Exodus on Trial: Were the Israelites Enslaved in Egypt?

Overview: Summary of both the evidence for and against an Israelite Exodus and the responses of each side. The element of embellishment in ancient story-telling and the possible ramifications of that.

The most wide-ranging scholarly debate of biblical history is the Exodus narrative and its aftermath of the travel in the Wilderness. Many books cover this extensive topic arguing both in favor and more frequently against the Exodus story. Here we will present a general picture, presenting both sides of the spectrum. The skeptics mostly argue that the Exodus story was written around the 7^th-century BCE. Other skeptics, however, would admit to an early composition of the Exodus based on some small-scale Exodus story that was exaggerated and developed over time into the grand Exodus story that the Torah recounts. We will get more into this later on.

Below is a chart of the more famous arguments for and against the Exodus narrative in Torah, along with the responses both sides of the argument would give. The first chart contains the arguments favoring the biblical Exodus along with the responses and the second chart includes the arguments against the Exodus story and the responses to those. Much of the evidence is superficial since there is no direct evidence for or against.

PROS:

Arguments for the Exodus:	Responses:
Inscriptions found speak of Pi-Ramesses being built by the Habiru slaves[1] (which may include the Hebrews as well[2]) in the 13^th-century using mudbrick, and having daily quotas[i] – just as described in the biblical account.[ii]	Many Western Semitic slaves were in Egypt and there is no indication that there was a specific group called Hebrews or Israelites.
Much evidence for large Western Semitic populations living in the eastern Nile delta in Egypt (near Goshen) at the end of the Bronze Age (the time the Israelites would have been enslaved).^[iii]	Perhaps just a coincidence.
The pathway of the Israelites in the Wilderness shows familiarity of the big routes in the Wilderness of that time.^[iv]	On the contrary, some sites are seemingly only from 7th century popular routes.^[v]
Ex. 13:17 speaks of Israelites avoiding Philistine territory for fear of war. Strong Egyptian fortresses were indeed found there.^[vi] Similarly, their route avoids almost all Egyptian troops (to the exception of Serabit el-Khadim which had troops at some points during the year).^[vii]	Potential military garrison in Sukkoth.^[viii]Also potential military camps in the several cities mentioned with the prefix of Migdal (which means “fortress” or “stronghold” in Hebrew).However, in response to this objection, those Egyptian fortresses were smaller than those at the Philistine territory – making this biblical verse rather intriguing. Additionally, it is unclear if there actually were troops in those places or not.
Hundreds of new settlements excavated in Judea and Samaria hilltops dated to the 12th century (the time the Israelites would have entered with Joshua). Interestingly enough, no pig bones were found at these settlements – something usually found at other sites – as per the Torah’s prohibition against Israelites eating pig meat.^[ix]	There may have been a sudden boom in the Canaanite population at the Late Bronze Age, requiring many to leave the cities for the hilltops. Alternatively, there was a subgroup within the Canaanite population that left the cities for the hilltops to start their own culture and religion. This group is later to identify itself as Israelites.
Egyptian records show that slaves would create the bricks and supervisors would watch to make sure they meet the daily quotas – as per the biblical description in Ex. 5:10-14.^[x]	Only few references to such, suggesting that this perhaps wasn’t a widespread practice for the slaves.
Ramses uninhabited from the 11th century, suggesting that the Torah author was around before then to be aware of the city.^[xi]	Although uninhabited, the city of Ramses was still in the memory of Egyptians.^[xii] Therefore the Torah author could have written about the city with that knowledge.
“Mighty hand” and “the outstretched arm” were Egyptian phrases and would make sense to Israelites leaving Egypt.^[xiii]	Egyptians had influence over Canaan for centuries during the Bronze Age and these words may have been a part of Canaanite culture – from which the Torah author would have gotten it from.
Tabernacle of the Israelites is most similar to the camp site of Ramses II at the famous battle at Kadesh. This is the likely Pharaoh of the Exodus.[3] God would have been using the same architect and layout in order to convert the allegiance directed to the Pharaoh who considered himself the divine warrior to the One True Divine Warrior, God Himself.^[4] ^[xiv]	Perhaps influenced by Egyptian architect because Canaan was under the influence of Egypt at the Late Bronze Age (and this would indicate an earlier history for the chapters concerning the Tabernacle). For those who advocate a late-authorship for the Tabernacle chapters (e.g. post-exilic with the “P” source), they would have to contend that this was merely a coincidence and the Tabernacle parallels other sacred sites in Persia or Assyria to some extent or another (although not as much as is matches the Kadesh camping site).
Egyptian names specifically for the early Israelites leaving Egypt (e.g. Moses, Aaron, Miriam, Hophni, Hur, Phinehas, Merari, and Pashhur). Although many of these names remained in use in Egypt later as well, some of them, such as Pinḥas, show an explicit connection with Egyptian personal names at the period in question, and a few, including Ḥevron (Exodus 6:18) and Puah (Exodus 1:15), are attested as personal names only in the mid-second millennium (that is, the 18th to the 13th centuries BCE).[xv] [5]	These names appear specifically for the Levite tribe, which gives the suggestion that perhaps the Levites alone have ascended from Egypt into Israel. [6] [xvi][However, it can be argued that all the Israelites were in Egypt but the Levite tribe alone got accustomed to using Egyptian names. Perhaps they served in higher offices than the Israelite slaves or served as leaders to the Israelites -as the Midrash suggests[xvii]– and adapted Egyptian culture as a result.[7]]

