The Exodus draws a lot of attention from ordinary naysayers to refined scholars.  Apart from conservative scholarship, many believe that this event is a composition of multiple sources that are mythical (in the not true sense) and give us no reason to believe the various miraculous events that took place.

My intent today is not to address these issues, but rather to attempt to answer this one question,

“Why is There No Record of The Exodus in Egyptian History?”

It is readily known that the Egyptians not only exaggerated their history, they left many things out – typically the bad stuff – and even told outright lies.  Consider the the following examples as a means of validating their lack and fabrication of records.

Ramses II During the Battle of Kadesh

It is known that an Asiatic people known as the Hyksos, conquered and ruled the Egyptians for over 200 years (1786-1550 B.C.) and there is no mention of these time period in Egyptian history until they rose back-up and expelled them from their land

Fabrication of Records

The Battle of Kadesh was fought between the Egyptian Empire ruled by Ramesses II and the Hittite Empire.  The first historical report written on this battle in Western Civilization was based upon the work of James Breasted in 1903 and he concluded, from Egpytian records, that the Egyptians were victorious. 

However, this is not the case.  The Hittites were victorious.

Why is There No Record of The Exodus in Egyptian History?

Based upon the lack and fabrication of records by the Egyptians, it is plausible that the Egyptians decided not to record such a humiliating defeat by the very people they enslaved.  There are other facets that we could look to in validating the presence of the Israelites in Egypt, but I would like to end with this one point:

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence (Garrett DeWeese and J.P. Moreland’s Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult, pg. 20).

Such a claim is considered an argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantium) and is an informal fallacy of  reasoning.  Basically, you can’t point to the lack of not knowing something as a means of proving it’s not there.

Does this prove why there is no record of the Exodus in Egyptian history?  Not outright, but it does provide plausability to the position. 

[The above is essentially based on The Historicity of the Pentateuch; Creation from Dr. Hugenberger’s course on the Theology of the Pentateuch]

Enjoy this post?  Consider sharing it with your friends with the Share/Shave below or Tweet above and subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS

Gustave Dore

Dewitt builds a strong case for setting the story of the tower in the context of Sumerian history.  He observes that “land of Shinar” (v. 2) is properly Sumer, and that the language of the text can be read in a local rather than a universal sense.

He notes the parallels between Gen. 11.1-9 and what is known of the Sumerian civilization.

First, a Sumerian text in the 3rd Dynasty of Ur states that the Sumerians once had a people of one language but that Enki had confounded their speech (The historical background of this is the invasion of Sumeria by Semitic and other peoples, who both introduced new languages and brought about the fall of Sumerian civilization).

DeWitt shows that in both the Sumerian text and Genesis that the diversification of language is attributed to a deity who accomplishes this by intervening in specific invasions of foreign armies.

Second, DeWitt relates the ideology surrounding the Sumerian ziggurat accords well with what Gen. 11.4 states of the builder’s purpose.  They believed a ziggurat established a link between heaven and earth (”a tower that reaches to heaven”) and was the greatest visible sign of their own glory and power (”make a name for ourselves”).

Finally, DeWitt observes that the fall of the 3rd Dynasty of Ur resulted in a scattering of the Sumerian peoples (”And the Lord scattered them all over the earth” [v. 8]).

For a a great visual illustration of the tower of Babel, I recommend Graham Kennedy’s the tower of Babel.

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post

From Vern S. Poythress, The Shadow of Christ in the Law of Moses:

The whole Old Testament finds its focus in Jesus Christ, His death, and His resurrection…the Old Testament teaches us about Christ…Christ is the focus of the message of the Old Testament.  He is the One to whom it points forward, about whom it speaks, and whom it prefigures in symbols (Matthew 5.17-18; Luke 24.13-49; 1 Cor. 10.11; 2 Cor. 1.20) (pg. 5).

Thus we have a threefold task.

First, we must try to understand the law of Moses on its own terms, within its own historical environment.  God intended it to be heard and understood by Israelites who had recently been redeemed from Egypt.

Second, we must try to understand how the New Testament completes God’s story and God’s word that He began to speak in the Old Testament (Matthew 5.17-18).

Third, we must obey and apply God’s word to ourselves and our own circumstances [Through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ].

Often Biblical scholars stop with the first step.  But it is legitimate to read the first part of the story again in the light of the end.  By doing so we may understand more clearly how the beginning already introduced the teachings and the tensions that are completed and resolved at the end.  Jesus Christ Himself is the center of the New Testament revelation.  Since the New Testament completes the story begun in the Old, Christ is also the center about which the Old Testament begins to speak in its preliminary way, and to which the Old Testament points forward (pgs. 7-8).

Enjoy this post?  Get more like them by subscribing to Reformed and Reforming by E-mail or RSS.

Consider sharing this post: