Original subtitles

Do you believe there was an Exodus?

Were the children of Israel really slaves in Egypt until a series of plagues allowed

them to leave and become the nation of Israel?

Many Christians and Jews believe this event happened, but many Egyptologists doubt the

story of the book of Exodus records.

Instead, some suggest it was just a myth that was invented by later Israelite authors.

Many archaeologists also say we have little to no evidence that would support an Exodus

from Egypt at the end of the Bronze Age.

So until we find evidence, there is no reason to assume it happened.

However, many other biblical scholars in Egyptologists do think there is evidence for an Exodus,

and some of the best evidence has been right in front of us this whole time.

The story of the Exodus is as follows.

After Joseph died, at some point a new Pharaoh came to power, who did not know about Joseph.

He and his dynasty enslaved the Hebrews and tasked them with making bricks and constructing

buildings.

Specifically, they built store cities at Pitham and Ramesses.

As time went on, the Hebrews grew in size.

To deal with the growing population, the Egyptians threw the male infants into the Nile, but

one woman saved her son by placing him in a reed basket and hiding him by reeds in the

Nile, where he was discovered by Pharaoh's daughter.

He was named Moses and raised by the Pharaoh's daughter with the royal family.

When he grew up, he was troubled by his people and slavery.

However, after killing an Egyptian who was beating a Hebrew, he had to flee to Midian.

But many years later, after all who wanted them dead had passed away, it is said that

God appeared to Moses and commissioned him to go back to Egypt to lead the Hebrews out

of slavery.

But the Pharaoh at that time was stubborn and prideful.

He refused to let the Hebrews leave.

Although God sent plagues upon Egypt to not only punish the Egyptians, but to demonstrate

his power.

After the tenth plague, when all the firstborn of Egypt were struck down, including the Pharaoh's

own son, the Hebrews were allowed to leave.

But the Pharaoh soon changed his mind and let an army to retrieve the Hebrews and bring

them back to Egypt.

At the edge of the Red Sea, the Pharaoh caught up with them, but God sent a strong east wind

to blow the sea back all night, opening a path for the Hebrews to cross to the other

side.

The Egyptian chariots pursued them.

But once all the Hebrews crossed, God allowed the winds to die, and the waters came back

destroying the chariots.

Thus Israel's exodus from Egypt had been fulfilled, as God promised.

In the past, I thought this account could fit with a number of places in the Egyptian

timeline, and we should look for a time when the most correlations line up.

For many years, I held to the belief the exodus happened in the 15th century, and the previous

version of this documentary argued for that based on a misreading of a lot of data.

My approach was to say there were probably several times the exodus could have happened,

as I thought the Biblical account was not specific on who the Pharaoh was, or the time the exodus

occurred.

However, after studying this more and relying more on experts, I have since changed my view.

There are a number of important clues in the Pentateuch that indicate the exodus, if historical,

occurred in the 13th century BCE under the Pharaoh Ramaziz II.

To see this, we need to study the Biblical texts, which contain details that indicate

this.

The most important data point for me was found in Exodus 12.

After the 10th plague, it says the Pharaoh awoke in the night and found his firstborn

dead.

Then he called for Moses and Aaron and told them to depart.

The Egyptians were urging with the Hebrews, and they were basically on their way out the

next morning.

In fact, throughout the plague's narrative, Moses and Aaron have numerous confrontations

with the Pharaoh, where they go to see him and then return to the elders, and then go

back to the Pharaoh to demand they be let go and then return again.

The plagues didn't happen over the course of a week, but probably over several months.

And Moses and Aaron were able to interact with the Pharaoh across this whole time span,

rather easily.

The significance of this is often overlooked.

The Pharaoh was so close to the Hebrews, he could call for Moses and Aaron in the middle

of the night, and have them show up rather quickly.

Then Moses and Aaron could return to their homes, and the Hebrews were on their way out

of Egypt in less than 12 hours.

This implies the Pharaoh's residence, was very close to where the Hebrews were living.

Genesis indicates the Hebrews settled in the land of Goshen, which is in the northern

part of Egypt, and the evidence indicates that the Hebrews would have resided at a city

called Avaris.

And as we noted in a prior video, the time period of Joseph aligns with the time of the

Hixos, due to specific practices like the use of chariots.

Avaris was the capital of the Hixos dynasty, and where the Hebrews most likely would have

settled in and around.

There is no indication the Hebrews moved and settled anywhere else throughout their stay

in Egypt.

And so, when it comes to the time of the Exodus, this implies the Pharaoh's headquarters,

would have been very close to Avaris.

But during the 18th dynasty, the first part of Egypt's new kingdom, the capital was hundreds

of miles away in Thebes.

If the Exodus occurred in the 15th century BCE, it would have been impossible to summon

Moses and Aaron in the middle of the night, all the way from Thebes.

However, in the 13th century, the 19th dynasty of Egypt took over, and the capital was moved

from Thebes to a new city called P. Ramaziz.

This city was a short distance from Avaris, and would allow for Moses and Aaron to confront

the Pharaoh often, as it is described in the Book of Exodus.

So because the Book of Exodus implies the Pharaoh and his family were close by, we have

to look for a time when the Pharaoh's residency was close to the Hebrews, and the most likely

time would be during the 19th dynasty of Egypt.

