The Election of Israel

The election of Israel is a given fact in the theology of the Old Testament, but scholars differ on when it took place. Some scholars speak of two election traditions in the Bible: one in the time of Abraham and another in the time of Moses. Personally, I believe that the election of Israel took place when God called Abraham and told him to go to the land of Canaan. However, the full implication of that election happened with Israel’s redemption from Egypt and the promulgation of the covenant at Sinai.

God’s promise to Abraham was the basis for the election of Israel to be God’s people. Israel became a nation after it was delivered from Egypt and established a covenant with God at Sinai. The belief that Israel was the special people of God is affirmed throughout the Old Testament.

The history of Israel’s relationship with God is the central reality of the Old Testament. The choice of Israel to be God’s people has a universal dimension. No other nation in the history of the world has influenced humanity more than Israel. Israel’s religious contribution to humanity is greater than any other nation, for it was to Israel that God introduced himself in the greatest act of unselfish love ever demonstrated to humanity. To comprehend Israel’s religious contribution to our understanding of God, one is compelled to understand the concept of God’s election of Israel as his special people.

The study of Israel’s election must begin with two questions. The first question is one of definition: What is the meaning of election? The second question is one of purpose: Why did God choose Israel to be his special people?

The word “election” comes from the Hebrew word bahar (Hebrew בחר) which means “to choose,” “to elect.” However, although the word bahar does not appear in the call of Abraham, the concept of divine election pervades the whole Old Testament. The idea of divine election is emphasized in the book of Deuteronomy: “For you are a people holy to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on earth to be his people, his treasured possession” (Deuteronomy 7:6).

Although the basic concept of election is expressed by the word bahar, other words are also used to convey the idea that Israel was set apart as God’s special people. The terminology of election includes the word bahar “to choose,” qara’ “to call,” yada‘ “to know,” and bādal “to separate.”Amos uses the word yada‘ to express Israel’s election: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). The expressions “treasured possession” and “the people of the Lord” also convey the idea of election.

The second question, “why did God choose Israel?” is answered by Deuteronomy 7:7-8: “ It was not because you were more in number than any other people that the LORD set his love upon you and chose you, for you were the fewest of all peoples; but it is because the LORD loves you, and is keeping the oath which he swore to your fathers, that the LORD has brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you from the house of bondage, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.”

The choice of Israel to be a special people, at its most basic meaning, testifies to the fact of unmerited grace. God did not choose Israel because they were worthy of being chosen. In fact, God chose a people who were slaves in Egypt, redeemed them and established a special relationship with them. The point that the writer of Deuteronomy was trying to convey to the new generation of Israelites was that it was because of God’s faithful love (hesed) and because of the promise he had made to Abraham that he, in his sovereignty, elected Israel to be his special people and his special possession. God told Israel on Mount Sinai: “Out of all the nations you will be my own special possession” (Exodus 19:5).

The basis for God’s promise to Israel was the covenant he had established with Abraham. At Sinai, Israel responded to what God had done in bringing them out of Egypt and to his revelation by establishing a covenant with him and by agreeing to be his people and live in accordance with his commandments.

Thus, it was at Sinai that Israel became God’s special people. God had established a covenant with Abraham, choosing him to be the father of a great and mighty nation. Now, as the people understood their mission in the world and their place in the redemptive work of God, the people accepted their call and destiny as the elected nation of God: “And all the people answered together and said, ‘All that the LORD has spoken we will do’” (Exodus 19:8). Israel became a special nation not because they were great and mighty, but because of the sovereign grace of the God who had delivered them from Egyptian bondage.

This particularism of God’s love, the view that Israel was chosen to be God’s special people and to have a special place among the other nations of the earth, has become offensive to many people. What made Israel to be special to God? The Bible clearly says that it was not that Israel was a greater nation among the nations of the world. The selection of Israel is not easily understood when the issue of merit is taken out of the equation. Why is anyone, for that matter, special to God? The answer to why God chose Israel from among the nations to be his special people is hidden deep in the character of God himself. It was in God’s sovereignty and love that He chose Israel to be his chosen people. In his desire to reveal himself to humanity, God chose to do so through a special people.

The election of Israel does not mean that God has rejected the other nations. To the contrary, the election of Israel is a call to service to God and to the other nations. T. C. Vriezen, in his book An Outline of Old Testament Theology (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1958), p. 76, wrote:

The truth of Israel’s election is untruth if it is rationally understood to mean that for that reason God has rejected the nations of the world, that for that reason Israel is of more importance to God than those other nations, for Israel was only elected in order to serve God in the task of leading those other nations to God. In Israel God seeks the world. . . . For in His mercy He has called Israel to the service of His Kingdom among the nations of the earth.

