Evidence for and against the Historicity of the Israelite Exodus
John Collins argues against the historicity of the Israelite Exodus as is recorded in the Hebrew Bible. Collins seems to allude to the fact that the Exodus actually took place but disputes its manner and period as the bible puts it. He posits that current evidence suggests that the Exodus occurred around 1250 BCE; however, the timing according to the chronology in the Hebrew Bible suggests a time around 1445 BCE (Collins 109). This disparity in time periods negates the possibility that the Exodus actually occurred.
Furthermore, Collins dismisses the historicity of the book of Genesis, which plays a role in forming a basis for Exodus, by calling it a tale of family legends. He later suggests that the story of Exodus is a typical folktale which was written by people who did not experience the Exodus (Collins 109). He states that there are no writings in Ancient Egypt to support the historicity of this Exodus and the bible fails to contextualize the story as it fails to clearly identify the pharaoh in question and instead identify them as the pharaoh who knew not of Joseph.
Moreover, the fact that the Exodus as is in the bible does not appear in any ancient non-biblical source tends to discredit its historicity (Collins 110). The Exodus as is reported in the bible was too big a historical event to escape consideration by ancient writers. However, Collins appreciates current evidence that there were Semitic settlers in Egypt who were enslaved and forced to do hard labor (Collins 110). He cites the story of Manetho which mentions that the leader of these people of Semitic origin was Moses (Collins 110). He appreciates the fact that even though Manetho’s writing came long after the alleged time of the Exodus, it does not look like guesswork. He, however, disputes the historicity of the argument that it is these Semites who were expelled from Egypt who settled in Jerusalem.
One evidence of the historicity of the Exodus that Collins sites is the fact that the towns mentioned in the bible – Rameses and Pithom existed albeit with different names to them (Collins 108). Further, the author agrees that there is substantial evidence suggesting that Semitic settlers were forced to build the cities. The use of the words ‘Apiru’ which means ‘Hebrew’ to denote these Semitic workers further confirms that the Israelites were once enslaved in Egypt (Collins 109). Collins thus seems to conclude that even though the Exodus might have occurred, the biblical account of the same is hyperbolic and inaccurate; in other words, the Exodus did not occur at the time and in the fashion suggested in the bible. Also, the Exodus could have occurred in bursts rather than one event where a huge group of Israelites left Egypt.
On the other hand, James Hoffmeier provides bits of archeological evidence to support the historicity of the biblical Exodus as it is. Hoffmeier’s lecture mainly refutes the view by some of his fellow Egyptologists that the geography of the Exodus is derived from the sixth century BCE and is not a clear indication of what transpired during the Exodus. In other words, he utilizes Geography to confirm the historicity of the Exodus as recorded in the Hebrew Bible. First, he confirms archeologically that a city called Rameses in Eastern Egypt did exist and uses paintings he recovered from ancient caves to confirm that foreigners of Assyrian and African origin were forced to work on the buildings. He further suggests that the later town of Zoan or Tanis arose from the ruins of Rameses and has several references in the bible. He also uses other paints to confirm that foreigners of Semitic origin worked on firms in Egypt. These foreigners could be the Israelites as the bible suggests. He even cites an ancient writing which referred to these laborers as ‘Habiru’ which means Hebrew. Furthermore, Hoffmeier recovers a block – Stele of Merneptah – written by the son of Pharaoh Rameses II around 1280 BC that mentions Israel probably as a suggestion that Israelites once lived in Egypt.
