Section-A
THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH AS TO WHY ISRAEL LEFT FROM
THE EAST SIDE OF THE NILE DELTA, BUT ARE THEY CONCLUSIVE?
1) Israel left from Rameses, but was this the city or the land? (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 33:3) Some would identify this with Pi-Ramses, an ancient Egyptian city believed to be on the east side of the Delta, and thought to be one of the treasure cities that the children of Israel built in Exodus 1:11. Through the years, the scholars have moved the site for the city of Raamses from one location to another, but always within the East Nile Delta.*
The children of Israel left from Rameses, but the Bible does not say if it was the city or the land of Rameses. “And they departed from Rameses in the first month....” (Numbers 33:3) Israel was in Goshen while the plagues fell on the Egyptians (Exodus 9:26). But the “land of Goshen” and the “land of Rameses” are one and the same. The children of Israel are said to live in both, and both are said to be “the best of the land” of Egypt (Genesis 47:4-6, 11). The treasure cities Israel built for Pharaoh were “Pithom and Raamses.” In Exodus 12:37, the children of Israel leave Egypt from “Rameses”, which is the spelling (in English) for the land of Rameses, not the city, but it is assumed that it was the city of “Raamses.” However, as others have brought out, it would have been hard for the multitude that was with Moses to have gone to a city; they would have overwhelmed any city, even Memphis.
(*A notable exception to this was a city on the west side of the Delta at a town named Ramsis, about 50 miles southeast of Alexandria (I do not know if this was the biblical city of Raamses. Exodus 1:11). This site of Ramsis was rejected as the biblical Raamses based on their theory that Israel left from the east side of the Delta. See Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion. By J.G. Honore Greppo, pages 148, 153.)
2) Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalem (Ancient Aramaic Translations of Exodus 12, Numbers 33) have the Exodus starting at Pelusium, which is at the northeast corner of the Delta. I enjoyed reading the Targums with their traditions, but the Bible said they left from Rameses. And it cannot be found in history where Pelusium was called Rameses or any variation of this name, nor was it a capital of Egypt. There are real problems with the geography of this route, as on the third encampment Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has Israel at Tanis, some 40 miles west of Pelusium. (Tanis was not the capital of Egypt until 1078 BC)
3) Some use Psalm 78:43 as proof that the children of Israel were living on the east side of the Nile Delta at the time of the Exodus. “How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan.” This Psalm is looking back to the time when the ten plagues fell on the Egyptians, and because Zoan is believed to be the city of Tanis in the East Nile Delta, it is thought therefore that Moses and the children of Israel must have been close by. But this word “field” (of Zoan) is the same word translated “country” of Moab (Numbers 21:20) and“country” of Edom (Genesis 32:2). Psalm 78 is attributed to Asaph, a contemporary of King David (1037– 970 BC), and therefore this Psalm was written when Tanis was the capital of the 21st Dynasty of Egypt, and would have been used as another name of the country. Similarly, the capital of northern Israel, which was Samaria, ended up becoming the name of the ten northern tribes (II Kings 17:24, I Kings 16:24, John 4:5 and Acts 8:5). The Bible said the ten plagues were “throughout all the land of Egypt” (Exodus7:19, 21, 8:16, 17, 9:9, 22, 25, 11:6), except Goshen, not in the backyard (“field”) of a city.
4) Some look to the *Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) for support that Goshen was on the East Delta, for it calls Goshen, “Gesem of Arabia” (Arabia being on the east side) and says that Joseph met his father in Heroopolis on the east side of the Delta.
In the last century, some have put the land of Goshen as far east as Heroopolis, but a lady named Etheria (also called Silvia and Egeria) writing in 385 AD, has Goshen in the Delta. In her book the Pilgrimage of Etheria, she tells about her trip to Egypt. (And to Mount Sinai, which she had been told was in the southern Sinai Peninsula.) She had traveled from the Gulf of Suez and was on her way to the land of Goshen, but had stopped at Heroopolis before she came to Goshen and said, “Hero; it is situated at the sixteenth milestone from the land of Goshen...” Etheria said Herooplois was 16 miles outside the land of Goshen.
