Ancient Israelites (Hebrews) As Slaves in Ancient Egypt: Myth or Reality?

Higher critics of the Bible tend to specialize in casting doubt on the veracity of Scripture. Their
success is dubious at best (depending upon how their information is interpreted), yet they persist
in spite of the many, many times they've been shown to be in error.

There have been many cases too numerous to mention here that repel the false accusations of the
critics. Unfortunately, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, these critics and those
who follow and accept their rhetoric as gospel, persist in their attempts to demean, castigate and
otherwise downplay the believability of Scripture.

Of late, one of the more interesting assertions put forth by the critics is that the ancient Israelites
were never in Ancient Egypt, especially as slaves. In other words, though the Bible provides a
short overview of the 400 years they spent in Egypt, the critics contend that there is absolutely no
proof that these historical events took place and consequently these events are nothing more than
biblical myths, simply intended to teach moral truths.

There are a number of things that work against the claims of the higher critics, and the one thing
that tends to work in favor of those who understand the Bible in literal terms is a little science
referred to as archaeology. Archaeology unearths what is often hidden, for years, decades or
even centuries.

It is always fascinating to me when theories espoused by those who are purported to be scholars
are upended by the recent discovery of a previously
unknown document, statue, civilization, temple or some
other archaeological find, which sheds unparalleled light on
a subject previously thought to be myth.

Such is the case with the Israelites' sojourn in Ancient

Egypt. Is the information we have now enough to change
the opinion of the critics? Undoubtedly not, but if we can
legitimately silence them, then the new information is
certainly worth it.

But before we get into any proof (or not) of Israelites (or
better yet; Hebrews) in the ancient land of Egypt, I'd like to state without equivocation that it
really doesn't matter to me. What I mean is this: I firmly believe that what the Bible indicates as
having happened did actually occur. While there are some who state without hesitation that there
is no proof of thousands of Hebrews leaving Egypt en masse, there is nothing that proves that it
did not occur as well. In other words, we cannot use "silence" in the historical, extra-biblical
record as proof that the events prior to and including the Exodus did not occur. It can be argued
for instance that - if the biblical account is correct - the Egyptians might not be so quick to note
such a major defeat in their own records that would become part of history. After all, isn't
Pharaoh equivalent to a god in Egyptian lore? How would it look to include the fact that the God
of the Hebrews called Pharaoh out and ultimately destroyed him? It would simply not look good
at all, and given the fact that many kings of old, including Pharaohs tended to brag about their
own exploits (often to the exclusion of facts), it would not be unheard of for this chapter in
Egypt's history to be ignored altogether. The reasons for ignoring these events, or even
whitewashing them would be to the Egyptians' best interest. This is certainly not an uncommon
practice even in modern times, with people rewriting history, in order to make it more appealing
to the masses.

In light of all this though, what if anything do we have that may support the biblical history of
the Hebrews? Did they live in Egypt? Did they originally thrive there under Joseph, but then fell
prey to a Pharaoh who knew nothing of Joseph and after becoming threatened by the Hebrews'
large numbers; he forced the Hebrews into slavery until such a time as God brought a deliverer
to them?

While there is a large area that could be covered, space in this article will not permit it. However,
it is hoped that for the individual who seriously wonders about the plausibility of the biblical
account, we would encourage such a person to view this article as merely a starting point. There
are many references - both on the Internet and in printed format - which address the time the
Hebrews spent in bondage to Egyptian rulers and many of them are quite in depth.

There is a great deal in the Exodus account (as in much of the Bible) that bears consideration. In
Exodus 1:11, we are told specifically that the rulers of Egypt "put slave masters over (the
Hebrews) to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities
for Pharaoh.(1) The first question then is did the cities of Pithom and Rameses actually exist? If
they did, do we have record of it? Moreover, would we be able to place a date on when these
cities existed? These are extremely important questions for obvious reasons and because the
existence of these cities is embroiled in debate, some scholars have gone so far as to say that
these cities never existed. However, let's see what archaeology can tell us, if anything...

According to the Archaeological Study Bible (Zondervan; 2005), archaeologists have located a
number of sites which may well be the sites of the cities of Pithom and Rameses. Let us look first
at possible Pithom sites, which include four potential candidates.

1) Tell er-Retaba: The modern city of Tell er-Retaba is considered to be the most likely
location for the city of Pithom. This is due to its proximity to the Nile Delta (just to the eastern
edge) and roughly 60 miles east-northeast of Cairo. This is the only major fortified city in that
entire area. This particular city is known to have been occupied during the Egyptian New
Kingdom period of their history and this is generally believed to be the time of Israel's
oppression and eventual exodus from Egypt.
2) Tell el-Maskhuta: If we travel just a few miles eastward, this modern day city is considered
by some to be the ancient city of Pithom. However, this is ruled out by most scholars due to the
fact that this particular city was "occupied only later, during the eighteenth to sixteenth centuries
B.C., during the latter part of the Egyptian Middle Kingdom and the early Second Intermediate
periods."(2) While it can be shown that Semitic people did live in this city, because of shards of
pottery unearthed as well as other artifacts, it is more consistent with the fact that these people
were likely related to the Hyksos and not of Hebrew origin.

