Joseph LoMusioa
Fixing an Exodus Date is Very Important
An attempt to fix a date for the Exodus of the Hebrew slaves from the land of Egypt remains an intriguing quest for many scholars and students of the Bible. The endeavor is frustrated significantly in that neither an exact date1 {related to our own century) nor any Pharaoh’s name is given in the scriptural text. From a Biblical perspective, Moses
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 81
Sphinx – seven stories high and nearly a football field Thutmose IV cleared the sand around it in the 15th c. B.C. the large tablet – the Dream Stela – between its paws. This stella may give a clue as to who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and why.
maintains the position as the central character, however all would agree that the identity of one or two key Pharaohs could be essential in determining when the Exodus occurred.
Most scholars are in harmony that the Biblical narrative implies the last Pharaoh of the period of the oppression had a long reign. While the oppression of the Hebrews undoubtedly spanned the administrations of a number of rulers, the most oppressive period, leading up to the years just before the Exodus, was the result of a Pharaoh who ruled for many years.
This can be deduced from the reference in Exodus 2:23, which reads:
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 82
“And it came to pass in the course of those many days, that the king of Egypt died, and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage and they cried” (NIV translates: “During that long period…”).
The third chapter of Exodus then goes on to record God’s calling of Moses to leave the land of Midian, return to Egypt, confront the new Pharaoh, and orchestrate the exodus from bondage.
The sense of the narrative seems clear in showing that the Pharaoh who died was, in fact, the one who can be identified as the “Pharaoh of the Oppression,” and that his reign was for “many days” (yamim harabim). Furthermore, it should be logical to expect that his suc-
SIDEBAR:
Merneptah and the Israelites
Bryant G. Wood
The Merneptah Stela records a campaign into Palestine by Pharaoh Merneptah in the 13th century, BC. On the stela he specifically mentions Gezer, which has a destruction layer dating to the time of Merneptah, as a city that was captured by him. More important, the stela has the only extra-biblical reference to Israel in the pre-Monarehic period.
The Merneptah Stela is, after all, a religious hymn and must be recognized as such. Its only purpose was to aggrandize the victories of the pharoah. It matters little whether the Israelites were a settled or nomadic people at this time, or even if Merneptah actually carried out a campaign in Palestine. What is important is the Egyptian Scribe’s perception of Israel.
We may first observe that by ca. 1210 BC Israel was a recognized entity, known by name to Egyptian authorities. Secondly, it can be concluded that the entity known as Israel was a major force in Palestine at this time (Albright BASOR 74:22; Stager Eretz-Israel 18:61). She is mentioned in preference to the Shasu, the 71p/ru, or any other group that might have been present in the area. Merneptah would have gained little in prestige if he was portrayed as having subjugated an insignificant or unknown people.
There are two groupings of names in Merneptah’s inscription. The first is a group of four city-states: The Canaan (the Egyptian term for Gaza: Katzenstein JAOS 102:112), Ashkelon, Gezer and Yeno’am. Just before and after the city-state names are the names of larger national entities. It is in this latter group that the name “Israel” appears (Ahlstrom and Edelman JNES 44:59–61). Note the company that Israel is keeping: Tehenu, which is Libya; Hatti (the Hittites), eastern Asia Minor and Northern Syria; and Kharu, a general designation for Syria-Palestine. In other words, Israel is listed with the major nations of the eastern Mediterranean, in parallel with the Hittites] By ca. 1210 BC, then, Israel was a fledgling nation with a measure of international standing.
The major point to be made here is that the processes that took place in bringing Israel to nationhood must have transpired long before the time of Merneptah in order for her to have achieved this status by 1210 BC. Apart from the archaeological evidence, the Merneptah Stela alone indicates that the destructions which occurred in Palestine around the time of Merneptah or later, have nothing to do with the initial appearance of the Israelites in Palestine.
[From a paper given at the “Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?” Symposium in Memphis, April 25, 1987.]
END SIDEBAR
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 83
cessor was Pharaoh of the Exodus.
Weakness of the Evidence for a Late Date
Those who believe that the Exodus occurred early in the thirteenth century B.C. (the Late Date), especially those who believe Merneptah to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus, are quick to point out that the 67 year reign of Rameses II certainly qualifies him as being the Pharaoh of the oppression. This fact, coupled with their conclusion that Rameses is the pharaoh of Exodus chapter one, who ordered the building of the store-cities, Pithom and Raamses, already being in the land of Canaan by the fourth or fifth year of Merneptah’s reign.
If, on the other hand, Rameses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, it would be expected that his predecessor and father, Seti I, was the Pharaoh of the oppression. But Seti I reigned for only about a dozen years, and in no way qualifies for a long reign. Such is one of the “catch-22” situations in which late date advocates find themselves.
