Finding History in Exodus and Numbers
Introduction
Throughout the biblical narrative, Moses is a man of immense stature, from humble beginnings and a regrettable past he unexpectedly becomes God's chosen person to lead the Israelites out of slavery in Egypt. Moses documents these miraculous events throughout the five books of the Pentateuch. Despite the far reaching and long standing acceptance of these books as trustworthy and historically useful, Moses' writings have been scrutinized by modern scholarship, especially in the disciplines of archaeology and historiography. Postmodern scepticism of meta-narratives and miraculous events has further eroded the foundation part of history that the Holy Scriptures once held. When studying the Pentateuch, post-enlightenment scholars have been able to question a seemingly endless number of issues within the biblical narrative; often raising questions about the historicity of the contents, and what archaeological proof is available to support the bible as history. For this paper the scope of study will be limited to understanding the historicity of the Exodus story, evaluating what historical proof can be found to support this narrative as well as what to do with the overly large numbers of people reported to be present in the desert after the exodus where the biblical account records that the Israelite population after the exodus described in the book of numbers seems unbelievably large and has the potential to become a stumbling block for many who as a result cannot accept the book of Numbers as even remotely accurate to actual historical events.
Authorial perspective
An author's historical bias will almost always show up in his or her work. The religious underpinnings connected to the study of the history of Israel have the potential to make biases more prominent and more influential in the study, either scholars will seek to confirm or deny the bible as truth. This quest to either confirm or deny the bible can be placed into one of two polarities recognizing that in reality most people wall fall somewhere on along the continuum rather than being assigned to one particular pole . The Maximalist approach comes from the position that a historical statement is accepted until proven contrary, and the minimalist approach begins from the opposite assumption, that a historical statement is denied until proven true, leaving the burden of proof on others. Hoffmeier points out that the minimalist approach is flawed in its “built-in bias against ancient writers for whom there was no church-state, religion-history separation or dichotomy between secular and sacred worlds.” The notion that history and archaeology can be studied from a completely objective point of view and that an objective and equally representative view of history is possible seems to be a hopeless task. Despite abundant attempts to uncover the “real Israel”, the “real exodus” or the “real Moses” contrary to the biblical narrative, many biblical scholars remain confident that the Bible in its particular genre of literature is accurate to the historical events of the day. An attempt to dismiss the biblical record as false history would mean having to apply the same dismissals to most literature written at the same time. Kenneth Kitchen says that, “when reading all the other literature of the biblical world, we find deterministic theologies in command, as much as in any biblical writing; in those cases, it is usually perfectly feasible to discern the historical basis, and there is no factual reason for reading the biblical writings any differently.” The biblical record provides pieces of the historical story that archaeology will never be able to prove or disprove. In fact, all archaeological evidence is only a partial picture of the past, and what is found must be interpreted. The biblical record of the exodus is not easily verified by archaeological evidence, the written documents provide a unique narrative of a small group of people who would have left minimal archaeological evidence of their impact on the earth. Aaron Brody states that, “in general, archaeological inquiry is much better at approaching questions related to mid- and long-range types of history: social, economic, religious, technological, environmental, and agricultural, to name a few.” Therefore, trying to use archaeological evidence to prove or disprove specific aspects of the biblical narrative becomes very difficult. Of the archaeological evidence uncovered to date, Provan, Long and Longman maintain that “[the]... archaeological evidence...in no way invalidates the biblical testimony.” Likewise, I will support the viewpoint that the biblical testimony, when interpreted properly with good exegesis, is capable of providing an accurate historical record of the Israelite people who were set apart by their God, Yahweh. In writing this paper I am not seeking to deconstruct or disprove the biblical narrative, but rather provide resolutions and alternative exegetical options for issues that have presented reasons to question the accuracy of the bible as history.
The Exodus as History: Dating
The exodus story holds a special place throughout history. The story is one of revolution that can resonate throughout generations. From the early church to oppressed people today, the story provides hope for those people who God has called, that He will provide and deliver his people regardless of how long it takes. At the same time, Exodus is not a story about overnight deliverance, it is a story about the long and tiresome road that the Israelites have to walk as they repeatedly learn to trust Yahweh as their God. Michael Walzer outlines some of the places that this great story has been used including: as a source of national theology, as the basis for a specific political stance held by John Knox or John Calvin, or as imagery for the seal of the United States. However, despite the prominence of allusions to the Exodus narrative throughout history, the actual historicity of the story has been repeatedly challenged.