Prior to this, during the 18th dynasty of Egypt, the capital was in Thebes, and so the

Pharaoh would have spent most of his time there.

Proponents of the early date, that is, the idea the Exodus took place in the 15th century

BCE, often point out there was an Egyptian palace at Avaris in the north, where the Pharaoh

could have resided.

This was convincing for me until I studied the issue more.

The palace at Avaris they referred to was relatively small, and was mostly utilized for

administrative purposes.

It is unlikely it could house the Pharaoh, his royal court, his family, and his haram.

From early day proponents, attempt to argue the 18th dynasty may have moved its royal

court to Memphis in the north.

But even if this is true, it would still be quite a journey to the city the Hebrews resided

in.

There would not have been enough time for Moses and Aaron to be summoned in the middle of the

night, head to Memphis, and be back at Avaris by morning, as Exodus 12 states.

The narrative of Exodus 12, and the whole plague narrative for that matter, strongly

implies the Pharaoh was close by the Hebrews with his family and remain there for most

of the year.

The most likely time frame for this is during the 19th dynasty, and therefore during the

13th century BCE after P. Ramaziz was built.

Another issue, which points to the late date for the Exodus, is the name Ramaziz in Exodus

1.

Exodus records the Hebrews built store cities at P. Tham and Ramaziz.

The biblical Ramaziz is most likely a reference to the ancient city of P. Ramaziz, which

as we noted, did not exist until the 19th dynasty of Egypt built it to be their capital.

Early day proponents argue this is merely an updated place name in the book of Exodus.

This was the argument I gave when I held to the early date, which is that when the Exodus

occurred, the city was called Avaris, then a later author updated the account in Exodus

with the site's current name.

To support the early date, proponents cite verses from Genesis that also contain updated

place names.

One of these is in Genesis 47, which says that Jacob and his family settled in the land

of Ramaziz.

So why couldn't Exodus 1.11 also contain an updated place name?

The problem with this comparison is the verses in Genesis are not the same as Exodus 1.11.

This is a direct claim to being involved in the construction of these cities.

The verses in Genesis only make references to something with an updated place name.

In other words, saying Jacob settled in the land of what was called Ramaziz is different

than saying the Hebrews built a specific store city of Ramaziz.

The latter implies the Hebrews were there to help construct parts of the city, whereas

the former is a general reference that can be an updated place name, not a reference

to a specific act the Hebrews would need to be present for.

Furthermore, although the cities were close by to each other, in reality they were two

separate sites, roughly 2 kilometers apart.

Avaris had existed for centuries before Jacob and his family arrived in Egypt.

P. Ramaziz came into existence much later and was a separate city.

So the reference to Ramaziz in Exodus 1 would most likely mean the Hebrews would have been

in Egypt to build part of P. Ramaziz and could not have left before the city was built.

Thus indicating early dates for the Exodus do not fit with what is described in the book

of Exodus.

What this means is if the Exodus is historical, the most parsimonious reading means it had

to have happened in the 13th century BCE or sometime after P. Ramaziz was the capital

of Egypt.

But also the Murnep to Stilei specifies Israel was already in the land of Canaan by around

1210 BCE.

So the Hebrews would have had to have left roughly 40 years prior to this, which also

helps us pinpoint the Exodus to roughly between 1300 and 1250 BCE.

And the Pharaoh that was reigning for most of that time was Ramaziz II.

Among scholars who believe there was a biblical Exodus, this is the time most say it happened

and agree the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramaziz II.

But for many laymen, this tends to be disappointing.

One of the main reasons is we are told there is no evidence any Exodus occurred under Ramaziz

II.

When I argued for the early date, one of the things I said which I still believe is true

was that the primary evidence for the Hebrews Exodus from Egypt is the book of Exodus itself.

Many want to look for archaeological evidence to confirm the Exodus, but we should start

with the book and verify if it is even a reliable account, which many overlook and do not attempt

to do.

But without the account as the primary witness, there is no reason to even posit an Exodus

from Egypt and look for archaeological correlations.

Essentially, before anything else, we need to ask, how do we know the account laid out

in Exodus actually goes back to an historical event and is not merely a myth or legend?

Well, many biblical scholars have noted there are several internal clues that show the book

of Exodus doesn't bear the markers of later forgers or myth makers, but it contains several

clues that shows the account goes back to an historical people who have knowledge of the

Egyptian language, customs and culture.

The probability that later forgers will get all these aspects right if they were simply

making up a legend is highly unlikely.

Benjamin Noonan points out the language used in the book of Exodus to Numbers contains

a significant amount of Egyptian loanwords.

There are a total of 27 different loanwords and a total of 381 occurrences.

Specifically, the book of Exodus contains 26 loanwords and 333 occurrences.

Outside of these three books and within the rest of the Hebrew Bible, there are only 51

Egyptian loanwords and 450 occurrences for a much larger section of the Bible.

Given the ratio of distribution, there is a much smaller proportion of Egyptian loanwords

in the rest of the corpus when compared to the books that would be expected to have more

affinity with an Egyptian past.

Noonan says,

When one compares the above data, it becomes evident that the Exodus and wilderness traditions

contain a significantly higher proportion of Egyptian loanwords than the rest of the Hebrew

Bible.