A further problem is to try to align the birth and life of Moses within the context of a late date scenario. The Bible mentions that Moses was forty years old when he fled to Midian (Acts 7:23–29), and that he was eighty upon his return to Egypt and participation in the exodus (Exodus 7:7; Acts 7:30).
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 84
According to the late date theory, Rameses II is the pharaoh of Exodus I: I I. Moses’ birth, then, is recorded in Exodus 2:2, after an undetermined period of time has elapsed. The question naturally follows – how could Moses be born after Rameses II accession to the throne, and then eighty years later confront the same Rameses, whose reign spanned 67 years?
John Rea effectively points out that if the Exodus took place c. 1290 B.C. (during the reign of Rameses II), then Moses would have had to born in 1370 B.C. That, however, would place Moses’ birth BACK into the Eighteenth Dynasty prior to Rameses II, who reigned during the Nineteenth Dynasty!2
It should be noted that this difficulty is NOT a problem within the context of an early date Exodus (mid-fifteenth century B.C.). In the framework of this view, the Exodus would have taken place inc. 1446 B.C., which then would locate Moses’ birth at 1526 B.C. In that the Eighteenth Dynasty spanned the years from 1570 – 1315 B.C., both Moses’ birth, as well as his participation in the Exodus, would be contained within the Dynasty.
Accommodating Moses within the Nineteenth Dynasty, then, proves to be more than just an obstacle for late date theorists, it is more like a complete road block!
Further considerations prove
just as damaging to the late date theory. For instance, one must appreciate that the eighty years of Moses would exceed any pharaoh of the exodus generally accepted by the late date. As already demonstrated, ff Rameses II is the Pharaoh of the oppression, his reign lasted for 67 years {I 292–1225 according to Breasted,3 or 1304–1238 according to Wood4 ).
Research accomplished on Rameses’ mummy revealed that he died at age ninety.5 This would mean that Rameses’ accession took place in his twenty-third year. If Moses, as a baby, was found by Rameses’ daughter, it is clear that she was at least old enough to walk with her friends and attendants, as well as make decisions (Exod. 2:5–9). The Pharaoh’s edict against Hebrew babies would have been in force for some time, and so it is safe to assume that Moses’ birth took place some time, say, within the first ten years of Rameses’ reign.
For argument’s sake, if Moses’ birth took place in Rameses’ tenth year, then Moses, at the time of the Exodus, would have exceeded Rameses’ reign by some twenty-three years. Now the problem for the late date theorist is that not only has the Exodus (on the strength of Moses’ age) exceeded the time of Rameses, but also that of his son Merneptah, who reigned
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 85
for only about a dozen years! This would mean that the Exodus took place during the reign of Siphthah, or Seti II, as even late date advocate Montet is forced to admit.6
The Case for an Early Date
The foregoing discussion on the Pharaoh of the oppression casts tremendous obstacles in the path of identifying him as Rameses II. However, the early date scenario, that which places the Exodus in the middle of the fifteenth century B.C., and within the context of the Eighteenth Dynasty, provides a much better candidate in Thutmose III.
That Thutmose III qualifies as a pharaoh having a long reign is seen in the fact that he reigned as a co-regent with Hatshepsut for some twenty-two years, and as sole ruler for some thirty-two years, for a total of fifty-four years.
Thotmose’s reign spanned the years 1503 to 1449 B.C.7 He fits, then, not only the qualification of a long reign, but also the date of his death falls just before the early date of the Exodus in 1446 B.C. These items coincide with what might be expected as a result of Exodus 2:23 and 4:19.
Moreover, the birth of Moses would then be around 1526 B.C., still within the Eighteenth Dynasty and, in fact, during the reign of Thutmose I (1541-1516 B.C.). Thutmose I’s daughter, Hatshep-sut, could then have been the one who fished Moses out of the Nile and raised him as her own son (Exod. 2:1-10). It is precisely at this point that a very interesting and intriguing discussion on the Thutmosid feud develops, which makes a contribution in deciding on a date for the Exodus.
Queen Hatshepsut was the daughter of Thutmose I and his great wife, Queen Ahmose (or Aahmes). Queen Ahmose gave Thutmose four children, of which two sons and one daughter died in their youth, leaving only one girl, Hatshepsut, as royal heiress to the throne. Another son, Thutmose II, was born to Thutmose by a “lesser” wife, Mutnofret. In that males traditionally ruled, and to insure that Thutmose II would be supported by the people, a marriage was arranged between Hatshepsut and her half-brother Thutmose II.8
Thutmose II also had a son (by a lesser wife} who is Thutmose III, and one is left to ponder that this son grows up in all the finery of Egyptian royalty alongside, of all people, his step-brother/cousin Moses! The writer of the book of
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 86
Hebrews indicates that Moses (as might be expected as Queen Hatshepsut’s adopted son) was an heir to the Egyptian throne (Heb. 11:24, 26). If this is indeed the case, imagine the interpersonal tensions and rivalry that would have existed between him and the other heir, Thutmose III!
