Amazing Exodus Evidence – Part 1

BoxPeople often ask how it is possible that the Exodus story could really have happened when the experts tell us there is no extra-biblical evidence? People of faith might not need the extra evidence, but it surely should be there. The problem is resolved by realising that archaeologists and historians – to borrow from Indiana Jones – are “digging in the wrong place” and they’re missing some incredible findings!

The Bible indicates that the Exodus happened in approximately 1446 B.C. 1 Kings 6:1 dates the fourth year of Solomon’s reign (around 966 B.C.) four-hundred and eighty years from the event. This is often criticised as a mere approximation because Exodus 1:11 mentions the city of Raamses, hence the typical link to the thirteenth century B.C. pharaoh of the same name (famously depicted in film by Yul Brynner and Joel Edgerton). It is easy to reconcile this with the Bible, though, by realising this city’s name was simply added by the time of the final composition of the first five books of the Bible as being then-current (see also Genesis 47:11). Two inscriptions, one at the Berlin Museum referencing Israel as a nation at or just before the reign of Raamses the Great, and one from his son, Merneptah, which makes reference to Israel as a nation, would actually make a late Exodus date impossible.

Excavations of this site reveal an earlier city, Avaris, which shows evidence of the presence of wealthy Asiatic shepherds multiplying in number (Genesis 47:6, Exodus 1:9) and later coming to sudden impoverishment (Exodus 1:1-14). This matches the biblical account of Joseph and his family, as does the presence of a nearby canal from the time bearing his name, and as does the location of a pyramid encasing a giant statue which is dedicated to the memory of a non-pharaoh of importance also from outside Egypt (Genesis 41:43). It contains no bones, though, as expected from Genesis 47:30-31) .

British Egyptologist, Rosalie David, notes the presence of an enslaved pyramid-building workforce at the time in nearby Kahun. The people were also from the regions of Israel and stored boxes under their beds containing the bones of a large number of infants (see Exodus 1:22 and see photo attached). She also says, quite incredibly and without a link to the Exodus presumed to be two hundred years later, that their eventual departure from the region seems to have been “sudden and unpremeditated” (Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, 1996, p 199), as explained by Exodus 12:33.

Amazing! More tomorrow.


3 thoughts on “Amazing Exodus Evidence – Part 1

  1. Hi Rob.

    Thanks for posting, but I think we need to be careful not to overcook the evidence if we are to remain credible.

    For example, your last paragraph talks about “a pyramid-building workforce at the time in nearby Kahun.” Weren’t all the major pyramids built before Joseph’s time? Doesn’t the El Lahun (Kahun) pyramid belong to the Twelfth Dynasty (2000 – 1778 BC), well before the time of Moses and the Hebrew slaves?

    I’m being cautious because there are some absurd claims on the internet about the exodus (with Ron Wyatt among the worst offenders).

    Out of interest, Vose Seminary has a student doing her Masters at present in the historical setting of the Exodus.

    All the best.

    • Thanks Allen. As I’m indicating in Part 2, Egyptian chronology is notoriously unreliable and some place the twelfth dynasty at a later time period, anyway. I think this is an important background factor that helps open us to a revised look at the evidence. Rosalie David’s interesting book on Kahun also focuses on the same dynasty and doesn’t deny that other eras also had workers engaged in pyramid building. I am also cautious on all this, but think that the sheer number of findings that appear to collectively support the biblical account are worth a further look. Some clearly are harder to swallow, such as the finding of chariot wheels at the bottom of the Eastern arm of the Red Sea for example; even though a few examples look great in a documentary (despite being too few in number) the Wilderness of Zin was passed through after the crossing and not before. All fascinating if held lightly while amassing more weight of evidence over time to sift and sort the more reliable ones. Regards

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.