Transcription
After the children of Israel, in the mixed multitude, left Egypt, they were sentenced to wander in the desert for 40 years. The Pentateuch says many Israelite religious customs and rituals were laid down during this time period. If this is true, then the Israelites would have been heavily influenced by an Egyptian mentality, and most of their customs should have Egyptian markers or correlations with the second millennium BCE. But if these Israelite customs were made up at a later time, then we should find more affinity to Assyrian customs or markers from the first millennium BCE.
However, the events and customs found in Exodus through Deuteronomy do not fit with markers that would indicate a later tradition. Instead, within the Pentateuch, we find evidence of a group that had more affinity with an early Egyptian culture, strengthening the case. What we read goes back to the culture that experienced in Exodus from Egypt, as they reported.
[Music]
When people look for evidence of Israel's time in the desert, they often want archaeological remains, but such a request is unlikely to be fulfilled. Richard Elliott Friedman notes that skeptics assert, "We've combed the Sinai and not found any evidence." That assertion is just not true. There have not been any major excavations in the Sinai. Additionally, even if Sinai was excavated, it is unlikely we would find anything at all. Baruch Halpern notes that land armies did traverse that terrain without leaving detected archaeological traces. B.C. Sparks says semi-nomadic people and continual caravan crossings do not leave special identifiable ruts in the hard gravel or the soft sand. One rut looks like another. Nor do they usually leave inscriptions with labels identifying the travelers or the herders and the dates of their migration. Ernst Enough quips that pottery does not give passport information, and almost never is it possible to identify the nationality of a cooking pot. The archaeological invisibility of tent-dwelling nomads, as well as transient caravans and migrants in the lower classes in sedentary populations, make it difficult, though not impossible, to find some scattered traces.
[Music]
Over time, weathering would have destroyed a lot of the data that would have been left behind in the region of southern Canaan. Erez Ben-Yosef worked on an archaeological site that displayed remains of tent dwellers, but also reports the lion's share of such remains was entirely washed away by massive floods. And thus, even if such surveys were more comprehensive, they would still provide only fragmentary information. B.C. Sparks also employed a mathematical comparison to help explain the odds of finding remains of the Israelites in the desert. He notes census data indicates the population of the Bedouin tribes of the Sinai Peninsula is roughly 40,000 and has been static in terms of growth for centuries. Yet, we lack the overwhelming amount of the burials of hundreds of thousands to millions of Bedouins in some 100 to 200 generations since the Bronze Age. If the Exodus was actually comprised of 2 million people who remained in the region for only about 40 years, it would be the equivalent of finding evidence of twenty thousand nomads over the course of four thousand years. Sparks notes that the remains for millions who lived in the Sinai over the past four thousand years is missing, yet we do not think they did not exist just because their remains have not been found. Likewise, given that the Exodus population was most likely far less than 2 million and they were only there for 40 years, it is incredibly unlikely we would even find evidence of Israel's wandering period.
However, that alone doesn't mean there is no evidence to help support the historicity of the wandering time. The Hebrews left behind an account of their time in the desert, which can be examined and scrutinized. The Hebrews and the mixed multitude that went with them had spent generations in Egypt. If the account is based on a historical event, the people would have acted and thought in terms of the late second millennium BCE culture and Egyptian customs and rituals from the same time. If the Exodus is the work of later writers, we should find evidence of anachronisms in the texts that fit with the later Iron Age or Babylonian periods.