3) Tell el-Maskhuta: though this city is by some considered a candidate for the city of Pithom,
scholars and archaeologists essentially believe that this city was abandoned from the 16th century
to around 610 B.C. At that point, it was rebuilt under the direction of Pharaoh Neco II.

4) Hierapolis: This modern day city is also a candidate for Pithom, however Hierapolis is
generally thought to be the city of On in the Old Testament (Genesis 41:50; Ezekiel 30:17).

With respect to the two potential cities that could be ancient Rameses, Qantir is likely the best
choice, according to the Archaeological Study Bible. This is due to the ancient Egyptian records
which refer to the city as having been on the waters of the Ra, which was on the easternmost area
of the Nile Delta.

Archaeology has discovered that many Semitic peoples lived in this area and were generally
referred to as "Asiatics by the Egyptians."(3) Tanis, the other consideration, is probably not the
city of Rameses because of its dates associated with that city, which would place it well past the
accepted date for the Exodus.

Another piece of potential evidence favoring the biblical text is the Soleb
Hieroglyph. Amenhotep III of the 18th Dynasty built a temple in which archaeologists have
found what they believe to be the first reference to YAHWEH outside of the Bible itself. This
temple, built at Soleb was dedicated to Amenhotep III who, like many Pharaohs, was viewed as a
sort of divine king and was associated with the god Amon.

The hieroglyphics found at the temple "memorialize Amenhotep III's domination of foreign
peoples; subjugated peoples are depicted with their arms bound behind their backs.(4) Whether
or not it is true that he subjugated many foreign people is certainly open to debate, however what
is undeniably true is the fact that one inscription in particular refers to "the land of the Shasu,
(those of) Yhw." Scholars are almost in universal agreement that the letters Yhw refer to
Yahweh, Israel's God. If this inscription does indeed refer to the Israelites, then we can infer
from this that the exodus from Egypt to Palestine took place prior to the time of Amenhotep
III. Most biblical scholars believe the exodus occurred right around 1445 B.C., which would
have been approximately 50 years before Amenhotep III became Pharaoh.

Certainly nothing that has been mentioned thus far provides proof without equivocation,
however, the evidence does provide us with pieces of a puzzle that could well point to the full
picture, once all the pieces are discovered.
The one piece of evidence that has been discovered and cannot be ignored is the inscription
bearing the reference to Yhw. This no doubt refers to the God of Israel - Yahweh and because we
know when Amenhotep reigned, we know that this name was used by a people who existed
during that era.

Of three known Pharaohs of Egypt - Rameses II, Thutmose III and Amenhotep II - only the latter
two are serious contenders for the Pharaoh who ruled during the Exodus, and this is based again
on the archaeological evidence uncovered. Thutmose III is believed to have been the Pharaoh
who built a store city on what later became known as Rameses. It is then possible that either
Thutmose III or his son, Amenhotep II could have been the Pharaoh ruling during the exodus due
to time frames.

One other note of interest that points to a possible proof of the biblical exodus has to do with
what has been found in June of 2003. It's very possible that at least one chariot wheel has been
discovered at the bottom of the Red Sea. Of course there is controversy because only pictures of
the wheel has been seen and unfortunately, the Egyptian government has now prohibited
researchers from going down to actually obtain and remove any artifacts that might be there.
How would it look if it could be proven with modern discoveries that Egypt's leader and army
was literally overthrown by the God of Israel, especially considering the tension that exists in the
Middle East today?

So in the end (and believe me when I say that this is not the end, but merely the end of this
article), what do we have? We have possibilities that could eventually lead to a final
verdict. Should we jump on the bandwagon and say with all certainty that the proof is out there,
so to speak? No, and for those who need the proof, it is likely that nothing will serve as final
proof. At the same time, it is impossible to say with certainty that there is no proof of
Israelite/Hebrews bondage in Ancient Egypt. While evidence suggests that the biblical account is
true, the jury is still out.

For the Christian, a jury is not needed to determine that God's Word is just that - His
Word. Because it is His Word, it is authentic, accurate and authoritative. We do not need to
defend it against the attacks of so-called higher critics and certainly it is understood that no
amount of proof will convince anyone who does not really want to be convinced that the Bible is
in fact, accurate. It serves to support the idea that God is in control and whether or not humanity
believes in Him, or the history that is written in His Word makes no difference. People routinely
deny His existence, deny His creative acts and deny His sovereignty. None of these denials
however change the fact that He does exist, He has created and He is sovereign.

(1) Exodus 1:11 (New International Version of the Holy Bible; Zondervan Publishing)
(2) Archaeological Study Bible, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing, 2005), 86
(3) Ibid, 86
(4) Ibid, 86