why did the pharoah set the jews free at the time of the passover?

Question

needs to be a paragraph...

Answer 1

Passover was to memorialize Pharoah setting the Jews free, not a case of Pharaoh coincindentally doing it at thast time.
The first Passover (Exodus 12) was because the Lord knew what was going to happen, and Pharoah's reaction.

Answer 2

Pharoah had always wanted to set the Jews free, because he was opposed to slavery. He didn't get a chance to do anything about it because his father was still King of the Egyptians and did as he pleased.

One night Pharoah and his father were celebrating the Passover Seder when his father choked to death on a piece of matzoh. That meant Pharoah was now the new King of the Egyptians and the very first order he gave was to set the Jews free. He gave the order while it was still Passover.

Sorry, that's two paragraphs, but I think you will get a good grade.

Answer 3

Because God had set so many plagues and on the Egyptians that he felt he had to let them go before something even worse happened. And I think too the last horror (the killing of the first born of every house) was more thann Pharoah could take as his own first born son died.

Answer 4

Because the God of the Jews showed Himself to be more powerful than the gods of Pharoah.

Jannes and Jambres could not compete with the God of the Jews.

This is not a paragraph, but I don't plan on doing your homework for you.

If you want to cheat, go to:
http://www.godrules.net/library/clarke/clarkeexo7.htm

grace2u

Answer 5

Sorry, but I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Find a passover hagaddah with lots of commentary and learn the answers for yourself.

Answer 6

if you go to religious school DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK
look up verses to find out
so they wouldnt be upset

Answer 7

read your bible to look for the answer. It doesn't do much for you if you don't do your own hwk.

Answer 8

Because his firstborn son died, that's why...

Answer 9

During the eighteenth dynasty (sixteenth to fourteenth centuries B. C.) the title is found in common use as a reverential designation of the king. About the beginning of the twenty-second dynasty (tenth to eighth centuries B. C.), instead of being used alone as heretofore, it began to be added to the other titles before the king's name, and from the twenty-fifth dynasty (eighth to seventh centuries B. C.) it was, at least in ordinary usage, the only title prefixed to the royal appellative. Meanwhile the old custom of referring to the sovereign simply as Per'o still obtained in narratives.

The Biblical use of the term reflects Egyptian usage with fair accuracy. The early kings are always mentioned under the general title Pharaoh, or Pharaoh the King of Egypt; but personal names begin to appear with the twenty-second dynasty, though the older designation is still used, especially when contemporary rulers are spoken of. The absence of proper names in the first books of the Bible is no indication of the late date of their composition and of writer's vague knowledge of Egyptian history, rather the contrary. The same is true of the use of the title Pharaoh for kings earlier than the eighteenth dynasty, which is quite in keeping with Egyptian usage at the time of the nineteenth dynasty.

The first king mentioned by name is Shishaq (probably Sheshonk I), the founder of the twenty-second dynasty and contemporary of Rehoboam and Jeroboam (1 Kings 11:40; 2 Chronicles 12:2 sqq.). Pharaoh is not prefixed to his name probably because the Hebrews had not yet become familiarized with the new style.

The next, Sua or So, ally of Osee, King of Israel (2 Kings 17:4), is commonly identified with Shabaka, the founder of the twenty-fifth dynasty, but he was probably an otherwise unknown local dynast prior to Shabaka's reign. Winckler's opinion that he was a ruler of Musri in North Arabia, though accepted by many, is without sufficient foundation.

Tharaca, who was the opponent of Sennacherib, is called King of Ethiopia (2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9), and hence is not given the title Pharao which he bears in Egyptian documents.

Nekau II, who defeated Josiah (2 Kings 23:29 sqq.; 2 Chronicles 35:20 sqq.), and Ephree or Hophra, the contemporary of Sedecius (Jeremiah 44:30), are styled Pharaoh Neco and Pharaoh Ephree, according to the then Egyptian usage.

Unnamed Pharaohs of the Bible

The uncertainties attaching to ancient chronology make it impossible to determine the identity of the Pharaoh who ruled over Egypt when the patriarch Abraham arrived in the country. The Massoretic text gives 1125 years between Abraham's migration to Chanaan and the building of the temple, whereas the Septuagint allows 870 (see chronology). As the building is placed about 1010 B. C. by some scholars, and about 969 B. C. by others, the date of Abraham's migration would be 2135 or 2094 B. C. for the Massoretic text, and 1880 or 1839 B. C. for the Septuagint. Ancient Egyptian chronology is as uncertain as that of the Bible. If Meyer's dates, adopted in the article Egypt, are correct, Abraham's journey to Egypt would have to be referred to the reign of one of the Mentuhoteps of the eleventh dynasty, or to that of either Usertesen (Sesotris) III, or Amenemhet III of the twelfth. However, the Haggada holds that Pharaohs at the time of Abraham were Ashwerosh and Rakayan, both nearly identical to Auserra Apopi and Khayan, two of the last Hyksos Pharaohs.
It is generally thought that Joseph held office under one of the shepherd - or Hyksos kings, who ruled in Egypt between the twelfth and eighteenth dynasties, and were finally expelled by Ahmose I shortly after 1580 BC. The length of their rule is unknown, but probably it did not last much over a hundred years. Joseph's tenure of office would accordingly be placed in the seventeenth century B. C., however, this date has never been used by anyone who associated Joseph with someone or a certain period, and this date is also very inconsistant with customs mentioned, which are mostly apparent in the New Kingdom. It is therefore unlikely. The names of four Hyksos kings are known to us from Egyptian monuments, Khyan and three Apophises. The Pharaoh who Joseph served was said to be named Magron in the Haggada, the Egyptian form of this name appears in the throne names of both Tuthmosis IV and Amenhotep III.
The Pharaoh of the Hebrews' oppression in (and the Exodus from) Egypt. The Haggada says that this Pharaoh was named Malol.
The Pharaoh with whom Adad sought refuge in the time of King David (1 Kings 11:17) was a king of the twenty-first dynasty, either Paynozem or Amenemope.
King Solomon's father-in-law (1 Kings 3:1) may have been Amenemope, Siamon or Pesibkhenno II.
The Pharaoh mentioned in 2 Kings 18:21 and Isaiah 36:6 is by many thought to be Tharaca; but if the expedition of Sennacherib occurred in 701 B.C., as is generally held, there is little doubt that Shabaka, or possibly Shabataka, is the Pharaoh referred to. Tharaca came to the throne some years later, and the title King of Ethiopia (2 Kings 19:9; Isaiah 37:9) is given to him by anticipation.
The unnamed Pharaoh of Jeremiah 25:19, is probably Nekau II, who is certainly meant in 46:17 and 47:1; elsewhere Ephree is intended. The latter is also the Pharaoh of Ezekiel.

