Exodus, part 3. Israel and Yahweh in Canaan

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

by Neil Godfrey

This series of posts has been following the most recent publication on the archaeology and history of the Old Testament — The Old Testament in Archaeology and History (OTAH) — and has now reached the point of the earliest historical evidence for the presence of Israel and her God Yahweh in Canaan.

The previous two posts:

Earliest Historical Evidence for Israel in Canaan

In 1896 W. M. Flinders Petrie, excavating a temple in Luxor, Egypt, discovered an inscription on stone that said “Israel is wasted, its seed is not.” The inscription or stele belonged to Pharaoh Merneptah and was dated 1207 BCE. That’s roughly 207 years before the time of David and Solomon. There is no biblical account of Egyptian forces destroying Israel according to the claims of the Merneptah stele. For context, here is the relevant section of that inscription. It is describing an Egyptian military campaign into Canaan.

The (foreign) chieftains lie prostrate, saying “Peace.” Not one lifts his head among the Nine Bows.
Libya is captured, while Hatti is pacified.
Canaan is plundered, Ashkelon is carried off, and Gezer is captured. Yenoam is made into non-existence; Israel is wasted, its seed is not; and Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.
All lands united themselves in peace. Those who went about are subdued by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt… Merneptah. (COS 2:41) (OTAH, p. 256)

At this point the chapter in OTAH is disappointingly lacking in citations for readers to follow up. It makes the following points:

  • Some scholars (who? a few citations, please!) argue that Merneptah brought Israelites into Egypt as captives.

(It’s that word “argue” that confuses me. What are the arguments? That’s why I’d like to see some of the secondary source material identified so I could follow up the “arguments”. Or are they really only speculating that the Pharaoh at this time brought the Israelites as captives back to Egypt with him? Perhaps I will find the arguments in sources cited in other contexts in the chapter as opportunity might arise for me to dig deeper.)

  • Presumably on their trek to Egypt these Israelites encountered the nomadic Shasu from Edom, the earliest known followers of the god “Yahweh”.
  • About 1190 BCE (around at most 20 years later than the Egyptian campaign into Canaan) “the Semite Bey instigated a revolt and chaos reigned throughout Egypt. The revolt failed but provided the opportunity for groups of Semites including Israelites to escape and return to Canaan. . . ” (OTAH, p. 257)
  • Egyptian power in the Canaan succumbed to challenges by the Philistines and others. “The Israelite believed that God had brought their people out from Egypt, as indicated in Exodus 18:1. (Though not in total agreement, see Knauf and Guillaume 2015, 36.)” (OTAH, p. 257)

That is far from being anything like a “historical reconstruction” of the biblical story in my view. But let’s continue with the chapter.

Around this time the reader is informed that “there was a dramatic population increase in the central highlands of Canaan at the end of the Late Bronze Age and the beginning of the Iron Age”. That’s around 1250 to 1050 BCE according to the timeline on page xvii of OTAH.

It is possible—some scholars would say highly likely—that these new settlers were the people Israel, or at least a “proto-Israel” (see the next chapter). Despite this, the common material culture of these sites—plastered cisterns, terracing, olive orchards, collar-rim jars, cooking pots, four-room houses, storage facilities like silos, and unfortified settlements—has few links to Egypt. The most common house form in these sites is known as the “four-room house,” and it is distinctive to them. (OTAH, p. 257)

A paragraph discusses the maverick claims of one scholar, Manfred Bietak, who “argues, however, that there is evidence for the four-room house in Egypt” after all. (Bietak’s chapter is found in Israel’s exodus in transdisciplinary perspective : text, archaeology, culture, and geoscience, a work that is not readily available to me.)

Where does Yahweh come from?

We return to those nomadic people known as Shasu. Egyptian records place them in the region of Edom (including Seir, the mountainous region of Edom) and the Negev. Those same Egyptian records also portray them as undesirables, “robbers and brigands”. Sometimes the Egyptians allowed the Shasu into their delta regions to water their cattle; other times we read of conflicts with the Shasu throughout Canaan, and even at one point of being spies for the Hittite enemy of Egypt.

