelites? Their replacements? His giant palace city is abandoned soon after. (What catastrophe happened to this Pharaoh and Egypt to cause this?

Ipuwer Papyrus: A Egyptian song written during this time (about 1400BC) describing a series of tradgedies: no sun, river of blood, plague, death of children, swarms of pests. This brings to mind the plagues of Exodus ("Let my people go"). And the time frame is definitely around 1400 BC.

Some people say well and good, but what about death of the firstborn plague in Exodus (passover)? Early in this video he was talking how grain in Jericho was stored in very tall earthen jars buried in the sand. So even though this is not in the video it is what I believe. The grain at the top of the jars in the latest added into the jars. It's the newest and therefore what the favorite child would eat. The firstborn child in Egypt and almost everywhere else is the child who inherits. He gets the best food (the newest grain at the top). But this food was harvested during the plague, it might be the newest but it has the disease, not the old grain put in there from years before the plague. This (in my opinion) is why the firstborn sons were dying in Egypt during the first passover instead of the other children, at least in most Egyptian families. Meanwhile the Israelites were slaves and did not get the latest (supposedly the best) grain. Their grain was old and not contaminated, and their children did not day from diseased grain.

[Darto]

So the thesis in the video is that the Exodus Pharoah is Amenhotep II. And Amenhotop III comes very soon after and his son is Pharaoh Akhenaten who proclaimed there was only one God to worship and built a new capital city in Egypt free from the old many Gods of Egypt. (And who married Nefertiti, supposedly the most beautiful of ancient women that we know of).

So, where did he get that idea? It seems to me from Moses and the Israelites back in the days of Amenhotep II, not very long before. If so, this puts Israel in Egypt in 1400 BC. Which is what the video was trying to prove. There was no other ancient culture on Earth at that time that preached one god, except Israel.

[SWalt]

Another good one is this. John Ankerberg show. The point here isn't that the resurection is proved. The point is that the resurrection and divinity of Jesus was taught by the Christian apostles 2 years after Jesus' death.

Opponents of the Church used to teach that the theology in the New Testament originated 150 years after Jesus' death. This is no longer taught by almost any scholar. They now know it was taught from the beginning by the disciples who walked with Jesus a few years before his death and then taught immediately after that death.

I saw a video not to long ago that covered the same view. If you look at what they point out and how they were all teaching the same things, there isn't any leeway. Its all congruent and at the earliest time.

[CVShooter]

So the thesis in the video is that the Exodus Pharoah is Amenhotep II. And Amenhotop III comes very soon after and his son is Pharaoh Akhenaten who proclaimed there was only one God to worship and built a new capital city in Egypt free from the old many Gods of Egypt. (And who married Nefertiti, supposedly the most beautiful of ancient women that we know of).

So, where did he get that idea? It seems to me from Moses and the Israelites back in the days of Amenhotep II, not very long before. If so, this puts Israel in Egypt in 1400 BC. Which is what the video was trying to prove. There was no other ancient culture on Earth at that time that preached one god, except Israel.

I have no doubts about the general construct of the Exodus story. There's some myth mixed in but the broad strokes are pretty solid. I recall some discussion about the "Hapiru" in Egyptian texts -- possible "Hebrew" misnomer.

But regarding monotheism, the Israelites weren't yet monotheist during the Exodus from Egypit. Full-blown monotheism, the belief in the existence of only one god/God, wouldn't take over Judaism until after the Babylonian exile. They likely got that idea from the Zoroastrians while the priests mixed in with the Babylonian & Persian religious circles during the exile. So that idea gets introduced into the Bible between 586-539 BC somewhere & you can see the shift in the book of Isaiah in the latter half (search first, second Isaiah if you're not familiar with this chronology).

Henotheism, the belief in many gods while worshiping only one, was the likely religious idea held among the Hebrews and the Egyptians during that time. This is most evident in titles given to YHWH in the early part of the OT, such as God of gods, Lord of lords (Deuteronomy). That's not the denial of the existence of other gods. It's simply the affirmation that YHWH was the greatest of them all.

There were other regligions that also had one God, with a son who was born, fought for the people, died and rose again. The Canaanites, as an easy example. Yea, the son and his wife were also lesser gods. But the similarities between the two religions are striking, to say the least. To their credit, at least they knew they were polytheist. Christianity still does all kinds of mental gymnastics to deny its polytheism.

[Keith4him]

A different perspective:

The word ?person? has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ?threefoldness of God?. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ?person? with a different meaning. The word ?person? originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor?s face-mask ? and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ?person? inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .[6] Alister McGrath

I have no doubts about the general construct of the Exodus story. There's some myth mixed in but the broad strokes are pretty solid. I recall some discussion about the "Hapiru" in Egyptian texts -- possible "Hebrew" misnomer.