The Israelites had moved from the land of Canaan into Egypt when Joseph was vizier of Egypt. After the death of Joseph and a change in rulership, the Egyptians were now suspicious of the Israelites, particularly because they had begun to greatly increase in number. The Egyptians enslaved the Israelites for four hundred years.

This work, particularly the brickmaking, was extremely rigorous and the conditions oppressively harsh. Moses, in exile from Egypt at the time, was called or felt impelled to become a leader. Returning to Egypt he attempted to negotiate with the Pharaoh, who was not receptive, saying he did not know Moses' God. Moses, under God's instruction, called forth a series of ten plagues. Eventually Pharaoh agreed to the Israelites' request for Moses to lead the Israelites out of Egypt.

However the Pharaoh changed his mind soon after they left, and sent soldiers after the Israelites to bring them back. In a miraculous escape the Israelites crossed over a "sea" which had dried out, with the water standing up on both sides of them like a wall. Once the Israelites had crossed the sea, the water returned and caught the following Egyptians as they tried to turn back, as the Lord had caused their chariots to swerve.

After their departure from Egypt, the Israelites traveled through an itinerary of perhaps 40 locations. The modern counterparts of many of the places at the beginning of the list are unknown or disputed. Significant events occurred at these early locations or 'stations', including the giving of the Ten Commandments at Mount Sinai, along with the remainder of Mosaic law. The Israelites finally arrive at a site which may have been located, Kadesh-Barnea. Spies eyed Canaan as a prospect for invasion, but although Joshua and Caleb returned with optimistic reports, the other ten tribal leaders advised that an invasion not be attempted. All this seemed to happen in the first year, as the account says the Wandering took place when Moses was between the ages of 80 and 120: "Israel was thereupon sentenced to wander forty years in the wilderness" (Nu. 14:34). (Note that as manna had just been introduced, Ex. 16:35 does not imply the forty years to have happened previously, but is a forward-looking statement.) Moses then led the Israelites through the remainder of a series of encampments known to scholars as the Stations for the afore-mentioned forty years. Only the descendants of the generation present at the start of the forty years, along with Joshua and Caleb, would be able to cross into Canaan proper; an action which ultimately culminated in the beginning of the Conquest of Canaan with the crossing of the River Jordan from the East.


[edit] Route of the Exodus

Possible Exodus Routes. More information at: Stations listThere are a number of possible routes the Exodus might have taken. Many of the listed places are not identifiable with their modern day counterparts, and the information present in Exodus and related texts do not present a lot of unambiguous information regarding geographical landmarks. The itinerary that the Israelites followed after their departure from Egypt is given in both narrative form and in itinerary form. A few of the cities at the start of the itinerary, such as Ra'amses, Pithom and Succoth, are reasonably well identified, and the journey's second half consists of more well known places. Kadesh-Barnea is presumably found, but it was reported that its earliest occupation during the Ramesside era was centuries too late even for a Late Exodus. Although the biblical Mt. Sinai is most frequently depicted as Jebel Musa in the south of the Sinai Peninsula, no definitive evidence of the Exodus has as yet been found there, and even Sinai's location is not widely agreed upon by scholars. Dozens, if not hundreds of routes of the Exodus have been proposed; and where many of the stops in the Itinerary are located depends in no small part on where one wishes to locate Sinai and/or Horeb.

The crossing of the Red Sea has been variously placed at the Pelusic branch of the Nile, anywhere along the network of Bitter Lakes and smaller canals that formed a barrier toward westward escape, or even the Gulf of Suez (SSE of Succoth) and the Gulf of Aqaba (S of Ezion-Geber). It is apparent from scriptural usage of the "Red Sea", lit. Yam Suf, i.e. the "Sea of Reeds", that the term was used to refer to both the Gulf of Aqaba and the Gulf of Suez, but the meaning of the term can be easily read to refer to a papyrus marsh in Egypt as well.

Some of the more prominent routes for travelers through the region were the royal roads, the "king's highways" that had been in use for centuries, and would continue in use for centuries as well. The Bible specifically denies that the Israelites went the Way of the Philistines (Ex. 13:17), but even so, some scholars suggest a more northerly route along a land bridge adjoining the Mediterranean. As the warfare with the Philistines was a concern for the Israelites, however, and given the flat denial of the northern highway, an Exodus route that crosses this land bridge seems unlikely — especially considering the military situation that might present itself by being trapped between two hostile forces at either end. Beitak also describes a line of Egyptian forts along this King's Highway, known both from Egyptian texts and archaeology, which would most likely principally aide persuers. Pi-Hahiroth, (e.g. Ex. 14:2,7), is interpreted as the "mouth of the canal", but since Pi- may also be the Egyptian word for royal city, we might look for an Egyptian rather than a Semitic root for this name. Thus far, no satisfactory Egyptian root has been proposed, and so the Semitic translation may be correct. It should be pointed out, however, that canals connecting to a number of lakes may meet this description, so we should not press its localization too far until other nearby parts of the routes are more secure. This leaves the Way of Shur and the Way to Seir as probable routes, the former having the advantage of heading toward Kadesh-Barnea. Finally, various southern routes, all incorporating very similar suggestions for site locations, are notable due to their popularity, and the association of Jebal Musa with Mt. Sinai, an identification only known to go back to the Third Century CE. There also would have been some doubling back involved just before leaving Egypt, in addition to merely following the main highways. Three possible crossing routes at the Bitter Lakes are shown, and the Gulf of Aqaba is another popular candidate, but this crossing is not shown for the sake of clarity.

On the map at the upper right, three of the important highways and the traditional southern route are shown.

The Way of Shur: (blue line) This route has the advantage of leading to Kadesh-Barnea, a stop on the Itinerary which has probably, but not necessarily been identified. (A turn back toward Kadesh-Barnea is also indicated with this line, which is not part of the Way of Shur.)
The Way to Seir: (green line) This could be regarded as an Exodus route after crossing e.g. at the Bitter Lakes, or as part of a scenario placing the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba. A number of theories, with some support from Deu. 1:2, place Mt. Sinai variously at Mount Bedr or Jebel al-Lawz in Saudi Arabia. However, note that Nu. 21:4 is most comfortably read as having Mt. Hor and Sinai west of Ezion Geber.
The southern route: (black line) This is the traditional route, which is based on the identification of Jebel Musa as Sinai in the third century AD (prompting the construction of St. Catherine's monastery at the time), and on the various suggestions for otherwise unknown stops on the Itinerary. Two lines lead eastward and northward, to show possible continuations to the conquest of the Transjordan.
A summary of some of the many Exodus routes as proposed by various scholars can be found at: [http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusRouteMapsVarious.html Various Map Proposals for the Route of the Exodus..


[edit] Numbers involved in the Exodus
The Biblical account in Exodus 12:37 refers to 600,000 adult Hebrew men as leaving Egypt and travelling with Moses. According to many Jewish sources, the total number of Israelites (including women and children) numbered around three million. The exodus also included droves of livestock.

Estimates of population suggest that Egypt might have supported around 3-4 million people during that period, maybe even up to 6 million (Robert Feather, The Copper Scroll Decoded and [1], [2], and [3]). Up to comparatively recent times, the population has not been excessive. Napoleon estimated a population of 3 million when he invaded in 1798. Similarly, a simple calculation shows that a group of 3 million walking 10 abreast with 6 ft between rows would extend for around 340 miles (3,000,000 / 10 * 6 = 1,800,000 ft. = 340 mi.). Driving animals, taking children and elderly would probably have increased this distance. On the other hand, 600,000 men is the size of Napoleon's invasion of Russia which was not so strung out. Also remarkable are the textual implications that almost none (only two) of the original 600,000 adult men lived to cross the Jordan.

Recent archaeological research has not been able to confirm the biblical account. Archaeologists have found no evidence that the Sinai desert ever hosted millions of people, nor of a massive population increase in Canaan during this time period. At this time the land is estimated to have had a population of between 50,000 and 100,000. Archaeologists, however, disagree greatly among themselves on timing, such as the conquest of Jericho, based on carbon dating and pottery shards, so they can not affirmatively disprove the Exodus.

Archaeologists and secular historians have worked in the Middle East for many years to make an educated guess of approximately how many people lived in a given area at a given time. They do this by analyzing the evidence: buildings, trash, human waste product, skeletons, traces of ancient farms and fields, clothing, documents, and, of course, historical records.

Hebrew University professor Abraham Malamat points out that the Bible often refers to 600 and its multiples, as well as 1,000 and its multiples, typologically in order to convey the idea of a large military unit. "The issue of Exodus 12:37 is an interpretive one. The Hebrew word eleph can be translated 'thousand,' but it is also rendered in the Bible as 'clans' and 'military units.' There are thought to have been 20,000 in the entire Egyptian army at the height of Egypt's empire. And at the battle of Ai in Joshua 7, there was a severe military setback when 36 troops were killed." Therefore if one reads alaphim (plural of eleph) as military units, the number of Hebrew fighting men lay between 5,000 and 6,000. In theory, his would give a total Hebrew population of less than 20,000, something within the range of historical possibility.

However, at the same time of The Exodus, the total Hebrew population could conceivably involve fourteen generations of descendants of Eber, and thus easily 600,000. Under the famine conditions during Joseph's generation, it is conceivable that the number of immigrants to Egypt would have been substantial.

Some hold that one cannot interpret the counts given for each tribe in Numbers 1-2 in this fashion. They appear in units of "thousands", "hundreds" and "tens" and in addition the total appears. Thus, no interpretation of eleph except "thousand" makes sense in that case. However, the Hebrew Bible does not always use words precisely or consistently, precluding definitive proof either way.

This by no means renders some kind of Exodus impossible. Some scholars suggest that it might not necessarily have happened in the numbers claimed. In the second millennium BC, the Sinai region was much more lush and verdant than it is today, and could thus support more life. However the amount of grazing land and food needed for a migration of millions for decades at least strains credulity. The failure to find clear indications of this migration does not demonstrate that it did not happen, but the absence of evidence can be taken to have some significance. Part of the problem of finding evidence for this migration also involves a larger issue: the date of the Exodus is not known, and so it is unclear which layers might most likely represent any remnants of their migration. It is unclear if this means that a smaller migration might have given rise to the Exodus, that the migration should be sought at an unexpected time or that it happened in the numbers claimed but the evidence eludes us. One cannot conclude that it did not happen at all based on the difficulty with the large migration numbers.

Therefore, many scholars have questioned the Biblical numbers. In general, archaeologists hypothesize based on evidence available in locations. There are no other Exodus accounts in legend, inscriptions or steles currently available to dispute the numbers in the Hebrew Torah.


[edit] Dating the Exodus overview
In Exodus, Pharaoh is treated as a name rather than a title, and he is not otherwise named. Most prevailing theories fall into one of two categories: either it was Ramesses II (1290-1223 or 1272-1213) that was the Pharaoh of the Oppression, or else the Exodus was earlier by centuries. Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426 depending on the Egyptian dating scheme employed) is suggested by the date used by orthodox theologians, although nearby pharaohs are also used (e.g. Amenhotep II), while other scholars in the modern era have taken up the idea to associate the Exodus with expulsion of the Hyksos, making the pharaoh of the Oppression one of the Semitic Hyksos conquerors of Egypt. Note that the pharaoh of the Exodus need not necessarily be the same pharaoh as the one for whom they built the Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11, who need not necessarily be the same as the "pharaoh who knew not Joseph".

There is little scholarly agreement as to even the century in which the Exodus should be placed. If one accepts the orthodox account, then from I Ki. 6:1, the conclusion is that the Exodus occurred 480 years before the founding of King Solomon's temple. Fortunately, only the Biblical Minimalist school of interpretation dissents significantly from the traditional date for Solomon's temple. The consensus of most experts places it in the range of 960-970 BCE. Using, for example, 966, we arrive at an Exodus date of 1446. This is unsatisfactory for three reasons:

The biblical chronology can readily be shown to be confused. The era of the Judges, when one adds their reigns, exceeds the time between the Exodus and Solomon's temple. The Apostle Paul, for his part, comes to a figure of 450 years for the Judges, the 40-year Wandering included (Acts 13:18.20), but still does not take into account the reign of the kings Saul and David.
If one uses either the lower or the higher Egyptological dating schemes (although not so if a reductionist scheme is employed), 1446 falls in the reign of Thutmose III, who in archaeological records, is engaged in capturing Canaanite prisoners in battle and bringing them into Egypt, as opposed to the Pharaoh of the Exodus, who was concerned early on with the unbalanced proportion of Hebrew slaves to Egyptian masters.
The archaeology of the Conquest militates for a late Exodus.
Currently, the destruction layer at Hazor, at which a transition from Canaanite to proto-Israelite/Philistine material culture is found, is dated from 1250-1150 BCE. (A Canaanite gate there is dated ca. 1155, but that city may have been razed subsequent to its completion.) A similar boundary at Lachish is dated to 1150, and at Megiddo, about 1145 BCE. Either these classic Joshua conquests happened at a much different time than the Bible suggests, or we must employ some exotic Egyptian chronology, even though it is relatively well understood, compared to Hebrew chronology and even Babylonian chronology. Other "Joshua" cities have transition layers around 1250 BCE.

