Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?

That there are people who do not believe the biblical accounts of the ancient history of the Israelites is not new.  What is new in “Doubting the Story of the Exodus” (LA Times, April 13, 2001) is that doubt seems to have been turned into historical fact.  Readers were told that there is a consensus of biblical historians and archaeologists that the Exodus did not happen.  In reality, though, no such consensus actually exists.

Many archaeologists, Bible scholars and historians continue to conclude from the evidence that the Exodus did indeed occur, among them the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hershel Shanks (Ha’aretz Magazine, Nov. 5, 1999).

Evidence for ancient events is very difficult to come by.  Sometimes, to be sure, indications of an event’s historicity is uncovered but more often all that can be done is to see whether the event can plausibly fit into what is presently known about the historical period.  Lack of direct evidence does not disprove an ancient event.   Nor can the existence of evidence only in later literary texts be taken as an argument against their reliability; the discovery of ancient Troy came about on the evidence of the much later writings of Homer.

The Exodus is dated by most of those who accept its veracity to about 1250 BCE.  We know that for the previous few centuries, the period during which the Israelites are reported to have come down to Canaan from Egypt and to have become influential, there was indeed a rise in Semitic influence in Egypt, led by a group of western Semites known as the Hyksos, who were closely related to the Hebrews.  At some point, ca. 1580 BCE, the native Egyptians rebelled against these foreigners, and this development can be taken to be reflected in the Bible’s description of the Pharaoh “who did not know Joseph.”  As a result of this change, the Semites, including the Israelites, found themselves in the difficult position the Bible records, one which must have lasted for centuries.  From this point of view, the story of the slavery and Exodus is perfectly plausible within the framework of Egyptian and Near Eastern history.  Further, we have letters which describe the life of work gangs from Pharaonic Egypt and these seem to paint a picture very close to that of the biblical report.

The Bible describes the period immediately after the Exodus as one of extended wandering in the desert. This wandering was said to result from the fear of the Israelites that a direct route to Canaan, along the Mediterranean coast toward what is now the Gaza Strip, would be dangerous because of the Egyptian armies stationed there. This circumstance has been confirmed as historical by the discovery of the remains of extensive Egyptian influence, habitation and fortification in the Gaza region in this period, especially at Deir al-Balakh.  Again, the biblical record is confirmed.

Further support for the historicity of the Exodus comes from a stele of the Egyptian ruler Merneptah (1224-1214 BCE).  In reviewing his victories against the peoples of Canaan, he claimed, “Israel is laid waste; his seed is not.”  Here  the text designated the people of Israel, not the land, as can be shown from the Egyptian linguistic usage.  Many scholars believe that this text refers to the people of Israel before they entered Canaan–that is, in the period of desert wandering.  More likely, it is a reference to Israel after they have entered Canaan, but before they established themselves as a sedentary population in the hill country in today’s West Bank (Judea and Samaria).  Since this view accords with the dating of the Exodus we suggested above, it seems that in this text, the only Egyptian document to mention Israel, we have a direct reference to the Israelites in the period of the Exodus and the conquest of Canaan.

Assuming the biblical account to be unreliable, some scholars have substituted a Marxist theory of class revolution to explain the formation of ancient Israel.  According to this approach, the masses revolted against their Canaanite overlords and, after taking control, forged for themselves the new collective identity and mythology of the Israelites.  Other scholars have suggested a process of differentiation in which some Canaanites began to see themselves as a separate people, and created an identity and a sacred history from whole cloth, thus inventing the Exodus and conquest narratives.  But who would invent a history of slavery and disgrace?

Further, this theory must explain away the historical and archaeological evidence.  Numerous cities from this period show a cultural change at precisely the point when the Israelites are said by the Bible to have appeared.  Indeed, the newcomers, since they came from the desert, show a lower level of material culture than the Canaanites whom they displaced.  This situation fits well the notion of Israelite conquest and infiltration.  Second, the Israelites, throughout their history in the land, were concentrated in those areas easiest to defend against the superior arms of the Canaanites, a fact that supports the notion that they were invaders.  Third, the doubters have claimed that few cities from this period show evidence of armed destruction.  But careful consideration of the biblical narrative, with due attention to the account in Judges and the evidence that the Canaanites were never entirely displaced, eliminates this inconsistency fully.  Indeed, the archaeological record supports a reconstruction of the historical events of the conquest when both Joshua and Judges are studied together.  Finally, these scholars often claim that the Bible is the only source supporting the Exodus.  But they forget that several different accounts of the Exodus exist in the Bible, in books written at different periods, thus providing corroborative evidence for the basic scheme of events.

We may not possess, at least at present, conclusive proof that the Israelites left Egypt en masse as the Bible describes.  What we do have, though, are several indications of the Exodus’ historicity, and ample evidence that the biblical account is entirely plausible.

It is a simple matter to claim that lack of clear, decisive external confirmation of the biblical account is itself a disproof, but no rational person believes that what has not been proven is false.  What can be stated with certainly, however, is that there is no consensus that the Exodus is a myth.

From: “Has the Exodus Really Been Disproven?” By Lawrence H. Schiffman.