Perhaps God chose Israel to become a paradigm to the nations. Israel was to be an example of what it means to be a people who live according to God’s laws and teachings. Perhaps God saw fit to take a people who were slaves in a foreign land, a people rejected by society, with no laws, organization, or government in order to demonstrate his power and salvation to the world.

Israel was not only small in number, but they were also hard-hearted, stiff-necked, and a stubborn people, and yet, God chose these people to be his own people The election of Israel, therefore, is a great demonstration of God’s electing love. God’s love is absolutely free and unconditional and this love was bestowed on one nation out of the many nations of the world. If there was some hidden potential in Israel, the Bible does not specify it. What is clear is that Israel was chosen to be God’s people by divine sovereignty and by the kind of love that only God can demonstrate.

God’s love and God’s grace is the focus that permeates the concept of election in the Old Testament. The recipient of this love and grace is called to service to others. God’s love is never conditional. However, as in all relationships, there must be a sense of responsibility and fidelity, and Israel was no exception. God established a relationship with Israel on Mount Sinai, on the day that he chose the descendants of Abraham to be his special possession. Yahweh gave himself to Israel and in return the people of Israel were to give themselves to him. Deuteronomy 4:40 states:

Therefore you shall keep his statutes and his commandments, which I command you this day, that it may go well with you, and with your children after you, and that you may prolong your days in the land which the LORD your God gives you for ever.

The election of Israel is one of the most important concepts for understanding God’s relationship with his chosen nation. The election of Israel explains the destiny of Israel as God’s special people in the world and required of the nation an exclusive relationship, a relationship that God has maintained throughout the ages, despite Israel’s rebellion and disobedience.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hebrew Bible, Old Testament, Abraham, Election, Exodus

Joseph in Egypt: Evidence for an Egyptian Background for the Exodus

Rabbi Leibel Reznick, in an interesting and informative article, “Egyptology in the Torah: Biblical Archeology,” published by Aish.com, says that, contrary to popular view held by many scholars, the Torah provides evidence of contemporary life and customs that reflects life in Egypt during the Eighteenth Dynasty.

The following is an excerpt from the article:

Egyptologists have expressed disappointment that almost nothing relating to ancient Egyptian life or culture can be gleaned from the Bible. This has lead many, such as Egyptologist Donald Redford of Pennsylvania State University to disparagingly claim, "The Hebrew writer (of the Bible) was not so well acquainted with Egypt as has often been imagined." [2]

For us, the lack of cultural references is quite understandable because the Torah is neither a history book nor an anthropological record of ancient societies but rather it is a guide for everyday life based on human nature and the spiritual loftiness of the Jewish soul and these elements are timeless. However, many Egyptologists have taken a different approach. They claim that the Torah was composed 8-10 centuries after the Exodus and the "Biblical author(s)" had no idea what was going on in ancient Egypt. Therefore, these Egyptologists claim, the Torah had no choice but to remain silent about ancient Egyptian practices.

Not only are they wrong about when the Torah was composed and by Whom, these Egyptologists are also quite mistaken if they think there are no revelations to be found in the Torah reflecting ancient Egyptian life. Let us see for ourselves.

1. "they sold Joseph to the Ishmaelites for 20 pieces of silver; and they brought Joseph to Egypt (Genesis 37:28). In ancient times, just as in our day and age, prices slowly but steadily increased over the course of time. In ancient Ur, circa 2000 BCE, a slave would cost 10-15 pieces of silver (shekels). During the reign of the Hammurabi dynasty, the price increased slightly, to about 20 pieces of silver. For a while, the price of a slave remained fairly stable but by the last quarter of the second millennium BCE., the price crept up to 30 shekels. During the first quarter of the Assyrian Empire, a healthy slave could fetch 50-60 pieces of silver and by the middle of the first millennium, the price of a slave soared to over 100 shekels.[3] When the Torah tells us that Joseph was sold for 20 pieces of silver it was an accurate reflection of the price of a slave in Canaan/Egypt at that time period, about 1500 BCE according to our Biblical chronology.

2. The Torah (Genesis 37:36) tells us that the name of Joseph's slave-master was Potiphar. It later tells us that Joseph's wife's name was Asenath (Genesis 41:45). These were in fact Egyptian names in use in Egypt during the time of Joseph, though they were quite unusual and later fell into disuse. Biblical "author(s)" not aware of these obscure ancient names could never have used them.[4]

Torah uses the exact expression the contemporary Egyptians used for the foreman of the servants and slaves.

3. The Torah tells us that Joseph was the overseer of Potiphar's estate. There are many possible titles one can give the chief slave or servant. The Torah chose to call Joseph the one "Over the house" (Genesis 39:4). The Papyrus Brooklyn 53.1446 refers to a chief slave and gives his proper title as the one who was "Over the house."[5] We see that the Torah is using the exact expression the contemporary Egyptians used for the foreman of the servants and slaves.

4- "And Joseph's master took him, and put him in the prison, a place where the king's prisoners were confined" (Genesis 39:20). Due to the false accusations of Potiphar's wife, Joseph was thrown into a prison. The concept of imprisonment was not widespread in the ancient world of the early Biblical era. In the Torah itself, we do not find any mention of imprisonment being a form of punishment. We do find that the son of Shelomith, who cursed God, was held in confinement, but that was only until the correct punishment could be determined. The actual detention was not a punishment. In the ancient world, those convicted of crimes were generally killed, tortured, mutilated or made to compensate monetarily. The concept of imprisonment was almost unheard of. Egypt was one of the very few exceptions to have prisons. Many of the isolated fortresses that guarded the borders of ancient Egypt also served as royal prisons.[6]

5. "Then Pharaoh sent and called Joseph, and they brought him hastily out of the dungeon; and he shaved himself, and changed his garment, and came in to Pharaoh." (Genesis 41:14) Joseph, known to be an interpreter of dreams, was taken out of prison to be brought before the pharaoh to interpret pharaoh's dream. But first, Joseph had to shave to make himself more presentable to the king.

Throughout the ancient Middle East, beards were considered the norm, especially among "Asiatics" such as the Israelites. In fact the longer and more styled the beard, the greater the admiration. The common folk had shorter, trimmed beards. The king was depicted with a long tightly curled beard. The exception to this rule was in Egypt. Egyptians are rarely depicted with beards and those few times that they are depicted with facial hair, it is usually the pharaoh and not any of his subjects. In Egyptian tomb and temple depictions, enemies are often depicted with beards. The Biblical "author(s)" seem to be very aware that proper Egyptian etiquette demanded that Joseph had to shave before entering the presence of the pharaoh, unlike anywhere else in the ancient world.

6. Pharaoh had a dream in which "… behold, I stood upon the bank of the river. And, behold, there came up from the river seven cows, fat and beautiful; and they fed in the reed grass. And, behold, seven other cows came up after them, scrawny and very gaunt and thin, such as I have never seen in all the land of Egypt for badness. And the thin and the gaunt cows ate the first seven fat cows. And when they had eaten them up, it could not be known that they had eaten them; but they were still inferior as before." (Genesis 41:18-21)

You can read the article in its entirety and consult the notes mentioned in the article by visiting Aish.com.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Joseph, Egypt, Exodus

Moses and the Exodus

PBS will air “The Bible’s Buried Secrets” on Tuesday, November 18 at 8 p.m. The two-hour “Nova” program will focus on how the Pentateuch came into existence.

In preparation for the program, PBS has interviewed Carol Meyers, an archeologist and professor of religion at Duke University. In this interview Meyers discusses Moses and the significance of the Exodus.

The following is an excerpt from the interview:

Q: Questions about whether or not events in the Bible really happened evoke strong passions. As a biblical scholar, how do you see the issue of historical authenticity in terms of the earliest biblical accounts-the ones for which there is little archeological evidence?

Carol Meyers: Too often in modern western thinking we see things in terms of black and white, history or fiction, with nothing in between. But there are other ways of understanding how people have recorded events of their past. There's something called mnemohistory, or memory history, that I find particularly useful in thinking about biblical materials. It's not like the history that individuals may have of their own families, which tends to survive only a generation or two. Rather, it's a kind of collective cultural memory.

When a group of people experience things that are extremely important to their existence as a group, they often maintain collective memories of these events over generations. And these memories are probably augmented and elaborated and maybe even ritualized as a way of maintaining their relevance.