One idea that has enjoyed occasional support among scholars ignores point three, and suggests that the Exodus should be associated with the expulsion of the Hyksos. Indeed, this seems to have been the conclusion of classical writers such as Manetho and Josephus. The Hyksos were a Semitic people who ruled Egypt for roughly two centuries before the Eighteenth Dynasty. One cannot deny the possibility that the Hyksos might have been associated with the Habiru stock which seems to have given rise to the Hebrews of the Bible (although this link is not universally admitted), and indeed, the statement of Ex. 12:40 suggests that 400 years separated the arrival of Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus, thus tempting us to synchronize the arrival of Jacob in Egypt with the Hyksos. This, however, disregards the impossibility of synchronizing the end of the Hyksos era with the emergence of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan, the earliest phases of which in the central highlands date to ca. 1400 BCE, but was not complete in the Judaite territories until at least 1250. Furthermore, the Hyksos left Egypt as defeated kings, not as escaping slaves. If we suppose the Israelites to have fled before then, we do not encounter any notice that their captors were soon overwhelmed, nor any notice that the Pharaoh they were slaves under was not actually an Egyptian, but Semitic like themselves. Placing the Exodus before the expulsion of the Hyksos only increases the difficulty of synchronizing the evidence with the arrival of proto-Israelite material culture in Canaan. Placing it shortly afterward does not allow for a very long Oppression, and also fails to explain why the Bible does not say that Pharaoh was not Egyptian for much of this time, or that the Egyptians had come back to power.

Thus it is that there are two main categories that most Exodus theories fall into: Early and Late Exodus theories. Those requiring the veracity of I Ki. 6:1, or otherwise having an Exodus at or before ca. 1446 BCE (which include the many works by Bimson, who is not a fundamentalist, and more recently Redford and Herzog), are generally known as Early Exodus Theory supporters. Those maintaining that the building of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be associated with Rameses II or later (Rameses I ruled for only a year or so), are termed supporters of a Late Exodus theory. Rameses II began his reign ca. 1290-1272 (the Encyclopedias Americana and Britannia differ on Egyptological dating, and Bietak places them later yet), as opposed to the ca. 1446 BCE I Ki. 6:1 would require. Most archaeologists, for their part, if they believe the Exodus to be a historical event at all, support a late conquest of the "Joshua" cities, thus suggesting Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Oppression. This fits well with the equation of the city of Rameses of Ex. 1:11 with the pi-Rameses of archaeology; and Pithom with pi-Atum; both of which Egyptian documents from the time of Rameses II report construction on. Although Bietak reports finding remains from nearby Tell el-Dab'a from the time of the Hyksos (see below) until well after that of Thutmose III, he associates Pi-Rameses with Qantir instead of Tell el-Dab'a, but shows a hiatus at Qantir during the time of the traditional Exodus. It is widely held that this supports a Hyksos era or a Late Exodus better than a traditional Exodus date. Remains from Pithom are less helpful in narrowing the Exodus date down.

Alternate hypotheses concerning synchronizing the Exodus with volcanic eruptions are at least possible, but we are under no compulsion to require synchronization with any such eruption until we have at least isolated the correct century to search for the Exodus in. Some arguments try to demonstrate a date for the Exodus using astronomical or calendrical back-projections, so that the day the sun was claimed to have stood still over Gibeon might coincide with an eclipse, or the Exodus might coincide with a Jubilee. Sometimes these methods are used to try to prove something about when the Exodus was, but they cannot tell us what century the Exodus happened in. Rabbinical tradition typically tells a different version of events than that of the Bible. Typically, they speak of the Red Sea being divided up into twelve pieces; some in a miraculous context, but sometimes with no miraculous trappings at all. As the channels between the Bitter Lakes may have been silting up like the channel linking the Gulf of Suez to the Mediterannean had in the time of Rameses II, all we need do is imagine a brief drought which resulted in a silted up channel to have become dried up in one or more places in order to explain the received traditions. Although many theories are possible, while archaeology has demonstrated no evidence for any miracles, as details from Exodus evidently preserve memories from the Second Millennium BCE, Exodus theories most often fall into either a Traditional or Late Exodus theory category, while a minority of scholars either support a Hyksos Exodus, or else may be biblical Minimalists, who either deny the historicity of the traditions altogether, or else place them so late as to do require wholesale revisions to mainstream Egyptian and Israelite chronologies.


[edit] Traditional Exodus chronologies
The most natural point to begin seeking the date of the Exodus, in keeping with I Ki. 6:1, is some time within the decade surrounding ca. 1446 BCE. Thus, the Pharaoh of the Exodus would be a pharaoh such as Thutmose III (1490-1438 or 1479-1426, if using the chronology of the Encyclopedia Britannica or the Americana) or Amenhotep II (1412-1428 or 1426-1400). Many attempts have been made to reconcile the biblical record with the archaeology of this time. Any Exodus date earlier than the time of Rameses II but later than the time of the Hyksos can be considered as part of this section. The vast majority of scholars who would place the Exodus in this range do so in the earlier part, and arguments both for and against are often similar.

What follows are some sites with scholars supporting such a traditional Exodus date. If you wish to add a site supporting an early Exodus, and you don't see it here, please make sure it does not belong in the Chronologies Synchronizing the Exodus with the Expulsion of the Hyksos section, below.

Evidence for the Early Date of the Exodus
What are best sources for an early date Exodus - 1446 B.C. (traditional view)?
Here is a site that discusses various sociological models of the Conquest in light of archaeology, some of which may or may not by used in the context of an Early Exodus: The Date of the Conquest.
Some relatively recent archeological findings are said to suggest the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ahmose I (around 1500 BCE): The Date of the Conquest.
A show on the Discovery and History Channels called The Exodus Decoded also supports this idea: The Exodus Decoded.
The Exodus Decoded has a number of intriguing ideas. More scholarly work needs to be done on parallels between the Tempest Stele and the Plagues of Egypt, although it should be remembered that the Ipuwer Papyrus can also make such a claim for parallels which are probably better, and it is thought to date from a far earlier era. We also cannot rule out that these might have served as literary models for the biblical plagues centuries after the fact. The steles the researchers claim depict the Exodus and Egyptians drowning in the sea are also interesting, even though it is not an open and shut case. Other points in this documentary may vanish on closer inspection. The figures on the top of the Ark of the covenant were not birds, as in the documentary, but cherubim, i.e. in all probability winged figures with the body of a lion and the head of a human. Unlike the gold figurine they showed from Troy, the wings should also have been touching. The calcified deposits on top of the mountain are not necessarily of Ahmose I vintage, but until they are tested, might just as easily be from a spring running hundreds of thousands of years ago, before the mountain was a mountain. It would require radiocarbon dating to substantiate the claim that this calcium carbonate was of Ahmose I vintage, but access to the site is an issue also. Geologically, it is not unusual to find fossils from sea beds on the tops of mountains - a circumstance interpreted by most professional geologists as the accumulated outcome of natural processes (some gradual and some abrupt) operating over very long periods of time (on the order of millions of years), while many believers have it that these are remains from Noah's flood.