(*The Greek Septuagint is not superior to the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint has place names in locations that no one could agree with! In Ezekiel 30:15, it has “multitude of No” as Memphis; no one believes this today. Also in this same verse, it has the place name “Sin” as Sais, and then turns around in the next verse and has the same Hebrew name “Sin” as being Syene, 600 miles south of Sais; then in verse 6 of that same chapter the Septuagint took a differently spelled place name and also made it Syene. I was able to use the Septuagint a couple of times as a reference for our other book, ‘Great Stones’ Jeremiah 43:9-10, but the Septuagint has major problems; in the book of Jeremiah alone it is missing 2,700 words! The Old Testament was inspired in Hebrew, not the Greek of the Septuagint.)
5) Some use Exodus 13:17-18, saying Israel was “near” or close to the Promised Land. “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. Gesenius’s Lexicon gave for this word “near” = “something short”. It was the shortest or quickest route, but not that Israel was close by the Promised land, see the same word in Job 17:12 (KJV)..
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Section-B
Goshen was on both sides of the Nile.
“He [Joseph] married Aseneth a daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, by whom he begat sons. And afterwards his father and his brethren came to him, bringing much substance, and were sent to dwell in Heliopolis and Sais." This quote is from Eusebius of Caesarea (Christian historian, 263 – 339 AD), who in turn was quoting Alexander Polyhistor (Greek historian, first century BC). And from what he said, Goshen would have to be on both sides of the Nile. Heliopolis was near the apex of the Delta on the east side of the Nile, but Sais was on the west side of the Delta. And where the Bible said that Goshen was the “best of the land of Egypt”, I have no problem believing that all of the Nile Delta was the best of the land of Egypt, but I would have a hard time understanding why only the east side would be considered such, because both sides are basically the same.
Israel left from the west side of the Nile River (see "Home" at top of page). This is according to Josephus (first century Jewish historian) and few people will deal with this because almost everyone today has them leaving from the east side of the Delta. One person I read even called what Josephus said, “weird”, another said, “very strange”. Josephus said, “So the Hebrews went out of Egypt...Now they took their journey by Letopolis, a place at that time deserted, but where Babylon was built afterwards, when Cambyses laid Egypt waste....”
There may have been another motive in moving Israel's home to only the west side of the Nile. The Bible tells us that the king of Egypt was afraid of them, “Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.” (Exodus 1:10) Most of Egypt’s “enemies” were on the east side of the Delta, and if the Egyptians were afraid of Israel joining their enemies it would make sense to move them to the west side of the Nile.
The Book of Jubilees (second century BC) says the same thing but adds that the King of Egypt knew that the children of Israel’s “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan.” The children of Israel knew their time in Egypt was limited, for they had Joseph’s prophecy (Genesis 50:24) that they would one day return to Canaan. For the Egyptians to have allowed Israel to be on the east side of the Delta, the nearest to Canaan, when they knew their “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan”; would not be wise. But to move them across to the other side of the Nile would keep them farther away from their hearts’ desire and discourage them.
Tradition. The only “Synagogue of Moses” in ancient Egypt was at Dammuih, just north of Memphis (west side of the Nile). The traditions associated with this synagogue have Moses living there and conversing with the king of Egypt from this site. All this is ignored - not just the tradition, but Josephus, Eusebius, Artapanus, Philo and John of Nikiu (see "Home" page). Why? Because it does not fit the theories they hold.
So, what has been said? That the “Field of Zoan” (Country of Tanis) was another name for Egypt at the time Psalm 78 was written, and that when the children of Israel left “Rameses” it was the “Land of Rameses” (Goshen), not the city. This would include the nome of Letopolis, where Josephus said they started from.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Section C (The third encampment and Litopolis
Israel's third encampment is where she started from, Egypt! After Israel arrived at Etham we find they “turned again” (Numbers 33:7), and also, “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn….” (Exodus 14:2) And, both “turn” and “turned again” are the same word in the Hebrew. Strong’s #7725 gives for its first definition “to return, turn back”. This same word is translated “return” 391 times in the Old Testament, which is the most of all the different ways it has been translated. Is Israel going back to where they started? There is a surprising amount of evidence to support this! Yet seldom will you read of this in the other routes for the Exodus. They will usually take a more southern direction from where they had been going, or will take no turn at all.
“Moses…gave the signal to turn back to Pi-hahiroth. Those of little faith among the Israelites tore their hair and their garments in desperation, though Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men, and no longer slaves to Pharaoh. Accordingly, they retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth, where....the great sanctuary of Baal-zephon was situated” (Legends of the Jews). First, we see that Israel was to “turn back” to Pi-hahiroth, even saying they “retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth”, ending up where they started! Notice the children of Israel were not happy with this news, “tore their hair and their garments in desperation”. They thought they were going to become slaves again. This could only be because they were headed back to where they had been, Egypt, but “Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men, and no longer slaves to Pharaoh.”
In chapter 33 of the book of Numbers, there are over 40 encampments mentioned, and nowhere else in this chapter do we find the word “turn”, “return”, “turn again” or “turn back”, except just before Pi-Hahiroth. It is, of course, obvious that they made many turns from the time they left Egypt till they crossed the Jordan; no one would deny this. But, at Etham they are doing more than just making a simple turn, but one that brings them back to where they started from! “And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pi-hahiroth....” (Numbers 33:7)
Israel is not returning to Etham, as they are already at this encampment when they are told by God to go back. And it cannot be Succoth, as this name is already given, so it could only be where they had left from - and that was Rameses. This would mean that the Rameses which Israel left from would have to be the “land of Rameses” and not the city, as some have imagined. Israel could not have been going back to two cities, Raamses and Pi-Hahiroth (no one believes that Pi-Hahiroth was a land).
The Torah, which the Jews use for the first five books of the Bible, all their legends, and all the Targums (ancient Aramaic Bibles) have Israel “return back”, “turned again”, or “retraced their steps” back to where she started at Pi-Hahiroth!
Targum Pseudo Jonathan. Exodus 14, “they return back, and encamp before the Mouths of Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “and returned unto Pumey Hiratha….”
Targum Jerusalem. Exodus 14, “And they shall return and encamp before the caravansaries of Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “they returned to the caravansaries of Hiratha….”
Targum Onkelos. Exodus 14, “they return and encamp before Pum Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “and returned upon PumHiratha….”
And God said, “And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pi-hahiroth....” (Numbers 33:7) They will be going back to where they started from, and this will eliminate all the other routes, regardless of where they start from, as the other routes have them crossing the Red Sea at this time, which they place, at the least, a day’s march from where they began.
The other routes will couple this “turned again” with what was said before they left Succoth: that they went “not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war….” But this “turned again” or “turn” is not tied to the former point about Israel having fear of the Philistines. That was a marching order from God to entrap Pharaoh. In Exodus 14:2, Israel is told to “turn” unto Pi-hahiroth, with the reason being plainly given in the next verse. “For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.” This return was to give the impression they had failed in their Exodus from Egypt and had to go back to where they started from. In Pharaoh’s mind, all they had done was just go in a big circle. Again, it has nothing to do with the Philistines. God wanted to entice Pharaoh into following Israel, and Pharaoh fell for it!
This will not work for those who have the Exodus route going to the Bitter Lakes. The children of Israel would not have been “entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.” Even if some of these lakes at that time were connected all the way to the Gulf of Suez, they could have just gone around them to the north. But, with the children of Israel returning to a starting point on the west side of the Nile, they will be “entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in”; they have no place to go.
Litopolis was the name given by the Greeks to the capital of the second nome which was on the west side of the Nile. (Leto was a Greek goddess, and "polis" was Greek for "city" of "city-state".) The name of the capitals of the nomes often became the names of the nomes. Sir Flinders Petrie (“The Father of Modern Archaeology”) said, “The Egyptian form [Khensu] is the name of the nome; and the Greek [Letopolis] is the name of the capital, from which that of the nome was later formed.” (Historical Studies 1911) Strabo (63 BC – 24 AD, Greek geographer) said that “Letopolite” (Litopolis) was a “Nome” and on the west side of the Nile (Geography, Book XVII, 30).
There is little information on exactly where the first and second nomes of Egypt met. With a few saying the second nome covered the area of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid and a few saying it was the first nome going to this point. But the majority of those who mention these nomes do not say where the boundary lines were. However in 1817, Gianbattista Caviglia (Italian navigator and Egyptologist), became the first to clear the sand from the front of the Sphinx since the fall of the Roman Empire, where he found an engraved Greek inscription on the left paw of the Sphinx, dating from 166 AD. “But as a sacred servant of Leto, Who guards with vigilance; The Sacred Guide of the Land of Egypt.” ("Quarterly Review " vol. 19, in 1818, by Caviglia). The “sacred servant” was the Sphinx, and “Leto” was the second nome.
Someone will say, "But they were encamped in a wilderness not Egypt before they crossed the sea."
After Israel arrived at Pi-hahiroth, they made this statement, “Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14:11–12). The area Josephus has the children of Israel end up at could still be called a “wilderness.” This word is not necessarily a desert; Gesenius’ Lexicon gives for its first definition, “an uninhabited plain country, fit for feeding flocks, not a desert, a pasture….” The Bible says they were to “encamp” there; therefore, they would need pasture for their herds and flocks (Exodus 12:38). At the least, a part of the plain in front of the Great Pyramid and Sphinx flooded during the annual inundation, and would have had grass land for their animals. It was not a city but was suitable for their flocks. (Later, at the time of Jeremiah, almost a thousand years after the Exodus, we find the area around Migdol had grown into a city, Jeremiah 44:1, 46:14).
But Israel also said, “Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?” It is possible they were encamped on the ridge by the pyramids and the Sphinx. Josephus said that the Egyptian army had pushed them forward toward the sea. “Now when the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews, they prepared to fight them, and by their multitude they drove them into a narrow place…." (Antiquities, II, 15, 3)
You have heard the expression “Consider the source.” It was not Moses who was complaining here but a certain group within the camp that was known to complain and whose word could not be trusted. Later, these same people complained in the Wilderness of Sin (where they received manna and quail) and said to Moses, “for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” Is there anyone who believes that this was the motive of Moses, to kill his people? And they were never in danger of dying of “hunger,” for food they had, just not a variety. They had their “flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:38). They just wanted a free lunch.
They had been taken out of their homes and towns and now were in the country. And after three days of marching and living in tents, they were thinking how nice it had been back in their houses and villages, and then they saw Pharaoh and his army coming after them. They were tired, afraid, and wishing they had not left in the first place. One could expect some statement that the place was a “wilderness.” To them, it was not Egypt—it was the fields. The Giza Plateau (where the Great Pyramid and Sphinx are) was considered the land of the dead. Again, remember that on the modern day maps of Egypt, these are the boundary lines of that country today, not in the time of Moses and the Exodus. To the early Egyptians Egypt was known as 'Kemet' (Kmt) which means 'Black Land' named for the dark soil from the Nile River. So when they said it was a “wilderness,” it would not be what they considered as Egypt, 'Kemet' the 'Black Land,' but could fit the Giza Plateau. Herodotus (440 BC, Book II, Lines 5-99), describes Egypt as follows, "For any one who sees Egypt, without having heard a word about it before, must perceive, if he has only common powers of observation, that the Egypt to which the Greeks go in their ships is an acquired country, the gift of the river...As one proceeds beyond Heliopolis up the country, Egypt becomes narrow, the Arabian range of hills, which has a direction from north to south, shutting it in upon the one side, and the Libyan range upon the other...On the Libyan side, the other ridge whereon the pyramids stand is rocky and covered with sand...Egypt has a soil that is black and crumbly, as being alluvial and formed of the deposits brought down by the river from Ethiopia."
THERE HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH AS TO WHY ISRAEL LEFT FROM
THE EAST SIDE OF THE NILE DELTA, BUT ARE THEY CONCLUSIVE?
