Apologetics: Debunking Deconstruction – Evidence for the Exodus.

In one of my early debates with Ark, one of the claims that he made was that there was no evidence for the Exodus and that all archeological evidence points to it never happening. However, is that true? Or is there actually archaeological evidence to support it that we just don’t hear a lot about? So, since Passover was yesterday, I figured that now would be a great time to explain the evidence for the Exodus.

#1: Were the Israelites in Egypt?

I’m starting with this because if the Israelites were not in Egypt, then already this story would have some major cracks in it. However, archaeologist Flinders Petrie found a stele in Thebes in 1896 that is now called the Merneptah Stele, named after the pharaoh that erected it, Merneptah, who ruled from 1213-1203 B.C. While most of this stele discusses Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans. The last three lines talk about a tribe in Canaan, with the hieroglyphs used to name the tribe being translated by scholars to be “Israel,” making this the earliest textual mention of them.

Furthermore, the hieroglyphs used to symbolize Israel has what’s called a “throw stick” over it, which is used to show that what the word is describing is foreign, but more interestingly was used by the Egyptians in reference to nomadic or seminomadic groups. This is interesting because according to the Bible, the Israelites would’ve been driven out of Egypt at this point and would either have been roaming around the land of Canaan or just starting to settle there.

Because of this, we know that they were certainly in the area, however, were they in Egypt as slaves as the Exodus account tells us they were? Well, we have evidence of this, too, in Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446. It dates back to 1809-1743 B.C. and has over 30 names that are Hebrew in origin, some of which are even found in the Bible. Even more interesting is the fact that this papyrus seems to overlap with some of the possible birthdates of the Patriarchs, which would line up with the Biblical account of Joseph being sold into slavery to the Egyptians. It’s also a ridiculous claim for skeptics to make that the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt as Egypt was one of the biggest powers of the time, and thus, they were taking slaves from every which direction, which, at some point, would include some Hebrews.

Even more damning for the idea that the Israelites were never slaves in Egypt is the Tomb of Rekhmire. Rekhmire was an Egyptian vizier who served as the governor of Thebes during the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II (keep Amenhotep II in mind since he’ll be relevant later). He is buried at TT100 (Theban Tomb 100) and the reason why his tomb is so interesting is because of all the artwork in it. His tomb is massive and lavishly decorated, with plenty of images of religious rituals and everyday life. However, most interesting is this picture from his tomb:

This is a picture of slaves making bricks. In Exodus, we read that that was one of the main jobs of the Hebrew slaves, so it’s highly plausible that what you’re seeing here is a depiction of those same slaves.

Archaeologists digging in the region known as Tell el-Dab’a (the ancient city of Avaris) have also discovered huge amounts of evidence for a largely Asiatic population, even finding ruins of homes, tombs, and temples that not only had Egyptian but also Canaanite influence in regard to their architectural style. Given that the Israelites were from that region, this would make sense, but it gets better.

Scarabs and seals from high-ranking officials bear Semitic names, not Egyptian ones. A massive statue has even been found there that portrays an Asiatic ruler, with some researchers suggesting that due to the prominence of the statue, how it was vandalized, and the tomb lacking a complete skeleton that this may have been a statue of Joseph. The age of Avaris also coincides with the rise of the Hyksos, a group of Semitic rulers that controlled Lower Egypt.

#2: Even More Geographical and Archaeological Evidence for the Exodus

Continuing with the subject of what’s been found at Tell el-Dab’a, let’s look at the history of Avaris. Avaris was later renamed Ramesses and was suddenly abandoned as a result of an epidemic during the 13th dynasty. It was also abandoned during the reign of Amenhotep II when he moved his capital to Thebes and was finally abandoned during the Ramesside period, replaced with the near-by Pi-Ramesses and converted into a burial ground, where we’ve found mass graves.

Oddly, too, Pi-Ramesses was suddenly abandoned. Archaeologists explain that the reason why was because that branch of the Nile in that region had begun silting up, thus changing direction, forcing the Egyptians to move with it, however, there’s a possible Biblical explanation for this, too, that’s also scientific. German biologist, Dr. Stephan Pflugmacher, believes that due to the arid conditions, the Nile slowed, dropping silt as it went, and that it’s possible that the river didn’t turn into literal blood, but rather was filled with a type of toxic algae called “burgundy blood” that turned the water red when it died. This alga would’ve then killed the fish and the tadpoles in the river would’ve matured quickly and hopped out, swarming over Egypt, dying, and bringing in the dreaded flies, gnats, and other insects.

[ Author’s Note: Personally, I believe that if the river really did turn to blood as stated, it would’ve had a similar effect. Blood is much thicker than water due to the formed elements (red blood cells, all manner of white blood cells (leukocytes), and platelets) and proteins that are in it. The water suddenly turning to blood would increase its viscosity and slow the river down considerably, especially as the water in the blood evaporated in the hot sun, leading to more silt being dropped amongst other things. The Ipuwer Papyrus also has a description that the Nile was blood, which, it being a lament, could’ve either been a metaphorical or literal thing. It also describes a lot of social and civil unrest and the rich becoming poor, and the poor becoming rich, which could’ve been a result of the Exodus (especially with how the Israelites, who had once been servants, peacefully plundered the Egyptians, which could explain the refence to the servant woman wearing expensive gold jewlery).]

Something else that’s quite interesting is the fact that we’ve found pumice stones in Pi-Ramesses, which can only be formed if there’s a volcanic eruption. However, there are no volcanoes in Egypt, which means there’s only one or two explanations for this, and they’re either that it came from the eruption of Santorini, or they are leftovers from the fiery hail. Due to the force of Santorini’s eruption, it would’ve sent a ton of ash and debris into the air, causing massive climate change in the area, affecting the weather, possibly raining ash and debris in Egypt and providing a humid climate for bugs like locusts to thrive in. However, this doesn’t really explain the pumice entirely, nor does it explain the fact that the hail was on fire unless it was red hot rock, which how it got that far, I’m not entirely certain. There’s also the fact that Santorini erupted long before the 18th or 19th Dynasties, making this even more strange. Maybe if any volcanologists reading this have some ideas, they could help me out in the comments.

#3: We Have an Idea of Who the Pharaohs Were

Though we do not know for sure who the pharaoh of the Exodus was, we do know he was a real person and have two theories of who he was. These two camps are that of Amenhotep II or Ramses II. While both admittedly have their problems when held up to history and the Biblical texts, there are some very convincing arguments to be made for both of them. I’m torn between the two, though I can see good points for both of them. However, I’ll let Dr. Joel Kramer of Expedition Bible explain the evidence for the Amenhotep II camp and you can do some of your own research and decide for yourself.

Until next time,

M.J.