There is no word like “Egypt” in the Bible. The word used is ‘Mitsrayim’. It is only conventionally identified with Egypt. There are two possibilities. The first one is that the Mitsrayim was in Egypt, and the Hebrews went on an Exodus from Egypt to Israel. The second possibility is that Mitsrayim was in the Indus Valley and the Hebrews went from the Indus Valley to Israel.
Location of Mitsrayim
We will argue that the Indian city of Mathura could also be situated in the same area within the Indus Valley where we are suggesting the Mitsrayim might have been located.
There are several land routes from the Indus Valley to West Asia. One of these routes runs along the southern edge, occasionally bordering the sea, while the other traverses the central mainland, with both eventually leading toward Israel. It is conceivable that the Hebrews could have followed one of these historic land routes on their journey from the Indus Valley to Israel.
The EXODUS Narrative
The narrative of the Exodus describes arduous conditions, with the Hebrews passing through desert regions. These could be the deserts near Isfahan, which the Hebrews may have crossed during their Exodus.
In the account of the Exodus, it is often claimed that the Nile River is referenced within the Bible. However, upon closer examination, the word used for “river” is ye’or. This term, ye’or, is typically translated as “Nile,” “river,” “waterway,” or “stream.” Yet, in the Authorized Version, the translation does not explicitly mention the Nile; instead, it speaks of rivers, brooks, floods, and streams only.
More significantly, in Daniel 12 and Job 28:10, the word ye’or is used about the Tigris River and any large river, respectively. Thus, when the Bible employs this word, it need not indicate the “Nile.” This is a case of translation inaccuracy, as the word Nile itself is not present in the biblical text. The term ye’or could just as easily apply to any substantial river.
The Indus Valley Narrative
We propose that Mitsrayim was situated at a site known as ‘Chanu Daro’, located in the southern reaches of the Indus Valley. This site is positioned along the banks of the Hakra River, which is referred to as the Ghaggar in its upper stretches. As previously mentioned, the term ye’or could be applied to any large river including the Ghaggar-Hakra.
A particularly intriguing issue arises when the Bible describes the Promised Land as extending from the “river of Mitsrayim” to the great river Perat (Euphrates). This is traditionally interpreted as extending from Egypt, with the river of Mitsrayim thought to be the Nile and Perat understood to be the Euphrates. However, such an expansive territory has neither been claimed by the Jewish people nor suggested to have been granted to them.
A more accurate interpretation would recognize that the river of Mitsrayim refers to the river flowing through Chanu Daro. If Chanu Daro were indeed Mitsrayim, then the Ghaggar or Hakra River would be the river in question. This is the river that would be the “river of Mitsrayim.”
The Bible provides no precise information regarding the identity of the ‘Perat’ river. It is possible that Perat could represent the Indus River. Therefore, the Promised Land could have been the region between the Ghaggar (or Hakra) and the Indus River, which may have been promised to the Jewish people.
The Promised Land and River of Mitsrayim
In Numbers 34, the borders of the Promised Land undergo a significant transformation. It is stated that, in the south, the boundary is the wilderness of Zin; in the east, the Dead Sea; in the north, the Mediterranean Sea to Mount Hor; and in the west, the Mediterranean Sea once again.
The first point to note is that the Promised Land has transformed. Before the Exodus, the Promised Land was marked by two rivers: Mitsrayim and Perat (Euphrates). After the Exodus, it is marked by the Dead Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.
This indicates that the post-Exodus River of Mitsrayim was not in West Asia, because the land that was bequeathed was bound by the seas.
So, if we consider that the river of Mitsrayim was the boundary of the promised land, and it is the same promised land, then there is a contradiction. In the post-exodus, it talks about the land between two seas. So, they cannot be on the same land. This reinforces the idea that the pre-exodus land was actually in the Indus Valley, and the post-exodus was in Israel.
Location of Canaan
The Bible repeatedly talks about Canaan and it is said that Abraham himself and his sons traveled from Canaan to Egypt in a period of famine.
I am suggesting that the pre-exodus Canaan in the narratives of Abraham, Jacob, and Moses was located in the Indus Valley. The important point is that the river ‘Ghaggar’ (Hakra) is a snowmelt river. So, this river continued to get water even when there was drought in Punjab and Haryana but Chanu Daro was located in the southern part of it. So, the river flowed, and the southern part of midstream continued to produce and that is why Jacob and his sons went from Canaan to Egypt during a period of famine. The area of Haryana has been subject to several famines.
Origin of the word ‘Mitsrayim’
The next point is whether the word ‘Mitsrayim’ (Strong’s 04714) is of Egyptian origin. The Strong’s Concordance indeed says that ‘Mitsrayim’ means Egypt. However, it also says that the word ‘Mitsrayim’ is a dual of ‘Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04693). Dual means that both words have the same meaning.
Now the word ‘Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04693) does not tell about Egypt. It only says that it means besieged places, defense, fortress, fortified, etc. and there is no Egypt.
Further, it says that the word ‘Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04693) is the same as Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04692). The word Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04692) again does not mention Egypt. It says that the meaning is siege, besieged, strong. etc.
Further, the word Matsowr’ (Strong’s 04692) has its origin from the word ‘tsuwr’ (Strong’s 06696). The meaning of ‘tsuwr’ again does not show Egypt. It says besieged, lay siege, distress, bind, etc.
In conclusion, only the word Mitsrayim is associated with Egypt, whereas none of the words behind the word Mitsrayim tell of Egypt.
There is one more line of evidence. Yoshiyuki Muchiki has undertaken a study of Egyptian loanwords in Hebrew. He gives a list of geographical names in Hebrew, and he identifies those that have some Egyptian connection. Starting with ‘M’ he mentions only two words. The first is Memphis and the second is Merneptah. There is no mention of the word Mitsrayim among these words.
Muchiki has made a list of all geographical names in the Bible. Then he went back and looked at which of these were Egyptian and he found only two biblical names, starting with M that were possibly connected with Egypt, and Mitsrayim is not one of them. So, it means that Mitsrayim has nothing to do with Egypt.
Indian Connection to Mitsrayim
The last point is that many historical records, such as Josephus and others, talk about Mitsrayim being related to Egypt, but there are other historical records as well.
Aristotle said that “Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers and they are named after the Indian Kalami”. This too is reported by Josephus, the Christian historian. The Megasthenes was the Greek ambassador to the court of Chandragupta Maurya in India. He said that the knowledge about the Jews available with the Greeks was simultaneously held by the Brahmins in India.
So, the point is that yes, there are historical records that talk about Mitsrayim being located in Egypt, but there are also historical records that talk about Jews being related to India. So, they set each other off and we cannot say that the historical records mentioning Mitsrayim as Egypt are the ones that should be given credence.
Conclusion
There are too many problems with the Exodus narrative. If the Exodus took place from ‘Egypt’ then why there is no river becoming blood, there is no parting of the river, there is no volcano, and there is no second crossing of the river found in Egypt?
These problems will all be solved if we take the exodus to the Indus Valley. Therefore, we should consider that Mitsrayim was in the Indus Valley, and the Hebrews made a heroic journey through deserts and others from the Indus Valley to Israel.
In the second part of this post, we shall discuss why the Hindu ‘Mathura’ could be located at the same place, namely Chanu Daro in Sind of Pakistan.
Read the post in Hindi: https://www.ekishwar.in/mitsrayim-of-the-bible-could-be-located-in-the-indus-valley/
See the full video on this: