On one hand, failure to find archaeological evidence near the date of 1446BC has been due to scholars looking for evidence in the wrong historical period and probably the wrong geographical sites. Going 480 years back in history from Solomon's Temple building in 966BC leads to an Exodus date in 1446BC while 240 years back in history from Solomon's Temple building in 966BC leads to an Exodus date in 1206BC. As reviewed and documented in Part One, ' 480 years from the temple of Solomon ', built in 966BC, is twice as long as should be calculated as we understand today as a year consisting of 365.25 days. There is substantial evidence to prove that the statement made in the Book of Kings has been misinterpreted causing biblical historians to calculate the time from Solomon's Temple building to the Exodus twice as long as should be.

The age-long calculated date of 1446BC, accepted by a majority of biblical historians originating from the Book of Kings was examined. In PART ONE, the timeline for the date of the Exodus was reviewed.

What are the Egyptian documents underlying this hypothesis: none, and what is the chronology of this mysterious war: nobody knows! Consequently, who to believe: Moses or Egyptologists? GLASSTREE 2017 Finally, Ahmose I, the first pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty of Egypt, won the war against the Hyksos. For them, “it seems” that several campaigns against the stronghold at Avaris were needed, during at least one decade, before the Hyksos were finally dislodged and driven from Lower Egypt. For these scholars the liberation from Egypt after the “10 plagues”, as it is written in the Book of Exodus, is quite different from the historical “war of liberation against the Hyksos”. Several scholars (Finkelstein, Dever and others) posit that the Exodus narrative may have developed from collective memories of the Hyksos expulsions of Semitic Canaanites from Egypt, possibly elaborated on to encourage resistance to the 7th century domination of Judah by Egypt. The Ipuwer papyrus therefore supports a divergence of several hundred years between the biblical and secular timelines at the time of the Exodus.įor Egyptologists as well as archaeologists, and even now Bible scholars, the answer to the question: Who to believe: Moses or Egyptologists? is obvious (Dever: 2003, 233): Rather than attempt to defend the factual historicity of the Exodus traditions, I suggest that we must understand the Exodus story precisely as a myth, specifically as a “metaphor for liberation” (.) There is ample evidence that the Exodus story was read metaphorically already in ancient times, certainly so by the early rabbis and by later rabbinical commentaries. Often secular scholars declare that biblical events like the Exodus cannot have taken place because there are no evidences of these at the time in history where the Bible places them. The question of divergence of the secular and biblical timelines is a matter of enormous importance for biblical apologetics. This puts the manuscript’s original date (as determined by scholars) exactly where it should be. With respect to dating the events in this papyrus, it needs to be understood that the secular historical timeline diverges from the biblical timeline, and furthermore, that the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt ended at the same time (contrary to the standard history).

In this paper we show that this ancient document most likely describes Exodus conditions and that the Ipuwer Papyrus therefore offers strong extra-biblical evidence for a historical Exodus. On the other side are those who deny this on the basis of disbelief that the Exodus ever took place, or who claim that the date of the events described in the manuscript is wrong for the Exodus. On the one side are those who claim that this manuscript describes chaotic conditions in Egypt at the time of the biblical Exodus. Controversy surrounds the Ipuwer Papyrus, an Egyptian manuscript residing in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands.

Ipuwer papyrus online translation pdf