CONS:

Arguments against the Exodus:	Responses:
Unlikelihood of 2 or 3 million Israelites based on many archaeological pieces of evidence.^[xviii]	See “How Many Israelites Really Left Egypt” for a discussion of a smaller scale Exodus and possible explanations for the numbers given in the census of the Israelites.
No mention of any Hebrews enslaved in Egypt in any Papyri or temple inscriptions.	Most probably a smaller scale Exodus (see here) making it less likely to find remnants of the Hebrew enslavement.No Papyri whatsoever found in Eastern Nile Delta – area where Israelites would have been. 99% of Papyri lost and those few found are in the dry sands of Saqqara and Upper Egypt, a great distance from Pi-Ramses and Goshen area.^[xix]Most inscriptions are on monuments dedicated to the gods and Pharaohs. We therefore shouldn’t expect a humiliation to be recorded there. [But it may be countered that the Egyptians should at least record the events in a negative manner and blame it on sins of the people etc.] I am unsure if there are other examples of Egyptians recording their loses on the inscriptions, and if they did – how common would it be. [Ramses II, the most-accepted candidate for the Exodus Pharaoh, in particular was known for his propaganda and his failure to mention defeat, such as in the battle of Kadesh.[8]]It must be noted continuously that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence and this rule is reinforced constantly with the ever-evolving science of archaeology that changes over the years.
No mention of any Exodus with great miracles that destroy Egypt’s pride – most importantly the Nile turning into blood.	This is perhaps the greatest issue that the Exodus story has to deal with archaeologically. Yet still, lack of evidence doesn’t mean evidence of lack. There are many singly-attested events, which implies that if that single document hasn’t been found, then there would be no record for those specific events. This is because the archeological record for some things are scarce.[Ramses II, the most-accepted candidate for the Exodus Pharaoh, in particular was known for his propaganda and his failure to mention defeat, such as in the battle of Kadesh.[9]]
No traces of Israelite encampment in the Sinai desert.	Likely a smaller scale Exodus than traditionally thought (see here), thus less of a chance to find remains.Sinai desert is not preservent-friendly and only minimal areas were excavated with much speculation of what the Israelite route actually was.Israelites were nomadic tent dwellers and would leave little behind when traveling from place to place.Many major events reported in various ancient writings are archaeologically invisible.^[10] ^[xx]There are examples of known travelers in the Sinai desert that have left no trace whatsoever.^[xxi]
No mention of “Hebrews” or “Israelites” in ancient Egyptian documents of the time.	The Egyptians referred to all of their West-Semitic slaves simply as “Asiatics” and similar terms with no distinction among groups^[xxii] – just as slave-holders in the New World never identified their black slaves by their specific provenance in Africa.
Some argue that Pithom was only built in 7th century and thus couldn’t have been built by the Hebrew slaves.^[xxiii]	Smaller Pithom mentioned in 13th century inscription, to which the Torah is likely referring to.^[xxiv] ^{This city may be Per Atum, a city built by Ramesses II, the likely Pharaoh of the Exodus.}
“Goshen” seems to be from Semitic name “Geshem” which only came about much later than the 13^th century (and the Septuagint, which translates Goshen as Geshem Arabia, lends credibility to this theory).^[xxv]	“Goshen” and “Geshem” are vaguely identical. The Septuagint may have translated it to the city as it was referred to at that time after the Arabians resettled the area and named it Geshem (perhaps naming it after the original “Goshen”).
The biblical Egyptian names of “Safnas Paneach,” “Asnas,” and “Potiphar” were famous names in 7th century.^[xxvi]	Although less famous, those names were around earlier as well as the ancient records show.^[xxvii]
Fear of invasion from the East (Gen. 42:9) only an Egyptian concern from 7th century.	Still some concern about Eastern invasion during Bronze Age. Just because there was more tension on the Eastern boarder at the 7^th-century, doesn’t mean that it wasn’t always a national security concern.
Kadesh Barnea only prominent city in 7th century.^[xxviii]	No need for Kadesh Barnea to be prominent in biblical narrative. Israelites weren’t necessarily there for 38 years as commonly thought.^[xxix] There is dispute if excavated Ain el Qudeirat site is actually the right location for the oasis.
Edom was only inhabited by pastors before its kingdom in 7th century. Yet Torah describes it as kingdom.	Edom was a significant force in the 13th century. Ancient Near East documents from that time deal with Edom as a military power to be reckoned with.^[xxx] Recent findings have found dozens of mining shafts and a fortress in 11th century Edom (Khirbat a-nahas) and perhaps even earlier, indicating a powerful kingdom there.^[xxxi]
Ramses is spelled with a samekh instead of a shin. This was the 7th century pronunciation of the term.^[xxxii]	Perhaps a part of tikun sofrim (scribal corrections)^[xxxiii] that the sages in attempt to correct spelling. Alternatively, this assumption that the samekh spelling is only a 7^th century spelling, may be wrong.