Thutmose II has an uneventful reign and dies, leaving an aggressive Hatshepsut to seize control of the throne. Hatshepsut has a distinguished reign, assuming the titles and dress of a male pharaoh. Even though Thutmose Ill was co-regent, there was no doubt as to who exerted the more influence. In
QUEEN HATSHEPSUT in the garb of a Pharaoh.
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 87
effect the government was in the hands, not of the young king, but of his step-mother.9
When Hatshepsut dies, Thutmose III assumes sovereign control of the throne of Egypt. Some believe, in fact, that he was the cause of her death.10 It is clear that a period of hostility transpires against all who were associated with Hatshepsut. With a vengeance demonstrating his contempt for his step-mother/aunt, Thutmose attempts to obliterate all record of her reign. Her statues were destroyed, her monuments defaced and her name erased from her cartouches and replaced with the names of Thutmose I or Thutmose II.
The young pharaoh’s wrath is also directed at the queen’s followers. Systematically they are eliminated. The sarcophagus of Hatshepsut’s closest political ally, Senmut, was found smashed to over a thousand fragments, and his mummy removed (and still undiscovered). Habusoneh, the politician-priest who supported the queen also had his named erased from all tomb walls and statues. The same fate met Senmut’s brother Senmen. These all having to enter the underworld defaced and defrauded nameless souls!11
The point in all this is that it should be logical that Moses, related as he was to Hatshepsut, would also have felt the vengeance of the new Pharaoh. It is the belief of some that Moses’ departure into Midian, coupled with his killing of an Egyptian (Exod. 2:11–15), coincides with this political upheaval brought about by the death of his step-mother, Hatshepsut. No wonder Pharaoh sought his life (Exod. 2:15), and that it was not until the death of Thutmose that God gave Moses the “all-clear” to return to Egypt (Exod. 4:19). On this possibility, Davis observes:
If the early date of the exodus is indeed the correct one, Thutmose III would be the likely candidate for the “Pharaoh of the oppression.” The Pharaoh of the oppression was on the throne at the time of Moses’ flight from Egypt and died approximately 30 or 40 years later, thus permitting Moses to return. It may well have been that the vengeance sought upon Moses was not only due to Moses’ murder of an Egyptian official but if…(he) was associated with Hat-shepsut he, like all other individuals, would have suffered the reprisals of Thutmose III for his twenty-one year humiliation.12
It is significant, at this point, to note that when Moses does arrive back in Egypt, who does he confront as the new Pharaoh but Thutmose’s son Amenhotep II. While they may not have known each other personally, the fact remains that Moses was the new pharaoh’s step-uncle!
The interpersonal tensions created by such a forced relationship are clearly seen in the sequences of their stormy confrontations (Exod. 5–10). To make matters even more humiliating for the young pharaoh, Moses still maintained a degree of stature in Egypt (to be sure, a fact only possible due to his association with the beloved Hatshepsut). Note that Exodus 11:3 records, “Moreover the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people.”
Now the above observations should demonstrate how accurately the early life of Moses, along
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 88
with the political intrigue surrounding his adoption by Pharaoh’s daughter, correlates with the Thutmosid feuding in the Eighteenth Dynasty. That this same correlation cannot be realized in the Nineteenth Dynasty must also be admitted, as well as the problems of placing Moses’ birth and life within that dynasty as explained earlier.
In summary, the relationship between Moses and the Thutmosid line with all its potential for political intrigue and family in-fighting is illustrated in the diagram on the next page.
Amenhotep II: Pharaoh of the Exodus
The discussion to this point has dealt exclusively with Moses and the Pharaoh of the oppression. In identifying him however, the identity of the Pharaoh of the Exodus would not seem to be too much of a problem.
Late date advocates somehow desire to make Rameses II both the Pharaoh of the oppression and the Exodus. As has been demonstrated, this simply is not possible. He cannot be both, and in fact, he is neither.
Thutmose Ill, on the other hand, is the more probable candidate to be the Pharaoh of the oppression. If he is, then his son and successor, Amenhotep II is easily identified as the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
The reign of Amenhotep II coincides perfectly with an early date scenario; the exodus taking place in c. 1446 B.C., or not too long after his accession. He ascended the throne at about the age of eighteen, and would seem to have
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 89
Diagram shows the relationship of Moses to various members of the pharonic house and the relationship of the pharaohs to each other.