Historiography of ancient Israel has identified many potential problems with the Exodus story and the proceeding events that are described in the book of Numbers. The archaeological and academic search for the historical Israel has relegated many of the narratives of the Old Testament to the status of folklore or grandiose legends. However, for those Christians who maintain that the Bible is the true and inspired word of God, what evidence is there to support that these stories are in fact accurate accounts of history within the literary genre that they exist? In fact, a strong argument can be made that biblical accounts of the exodus and desert wanderings can be historically reconciled, if not verified and many aspects of the biblical story that scholars and archaeologists have questioned in the past are often overturned when evidence is evaluated from a different perspective.
One of the first obvious questions that must be asked of the exodus narrative is: Is there evidence of Hebrew people living in Egypt at the time of the exodus? While this seems like a logical starting point, the question is not as simple as it may first appear. This question is predicated on knowing the actual date of the exodus which is problem number one. The actual date of the exodus, even within an approximate two to three centuries is difficult for scholars to agree upon. “It is clear that even after a century of academic inquiry into the date of the exodus, we are no closer to a solution today.” The bible itself does not provide any evidence to provide historians with a time period for the exodus out of Egypt. Best possible guesses from numbers given within the biblical sources are often clouded by the use of numbers that are regularly used for symbolic purposes. Numbers such as the 480 years from 1 Kings 6:1 seem to be more symbolic than historically accurate, representative of twelve generations of forty years. Similarly, the use of forty years, throughout both Old and New Testaments of the bible, is symbolic of a passage of time and not necessarily indicative of forty actual years. Even if these numbers are taken as historically accurate, an early dating of the exodus event is favoured. This date falls around the middle of the 15th C, BCE. Hawkins points out that
1 Kgs 6:1 dates the departure from Egypt at 480 years before Solomon's fourth year as king. Solomon's accession date can be securely fixed at 970 BC, thanks to synchronisms between biblical and Assyrian texts. This would set Solomon's fourth year of reign at 966 BC. Working backwards 480 years from 966 BC produces a date of 1446 for the Exodus.”
Another helpful piece of evidence for dating the exodus would be if the scriptures provided the name of the Egyptian king at the time of the exodus, this would allow historians to fairly accurately pinpoint the date of the exodus from the well documented list of Egyptian kings. Instead, the biblical text says “During the night Pharaoh summoned Moses and Aaron and said, 'Up!' Leave my people, you and the Israelites!” (Exod 12:31, NIV) Repeatedly, the Egyptian king is referred to only as Pharaoh. The missing Pharaoh's name seems like a weak point in the historicity of the exodus, pointing towards late authorship where the author lacked knowledge of the Pharaoh's name. Furthermore, a post exile exodus authorship would benefit from omitting Pharaoh's name in order to maintain a broader, longer lasting narrative. However, Hoffmeier has demonstrated that it was common practice, even by Egyptian historians of the day, to exclude the king's name in writings , especially if the king who was considered an enemy. Annals of Thutmose III describe the account of the king's campaign against the king of Kadesh, but simply refer to him as “that wretched enemy” Therefore it is reasonable to believe that the biblical omission of Pharaoh's name was in keeping with the literary style of the day.
Over the past century of scholarly work on dating the exodus a number of dates have been suggested. Historically, biblical scholarship has placed the Israelite oppression during the time of Pharaoh Ramses II, and the exodus event during the reign of his son Merneptah. Much of this evidence is based on the passage that says "And they [Israel] built for Pharaoh storage cites, Pithom and Ramses.” (Exod 1:11, NASB) Robert Vasholz notes that “There is a general consensus among Egyptologists that the long reign of Ramses produced not only significant military achievements but also substantial building projects.” It would stand to reason that if the Israelites were enrolled in forced labour, as the exodus narrative describes, it would have been during this Pharaoh. However, this time line fell apart with the discovery of the Merneptah Stele which makes reference to Israel as a people and is dated to 1209. This archaeological evidence would shift the date of the exodus to earlier in history, based on the assumption that in order to warrant mention in the Merneptah Stele, Israel would have had to be an established nation during the time of Pharaoh Merneptah, not just a fleeing disbanded ethnic group. However, the early dating of the exodus event has since been questioned, and a later date of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, or the transition between the Late Bronze and Iron Age I. Furthermore, some scholars will place the exodus in the 12th and 13th centuries (BCE), because this dating corresponds with political unrest between the Egyptians and the Hittites. At this time both political empires collapsed and would have allowed an oppressed people the opportunity to escape. Such attempts to place the biblical narrative within a politically and historically probable framework risk diminishing the role of Yahweh in the story and ultimately disregard the overarching theme of the book of Exodus; that Yahweh is the one who is responsible for delivering the Israelite people from the bondage of Pharaoh’s hand.
