The Chronology of the Exodus, Poland 2012

Nathan Toms
Introduction
In this talk I will be considering some of the archaeological evidence for
the accuracy of the Old Testament. The period covered is from Joseph to
the Kings, but concentrates on the Exodus. The Bible’s accuracy over this
period has been particularly challenged by secular academics. Hopefully this
talk will counter their arguments. It also gives an insight into how God
works in man’s lives - every detail is important. We will be considering
some major characters and events, but also crucial evidence from much more
minor people. These were ordinary men and women or everyday things that
probably seemed trivial at the time they happened - yet have important
consequences thousands of years later.

Slide 2: Source material

Essentially this talk is a summary of some of the material in “A Test of
Time”. This is a book first published in 1995 and is a detailed examination
of Egyptian Chronology and its relationship to Biblical history. David Rohl
is an English archaeologist from University College, London. His work is not
necessarily “correct”, but is interesting to us , because he is a secular scholar
finding evidence for historical truth of the Bible. David Rohl ranges from
Kings back to Joseph. We’ll concentrate mainly on the period of the Exodus
and conquest of the promised land. There is a huge amount of material in
the book, so I’ve had to be very selective.

Slide 3: Why Egyptian Chronology?

The first question to ask is - why are we interested in Egyptian chronology?
The answer: because it is the only way to validate early Israelite chronology.
There are a number of reasons for this: 1) There are very limited external
references to Israelite history before Solomon. 2) Excavated Israelite mon-
uments do not contain historical references, so cannot be used to validate
Israelite chronology. 3) From 835BC Mesopotamian records reference Israel
(Shalmaneser mentions Ahab) 4) We therefore rely on Egyptian records to
date Israel’s history prior to 835BC A consequence of point 4 is that if Egyp-
tian chronology is wrong this leads to incorrect dating of Old Testament
events. This in turn leads to incorrect identification of archaeological evi-
dence. This is what has happened under the conventional chronology. Some
scholars argue that all Israelite history prior to the divided kingdom is myth.

1
Slide 4: Results of Chronolgy
A good example is the work of Kathleen Kenyon, a very famous English
archaeologist who excavated Jericho in 1952. Traditional dating places the
conquest of Joshua during the Late Bronze Age. Her work demonstrated
that there was no walled city of Jericho during the Late Bronze Age. Her
conclusion was that the Bible was therefore wrong. The Bible stories of the
conquest of Jericho were myths.

Slide 5: The Copenhagen School

This is a comment from Prof. Thomas L. Thompson, Copenhagen University,
who strongly believes that all early Bible history is a myth. “If we reflect
on how easy it is to challenge the historicity not only of a David or Solomon
but of events in the reigns of Hezekiah or Josiah, the very substance of
any historical project that attempts to write a history of the late second- or
early first- millenium B.C. in Palestine on the basis of a direct integration of
Biblical and extrabiblical sources, must appear not only dubious but wholly
ludicrous.”

Slide 6: Plan
So this is the plan for my talk today. Part 1 I will first look at the evidence
for the traditional chronology accepted by most scholars today. We will look
at the flaws that David Rohl has found in this evidence. We will then look
at his “New Chronology”
Part 2 We will look at the results of the New Chronology - how Biblical
history now fits with the archaeological periods. We will look at a few exam-
ples from: i) The period of the Kings ii) The conquest of the land iii) The
Exodus

Slide 7: Egyptian Chronology

The history of Egypt was written by a man called Manetho. He was an
Egyptian priest of the 3rd century BC. It has a pattern of several “King-
doms” - interspersed by more chaotic, “intermediate” periods. The first
King - Menes - combined upper and lower Egypt The Old Kingdom was the
“pyramid age”. The Giza pyramids date from the 3rd dynasty. The Middle
Kingdom began with the reign of Mentuhotep II who re-united Egypt. This

2
was not so grand as the Old Kingdom. The New Kingdom’s most famous
pharaoh was Tutankhamun. It was during this period that the sculptures
in the Valley of the Kings were built. The Late Period was characterised
by alternating native and Persian rule. Darius 1 was the first Persian ruler.
The Ptolemaic period began with Alexander the Great. He “rescued” Egypt
from the Persians. Ended with the famous death of Cleopatra 7th and her
son, Caesarion. Egypt was subsequently absorbed into the Roman empire.

