Customer Reviews

Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

This relatively slim but heavily footnoted volume by Professor Hoffmeier constitutes one of the most recent additions to the ongoing debate on ancient Israel's origins. The author begins with the proposition that while no direct archæological evidence for the Exodus has been discovered to date, indirect indications show the events transcribed to be plausible and therefore potentially historical--not to be dismissed merely because of the theme in which such stories are recorded emphasizes a religion which has many adherents even today.

The book begins with a critique of currently fashionable scholarship which minimizes the historical relevance of any portions in the Hebrew Bible relating to periods prior to the return from Babylonian exile. The first chapter explains the attractive fallacies in modern historical analysis such as the double standards applied regarding credibility of descriptive scriptural texts in contrast to the reception afforded to the supernatural bombast on official records of egotistical rulers.

Hoffmeier notes that scholarship tends to match the political tenor of the times--and that the current skepticism with authority leads to condescention regarding biblical texts. His brief overview of Joshua's conquest demonstrates that the paucity of late Bronze age dwellings with unambiguous burning does not contradict the accounts in Joshua 6-11.

Hoffmeier devotes the remainder of the book to address the particular intersections of Egypt and the period covered in Pentatuch. The text on the Merneptah stela identifies Israel for the first time as a people rather than a nation--indicating the early settlement period of a nomadic group and not indigenous cultural transformation among Canaanites. His explanation of the reference to Israel in the stela illuminates a distinction between the unpronounced hieroglyphic determinative of pre-monarchial Israel as a people and not as a settled land, hence negating the contention of biblical history being merely an ethnic fantasy concocted by post-exilic priests. The story of the patriarchs being among the many Semites who went to Egypt to procure food has many parallel references in Egyptian literature. Even Joseph's tale of a Semite rising to high rank does not lack precedence: the vizier "`pr-el" was only recently discovered from the late New Kingdom which was better documented than the late Middle Kingdom of the patriarchal period.

Most scholars agree that Semitic peoples lived in Egypt during the New Kingdom, and that forced labor by war prisoners in state corvées was extensive, supporting the Penta-tuch claim that Hebrews were oppressed while they sojourned in Egypt subsequent to their arrival. Identification of the "`barê mishkenôt" or "store cities" (Exod 1:11) had been an obstacle to acceptance of this story. But the discovery of Pi-Ri`amses at Qantir in the Nile Delta verifies extensive brick-construction during the 13th century BC. Central to the Exodus strides the figure of Moses. Hoffmeier explores the origin of the "exposed child" narrative and expounds on Egyptian policy of introducing foreign princes at court in the New Kingdom. Moses could have been a "hrd n k3p" or "Child of the Nursery" and thereby received an education reserved for the elite. The plagues provide a backdrop for skepticism of the J and E source-criticial theory, since the devastation inflicted on Egypt forms a more coherent depiction of events than a composite from separate sources would indicate. Except for the death of the firstborn at the finalé, the plagues register a logical sequence of natural events, albeit more intense than commonplace for the Nile valley. Thus, despite the Israelite interpretation for divine intervention, the tenor of the events described does not stretch credulity to the extent that its historical value should be à priori discarded.