In conclusion, we see a field of vague evidence flexible for interpreting either way. With the minimal data we have, we cannot know whether the Exodus happened as told in the Torah, whether the Torah’s version is based on a different true story, or whether the story is entirely fabricated by the Torah authors. Ultimately, it is a question of faith in the Torah as a divinely inspired document or not. Without Torah, there is no reason to assume there was an Exodus, given the fact that there is little collaborative evidence supporting an Israelite enslavement and exodus from Egypt. The absence of archaeological evidence is reason to assume it hasn’t happened, but the logical reasons to believe in Torah are reasons to assume the Exodus has likely occurred.[11]

Many critical scholars believe that there was a small-scale Exodus, with none of the biblical miracles and that story later developed into the biblical account of the Exodus that we have today.[xxxiv] This theory has support in the fact that there’s evidence that the author of the story has details correct about the Egypt of the 13^th century, yet also there is a glaring lack of evidence for the biblical miracles. But ultimately, we cannot know from archaeology alone what has occurred some 3,300 years ago, as previously argued.

But what if this theory is indeed true? What if the Exodus as written in Torah is merely a myth? What consequences would this have for Judaism? This would have major consequences, especially for neo-Orthodox Judaism, being that many Mitzvos are commemorating the Exodus account. But if the Exodus hasn’t occurred as documented in the Torah, it may not be the final-blow to Judaism. With the clear prophecy fulfillment at the end of Deuteronomy, we would be forced to say that the Torah is a mixture of truth and myth cobbled together and interwoven into a single document that is only partially divinely-inspired. Yet we have no solid reason to question the Exodus account as documented in the Torah and so we don’t need to highly consider this possibility.