Slide 8: Traditional Dates

The dates shown here have been generally accepted since the Victorian ar-
chaeological pioneers of the 19th century. The dates for the Old Testament
Kings are based on the work of Edmund Thiele in his book “Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings” published in 1983. The period of interest for
us tonight is the end of the New Kingdom and the beginning of the Third
Intermediate Period. This is the main focus of David Rohl’s work and lead
to him questioning the dates of the whole of Egyptian history prior to the
Third Intermediate Period.

Slide 9: Where do the dates come from?

So where do these dates come from? By adding up the length of the reigns
of the pharaohs from fixed points (e.g. the birth of Jesus) Scriptural exam-
ple: “In the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak king of Egypt attacked
Jerusalem.” (1 Kings 14:25, NIV) In the records of the reigns of the Pharoahs,
the numbers are then added up to give elapsed time between events. We
can then look for mentions in parallel histories - if we knew the date when
“Shishak” reigned (from Egyptian chronology) - then we would also know
the dates of Rehoboam’s reign.

Slide 10: The four pillars of Egyptian Chronol-

ogy
These are the “four pillars” of the traditional dating of Egyptian chronology.
1) The sacking of Thebes by Ashurbanipal. This happened in 664BC, dated
from Assyrian records. In the Egyptian chronology, this happened in the
26th year of the reign of pharaoh Taharka. 2) The sacking of the temple in
Jerusalem. This is supposed to have happened in the 20th year of the reign

3
of Shoshenk I, according to the Egyptian campaign records, which gives it a
date of 925BC. 3) The accession of Ramesses the second, which is supposed
to have happened in 1279 BC. 4) The accession of Ahmose, which is supposed
to have happened in 1550BC.

Slide 11: The sacking of Thebes

The date of 664BC for this event is secure. It is supported by data from many
different sources and marks year 26 of Pharoah Taharka (25th Dynasty) The
date is at the end of the Third Intermediate Period. Assyrian chronology is
used after 835BC, which predates this event.

Slide 12: The accession of Rameses II

This pillar states that the 52nd year of Ramesses reign = 1228BC, so his first
year = 1279BC. However, for this to be true, it must already be established
that the 19th dynasty begins in about 1295BC I’m not going to say any more
about this, because it is entirely dependent on pillar 3, which we will look at
next.

Slide 13: The accession of Ahmose

Again, I don’t want to say much about this pillar. The date of this pillar is
derived from observations of the rising of Sirius and depends on the transla-
tion of a single papyrus which is disputed. In fact, many scholars reject this
date completely, as we shall see in the next slide.

Slide 14: Quotation

The Chronology of the New Kingdom therefore no longer depends on the
Sothis-date of the year 9 of Amenhotep I, which is insecure and should not be
used any more. Professor Manfred Bietak, Director of the Austrian Institute
for Egyptology Vienna

Slide 15: Shoshenk I = Shishak

Pillar 2 depends on the identification of the Pharaoh referred to in this pas-
sage from the Old Testament. “After Rehoboam’s position as king was estab-

4
lished and he had become strong, he and all Israel with him abandoned the
law of the LORD. Because they had been unfaithful to the LORD, Shishak
king of Egypt attacked Jerusalem in the fifth year of King Rehoboam. With
twelve hundred chariots and sixty thousand horsemen and the innumerable
troops of Libyans, Sukkites and Cushites that came with him from Egypt, he
captured the fortified cities of Judah and came as far as Jerusalem.” 2 Chron-
icles 12:1-4 (NIV) Very early on, archaeologists identified the ”Shishak” of
this passage with Pharaoh ”Shoshenk” that they discovered in the Egyptian
records.

Slide 16: Heiroglyphics

This seemed to be confirmed by a discovery in 1828 by the archaeologist
Franois Champollion, who is sometimes called the “Father of Egyptology”.
He was the first person to understand egyptian hieroglyphics. This is part
of the triumphal portal of Shoshenk I which Franois Champollion trans-
lated. It recorded a military campaign into the region of Israel. Each figure
(name ring) bears the name of one of the captured cities. For example,
the bottom row has these names: Aijalon, Gibeon, Mahanaim, BethShan,
Shunem, Tanaach, Megiddo. Then (circled) Iouda-ha-malek, which Cham-
pollion translated as “kingdom of Judah”. This was then linked to 2 Kings
14:25-29 and 2 Chronicles 12:2-9 which are the Biblical records of an attack
on Israel by Pharaoh. This was dated to 925BC (from Biblical chronology)
This in turn fixed Shoshenk’s accession at the beginning of the 22nd dynasty
to 945BC. Superficially, this all sounds very plausible. However

Slide 17: Alternative translation

This is the name-ring, number 29, in question. In 1828 Champollion trans-
lated this as “Iouda-ha-malek”, which means “The Kingdom of Judah”.
However, in 1888, another scholar, Wilhelm Max-Mller translated this as
“Yad-ha-malek”, which means “The hand of the King” So this name ring
29 may not refer to the Kingdom of Judah, but rather to some unidentified
Canaanite ruler.

Slide 18: Position of Jerusalem record

If name ring 29 does refer to Jerusalem, then it’s in the wrong place in the
order of towns captured. The arrow shows where it should be if this is the

5
same campaign recorded in the Bible. The current position, shown by the
ring, places it outside the territory of Judah.

Slide 19: Rehoboam

Now remember what the situation was for Rehoboam during his reign. He
obviously feared attack from some quarter. This passage in Chronicles de-
scribes the fortifications he made to Judah. “Rehoboam lived in Jerusalem
and built up towns for defence in Judah: Bethlehem, Etam, Tekoa, Beth
Zur, Soco, Adullam, Gath, Mareshah, Ziph, Adoraim, Lachish, Azekah, Zo-
rah, Aijalon and Hebron. These were fortified cities in Judah and Benjamin.
He strengthened their defences and put commanders in them, with supplies
of food, olive oil and wine. He put shields and spears in all the cities, and
made them very strong. So Judah and Benjamin were his.” (2 Chronicles
11:5-12, NIV)

Slide 20: Rehoboam map

This map shows the cities fortified by Rehoboam. Interestingly, they are
concentrated on his Southern and Western borders. So it would seem that
the main threat at this time was from Egypt, not the newly independent
Israel.

Slide 21: Campaign of Shoshenk

This map shows the Campaign of Shoshenk as recorded by the Egyptian
historians. Note that this campaign was not against the Southern towns.
List of towns captured by Shoshenk I campaign is in Israel, Jordan valley,
Jezreel valley and the Negev. However, at the time of Rehoboam, Egypt was
allied to Israel. In the record in Kings, Jeroboam, the future king of Israel,
was protected by Pharoah against Solomon. Only one of the towns fortified
by Rehoboam is mentioned in this campaign of Shoshenk. All these details
are inconsistent with the campaign of Shishak, as recorded in 2 Chronicles,
who attacked the Southern kingdom. The two campaign records (Egyptian
and Biblical) appear to be referring to different events, so the Shishak referred
to in the Bible is probably not Shoshenk I.

6
Slide 22: Shoshenk and Shishak names
So what about the similarity between the names? Is “Shishak” as written
in the Bible really just a different form of the Egyptian name “Shoshenk”?
Occasionally Shoshenk is written in hieroglyphs as Sh-sh-k, which sounds
close to Shishak. However, artefacts found in Palestine always include the n’
sound. The Egyptian name “Shoshenk” is transcribed in the land of Israel
as “Susink” the “n” is definitely included in pronunciation of name. The
omission of the “n” in the hieroglyphs is probably due to its appearance,
rather than to indicate its pronunciation.

Slide 23: Shoshenk ¡¿ Shishak

In summary then, the evidence does not indicate that the “Shishak” referred
to in the Bible is pharaoh Shoshenk in Egyptian history. The Egyptian
record of Shoshenk’s campaign does not refer to the Kingdom of Judah. The
name ring originally thought to refer to Judah is in the wrong position for
Jerusalem. The Egyptian campaign record is inconsistent with the Bibli-
cal description of the time of Rehoboam. Shoshenk does not transcribe as
Shishak in the language of Israel.

Slide 24: Three of the four pillars of Egyptian

Chronology destroyed
So what is left of the pillars of Egyptian chronology? We have destroyed
pillar 2. Pillar 4 is also not reliable and therefore pillar 3 is also disappears.
So traditional Egyptian chronology is not well supported!

Slide 25: The date of the Exodus

There are two key Biblical passages that date the Exodus. 1 Kings 6:1-2 tells
us that it was 480 years before the construction of Solomons temple Date of
temple foundations is known to be about 968BC. This makes the date of the
Exodus 1447BC. Ramesses II is traditionally though to be the Pharaoh who
oppressed Israel before the Exodus. We do not have time to consider this
in detail. However Ramesses II reigned 1279-1213BC, which does not agree
with this Biblical date.

7
Slide 26: Jepthah
The second passage is from the book of Judges. “For three hundred years Is-
rael occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns
along the Arnon. Why didn’t you retake them during that time?” (Judges
11:26, NIV) Jepthah lived between 1130 and 1110BC. This dates the Exodus
to about 1460BC.

Slide 27: Summary

So let’s summarise what we have considered so far. 1) The conventional
Egyptian Chronology is easy to challenge. 2) Shoshenk was probably not
the Pharaoh who attacked Rehoboam. 3) Ramesses II was probably not the
Pharaoh of the oppression. 4) There are a number of indications that the
Exodus took place around 1447 BC, not 1260BC.

Slide 28: The T.I.P is too long

This is the starting point of David Rohl’s analysis; that the Third Intermedi-
ate Period of Egyptian chronology is too long, and this has directly affected
archaeology’s interpretation of Biblical history. I’m just going to chose three
of the points he makes in support of his claim.

Slide 29: Royal tombs near Luxor

The first concerns the analysis of this Royal cache near Luxor, which was
discovered in 1881. The names are lists of Royal sarcophagi which were re-
housed using the burial of priest Pinudjem II as a disguise. This was to stop
the royal sarcophogi being desecrated by tomb-robbers, they were reburied
using the existing tomb of the priest’s family. A label on the mummy case of
Seti I gives the date of internment - Day 17, month 4 of the Winter season,
10th year of King Siamun, the 5th ruler of the 21st dynasty. This is 969BC
in the conventional chronology. The first 4 coffins were crammed into and
blocking the entrance passageway. The coffin which particularly interests us
is the one of a man called Djedptahefankh, which is buried deep in the tomb.

8
Slide 30: the linen problem
This is the mummy of Djedptahefankh. When it was studied, the archae-
ologists found ink-written labels on the bindings describing when the cloth
was made. This is what it said: “Noble linen which the Dual King, Lord of
the Two Lands, Hedjkheperre, Son of Re, Lord of Appearances, Shoshenk-
meryamun made for his father Amun (in) year 10” So this cloth was made in
the 11th year of the reign of Shoshenk the first. However, in the conventional
chronology, this is dated at 935BC, 34 years after the tomb was sealed. So,
could the tomb have been re-opened just to bury this one fairly minor royal
official?

Slide 31: the dimensions problem

A study of the dimensions of the coffins makes this very unlikely. It is
impossible to fit Djedptahefankh’s coffin past those already there, as shown
by this slide. The men who buried Djedptahefankh would not have removed
the royal coffins just to bury him deep in the tomb. This would have destroyed
the secrecy that was vital to the safety of the royal coffins. Therefore he must
have been buried before those nearer the entrance, which means that the 21st
and 22nd dynasties are partially contemporary, which is not considered in
the conventional chronology. So that is the first evidence that the Third
Intermediate Period is too long.

Slide 32: The Royal Tombs of San

We now come to an excavation of some Royal Tombs in a place called San el-
Hagar or “San of the stones”. This is called “Zoan” in the Bible and “Tanis”
by Greek writers. it was excavated by Pierre Montet in 1939 and 1945.

Slide 33: Tanite Tombs

This is the plan of the tombs, and it clearly has some odd features. There
are three tombs in total, and Tomb 3 seems to have two extra chambers
squashed in. Note that there is a retaining wall of mud bricks used during
the constuction of Tomb 3. Note the tomb of Akheperre Psusennes 1st, who
died in 991 BC. Note the tomb of Usermaatre Osorkon 2nd, who died in 850
BC, according to the conventional chronology. Note that there is no evidence
that Osorkon was re-buried. All the evidence indicates that he built his tomb

9
and was then buried in it. However, it becomes clear on further study that
Psusennes’ tomb was built after Osorkon’s, and this explains its odd plan.

Slide 34: Original Plan

This is the original plan of tombs 1 and 3. The builders of tomb 3 first built
a retaining wall to stop sand re-filling construction excavations. They then
decided to add two extra chambers after construction had started.

Slide 35: New chambers added

This slide shows the alterations that had to be made for these two new
chambers. They had to cut into the wall of the existing tomb on the Southern
side. Why did they not simply add the chambers on the Northern side?
Answer - because there was another building already there!

Slide 36: Temple

They could not extend tomb 3 to the North - because of the temple court-
yard already there. This is also why the retaining wall was so important - to
protect the existing courtyard. So who build this temple courtyard? Answer
- Osorkon II! Therefore, the building work of a 21st dynasty king (Psusennes)
was affected by the existing buildings from a 22nd dynasty king who appar-
ently lived 140 years later. Something is wrong somewhere! The implication
is that the chronology of the Third Intermediate Period is inaccurate by at
least 140 years.

Slide 37: Egyptian Graffiti

This is a slide of ancient Egyptian graffiti! It was found in a quarry at
Wadi Hammammat and is a genealogical record of the Royal architects. It
goes back 22 generations. There are 3 such genealogies, all of which agree
closely with each other. Trying to fit these genealogies with the conventional
chronology is very difficult. Calculations using these genealogies suggest that
there are 10 missing generations between Ramesses II and Shoshenk I and
8 missing generations between Shoshenk I and Darius I to fit conventional
chronology. These genealogies indicate that the Third Intermediate Period
is too long by about 300 years.

10
Slide 38: Conclusion
The third intermediate period is far shorter than the conventional chronol-
ogy allows. Re-calculating this period adjusts all earlier Egyptian dates by
approximately 300 years. Ramesses II no longer the Pharaoh of the Exodus,
but the Pharaoh at the time of Rehoboam

Slide 39: Summary of part 1

We have looked at the consequences of a wrong chronology. It undermines
confidence in the historical accuracy of the Bible. We have looked at the the
four pillars of traditional chronology, and seen how only the latest of them
stands up to serious consideration. We have looked at some of the evidence
that the conventional dating of the Third Intermediate Period of Egyptian
history is too long. We have seen that there should be a 300 year correction
made to the dates of Egyptian chronology preceding this period. The Third
Intermediate Period no longer starts in 1069BC. This becomes 770BC under
the new chronology.

Slide 40: The New Chronology

With the 300 year correction suggested by David Rohl, Israel’s time of slavery
in Egypt is now in the Second Intermediate Period, not the 19th dynasty.
Israel’s conquest of Canaan is now in the middle bronze age 2B. Solomon’s
reign is now in the late bronze age, not early iron age. So let’s now look at
what archaeology now tells us about these periods in Israel’s history. We will
look particularly at the period of the Kings, Joshua’s conquest of the land
and finish with the time of the Exodus from Egypt.

Slide 41: Ramesses and Rehoboam

We will begin by looking again at the Egyptian military campaign into the
land of Israel that was recorded during the time of Rehoboam. However,
this time the pharaoh who was reigning at the same time as Rehoboam was
Ramesses the 2nd, not Shoshenk as the traditional chronology suggested.

11
Slide 42: Rehoboam’s fortified cities
(Map) Remember these were the cities fortified by Rehoboam as recorded
in the book of Chronicles. They are concentrated on Judah’s Southern and
Western borders to counter the threat from Egypt. Rehoboam’s fortifications
fit a general pattern of rebellion against Egypt in the region at the time. This
led Ramesses to make a military campaign into Israel.

Slide 43: Ramesses II’s campaign into Israel

This shows the area of the campaign of Ramesses II into Palestine. This was
researched by the archaeologist Kitchen. Note that it concentrates on the
Southern region, which fits with the 2 Chronicles account of Egypt’s attack
on Rehoboam. Remember that Shoshenk’s campaign was against the North.

Slide 44: Abu Simbel

We now turn to the evidence found in the great hall at Abu Simbel, a very
famous archaeological site in Egypt.