One hundred years of biblical scholarship re-evaluated in light of new archaeological evidence has been unable to pinpoint the date or even century that the exodus occurred. Each scholarly attempt to establish a date seems to be rebutted by new archaeological evidence or a new interpretation of scripture as a historical account. The ongoing debate about the dating of the exodus does help to establish that there was in fact a significant number of Hebrew people living in Egypt at some point during the 14th to 11th Centuries BCE.
Israel in Egypt
Further discussion of dating the exodus seems almost futile when a century of biblical scholarship has not been able to answer the question. Instead, it is fitting to move on to the initial question asked at the beginning of the previous section: Is there historical evidence that Hebrew people were living in Egypt prior to the exodus event? Without a specific date for the exodus, a survey of historical evidences of Israel in Egypt seems to be the appropriate approach to this question. The presence of Israelites in Egypt as slaves is well accepted. John Bright said that, “there can really be little doubt that ancestors of Israel had been slaves in Egypt and had escaped in some marvellous way. Almost no one today would question it.” (John Bright in Stiebing, 197) The presence of Israelites in Egypt as slaves helps to establish the entire exodus narrative as being at least partially historically accurate. In the very least, one can assert that there were descendants of Israel who were enslaved under Pharaoh. It is indisputable, in that both Hebrew and Egyptian sources agree, there was a Semitic presence in Egypt during the possible times for the exodus. Evidence of the Semitic presence will be discussed further in the following section. Although there is no distinct reference in Egyptian texts to Israelite slave workers, many of the other elements of the Exodus narrative are included in Egyptian texts, including the description of brick makers involved in various stages of the process, and task masters who would ensure workers did not diverge from their tasks. Surely, the events described in the exodus story seem to align with Egyptian history, demonstrated through art in temple tombs dated from 2600-1070 BCE. Where archaeological evidence exists, biblical scholars have sought to draw parallels to the biblical narrative, the most common example being the brick making scene from the tomb-chapel of vizier Rekhmire, dated to approximately 1450 BCE, which many have said correlates to the description in Exodus 1:11-14 that tells of Egyptian taskmasters appointed over Hebrew labourers. However, correlations between biblical texts and Egyptian illustrations do not provide definitive proof for a Hebrew presence in Egypt prior to an exodus event. Kitchen points out that “the use of hollow, rectangular wooden brick-moulds goes right through history from at least the 15th century BC to the 20th century AD, so we have a very long continuity in usage which embraces the entire biblical period and well beyond it.
The pervasiveness of the exodus story can be seen in the story's appearance in many later Hellenistic documents. These writings support the exodus event as the origins of the Jewish people. At least three extra-biblical accounts have been found, written by Greco-Roman authors around the second or third centuries BCE that tell of a Jewish Exodus. First, Hecatacus of Abdera, a writer of Ptolemy's court , "claimed that Judea was settled by people who had been expelled from Egypt as foreigners in a time of pestilence. He says that their leader was Moses and that he founded Jerusalem." Hecatacus relied primarily on Egyptian priests for information and it is unlikely that he had read the Exodus account. Instead Hecatacus writing was likely based upon Egyptian traditions that taught an expulsion of the Hyksos people during the middle of the second millennium BCE. A second extra-biblical account of the Exodus comes from the Egyptian writer Manetho who also had limited knowledge of the biblical story and was writing around 300 BCE. Manetho's account is based on the Hyksos people being the one's who built Jerusalem after being expelled from Egypt. The exodus story is further verified by Manetho's account that the Egyptian king, Amenophis, who forced 80,000 people to work in the stone quarries and rebelled after refusing to follow the Egyptian religion. Manetho's account even includes the name of Hyksos leader as Osarseph which was later changed to Moses. The third account of the exodus comes from Artapanus a Jewish writer from the same time. Artapanus' account evidently holds less historical weight because of his self identification with the Jewish people. In addition his writing agrees with the Exodus story but then embellishes it so that the Jewish people have a larger impact on Egyptian culture and the surrounding world at the time.