But when we dive into the Pentateuch, we find evidence of several internal clues that fit with an Egyptian culture from an earlier time period that later forgers would have had a hard time concocting. The most interesting thing that happened while Israel was in the desert was the construction of the Ark of the Covenant. But Egyptologist David Falk says the Ark of the Covenant, as we know it from the Hebrew Bible, is steeped in the culture and context of its time, the Late Bronze Age (circa 1500-1200 BCE). The Ark was constructed by borrowing elements from numerous features found in Egyptian ritualistic furniture. Cultic chests appear frequently in Egyptian history and were often used for transporting sacred objects and had long, removable poles attached to the base. Often, they were wood boxes covered with gold inside and out, had a sacred cloth draped over them, and had a lid with sacred statuary like the mercy seat. Yet, these features are also seen in the construction of the Ark in ancient Egypt. Building shrines for the gods was very important, and often the Egyptians would construct special shrines called "barks," modeled after boats. Egyptian priests would transport the idol in a bark. The Ark didn't contain an idol on top of it, but Dr. Falk notes it also contains similar features to Egyptian shrines and barks. It functioned as a shrine where God would meet with the children of Israel. The Ark is an ideal fit as ritual processional furniture and follows an Egyptian design pattern. Was the Ark a bark, a coffer, and a chest, a reliquary, or a throne? Yes, and so much more.
More interestingly, the artistic features of the Ark fit with a specific time period of Egyptian history. The pair of cherubs facing each other fits with Egyptian chests from the time of Amenhotep III onward. Later, during the time of Ramesses II, a type of Egyptian furniture called a palanquin throne, which was an exposed throne, often were made with winged goddesses protecting each side of the throne. However, in later times, these features fell out of fashion, were no longer used, and are also not seen in any time period before Amenhotep III. Therefore, the Ark's deconstruction and the dating of its symbols suggest the Ark was made no earlier than the reign of King Amenhotep III and no later than the end of Dynasty 20. The Ark of the Covenant fits extremely well with Egyptian ritualistic furniture customs and specifically fits with the time period around the Ramazai Dynasty.
Other cultic features from the Exodus narrative also fit with an Egyptian culture. When the Israelites made furniture for the Tabernacle, they followed Egyptian techniques. In Exodus 27, the altar is said to have horns on it, which fits with the Egyptian description of altars from the Thutmose side period and afterwards. The altar of the Tabernacle was metal laid over a wooden base. This is a common practice found among the Egyptians, who rarely made altars out of stone. In the Levant, building stone altars was the standard custom. In the biblical texts, the altar of the Tabernacle was constructed in the Egyptian method, but once we see the Israelites move into Canaan, they started building altars out of stone, the standard Levantine practice.
In the High Priest's breastplate, we hear that there was a turquoise gemstone. A 2017 study indicated turquoise was rarely found in Mesopotamia and Canaan during the Late Bronze Age and is virtually absent in the archaeological record of Egypt and the Near East after the 12th century BCE. In fact, James Hoffmeier notes a survey of Babylonian and Assyrian texts indicates there was no known word for turquoise. However, the Egyptians mined the Sinai for turquoise, which lasted until P. Ramesses was deserted, and the word the Hebrews used for turquoise appears to have entered their language from Egyptian prior to the first millennium BCE. Thus, the use of turquoise and the Hebrew word for it fits with an Egyptian culture from prior to the abandonment of P. Ramesses.
Beyond this, Hoffmeier lists other Egyptian aspects for the design of the Tabernacle. Many of the wooden objects, like the tent poles, were overlaid with a gold foil, which was a technique mastered in Egypt. The word for the priest's linen in the Book of Exodus stems from an Egyptian loanword, suggesting an early Egyptian origin for the priest's linen in the Exodus account. The priests also were to wear undergarments to cover their privates. Undergarments were discovered in tombs of priests in Egypt. The menorah and fire pan appear to have had some Egyptian influence, and many of the words used in describing the priest's attire seemed to have come from Egyptian words.
Even the encampment of Israel fits with a Ramized time period. Ramesses' military camps were set up in a rectangular fashion with an entrance in the middle of the eastern wall. The Pharaoh resided in the middle with a reception tent, and his throne was symbolized with two falcons facing each other with their wings spread out. The Book of Numbers states Israel encamped in a similar fashion, with the Ark in the center, which had two winged cherubs on it. The style of the encampment doesn't fit with later times, as Neo-Assyrian camps were oval-shaped. Joshua Berman says the military camp Kadesh constitutes the closest parallel to the Tabernacle, including the Temple of Solomon, known to date. The tent of Yahweh, the divine warrior, parallels the tent of the Pharaoh, the living Egyptian god, posed for battle.