Slide 45: Abu Simbel

Inside this great hall at Abu Simbel is a record of Pharaoh taking a walled
city in the hill country of Palestine. This is shown here in this wall carving.

Slide 46: Ruler offering incense

This is a detail of the city under attack. It shows the ruler offering incense
as a peace offering and the citizens pleading for mercy

Slide 47: Abu Simbel’s great hall

David Rohl suggests that this is a record of victory over Israel by Ramesses
2nd. The panel shown in this slide describes the defeat of the hill city as
being during a campaign in the hill country of Palestine.

12
Slide 48: Shalem
This slide shows the translation of part of this panel. “The town which
the king (Ramesses II) plundered in year 8 Shalem”. So this panel records
pharaoh taking “Shalem” which is an ancient name for Jerusalem. So, the
campaign depicted on walls of Abu Simbel’s great hall, fits the Biblical
account of the campaign of Shishak against Israel in which he plundered
Jerusalem.
So why does the Bible refer to Shishak, not Ramesses?

Slide 49: Ramesses = Shishak

This slide shows the stages in which the name Ramesses can be shortened
in hieroglyphic notation. It is first shortened to “r-s-s”. Then to “s-s”, or
“Sese”. The Egyptian name “Sese” is “Sh-sh” in Canaanite. So we have the
first two vowels of “Shishak.” What about the final “k”?

Slide 50: Jezebel

David Rohl suggests that this is a word-play by the writers of the Bible.
There is another example of this in the translation of a foreign name. It
comes in the treatment of the name “Jezebel”, the idolatrous wife of king
Ahab. The original name is “Yzebel”, which means “Baal is a prince”.
However, the Bible writers often add an extra letter to her name, which then
becomes “Ayzebel”, which means “where is the piece of dung?” He suggests
that the extra “k” was added to the name “Sh-sh” for a similar reason. The
name formed in this way is “Shashak” which means “assaulter” or “the one
who crushes”.

Slide 51: Ashkelon Wall

There is another piece of evidence that places the campaign of Ramesses as
being against Israel at the time of Rehoboam. This is from the Ashkelon wall
at Karnak. This was probably carved by Ramesses and depicts a battlefield
assault against Israelite forces before the siege of Jerusalem. This shows the
capture of the fortified towns during the early part of the campaign. Note
the enemy chariot running away from the Egyptians at the bottom of the
slide. This indicates that the Egyptians were fighting Israelite chariots.

13
Slide 52: Israelite Chariots
The conventional chronology places this campaign at the time of the Exodus
or the conquest of the land. However, the Israelites didn’t have chariots until
time of Solomon. So this picture fits much better with the time of Rehoboam.

Slide 53: Jericho and the conquest

Let’s now have another look at Jericho and the time of Israel’s conquest of
the land.

Slide 54: Mound of Jericho

This is the mound of ancient Jericho, showing one of Kathleen Kenyon’s
trenches. Remember that her work demonstrated that there was no Late
Bronze Age settlement at Jericho. This is the traditional dating of the con-
quest. However, the new Chronology places Joshua’s conquest of Jericho
during the Middle Bronze Age. What did Kathleen Kenyon find for this?

Slide 55: Jericho Wall

This is her excavation for Middle Bronze Age 2. She found a plaster coated
protective slope at the bottom of which was a structural wall and a deep
trench. There were no walls at the top of the mound, which was badly
eroded. The trench was filled with a thick deposit of red-brown earth. She
interpeted this as the remains of the great Middle Bronze Age city wall which
had collapsed outwards and fallen down into the defensive ditch.

Slide 56: Jericho

So the excavations for Jericho at the time of Joshua’s conquest according to
the new chronology shows the following: There are no city walls! They are
in the ditch. But the excavations of the town also fit with the conquest of
Joshua. All the houses and civic buildings were blackened by severe fire. The
ash and debris is a metre thick in some places. The Store houses contained
large storage jars filled with burned grain.

14
Slide 57: Summary of Jericho
This was the summary of Kathleen Kenyon’s findings after her excavation of
Jericho. “Jericho was destroyed at the end of the MBA, probably by enemy
action and possibly through a failure of the fortification system. Perhaps
there was a fatal flaw in the design of the fortifications? the reason for the
destruction of Jericho is unknown.” This was written by a scholar called
Piotr Bienkowski.