We can understand how mnemohistory works by looking at how it operates in more recent periods. We see this, for instance, in legends about figures in American history-George Washington is a wonderful example. Legends have something historic in them but yet are developed and expanded. I think that some of the accounts of the ancestors in the book of Genesis are similar. They are exciting, important, attention-grabbing, message-bearing narratives that are developed around characters who may have played an important role in the lives of the pre-Israelite ancestors.

Q: Let's turn to one of the most vivid figures in the Bible, Moses. Who is the Moses of the Bible, and could there have been such a person?

Read the rest of the interview here.


Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Carol Meyers, Exodus, Moses

The Date of the Exodus

Several weeks ago, I received an email from Prof. James K. Hoffmeier, Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, informing me of his soon-to-be published article on the date of the Exodus. His email was prompted by a post in which I wrote that Hoffmeier accepted the 15th-century date for the Exodus.

In his email, Prof. Hoffmeier said that he had not taken a definite position on the date of the Exodus, but that his forthcoming article would clarify his position on this topic which has been the focus of intense scholarly debate. Prof. Hoffmeier’s article “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus?: A Response to Bryant Wood” was published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007) 225-247. Hoffmeier’s article is a response to an article by Bryant Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” The Journal of the Evangelical Society 48 (2005) 475-489.

In this post, I want to summarize the arguments Prof. Hoffmeier presents for the date of the Exodus. Then, I will give my view of his argument and on the date of the Exodus. First, for those who are not familiar with the controversy, let me present the two proposed dates for Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Those who follow a higher chronology say that the Exodus occurred in the 15th century, that is, 1446 B.C. Those who follow a lower chronology believe that the Exodus occurred in the 13th century, that is, 1270-1260 B.C. Both dates are based on biblical information.

For many evangelicals and conservative scholars, the 15th-century date for the Exodus has been a determining factor of whether one’s theology is conservative or liberal. The 13th-century date for the Exodus has been considered by many to be one of the evidences that a person is theologically liberal and that one accepts biblical criticism.

The most important text that supports a 15th-century date for the Exodus is 1 Kings 6:1: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.”

Prof. Hoffmeier correctly points out that the dates found in the book of Joshua through 1 Kings do not add up to 480 years. Prof. Hoffmeier calculated the number of years for Joshua, the judges and the kings of Israel up to Solomon and the numbers added up to 630-650 years. Those who accept a 15th-century date for the Exodus, have to harmonize the text by presupposing overlaps in the years some of the judges ruled in Israel.

Another way of arriving at a 15th-century date for the Exodus is using the chronological information provided by Shishak’s invasion of Judah in the 5th year of King Rehoboam, Solomon’s son. By synchronizing the date of Shishak’s and Rehoboam’s reigns, the date for the invasion would be 925 B.C. Thus, the death of Solomon would be in 930 B.C. and the fourth year of his reign would be 966 B.C. Adding to this date the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, then, the date of the Exodus would be 1446 B.C. However, Prof. Hoffmeier says that the biblical data would put the Exodus during the Hyksos’ occupation of Egypt.

The 13th-century date for the Exodus is based on Exodus 1:11 which says that while in Egypt, the Israelites built for Pharaoh the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses. Although the book of Exodus never identifies the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this statement in Exodus 1:11 would place the Exodus in the reign of Rameses II, the Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty who ruled from 1279-1213 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1290-1224 B.C).

A 13th-century date for the Exodus also finds support in the Merneptah Stela, a monument celebrating Merneptah’s military victories in Canaan. The Merneptah Stela is also known as the “Israel Stela” because it contains the first reference to Israel outside the Bible. Since Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213-1203 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1224-1211 B.C), the reference to Israel indicates that during his reign Israel was already in Canaan.

Another evidence presented by Prof. Hoffmeier is the geographical references that appear in the book of Exodus. According to him, the names Pithom (Exodus 1:11), Migdol (Exodus 14:2), and Yam suf (“Sea of Reeds”) “are attested beginning in the 19th Dynasty sources, but are not found prior to the 13th century” (p. 235). In addition, Prof. Hoffmeier also says that toponyms such as Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zaphon (Exodus 14:2) also begin to appear in 13th century documents.

Prof. Hoffmeier raises an important problem in the discussion of the Exodus. The problem he mentions is the absence of any reference to Egyptian military presence in Canaan in the books of Joshua and Judges. According to him, Merneptah’s presence in Canaan was due to Israel’s expansion in the days of the judges. After Merneptah’s invasion, Egypt’s influence in Canaan began to diminish because of the arrival of the Philistines.

Prof. Hoffmeier believes that a veiled reference to Merneptah may be found in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15. In these two passages the Hebrew words עין מי נפתוח are translated as “The Springs of Waters of Nephtoah.” However, he believes that the words for “spring” and “waters” are redundant and should be translated as “The Spring of Menephtoah,” a name identical to Merneptah.

In his article Prof. Hoffmeier discusses the issue of large and symbolic numbers, dealing primarily with the number 480 and the use of the number 40 in the Bible. He also discusses the problem of the Pharaoh of the Exodus and issues related to the conquest of Canaan.

In his conclusion, Prof. Hoffmeier says that there are biblical and archaeological evidence for a 13th-century for the date of the Exodus. I agree with his conclusions. The biblical evidence points to a 13th-century date for the Exodus and so does the archaeological evidence, as Prof. Hoffmeier has demonstrated. As for the large number in 1 Kings 6:1, it can be interpreted in different ways, as Prof. Hoffmeier also shows in his article.

I also concur with Prof. Hoffmeier's admonition at the end of his article: “I ... urge evangelical biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists not to expend all their energies on defending a date for the exodus when the real debate today is whether the books of Exodus-Judges contain any history at all and if there was a sojourn and an exodus.”

Prof. Hoffmeier’s article deals with many important issues related to the 13th-century date of the exodus. This is an article worth reading.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, James Hoffmeier, Rameses, Merneptah

Ancient Israel in Sinai

I have been making a list of the books I am planning to read this summer. One of the books in my list is James K. Hoffmeier’s Ancient Israel in Sinai: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Wilderness Tradition. James K. Hoffmeier is Professor of Old Testament and Near Eastern Archaeology, Trinity International

The following is a description of the book supplied by the publisher:

In his pathbreaking Israel in Egypt James K. Hoffmeier sought to refute the claims of scholars who doubt the historical accuracy of the biblical account of the Israelite sojourn in Egypt. Analyzing a wealth of textual, archaeological, and geographical evidence, he put forth a thorough defense of the biblical tradition. Hoffmeier now turns his attention to the Wilderness narratives of Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. As director of the North Sinai Archaeological Project, Hoffmeier has led several excavations that have uncovered important new evidence supporting the Wilderness narratives, including a major New Kingdom fort at Tell el-Borg that was occupied during the Israelite exodus. Hoffmeier employs these archaeological findings to shed new light on the route of the exodus from Egypt. He also investigates the location of Mount Sinai, and offers a rebuttal to those who have sought to locate it in northern Arabia and not in the Sinai peninsula as traditionally thought. Hoffmeier addresses how and when the Israelites could have lived in Sinai, as well as whether it would have been possible for Moses to write down the law received at Mount Sinai. Building on the new evidence for the Israelite sojourn in Egypt, Hoffmeier explores the Egyptian influence on the Wilderness tradition. For example, he finds Egyptian elements in Israelite religious practices, including the use of the tabernacle, and points to a significant number of Egyptian personal names among the generation of the exodus. The origin of Israel is a subject of much debate and the wilderness tradition has been marginalized by those who challenge its credibility. In Ancient Israel in Sinai , Hoffmeier brings the Wilderness tradition to the forefront and makes a case for its authenticity based on solid evidence and intelligent analysis.

The published also included reviews of the book written by K. Lawson Younger, Jr., co-editor of Mesopotamia and the Bible: Comparative Explorations; Richard H. Wilkinson, Professor and Director, Egyptian Expedition, The University of Arizona ; Ellen F. Morris, Department of Classics, Ancient History, and Egyptology, University of Wales Swansea; and Baruch Halpern, Chaiken Family Chair in Jewish Studies, Penn State.

Later in the summer, I will write a post and review the claims of the book.

I want to thank Kevin at biblicalia for the tip about the book.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Ancient Israel, Egypt, Exodus, Sinai, Wilderness Tradition

The Hyksos in Egypt

The National Geographic has published a news report announcing that Egyptian archaeologists have found documents that date to the time of the Hyksos in Egypt. The following is an excerpt of the article:

Egyptian archaeologists have announced that they have unearthed traces of solidified lava on the northern coast of Sinai that date to around 1500 B.C.-supporting accounts that ancient Egyptian settlements were buried by a massive volcanic eruption in the Mediterranean, they say.

The archaeological team, led by Mohamed Abdel Maqsoud of Egypt's Supreme Council for Antiquities, found houses, military structures, and tombs encased in ash, along with fragments of pumice, near the ancient Egyptian fortress of Tharo, on the Horus military road. Tharo is located close to El Qantara, where the Nile Delta meets the Sinai peninsula.