But the most important point about the Shasu lies in their worship. A papyrus list from the time of Ramesses II mentions “the land of the Shasu of Yhw” — a clear reference to “the name of the Israelite god ‘Yahweh’ ” (Redford 1992, 273). This is our earliest evidence of the worship of Yahweh, and it is important to note that it is established outside of Canaan. (OTAH, p. 258, my bolding)

Wright, Elliott and Flesher, the authors of the OTAH chapter “Israel In and Out of Egypt”, acknowledge that “some scholars have wondered whether the “Israel” mentioned in the Merneptah Stele should be associated with the Shasu depicted in the reliefs of Merneptah”. No doubt readers will have their own evaluations of such “wonderment”.

But what is interesting is that the Biblical literature itself does associate the origins of Yahweh with Edom and Seir.

Deuteronomy 33:1-2

Now this is the blessing with which Moses the man of God blessed the children of Israel before his death. And he said:

“The Lord came from Sinai,
And dawned on them from Seir”

Judges 5:4

Lord, when You went out from Seir,
When You marched from the field of Edom

Habakkuk 3:3

God came from Teman [Teman = South, a designation of Edom],
The Holy One from Mount Paran.

William Dever in his book Did God Have a Wife? Archaeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel at one point places Teman even further south in Yemen. I have copied here a map from Dever’s book to show the location of Kuntillet Ajrud, an archaeological site in the northern Sinai where inscriptions of Yahweh — and his wife Asherah! — have been studied.

Dever references several inscriptions of Yahweh but we are discussing the chapter in OTAH:

Yahweh’s links to Teman also appear at Kuntillet Ajrud in northern Sinai. A ninth-century BCE inscription found there further emphasizes Yahweh’s southern character: it reads, “I bless you by Yahweh of Teman and by his Asherah” (Knauf and Guillaume 2015).

So the evidence is tantalizing yet elusive for anyone seeking for signs of some historicity behind the Biblical story of Israel’s exodus and settlement in Canaan.

The authors of our chapter conclude that there is no evidence for Israel emerging from Egypt as a people of Yahweh. Further, the evidence tells us that Yahweh was not a Canaanite god and we have no idea how the Edomite deity came to be the god of Israel. The best that the authors can suggest is that since the people of Israel emerged out of several Canaanite groups then perhaps at some point the Shasu migrated north and introduced their god to the peoples in the central Canaanite highlands.

Wright, J. Edward, Mark Elliott and Paul V.M. Flesher, “Israel In and Out of Egypt,” in The Old Testament in Archaeology and History, edited by Jennie Ebeling, J. Edward Wright, Mark Elliott and Paul V.M. Flesher, Waco: Baylor University Press, 2017.






The following two tabs change content below.

Neil Godfrey

Neil is the author of this post. To read more about Neil, see our About page.

Latest posts by Neil Godfrey (see all)

If you enjoyed this post, please consider donating to Vridar. Thanks!

13 thoughts on “Exodus, part 3. Israel and Yahweh in Canaan”

  1. Finkelstein’s ‘The Archaeology of the Israelite Settlement’, 1988, pp237-59, dicusses the “four-room house,” it is found at non-Israelite sites. That wider occurence is also dicussed in the popular works he has authored. I like your using Dever; as you probably know, he gets a bit crazed about minimalism.

  2. What about the Ugarit connexion for a genealogy of Yahweh ?
    The Shasu of Edom are often mentioned, but not Ugarit, located in Northern Syria.
    Wasn’t Yahweh one of the Canaanite gods ? Too simple ?

    1. I believe none of the attempts to connect Yahweh with the Ugaritic pantheon have been convincing. Traders and migrants from Edom and perhaps Midian settling in Samaria and bringing Yahweh as their version of the storm/fertility god seems like the most likely scenario. Römer and Finkelstein have been publishing articles showing that Samaria developed two competing national origin myths — one in which they were an Aramean nation with Jacob as their patriarch and El as their god, and one in which they came out of Egypt with the “Egyptian” Yahweh as their god.

  3. This an interesting discussion but a bit above my head. In the first instance, I would like to state that after twenty years of private, secondary source research into matters Biblical and Egyptian/Mesopotamian I believe that one can clearly and positively state that Israel as soujourner ‘nation’ in Egypt for 430 years (Jacob’s arrival in Egypt -2009 to the Exodus -1479) left Egypt via Gulf of Aqaba long before -1207.

