Welcome to Part 3 of my look at David Rohl’s book, The Exodus: Myth or History? in which he argues for a mid-15th century BC date for the Exodus, a late 15th-early 14th century date for Joshua’s Conquest, and a 17th century-15th century time period for the Hebrews’ sojourning in Egypt. In my first two posts, I provided an overview of a number of chronological issues/problems when it comes to dating the Exodus, as well as Rohl’s proposal that the standard Egyptian chronology accepted by the majority of academia is off by about 200-300 years. Needless to say, that proposal is probably the most controversial of everything he puts forth in his book.
All that said, I want to say up front in this post that I don’t think I will ever be able to say I am 100% convinced of Rohl’s proposals and claims. I am not an expert in Egyptology, and I know enough to know that virtually every Egyptologist and biblical archeology readily admits that the dynasties and dates within ancient Egypt are hopelessly muddled and confusing. There is simply no way to be 100% certain of just about anything. Nevertheless, I think he raises legitimate criticisms of the proposed 13th century date for the Exodus. In short, even if you aren’t convinced by all of Rohl’s argument, I cannot see how anyone can accept a 13th century date for the Exodus. There is zero evidence for it, as there is hardly any evidence for any kind of early 12th century Conquest.
On top of that, the 13th century date fails to recognize that Exodus 1:11 that mentions the storage cities of Pithom and Pi-Ramesse is probably a later scribal gloss, not a claim that there were Hebrew slaves in Egypt during the actual reign of Rameses. Simply put, to read it that way is to demonstrate a shocking bit of biblical illiteracy. To be consistent with that kind of ignorant reading would mean one would have to read Genesis 47:11 and believe that Jacob and his family came into Egypt during the reign of Rameses as well, for it says they came into the “land of Rameses.”
Finally, I think Rohl proves that King Shishak mentioned in I Kings 14 and II Chronicles 12 could not be Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty. We have Shoshenk’s account of his campaign into Canaan, and it decidedly does not mention any cities in Judah. So, no, Shishak is not Shoshenk. That being said, Rohl’s argument that Shishak is actually a reference to Rameses II, although intriguing, isn’t necessarily a slam dunk. My reaction is basically, “Okay, maybe. But no, not an absolute certainty. In any case, we have to take seriously I Kings 6:1’s claim that Solomon started building the Temple in the fourth year of his reign, that was 480 years after the Exodus. That would place the Exodus to around 1450 BC. You don’t have to conclusively determine who Shishak was to come to the conclusion that the biblical dates themselves point to a mid-15th century date for the Exodus. And from there, to just establish the biblical chronology, given what Rohl points out regarding how Josephus, the Septuagint, and the Samaritan Pentateuch renders Exodus 12:40, as well as what the Apostle Paul himself says in Galatians 3:15-17, we would have Joseph coming into Egypt in the early 1600s BC and Jacob’s family moving into Egypt in the mid-1600s BC.
With that said, let’s see if there is archeological evidence of any significant Semitic population in Egypt between the 1600s and the 1400s—or perhaps even more broadly (since there is about a 200-300 year difference between the standard Egyptian chronology and Rohl’s new chronology) somewhere back between about the 1800s and 1400s.
The City of Avaris: The Reign of Amenemhat III
This is where the city of Avaris comes into play. Originally called Hawara, it was an ancient Egyptian city in the land of Goshen upon which the later city of Pi-Ramesse was built. Goshen, if you know your Joseph and Exodus stories, is the land in which it is claimed the Hebrews lived in Egypt. According to the accepted chronology, Avaris was founded by Amenemhet I of the 12th Dynasty in the mid-1900s BC. Rohl’s new chronology obviously would redate that to somewhere in the mid-1700s BC. Nevertheless, in the ruins of Avaris, the city upon which Pi-Ramesse was built, we find quite a lot of interesting things that seem to connect to the biblical story.
To set the stage, Rohl suggests that the pharaohs during the time Joseph (and later Jacob’s family) came into Egypt were Senuseret III and Amenemhat III, near the end of the 12th Dynasty. The accepted chronology has the reigns of these two rulers at 1836-1817 BC and 1817-1772 BC respectively, whereas Rohl dates them at 1698-1658 BC and 1678-1631 BC, with a 20-year period of co-regency. Regardless of the dates, the suggestion is that Joseph came into Egypt during the reign of Senuseret III and rose to the level of vizier under Amenemhat III. Rohl points out the following things that happened during Amenemhat III’s reign:
- Evidence of a major reorganization of the administration to combat high floods and famine, with land being confiscated from nobles, grain stores being built, and a department of state set up to oversee grain distribution.
- Evidence of the average flood levels of the Nile being unusually high for a number of years.
- A man-made canal called the “Waterway of Joseph” that diverted the flood waters of the Nile into nearby Lake Moeris.