The new find seems to confirm accounts from ancient artwork and documents that recount the destruction of coastal cities in Egypt and Palestine during the 15th dynasty (1650-1550 B.C.), when foreigners known as the Hyksos ruled Egypt.

The archaeological mission also found a fort with four mud-brick towers dating to Egypt's 18th dynasty (around 1550 to 1307 B.C.).

In addition, an Egyptian archaeologist said:

The fort corresponded to reliefs found in the ancient temple of Karnak in Luxor. The sculptures describe Egypt's strategy to defend its eastern borders against future invasions by the Hyksos, who are thought to have been Semitic nomads from Syria and Palestine.

"It's very significant," said Salima Ikram, a professor of Egyptology at the American University in Cairo. "There are only a limited number of sites linked to the Hyksos." Ikram added that the site also contains some of the earliest known remains of horses found in Egypt.

The Hyksos occupy a very important place in the history of Egypt and Canaan in the 18th century B.C. According to John Bright (59-65), around 1710 B.C., the Hyksos, an Asiatic people, conquered Egypt and established their own government that included Canaan and southern Syria. They established their capital in the city of Avaris in the Nile Delta.

The name “Hyksos” means “foreign chiefs.” This name was given by the Egyptians to the invading people, who later adopted the title to designate the foreign elements who ruled Egypt for about 150 years.

The Hyksos were able to conquer Egypt because of their advanced weapons, which included the war chariot and the laminated bow. Many of the names associated with the Hyksos are Semitic. For this reason, some scholars have said that some of the ancestors of the Israelites who entered Egypt may have been associated with the Hyksos.

If Joseph entered Egypt during the time the Hyksos occupied the land, then, the settlement of Jacob and his family in the land of Goshen was made possible because of the affinity between the two groups. The Hyksos domination of Egypt came to an end when Ahmose I in 1570 B.C. attacked Avaris and expelled the Hyksos from Egypt.

Ahmose established the Eighteenth Dynasty, a dynasty that lasted through the end of the Amarna period, a time when, according to the book of Exodus, Israel was in Egypt.

Thus, the discovery of a site that confirms the presence of the Hyksos in Egypt is significant because it helps archaeologists shed light on a very debatable period in the history of Israel.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Exodus, Hyksos,

The Exodus from Egypt: A New Explanation

According to an article published in The New York Times, Dr. Zahi Hawass, Egypt’s chief archaeologist, has declared that the parting of the Red Sea and the Exodus of Israel from Egypt is a myth. According to him, the Exodus did not happen because there is no historical evidence for the presence of Israel in Egypt.

People who follow the archaeological debate about the historicity of the Exodus and even of the facts about early Israel know that many archaeologists and biblical scholars deny the events mentioned in the book of Exodus because there is no evidence for the pharaoh and his army being killed during the exodus.

However, another Egyptian archaeologist has developed a theory that may explain the reason no evidence has been found in archaeological discoveries for the defeat of the pharaoh of Egypt. What follows is an excerpt of the article published in The New York Times:

Recently, diggers found evidence of lava from a volcano in the Mediterranean Sea that erupted in 1500 B.C. and is believed to have killed 35,000 people and wiped out villages in Egypt, Palestine and the Arabian Peninsula, officials here said. The same diggers found evidence of a military fort with four rectangular towers, now considered the oldest fort on the Horus military road.

But nothing was showing up that might help prove the Old Testament story of Moses and the Israelites fleeing Egypt, or wandering in the desert. Dr. Hawass said he was not surprised, given the lack of archaeological evidence to date. But even scientists can find room to hold on to beliefs.

Dr. Mohamed Abdel-Maqsoud, the head of the excavation, seemed to sense that such a conclusion might disappoint some. People always have doubts until something is discovered to confirm it, he noted.

Then he offered another theory, one that he said he drew from modern Egypt.

“A pharaoh drowned and a whole army was killed,” he said recounting the portion of the story that holds that God parted the Red Sea to allow the Israelites to escape, then closed the waters on the pursuing army.

“This is a crisis for Egypt, and Egyptians do not document their crises.”

The Egyptians and most nations of the past did not document their crises. This statement could explain why there is no record of pharaoh and his army drowning in the sea.

Come to think of it, this is an old explanation.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, Moses, Red Sea, Zahi Hawass