The only possibility that should be considered is perhaps a smaller-scale Exodus with less miracles. The reason we should consider this, is because of the glaring lack of archaeological evidence for these major plagues. If this were true, the bulk of the Exodus account would have been historical, while the details of the miraculous Ten Plagues would have developed over time and would have been added to Scripture by a post-mosaic author in error. Ultimately, with the minimal evidence we have for either side, we cannot make any definitive case. But one thing is certain; the claim that there’s no evidence whatsoever for the Israelite enslavement in Egypt is unfounded.

[1] Leiden Papyrus 348, a decree by an official of Ramesses II concerning construction work at his new capital, Pi-Ramesses, declares: “Distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramesses.” See here (p. 25).

[2] It is unclear who the Habiru (also called Apiru) were. They seemed to refer to a misplaced population, foreigners, mercenaries, or self-hiring laborers. It would seem that the Habiru may have included the Hebrews/Israelites but was not limited to that specific ethnicity.

[3] It is very difficult to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus for a number of reasons. This is why there has been much dispute about it. However, the most widely accepted view is that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The uncertainty starts with Egyptian chronology itself. There are many disputes about the reigns of kings in the Old and Middle Dynasties. In addition to that, it is unclear for how long the Israelites were in Egypt for. While the verses suggest 430 years, rabbinic tradition – along with some biblical support – suggest only a 210-year duration in Egypt. Additionally, there is the question of the missing 166 years of Persian history that is not accounted for in rabbinic chronology. For these reasons, it becomes very hard to identify the Pharaoh of the Exodus, but most the data points to Ramses II who reigned somewhere between the years 1347 and 1212 BCE. See “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus? A Response to Bryant Wood” by James k. Hoffmeier in JETS 50/2 (June 2007) p. 225-247 – found here – for a discussion on Ramses II being the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

I want to make a few brief arguments in favor of a Ramses II Exodus date:

The striking parallels between the Ramses II’s military camp and the Tabernacle (later discussed). This suggests that at the time of the Tabernacle’s construction this architecture was popular or that the Torah deliberately chose Ramses II’s camp as the layout for the Tabernacle.
Ramses II boasts of Semitic slaves building the city of Pi-Ramses.
Just a little after the reign of Ramses II, about 300 new settlements appear on the hilltops of Judea and Samaria, distinctively without pig bones.
Hardly considered evidence, but interestingly enough the firstborn son of Ramses II suddenly dies in 17^th year of Ramses’ reign.
The Berlin Pedestal’s alleged reference to a tribe/nation called “Israel” in the 14^th century in Canaan is a debated subject and thus cannot be used as proof that the Israelites were already in Canaan at that time.
The chronology of I Kings 6:1 cannot be taken for granted as reliable chronology since it contradicts the counting of the years of the judges recorded in the Book of Judges by about 200 years! Therefore, it can be argued, that we rely on the archaeological evidence instead of the Israelite legends of the chronology recorded in those contradictory books of Tanakh. (However, if one is adamant in defending the historical integrity of the chronologies, some potential answers are available; see Andrew E. Steinmann, “The Mysterious Numbers of the Book of Judges,” JETS 48 (2005) 491–500, can be found here.)
Perhaps the only serious issue with the Ramses II model or the Exodus is the archaeology of the city of Jericho, a city which shows destructive layers in the 14^th century – not the 12^th century, when Joshua would have conquered it according to the Ramses II model. However, the overall evidence is for a Ramses Exodus. There are several ways around this issue. The Jericho narrative in Joshua may have been an error or embellishment. Or the city was rebuilt nearby and not yet found by archeologists or has eroded over time. Proof for this would be from the lack of archeological discoveries of occupation of other cities in a relevant time mentioned in texts of the same period. There are constantly major “updates” on archaeological cities being excavated.

