The Patterns of Evidence documentary series has become popular with evangelicals in recent years. It proposes a revised chronology based on David Rohl’s work that shortens the Egyptian timeline such that the Exodus weakened Egypt’s army, making them vulnerable for an invasion and occupation that’s known as the Hyksos Period (aka the Second Intermediate Period). Others who accept the historicity of the Exodus will typically say that Israel was enslaved during the Hyksos Period and left sometime afterwards during the Eighteenth Dynasty.
This whole thing has caused a lot of debates among Biblical archaeology and chronology nerds. Those who align more with David Rohl often accuse other evangelicals of compromising with secularists who say that Pharaoh did not drown in the Red Sea Crossing. Those who align more with the secularists are quick to point out that David Rohl is an agnostic, not a Christian. Both will appeal to the Merneptah Stele as evidence. In this post, I want to quickly review why these three arguments should not be a part of the discussion.
“It’s a compromise to say that Pharaoh did not drown.”
Several Christians identify the pharaoh of the Exodus as either Thutmose III, Amenhotep II, or Rameses II. A problem is that we have the mummies of these three pharaohs (and others that have been proposed):
From vol. I pg. 37 of Donovan Courville, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications.
Sometimes the response is that God washed the bodies onto the shore (Exod. 14:30), so the body was recovered, but death by drowning often does not align with examinations of the mummies or other information about the pharaohs’ lives. More often, the response is that the pharaoh simply did not drown in the attack. Instead, he was positioned behind the soldiers as they chased after Israel in the sea and only the soldiers drowned there. Archaeological support for this lead-from-behind method is evident in several places, for example, this depiction of Rameses II at the battle of Kadesh:
It is worth pointing out that Rameses has his bow drawn. Perhaps this is propaganda, perhaps it is an artistic rendering of his role as a warrior, perhaps he was actually firing arrows at the enemy, or perhaps something else; we’ll let you decide.
The accusation is that those who deny that Pharaoh died in the sea are doing so to accommodate their view with the secularists without any regard to the Bible. However, it must be remembered that the discipline of Egyptology is relatively new. Egyptian hieroglyphs were not understood until the work of Jean-François Champollion in the 1800s. Yet, if we go back in the corridors of time, we find that exegetes who had no agenda concerning the identification of the pharaoh were divided as to whether or not the biblical text clarified if Pharaoh died in the sea.
There is a midrash that says:
(Exodus 14:28) “And the waters returned and covered the chariot, etc.”: even that of Pharaoh. These are the words of R. Yehudah, it being written (Ibid. 15:4) “the chariots of Pharaoh and his host, etc.” R. Nechemiah says: except for that of Pharaoh, it being written (Ibid. 9:16) “But, because of this I have preserved you.” Others say: Pharaoh descended last and he drowned, viz. (Ibid. 15:19) “For the horse of Pharaoh came with its chariot and its riders into the sea, and the L rd turned back upon them the waters of the sea.”1
Remember, the midrash is not authoritative. It does not mean that Pharaoh did die in the sea, nor does it mean that he did not die there. What it does mean is that it is entirely possible to come to either conclusion without any regard to what the secular archaeologists say.
“David Rohl isn’t a Christian.”
Those who defend the standard chronology are often quick to point out that David Rohl is an agnostic, so he should not be trusted. This is an ad hominem attack that cuts both ways. It is true that Rohl does not identify as Christian and indeed, if we accept the Masoretic Text, then Rohl’s chronology needs some revision since he puts early Egyptian history before the Tower of Babel and before the flood. Regardless of Rohl’s theology, he is looking at history as if the Exodus is indeed historical.
By the way, Rohl is not the first person to propose that the Exodus contributed to the Hyksos Period. Immanuel Velikovsky (1895–1979) was a Jew who is often credited with starting the movement. Donovan Courville (1901–1996) and David Down (1918–2018) were Seventh-Day Adventists who have written in similar veins. Obviously, we disagree with important aspects of their theology, but the question of chronology—especially the Exodus—is not necessarily relevant to all of that.
Screenshot from Patterns of Evidence
If we are going to throw out Rohl on the grounds of his worldview, then we had better be willing to throw out others who have agnostic or even atheistic worldviews with him. This would be the bulk of secular Egyptologists. What then would become of the few evangelical Egyptologists that we have left? Well, they in turn rely on the secularists, so we would have to renounce much of the evidence that they propose as well.
This is not at all to say that Rohl is even close to being right in his conclusions, but to attack him over his worldview is not a favour to his evangelical opponents, since they rely on non-evangelicals as well. Worldview does play a key role in interpreting archaeology, but if we want to be fair across the board, then we need to look at what is actually being said and not just the worldview of the ones saying it.
“The Merneptah Stele proves I’m right.”
The disagreement is often over the presuppositions that we start with rather than the chronology that we end with. Just as it is with the age of the earth debate, both sides of the chronology debate have the same evidence, but they are approaching the artefacts with different presuppositions.
We will take the Merneptah Stele as an example. Merneptah was the fourth pharaoh of the Nineteenth Dynasty. This is without dispute. This means that he would have ruled a few centuries after the Hyksos Period (whenever that was).
The Merneptah Stele
According to Rohl’s perspective, the Exodus caused the Hyksos Period, so Merneptah would have lived during the time of the divided kingdom. According to some of his opponents, the Exodus was not until the Eighteenth Dynasty, which means that Merneptah would have lived during the period of the Judges.
The stele was written in Merneptah’s 5th regnal year. The relevant text of the stele says:
The princes are prostrate, saying: “Shalom!”
Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
Canaan is captive with all woe.
Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
Yanoam made nonexistent;
Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
All who roamed have been subdued.
By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
Given life like Re every day.
So the text has a list of various nations that Merneptah claims to have conquered: Tjehenu, Khatti, Canaan, Ashkelon, Gezer, Yanoah, Khor, and Israel. In the Egyptian language, a nation’s name will be followed by some determinative hieroglyphs to signify that it is a nation. With the exception of Israel, the nations are followed by a throwing stick (𓌙) and a three hills determinative (𓈉), which signifies a foreign nation in a territory. Israel is followed by a throwing stick (𓌙) a seated man (𓀀) a seated woman (𓁐) and a plural stroke (𓏥), which indicates a foreign nation without land:
So, it seems that Israel is listed as a great nation among these others, but it does not have land at the time of Merneptah. Does this mean that Israel had been going through the internal strife of the divided kingdom period or does it mean that Israel had just entered the land and had not yet established a monarchy? The Bible clearly says that Israel has gone through both periods.
The fact is that the Merneptah Stele alone does not tell us which period of Israel’s history this is. We have to take several other context clues and use them to interpret archaeology. In other words, the Merneptah Stele does not have the final say as it can be interpreted either way.
There are other examples of this phenomenon, so whenever someone points to a piece of evidence, always consider if it could be interpreted from another slant.
Conclusion
The Bible is authoritative and without error, but well-intended and even well-educated men can misunderstand how archaeology aligns with true history. Chronology is not an easy topic and there are heated opinions from multiple perspectives, so if your understanding of chronology rests on one of these three arguments, then you might want to do some more research.
You must be logged in to post a comment.