The difficulties that chronologies with Exodus dates near the traditional one face are considerable. Many archaeologists maintain that the Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11 have probably been identified, but the former was for the most part unoccupied during this period. During the reign of Horemheb, he had built the cities of Pi-Rameses and Pi-Tum under the supervision of Paramessu (later Ramesses I), though a rather large addition was made to Pi-Ramesses and a small to Pi-Tum; most archaeologists make the equation between these and Rameses and Pithom. Originally, Pi-Rameses was thought to be at Tanis/Zoan, but then archaeologists noticed that some of the statuary had been relocated from Qantir to Tanis. Most archaeologists now place the ancient location of Pi-Rameses at Qantir. Some have also suggested Tell el-Dab'a, but Bietak places the core of Pi-Rameses at Qantir, which is just to its north; whereas he identifies Tell el-Dab'a with Avaris, the ancient capitol of the Hyksos. Although he has unearthed remains from the Eighteenth Dynasty at Tell el-Dab'a, these occur only a citadel at Ez-Helmi, within the area of Tell el-Dab'a. This citadel shows occupation from the time of the expulsion of the Hyksos to as late as Amenhotep II, while agricultural leveling has removed later traces. By contrast, he shows Qantir as being having an archaeological hiatus during the expected biblical Exodus date.

While Pi-Atum is mentioned in writings of the time of Rameses II, its location may have been at either Tell el-Maskhuta or Tell el-Retabeh. Tell el-Maskhuta was at first thought to have been Pithom, owing to Ramesside era finds there, but as with Tanis, statues from the time of Rameses II seem to have been moved there at a later date. Based on a Roman mile marker which has been found, which says "9 miles on the road from Ero [=Pithom] to Clysma [=Suez]", a distance which supports Tell Retabeh but not Tell el-Maskhuta, the former is usually identified with Pi-Atum today. Tell el-Maskhuta seems to have been largely unoccupied from the time of the Hyksos until the Seventh Century BCE, as per Holladay, but Tell el-Retabeh shows occupation from a wide variety of eras, and so does not help us much in narrowing down the date of the Exodus.

Some writers have tried to discount the occurrence of Rameses as a city name in Ex. 1:11. Traditionalists point out that just because the term Rameses is used in the Bible for the site the Israelites built, it does not mean that Rameses could not simply have been a later name for a site built just before the traditional Exodus date. One would probably have to locate Rameses at some site other than Qantir, where the Egyptian Pi-Rameses almost certainly was, to maintain this argument. The archaeology of Qantir more readily lends itself to a Hyksos era Exodus or a late Exodus. Alternately, some suggest that the name Rameses had been used as a name element by pharaohs before Rameses I, perhaps allowing a biblical Exodus date. While this is true, evidence for another city by this name in such an era is lacking. Redford claimed that Rameses was a name for Tanis, which did not have significant occupation during the time of Rameses II, but evidence for this conjecture is also lacking. The name Rameses more likely refers to the Egyptian of pi-Rameses at Qantir rather than Tanis which is not known to have been referred to by that name in other times, although statuary formerly at Pi-Rameses does occur there. When the Bible uses the term Rameses as a city name, it is mirroring a situation that occurred only in Dynasty XIX, an era from which a very early strata of text probably came, whether or not it has been significantly revised since.

While one reasonably argue, with some justification, that Dynasty XVIII finds might yet be unearthed at Qantir, so that the Israelites could have built a city 'Rameses' at the traditional Exodus date, it has not been found yet, and this is not the only site to show such an occupation pattern. It had long been thought that Edom had been for the most part unoccupied until at least the Ninth Century BCE, but recent excavations there by Levy and Najjar have turned up evidence of copper mining activity from the Twelfth Century. It seemed that previous investigations only examined highland sites, whereas an older lowland mining facility had already been reported by Glueck. When this mining facility was examined, remains radiocarbon dated to the mid-Ninth to Twelfth Centuries BCE were found, but these earliest mining strata rested on bedrock, so in this case, the finds support a Late Exodus, but do not, at least as yet, have finds attributed to the traditional Exodus date. Likewise, although Seir had been mentioned in Egyptian records at earlier times, recalling Edom's Mt. Seir of the Bible, the first mention of it by the name Edom is in the Papyrus Anastasi from the time of Merenptah, (1223-1211 BCE). Since Edom had to be substantial enough to make Israel detour around the Kings Highway through it during the Wandering after the Exodus, again the archaeology works better with a Late Exodus of some sort rather than either a traditional or a Hyksos era Exodus.

The archaeology of the Conquest of Canaan also appears to be late. A stele found commemorating raids that took place late in the reign of Thutmose III describes sacking cities in Palestine from which he brought back thousands of hostages, including some from cities with rather familiar sounding names; i.e. Joseph-el and Jacob-el. This seems an unlikely action for a pharaoh so worried about Israelite overpopulation that he directs the midwives to kill the male Israelite babies and enslaves them with hard labor. Iron, which the Philistines were able to work in the early Judges era, did not come to the region archaeologically until ca. 1190 BCE; i.e. the Iron Age. Egyptian control and raiding of Canaan also would have taken place throughout the time when this chronology would place the Judges era; and yet what should have been significant Egyptian incursions worthy of mention during the Judges era are not recorded in the Bible, although a later such incursion is recorded. Finally, and most significantly, the Conquest/Settlement of Canaan by proto-Israelites appears to have taken place centuries later, to judge from archaeology. A few cuneiform writings in these earlier layers have survived, and the predecessors of these layers that predate the proto-Israelite ones do not seem to have spoken Hebrew, but languages referred to by archaeologists as Canaanite, or even perhaps Mycenaean in the case of the Pharos Disk. Additionally, the archaeology of the cities Josephs was said to have conquered, at sites such as Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, and Bethel, show transitions from Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture in the range 1250-1140 BCE, but primarily only in the north and the central highlands at 1400 - a time when the traditional chronology would have the Conquest beginning.

In any event, the Israel Stele is a terminus ad quem for Israel to have come into existence. Contra expectations derived from the traditional Exodus date, this first archaeological mention of Israel, it is widely agreed, documents events in the reign of the pharaoh Merenptah. Merenptah's reign was over by 1211 BCE (or a little thereafter if proposed date corrections are used), and so we are compelled to conclude that Israel existed by then, so long as mainstream Egyptian chronologies are employed. Contra popular opinion about the Stele, it does not require the Exodus to already have happened; only that some Israelites were already in Canaan. Had the Exodus happened in e.g. 1446 BCE, Israel should have been settled in Canaan and long established. Yet, the Stele uses a determinative symbol which signifies a tribe in referring to Israel, instead of a city determinative, as with other peoples mentioned; allowing the possibility that the Israelites were not yet settled. Furthermore, it claims that they are "without seed", implying that all adult males had been killed - yet there is no such decimation of Israel by Egypt recorded in the Judges era, even though the Bible does not hesitate to list the defeats of the Israelites.