Lawrence Schiffman’s Obituary of Joseph Baumgarten

An excerpt from an obituary written after Joseph Baumgarten’s death at the end of 2008:

Those who encountered Joseph Baumgarten in the academic world knew that he was a great scholar and a person of utmost integrity. Those who encountered him in the context of the Jewish community knew him as a person of deep religious commitment and utmost traditional Talmudic scholarship. Those who encountered him in both contexts had the opportunity to experience a seamless combination of the two forms of scholarship that in his person were unified as one. He was universally loved and respected throughout his career, and this has been reflected in the outpouring of sorrow at his passing by so many friends.

The full article is: Lawrence H Schiffman, ” Joseph M. Baumgarten, 1928-2008,” SBL Forum , n.p. [cited Dec 2008].

The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls at SBL Conference in Rome

The Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls
International Meeting of the SBL, Rome, June 30th-July 4th 2009
Organized by Armin Lange (University of Vienna) and Kristin De Troyer (University of St. Andrews)

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible

Talks
Emanuel Tov (Hebrew University of Jerusalem), The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Textual History of the Masoretic Text
Kristin De Troyer (University of St. Andrews): Looking at Bathsheba with Text Critial Eyes
Julio Trebolle Barrera (Universidad Complutense de Madrid): The History of the Biblical Text: Implications for Other Fields of Study
Chelica Hiltunen (University of Oxford), An Examination of the Supposed pre-Samaritan Texts from Qumran

Panel discussion
Russ Fuller (University of San Diego)
Arie van der Kooij (Leiden University)
Eugene Ulrich (University of Notre Dame)

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Understanding of Biblical Books I

Talks
Steven Fassberg (Hebrew University of Jerusalem): The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Language of Jewish Scriptures
Michaela Bauks (University of Koblenz-Landau): Knowledge, Nakedness, Shame, and Eternal Life in the Primeval History of the Hebrew Bible and in Selected Texts from the Qumran Library
Karin Finsterbusch (University of Koblenz-Landau): The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Deutoronomistic School
Eckart Otto (Ludwig-Maximilians Universität Munich): Did the Temple Scroll Substitute or Supplement the Torah?
Esther Chazon (Hebrew University of Jerusalem): Looking Back: What the Dead Sea Scrolls can Teach us about Biblical Prayer
Mika Pajunen (University of Helsinki): The Textual Connection between 4Q380 Fragment 1 and Psalm 106

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Understanding of Biblical Books II

Talks
Armin Lange (University of Vienna): “When You Die Your Remembrance Will Flower Forever” (4Q416 2 iii 7): Qohelet 1:11 in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls
John Collins (Yale University): The Book Daniel in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, commited
Bennie H. Reynolds (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill): Symbolic and Non-Symbolic Visions of the Book of Daniel in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Panel discussion
Ida Fröhlich (Pazmany Petr University)
Thomas Römer (University of Lausanne)
Raija Sollamo (University of Helsinki)

Ancient Interpretations of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Talks
Michael Segal (Hebrew University of Jerusalem): Forms and Techniques in Rewritten Biblical Texts from the Dead Sea Scrolls
Matthias Weigold (University of Vienna): Jewish Commentaries in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Sarah Pearce (University of Southampton): The Interpretation of Jewish Scripture in Philo and the Dead Sea Scrolls: a Comparative Perspective
Sarianna Metso (University of Toronto), The Reception of Leviticus in the Dead Sea Scrolls

Panel discussion
Esther Eshel (Bar Ilan University)
Florentino Garcia Martinez (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven)
Zlatko Plese (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

Living Jewish Law in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Talks
Larry Schiffman (New York University): The Temple Scroll and the Torah
Vered Noam (Tel Aviv University): Expounding the Torah in the DSS and Rabbinic Literature
Christof Batsch (Séminaire Qoumrân de Paris et Université Lille 3): Legal vocabulary at Qumran
Marcus Tso (Carey Theological College), The Use of Scriptural Traditions at Qumran for the Construction

Panel discussion
Philip Alexander (University of Manchester)
Lutz Doering (King’s College – Lon)
Alexander Samely (University of Manchester)

Ancient Jewish History in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Talks
Hanan Eshel (Bar Ilan University), New Discoveries on the Bar Kokhba Revolt from Refuge Caves in the Judean Desert
Jutta Jokiranta (University of Helsinki), The Sociology of Jewish Life in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls
Cecilia Wassen (Uppsala University), The Dead Sea Scrolls on Jewish Women

Panel discussion
Lester Grabbe (University of Hull)
Tal Ilan (Freie Universität Berlin)
Jodi Magness (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill)

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Ancient Judaism

Talks
Henryk Drawnel (The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin), The Initial Narrative of the Visions of Amram and its Literary Characteristics
Paul Heger (University of Toronto), 1 Enoch – Complementary of Alternative to Mosaic Torah?
Hanna Tervanotko (University of Helsinki / University of Vienna), “You Shall See” Rebecca’s Farewell Address in 4Q364 3 II, 1-6
Hanne von Weissenberg (University of Helsinki), The Book of the Twelve at Qumran and the Canonical Process

Qumran Conference

Qumran, the Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Interpretation conference. Details at Zionism and the State of Israel blog.