The final chapters concern the canal at the eastern frontier in the New Kingdom and the probable route out of Egypt. The northern coastal road is rejected by contrary citation (Exod 13:17) and because of Egyptian military fortifications which the Israelites would have bypassed to forestall pursuit. Rather, Hoffmeier evaluates the etymology of place-names along the derek hammidbbar or "Way of the Wilderness", and enters the debate that has long surrounded the probable location of the Re(e)d Sea crossing at yam sûp. He suggests that the Gulf of Aqaba extended farther north in ancient times and had been connected to the Bitter Lakes, which were joined to Lake Timsah. Future excavation at the eastern frontier may shed additional light on this matter. That no Egyptian records of the escaped slaves have been found is not surprisingany such reports would have been written on papyrus and not likely to be preserved given the dependence on success for the pharaohs to maintain legitimacy. Hoffmeier summarizes his evidence in a concluding chapter, asserting that to deny the Israelite references while accepting the traditions of other peoples denotes an inconsistency that scholars should eschew. Spiritual overtones were prevalent in many ancient documents, but while Near Eastern pagan deities are no longer worshipped (except among New Age narcissists), the continued adherence to monotheistic theology by many has led to a denigration in modern academia of any ancient records that would lend credence to such faith. Hoffmeier's contribution to the understanding of the Genesis and Exodus sojourn accounts regarding the Israelite tribes' early origins provides a coherent and brief apology for greater acceptance on the historical accuracy of the general outlines in Old Testament narratives. Israel in Egypt is a valuable library addition to anyone interested in early biblical period.

This book presents excellent overviews of the discussions revolving around the historicity of Genesis and Exodus. It is very even handed in its presentation of the different sides and when one or another argument is rejected a balanced and sound reason is given.

The conclusion of the book is that the Exodus story and surrounding events as told in the Hebrew Bible are compatable with the known historical facts of Egypt. The book isn't a propaganda piece for conservativism, but rather a well researched and scholarly volume. I highly recommend it.

Unlike many other books on this controversial subject, like those by Redford, which tend to present only such material as supports their preconceived opinions, Hoffmeier presents highly documented data on all sides of the question. He avoids snide "put-downs" of intellectually questionable methodologies, allowing the reader to judge for himself how valid are some of the conclusions that are reached. The extensive bibliography makes this a source book of great value.

I picked up a copy of Hoffmeier's extremely well researched work directly after I finished reading Finkelstein and Silberman's: _The Bible Unearthed_. What a contrast!!! In _The Bible Unearthed_, the authors flatly refute the Exodus tradition with one foul swoop. Their knowledge of archaeology is very impressive and they convincingly show that there is no physical evidence for an Exodus.

Enter James K. Hoffmeier. Prof. Hoffmeier states from the very beginning of his book that there is in fact no archaeological or physical evidence to prove that the Exodus tradition is true. However, he continues to say that he is able to provide indirect evidence that is indeed convincing. Hoffmeier begins his book by first explaining to the reader the types of Biblical Scholars/Archaeologists that exist. Firstly there is the "maximalist" camp. This group ascribes a high level of confidence to the biblical narrative and hence is convinced that much of its content is historical. Conversely, the "minimalist" camp treat the bible as a collection of stories with little or no hitorical significance. Hoffmeier claims that the "minimalist" camp has been destructive and has introduced far too much skepticism into the area of Biblical Archaeology and Scholarship. Hoffmeier then contends that his book is a beacon amongst the sea of skepticism with particular focus on the Exodus tradtion.

Although Hoffmeier's research contains hundreds of references, it seems that his position is not a scientific one. At no point does he criticise or point out the short-comings of the biblical stories but rather he assumes that they are accurate and hence he builds a fortress of speculation around them. His indirect evidence includes Egyptian writings and inscriptions. He asserts that Joseph could have existed and risen to power in Egypt based on the fact that there are a number of Egyptian writings that confirm foreign leadership in Egypt. He claims that most plagues expressed in Exodus may have occured "naturally" as a result of the periodic flooding of the nile. He claims that the inundation could have easily explained the first five plagues reported in Exodus. This is wild speculation and has never been reported elsewhere in history or to this very day. Hoffmeier also conveniently skips over the problem of Moses leading 600,000 men plus an inordinate number of women and children through the wilderness undetected by the enemy and able to sustain themselves for forty years. Finally, Hoffmeier doesn't even dare go into detail about the parting of the Red (Reed) sea and the many problems surrounding this event.