[4]

dsfghjkl falcons

Similarities between the battle compound of Ramses II at Kadesh and the Tabernacle (that would have been built just a few decades after the famous battle):

The length is exactly double the width. There’s an inner open courtyard with a reception tent that leads to an inner chamber adjacent to it. This outer tent is double the length than the inner chamber. The positioning of those chambers are identical. The Tabernacle and the camping site both extend from East to West in its width, with the opening at the center of its eastern wall (see Ex. 25-27). Both have four military divisions each camped at the four sides of the structure (Num. 2). Two falcons spread their wings protectively over the symbol of the Pharaoh, just as cherubim spread their wings protectively over the ark in the Tabernacle.

What is the idea behind the Tabernacle paralleling the most famous military camp at the time? We can suggest that it was God’s way of telling the Israelites that He replaces the Pharaoh as the most powerful military force on earth at the time. In the Torah, God is repeatedly described as the War Hero assisting the Israelites in their battle. He is called a Man of War in Ex. 15:3 (also see Ps. 24:8).

What this seems to demonstrate is that the Torah author of this section was very familiar with the Ramses II camping site at Kadesh and had special interest in replicating that camping site in particular. If this author was none other than Moses writing after an Exodos from Egypt with Pharaoh Ramses II as the leader, this would all make sense.

It should be noted that other sanctuaries and tabernacles in the Ancient Near East do share similarities with the Tabernacle in Torah, but none are as strikingly similar as the camping site for Ramses II at the famous battle of Kadesh.

[5] Some might consider that the author of Torah specifically planted in Egyptian names in order to deceptively make the case for an Exodus at that time. The problem with suggesting this is that had the author intended to plant in Egyptian names, why only do so for the tribe of Levi? Surely he could have made a better case if Egyptian names would have been planted in all the tribes of Israel. In addition, the author seems to say things counter productive to the alleged case he is trying to make. Instead of letting us realize that the name Moses (moshe) is Egyptian in nature, the author gives it a Semitic touch by explaining the name as being derived from the Hebrew word “m-sh-th” which means to pull (see Exodus 2:10). Obviously, then, the author had no intention of fooling us into noticing the “planted” Egyptian names.

[6] However, the issue with this approach is that the tribe of Levi also have many Semitic names, implying that they weren’t merely just a tribe of native Egyptians that escaped slavery of Egypt into Canaan. This theory can answer that the tribe of Levi were originally Western Semitic natives who became enslaved in Egypt – but this is already becoming suspiciously similar to the biblical narrative. At this point the question becomes, if there’s so much support for the biblical narrative – then why not accept it as a reliable historical document for the most part.

[7] An intriguing connection may be made to the number of the Levites compared to the rest of the tribes. The average total of the tribes in the census of Numbers Ch. 1 and 26 is about 40-50 thousand per tribe. On the other hand, the Levites have a much smaller number than all the other tribes – a mere 22,00 (Numbers 3:39). This would indicate a different social structure that the Levites must have had in Egypt that would yield a much smaller population growth.

[8] https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kadesh

[9] https://www.britannica.com/event/Battle-of-Kadesh

[10] “The migrations of Celts in Asia Minor, Slavs into Greece, Arameans across the Levant – all described in written sources – have left no archeological trace. And this, too, is hardly surprising: archaeology focuses upon habitation and building; migrants are by definition nomadic.

There is similar silence in the archaeological record with regard to many conquests whose historicity is generally accepted, and even of many large and significant battles, including those of relatively recent vintage. The Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain in the 5th century, the Arab conquest of Palestine in the 7th century, even the Norman invasion of England in 1066: all have left scant if any archaeological remains.”

[11] It would be difficult to interpret the Exodus account in Torah as a mere metaphor since it gives off an impression of actual history. See the end of “Is Tanakh a Historically Reliable Document” for a brief discussion on this.

[i] Kenneth Kitchen, “From the Brickfields of Egypt,” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976), pp. 141–144 (can be found here). Also discussed in Late-Egyptian Miscellanies by Richard A. Caminos, (London: Oxford Univ. Press, 1954), p. 106.

[ii] See Ex. 1:11 and 5:7-9.

[iii] Ani Maamin by Joshua Berman p. 53.