But regarding monotheism, the Israelites weren't yet monotheist during the Exodus from Egypit. Full-blown monotheism, the belief in the existence of only one god/God, wouldn't take over Judaism until after the Babylonian exile. They likely got that idea from the Zoroastrians while the priests mixed in with the Babylonian & Persian religious circles during the exile. So that idea gets introduced into the Bible between 586-539 BC somewhere & you can see the shift in the book of Isaiah in the latter half (search first, second Isaiah if you're not familiar with this chronology).

Henotheism, the belief in many gods while worshiping only one, was the likely religious idea held among the Hebrews and the Egyptians during that time. This is most evident in titles given to YHWH in the early part of the OT, such as God of gods, Lord of lords (Deuteronomy). That's not the denial of the existence of other gods. It's simply the affirmation that YHWH was the greatest of them all.

There were other regligions that also had one God, with a son who was born, fought for the people, died and rose again. The Canaanites, as an easy example. Yea, the son and his wife were also lesser gods. But the similarities between the two religions are striking, to say the least. To their credit, at least they knew they were polytheist. Christianity still does all kinds of mental gymnastics to deny its polytheism.

[CVShooter]

A different perspective:

The word ?person? has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ?threefoldness of God?. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ?person? with a different meaning. The word ?person? originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor?s face-mask ? and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play.

By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. . . . Confusing these two senses of the word ?person? inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee . . . .[6] Alister McGrath

Yep. That's a nice double backflip spin & landing. But still gymnastics to get around having multiple gods while calling itself monotheist. Of course, none of the OT authors spoke or wrote in Latin. Still, it might just work as a plausible explanation if (and only if) Christianity developed in a vacuum. But considering all the influences that fed into Christianity in its time and geography, it clearly had a polytheistic/henotheistic worldview in its early days. Later, some of the disciples back-fit the history of Jesus of Nazareth to an older story of birth, life, death, burial and resurrection (the season's cycles). Even the apocalyptic writings of John (Revelation) and Daniel borrow heavily from Canaanite mythology. Jesus fighting Satan, the dragon from the deep ocean? Yep. That was originally Ba'al (son of El) fighting Yam (the sea dragon and whose name in Hebrew is "Sea" or "Ocean"). This is no mere confusion of perspectives. It was deliberate borrowing/co-opting of one religion's story into that of another.

This isn't always a bad thing, I feel. I think it's often unwitting by most people as they don't realize that their ideas came from people they often think of as enemies or lesser-than.

I think a better religious explanation is the idea of progressive revelation -- that God reveals parts of himself in time. At the time of the Exodus, it was believed that YHWH was one of many. In time, he revealed that he is one. Judaism, Islam & Sikhs keep to that tradition and I respect that. Christianity goes back to a more polytheist view because it hardly makes any sense any other way if you're going to devote oneself to worshiping a man who, himself, prayed to YHWH & called him father.

Whatever that is, it's certainly adaptive. I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with it either. I just don't feel that it's accurate to say that the ancient Hebrews, the ancient Egyptians or even Christianity is purely monotheist. Christianity has its roots in monotheism. But it changed. And while Judaism has its roots in polytheism/henotheism, it also changed.

[SWalt]

I have no doubts about the general construct of the Exodus story. There's some myth mixed in but the broad strokes are pretty solid. I recall some discussion about the "Hapiru" in Egyptian texts -- possible "Hebrew" misnomer.

But regarding monotheism, the Israelites weren't yet monotheist during the Exodus from Egypit. Full-blown monotheism, the belief in the existence of only one god/God, wouldn't take over Judaism until after the Babylonian exile. They likely got that idea from the Zoroastrians while the priests mixed in with the Babylonian & Persian religious circles during the exile. So that idea gets introduced into the Bible between 586-539 BC somewhere & you can see the shift in the book of Isaiah in the latter half (search first, second Isaiah if you're not familiar with this chronology).

Henotheism, the belief in many gods while worshiping only one, was the likely religious idea held among the Hebrews and the Egyptians during that time. This is most evident in titles given to YHWH in the early part of the OT, such as God of gods, Lord of lords (Deuteronomy). That's not the denial of the existence of other gods. It's simply the affirmation that YHWH was the greatest of them all.

There were other regligions that also had one God, with a son who was born, fought for the people, died and rose again. The Canaanites, as an easy example. Yea, the son and his wife were also lesser gods. But the similarities between the two religions are striking, to say the least. To their credit, at least they knew they were polytheist. Christianity still does all kinds of mental gymnastics to deny its polytheism.

Good example of not understanding the bible unless I misunderstand your point. In what sense are you claiming the Israelites were polytheistic until much later in their history when they came across others or stories of others being monotheistic? It would make total sense if you are basing it on just plain old human nature where there are various opinions within a group of people and disagreement with others in the same group. Did all the Israelites in Egypt all believe in 1 God like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? There was probably a lot of Israelite slaves in Egypt who didn't even believe in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or 1 God. Its foolishness to expect otherwise. God even brought them out of Egypt with signs and wonders and people still did not believe in the 1 God of Abraham. They didn't have Gods Law until they came out of Egypt and had little clue what God wanted and even then a lot wouldn't accept or believe in it. So if you are arguing in that sense, that the Israelites and the Jews did not believe in 1 God through out their history I would totally agree. Isn't the Old Testament showing that, going back and forth between believing then disbelieving then back again? That is its whole purpose.

But if you are saying the Israelites and the Jews didn't develop a belief in 1 God until much later when they came into contact with others, sorry I don't agree. 1 God is the basis of the Torah and if it were written by Moses as the Israelites came out of Egypt then the whole premise of the Israelites and Jews picked up belief in 1 God later is completely wrong and moot. Even "evidence" to the contrary would be wrong. Evidence isn't proof. Ex. You see a hot babe and she sees you. You hit it off and have sex, say good bye and leave. 1 minute after you leave her she is viscously beaten to death by another. Investigation reveals and shows you were there at the time of her death, you must be guilty. Nope, not guilty at all. "but all the evidence points to". Nope, not guilty. Evidence can paint a picture and that picture can be totally false and also defies "reason". Which is what can and does happen all the time with Academic/Intellectual studies and "revelations". "New findings!" Well ok, we have new findings and?

So are you saying the Israelites picked up belief in 1 God from others, not as portrayed in the OT and NT?

[freedom-lover]

Excellent discussion on these topics by Dr. David Faulk on 'Ancient Egypt and the Bible.' Great channel.

STOPTHESTEAL
NOTMYPRESIDENT
Let's go Brandon

[flyer898]

OP thank you for linking to that video; I enjoyed it and learned a few things. I was a little disappointed that towards the end when they discussed the miracles that are part of he Exodus chronicle they did not include the parting of the red sea.

[Sailormilan2]

I have no doubts about the general construct of the Exodus story. There's some myth mixed in but the broad strokes are pretty solid. I recall some discussion about the "Hapiru" in Egyptian texts -- possible "Hebrew" misnomer.

But regarding monotheism, the Israelites weren't yet monotheist during the Exodus from Egypit. Full-blown monotheism, the belief in the existence of only one god/God, wouldn't take over Judaism until after the Babylonian exile. They likely got that idea from the Zoroastrians while the priests mixed in with the Babylonian & Persian religious circles during the exile. So that idea gets introduced into the Bible between 586-539 BC somewhere & you can see the shift in the book of Isaiah in the latter half (search first, second Isaiah if you're not familiar with this chronology).

Henotheism, the belief in many gods while worshiping only one, was the likely religious idea held among the Hebrews and the Egyptians during that time. This is most evident in titles given to YHWH in the early part of the OT, such as God of gods, Lord of lords (Deuteronomy). That's not the denial of the existence of other gods. It's simply the affirmation that YHWH was the greatest of them all.

There were other regligions that also had one God, with a son who was born, fought for the people, died and rose again. The Canaanites, as an easy example. Yea, the son and his wife were also lesser gods. But the similarities between the two religions are striking, to say the least. To their credit, at least they knew they were polytheist. Christianity still does all kinds of mental gymnastics to deny its polytheism.

I will agree with some of what you wrote. But, I believe there is a growing group of archeologists and scholars who are saying the there was no "Exodus" per se. That the rise of the "Isrealites" comes from an internal rebellion of the Caananites. There is a small number of scholars who believe that if there was an "Exodus", it only involved one tribe, and that was the Levites, since they seem to be the only ones with Egyptian names.
The Hebrew language comes from the Caananite language, and many of the Hebrew words for "God" comes from the Caananite words for "god". For example, "El" was the chief Caananite god, and Baal was his son. The word "Elohym" literally means "gods"(plural). One can see the plural in Joshua's speech to the people in Jos 24:2, and other verses in the Book of Joshua.
"Asherah" is believed to have been the consort to the Caananite god, "El", and later became the consort to Baal. The word "Asherah" is in the Hebrew Bible 40 times, but it doesn't appear in the King James. The KJV Bible translates the word, "Asherah", as "grove". Which makes no contextual sense in some verses. This usually fixed in the New King James Version, which translates the word as a proper noun, "Asherah", or an object(totem). Some verses seem to show that Asherah was worshipped alongside Jehovah(YHWH) in the Temple.
Examples of no contextual sense are found in 1Kin 18:19, where the KJV speaks of "400 priests of the groves". The NKJV says, "400 priest of Asherah". If Jezebel was feeding 400 priest of a specific "god/goddess", one can be sure that the worship of that god/goddesswas fairly widespread. Especially, since there were 450 priests of Baal there.
Another example would be 2Kin 23:6, where the High Priest Hilkiah removed the "grove" from the Temple. The NKJV has it that Hilkiah removed the (Asherah) totem from the Temple. Which makes much more sense, than having a grove trees inside the Temple. This, and other verses, seems to show that Asherah was worshipped along side of YHWH(God) in the Temple.
Archeologists have found more than 3100 clay figurines in the Palestine area, which they beleive are representations of a fertility goddess, possibly Asherah. Some of which are holding a round disc, thought to be a cake. Sounds like the "queen of Heaven" spoken of by Jeremiah 5 times. That 3100 number is from an book that is 19 years old, so I am sure the number is higher now.