Certain practices in the timing of Israelite festivals also have more affinity with the second millennium and seem to be attempts at cultic competition within the Levant. Richard Hess notes during the end of the Bronze Age, the West Semitic city of Emar reached its peak. When Emar thrived in the 14th and 13th century BCE, it had a lot of influence over the Levant and the surrounding areas. Richard Hess and Kenneth Kitchen note the cultic practices and festivals at Emar are similar to what we read in the Pentateuch, showing the Bible has cultic affinity to the Late Bronze Age. Emar 369 notes priests were anointed with oil, like what we read in Leviticus 8. Leviticus 10 notes a ritual with fire was performed that was forbidden by God. We see a similar practice at Emar, where a torch was used to meet with a deity on the first day of the priest's installment. Hess suggests in Leviticus 10, the two rebellious priests may have been participating in a similar ritual that honored another deity.
The Pentateuch talks about the differences between the priests, the sons of Aaron, and the rest of the Levites. The priests served inside the sanctuary, and the rest of the Levites did the work outside of the sanctuary. We see a similar structure in Hittite temples, where one class works inside the temple and another class works outside. The biblical punishments for infringements are also similar to what we see in Hittite and Egyptian customs during this time period. We see rituals concerning the transfer of evil to an animal and expelling them into the land. This occurs in numerous ritual documents from the ancient Near East, but the biblical version mostly resembles the older Hittite versions, not later Iron Age versions. At Emar, the installation of a priestess took nine days, comparable to the biblical time. Emar had a frame festival every seven years in autumn called Zukru, that revolved around the god Dagon, which had several similarities with Israelite festivals. We can see similarities to the Passover and Festival of Unleavened Bread. Both are referred to with the same Semitic verbal root. Both required the roasting of a lamb and the hiding of the deity's face. For both, twilight is a critical time. Both require a seven-day sequence and began on the 15th day of the first month. Both bring out holy relics for an important meal and special bread and drink, and with an important focus on family. Zukru has a ritual where oil and blood are rubbed on stones, similar to the biblical feast. Hess says the only other example of anointing with both blood and oil is found in the installation of the priest in Leviticus 8:30.
Another text from Emar is a ritual calendar that has several similarities to Israelite festivals, which are found in Leviticus 23. First, both calendars reflect more interest in one half of the year, focusing on spring and autumn. Both calendars use the name of the month as the primary means of identifying the month, and how the text is organized. For the first and last month, Leviticus 23 identifies the ritual actions that occurred by introducing each one with a phrase that includes the preposition "on," the number of the days, and the word for "month." Parallels can be found in the ritualistic calendar found in Emar, as well as in other Akkadian and Ugaritic calendars. Hess says the biblical Feast of Weeks, that occurs in the middle of the calendar, resembles the description of the Emar festivals during the months of Hiyaru. In both cases, these are intermediate, occurring between major festivals at the beginning and at the end of the calendar. In both cases, specifics as to the particular day of the month are missing. Therefore, it seems unlikely that a single standard formula can be identified for introducing calendar festivals. The Emar calendar demonstrates that such variation by itself does not prove a later editorial innovation. Emar's Zukru festival had rituals and timing that were similar to the Israelite Feast of Booths. Although Zukru was only once every seven years, Daniel Fleming notes it was also a seven-day interval with special attention to the first and last day. Both also occur on the 15th day of the month. In its seventh-year cycle, the timing of the Zukru matches exactly the covenant renewal of the Feast of Booths prescribed for Israel in Deuteronomy 31.