Hoffmeier further confirms the geography of the biblical Exodus is realistic of the suggested period of the Exodus. He confirms that the town of Succoth where the Israelites headed to on the way from Egypt existed as Meskhuta in ancient Egypt. Hoffmeier expounds on the security checks of Succoth and other border cities and explains why it was best for Israelites to head south rather than to follow the Palestinian route. In other words, he explains the myth of turning back that the Bible uses; in the bible, the Lord warns Moses against taking the shorter route as the Israelites would be tempted to turn back. He even attempts to give evidence of the miracle sea that was the hallmark of the biblical Exodus. At the sites he suggests, his team excavated the largest collection of horse bones and muzzles ever excavated hence confirming the historicity of the drowning of the Egyptian army which pursued the Israelites.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Collins’ Models of Israel’s Presence in Canaan
The immigration model suggests that the Israelites first settled in highland cities and then later moved to the lowlands. The model as proposed initially by Noth and Altman agrees that the Israelites were not native Canaanites but rather a group of strangers who came to settle in Canaan (Collins 186). This assertion is the greatest strength of the theory as it is in sync with the biblical model that suggests that Israelites were foreigners in Canaan. Further, the theory is supported by quotes in the Bible; for instance, a verse in the book of Judges I suggests that the Canaanites held to the lowland cities for a longer time than they did to the highland cities. Some patriarchal stories in the book of Genesis also suggest this model (Collins 187). Moreover, archeological evidence suggests that settlers inhabited the lowland areas after they had settled in highland areas. A major weakness of this theory, however, is that it does not specify whether the Israelites were violent invaders or peaceful settlers. Furthermore, the account is not agreeable to the biblical account of Canaan conquest as is recorded in the book of Joshua.
The conquest model suggests that the biblical account of the conquest of Canaan is essentially correct and archeological evidence can support it. Albright suggested that the violent destruction of Canaanite cities that the book of Joshua suggests would have left behind rich archeological evidence which they set out to unveil (Collins 188). The discovery of tells – evidence of frequent destruction of cities – is a major strength of the theory as it proves the violent destruction of Canaanite cities. Further, archeological evidence suggests the massive destruction of Canaanite cities in the late Bronze Age – the presumed time of the biblical Exodus (Collins 188). However, the major weakness of this theory lies in difficulty in corroborating archeological evidence to the biblical account of Canaan invasion. The Bible suggests that the destruction started in the Transjordan cities; however, archeological evidence suggests that the Transjordan cities were uninhabited long after the presumed time of the exodus and thus the Israelites could not have seized these cities. Further, archeological evidence suggests that Jericho and Ai were not walled cities at the presumed time of the Exodus and thus the account of Joshua destroying the cities’ walls is false. Even though Hazor and Bethel were destroyed at the appropriate time, the bible tells a different story; in fact, the Bible does not mention Hazor strongly.
Mendenhall suggested the revolt model of Israelite settlement in Canaan out of his dissatisfaction with the biblical account of this settlement process. His suggestions also stem from the discovery of the Amarna letters in Egypt in 1888 (Collins 189). These letters were written by Canaanites to the Egyptian pharaoh who seemed unconcerned with the Canaanite territory of his kingdom to inform him about a group of people who were causing turmoil in Canaan and resisting Egyptian authority. The Amarna letters describe these people as Habiru or Abiru; even though this term is not ethnic, it often refers to Hebrews. The major strength of this model is that it images the violent destruction of Canaanite cities and the resistance of Canaanite religions that the book of Joshua describes. However, a major weakness of these model is its failure to mirror the exact time of the Exodus as per biblical chronology and archeological evidence. The Amarna letters were written at a period that is almost a full century before the date of the Exodus as archeology suggests. This discovery, therefore, means that it is not the immigrant Israelites whom the Amarna letters are referring to.
The treaty model suggests that the Israelites settled in Canaan by forming treaties with their superiors in the area (Collins 190). A major weakness of this theory is, thus, its sharp difference to the biblical account of the violent conquest of Canaan. Further, the theory derives chiefly from the contents of the Vassal Treaties of Esarhaddon (VTE). However, the VTE dates as late as the seventh century BCE while archeological account and biblical evidence suggest that the account of Israelite settlement as suggested in Deuteronomy and Joshua occurred more than five centuries before this period. The only key strength of this theory is the discovery of the VTE and its close resemblance to the book of Deuteronomy. Inasmuch as the VTE is a treaty forcing Assyrian subjects to pledge allegiance and loyalty to Assyrian gods and the son of Esarhaddon, Deuteronomy is a treaty that forces the Israelites to pledge allegiance and loyalty to Yahweh and Joshua who is to take over from Moses. Both treaties utilize a series of curses and warnings to force allegiance. Their similarity, thus, suggests that the Israelites settled in Canaan through multiple treaties.
