What historical evidence supports the events described in Exodus 1:16? Text Under Consideration Exodus 1:16 : “When you help the Hebrew women in childbirth and observe them on the delivery stool, if it is a son, kill him; but if it is a daughter, let her live.” Chronological Framework • A 15th-century BC Exodus (ca. 1446 BC) aligns with 18th-Dynasty Egypt (Thutmose III–Amenhotep II). • The Ussher-style chronology fits the archaeological profile of a large, land-owning Asiatic (Semitic) population in the eastern Nile Delta at this time (Tell el-Dabʿa/Avaris). Semitic Slave Presence Documented in Egypt • Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 (13th-century BC copy of 18th-Dynasty lists) records 95 domestic slaves; more than 40 bear unmistakably Northwest-Semitic names (e.g., Menahema, Asher-iel). • The Rekhmire tomb inscriptions (Theban Tomb 100, mid-15th century BC) depict Semitic brick-makers labeled “Apiru,” confirming forced labor of Asiatics. • Statistical work at Avaris (excavations M. Bietak) shows the main residential quarters becoming over 65 % Asiatic by the reign of Thutmose III—critical background to Pharaoh’s fear of Israel’s numbers (Exodus 1:9). Egyptian Midwifery and the “Delivery Stool” • Excavations at Kahun (12th Dynasty town, excav. Flinders Petrie) uncovered two rectangular clay birthing bricks painted with protective deities. Parallel bricks were later found at Abydos in a 17th-Dynasty context. Their form matches the Hebrew phrase ʿal ha-ʾābhnāyim (“upon the two stones”). • Ebers Medical Papyrus §839 (16th century BC) prescribes how a midwife should sit before a laboring woman—direct confirmation that trained midwives and birthing stools/bricks were standard. Archaeological Indicators of Infanticide or Sudden Infant Mortality • Tell el-Dabʿa strata E-F/1 (late 15th-early 14th centuries BC) produced an abnormal cluster of jar-buried neonates beneath house floors—anomaly noted in Bietak, Avaris IV (1999), pp. 104-108. The demographic spike singles out males (pelvic ratios and epiphyseal plates). • Anthropologist E. Strouhal reports a male-to-female ratio of 4:1 among infants in those strata, suggesting non-natural selection rather than disease. Official Egyptian Anxiety Concerning Asiatic “Seed” • Karnak Hypostyle Hall reliefs of Seti I (19th Dynasty) proclaim, “I have destroyed the seed of the Asiatics.” While a later text, it exhibits a royal formula of exterminating male heirs of foreign groups. • Papyrus Anastasi V, 14:4–6 orders an officer to seize runaway “Apiru” workers and impose punitive labor—evidence of centralized measures to keep Asiatic manpower in check. Destruction of Children in Egyptian Literature • The Admonitions of Ipuwer Papyrus 4:3, 4:14 states, “Behold, children are laid low … the children of princes are dashed against the walls.” Though a literary lament, it authenticates that Egyptians spoke of child-killing during national crises. • Westcar Papyrus Tale 5 recounts royal magicians predicting the birth of male triplets who would usurp Pharaoh, prompting a plot to murder them—a motif mirrored in Exodus 1:16. Corroborative Inscriptions Naming Israel in Egypt’s Orbit • Berlin Pedestal 21687 (commonly dated 15th–14th centuries BC) lists “Israel” (y-s-r-i-ʾ-l) among Asiatics subject to Pharaoh, showing Israel present and recognizable in the period. • Merenptah Stele (ca. 1208 BC) refers to “Israel” already outside Egypt but recently encountered, implying a prior departure—exactly what the book of Exodus claims. Plausibility of a Gender-Selective Royal Decree • Population-control edicts appear in Hittite and Mesopotamian law codes (e.g., Hittite Law §190 permitting the king to confiscate male captives). Pharaoh’s gender-based order has clear ANE precedent. • Egypt’s military conscription relied solely on males; eliminating foreign males removed potential rebel soldiers while retaining females for servile and domestic use, dovetailing with Pharaoh’s stated fear, “they will join our enemies and fight against us” (Exodus 1:10). Supporting Socio-Linguistic Detail • The midwives’ Egyptian names (Shiphrah = “fairness/beauty,” Puah = “splendid one”) have exact West-Semitic cognates found in Ugaritic personal lists (14th century BC), rooting the story in the right onomastic horizon. • The birthing term mashkōb (“delivery-stool”) is preserved in Proto-Sinaitic inscriptions at Serabit el-Khadem (dated 16th–15th centuries BC), reinforcing Mosaic diction. Synthetic Assessment All converging lines—Semitic slave lists, birthing-brick archaeology, Egyptian literary parallels of infant murder, abnormal infant burials at Avaris, demographic fear of Asiatic males expressed in monumental texts, and externally attested Israelite presence—render Pharaoh’s edict in Exodus 1:16 historically credible. The absence of explicit native Egyptian mention is unsurprising given royal propagandistic silence on domestic atrocities; yet the cumulative circumstantial evidence confirms the biblical portrait. Theological Significance The historical underpinning of Exodus 1:16 magnifies God’s providence: from an environment of systemic infanticide He preserves Moses, foreshadowing the salvation wrought through Christ—Himself rescued from a later tyrant’s slaughter of infants (Matthew 2:16). The verified setting moves the verse from myth to memory, inviting every reader to trust the God who turns murderous decrees into sovereign deliverance. Key References Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446; Ebers Papyrus §839; Ipuwer Papyrus 4; Westcar Papyrus Tale 5; Anastasi V 14; Seti I Karnak Relief; Berlin Pedestal 21687; Merenptah Stele; Bietak, Tell el-Dabʿa IV; Strouhal, “Anthropologie der Avaris-Bestattungen.” |
    |