Exodus Rediscovered: Documentary

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 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 and 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 [Applause] 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 pithom and ramses 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 the midian but many years later after all who wanted him 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 so 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 led 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 are 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 ramesses ii to see this we need to study the biblical texts which contained details that indicate this the most important data point for me was found in exodus 12. after the tenth plague it says the pharaoh awoken the night and found his firstborn dead then he called for moses and aaron and told them to depart the egyptians were urgent 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 avarus 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 avarus 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 ramazis this city was a short distance from avarice 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 a virus in the north where the pharaoh could have resided this was convincing for me until i studied the issue more the palestinian virus they referred to was relatively small it was mostly utilized for administrative purposes it is unlikely it could house the pharaoh his royal court his family and his harem some 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 avarus 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 remained 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 ramazi's was built another issue which points to the late date for the exodus is the name ramizes in exodus 1. exodus records the hebrews built store cities at pithom and ramesses the biblical ramazis is most likely a reference to the ancient city of p ramises 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 a virus 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 ramses so why couldn't exodus 111 also contain an updated place name the problem with this comparison is the verses in genesis are not the same as exodus 1 11. exodus 1 11 says the hebrews built store cities at p thumb and ramesses this is a direct claim to being involved in the construction of these cities the verses in genesis only make reference to something with an updated place name in other words saying jacob settled in the land of what was called ramesses is different than saying the hebrews build a specific store city of rameses 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 two kilometers apart tavares had existed for centuries before jacob and his family arrived in egypt promises came into existence much later and was a separate city so the reference to ramizes in exodus 1 would most likely mean the hebrews would have been in egypt to build part of p ramses 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 ramez's was the capital of egypt but also the murnepta stele 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 ramesses ii among scholars who believed there was a biblical exodus this is the time most say it happened and agree the pharaoh of the exodus was ramazeez ii but for many laymen this tends to be disappointing one of the main reasons is we're told there is no evidence any exodus occurred under ramazeez 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 pause it in 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 a 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 a 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 nunen says when one compares the above data it becomes evident that the exodus and wilderness traditions contains 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 in 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 and nehemiah these books have been shown to have old iranian influence given that they reflect time periods of heavy persian influence however ezra and nehemiah 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 nehemiah 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 eugerettic 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 the total word count i.e the relative frequency of egyptian loans is significantly higher in the exodus in 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 loan words 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 thus 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 hebrized version of the egyptian name that could have come from the structure that shows up in names like tutmos and rameses marerai 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 asir might derive from the god osiris and we can identify several other names that likely have egyptian roots now 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 an early origin all of these names have roots attested in the second millennium bc there is no personal name that appears only in the first 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 first 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 second millennium bc another piece of data we've already touched on which suggests the late bronze age for the account of the exodus is the use of the name rameses by the 11th century bce p ramazis was dismantled and the stones were moved to a new capital called tanis the city was abandoned and ramesses doesn't show up in later sources to refer to tanis so scholars note the exodus narrative seems to have been set before the dismantling of ramises later texts like psalm 78 refer to the area by the first 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 tech says this shows that the presence of the topping ramses in the book of genesis and exodus must have been adapted from a tradition older than the third intermediate in sayite periods the said changes in the physical and political landscape of the eastern delta including new major centers and toponyms were incorporated only later into the bible while the start of the itinerary in exodus reflects the topographical conditions of the ramizide period so exodus retained an older name supporting the case the account of the exodus goes back to memories from the second millennium hoffmeyer also knows other toponyms date back to the 19th dynasty p thumb has most likely been identified with a site that existed in the 13th century bce it was named petham by rameses ii sukit corresponds to an egyptian toppenin that is referenced in egyptian texts from around the same time period migdol refers to egyptian forts on the sinai peninsula says both the bible and the egyptian sources locate migdel outside of the delta proper papyrus anastasia 3 which dates to the 13th century mentions a watery feature called the waters of bale which likely corresponds with the biblical location called bales of fun another papyrus from the same time also mentions the location of bale safan in the region as well so the names of locations in the bible align quite well with the toponyms 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 pax his narrative with topographical detail the exodus is not only attested in the pentateuch jere hoffman says the exodus from egypt is the most frequently mentioned event in the old testament apart from the story itself in exodus 1-15 it is mentioned about 120 times in stories laws poems psalms historiographical writings and prophecies given that the exodus is multiply attested by numerous biblical authors james hoffmeyer and john bright can 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 ascribed 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 phrase is used in acadian or eugeritic texts where the right hand is portrayed exclusively as holding or grasping something joshua berman points out the doublet nature of exodus 14 to 15 which covers the account of the crossing of the red sea is similar to what we see in the kadesh inscription of rameses 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 to 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 kadesh inscription 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 in the song of deborah as hymns of triumph triumph literature such as murnepta's israel steele is unattested in the literature of ugarit but widespread in egypt historicized narrative in prose or in verse is completely unattested at ugarit 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 kadesh inscription points specifically to a ram aside time period sir allen gardner said of the inscription there is nothing in egyptian literature really comparable to this narrative of rameses ii i maintain therefore that ramesses ii's account of his hittite 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 kadesh inscription 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 exodus 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 and power berman notes the use of this theme in royal titles reaches its peak during the era of the military conquest of the tutmos side in ramazai 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 named the pharaohs in the pentateuch this appears to be a common egyptian theme in the second millennium fj yerko has pointed out the pharaoh's name is often omitted in administrative documents james hoffmeyer said from its inception until the 10th century the term pharaoh stood alone without juxtaposed personal name in subsequent periods the name of the monarch was generally added the usage of pharaoh and genesis and 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 1st millennium bce in exodus 5 moses does not say to the pharaoh he came to lead israel out of egypt for good but instead ask 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 ramesses ii state gangs of workers were idle for several days so they could offer to their gods or celebrate a festival moses's request seemed like a clever tactic to