the Fourth Week of Advent
Click here to join the effort!
Bible Encyclopedias
Exodus, the
International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
or I. The Route
1. The Starting-Point
2. Rameses to Succoth
3. Succoth to Etham
4. Passage of the Sea
5. Other Views of the Route
II. The Date
1. Old Testament Chronology
2. Date of Conquest of Palestine
3. Date of Exodus
4. Other Views
5. Astronomical Calculations
6. Relation between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs
7. Agreement between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology
8.
III. The Theory of Lepsius
1. 1st Argument: City Rameses
2. 2nd Argument: Manetho's Statements
3. Relation of Manetho's Stories to the Exodus
4. Greek and Latin Writings
5. Condition of Egypt under Minepthah
6. Explanations of Minepthah's Statements
(1) Pithom was Heroöpolis
(2) Rameses
(3) Some Hebrews Were never in Egypt
IV. The Numbers
1. Colenso's Criticism of Large Number
2. Increase of Population
3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement
4. Review
I. The Route
1. The Starting-Point
On the 14th Abib (early in April) the Hebrews were gathered at Rameses (Exodus 12:37; Numbers 33:5 ) where apparently the hostile Pharaoh was also living (Exodus 12:31 ). From Psalm 78:12 , Psalm 78:43 it appears that the wonders preceding the Exodus occurred in the "field of Zoan," where the starting-point may be placed (see
2. Rameses to Succoth
We are not told how many days were occupied on the way from Rameses to
3. Succoth to Etham
The next march (Exodus 13:20; Numbers 33:6 ) led Israel to Etham, on the "edge of the wilderness" which lies West of the Bitter Lakes, not far from where the Nile water then entered them, and no doubt made them sweet. The intention of Moses probably was to reach the desert of Shur by rounding the head of this stretch of water; but we are told (Exodus 14:2 f) that he was commanded to "turn" - evidently to the South - and to encamp before "the mouth of the lakes" (see PI-HAHIROTH ), in order that Pharaoh might conclude that the Hebrews were "entangled in the land," and shut in between the lakes on their left and the desert mountains on their right. This camp would seem to have been West of the lakes, and some 10 miles North of Suez. It was perhaps two days' journey from Etham, since the lakes are 30 miles long; or, if Etham was farther South than the head of the lakes, the distance may have been covered by one forced march of 20 to 25 miles, the beasts being watered from the lakes if they were then filled with fresh water, as they would be when having an outlet to a tideless sea.
4. Passage of the Sea
The sea which Israel crossed is not named in the actual account of the journey, but in the Song of Moses (Exodus 15:4 ) it is called the "Red Sea" in the English Versions of the Bible, following the Septuagint, the Hebrew name being
5. Other Views of the Route
This view of the Exodus route is practically the same as advocated by Dr. Robinson, by Dr. E. Naville, by Sir S. Warren, by Sir W. Dawson, and by others who have visited the region in question. The view advocated by Brugsch, according to which the sea crossed was a lagoon near Pelusium, has found no supporters, because it directly conflicts with the statement that Israel did not follow the shore road to Philistia, but went by the wilderness of the Red Sea. Another theory (see SINAI ), according to which the "Red Sea" always means the Gulf of
II. The Date
1. Old Testament Chronology
The actual statements of the Books of Kings, giving parallel reigns from the time of Solomon's death down to the fixed date of the fall of Samaria in 722 bc, place the foundation of the Temple within a few years of 1000 bc. It is true that this interval is reduced, by about 30 years, by scholars who accept the very doubtful identification of Ahabu of Sir-lai with Ahab of Israel; but this theory conflicts with the fact that Jehu was contemporary with Shalmaneser
2. Date of Conquest of Palestine
We have several statements which show that the Hebrew writers believed the conquest of Palestine by Joshua to have occurred early in the 15th century bc, and this date fully agrees with the most recent results of monumental study of the history of the 18th (or Theban) Dynasty in Egypt, as about to be shown, and with the fact that Israel is noticed as being already in Palestine in the 5th year of Minepthah, the successor of Rameses II. In 1 Kings 6:1 we read that the Temple was founded "in the 480th year after the children of Israel were come out of the land of Egypt," this referring to the Conquest and not to the Exodus, as appears from other notices. The Septuagint reads "440 years," but the details show that the Hebrew text is preferable. In Judges 11:26 the first victory of Jephthah is said to have occurred 300 years after Joshua's conquest. The details given for this interval, in other passages of the same book, amount to 326 years; but the periods of "rest" may be given in round numbers, and thus account for this minor discrepancy. Samuel ruled apparently for 20 years ( 1 Samuel 7:2 ), and Saul (the length of whose reign is not stated in our present text of this same book) very probably ruled for 20 years also, as Josephus ( Ant. , VI, xiv, 9) states. Thus 175 years elapsed between Jephthah's victory and the foundation of the Temple - a total of 475 years, or rather more, from Joshua's conquest.