[CVShooter]

Good example of not understanding the bible unless I misunderstand your point. In what sense are you claiming the Israelites were polytheistic until much later in their history when they came across others or stories of others being monotheistic? It would make total sense if you are basing it on just plain old human nature where there are various opinions within a group of people and disagreement with others in the same group. Did all the Israelites in Egypt all believe in 1 God like Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? There was probably a lot of Israelite slaves in Egypt who didn't even believe in Abraham, Isaac and Jacob or 1 God. Its foolishness to expect otherwise. God even brought them out of Egypt with signs and wonders and people still did not believe in the 1 God of Abraham. They didn't have Gods Law until they came out of Egypt and had little clue what God wanted and even then a lot wouldn't accept or believe in it. So if you are arguing in that sense, that the Israelites and the Jews did not believe in 1 God through out their history I would totally agree. Isn't the Old Testament showing that, going back and forth between believing then disbelieving then back again? That is its whole purpose.

But if you are saying the Israelites and the Jews didn't develop a belief in 1 God until much later when they came into contact with others, sorry I don't agree. 1 God is the basis of the Torah and if it were written by Moses as the Israelites came out of Egypt then the whole premise of the Israelites and Jews picked up belief in 1 God later is completely wrong and moot. Even "evidence" to the contrary would be wrong. Evidence isn't proof. Ex. You see a hot babe and she sees you. You hit it off and have sex, say good bye and leave. 1 minute after you leave her she is viscously beaten to death by another. Investigation reveals and shows you were there at the time of her death, you must be guilty. Nope, not guilty at all. "but all the evidence points to". Nope, not guilty. Evidence can paint a picture and that picture can be totally false and also defies "reason". Which is what can and does happen all the time with Academic/Intellectual studies and "revelations". "New findings!" Well ok, we have new findings and?

So are you saying the Israelites picked up belief in 1 God from others, not as portrayed in the OT and NT?

Go back and read my previous post again. Polytheism, henotheism and monotheism are all on a continuum. There's nothing, for example, in the ten commandments that says that there is only one God. There's just the commandment to not have any other gods before YHWH. After YHWH? Well, that's rather ambiguous. Stories of the heavenly court in Genesis and Job fit perfectly with the Canaanite model of a chief god with lesser gods and other spiritual beings acting as messengers or princes in the court. Even Satan, the adversary, is a tool of YHWH in Job, not an enemy. More of a prosecuting attorney. Only one god? Hardly. Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were undoubtedly henotheistic. YHWH selected Abraham & his progeny, demanding absolute loyalty. But why would they deny the existence of other gods? It's like being married and faithful to one woman while still acknowledging the existence of other women. That's a far cry from believing that other women do not even exist.

I'm not saying that the OT portrays that the Israelites have always had monotheism -- that is your preconceived idea. I'm saying that the OT itself shows the progression once you understand the chronology of what book was written when and even what parts of which books were written when. If you simply refuse to believe that, I see no need to convince you otherwise. I've been mostly an atheist for the last 20 years so it's no skin off my nose either way.

Some don't really even see monotheism in second Isaiah -- more of just a rhetorical strategy of downplaying other gods, like the story of Elijah on Mt. Carmel, to make a mockery of them. Whatever the case, it's really a major shift in how the ancient Israelites viewed YHWH -- toward monotheism and away from simple henotheism. And the timeline puts second Isaiah being written after the Babylonian exile when the Israelite priests would have been staying in Babylon & taking jobs and posts there in the Babylonian temples. They would have likely met up with the Zoroastrians, who were gaining prominence during that time and were among the first monothesitic religions (though they might be more dualistic than purely monotheistic). That was a major time of religious change in the east. Coincidentally, it was about that same time that a young Hindu prince sat under a tree and reflected on suffering. The rather insignificant Israelite priesthood, living in exile and working in pagan temples, got to learn a ton under this new regime. And it's likely that they brought these new perspectives back with them when they rebuilt the temple under the Persian reign of Darius and the leadership of Nehemiah.