[edit] Chronologies synchronizing the Exodus with the expulsion of the Hyksos
The next most natural time to try to place the Exodus is during a time when a group of Semitic kings ruled Egypt for generations before being expelled: a people known as the Hyksos. There is also an intriguing reason based on ancient traditions to associate these peoples with the Israelites. The great Jewish historian Josephus, writing a little after the time of Jesus, records the Egyptian historian Manetho's assertion that the Israelites were among some of the diseased expelled in the time of the Hyksos. In the modern era, Bimson had until recent years been the most influential scholar to re-embrace this view, by making charts of when various proposed sites in ancient Palestine were settled, and comparing them to the biblical narrative, while rejecting the usual interpretations by archaeologists of which layers were Canaanite and which were Israelite. More recently, scholars such as Redford and Herzog have supported this idea as well.

This idea is also attractive because one of the Hyksos leaders was even named Yakub-her (similar to Ya'aqov, or Jacob).

This is not to say that this sort of chronology is not without its problems as well. The first mention of Israel thus far found in the archaeological record is not encountered until centuries later, when numerous Egyptian records of these centuries have survived. The archaeology of the sites usually associated with Joshua's conquests shows transitions to Semitic material culture only centuries later, according to most archaeologists. The Philistines knew how to work iron early in the Judges era, and yet if we put the conquest 40 years after the Hyksos expulsion, given 40 years of wandering, the Iron age was not to arrive for centuries. This also leaves new questions to be answered: If the Hyksos were kings and they were the Israelites, why does the Bible describe the Israelites as slaves? True, Joseph is described in regal terms, but they had long been in practical slavery before the Exodus. The Hyksos had been kings right up until their defeat. This seems an unlikely editorial gloss: slaves for kings. If we on the other hand suppose the Israelites to have been a minority under the Hyksos, why is it not mentioned that Pharaoh is not Egyptian, but more closely related to the Israelites than the wider population? Why does it not tell us that all the line of the kings of Egypt were expelled upon the Exodus? Bimson has tried to argue that the date of the Hyksos layers in Egypt should be lowered to coincide with the traditional Exodus date, but Bietak, a prominent Egyptian archaeologist, rejects this idea; and attempting to do so only compounds the problem that the transition from Canaanite to proto-Israelite material culture at many Joshua-associated sites happens only centuries later. Also, "Pithom" and "Ra'amses" are thought with a large amount of supporting evidence to date from the era between Horemheb to Ramses II.


[edit] Two-part invasion
A Canadian scholar, Theophile Meek, suggested a two part conquest of Canaan: the first wave corresponding to the observed settlement of proto-Israelite lime-covered cistern digging material culture in the central highlands beginning about 1400 BCE, and the second wave corresponding with the later destruction of Hazor, then understood based on the work of Yigael Yadin, to have occurred ca. 1250. Yet, 1250 is an awkward destruction date for Hazor. It is too late to be synchronized with a 1446 Exodus after 40 years of wandering, and it is uncomfortably early to allow Rameses II to be the pharaoh of the Oppression, followed by 40 years of Wandering.

Meek's essential hypothesis of a two part Conquest still seems sound, even if his exact dating of phase two is open to question. Malamat, based largely on the work of de Moor, observes a cluster of Exodus-like events around 1190 BCE, synchronizing the Exodus with the reign of the Pharaoh Sethnakht. In his reign, there was a rebellion against him, led by one Beya/Irsu which had conspired with foreign elements, which was ultimately defeated. During this time, it seems the vizier Beya, who had been the power behind the throne in the time of Tausert, had made himself like a king, during which time the Egyptian gods were no longer worshipped. The defeated rebels then left for the desert in a southeasterly direction. This accords well with the archaeological evidence. In view of Meek's hypothesis then, the Exodus would have happened some time a little before the second phase of the Conquest. This can be correlated with the fact that no southern tribes are called in the Song of Deborah (Judges ch.5) even though farther away Trans-Jordan tribes are called; but Judah's existence seems to be taken for granted during the earliest phases of the conquest in the book of Joshua. It may well be that Deborah and Joshua have been translocated in time, and that Deborah may have been among the descendants of Israelites that stayed in Canaan (although the Bible does not tell us that any stayed) during the Oppression of the Israelites in Egypt. Archaeologists describe arrivals of proto-Israelites in the Central Highlands of Israel around 1400 BCE, but the transitions for cities described as having first been conquered by Joshua from Egypto-Canaanite to proto-Israelite layers generally happen about 1250-1150 BCE, if not later.


[edit] Minimalist theories
Biblical minimalists, such as Davies, Lemche and Israel Finkelstein, seek to identify Yadin's Solomonic gates with later eras, regarding Jerusalem in Solomon's era as a "cow town", a small seat of a small tribal confederation. By and large, they regard the "Books of Moses" as compilations of post-Solomonic priests centuries after the fact (and this is reasonable, given the findings of the Documentary Hypothesis - see esp. Friedman's Who Wrote the Bible), but (more questionably) seem to regard the Exodus narrative as completely unhistorical. Davies and Lemche have been forced to modify their extremely minimalist positions, but Finkelstein is a leading Israeli archaeologist who maintains his more moderate minimalist position against the likes of Amnon ben Tor and Mazar's successors, who place some layers 50-75 years earlier, and generally uphold Yadin's identification of the Solomonic gates.

Finkelstein suggests that the later destruction layer at Hazor was resettled by a later phase of Philistine material culture, and thus was not necessarily Israelite at all. This point is not terribly compelling, since in the Judges era, the Israelites had to go to the Philistines to get their tools sharpened, and thus probably engaged in extensive trade with the Philistines at first. If he can sustain that these layers are also later than say 1145, our whole idea of the Exodus would have to be revised - Israel already having been so well settled by the time Hazor became Israelite. While, unlike other minimalists, his dating typically differs from the mainstream by only 50-75 years, and only during ca. 1150-900 BCE, his interpretation of the biblical parallels is disputed and has not gained a consensus. Finkelstein also does not uphold Yadin's identification of the Solomonic gates (i.e. gates with three rooms on either side of the entrance to the city) located at Hazor, Megiddo and Gezer; placing them in the century after Solomon, even though many archaeologists still place them in the century in which Solomon is thought to have lived. This state of affairs prompted Herschal Shanks to ask famously, "If those aren't the Tenth Century Solomonic gates, then where is the Tenth Century?"

There is another school of thought which suggests that the Israelites had, more or less, always been in Canaan. Dever for instance believes that the ancestors of the Israelites were Caananites supplemented by pastoral nomads and perhaps Semitic slaves escaped from Egypt (the germ of the Exodus story?).