Overall, I believe that Hoffmeier is gravely concerned about the amount of evidence that is currently being accumulated which discredits the historicity of the Bible. His attempt at presenting convincing evidence for the Exodus tration is weak at best. There is no doubt that his book is well researched, however it fails to deal with many issues that are very problematic with respect to the wanderings of the Israelites. As far as readability is concerned, Hoffmeier's book is very dry and I would be hesitant to recommend it to a lay person with little experience in the areas of Biblical Archaeology and Scholarship. I believe that the true value of this book is in its presentation of the "other side of the coin" when dealing with the Exodus tradition. I would therefore recommend that enthusiasts read it along side _The Bible Unearthed_ and reach their own conclusions with respect to this contentious topic.

Note please that my rating should be discounted as I have not rated the book. However I can address two harsh criticisms of it by John J. Geyer "jgeyer1". In that review here at Amazon we read:

" If a rampaging army storms through Canaan destroying city after city one would expect that the remains of those cities would show appropriate destruction layers and that the diplomatic archives of the surrounding countries would notice. There is nothing. "

Actually there is a very much evidence of such destruction to be found in city after city in the Holy Land, albeit at layers not deemed appropriate for the commonly accepted historical era of Joshua's invasion.

However a quick google search on "Lisa Liel" or "Lisa JAH" will lead you to her website at http://www.starways.net/lisa/

Titled "Lisa's World", then click on "history", then "The Exodus in History" and scroll down to the chart of the Historical vs. the Biblical view of history of the Land of Israel".

Immediately above that chart we read: "A simple redating of the archaeological periods in the Land of Israel brings the entire scope of biblical history into synchronization with the ancient historical record. Only time will tell whether more archaeologists will follow Cohen and Anati in their slowly dawning recognition of the historicity of the Bible".

Pursuing the website in greater depth will quickly show you that the historical record is full of evidence, but again, that adjustment in dating mentioned is required.

John J. Geyer "jgeyer1" also wrote this criticism: "For the bottom line, as the author acknowledges repeatedly, is that there is NO evidence confirming ANY part of the Exodus story."

But if Lisa Liel's dating shift is done to bring the historical Caanan archaeological evidence into sync with the Biblical, then the same exact time shift shows at the appropriate era in the separate Egyptian historical record this datum: *

Plague is throughout the land.
Blood is everywhere.
The river is blood.
That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin!
Trees are destroyed.
No fruit or herbs are found...
Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire.
Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
The land is not light [dark].

This authentic historical Egyptian record is of troubles plaguing that kingdom dated near the time of the first intermediate period of bloodshed and anarchy resulting from the collapse of the monarchy of the old Kingdom of Egypt. Lisa writes:

"When the Bible tells us that Egypt would never be the same after the Exodus, it was no exaggeration. With invasions from all directions, virtually all subsequent kings of Egypt were of Ethiopian, Libyan or Asiatic descent. When Chazal tell us that King Solomon was able to marry Pharaoh's daughter despite the ban on marrying Egyptian converts until they have been Jewish for three generations because she was not of the original Egyptian nation, there is no reason to be surprised".

* "A.H. Gardiner, Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a hieratic papyrus in Leiden (1909). Historians are almost unanimous in dating this papyrus to the very beginning of the Middle Kingdom. The events it describes, consequently, deal with the end of the Old Kingdom".

A fresh look at the accounts of the Exodus from the perspective of an Egyptologist.

I don't agree with his perspective on the unreliability of scripture, but, other than that, he brings up some intruiging aspects of the culture and politics of the time.