In Leviticus 23, there are two descriptions of the feast with different actions that were to occur. Some argue this is evidence of different sources combining into one or that a later addition was added in. But at Emar, we have different rituals that were performed during parallel periods. Richard Hess says in both ritual calendars, the differences in various details are matched by parallel periods of time when the feasts were celebrated and by similar general actions during the holidays. The similarities suggest that a second description of a ritual occurring on the same day or days as the first and positioned soon after the first description in a text does not by itself indicate that it is an editorial edition. Next, Leviticus 23 varies in how much detail is given to explaining each feast. The same is true for the ritual calendar in Emar. Some feasts are only mentioned in a single line, and a lot of details are given. Others, both calendars are uneven in how much detail is given to each festival. Emar also had a festival in the spring dedicated to the warrior and storm god Baal, which occurred at the same time as Passover. Passover also associates the God of Israel with a warrior persona who fought against Egypt and delivered Israel from slavery.
Now, despite the similarities, we have to note there are also a lot of differences between the biblical festivals and the festivals at Emar. However, the similarities suggest they emerge from the same type of culture and time period. Daniel Fleming puts it like this: "The similarities can be accounted for in part by the regional culture shared north and south along the route between Haran and Hebron." Israel was establishing itself as a distinct people during its wandering period and was getting ready to move into Canaan, so they seemed to have established festivals to compete with pagan celebrations and drew from the same cultural context, as well as drawing from their own history. New religious expressions almost always draw from a pool of ideas that are already in the culture. In other words, Israel may repurpose older pagan rituals to align with their own history and important events that define them as a nation. Nevertheless, the Israelite festivals established during the Exodus and wandering period fit with cultic competition from the end of the second millennium and not during the period of the first millennium.
Richard Hess puts it like this: "Whatever the dating of the final form of Leviticus 23 as we now have it and whatever concerns may have shaped it over time, this multi-level collection of similarities in form, in content between Emar 446 and Leviticus 23 demonstrates a heritage of the cultic calendar and rituals of Leviticus that predates the first millennium BCE. Indeed, this type of text in some of its special days with their rituals have a heritage that reaches back to the Late Bronze Age."
Apart from the religious aspects, we also see the covenantal formulas in the Pentateuch match with the same time period. Within the Pentateuch, God establishes His covenant with Israel, and it is written in the fashion of a suzerain treaty, which means Israel had become the vassal of God. It has often been argued that the covenant of the Pentateuch fits with a later Assyrian culture, but Kenneth Kitchen has surveyed the treaties from the ancient Near East and notes the way the covenant is formulated in the Pentateuch in Joshua aligns far better with how Late Bronze Age Hittite treaties were designed. The opening line in the Book of the Covenant, which contains the Ten Commandments, contains a specific introductory formula that is employed in ancient Eastern treaty texts from the Middle to Late Second Millennium BCE. Both begin with a title, then are followed by a prologue, stipulations, depositions, witnesses, and then blessings and curses. Later Assyrian treaties lack the historical prologue, no blessings to match the curse section, and no deposition section. Kitchen says that these treaties belong squarely within 1400 to 1200 and at no other date. "The impartial and very extensive evidence, 30 Hittite-inspired documents and versions, sets this matter beyond any further dispute. It is not my creation; it is inherent in the mass of original documents themselves and cannot be gainsaid if the brute facts are to be respected."
Victor Hamilton points out that some of the laws of the Pentateuch demonstrate an almost word-for-word correspondence with some of the legal works from the second millennium BCE, suggesting a template existed for these types of documents. Brevard Child says more than half of the Covenant Code's provisions have some parallel in one or more of the cuneiform codes, whether in the form of the same problem addressed or distinctions applied, a similar role, or an identical role. Some note the three recitations of the covenantal treaty between Israel and Yahweh vary between each other, but minor variations also appear among the Hittite treaties from the same time period. The main outline is present, all demonstrating cultural affinity with the biblical texts.
The Pentateuch also shares symptomatic details with Late Second Millennium treaties. The use of the term "bond" only before the blessings and curses, followed by the use of the joint expression for "bond and oath," is a second millennium feature not found in later treaties. The term for "treasured possession" is found with another text from the second millennium. The phrase "guard the covenant" can also be found in documents from the same time. So many linguistic features seem to fit better with the time period of the Bronze Age.