Often, extra-biblical evidence can be used to to support the biblical narrative because of distinct parallels. The rise of Hyksos people in Egypt is well documented outside the bible. These people ended up being predominantly Semitic in ethnicity, and rose to positions of power within the Egyptian administrative offices. A Hyksos king named Salatis is recorded occupying the ancient capital of Egypt, Memphis, in 1674, BCE. The story of Joseph, also a Semite, and his role within the Egyptian administration seems to fit well within the Hyksos rise to power in Egypt. In time clashes between the Hyksos and Egypt took place which resulted in the Hyksos people being pushed back into Canaan. Remembering the conflicts of the past, it is easy to see how the Egyptians would have been fearful of the growing population of Semitic Israelite people within their land.
The evidence for a Hebrew presence in Egypt leading up to an exodus event appears adequate. Unlike the issue of the dating of the exodus, the presence of Hebrew people and a revolt against the oppressive Egyptian king is well accepted. Egyptian pictographs and later writings by Egyptian priests align to reinforce the biblical narrative. Moreover, the historical evidence that has been found seems to favour the validity of the narrative, and should provide both Christians and Jews historical confidence in the story that is recorded.
The Problem of Large Numbers
Both biblical and extra-biblical accounts of exodus events, support the presence of the Israelite people in Egypt. Seeing that the evidence creates a plausible account of Israel's escape from Egypt, we can look ahead to the time in the desert. The triumphant escape from Pharaoh's oppression is followed by abysmal conditions that leave many of the Israelites yearning to be once again enslaved in Egypt. Numbers 1:46 records that while in the desert, Moses takes a census and finds 603,550 men over the age of twenty, a staggering sized group. From this C.J. Humphrey concludes that there would have been more than two million men, women, and children wandering in the desert for 40 years. This number of people in the desert is dramatically shocking when one considers that if lined up side to side, in rows of 500 people, there would be approximately 8000 rows of people. To walk in this formation the procession would stretch for over 8 kilometres. A group of people this large wandering in the wilderness, subsisting off the land seems beyond miraculous. Noth notes that the figures given in Numbers 1 are “outside the sphere of what is historically acceptable. In no sense do they bear even a tolerable relationship to what we otherwise know of the strength of military conscription in the ancient East.” The sheer number of people described in Moses' census presents a significant challenge to the historicity of the narrative. If one can historically accept that the Israelite people became great in number while enslaved in Egypt and then miraculously escaped out of Pharaoh's hand, the likelihood of two million people surviving in the desert, even with the provision of heavenly food and water, may require too much imagination. This problem is further compounded by biblical texts that state that Israel was smaller than Canaan (Deuteronomy 7:7, 17,22), however the entire population of Canaan at the time of Numbers would have been 2-3 million people.
There are many possible interpretations of the large numbers in the book of Numbers. Humphreys outlines the dominant ones, which include: First, a literal reading in which the numbers are accurate, as supported by W.H. Gispen. Secondly, the large numbers are accurate but representative of a later population around the time of David’s reign. Thirdly, the word for thousands may have been mistranslated, resulting in a vast over-estimation of the actual population of the day. And finally, the numbers have been fictitiously exaggerated to emphasize the theological significance of the LORD’s providence in the desert. While there are other interpretations, they often involve creative manipulation of the numbers that appear in the text combined with deciphering hidden meanings within the numbers.
One method of reconciling the 605,550 men age twenty and over in Numbers 1:46, is based on a textual variant where the use of the word for thousand (elep) can also be translated as “clan” or “group”. Thus when “thousand” is read in the Numbers narrative it is appropriate to supplement the word “group”. This textual variant was originally suggested by Sir W. M. Flinders Pétrie who argued that
A later scribe must have misunderstood the significance of the word elep in the census lists, and instead of interpreting it to mean family, and adding up the families separately from the hundreds, he took the word to mean "thousand", and thus ended up with the enormous figures encountered in Numbers 1:46.
Humphreys uses Petrie's argument of translation and demonstrates other cases throughout the Old Testament where the Hebrew word has been translated as either group or thousand. For example, in 1 Samuel 23:23, the RSV translates “all the thousands of Judah”, whereas the NIV translates “all the clans of Judah.” In a similar fashion, Mendenhall interprets this textual variant with the first two numbers referring to the number of “troops” and the following number as the number of men within this troop. Thus, Numbers 1:21 would state, “The number from the tribe of Reuben was forty-six troops (chiefs), five hundred men.”, This method produces military troops with numbers that are consistent with other historical armies of the time. However, this method does not add up to the total number of 603 troops, that would be given in Numbers 1:46. Instead, when adding up the first thousand numbers from each tribe, the total number would be an expected 598 troops, with 5500 men in total. The translation issue seems like a convenient way to solve the problem of the large numbers, and reduces them to figures that are closer to military size and populations of the day. However, Humphrey takes this translation issue a step further and offers an alternative, mathematically complex, solution that seems to reconcile the issue.
Humphreys has chosen a different mathematical equation to calculate the total number of Israelites in the census. He uses 273, the number of fewer Israelite firstborns than Levite firstborns (Num 3:46) as the starting point for a mathematically involved equation used to reinterpret the large numbers found in the text. Humphreys pays special attention to this number because it is small and is associated with Israel’s redemption, and would thus would have been taken seriously. The formula Humphreys uses to arrive at his numbers may require a post-secondary degree in mathematics to comprehend, but the numbers he produces seem to fit. Through applying a few estimations of birth rates and population demographics, Humphreys uses his equation to confirm the translation of elep as “troop”, and to conclude that there were actually 5500 men over the age of twenty at the time of the Exodus. A population of 5500 wandering in the desert seems far more believable and historically accurate. From this number Humphreys also produces the number 598 for the total number of troops in Numbers 1:46. Furthermore, the number that Humphreys arrives at is the same as those produced with Mendenhall's interpretation. Humphreys hybrid solution to the large numbers seems to hold up when applied to other census numbers within the book of Numbers, giving it viability and making the exodus story more historically believable than if there were two million people travelling around the desert.
When translation issues are taken into account, and further mathematical evaluation is undertaken, it appears that the number of people in Moses’ first census seem to be more historically acceptable. By recognizing that the Hebrew word for thousand can also mean clan, troop or family, other numbers throughout the Numbers story seem to make better historical sense.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the historical proof of an exodus may not be enough for the staunch minimalist, because the exact dates for the exodus and abundant archaeological evidence are hard to pin down, but for the Christian who is looking to find some historical evidence that the biblical narrative is true, there is more than enough evidence to affirm the exodus event. Historical proof, like apologetics, will rarely lead people to faith in God, but instead will reinforce already present beliefs. Regardless of whether the exodus story is accepted by minimalist historians, the exodus story has had a reverberating impact on history. Although scholars and archaeologists have not been able to pinpoint the exact date of the exodus, much of the extra-biblical evidence that can be found parallels the events described in the book of Exodus. Similarly, writers from outside of the Hebrew tradition who likely had little to no contact with the book of Exodus have provided accurate parallel of the exodus events. It seems logical then to assume that where extra-biblical testimonies align with the exodus narrative, there should be an added degree of credibility given to the exodus story. The exodus story reads faithful to events of the day, but to read it as merely historical is to miss the point, “the Exodus story serves a purpose, to show the Israelites that their God is powerful and can be relied upon.” If one can accept the events of the exodus as historically accurate it then seems suitable to question the interpretation of large numbers that are found in Numbers. For those not willing to investigate alternative readings of Numbers 1:46, the size of the nation of Israel may become a stumbling block to faith. The sheer size of the nation seems unfathomable compared to other nations of the day. Textual variants have provided useful new interpretations that help to scale down the large numbers to a population that is appropriate for the time and place. Therefore, when one studies beyond the biblical text, looking at the various levels of biblical criticism it appears that the biblical tradition is faithful and true.