get rameses to agree to allow the hebrews to go out into the desert hoffmeyer 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 ember were not struck down for they are laden coming up eighteenth dynasty paintings show that barley and flax were grown together but wheat was typically harvested a month or so after that so hoffmeyer 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 it 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 loan 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 kadesh inscription and the specific use of toponyms suggests a more specific affinity with the time period of ramesses ii if 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 ramses ii the archaeological evidence not only supports the biblical account of the exodus but points to a ramezide 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 hixo's capital was at 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 a virus and remained 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 of ours 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 hicksos 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 knows canaanite style artifacts can be found at the site of a virus 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 one of ours 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 avarus 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 hicksos 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 b tech 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 have evidence slaves were used in the process of brick making a depiction on the tomb of reichmere shows foreign slaves involved in brickmaking later texts during the time of rameses ii also referenced slaves being used in the making of bricks additionally another text reports foreigners referred to as the hobby roo were dragging stone blocks for the construction of p ramazis so slaves working as brick makers and helping construct p ramses as exodus records also fits with the archaeological evidence the evidence strongly indicates a varus had a semitic population that was enslaved and involved in making bricks like what exodus records but what follows is exodus records the semites that 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 claimed the site was abandoned during the 15th century and during the reign of ahmed hotep ii scott stripling says there is no evidence of a semitic population in avarus in the 19th dynasty when ramesses ii ruled egypt the timing of the late date theory and he also says b-tech dates the 15th century bc abandonment of avarus then known as peruna fir to amon hotep ii there are problems with what stripling is claiming for starters peruna fur was not another name for avarus peruna fur was the name of the port at avarus the egyptian name of avarus was hatwarit 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 avarus was abandoned during the reign of amman hotep ii only the palatial district which is only about five hectares in size the larger portion of the city that centered around the temple of bale remained there and this was the asiatic population that had been there since the hixos that btec refers to in reality btec is talking about the egyptian administrators abandoning the site in the 15th century not the semitic population to quote after the conquest of avarus by amos 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 ahmed hotep ii we have evidence asiatic nomadic shepherds remain there along with the majority of the canaanite population there was a brief period during akhenaten'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 a varus 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 ramazai period the fortress walls from the time of king haremheb found at esbet helmy may be a hint that these walls could be part of his fortress it cuts into the remains of the hixo's palace and produced from its filling shards of moral d of the late 18th dynasty ramezide period from the time afterwards when everything was in ruins we have evidence of scattered ramazai 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 a virus served as a site for the cemeteries of p ramses during the ramizide 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 a varus was abandoned during the reign of ramazi ii and the native population then used the site as a cemetery the semitic 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 avars was abandoned the port was still in use long after this 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 b-tech 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 texts was one of the things god used to bring israel back to worshipping only him which was a process that took several generations to correct so finding evidence of canaanite polytheism at a virus should be expected if the biblical account is accurate so the fact that avarus 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 ramezide 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 petrovic uses this to argue the pharaoh of the exodus was ahmad hotep ii because he was not the oldest son of his father and his oldest son did not inherit the throne but by this standard ram aziz 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 texts in exodus because exodus 11 12 implies the pharaoh was excluded from the tenth plague since the plague would start with the firstborn of the pharaoh not the pharaoh himself the firstborn was often not the first child born but the heir designate given the context the tenth 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 first-born child during the 13th century ramesses 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 but nonetheless the data does indicate ramesses 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 pharaoh's air 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 texts 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 of blood could have been caused by an algae bloom in a nile estuary or heightened silt deposits that normally occurred 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 10 15 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 ram aziz 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 ramosite exodus is unlikely because ramesses ii was one of the most powerful and wealthiest pharaohs the exodus should have caused a massive decline in egypt and there is 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 rameses 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 it 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 ramez'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 and war however after this there are some indications egypt was not as powerful as they used to be ram aziz 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 in heliopolis 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 war stellae 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 and canaan so during the early reign of rameses 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 ramazi's reign that would suggest an exodus could not have happened and as we noted the archaeological evidence suggests avarice 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 ramezide 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 ramesses ii's oldest son a wood shortage which could have been caused by the eighth plague in 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 varus 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 ramses 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 and fled after which there is no indication the pharaoh died only the pharaoh's men hofmeyer notes no biblical text that mentions the demolition of the egyptian chariots at the reed 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 who went with them was somewhere between two and five 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 hicksos 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 modine 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 out between fifteen thousand and thirty thousand people david falk notes that since the exodus included a mixed multitude of other ethnicities it could have been as high as around a hundred thousand these estimates fit far more with the expected birth rates in 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 contexts 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 jenny 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 in 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 in their inscriptions and account of when their slaves managed to best 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 one percent 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 ramezide blocks were taken and reused in later temples and those stones were reused in even later temples and recycled even up into islamic times time itself has also weathered or eroded a lot of ancient egyptian history including destroying over 99 percent of ancient papyrus at avaris 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 at avaris some egyptian dynasties have also tried to wipe out the records of the previous pharaohs they despised 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 tut moses iii because he went on several campaigns and left a lot of inscriptions boasting of his accomplishments but we know less about his grandson tut moses iv because as peter clayton says our knowledge may be marred by a lack of texts 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 within the egyptian archaeological record we can see evidence of foreign semitic slaves around the site that was known as ramez's and as exodus records the site was suddenly abandoned during the time of ramesses 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 second 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 the 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 conquests 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 in their later conquest which we will look into next time you