Slide 58: Joshua 6:24

Now let’s look at the Biblical account of the conquest of Jericho. Every detail
now fits with what the archaeologists have found. “So the people shouted
when the priests blew with the trumpets: and it came to pass, when the
people heard the sound of the trumpet, and the people shouted with a great
shout, that the wall fell down flat, so that the people went up into the city,
every man straight before him, and they took the city.” (Joshua 6:20) “And
they burnt the city with fire, and all that was therein” (Joshua 6:24) “the
feet of the priests that bare the ark were dipped in the brim of the water, (for
Jordan overfloweth all his banks all the time of harvest,)” (Joshua 3:15) The
grain burned in Jericho’s stores fits exactly with the conquest taking place
at harvest time.

Slide 59: Israel in Egypt

I’d like to finish by looking at some of the evidence of Israel’s stay in the
land of Egypt at the time of Moses.

Slide 60: Pi-Ramesse

This is the area called “Pi-Ramesse”. It is the area where the Israelites
lived during the time they were in Egypt. Archealogical findings for the 19th
dynasty, which is the traditional dating for the Exodus, show no evidence
that the Israelites lived here.

Slide 61: Austrian Mission

However, recent digs in this area by an Austrian group led by Professor
Bietak, went down below the 19th dynasty remains.

15
Slide 62: Excavations
Excavations of this area revealed houses dating from the 13th dynasty, several
hundred years before 19th dynasty. They discovered a city called Avaris.

Slide 63: Family compounds

They found mud brick family compounds, including family burials. The
items found in these graves indicated that the inhabitants were from Asia,
particularly Palestine and Syria.

Slide 64: Typical burial

This is a typical family burial. The features indicate that the inhabitants
were from Asia - Flexed knee posture, head facing East. In these graves there
is a very high number of adult women and a high proportion of infant burials.
Around 65 percent of the bodies are less than 18 months old compared with
typically 20-30 percent in ancient world. One explanation is the killing of
the infant males by the Egyptians.

Slide 65: Israelite Slaves

More evidence for the accuracy of the Biblical record of Israel’s stay in Egypt
comes from the records of servants during the 13th dynasty. Analysis of the
names indicates that more than 50 percent are from Palestine. This indicates
that the Israelite population was enslaved at this time. There is also a 3:1
female to male ratio, which again fits with the Egyptians killing the Israelite
male infants at the time of Moses.

Slide 66: Plague Pits

Towards the end of the 13th dynasty, during the reign of Pharaoh Dudimose,
Manetho records that in his reign “God smote the Egyptians”. At the cor-
responding period in Avaris, the archaeologists suddenly found plague pits.
There were a large number of shallow graves. These were mass graves, with
bodies carelessly piled on top of each other and no grave goods. This was in
strong contrast to the ordered family burials of the earlier years. Indicates
some sudden catastrophe had come upon these people.

16
Slide 67: Plague Pits
There was further evidence that a large part of the remaining population
abandoned the town at this time. It was then re-occupied when Egypt was
over-run by a foreign power. The Egyptian historians record this as happen-
ing “without striking a blow” This was the Hyksos invasion which followed
the Exodus and its devastating effects on Egypt. All these details fit exactly
with the Biblical record of Israel in Egypt.

Slide 68: Egyptians Chariots 2

This last slide just adds a little more detail to what we have just been con-
sidering.
This picture shows a man called “Konsuemwaset” and his wife. Note the
gloves. Gloves not needed in Egypt for warmth, but for protection. Gloves
here are used to indicate that this man was a charioteer. In fact this man
was a commander of chariots. His father was Dudimose - the Pharaoh of the
Exodus. This picture could well be of the man who lead the Egyptians into
the Red Sea.

Slide 69: Summary

Modern scholars have no reason to reject the Biblical record. We have seen
how the details of Egyptian history mesh precisely with what we read in
the Bible. Just as we trust the historical record of the Bible, so we trust
its prophetic record. We now look for the prophet greater than Moses, the
new Joshua who will lead us into the kingdom promised for all God’s faithful
servants.

17