[edit] Current late Exodus chronologies
While theories of the dating of the Exodus abound, progress is being made. Most novices think a difference among scholars of dating the Exodus over a range of a few hundred years is a moot point, since our archaeology-based chronologies are imperfect. This ignores the extraordinary degree to which Israelite chronology has been confirmed from Babylonian records back through the Babylonian Captivity, which matches as to the dates of the principal events, but also to meticulous star charts they kept that can be verified through modern astronomic calculations. The attack on Israel by the Pharaoh Shishak in the century after Solomon is synchronized by many with a raid by the Pharaoh Sishonk, and mention had been found of king Omri, driving back historical verification even further. This attitude also ignores the widespread agreement (although not unanimous) on Egyptological chronology back through the time of Sethnakht. The problem is that Israelite archaeology is pretty secure back through the time of Sishonk, and probably through the time of Solomon, and Egyptian chronology is secure even further, but archaeologists observe a surprising lack of proto-Israelite material culture between the time of Solomon and the transition from Egypto-Canaanite material culture to proto-Israelite at many sites - suggesting that the time from Solomon to the Conquest is much shorter than the Bible allows. Earlier layers of the many cities first said to have been conquered by Joshua, at sites such as Hazor, Lachish, Megiddo, Debir, and Ai and Bethel if they are correctly located, are not supportive of an early Exodus. Egyptian finds of relatively recent Pharaohs are common at such sites, in so late a time (and indeed, Rameses II is still firmly in control of Beth-Shan, etc.). Since the area seems to have been under Egypto-Canaanite domination prior to and after the Amarna era (indeed, attempts to find Joseph or the Conquest in the Amarna records are unconvincing although sometimes misrepresented; since Egypt was still a widespread power in the region as late as Rameses II, and since surveys of pig bones also suggest that the inhabitants of these earlier layers did not keep kosher, working archaeologists by and large defend the emergence of a proto-Israelite material culture at a rather late date at these sites. Finds with cartouches from relatively late pharaohs are widespread, especially in southern and coastal Canaan.

Israeli archaeologist Amnon Ben-Tor, a recent excavator of Hazor, when faced with a scholar trying to revise his chronologies, bristles at the prospect. He writes,

"I never claimed that 'Joshua was the conqueror of the city'. What I do claim is that Hazor was violently destroyed by fire, most probably sometime during the 13th century B.C. In that century, the name 'Israel' as of a people in the region is mentioned in the stele of Merneptah. In the book of Joshua (whenever the text was written or edited) the Israelites are mentioned as having destroyed Hazor by fire. Why then is it so difficult to accept the view that the (Proto-?) Israelites, perhaps in cooperation with others, may have had something to do with it?" (from the SJOT)
At least Ben-Tor is in good company. Hazor is not the only site whose archaeologists find a such a transition. A number of cities first said to have been conquered by Joshua have transition dates mainstream archaeology puts at ca. 1150-1250, and recent trends in archaeology are to lower, rather than raise, the dates of these transitions.

Thus it is that the archaeology of the Conquest militates for a Late Exodus, although fundamentalist scholars still hold out for an early date. If we choose to agree with the consensus of archaeologists (when they can be convinced to hazard a guess as to the historicity of the Exodus at all) that the construction of the city of Rameses in Ex. 1:11 should be placed no earlier than the reign of Rameses II, then we would conclude that although the Late Exodus theory seems probable, it is nonetheless still work in progress that continues to be affected by new developments.

It is also not enough to simply translocate the biblical events to this later time. The site currently identified as Kedesh-Barnea has as yet turned up no Late Bronze Age/Early Iron I occupation, nor any until the tenth century BCE, and others, such as Beersheba, Arad, show the same pattern as well. Although this absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. This principle should not be scoffed at. Sometimes populations can be paltry or mounds can get leveled (although this is labor intensive) before being resettled, but on the other hand, text can be added to authentic historical accounts also. While it had been thought that there were no Late Exodus era remains at Edom, Egyptian records do mention a Seir, and in the time of Merenptah, an 'Edom' (i.e. Papyrus Anastasi), in geographic lists that would tend to place them in the right vicinity as well. It is hard to preclude the possibility, for example, that some of the biblical tales of conquest might have originated with conflicts with semi-nomadic groups who might be inhabiting these regions; but another possibility is that some facets of the Exodus stories could belong to a later political reality.


[edit] Geographic issues
The body of water crossed in the story has often been identified as the Red Sea, usually in Christian tradition. However, the original Hebrew described the place as yam suf. See Passage of Red Sea for more details. It is evident from the Bible that the Hebrews knew that the Red Sea was contiguous from the Gulf of Suez to the Gulf of Aqaba, and indeed, the Red Sea and the Reed Sea seem to be used interchangeably in the Bible. The exact location of the crossing is not recorded, and so will always be speculative. However, the location of the crossing might be related to the location of Mt. Sinai. For example, those locating the biblical Sinai in ancient Midian (i.e. on the eastern shore of the Gulf of Aqaba) at a site like Jebel al-Lawz are more likely to have the crossing at the Gulf of Aqaba than elsewhere. Locating the correct site for Sinai might, however, give us more to go on in reconstructing possible sites for the crossing.

Interestingly enough, although there is much diversity as to the time to place the Exodus, most scholars seem to conclude that the archaeological sites of pi-Rameses and pi-Tom are the "treasure cities" (i.e. probably royal cities) of Rameses and Pithom of Ex. 1:11. There is an Egyptian record of 'Apiru shipping a huge stele to pi-Rameses (although it is somewhat controversial that the 'Apiru are the Hebrew). Bietak, for his part, finds evidence of Semitic-style three roomed houses at pi-Rameses. It is now believed that many of the artifacts of those cities had been located to their current location in the reign of Rameses III, but that much of the building Horemheb and Rameses II had done at pi-Rameses had been over the site of the ancient Hyksos capital of Avaris. Bases of the statues and monuments which had been relocated had been found in this vicinity. It is important to discuss this issue here rather than under the separate topic headings for Rameses and Pithom, since it affects the issue of dating the Exodus so much. Bietak and others conclude that these sites, both pi-Rameses and pi-Thom, if they are located at any of the sites seriously contended by scholars, were unoccupied from the centuries from the expulsion of the Hyksos until the time of Horemheb, with building from his time until Rameses II. If these sites were unoccupied before Rameses II, then this gives us a choice - either the completion of these cities occurred during the Hyksos era, so that Aviris can have archaeological remains at pi-Rameses, and then pi-Rameses would have to be an anachronistic name; or else these cities were completed well after the accession of Rameses II. Neither choice is compatible with the date inferred from I Ki. 6:1 of 1446 BCE, though there could be an alternate reading of this or it may be a reference to a different date having to do with the Exodus. Thus, to comply with the date of Kings, one must either have the Oppression in the Hyksos era, as does Bimson, or else one is left with some form of late Exodus, to take the Egyptologists at their word.


[edit] Alternate theories
A number of theories have been proposed to account for the occurrence of the plagues and the resulting parting of the waters, attributing them to volcanoes. Also, some attempt to revise Egyptian chronologies, placing pharaohs like, e.g. Rameses II, centuries later.