3. Date of Exodus
The popular belief that many of the judges were contemporary does not agree with these facts, and is indeed in conflict with ten definite statements in Jgs. In Acts 13:19 , Acts 13:20 we read that after the Conquest there were judges about the space of 450 years, and this rough estimate (including the rule of Samuel) agrees pretty nearly with the 415, or 420, years of the various passages in the Old Testament. According to the Pentateuch and later accounts ( Amos 5:25; Acts 7:30 ), Israel abode in the desert 40 years. We therefore find that Joshua's conquest is placed about 1480 bc, and the Exodus about 1520 bc. According to the revised chronology of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt (see HITTITES ), which rests on the notices of contemporary Kassite kings in Babylon, it thus appears that the Pharaoh of the oppression was Thothmes
4. Other Views
As regards this date, it should be remarked that theory of Lepsius, which has been adopted by Brugsch and by many writers who accept his authority, is not accepted by every scholar. E. de Bunsen supposed that the Exodus occurred early in the times of the 18th Dynasty; Sir Peter le Page Renouf said that "no materials have yet been discovered for fixing historical dates in periods of Egyptian history as far back as the Hebrew Exodus" - which was true when he wrote. Professor J. Lieblein supposes the Exodus to have occurred late in the time of Amenophis
5. Astronomical Calculations
The approximate dates given by Brugsch for the 18th and 19th Dynasties are very close to those which can be deduced from notices of contemporary kings of Babylon ( History of Egypt , II, 314). The later dates which Mahler based on certain astronomical calculations of the French astronomer Biot (Académie des inscriptions , March 30, 1831, 597, 602-4) are not accepted by other Egyptologists. Brugsch says that on this question, "scientific criticism has not yet spoken its last word" (Hist Egypt , I, 36). Renouf (Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc ., December, 1892, 62) more definitely states that "unfortunately there is nothing on Egyptian documents which have as yet come down to us which can, by astronomical calculations, be made to result in a date." This judgment appears to be justified by recent discoveries, since Mahler's dates are about a century too late, as shown by the known history of the Kassites of Babylon. Biot's calculations were based on recorded observations of the rising of Sirius just before the sun, in certain years of certain Egyptian kings. But Sirius is not in the plane of the earth's orbit, and its rising is not constant in retardation. The "heliacal" rising is now about 2 1/2 min. later each year, but about the date in question the retardation was about 12 min., so that a cycle of 1, 461 years cannot be used by simple addition. Biot also assumed that the Egyptian observations were as accurate as those made by a modern astronomer with a telescope, whereas, when using the naked eye, the Egyptian observer may well have been a day wrong, which would make a difference of 120 years in the date, or even more. The Babylonian chronology thus gives a far safer basis than do these doubtful observations. On the basis of Biot's calculations the Exodus has been placed in 1214 bc, or even (by Dr. Flinders Petrie) in 1192 bc ( Proc. Biblical Arch. Soc ., December, 1896, 248). He thus cuts off more than three centuries in the period of the Judges, many of whom he regards as contemporary. Lepsius in like manner, in order to establish his date, accepted the chronology of the Talmud, which is notoriously 166 years too late for the known date of the fall of Samaria, and he endeavored (while rejecting the Old Testament statement as to the 480 years) to base himself on the number of generations before the Exodus, whereas it is well known that the Hebrew genealogies often give only the better-known names and skip several links.
6. Relation Between Date of Exodus and Date of Patriarchs
As regards the relation between the earlier date for the Exodus (about 1520 bc) and the chronology of the Hebrew patriarchs, the Hebrew text gives an interval of 645 years, and the Greek text of 430 years between the Exodus and the call of Abraham; and the call would thus be dated about 2165 bc or 1950 bc. Abraham is very generally held to have been contemporary with
7. Agreement Between Monuments and Old Testament Chronology
There is in fact no discrepancy between the actual results of monumental study and the chronology of the Old Testament. If the Exodus occurred under Thothmes IV, it would have been useless for Israel to attempt the entrance into Palestine by the "way of the land of the Philistines," because at Gaza, Ashkelon and in other cities, the road was still held by forces of Egyptian chariots, which had been established by Thothmes III. But about 40 years later the rebellion of the Amorites against Egypt began, in the time of the Egyptian general Yankhamu, and general chaos resulted in Southern Palestine The Egyptian garrison at Jerusalem ( Amarna Tablets , Berlin, No. 102) was withdrawn in his time - about 1480 bc - and it is then (numbers 102-3-4-6, 199) that a fierce people coming from Seir, and called the
8.
Nor is this the only evidence which destroys his theory; for Dr. Flinders Petrie ( Contemporary Review , May, 1896) has published an equally important text of the 5th year of Minepthah, from Thebes. A slab of black syenite, bearing this text, was reused from a temple of Amenophis III. In it Minepthah boasts of his conquest of the invaders who - as elsewhere stated - attacked the Delta, and penetrated to Belbeis and Heliopolis. He says that "Sutekh (the Hittite god) has turned his back on their chief"; "the Hittites are quieted, Pa-Kan'ana is ravaged with all violence" - this town being otherwise known to have been near Tyre - "the people of Israel is spoiled, it has no seed"; "Ruten has become as the widows of the land of Egypt." Thus, so far from the Exodus having occurred in the 15th year of Minepthah, Israel is noticed 10 years earlier in connection with a place near Tyre with Hittites yet farther North. Even if the Hebrews had only just arrived, they must have left Egypt 40 years before - in the reign of Rameses
III. The Theory of Lepsius
The reasons which influenced Lepsius require, however, to be stated, and the objections to a date for the Hebrew Conquest about 1480 bc (or a little later) to be considered, since theory that Rameses
1. 1st Argument: City Rameses
The arguments adduced in favor of the later date are as follows: In the first place, Lepsius ( Letters from Egypt , 1842-44) held that no city called Rameses could have been so named, or built by the Hebrews, before the reign of Rameses II, and he placed the site at Heroöpolis. This was a very doubtful assumption (see
2. 2nd Argument: Manetho's Statements
The second argument is based on the account by Manetho of the expulsion of leprous and unclean tribes from Egypt. Manetho was an Egyptian priest who wrote about 268 bc, and who evidently hated the Jews. His account only reaches us secondhand through Josephus ( Apion , I, 14, 15, 26-31), this Hebrew author rejecting it as fabulous. Manetho apparently said that, after the Hyksos kings had ruled for 511 years, and had fortified Avaris (see ZOAN ), they agreed with King Thummosis to leave Egypt, and went through the desert to Jerusalem, being afraid of the Assyrians (who had no power in Palestine at this time). He continued to relate that, after Armesses Miamon (Rameses II) had ruled 66 years, he was succeeded by an Amenophis whom Josephus calls a "fictitious king" - and rightly so since the name does not occur in the 19th Dynasty. Apparently Minepthah was meant - though perhaps confused with Amenophis
3. Relation of Manetho's Stories to the Exodus
A thread of truth underlay Manetho's stories, but it has nothing to do with the Exodus, and the details to be found on Egyptian monuments do not agree with Manetho's tale. The Hyksos rulers were not expelled by any Thothmes, but by Aahmes who took Avaris about 1700 bc, and who reopened the quarries of the Arabian chain. Minepthah, about 1265 bc, was attacked in Egypt by Aryan tribes from the North, who had nothing to do with Hyksos chiefs, being Lycians, Sardians and Cilicians. He repelled them, but they again attacked Rameses
4. Greek and Latin Writers
The story of the leprous Jews was, however, repeated by other Greek writers. Cheremon (see Josephus, Apion I, 32) says that Rameses, the son of Amenophis, defeated and expelled a diseased people led against him, at Pelusium, by Tisithen and Petesiph, whom he identified with Moses and Joseph. Lysimachus said that a scabby people were led by Moses through the desert by Judea and Jerusalem in the time of Bocchoris (735 bc). Diodorus Siculus ( Fr. of Bk , 34) repeats the tale, about 8 bc, saying that lepers were driven out of Egypt, and were led by Moses who founded Jerusalem, and "established by law all their wicked customs and practices," and again (Fr. of Bk , 40) that strangers in Egypt caused a plague by their impurity, and being driven out were led by Moses. Tacitus, about 100 ad (Hist , v.ii), believed the Jews to have fled from Crete to Libya and, being expelled from Egypt, to have been led by their "Captains Jerusalem and Judah." Again he says (v. iii) that under Bocchoris (735 bc) there was sickness in Egypt, and that the infected being driven out were led by Moses, and reached the site of their temple on the 7th day.
5. Condition of Egypt Under Minepthah
No true critic of the present time is likely to prefer these distorted accounts of the Exodus, or any of the Greek and Roman calumnies leveled against the hated Jews, to the simple narration of the Exodus in the Bible. The historic conditions in the 5th year of Minepthah were very different from those at the time of Moses. The invaders of Egypt reached Belbeis and Heliopolis (see Brugsch, History of Egypt , II, 117), and Minepthah states, in his text on the wall of the temple of Amon at Thebes, that he had to defend Hellopolls and Memphis against his foes from the East. The region was then "not cultivated but was left as pasture for cattle, on account of the foreigners. It lay waste from the time of our forefathers." The kings of upper Egypt remained in their entrenchments, and the kings of lower Egypt were besieged in their cities by warriors, and had no mercenaries to oppose them. But Israel, as Minepthah himself has told us now, was in Palestine, not in Egypt, in this year of his reign; and, far from desiring to expel Asiatic pastoral peoples, the same Pharaoh encouraged their immigration into the region of Goshen (see PITHOM ) laid waste by the Aryan raid.
6. Explanations of Minepthah's Statements
Objections to the view that the Exodus occurred two centuries and a half before the reign of Minepthah began, and attempts to explain away the statements on his monuments require some notice.
(1) Pithom Was Heroöpolis
The first of these objections is due to the belief that Pithom was Heroöpolis, and was a city founded by Rameses II; but this (see PITHOM ) is too hazardous a conclusion to suffice for the entire neglect of Old Testament chronology which it involves, since the site of this city is still very doubtful.
(2) Rameses II N ot Named in Judges
A second objection is made, that the Old Testament shows complete ignorance of Egyptian history if it makes Rameses
(3) Some Hebrews Were Never in Egypt
But another explanation of the presence of Israel in this year on the line of Minepthah's pursuit of these tribes after their defeat has been suggested, namely, that some of the Hebrews never went to Egypt at all. This of course contradicts the account in the Pentateuch (Exodus 1:1-5; Exodus 12:41 ) where we read that all Jacob's family (70 men) went down to Goshen, and that "all the hosts of the Lord" left Egypt at the Exodus; but it is supposed to be supported by a passage (1 Chronicles 7:21 ) where we read of one of the sons of Ephraim "whom the men of Gath born in the land slew, because they came down to take away their cattle." Ephraim however was born in Egypt (Genesis 41:52 ), and his sons and "children of the third generation" (Genesis 50:23 ) remained there. The meaning no doubt is that men of Gath raided Goshen; and there were probably many such raids by the inhabitants of Philistia during the times of the Hyksos kings, similar to those which occurred in the time of Minepthah and of Rameses III. The objections made to the Old Testament date for the Exodus early in the reign of Amenophis III, or in that of his predecessor Thothmes IV, thus appear to have little force; and the condition of Egypt before the 5th year of Minepthah was unlike that which would have existed at the time of the Exodus. The theory of Lepsius was a purely literary conjecture, and not based on any monumental records. It has been falsified by the evidence of monuments found during the last 20 years, and these are fully in accord with the history and chronology of the Old Testament.
IV. The Numbers
1. Colenso's Criticism of Large Number
The historic difficulty with respect to the Exodus does not lie in the account of plagues natural to Egypt even now, nor in the crossing of the Red Sea, but in a single statement as to the numbers of Israel (Exodus 12:37 ), 'about 600,000 footmen - strong men - with many children, and also many wanderers.' The women are not mentioned, and it has been supposed that this represents a host of 2,000,000 emigrants at least. The objection was urged by Voltaire, and the consequences were elaborately calculated by Colenso. Even if 600,000 means the total population, the "heroes," or "strong men on foot" would, it is urged, have been as numerous as the largest Assyrian army (120,000 men) employed in the conquest of Syria. With an army of more than half a million Moses would have held control over Egypt and Palestine alike; and the emigrants, even in close column of companies, would have stretched for 20 miles; the births would occur every ten minutes; and the assembly before Sinai would have been impossible.
2. Increase of Population
It is also difficult to suppose, on ordinary calculations of the increase of population, that in 430 years (Exodus 12:40 ), or in 215 years as given in the Septuagint, a tribe of 70 males (Genesis 46:26 f; Exodus 1:5; Exodus 6:14 ) could have increased to 600,000, or even 100,000 men. But on the other hand we are specially told (Exodus 1:7-20 ) that the children of Israel "increased abundantly," and the comments of Dr Orr ( Problem of the Old Testament , 1906, 363-65) on this question should be studied. A young and vigorous nation might multiply much faster than is now usual in the East. Dr. Flinders Petrie has suggested that for "thousand" we should read "families"; but, though the word (
3. Number a Corruption of Original Statement
It should not be forgotten that variations in numbers are very commonly found in various texts,
4. Review
The general questions of the credibility of that history of the Exodus which is given us in the Pentateuch, and of the approximate date of the event, have been treated above in the light of the most recent monumental information. No reference has yet been found in Egyptian records to the presence of Israel in the Delta, though the Hebrews are noticed as present in Palestine before the 5th year of Minepthah. The Pharaohs as a rule - like other kings - only recorded their victories, and no doubt reckoned Israel only as a tribe of those "hostile Shasu" (or "nomads") whom the Theban kings of the 18th Dynasty drove back into Asia. It would be natural that a disaster at the Red Sea should not be noticed in their proud records still extant on the temple walls in Egypt. See also WANDERINGS OF ISRAEL .
These files are public domain and were generously provided by the folks at WordSearch Software.
Orr, James, M.A., D.D. General Editor. Entry for 'Exodus, the'. International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/isb/e/exodus-the.html. 1915.