1) Israel left from Rameses, but was this the city or the land? (Exodus 12:37, Numbers 33:3) Some would identify this with Pi-Ramses, an ancient Egyptian city believed to be on the east side of the Delta, and thought to be one of the treasure cities that the children of Israel built in Exodus 1:11. Through the years, the scholars have moved the site for the city of Raamses from one location to another, but always within the East Nile Delta.*
The children of Israel left from Rameses, but the Bible does not say if it was the city or the land of Rameses. “And they departed from Rameses in the first month....” (Numbers 33:3) Israel was in Goshen while the plagues fell on the Egyptians (Exodus 9:26). But the “land of Goshen” and the “land of Rameses” are one and the same. The children of Israel are said to live in both, and both are said to be “the best of the land” of Egypt (Genesis 47:4-6, 11). The treasure cities Israel built for Pharaoh were “Pithom and Raamses.” In Exodus 12:37, the children of Israel leave Egypt from “Rameses”, which is the spelling (in English) for the land of Rameses, not the city, but it is assumed that it was the city of “Raamses.” However, as others have brought out, it would have been hard for the multitude that was with Moses to have gone to a city; they would have overwhelmed any city, even Memphis.
(*A notable exception to this was a city on the west side of the Delta at a town named Ramsis, about 50 miles southeast of Alexandria (I do not know if this was the biblical city of Raamses. Exodus 1:11). This site of Ramsis was rejected as the biblical Raamses based on their theory that Israel left from the east side of the Delta. See Essay on the Hieroglyphic System of M. Champollion. By J.G. Honore Greppo, pages 148, 153.)
2) Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Jerusalem (Ancient Aramaic Translations of Exodus 12, Numbers 33) have the Exodus starting at Pelusium, which is at the northeast corner of the Delta. I enjoyed reading the Targums with their traditions, but the Bible said they left from Rameses. And it cannot be found in history where Pelusium was called Rameses or any variation of this name, nor was it a capital of Egypt. There are real problems with the geography of this route, as on the third encampment Targum Pseudo-Jonathan has Israel at Tanis, some 40 miles west of Pelusium. (Tanis was not the capital of Egypt until 1078 BC)
3) Some use Psalm 78:43 as proof that the children of Israel were living on the east side of the Nile Delta at the time of the Exodus. “How he had wrought his signs in Egypt, and his wonders in the field of Zoan.” This Psalm is looking back to the time when the ten plagues fell on the Egyptians, and because Zoan is believed to be the city of Tanis in the East Nile Delta, it is thought therefore that Moses and the children of Israel must have been close by. But this word “field” (of Zoan) is the same word translated “country” of Moab (Numbers 21:20) and“country” of Edom (Genesis 32:2). Psalm 78 is attributed to Asaph, a contemporary of King David (1037– 970 BC), and therefore this Psalm was written when Tanis was the capital of the 21st Dynasty of Egypt, and would have been used as another name of the country. Similarly, the capital of northern Israel, which was Samaria, ended up becoming the name of the ten northern tribes (II Kings 17:24, I Kings 16:24, John 4:5 and Acts 8:5). The Bible said the ten plagues were “throughout all the land of Egypt” (Exodus7:19, 21, 8:16, 17, 9:9, 22, 25, 11:6), except Goshen, not in the backyard (“field”) of a city.
4) Some look to the *Septuagint (an ancient Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures) for support that Goshen was on the East Delta, for it calls Goshen, “Gesem of Arabia” (Arabia being on the east side) and says that Joseph met his father in Heroopolis on the east side of the Delta.
In the last century, some have put the land of Goshen as far east as Heroopolis, but a lady named Etheria (also called Silvia and Egeria) writing in 385 AD, has Goshen in the Delta. In her book the Pilgrimage of Etheria, she tells about her trip to Egypt. (And to Mount Sinai, which she had been told was in the southern Sinai Peninsula.) She had traveled from the Gulf of Suez and was on her way to the land of Goshen, but had stopped at Heroopolis before she came to Goshen and said, “Hero; it is situated at the sixteenth milestone from the land of Goshen...” Etheria said Herooplois was 16 miles outside the land of Goshen.