[edit] Volcano theory
One possible explanation for plagues and the parting of the water is the Santorini volcano eruption and tsunami that occurred sometime possibly coincident with the exodus.

According to tsunami experts, the massive volcanic eruption on the Greek island of Santorini around 1600 BCE could have generated a giant tidal wave or tsunami that struck the Nile Delta, parting of the sea, triggered the ten plagues during the time of Moses' escape from Egypt. Tsunamis are often preceded by the water withdrawing from the shore. A mega-tsunami caused by Santorini's volcano would siphon billions of gallons of water - not just from the shore but from connecting rivers and lakes - creating dry land for as long as two hours. This would give Moses and the Israelites enough time to cross, although maybe not 3 million of them. Heavier chariots may well have been bogged down in the mud. Evidence is based on findings along the rock beddings of shorelines in Africa and Egypt.

Several authors have pointed out similarities between the description of Mount Sinai in Exodus and descriptions of erupting volcanoes. Authors who have espoused this theory include:

Moses on the BBC
Charles Beke (Mount Sinai, a Volcano, 1873)
Sigmund Freud (Moses and Monotheism, 1939)
Immanuel Velikovsky
Colin Humphreys (The Miracles of Exodus 2003)
Humphreys proposes the volcano Hala-'l Badr in Arabia.


[edit] Greatly lowered Egyptian chronologies
A minority of writers, both of books and on the Internet, attempt to place the various dynasties of Egypt centuries later than the range of dates they are usually accorded. These theories seem to stem from Immanuel Velikovsky. He was not content to place the Ipuwer Papyrus (which is usually attributed to the Middle Kingdom or earlier and may have been the basis of the story of the Plagues of Egypt) so early as the range of dates the Middle Kingdom is generally placed. Instead, he attempted to lower Egyptian chronology to make the Middle Kingdom contemporaneous with the Exodus. Adherents also point to similarities between the names of the various Ramasside Pharaohs or contemporary figures from archaeology in Palestine, and supposed counterparts (for example, from the era of the Babylonian Captivity). Horemheb has the distinction to have been the first to have built a city named Rameses, after his vizier and mayor of the city, Paramessu, later Rameses I, suggesting a parallel with Ex. 1:11, as above, though Rameses II made additions to the city.

The substance of proposed evidence consists of a handful of supposed parallel events and names, and claimed flaws in the archaeological work. Acceptance among experts will be an uphill battle for a number of reasons.

In other words, it would not merely involve revising our understanding of most ancient Egyptian dynasties by centuries, but also a complete revision of the archaeology of Palestine. Serious archaeologists working on both ancient Israel and Egypt by and large do not subscribe to these revised chronologies. Against the weight of all this, it seems easier to suppose that either a copy of, or else the Ipuwer Papyrus itself, might have been made use of at a later time to have become part of the Hebrew scriptures, or else that the Jewish tale might have stemmed from another source which bore an apparent but only coincidental resemblance to the Ipuwer Papyrus.


[edit] Association with Osarseph
In his Antiquities of the Jews and Against Appion, Josephus recounts a distorted tale supposedly from Manetho, identifying the expulsion of the Jews both with the Hyksos, and with the expulsion of a group of Asiatic lepers, led by a renegade Egyptian priest called Osarseph. It appears this tale is a conflation of events of the Amarna period, of the earlier Hyksos expulsion, and events throughout the 19th Dynasty.


[edit] Association with Atenism
In his 1939 books Moses and Monotheism, Sigmund Freud linked Moses to the religion of Akhenaten, i.e. Atenism. The Exodus would then come after Akhenaten's death (ca. 1358 BC) when much of the pharaoh's monotheistic reforms were being violently reversed. Joseph Campbell also put forth such theories. This idea is not generally supported by most mainstream Egyptologists. Even so, the "Hymn to Aten" on Ay's sarchophagus shows a similarity to Ps. ch. 104 which may be more than coincidence, and Ay still upheld Akhenaten's monotheism. While most archaeologists, of any stripe, do not place Moses in the Amarna era, Freud's idea that Atenism and Judaism could be related is at least more plausible.


[edit] Interpretation
The findings of modern archaeologists may present a challenge for Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist Christians, as it is here, at the Exodus and the subsequent Conquest of Canaan that the chronologies of the archaeologists seem to plainly diverge from those that may be derived from known versions of the Bible, at least in overall terms of centuries and populations. We are at the boundary between verifiable history and the earlier, harder-to-verify histories of the Bible. Such reasoning is possible because the Israelite chronologies seem secure back through the time of Solomon, and those of Egypt much farther back. It would appear we have what may reasonably be described as proto-Israelite material culture transitions which can be dated with reasonable accuracy, and occur at unexpectedly late dates. Now, since only 40 years separate the Exodus and the Conquest in the biblical narrative, if we are talking about a Late Conquest, we are talking about a Late Exodus as well. Thus, conservative scholars within Judaism and Christianity by and large still attempt to maintain Biblical chronologies in keeping with I Ki. 6:1, rabbinical materials, or Josephus, i.e. early Exodus chronologies, whereas less literalist scholars within these traditions as well as most scholars outside of them by and large subscribe to Late Exodus chronologies. Most archaeologists working on the territories of ancient Israel now support chronologies differing from the biblical Conquest of Canaan by some centuries, and if it turns out they are right, we may have to revise our historical view of the Exodus accordingly. In spite of what appears to be a discrepancy of archaeology with the Bible, the work of archaeologists does suggest the reality of the overall 'sweep of events' - e.g. an arrival in Canaan by this proto-Israelite material culture some centuries before the time that Solomon and David are believed to have lived, and Egypt had been known to enslave Semites. Egyptologists have even discovered various Exodus-like events that could well correspond to events such as those that may have given rise to the biblical Exodus narratives. Although nothing has been found to substantiate the presence of Egypto-Israelites wandering in the Sinai so as to fix the date of the Exodus, neither has anything like a direct, unambiguous record of Joshua and his attacks ever been found. Modern archaeology, at least in a philosophical sense, cannot ultimately and completely prove or disprove any sort of historical question, including the Exodus. This should not be taken as suggesting that just because we cannot have 100% confidence in any evidence, that all things of an evidential nature should be dismissed summarily either.

Many rabbis in the Talmud stated that one should never interpret certain Torah verses literally. Later rabbis, such as Maimonides, taught that when scientific evidence contradicts a current understanding of the Gemara, we must re-interpret that Gemara in accord with science. For many traditional rabbis, this did not apply to the Torah, and such a position would count as heresy. This view exists today within Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism, and parts of Modern Orthodox Judaism. However, the strong negative reaction to leading Conservative Rabbi David Wolpe's 2001 Passover speech, where he plainly stated that the Exodus did not happen, indicates that this is still a controversial issue even in the liberal Jewish movements.