Another important issue concerning these treaties is the genre implies the authors were trying to record history and not craft a mythology. Dilbert Hillers pointed out the ancient treaties that used this structure were based on historical events to create a real sense of obligation. The history is the basis for your obligation. Parenthetically, if the history were to create any sense of obligation, it had to be substantially accurate, thus implying within the ancient Near Eastern culture, the treaties of the Pentateuch and Joshua were understood as built on historical events, not mythological creations, challenging the theory that the authors never intended to write actual history when they were writing down the account of the Exodus.
Kitchen notes, "The fact that the Pentateuch contains these complex features not only points to a time period when the biblical Exodus occurred but also that the corpus could not possibly have been reinvented even in the 14th-13th centuries by a runaway rabble of brickmaking slaves under some uncouth leader no more educated than themselves. In short, to explain what exists in our Hebrew documents, we need a Hebrew leader who had had experience of life at the Egyptian court, mainly in the East Delta, hence at P. Ramesses, including knowledge of treaty-type documents in their format, as well as of traditional Semitic legal, social usage more familiar to his own folk. In other words, somebody distressingly like that old hero of biblical tradition, Moses, is badly needed at this point to make any sense of the situation as we have it."
Essentially, the complexity of the Pentateuch points to an affinity with the Late Second Millennium, but also an author or group of authors who would have been familiar with treaties and religious texts of that time. This makes a Moses figure a likely explanation. Now, this obviously doesn't prove the existence of the biblical Moses, but it probabilistically can raise the case that a Moses figure existed. He would have had an education at the Egyptian court, and he would have been familiar with the documents of that time. During this time period, the Egyptians had a lot of interaction with the Hittites, so the Hittite comparisons with the biblical texts also aid the case for the historical Moses and Exodus.
Additionally, when we look at the protest movements of the Late Bronze Age, we see their structure and methods are similar to the Exodus. During the reign of Ramesses III, the workers of Deir el-Medina went on strike to protest unfair treatment from the ruling class, but they didn't elect a representative from the workers. Instead, a Medjay, who would have had access to the court in Thebes, became the representative because he could obtain an audience with the court, given his position. Likewise, a Moses figure is necessary for the Exodus account, as to get access to the Pharaoh, someone would have had to have standing with the royal court, like the son of a daughter of a Pharaoh, so the Hebrews could voice their complaints through him. So, a Moses-like figure fits with the cultural context of protest movements from that time period.
Some might attempt to argue there wasn't an alphabetic language yet developed that the Israelites could have used, but Kitchen notes this is not true. We do have evidence of an alphabetic form of Canaanite that can be found on pottery and seen in some of the Amarna Letters. As I noted in a previous video, biblical texts were updated over time to be consistent with linguistic changes, so it is not an issue to suggest some texts could go back to the end of the Late Bronze Age, as scholars like Kitchen and Joshua Berman argue for. Besides this, as we went over, we do have a wealth of internal evidence that supports the Exodus narrative. As we noted in Exodus Rediscovered, the amount of Egyptian loanwords in Exodus through Numbers is significant enough to suggest a connection with Egypt. Not only do other languages within the Levant lack this amount of Egyptian loanwords, but later biblical texts also lack such a high percentage of loanwords with the languages they would have more affinity with. The names within the Pentateuch do not suggest the mark of later forgers but have affinity with Egyptian names and West Semitic names from the second millennium BCE, and the Book of Exodus has knowledge of the Egyptian culture and customs that authors from the first millennium would have been unlikely to know about.
Additionally, now we see that the construction of the Ark and the Tabernacle came from a people who would have had extensive knowledge of Egyptian religious customs. The cultic and religious festivals fit with the culture of the Late Bronze Age, and the formations of the biblical covenant aligned with Hittite treaties from the same time. This extensive knowledge of Egypt and the culture of the Levant from the second millennium doesn't bear the mark of late forgers but reads like an historical account that came from a people group that left Egypt, as Exodus records.
However, after they left Egypt and wandered in the desert, we read the people of Israel invaded Canaan and took over large sections of territory. But is there any evidence this conquest ever occurred?