(*The Greek Septuagint is not superior to the Hebrew Old Testament. The Septuagint has place names in locations that no one could agree with! In Ezekiel 30:15, it has “multitude of No” as Memphis; no one believes this today. Also in this same verse, it has the place name “Sin” as Sais, and then turns around in the next verse and has the same Hebrew name “Sin” as being Syene, 600 miles south of Sais; then in verse 6 of that same chapter the Septuagint took a differently spelled place name and also made it Syene. I was able to use the Septuagint a couple of times as a reference for our other book, ‘Great Stones’ Jeremiah 43:9-10, but the Septuagint has major problems; in the book of Jeremiah alone it is missing 2,700 words! The Old Testament was inspired in Hebrew, not the Greek of the Septuagint.)
5) Some use Exodus 13:17-18, saying Israel was “near” or close to the Promised Land. “And it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God led them not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war, and they return to Egypt. Gesenius’s Lexicon gave for this word “near” = “something short”. It was the shortest or quickest route, but not that Israel was close by the Promised land, see the same word in Job 17:12 (KJV)..
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Section-B
Goshen was on both sides of the Nile.
“He [Joseph] married Aseneth a daughter of the priest of Heliopolis, by whom he begat sons. And afterwards his father and his brethren came to him, bringing much substance, and were sent to dwell in Heliopolis and Sais." This quote is from Eusebius of Caesarea (Christian historian, 263 – 339 AD), who in turn was quoting Alexander Polyhistor (Greek historian, first century BC). And from what he said, Goshen would have to be on both sides of the Nile. Heliopolis was near the apex of the Delta on the east side of the Nile, but Sais was on the west side of the Delta. And where the Bible said that Goshen was the “best of the land of Egypt”, I have no problem believing that all of the Nile Delta was the best of the land of Egypt, but I would have a hard time understanding why only the east side would be considered such, because both sides are basically the same.
Israel left from the west side of the Nile River (see "Home" at top of page). This is according to Josephus (first century Jewish historian) and few people will deal with this because almost everyone today has them leaving from the east side of the Delta. One person I read even called what Josephus said, “weird”, another said, “very strange”. Josephus said, “So the Hebrews went out of Egypt...Now they took their journey by Letopolis, a place at that time deserted, but where Babylon was built afterwards, when Cambyses laid Egypt waste....”
There may have been another motive in moving Israel's home to only the west side of the Nile. The Bible tells us that the king of Egypt was afraid of them, “Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.” (Exodus 1:10) Most of Egypt’s “enemies” were on the east side of the Delta, and if the Egyptians were afraid of Israel joining their enemies it would make sense to move them to the west side of the Nile.
The Book of Jubilees (second century BC) says the same thing but adds that the King of Egypt knew that the children of Israel’s “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan.” The children of Israel knew their time in Egypt was limited, for they had Joseph’s prophecy (Genesis 50:24) that they would one day return to Canaan. For the Egyptians to have allowed Israel to be on the east side of the Delta, the nearest to Canaan, when they knew their “hearts and faces are towards the land of Canaan”; would not be wise. But to move them across to the other side of the Nile would keep them farther away from their hearts’ desire and discourage them.
Tradition. The only “Synagogue of Moses” in ancient Egypt was at Dammuih, just north of Memphis (west side of the Nile). The traditions associated with this synagogue have Moses living there and conversing with the king of Egypt from this site. All this is ignored - not just the tradition, but Josephus, Eusebius, Artapanus, Philo and John of Nikiu (see "Home" page). Why? Because it does not fit the theories they hold.
So, what has been said? That the “Field of Zoan” (Country of Tanis) was another name for Egypt at the time Psalm 78 was written, and that when the children of Israel left “Rameses” it was the “Land of Rameses” (Goshen), not the city. This would include the nome of Letopolis, where Josephus said they started from.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Section C (The third encampment and Litopolis
Israel's third encampment is where she started from, Egypt! After Israel arrived at Etham we find they “turned again” (Numbers 33:7), and also, “Speak unto the children of Israel, that they turn….” (Exodus 14:2) And, both “turn” and “turned again” are the same word in the Hebrew. Strong’s #7725 gives for its first definition “to return, turn back”. This same word is translated “return” 391 times in the Old Testament, which is the most of all the different ways it has been translated. Is Israel going back to where they started? There is a surprising amount of evidence to support this! Yet seldom will you read of this in the other routes for the Exodus. They will usually take a more southern direction from where they had been going, or will take no turn at all.
“Moses…gave the signal to turn back to Pi-hahiroth. Those of little faith among the Israelites tore their hair and their garments in desperation, though Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men, and no longer slaves to Pharaoh. Accordingly, they retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth, where....the great sanctuary of Baal-zephon was situated” (Legends of the Jews). First, we see that Israel was to “turn back” to Pi-hahiroth, even saying they “retraced their steps to Pi-hahiroth”, ending up where they started! Notice the children of Israel were not happy with this news, “tore their hair and their garments in desperation”. They thought they were going to become slaves again. This could only be because they were headed back to where they had been, Egypt, but “Moses assured them that by the Word of God they were free men, and no longer slaves to Pharaoh.”
In chapter 33 of the book of Numbers, there are over 40 encampments mentioned, and nowhere else in this chapter do we find the word “turn”, “return”, “turn again” or “turn back”, except just before Pi-Hahiroth. It is, of course, obvious that they made many turns from the time they left Egypt till they crossed the Jordan; no one would deny this. But, at Etham they are doing more than just making a simple turn, but one that brings them back to where they started from! “And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pi-hahiroth....” (Numbers 33:7)
Israel is not returning to Etham, as they are already at this encampment when they are told by God to go back. And it cannot be Succoth, as this name is already given, so it could only be where they had left from - and that was Rameses. This would mean that the Rameses which Israel left from would have to be the “land of Rameses” and not the city, as some have imagined. Israel could not have been going back to two cities, Raamses and Pi-Hahiroth (no one believes that Pi-Hahiroth was a land).
The Torah, which the Jews use for the first five books of the Bible, all their legends, and all the Targums (ancient Aramaic Bibles) have Israel “return back”, “turned again”, or “retraced their steps” back to where she started at Pi-Hahiroth!
Targum Pseudo Jonathan. Exodus 14, “they return back, and encamp before the Mouths of Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “and returned unto Pumey Hiratha….”
Targum Jerusalem. Exodus 14, “And they shall return and encamp before the caravansaries of Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “they returned to the caravansaries of Hiratha….”
Targum Onkelos. Exodus 14, “they return and encamp before Pum Hiratha….” Numbers 33, “and returned upon PumHiratha….”
And God said, “And they removed from Etham, and turned again unto Pi-hahiroth....” (Numbers 33:7) They will be going back to where they started from, and this will eliminate all the other routes, regardless of where they start from, as the other routes have them crossing the Red Sea at this time, which they place, at the least, a day’s march from where they began.
The other routes will couple this “turned again” with what was said before they left Succoth: that they went “not through the way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, Lest peradventure the people repent when they see war….” But this “turned again” or “turn” is not tied to the former point about Israel having fear of the Philistines. That was a marching order from God to entrap Pharaoh. In Exodus 14:2, Israel is told to “turn” unto Pi-hahiroth, with the reason being plainly given in the next verse. “For Pharaoh will say of the children of Israel, They are entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.” This return was to give the impression they had failed in their Exodus from Egypt and had to go back to where they started from. In Pharaoh’s mind, all they had done was just go in a big circle. Again, it has nothing to do with the Philistines. God wanted to entice Pharaoh into following Israel, and Pharaoh fell for it!
This will not work for those who have the Exodus route going to the Bitter Lakes. The children of Israel would not have been “entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in.” Even if some of these lakes at that time were connected all the way to the Gulf of Suez, they could have just gone around them to the north. But, with the children of Israel returning to a starting point on the west side of the Nile, they will be “entangled in the land, the wilderness hath shut them in”; they have no place to go.
Litopolis was the name given by the Greeks to the capital of the second nome which was on the west side of the Nile. (Leto was a Greek goddess, and "polis" was Greek for "city" of "city-state".) The name of the capitals of the nomes often became the names of the nomes. Sir Flinders Petrie (“The Father of Modern Archaeology”) said, “The Egyptian form [Khensu] is the name of the nome; and the Greek [Letopolis] is the name of the capital, from which that of the nome was later formed.” (Historical Studies 1911) Strabo (63 BC – 24 AD, Greek geographer) said that “Letopolite” (Litopolis) was a “Nome” and on the west side of the Nile (Geography, Book XVII, 30).
