EXODUS
(gr. “hodos”, “way”; “ex”, “out of”: exit).
The departure of the Israelites from Egypt, after God had freed them from their bondage in that country.
(a) ITINERARY.
There are considerable difficulties in determining the precise itinerary of this voyage. The miracles that Moses performed took place in Zoan, or Tanis (Ps. 78:12).
Ramesés was in the vicinity of this capital. From there, the Israelites went to Sukkot (Ex. 12:37), a place that either corresponds to Python or was near these places.
This locality is currently occupied by Tell el-Maskhutah, in the Tumilat oasis, about 51 km south-southeast of Tanis and 18 km west of Ismailia.
To reach Palestine, the Israelites did not take the shortest route, which passed through the country of the Philistines, but rather the desert road, toward the Red Sea (Ex. 13:17, 18).
After Sukkot, their first camp was Etam. This place has not been identified, but it is known that it was on the edge of the desert (Ex. 13:20).
From there, the Israelites retreated and camped between Migdol and the sea toward Baal-zephon, at Pi-hahiroth (Ex. 14:2; Num. 33:7). The situation of this camp could not be determined.
It was on the western shore of the Red Sea; It is from this place that they crossed the sea on foot to reach the desert of Shur (Ex. 15:4, 22; Num. 33:8); Then they headed toward Mount Sinai along the coast of the Red Sea (Ex. 16:1; Num. 33:10, 15).
According to the biblical texts, the route of the exodus can be recapitulated as follows: (See graphic)
(b) DATE OF THE EXODUS.
Within the commonly accepted chronology of Egyptian history, two main positions are proposed: the exodus took place around the year 1441 BC; under the reign of Amenophis II of the 18th dynasty, or in the year 1290 BC. under Ramses II of the 19th dynasty.
As far as absolute chronology is concerned, it is evident that the assumption of a late date (1290 BC) does not agree with the biblical chronological framework.
Reasons are given for and against each of the above points of view, which are not really satisfactory.
The critical revision of the chronological framework of Egyptian history made by researchers such as Velikovsky and Courville (see EGYPT and Bibliography, at the end of this article) based on the reevaluation of inscriptions and monuments, offers, however, a framework that, respecting The biblical chronology shows the points of coincidence within a catastrophe that engulfed Egypt.
The Hyksos are identified in this scheme with the Amu or Amalekites, this being supported by a large amount of cumulative evidence.
Thus, the establishment of the Hyksos dynasty in Egypt coincides in time with the departure of the Hebrews (1441 BC), and with the warlike clash of these two peoples in Rephidim (Ex. 17:8).
The Hyksos kept Egypt poor as predatory conquerors. This scheme harmonizes with the fact that during the entire period of the Israelites’ wandering in the desert, of the conquest, and of the Judges, Egypt is not mentioned at all; According to conventional historical chronologies, it should have been the dominant power then.
If the Hyksos dominated Egypt from the time of the exodus until Saul put an end to their power (1040 BC?), it explains why Egypt began to appear on the scene again in the time of David (cp. 1 Kings 15:21) .
Courville points out in his work “The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications” that Ramses I was not the first Egyptian king of this name, and that the last pharaoh of oppression was Rameses son of Uafres, who reigned for 29 years; His son Koncharis was, in that case, the pharaoh of the Exodus (see PP. 116-132).
Eusebius gives his name as Cencheres, although attributing it to another dynasty. On the other hand, Josephus states that the Hyksos took Egypt without having to fight (Against Apion, 1:14).
Such a fact can only be explained if it is seen in the context of an Egypt overwhelmed by a great national catastrophe that prevented it from reacting.
Among the objections to this reconstruction, it is argued that the name of Ramses II is found in profusion in the ruins of Pi-Rameses. However, G. E. Wright has pointed out that it is quite possible that the city that originally occupied this site was destroyed by Ahmose around the time the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt.
The restoration of the city could then be carried out by Ramses II, who would inscribe his name on the restored buildings.
All of the above, and many additional considerations, give evidence of the need for a thorough revision of the currently accepted model of ancient Egyptian history, to bring it into harmony with the internal evidence of documents and monuments.
This work has already been clearly outlined in its main lines by Velikovsky and Courville. There is no historical basis to doubt the date of the Exodus based on biblical chronology (around 1440 BC); On the other hand, an outline of Egyptian history can be reached, based on the same Egyptian documents and monuments, which show its correspondence with oppression and exodus, as well as with the long silence and prostration under the Hyksos. (See also EGYPT, (a) History; and (f) The stay of the Israelites in Egypt.)
(c) NUMBER OF ISRAELITES WHO LEFT EGYPT.
The text of Ex. 12:37 says, “The children of Israel set out from Rameses to Sukkot, about six hundred thousand men on foot, not counting the children.”
Objections have been raised against this biblical statement, going so far as to affirm that no more than 6,000 to 8,000 Israelites could leave Egypt (Beer).
However, this position leaves the entire context of the story meaningless. There are several points that are only explainable based on a large number of Israelites:
(A) The fear that the Egyptians had come to have of the Israelites, which led to their criminal attempt to keep their population in check through infanticide (Ex. 1); This fear was also shared by the nations of Canaan in anticipation of the Israelite invasion;
(B) The need for a large number of Israelites to frighten the Egyptians and Canaanites is also consistent with the difficulties they encountered in the wilderness, which could only be overcome by supernatural intervention (Ex. 15:22; 16:12 , 13,14-18; 17:1-7; Deut. 8:2-4).