From the standpoint of contact linguistics, this observation indicates that the Exodus

and wilderness narratives, especially the narrative of the book of Exodus, exhibit greater

Egyptian influence than the remainder of the Hebrew Bible.

Noonan also compares this ratio in Exodus to books written later, such as Esther Ezra

Niamaya.

These books have been shown to have Old Iranian influence, given that they reflect time periods

of heavy Persian influence.

However, Ezra and Niamaya only contain 26 Old Iranian loanwords with 82 occurrences.

The relative frequency of Egyptian loanwords in the Exodus and wilderness traditions is

significantly higher than the relative frequency of Old Iranian loans in Esther and Ezra Niamaya.

Some might argue early Canaanite cultures were heavily influenced by Egyptian intervention

throughout the new kingdom.

But when we compare Hebrew to other Canaanite languages, we again find more Egyptian loanwords

in the Exodus narrative than we do with other languages.

There are very few Egyptian loanwords in Eucharitic and only one in Phoenician.

Moabite, Ammonite and Edomite contain no examples of known Egyptian loanwords.

Old Aramaic contains two, and as time progresses to imperial Aramaic, you get an abundance

of Egyptian loanwords.

But the loanwords mostly show up in Egyptian Aramaic texts that were from Egypt.

Even with that, Noonan writes,

The ratio of occurrence of Egyptian loanwords to total word count, i.e., the relative frequency

of Egyptian loans, is significantly higher in the Exodus and wilderness narrative than

it is in imperial Aramaic.

Thus, the high amount of Egyptian loanwords in the Exodus narrative is unique with regards

to regional languages within the Levant.

The question, of course, is how and when did this Egyptian influence occur on the Hebrew

language?

Noonan argues, based on the type of some of the loanwords we find in the book of Exodus,

the most likely time for linguistic borrowing to occur would be during the middle to late

Bronze Age.

Some of the loanwords in Hebrew are feminine nouns that contain a specific ending, yet

this ending drops off in later times.

So the most likely time for this influence to occur is during the Bronze Age, when the

Bible says the Hebrews were in Egypt.

Since the Exodus narrative contains remnants of the Egyptian language from a period of

the middle to New Kingdom, this is something that is unlikely to have happened if the ancestors

of Israel had never been in Egypt.

James Hoffmeyer notes many of the personal names of the Pentateuch reflect the same time

period of Egypt and likely have Egyptian roots.

The name Moses is most likely a Hebrewized version of the Egyptian name that could have

come from the structure that shows up in names like Tutmos and Ramazis.

Mararai, son of Levi, is only attested among the Hebrews in the Semitic world, but was

a common Egyptian name of the middle kingdom.

Phineas is also most likely an Egyptian name that means Nubian.

The name Assir might derive from the goddess Cyrus, and we can identify several other names

that likely have Egyptian roots.

In the name of Richard Hess, notes many of the names could potentially have a West Semitic

origin, but West Semitic names have a strong presence in Egyptian texts from the New Kingdom.

Hess also notes the names still reflect in early origin.

All of these names have roots attested in the 2nd millennium BC.

There is no personal name that appears only in the 1st millennium BC, and thus there is

none that can be used to support the argument for the narrative being a fictional account

written by Scribes in the middle of the 1st millennium BC.

By itself, this is a significant finding for the firms and names as appropriate to the

time when the events of the Exodus and the surrounding narrative took place.

It would be remarkable if Scribes writing much later had not placed among 40 names,

some that were unique to their later periods, and not attested in the 2nd millennium BC.

Another piece of data we have already touched on, which suggests the late Bronze Age for

the account of the Exodus is the use of the name Ramazis.

By the 11th century BCE, P. Ramazis was dismantled, and the stones were moved to a new capital

called Tannis.

The city was abandoned, and Ramazis does not show up in later sources to refer to Tannis.

So scholars note the Exodus narrative seems to have been set before the dismantling of

Ramazis.

Other texts like Psalm 78 refer to the area by the 1st millennium BCE name, the field

of Zoan.

The book of Exodus does not use this later name, but refers to the city that was abandoned

and lost to history.

Manfred B. Texas.

This shows that the presence of the topan and Ramazis in the book of Genesis and Exodus

must have been adapted from a tradition older than the 3rd Intermediate in Seight Periods.

The said changes in the physical and political landscape of the Eastern Delta, including

new major centers and topanums, were incorporated only later into the Bible, while the start

of the itinerary in Exodus reflects the topographical conditions of the Ramazis period.

So Exodus retained an older name, supporting the case, the account of the Exodus, goes

back to memories from the 2nd millennium.

Hofmeyer also notes other topanons date back to the 19th dynasty.

Pitham has most likely been identified with a site that existed in the 13th century BCE.

It was named Pitham by Ramazis II.

Sukhith corresponds to an Egyptian topanon that is referenced in Egyptian texts from around

the same time period.

Migdul refers to Egyptian force on the Sinai Peninsula.

Hofmeyer says, both the Bible and the Egyptian sources locate Migdul outside of the Delta

proper.

Papyrus Anastasi III, which dates to the 13th century, mentions a watery feature called

the waters of Baal, which likely corresponds with the biblical location called Baal Zafon.

Another papyrus from the same time also mentions the location of Baal Zafon in the region as

well.

So the names of locations in the Bible align quite well with the topanons of the region

as it was known in the 13th century BCE and not later or earlier.

In fact, Donald Redford goes so far as to admit about the Exodus as a whole.

The text does not look like mythology, at least on the definition of the latter as a

timeless event set in the world of the gods.

The biblical writer certainly thinks he is writing dateable history.

He also thinks it is possible to locate this event on the ground and packs his narrative

with topographical detail.

The Exodus is not only attested in the Pentateuch.

Yair Hoffman says, The Exodus from Egypt is the most frequently mentioned event in the

Old Testament.

Apart from the story itself in Exodus 1 to 15, it is mentioned about 120 times in stories,

laws, poems, Psalms, historiographical writings and prophecies.

Given that the Exodus is multiple attested by numerous biblical authors, James Hoffmeyer

and John Breichen say, There can really be little doubt that the ancestors of Israel

had been slaves in Egypt and had escaped in some marvelous way.

Exodus 15, also called the Song of the Sea, is considered to be one of the oldest written

texts in the Bible based on linguistics.

But it has more affinity with Egyptian customs.

It is described to a particular voice, namely Moses, which was a more common theme in Egyptian

hymns.

The poetic nature of referring to God's right hand being used to destroy an enemy matches

more with how Egyptian texts speak of pharaohs defeating enemies with their right arm.

And more so than how the phrases used in a Canadian are eugritic texts, where the right

hand is portrayed exclusively as holding or grasping something.

Joshua Berman points out the doublet nature of Exodus 14-15, which covers the account

of the crossing of the Red Sea, is similar to what we see in the Kadeshian description

of Ramaziz II, where we see two accounts of the battle, a longer account and a smaller

version known as the Bulletin.

In other words, Exodus 14-15 is written in an Egyptian-like manner to preserve historical

information.

Both likely follow the same literary structure because they both came from a specific ancient

Egyptian culture and are both likely trying to preserve historical information.

The implication is the Song of the Sea is adapting literary structure and themes from the Kadeshian

description to recount their own unique victory in the form of cultic competition.

Berman says,

Consider the question of genre.

Many view the Song of the Sea and the Song of Deborah as hymns of triumph.

Life literature, such as Marnepta's Israel Stile, is unattested in the literature of

Eugarit, but widespread in Egypt.

Historicized narrative, in prose or in verse, is completely unattested at Eugarit.

These suggest that there may have been an Egyptian literary tradition that migrated to

Israelite-scribal culture and the convention of juxtaposing conflicting accounts may be

part of this tradition.

Furthermore, this connection with the Kadeshian description points specifically to a Rama-Zai

time period.

Seraling gardener, said of the inscription,

There is nothing in Egyptian literature really comparable to this narrative of Rama-Z's

II.

I maintain therefore that Rama-Z's II's account of his hit-tight war is a unique phenomenon

in Egyptian literature.

And likewise, the Song of the Sea has no strong parallel in biblical or Canaanite literature.

This suggests both texts originate from a specific time period, namely the time period

from which the Kadeshian description dates to, which is the 13th century BCE.

And so the Hebrews would most likely have been in Egypt during this time period to be

familiar with this unique style of writing.

But this is also familiar with Egyptian themes and customs.

It refers to God's strong and mighty hand or outstretched arm being used to defeat Egypt,

which is a common theme in Egyptian texts that often refer to the pharaoh defeating his

enemies by a strong arm in power.

Berman notes the use of this theme in royal titles reaches its peak during the era of

the military conquest of the Tuttmose side in Rama-Zide kings of the 18th and 19th dynasties.

But this terminology declines in Egypt after this period, so it is unlikely to have influenced

the Hebrews after the late Bronze Age.

Another important thing to note is the pharaohs are not named in Genesis through Exodus.

As unfortunate as it is that the authors never name the pharaohs in the Pentateuch, this

appears to be a common Egyptian theme in the Second Millennium.

F.J. Yurko has pointed out the pharaoh's name is often omitted in administrative documents.

Hofmeyer said, from its inception until the 10th century, the term pharaoh stood alone

without juxtapose personal name.

In subsequent periods, the name of the monarch was generally added.

The usage of pharaoh in Genesis in Exodus does accord well with the Egyptian practice

from the 15th through the 10th century.

We see the same thing in the biblical texts.

The pharaohs are not named in the early history, but in later texts we see the pharaohs are

named.

So the books of the Pentateuch correlate with the literary practice of Egypt from the Second

Millennium BCE, whereas later texts like the books of kings and chronicles fit better with

literary practices from the first Millennium BCE.

In Exodus 5, Moses does not say to the pharaoh he came to lead Israel out of Egypt for good,

but instead asks that they temporarily be released from work so they can go into the desert

to sacrifice to their God.

Such a request fits with the culture in Egypt from that time and would not have been unreasonable.

Inscriptions from the time of Ramazis II, state gangs of workers were idle for several

days so they could offer to their gods or celebrate a festival.

Moses' request seemed like a clever tactic to get Ramazis to agree to allow the Hebrews

to go out into the desert.

Hofmeyer notes an interesting line in Exodus.