    1. Why not start with parts 1 and 2 that I link at the beginning of this post? The book I am discussing is described by scholars as “the text that should be used to educate the next generation of students”, as “thorough, easy to follow” and “up-to-date and accessible”. I am disappointed if I am botching it and setting it above the heads of readers.

      There is simply no evidence to support the historicity of the Exodus. In fact the historical evidence we have counts against the historicity of the story.

      1. I meant -1579 not -1479 in my post above. Au contraire there is no trace in an expicit, open way. God’s ways are unscrutable. Sure. However, this is not the same as there is no evidence for the Exodus – historically-speaking. The evidence is complete but particularly notable is the appointment of Thutmose III , a despicable 18-year old creep following the Exodus. There is no reason to appoint this dude. Ahmose I was still kicking as were other Kings (who sat in parallel) who could have taken over as ruler. Ask yourself why choose T III?

        The only reason is Exodus related. Given that the New Kingdom OVERLAPPED, repeat overlapped and was contiguous with the Old, repeat Old, Kingdom the question becomes why was Onnes not Unis? The only qualification here is that Unis was no longer a ruler – he had overall completed 70 years of Public Service a few short years earlier.

        I could go on but enough is provide for at the least some food for thought. At the best absolute proof. A boofhead such as T II proved to be in his short 53 years of Public Service could never have risen to the position of Army command in normal times.


        Ian Shears

        1. I don’t see how anyone following the basic principles of sound historical research (e.g. independent verification and establishment of provenance of sources) can possibly think the exodus has any historical veracity.

          1. I believe that I fully agreed with this proposition in my earlier response. I also said that this does not, therefore, mean we are left witless on this matter. Since no-one could possibly conclude an Exodus took place prima faciae we usually – as non-professionals – try to falsify such a claim as “Genesis account (Moses the Author) stating that an Exodus did occur or confirm such a claim. Since it gets down to probabalistic reasoning we only need to establish that beyond a reasonable doubt the matter is the more probable. If you go to clearing-uptimes.blogspot.com.au and wade, literally wade, through ca. 100 posts you will see the matter addressed in the context of refuting Marianne Luban’s somewhat Zionist-friendly notion of multiple Exoduses (Exodi, sorry couldn’t resist). The Chronology of Egypt set out here is radical and supported by Oxford Radiocarbon Laboratory data. In short the Exodus occurs -1579 (see Radiocarbon dating) according to CUT The New Kingdom ‘starts’ say with Ahmose I for convenience and the Old Kingdom ca. -1626 and ends with paralleled 5th/6th Dynasties – Pharaoh Unis and Merenre Antyemzaf II in -1570/-1580. The traditions surrounding these periods in Egyptian History are abundant and well-advocated by Marianne Luban in her (apologies Marianne) misguided efforts. The post-Exodus king Tuthmose III fits well when referenced back to Manethonic sequences and as interpreted by CUT. Since the number and variety of confirming accounts, anecdotes from Egyptian literature, Talmudic stuff ( not to happy here) is such that the balance of probabilities leans strongly towards CUT view.

            I do feel out of my depth but probability is probability.


            Ian Shears

            1. I have a simpler method. If there is no evidence for it then it didn’t happen. If all we have is a fanciful story with lots of miracles and spirit characters that can be dated no earlier than the third century CE then that’s all it was.

              And if we have still later narratives then we have a national or religious myth but no sources whatever to establish historicity. The supposedly roughly contemporary sources we do have (as set out in the three posts of this series) actually count against historicity.

              1. I fully agree there is no historicity. But that, again, jumps over the issue of ‘can we confirm or falsify the Biblical claim in Exodus and Genesis?’. I believe we can WITHOUT recourse to the normal historian-level methodologies. It is only the probability that counts. If the non-promiscuous chance of a number of non-miraculous, co-incidences is near to zero then then the notions or claims are confirmed. What I offered in my work these last twenty years was an extra-ordinary series of such events, etc. This is why I say the proof is complete.

                Given that I am not particularly devoted to when Scripture was written my argument stands. If I am a dishonest researcher don’t tell me. I’d rather wallow in my ignorance. But you are, obviously, free to ignore any assertions I make regarding the way the research I conducted went. I don’t believe any circularity was present.


                Ian Shears

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Discover more from Vridar

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading