Until recently, most church tradition considered the biblical narratives of the Exodus from Egypt and the Entry into the promised land an accurate representation of historical reality and an accurate theological interpretation of these events. However, more critical scholarship and archaeology has cast so much doubt on the historical value of the narratives that by the mid 20th Century scholarly consensus considered them entirely fictional, or at least a highly romanticised recreation of actual events.
We must decide what ’Äòhistory’Äô is: a detached objective record of what happened in a period, or someone’Äôs interpretation of what happened and why. Objective history sounds attractive but is itself a myth. Even boring lists of events and dates are usually written only from a victor’Äôs perspective. In reality all history’Äîwhether modern televised news reports or historical books’Äîis selective and interpreted by necessity[1]. We can, however, judge the intent of a historical narrator, and how accurately to expect his narrative to represent what happened, and then to judge how accurate the historical narrative really is.
The biblical narratives have distinct theological emphases which affects but need not preclude their historical accuracy. Five understandings of these narratives could be:
¬… pure theological and historical fiction’Äîinvented during exile for political/religious reasons, so we should expect no correlation with extra-biblical evidence;
¬… didactic theologically accurate historical fiction’Äîconsistent with reliable biblical theology but with no greater correlation to other evidence;
¬… theologically-developed history’Äîaccounts of authentic original history, exaggerated for effect, to support biblical theology, partially agreeing with external evidence, but with unreliable dating, scale and other detail;
¬… selective, interpreted history’Äîincomplete, mentioning only what fits the author’Äôs purpose, with gaps causing seeming contradictions which can be explained;
¬… complete, precise history’Äîa thorough objective overview of all important events, agreeing with all correctly interpreted external evidence.
We must examine data from the narratives themselves, archaeology, other extra-biblical other ANE (Ancient Near-East) texts and traditions, interpreting them fairly and tentatively, aware of presuppositions we bring to this exercise, to understand the biblical narratives correctly.
Some discount the biblical narratives automatically since they are religious writings, but we must be honest, and respect the scriptures at least as much as other written evidence, which all contain bias. It is similarly dishonest automatically to discount or explain away all evidence of the miraculous from the text because we have a different worldview from the author. Accepting the divine inspiration of the interpretation and selection of events adds weight to the biblical evidence, but should not blind us from authorial intent and other human factors.
Archaeology cannot provide an exhaustive history, since discoveries are only ever partial (since whole sites have not yet been excavated, or remains have been lost or removed), dating is often problematic, sites cannot be identified precisely and it never shows what people actually did or believed[2]. ’ÄúArchaeology can illumine historical events, but it cannot confirm the theological inferences drawn from those events, past or present.’Äù[3]
The exodus and ’Äòconquest’Äô narratives do not claim to be exhaustive or objective, but regularly interpret only select events, but do they invent or distort events? Good history should agree significantly with other evidence though not necessarily all, and ’Äúsometimes we can even demonstrate that a late account is quite reliable.’Äù[4] If historically reliable, the events and details described in the books of Exodus, Joshua and Judges should be supported by archaeological finds and an understanding of the political and cultural context gained from other textual sources.
Outside the Bible, there seems ’Äúno direct evidence of Israel in Egypt’Äù[5], so it is easy to conclude that Exodus is entirely fictional. Archaeological evidence (or lack of evidence) may seem insurmountable. However considerable indirect evidence supports the biblical claims. Exodus records indicate a genuine ancient Egyptian origin to the narrative. Its knowledge of labour and construction practice and policy, magical practices, Moses’Äô status, styles of cultic artefacts and other cultural baggage found at Sinai point to a credible Egyptian context for early Israel[6]. Place names mentioned on the exodus are plausible, suggesting some historical basis but are generally unverifiable; many places were called Rameses, or Migdol[7]. Egyptian art and texts from 1450-1275 bc depict foreigners making bricks, under armed Egyptian overseers and quotas are mentioned, as in the biblical account. The Habiru (or ’ÄòApiru) in the Amarna letters[8] may include proto-Israelites, reminds us that other peoples joined the Israelites[9] and provides one plausible context for the exodus[10]. Also, contemporaneous Egyptian records omit other embarrassing defeats[11], so the lack of Egyptian evidence of Israel’Äôs exodus proves nothing. We cannot expect enslaved, nomadic people group to leave significant archaeological remains.
Chronology is important for interpreting archaeological data. For archaeologists, ’Äúpottery is the most basic and useful tool for developing the chronology of a site,’Äù[12] relying on style being consistent over all areas during one period, but changing markedly with time. While this assumption may be subject to challenge, it can also be difficult to assert confidently the date of a layer on an archaeological site. Dating is most significant for an understanding of the ’Äòconquest’Äô, but it is by no means an exact science. The biblical narratives themselves make it hard to recreate as precise chronology as we would like. Different lengths of time from the exodus to the Temple building are quoted (a possibly symbolic 480 years, over 553 years, or considerably less[13]). Some genealogies apparently omit generations[14] and lists of rulers may overlap. But similar problems exist in Egyptian chronologies, threatening to throw all existing assumptions of dating into confusion. A simple reading of the biblical narratives suggests a significant 15th Century conquest, but no major destruction layers are found in cities until the 13th Century[15], and even then, few destruction layers are evident, Hazor possibly
So for the conquest, archaeological evidence presents even more problems than for the exodus. The abrupt establishment of settlements in the hill country can be considered evidence for a late conquest, but no evidence of the destruction of 13th or 15th Century walls around an inhabited Jericho as recorded in Joshua has been found. Possibly the ’Äòconquest’Äô was considerably more peaceful than a simplistic reading of Joshua would reveal, if we allow for hyperbole[16]’Äîa common device in ancient military literature. Exaggerated victories and the scale of the exodus may explain how in 430 years seventy people could become two million, and how that number could leave Egypt and settle in Canaan leaving such a little mark. Alternatively, reinterpreting the Hebrew word ’Äòelep (=thousand) Wenham[17] suggests Israel numbered only 72,000.
A careful reading of the complementary accounts in Judges and Joshua[18] reminds us that existing Canaanite peoples with their culture and religion were not completely wiped out by the Israelites, remarkable though some victories were. Considering all evidence, some balance must be struck between various models of conquest from outside, peaceful infiltration and theories of Israel emerging from an indigenous people group. It seems a significant people group from Egypt did invade but absorbed the existing material culture and religion, taking much political control but completely destroying few cities.
Assumptions brought seriously affect our interpretation of the evidence. We must interpret with honesty and humility without heightened rhetoric[19], asking difficult questions, but fairly doubting interpretation of all evidence equally. As Redford describes how using the divine name to distinguish sources ’Äòhas become virtually an article of faith among biblical scholars’Äô[20], every judgement is a faith decision.
Considering the evidence, the biblical narratives are overtly selective and interpreted, omitting much detail which would interest us, not intending to give a comprehensive objective overview of all exodus-entry events. Correlation with archaeology, in particular, seems difficult, however, the narratives agree with much extra-biblical evidence discrediting a theory that they are pure theological or historical fiction. They are considered historically foundational by Jesus and the apostles. Depending on the relative weighting of biblical and extra-biblical evidence, there is room for disagreement as to whether the narratives are precise in every detail or whether they employ literary devices which distort the details of the accounts. The narratives were written to explain God’Äôs relationship with the nation of Israel, and to that end express and interpret only some of the natural and supernatural events which actually did happen.
Alexander TD, From Paradise to the Promised Land, Carlisle: Paternoster, 2002
JD Currid, Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible, Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999
Dever WG, Israel, History of (Archaeology and the ’ÄòConquest’Äô) in Freedman DN, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 3 (H-J) pp 545-557, New York: DoubleDay, 1992
Kitchen KA, Exodus in Freedman DN, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 2 (D-G) p. 700-707, New York: DoubleDay, 1992
Lemche NP, Trans. F Cryer, Israel, History of (Premaonarchic) in Freedman DN, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 3 (H-J) pp 526-544, New York: DoubleDay, 1992
Sarna NM, Israel in Egypt, in Shanks, Ancient Israel Revised & Expanded, Washington: Biblical Archaeological Society, 1999
Younger KL, Early Israel in Recent Scholarship, in DW Baker and BT Arnold, The Face of Old Testament Studies: A Survey of Contemporary Approaches, Leicester: Apollos pp 176-206
[1] For example John 20:30, 21:25 ’ÄúJesus did many other things’Ķthe whole world would not have room for the books’Ķ’Äù
[2] WG Dever, 555
[3] WG Dever, 557
[4] NM Sarna, Israel in Egypt, in Shanks, Ancient Israel, 47
[5] NM Sarna, 40
[6] KA Kitchen, Exodus in Freedman DN, The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol 2 p. 707
[7] KA Kitchen, 703
[8] KA Kitchen, 706
[9] Exodus 12:38
[10] NM Sarna, 49
[11] NM Sarna, 47
[12] JD Currid, Doing Archaeology in the Land of the Bible, 79
[13] KA Kitchen, 702
[14] Ruth 4:18-22 quoted by KA Kitchen, 702
[15] KL Younger, Early Israel in Recent Scholarship, 178
[16] KL Younger, 179
[17] quoted in KA Kitchen, 705
[18] WG Dever, 555
[19] KL Younger, 176
[20] Redford, quoted in Alexander, From Paradise to the Promised Land, 19