The Vassal Treaties and the Book of Deuteronomy
Even though it is not known exactly, one can argue that one of either the Vassal treaties or the book of Deuteronomy was modeled from the other. Understanding the context of the vassal treaties can, therefore, help one to understand the book of Deuteronomy better. The vassal treaty of Esarhaddon, for instance, was a series of loyalty oaths that the king imposed on the Assyrian people to ensure that they were loyal to his successor Ashurbanipal (Collins 161). The vassal treaties also forced the king’s subjects to pledge loyalty to the Assyrian Gods. In the same way, the book of Deuteronomy is a series of oaths prescribed to the Israelites to ensure that they remained loyal to Yahweh and to Joshua who was Moses’s successor (Collins 161). Both the Assyrian treaties and the book of Deuteronomy use a series of curses to warn the subjects of the oaths about breaking the oaths. In some instances, the order of the curses is even similar. The only difference between the two is that instead of multiple Assyrian gods, the book of Deuteronomy requires the subjects to be loyal to one God – Yahweh. In other words, the contexts of the two texts are largely similar – both texts require the subjects to pledge loyalty by way of oath to a new earthly leader and a higher deity.
How Leviticus Deals with Demons
Leviticus, in line with the monotheistic nature of the revolutionary religion that the Israelites practiced, disregarded demons (Milgrom 31). Rather, Leviticus effectively abolishes the realm of demons and posits that the only beings that are important when considering the loss of the altar’s purity due to sin were human and the almighty God, Yahweh. Leviticus posits that the human sin was capable of contaminating the altar and hence creating the need for purifying the altar. However, unlike the neighbors of Israel who believed that demons were responsible for contaminating the altar, the Israelites believed that human sins directly contaminated the altar and angered God (Milgrom 31). In fact, Leviticus suggests that extreme sin was capable of driving Yahweh away from the people and leaving them to struggle for themselves. Thus, in Leviticus, demons are not a mediator between man’s sin and the God’s anger. Rather, God deals and communicates with man directly without a mediator. In other words, Leviticus says there are no demons.
Gods Promise to David and its Relation to Messianic Expectations
God promises David a famous name that shall be remembered by all earth. The Lord also promises to make a house for David. God promises the people of Israel a dwelling place that will be free from interference by outer kingdoms and oppressors. He also promises to relieve Israel of its afflictions by violent men. God promises to raise a kingdom out of David’s descendants. He promises to establish David’s throne forever and that David’s descendant will be the person to build the temple of the Lord. God promises to take David’s descendant as his son whom He shall discipline and not depart from.
The Lord’s promises to the house of David manifest in various ways throughout the scripture. In Isaiah chapter 7, for instance, the Lord safeguards Judah as he promised to establish David’s throne forever and promises to raise a liberator in the lineage of King Ahaz. This liberator will be called Immanuel. Prophet Isaiah emphasizes this concept in the eleventh chapter of the book as he confirms the coming of a future king who will liberate all oppressed Israelites and judge all people fairly. The prophecies of Nathan and Isaiah on the house of David manifest in Jesus Christ who is born in the lineage of David (Sri 10). Even though Jesus Christ is not a military liberator as the earlier prophets depicted, he is an heir of the everlasting throne that God promised David. Jesus Christ is the undisputed leader of the church. As such, Jesus himself doubles as the dwelling house of the Lord that David’s descendants were to build. Furthermore, as the concept of the Trinity in the New Testament posits, Jesus Christ is the son of God; the ultimate heir to David’s throne was a person who would be God’s son. Moreover, the teachings of the New Testament expose Jesus Christ as the good heir who would judge everyone fairly and liberate all that Prophet Isaiah talks about. According to the New Testament, Jesus liberates humanity from the bondage of the devil and sin (Sri 10). Therefore, Jesus Christ is the ultimate heir that would sit on David’s throne forever and be close to the Lord; the New Testament’s reference to Jesus Christ as either the son of God or the son of David is, in itself, emphasis to this fact.
Works Cited
Collins, John J. Introduction to the Hebrew Bible and Deutero-Canonical Books. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2014.
Milgrom, Jacob. Leviticus: A Book of Ritual and Ethics: A Continental Commentary. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2004.
Sri, Edward P. Mystery of the Kingdom: On the Gospel of Matthew. Steubenville, Ohio: Emmaus Road Pub, 1999.