- Amenemhat III built his pyramid in Hawara (soon to be Avaris), as well as massive administrative building called the Labyrinth that Rohl believes served as Amenemhat’s Department of People’s Giving—an administrative department he established during his reign.
All of that, Rohl argues, reflects quite a bit of information we are given in the Joseph story: years of plenty, years of famine, grain storage, an administrative Department of People’s Giving in charge of grain distribution…and a man-made canal that is actually named, “The Waterway of Joseph.”
The City of Avaris: Joseph the Vizier
In Genesis 41:45, Pharaoh gives Joseph the name Zaphenath Pa’aneah, and gives him Asenath, daughter of Potiphera priest of On, to be his wife. Rohl points out that “Zaphenath” means “he who is called,” and “Pa’aneah,” particularly “aneah,” is similar to the Egyptian word “ankh”—which is the Egyptian symbol for life. Hence, “Zaphenath Pa’aneah” means, “He who is called the one who lives”—quite a fitting name for a person whose family thought was dead but was actually still alive. From purely a literary perspective, that name in Genesis 41:45 fits perfectly into the overall story of Joseph.
In any case, Rohl points out that during the time of Amenemhat III there was a vizier named Ankhu. In the Egyptian records, he is associated with the granaries that were built. He was apparently very famous, for many people at the time, especially the Semitic people in Egypt, named their children after him. Not only him, but his two sons as well, Resseneb and Iymeru, who became viziers in the early 13th Dynasty. Rohl believes that Ankhu could, in fact, be Joseph, and Ressenb and Iymeru could be Manasseh and Ephraim.
Then there are the actual archaeological finds in the ruins of Avaris. Again, to simplify, here are some of the things that have been found:
- One of the earliest buildings in Avaris is what archaeologists call the Mittelsaal Haus, or the “Middle-Room House.” The style of the building suggests a Syrian owner.
- On top of that original “Middle-Room House” was built a larger palace, whose front portico had 12 columns.
- Behind the palace, in the back garden, are 12 tombs, the largest being in the shape of a pyramid. In that pyramid tomb, there is no body or coffin, but there are the remains of a statue—presumably of the person who had originally been buried there.
- The statue is depicted with yellow skin and red hair, holding a throw-stick, and wearing a coat of many colors. The yellow skin and red hair are how Egyptians depicted northerners (be it from Syria or Canaan, etc.). The throw-stick is how Egyptians depicted Asiatics or Semites. And the coat of many colors—well, that should be obvious.
Rohl’s contention is that the palace is that of the vizier Ankhu, who was actually the biblical Joseph. That would explain the 12 columns, the 12 tombs, and the pyramid tomb with the statue of a Semitic northerner. To be fair, my initial reaction to the coat of many colors is that of skepticism. It seems just too neat and tidy. Still, upon second thought, the fact that the coat of many colors was a detail deemed significant enough to be recorded in Genesis, it shouldn’t be altogether surprising to see that detail preserved in a statue of Joseph, if indeed the statue is of Joseph.
Conclusion Thus Far
Now, I’ve seen a few video criticisms of Rohl’s work on YouTube, with various people raising various objections, like the timeline doesn’t fit, Rohl’s “new chronology” is too extreme, or there is no way of knowing if the Semite in the pyramid tomb was actually Joseph. It could have been any Semite who happened to be a big wig in Egypt at some point.
My PhD was in the Old Testament, with a focus on the Book of Isaiah. Although I probably know more about Genesis and Exodus than your average Joe, when it comes down to the nuts and bolts of archeological finds of ancient Egypt and Egyptology in general, I certainly am no expert. Nevertheless, I find it very hard to just dismiss all these actual findings out of hand. Are these ruins found in ancient Avaris that are associated with the reign of Amenemhat III to be dated to the 1600s BC or the early 1700s/early 1800s BC? Given the muddled mess that ancient Egyptian chronology is, the argument that Rohl can’t be right on his conclusions because his chronology amounts to 100-150 years difference seems pretty thin.
The way I see it, the fact is that all of these things do seem to mirror what we find in the Joseph story, so we have to acknowledge that as a distinct possibility. As a spoiler alert to the next post, Rohl talks about the overwhelmingly accepted conclusion by everyone that there was a significant Semitic population in Avaris during these years in question. So, that means we have a sizable Semitic population living in the land of Goshen in the general time period that Genesis and Exodus associate between Joseph and Moses. On top of that, you have all the details mentioned in this post regarding what was found in Avaris. You even have a man-made canal that is actually named, “The Waterway of Joseph.”
If nothing else, even if you can quibble with a few details and claims here and there, all that tells me that at the very least there is real history behind the Joseph story in the Book of Genesis. I don’t expect Genesis to be read as if it were “just the facts” news report or documentary. It most certainly is written in the form of a story. Therefore, I don’t feel we need to make sure every single detail fits perfectly. Nevertheless, it claims to be about actual history, and the actual archeological finds mentioned in this post seem to bear that out.
This is very cool Joel, thanks!