In this book, James Hoffmeier brings to bear his double expertise in both Egyptology and Biblical scholarship to examine the latest evidence in support of the historicity of the Biblical Exodus.
There has been a recent movement questioning the authenticity of the Old Testament, particularly the older portions, with the extreme group of "Low Chronologists" insisting that all of the books were written much later than previously believed. Some have even referred to the whole Joseph story in Genesis as a "novella", claiming that it was a charming fiction created only a few centuries BCE. Their principal evidence for this claim has been the supposed lack of evidence for the presence of the early Israelites in Egypt, or for their flight from there, as described in the book of Exodus.
Dr. Hoffmeier has examined the evidence in Egypt, especially along the chain of lakes through Suez that are presently joined by the Suez canal. He discusses the "store cities" of Pithom and [Pi-]Ramesses, on which the Bible claims the Israelites labored, and finds that the ruins of such cities have now been identified in the area of the northwest Nile delta known as Goshen, where the Israelites were said to have lived. He traces the route out of Egypt they followed, as described in Exodus, and finds that it makes sense as a route that would have been taken by a group of people who were fleeing Pharaoh's soldiers. They would have avoided the main highway to the north, just as the Bible says they did. Hoffmeier tentatively identifies most of the landmarks mentioned in the Bible, and adds in the latest satellite data and Israeli land surveys that have shown the remains of an old Pharaonic canal that dates back to around 2000 BC. He also points out that the notion of the Israelites crossing the Red Sea is a mistake, based on a mistranslation of the name of the body of water in question. The Hebrew text calls it the "yam suph", which is correctly translated as "Sea of Reeds", not "Red Sea". And indeed, the waters around the edges of Lake Timsah and the Bitter Lakes are thickly grown with reeds and would fit the description of a "Sea of Reeds" quite well.
This is a fascinating book full of the latest and most accurate data bearing on the authenticity of the Exodus. While he has found no flaming inscription saying "Moses was here", Dr. Hoffmeier has certainly verified many of the details described in the book of Exodus, quite contrary to the claims of the Low Chronologists.

Hoffmeier does an excellent job of discussing recent discoveries along the Egyptian Eastern Frontier Canal and its' fortifications. He mentions that the canal was begun during the time of Joseph (twelfth dynasty) but his discussion of the detailed archaeological findings addresses primarily the 19th dynasty period. He shows that the Exodus Route must have gone south of this area because of the strength of Egyptian fortifications. Unfortunately his work does not include the 13th dynasty period when the Exodus took place according to David Rohl, Roger Henry and others.

James Hoffmeier has no doubts that he is not writing this book as a read guard action to stem the tide of the "minimalists." In his preface he concedes that "direct evidence for the events and figures of Genesis and Exodus remains elusive."

However in recent decades, "Egyptology has developed into a discipline in its own right" and Hoffmeier intends to show "Egyptian material that does shed light on ... questions raised by the historical minimalists." The reader should bear in mind that Hoffmeier has no intentions of answering _all_ questions concerning the historicity of Genesis and Exodus.

Hoffmeier writes in a lucid style while engaging his opponents. For example, the story of Moses as an "exposed child" has often been compared to the "Legend of Sargon." Hoffmeier cites the study of Donald Redford (sic) which shows that the story of Moses and Sargon are not even in the same category.

This book is scholarly, easy to read, and engages in the issues. Hoffmeier needs to be read.

I am not a scholar in Egyptology, biblical studies, the history of Israel, or the Exodus story. However, this book presents logically sound and easily understood arguments supporting the historical plausibility of the Exodus story. The author presents arguments that critics have used to discount the story as "just a story," and - at least in my mind - soundly refutes them.

Here is just one simple example: Some critics have complained that the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus isn't identified by name, implying that the "story" was put together many years later by writers who didn't have a clue which Pharaoh they should identify as the bad guy. The author of "Israel in Egypt" points out that in the second millennium BC, the supposed time of the Exodus, the literary tradition was _not_ to give the name of a defeated enemy. Instead, an unnamed defeated ruler was referred to only with a bunch of insults. [In fact, the author of this book manages to imply that Pharaoh got off lightly in Exodus by being given his correct title. :-)] There are many similar arguments in this book, involving datings for Egyptian names, the presence of slaves from Canaan and/or Syria in Egypt in the second millennium BC, etc.