There is little information on exactly where the first and second nomes of Egypt met. With a few saying the second nome covered the area of the Sphinx and Great Pyramid and a few saying it was the first nome going to this point. But the majority of those who mention these nomes do not say where the boundary lines were. However in 1817, Gianbattista Caviglia (Italian navigator and Egyptologist), became the first to clear the sand from the front of the Sphinx since the fall of the Roman Empire, where he found an engraved Greek inscription on the left paw of the Sphinx, dating from 166 AD. “But as a sacred servant of Leto, Who guards with vigilance; The Sacred Guide of the Land of Egypt.” ("Quarterly Review " vol. 19, in 1818, by Caviglia). The “sacred servant” was the Sphinx, and “Leto” was the second nome.
Someone will say, "But they were encamped in a wilderness not Egypt before they crossed the sea."
After Israel arrived at Pi-hahiroth, they made this statement, “Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt? Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying, Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians? For it had been better for us to serve the Egyptians, than that we should die in the wilderness” (Exodus 14:11–12). The area Josephus has the children of Israel end up at could still be called a “wilderness.” This word is not necessarily a desert; Gesenius’ Lexicon gives for its first definition, “an uninhabited plain country, fit for feeding flocks, not a desert, a pasture….” The Bible says they were to “encamp” there; therefore, they would need pasture for their herds and flocks (Exodus 12:38). At the least, a part of the plain in front of the Great Pyramid and Sphinx flooded during the annual inundation, and would have had grass land for their animals. It was not a city but was suitable for their flocks. (Later, at the time of Jeremiah, almost a thousand years after the Exodus, we find the area around Migdol had grown into a city, Jeremiah 44:1, 46:14).
But Israel also said, “Wherefore hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt?” It is possible they were encamped on the ridge by the pyramids and the Sphinx. Josephus said that the Egyptian army had pushed them forward toward the sea. “Now when the Egyptians had overtaken the Hebrews, they prepared to fight them, and by their multitude they drove them into a narrow place…." (Antiquities, II, 15, 3)
You have heard the expression “Consider the source.” It was not Moses who was complaining here but a certain group within the camp that was known to complain and whose word could not be trusted. Later, these same people complained in the Wilderness of Sin (where they received manna and quail) and said to Moses, “for ye have brought us forth into this wilderness, to kill this whole assembly with hunger.” Is there anyone who believes that this was the motive of Moses, to kill his people? And they were never in danger of dying of “hunger,” for food they had, just not a variety. They had their “flocks, and herds, even very much cattle” (Exodus 12:38). They just wanted a free lunch.
They had been taken out of their homes and towns and now were in the country. And after three days of marching and living in tents, they were thinking how nice it had been back in their houses and villages, and then they saw Pharaoh and his army coming after them. They were tired, afraid, and wishing they had not left in the first place. One could expect some statement that the place was a “wilderness.” To them, it was not Egypt—it was the fields. The Giza Plateau (where the Great Pyramid and Sphinx are) was considered the land of the dead. Again, remember that on the modern day maps of Egypt, these are the boundary lines of that country today, not in the time of Moses and the Exodus. To the early Egyptians Egypt was known as 'Kemet' (Kmt) which means 'Black Land' named for the dark soil from the Nile River. So when they said it was a “wilderness,” it would not be what they considered as Egypt, 'Kemet' the 'Black Land,' but could fit the Giza Plateau. Herodotus (440 BC, Book II, Lines 5-99), describes Egypt as follows, "For any one who sees Egypt, without having heard a word about it before, must perceive, if he has only common powers of observation, that the Egypt to which the Greeks go in their ships is an acquired country, the gift of the river...As one proceeds beyond Heliopolis up the country, Egypt becomes narrow, the Arabian range of hills, which has a direction from north to south, shutting it in upon the one side, and the Libyan range upon the other...On the Libyan side, the other ridge whereon the pyramids stand is rocky and covered with sand...Egypt has a soil that is black and crumbly, as being alluvial and formed of the deposits brought down by the river from Ethiopia."