It says the flax and the barley were struck down, for the barley was in the ear and the

flax was in bud, but the wheat and the emmer were not struck down for they are laden coming

up.

18th dynasty paintings show that barley and flax were grown together, but wheat was typically

harvested a month or so after that.

So Hofmeyer says, This attention in Exodus to the period when crops matured showed that

the writer of these narratives had an excellent knowledge of the Egyptian agricultural calendar.

The presence of this type of information could hardly be the guesswork of an author

removed by a great amount of space and time from the events.

Individually, none of these points would amount to much, but combined, they make a strong

case the Exodus is an historical account that goes back to a time that Israel had extensive

knowledge of the Egyptian language, culture and customs.

And there are also more correlations we plan to cover in the next part of this series.

But for now, we can note the unique amount of lone words in the Pentateuch, the specific

names and knowledge of the Egyptian customs, themes and motifs aligns well with the Egyptian

culture of the late Bronze Age.

Adding in the correlations with the Kedeshian scripture and the specific use of topanons

suggests a more specific affinity with the time period of Rameses II.

This account was all a fabrication.

It is unlikely the book of Exodus would coincidentally contain all these affinities with

an early Egyptian culture.

However, if the Exodus is an accurate historical account, this is what we should expect to

find, meaning the evidence suggests the Exodus has many internal clues that do not bear the

mark of later forgers or myth makers.

The internal evidence of the Pentateuch is better explained if the Exodus is based on

an historical account that was recorded and handed down to their descendants in Israel.

But if this is true, then surely there should be evidence in Egypt of the Exodus.

Yet documentaries like Patterns of Evidence, which argues for a fringe Exodus theory,

says repeatedly there is no evidence for an Exodus during the time of Rameses II.

Proponents of the 15th century Exodus also repeat this line.

And so because of this, many suggest the Exodus had to happen in a different time period

or did not happen at all.

I used to think this was the case.

Until I learned, there was evidence for a Semitic population that remained there until

the time of Rameses II.

The archaeological evidence not only supports the biblical account of the Exodus, but points

to a Rameside date.

To begin, as we noted in a previous video, the account of Joseph most likely aligns with

the time of the Hixos dynasty.

The Hixos capital was at Avaris, which was located in the eastern part of the Nile Delta,

which the Bible calls the land of Goshen.

During the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period, we know a number of Asiatics moved

into the Nile Delta and settled there.

Jacob and his family would likely have been one of those groups and settled in and around

Avaris and remain there for generations, like the Pentateuch suggests.

Manfred B.Tech has led excavations on the site for years and is the leading expert on

ancient Avaris.

He notes the region received an irregular, but nonetheless continuous flow of Asiatic

immigrants who contributed distinctly Asiatic elements to life and customs of the local

population.

But after the Hixos were defeated and expelled, there is no evidence of a mass exodus of the

Asiatic population.

There is mounting evidence that a large portion of this population stayed on in Egypt and

served their new overlords with their skills and experience, which were in demand in their

host country.

He notes Canaanite-style artifacts can be found at the site of Avaris during the New

Kingdom, as well as a lack of pig bones.

So the Semitic people who were there during the Hixos period seemed to have remained and

served their new rollers in Egypt's new kingdom.

But the Asiatic population was not treated well.

According to the biography of General Amos, son of Abana, when Avaris was taken by the

native Egyptians, the inhabitants were treated like captives and enslaved.

Typically, Egyptians would not enslave free peoples living within Egypt's borders.

But the city of Avaris seems to have been treated as a foreign territory, and foreigners

were often enslaved by the Egyptians.

This would also account for when the Exodus says a new Pharaoh arose who did not know

about Joseph.

When the native Egyptians took back control of Egypt and kicked out the foreign Hixos

rollers, they worked to wipe away all memory of them.

So they would not have cared about a vizier named Joseph from the previous dynasty, especially

if they were actively working to erase them from history.

In terms of how the Semitic population was treated, it does not appear they were treated

well.

BTEC notes during the new kingdom, there is some limited evidence of ritual executions

conducted on young males at the site.

Also during the new kingdom, we've evidence slaves were used in the process of brickmaking.

A depiction on the tomb of Reichmir shows foreign slaves involved in brickmaking.

Later texts during the time of Ramaziz II also reference slaves being used in the making

of bricks.

Additionally, another text reports foreigners referred to as the Hobbyro, were dragging

stone blocks for the construction of pyramaziz.

So slaves working as brickmakers and helping construct pyramaziz as Exodus records also

fits with the archaeological evidence.

The evidence strongly indicates a virus had a Semitic population that was enslaved and

involved in making bricks, like with Exodus records.

But what follows is Exodus records the Semites to live there, abandon the area and move to

Canaan.

So if an Exodus occurred, we should find in the archaeological record that the site was

abandoned at some point.

Proponents of the early date claim the site was abandoned during the 15th century and

during the reign of Amunhotep II.

Scott Stripling says, There is no evidence of a Semitic population out of the virus in

the 19th dynasty when Ramaziz II rolled Egypt, the timing of the late date theory.

And he also says, B. Tech dates the 15th century B.C. abandonment of a virus, then known as

Perunafur to Amunhotep II.

There are problems with what Stripling is claiming.

For starters, Perunafur was not another name for a virus.

Perunafur was the name of the Port out of a virus.

The Egyptian name of a virus was Huttwarritt.

But the main problem with this is this is not what the archaeological data says.

One of the reasons I came to reject the early date for the Exodus was because of this very

issue.

If you read B. Tech more closely, he doesn't say the entire site of a virus was abandoned

during the reign of Amunhotep II, only the Palatial District, which is only about 5 hectares

in size.

The larger portion of the city that's centered around the Temple of Bail remained there.

And this was the Asiatic population that had been there since the Hixos that B. Tech

refers to.

In reality, B. Tech is talking about the Egyptian administrators abandoning the site

in the 15th century, not the Semitic population.

To quote,

After the conquest of Avares Biamos, the town was first abandoned except for the precinct

of the Temple of Seth, where an unbroken activity till the Amarna period can be observed.

The Temple seems never to have been abandoned.

After Amunhotep II, we have evidence Asiatic nomadic shepherds remain there, along with

the majority of the Canaanite population.

There was a brief period during Aakonon's reforms when the Temple was abandoned, but

the city seemed to be in use through the entirety of the 18th dynasty.

So if the site was not abandoned when Stripling says it was, you don't have an exodus in

the 15th century BCE.

But was the site ever abandoned?

If not, there is no evidence of an exodus.

Well, the evidence suggests the site of Avares was abandoned, but not until midway through

the reign of Rameses II.

B. Tech says there was a West Semitic population living in the Eastern Delta for quite a length

of time, from the late 12th dynasty until the Rameses II period.

The fortress walls, from the time of King Harimheb, found it Esbeth Helmi, may be a

hint that these walls could be part of this fortress.

It cuts into the remains of the Hixos palace, and produced from its filling sherds of Marl

D of the late 18th dynasty, Rameses II period.

From the time afterwards, when everything was in ruins, we have evidence of scattered

Ramesite burials and burials of domestic animals, such as dogs, sheep and goats, which

may have been connected with pastoral activity in the region.

Major parts of Avares served as a site for the cemeteries of P. Rameses during the Rameses

period.

The tombs have been largely stripped bare and destroyed by agricultural activity of the

last 100 years.

After a long hiatus, the site shows traces of a large settlement of the Persian period.

In other words, the whole site of Avares was abandoned during the reign of Rameses II,

and the native population then used the site as a cemetery.

The cemitic people who were there abandoned the site and moved elsewhere.

Some argued the reason the site was abandoned was because the movement of the Nile changed,

which means the river was no longer flowing steady through the area.

But this is challenged by the fact that after Avares was abandoned, the port was still in

use, long after the city was abandoned, and was used up until the 20th dynasty.

So the site could not have been abandoned due to changes of the Nile, otherwise the port

would have been abandoned.

Some might attempt to argue this could not be the exodus of the biblical Hebrews, because

Bitek also notes we have found evidence that the Canaanite population was worshiping an

array of gods at the time of the occupation.

But this is not inconsistent with the biblical report.

In fact, we should expect to find this, because the book of Joshua explicitly says the Hebrews

were worshiping other gods while in Egypt.

The exodus, according to the biblical text, was one of the things God used to bring Israel

back to worshiping only him, which was a process that took several generations to correct.

So finding evidence of Canaanite polytheism at Avares should be expected if the biblical

account is accurate.

So the fact that Avares was abandoned during the Ramazite period not only supports the

account of the Exodus, but is also strong evidence that the Exodus took place during the

Ramazite period.

Beyond this, there are a few other minor correlations we can find.

Because of the 10th plague, Douglas Petrovich says the Exodus could only have occurred when

the Pharaoh was not the firstborn and his oldest son did not inherit the throne, because

all the firstborn died from the 10th plague.

Petrovich uses this to argue the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Amunhotep II, because he was

not the oldest son of his father and his oldest son did not inherit the throne.

But by this standard, Ramazite's II would also qualify since he had an older sister

and his oldest son did not inherit the throne.

But this is likely a misreading of the Texan Exodus, because Exodus 1112 implies the Pharaoh

was excluded from the 10th plague, since the plague would start with the firstborn of the

Pharaoh, not the Pharaoh himself.

The firstborn was often not the first childborn, but the heir-designate.

Given the context, the 10th plague was likely a reference to the designated heirs of each

Egyptian household, who would have been given special treatment from their fathers.

This means several Pharaohs would have qualified since it's referring to the heirs, not the

biological firstborn child.

During the 13th century, Ramazite's II's oldest son died suddenly and tragically in

the middle of his reign, sometime around 1265 BCE.

Due to agricultural leveling, many of the grave sites from that time have been destroyed,

so a lot of our archaeological data is missing.

Nonetheless, the data does indicate Ramazite's II's oldest son did die unexpectedly.

If an Exodus of Semites did occur around this time and leave a reliable account of their

Exodus, then we should at least expect to find that at the same time, the Pharaohs heir

died and the evidence does correlate here as well.

Many skeptics say we do not have enough evidence of massive plagues that would have devastated

Egypt around this time.

But this is assuming the plagues were more powerful than what the biblical text state.

Most of the damage the plagues would have caused would have only been temporary.

The next year would come and most of the damage would be covered up.

Something like the Nile turning to blood would have been devastating for that year, but the

following year the Nile would have returned to normal and helped undo a lot of the economic

impact.

The plagues were a combination of various natural disasters, most of which would not

have left behind any evidence.

There are logical explanations for how some of these could have played out.

The Nile turning to blood could have been caused by an algae bloom in an Nile estuary,

or heightened silt deposits that normally occur during inundation.

That could have triggered a chain reaction, causing species like frogs to come out of

the river and resulting in the death of the fish and amphibians, bringing things like

flies and disease.

But much of this would not have left a permanent scar on the land, except for one.

In Exodus 1015 it states the locus not only ate the crops, but destroyed the trees.

Trees are a lot less resilient to that kind of damage, whereas crops can regrow the next

year.

Now what we find is after this period in Egyptian history there was a wood shortage.

Starting in Dynasty 20, the Egyptians started recycling coffins because there simply was

not enough wood to make new ones.

We wouldn't expect to find the wood shortage starting during the time of Ramese II.

Because the Egyptians could still harvest the existing trunks from the dead trees.

The same way loggers will sometimes go in after a forest fire to harvest what wood they

can.

But new trees would not have fully grown for several years following this event.

So over time a wood shortage would have been felt in Egypt.

In correlating with this we do see a wood shortage in later generations after the 19th

Dynasty.

Some argue a Rameseid Exodus is unlikely because Ramese II was one of the most powerful and

wealthiest pharaohs.

The Exodus should have caused a massive decline in Egypt and there was no evidence for such

a trend.

The problem is this is assuming we have a full picture of everything that happened during

the reign of Ramese II, which is not true.

We know a lot about the early part of his reign due to inscriptions describing his war

with the Hittites.

But after peace was established we know much less.

Furthermore, since peace was established between the two rival empires, Egypt would have had

less to worry about and would not have had a need to display their military might anymore.

We're going to pinpoint the Exodus.

Dr. David Falk says the most likely time would be around 1265 BCE when Ramese's oldest son

unexpectedly died.

But this would have happened after peace with the Hittites was established.

In Egypt had no need to focus on conquest in war.

However, after this, there are some indications Egypt was not as powerful as they used to

be.

Ramese II was able to assemble one of the largest fighting forces in Egypt's history

and lead that army all the way up to Kadesh.

But his successor, Murnepta, does not appear to have had the same military might.

During his reign, Libyans from the west were able to invade Egypt with little trouble.

They made it all the way to the Nile and Hiliopolis and it took three months before the Egyptians

could assemble a force to repel them.

Also control over Canaan had greatly diminished.

The Great Libyan Warstile also records the sea people from the east were putting pressure

on Egypt.

In Egypt, couldn't do anything to stop them from slowly taking over coastal regions in

Canaan.

So during the early reign of Ramese II, Egypt was at a point of military height, but within

a generation or two, Egypt was being attacked on both sides.

A decline in Egyptian hegemonic control seems to have occurred over a short time.

And although the Exodus would not have been the only factor that caused this, it could

have been a contributing factor.

Either way, there's nothing about the later half of Ramese's reign that would suggest

an exodus could not have happened.

And as we noted, the archaeological evidence suggests of ours was abandoned around this

time.

So, what we have in the archaeological record fits well with the biblical description of

what happened in Egypt.

We have an asiatic population in the Nile Delta, which the Bible refers to as the land

of Goshen.

They were enslaved after a dynasty change and not treated well, and then suddenly abandoned

the site during the Ramese III period.

We have no reason to think the site was abandoned because the flow of the Nile changed, since

the port was still in use.

We have a few minor correlations, like the unexpected death of Ramese II's oldest son,

a wood shortage which could have been caused by the eighth plague, and some indications

Egypt lost its hegemonic control, which the Exodus may have contributed to.

This alone would not prove an exodus occurred.

However, because we already argued there are internal markers that strengthen the reliability

of the Exodus account, the archaeological data can better be explained by arguing the

book of Exodus can account for it.

In other words, we have a reliable textual account handed down to us that can account

for this circumstantial evidence.

If the account of the Exodus did not exist, you could argue there is no reason to explain

the abandonment of a virus with an exodus event.

However, instead of coming up with alternative explanations for the archaeological evidence

in Egypt, and a separate reason for why the book of Exodus was written, we can explain

both the internal and external data with one explanation, namely that an exodus from

Egypt occurred during the reign of Rameses II.

An historical exodus becomes the simplest explanation.

But if Rameses II was the pharaoh of the Exodus, why didn't he die in the Red Sea?

Well, it's a common belief today that the pharaoh drowned in the Red Sea, but the Bible

doesn't actually state this.

Exodus 14 says the pharaoh and his army pursued Israel into the Red Sea, but after their wheels

became clogged, they were thrown into a panic and turned in fled.

After which, there is no indication the pharaoh died, only the pharaoh's men.

Half-Meyre notes, no biblical text that mentions the demolition of the Egyptian chariots

at the Red Sea included the death of the pharaoh.

Another objection is the Exodus if taken entirely literal would indicate the amount of Hebrews

left Egypt and the mixed multitude went with them was somewhere between 2 and 5 million.

This is incredibly high and unlikely, if there were that many slaves in Egypt, they

could have just taken the country over themselves.

Like what might have happened with the Hixos dynasty.

But scholars have been noting for years that this is not what the Bible actually says.

Richard Hess and Kenneth Kitchen, as well as many other conservative scholars, agree the

Hebrew term for 1000, can refer to a military unit, a tribe, or a small group.

Mitchell Modin also notes the census data in the book of Numbers bears the mark of idealized

figures, not the literal numbers of the actual census.

As we have noted elsewhere, using idealized numbers is a common Jewish theme.

More realistic estimates put the Exodus at between 15,000 and 30,000 people.

David Falk notes that since the Exodus included a mixed multitude of other ethnicities, it

could have been as high as around 100,000.

These estimates fit far more with the expected birth rates and numbers we see later in the

book of Judges.

Many skeptics also attempt to argue if the Exodus happened.

There should be a written record of it in Egypt.

After all, we have found thousands of inscriptions throughout Egypt.

Surely if there was an Exodus someone would have mentioned it at least once.

But this can be addressed by simply studying the cultural and archaeological context.

First, the Egyptians were not trying to write unbiased history in their inscriptions, but

trying to promote a glorified version of themselves and their actions.

Benny Hill says, the hieroglyphic inscriptions on the walls of their temples were a useful

propaganda tool of the Pharaoh and the priests.

As a result, they tend to give the most positive view of the current Pharaoh and make implications

regarding the perceived quality of a previous Pharaoh, which may have been prompted more

by political motivations than a desire to record the truth.

Inscriptions and tombs, also in hieroglyphs, are simply careful to paint a positive picture.

Donald Redford refers to Egyptian texts several times as propaganda used to promote an idealized

view of Egypt that is probably not historically accurate.

William Kelly Simpson notes Egyptian texts and even the art are propagandistic and are

not fair in their assessment of how events actually played out.

James Hoffmeyer notes, the reality is that pharaohs typically do not report on failures

or they turn them propagandistically into successes.

Egyptologists extract bits of historical information from ancient Egyptian inscriptions, but with

the understanding that the Egyptians were not always trying to be fair, let alone record

events that would have gone against their agenda.

So we aren't going to find them in their inscriptions and account of when their slaves

manage the best of them and escape into the desert while drowning in Egyptian army.

Also, it should be pointed out that although we have an exorbitant amount of ancient Egyptian

history, thanks to all the inscriptions they left behind, what we currently know is only

a fraction of their history.

A recent satellite imagery study shows that less than 1% of Egypt has been excavated.

Much of what existed in ancient Egypt has also been lost or destroyed.

Tomb Raiders have routinely robbed graves throughout the ages.

Many of the Ramazite blocks were taken and reused in later temples.

And those stones were reused in even later temples and recycled even up until Islamic

times.

Time itself has also weathered or eroded a lot of ancient Egyptian history, including

destroying over 99% of ancient papyrus.

And of ours, we have found 470 seal impressions in what was once a scriptorium.

All of these documents have rotted away due to the wet conditions of the site.

In fact, only about two dozen texts have been recovered from the Nile Delta for all periods

of Egyptian history.

Almost all our documents from Egypt come from Upper Egypt, where the climate is much

drier.

Additionally, no Egyptian documents have been discovered out of ours.

Some Egyptian dynasties have also tried to wipe out the records of the previous Pharisea

spies, and sometimes they were quite successful.

For example, we know very little about the 15th dynasty of Egypt because the later 18th

dynasty destroyed their records and monuments.

Even the periods we know a lot about are often fragmented.

We know a lot about Tutmoses III because he went on several campaigns and left a lot of

inscriptions boasting of his accomplishments.

But we know less about his grandson, Tutmoses IV, because as Peter Clayton says, our knowledge

may be marred by a lack of text.

So ancient Egyptian history is highly fragmented and riddled with bias.

We shouldn't expect to find an inscription referencing the Exodus, and even on the tiny

possibility one that exists, it likely was lost, with the mounds of evidence we're currently

missing.

But despite that, it can easily be argued that there is sufficient evidence that supports

there was an Exodus from Egypt.

In the Egyptian archaeological record, we can see evidence of foreign Semitic slaves

around the site that was known as Ramazis.

And as Exodus records, the site was suddenly abandoned during the time of Ramazis II.

We also see in our primary piece of data, there is a wealth of internal evidence demonstrating

the Book of Exodus has affinity with Egypt in the 2nd millennium BCE.

Instead of resembling the first millennium BCE text that fits more with Babylonian or

Persian periods.

Therefore, we have an abundance of evidence to support an Exodus account.

But that is not the end of this story, because after this, the Hebrews remained in the desert

for 40 years and then moved into Canaan.

The Book of Joshua claims they laid siege to several cities and conquered large swaths

of territory there.

James Hoffmeyer reminds us that the Exodus and conquest of Canaan stand and fall together.

So if the Exodus happened in the 13th century BCE, then we should see evidence of a conquest

in Canaan roughly 40 years later.

If the Exodus from Egypt has been identified, the rest of the picture, including the wandering

period and the conquest, should be discovered in the same time period.

And so, as Israel left Egypt, they left behind other clues that support their time in the

desert and their later conquest, which we will look into next time.