[iv] http://cojs.org/exodus_itinerary_confirmed_by_egyptian_evidence-_charles_r-_krahmalkov-_bar_20-05-_sep-oct_1994/

Alan H. Gardiner, “The Ancient Military Road Between Egypt and Palestine,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 6 (1920), pp. 99–116; Eliezer D. Oren, “‘Ways of Horus’ in North Sinai,” in Egypt, Israel, Sinai, ed. Anson F. Rainey (Tel Aviv: Dayan Institute, Tel Aviv Univ., 1987), pp. 69–119.

[v] The Book Of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation p. 78-79.

[vi] Ani Maamin by Joshua Berman p. 53. Also see To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 268.

[vii] On The reliability Of The Old Testament by Kenneth kitchen p. 268.

[viii] The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation p. 74 and 76.

[ix] C. Meyers 2002:38, Confronting the Past: Archaeological and Historical Essays on Ancient Israel … By William G. Dever page 258, Canaan and Israel in Antiquity: A Textbook on History and Religion: Second edition By K. L. Noll page 165, Ancient Canaan and Israel: New Perspectives By Jonathan Michael Golden, Joseph Golden page 269

http://www.ijhssnet.com/journals/Vol_4_No_13_November_2014/15.pdf, http://hotcupofjoe.blogspot.com/2007/06/emergence-of-israelites-in-canaan-part.html,

[x] To This Very Day by Amnon Bazak p. 266.

[xi] The Book Of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation p. 76.

[xii] The Book Of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation p. 76.

[xiii] Dr. Joshua Berman in Ani Maamin p 55 (can also be found here: https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Evidence-for-the-Exodus.html)

[xiv] Ani Maamin by Joshua Berman p. 56-60 (can also be found here). Also see To Your Tents, O Israel: The Terminology, Function, Form, and Symbolism of Tents in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East) by Michael M. Homan p. 111-116.

[xv] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/22/books/review/james-kugel-great-shift-richard-elliott-friedman-exodus.html

https://mosaicmagazine.com/response/history-ideas/2015/03/how-to-judge-evidence-for-the-exodus/

[xvi] The Exodus by Richard Elliot Friedman chapter 2.

[xvii] Midrash Tanchuma Va’eira 6.

[xviii] https://jewishbelief.com/how-many-israelites-left-egypt/

[xix] On The Reliability Of The Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen p. 466.

[xx] Ani Maamin by Dr. Joshua Berman p. 45 (can also be found here: https://www.aish.com/jw/s/Evidence-for-the-Exodus.html)

[xxi] On The reliability Of The Old Testament by Kenneth kitchen p. 467.

[xxii] On The reliability Of The Old Testament by Kenneth kitchen p. 466-467.

[xxiii] The Bible Unearthed p. 66.

[xxiv] The Bible Unearthed p. 66.

[xxv] The Bible Unearthed p. 67.

[xxvi] The Bible Unearthed p. 67.

[xxvii] The Bible Unearthed p. 67.

[xxviii] The Bible Unearthed p. 67.

[xxix] On The Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen p. 272, 273, 467. Seems like they were there, later to leave and eventually return.

[xxx] On The Reliability of the Old Testament by Kenneth Kitchen p. 467.

[xxxi] https://www.haaretz.com/archaeology/.premium.MAGAZINE-a-chance-discovery-changes-everything-we-know-about-biblical-israel-1.8003920,

See T.E. Levy “Iron Age Complex Societies, Radiocarbon Dates and Edom: Working with the Data and Debates,” Antiguo Oriente 5 (2007) p. 13-34. Also see To This Very Day by Amonon Bazak p. 264.

[xxxii] The Book Of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation p. 73.

[xxxiii] See https://www.thetorah.com/article/tikkunei-soferim-and-the-ironic-emendation-of-rashis-interpretation for a discussion on tikunei sofrim.

[xxxiv] See, for example, The Exodus by Richard Eliot Friedman chapter 2 for a discussion of a theory that the Levites alone have had an Exodus from Egypt.