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 90
been carefully trained by his famous father. He prided himself on being an accomplished sportsman and warrior. Gardiner records the following discovery depicting these exploits:
A great stele unearthed near the great Sphinx gives an exaggeratedly laudatory account of his accomplishments. His muscular strength was extraordinary: we are told he could shoot at a metal target of one palm’s thickness and pierce it in such a way that his arrow would stick out on the other side… When he was eighteen years of age he was already an expert in all the art of Mont, the god of war… So admirable a horseman was he that his father Thutmosis entrusted him with the freest steeds of his stable, and these he trained so skillfully that they could cover long distances without sweating.13
This prideful attitude is also seen in his diplomatic dealings. Another inscription found at Semna reveals his contempt for foreign enemies. He declares the northerners to be a useless lot, and also warns his viceroy in Nubia to watch closely the inhabitants there, along with their magicians. Of his character, depicted by this inscription, Gardiner comments, “A typically Egyptian combination of naivete and boastfulness!”14
How well this prideful nature fits the Biblical account of the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exod. 5:2, 7:14; 8:15: 9:35: note especially 10:3), as well as his contempt for foreigners (Exod. 5:6–14; 5:17–18; 5:21; and 10:28).
It is a salient point, furthermore, to notice that there is evidence of a general rebellion following the death of the powerful Thutmose III. This rebellion was something Amenhotep II had to face consistently in the early years of his reign. Budge commented that the new pharaoh “found himself plunged in wars with the tributary peoples, who on the death of Thothmes III, declared themselves free.”15
This observation is noteworthy when understood in the context that this widespread sense of rebellion and quest for freedom would also have been shared by the enslaved Hebrews. In fact, the Biblical narrative states that the death of the pharaoh of the oppression accentuated their longing for freedom; “And it came to pass in the course of those many days, that the king of Egypt died (Thutmose III), and the children of Israel sighed by reason of the bondage and they crled…”(Exod. 2:23). In this conjunction, note further, “And afterward Moses and Aaron came, and said to Pharaoh (Amenhotep II), thus says Jehovah, the God of Israel, Let my people go…” (Exod. 5:1).
While Amenhotep II fancied himself as a military genius, much like his father, the records show that his military exploits all took place early in his reign, with a curious absence during the later part of his reign. There is good reason to believe that something happened within the first half-dozen years of his administration that severely hampered his career as a conqueror. Archer offers the following observation:
Amenhotep II, who doubtless hoped to equal his father’s military prowess, seems to have suffered some serious reverse in his military resources, for he was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations after his fifth year (1445 B.C.) until the modest campaign of his ninth year (according to Memphis stela, at least – the chronology of this reign is a bit confused). This relative feeble-
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 91
ness of his war effort (by comparison with that of his father} would well accord with a catastrophic loss of the flower of his chariotry in the waters of the Red Sea during their vain pursuit of the fleeing Israelites.16
This possibility, also advanced by Aling, would certainly explain the lessening of Amenhotep’s ability to wage successful warfare. From an historical vantage point it would again give credence to the view that Amenhotep II was indeed the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and the hapless target of the awesome display of God’s power in the miracle at the Red Sea (Exod. 14:19–31).17
Heir Apparent Mysteriously Dies: Thutmose IV Ascends Throne
Another observation is that the “Dream” stele of Thutmose IV correlates well with Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The tenth and final plague to come upon Egypt was the death of all the firstborn in the land (Exod. 11:1–6). The records show that Amenhotep’s son Thutmose IV dld succeed him, but that Thutmose was not the Pharaoh’s oldest son!
This is verified, many believe, by the Dream stele which Thutmose IV erected, in which he refers to his eventual and surprising ascension to the throne. Unger comments:
If Amenhotep II was the reigning Pharaoh of the Exodus, his eldest son was slain in the tenth plague. It is plain from the monuments that Thutmose IV (1425-1412 B.C.), who excavated the sphinx, was not the eldest son of Amenhotep II. The so-called “Dream Inscription of Thutmose IV” recorded on an immense slab of red granite near the sphinx at Gizeh states that while yet a youth the future Pharaoh had fallen asleep under the famous monument and dreamed. In his dream the sphinx appeared to him, startling him with a prophecy that one day he would become king of Egypt and bidding him clear the sand away from her feet in token of gratitude.
It is clear from this ancient record that Thutmose IV was not Amenho-tep’s eldest son, since his hopes of succession to the throne were apparently remote as the law of primogeniture was in force in Egypt at this time.18
It would seem obvious that Thutmose’s ascension to the throne would not have been so remote as to amaze him at its possibility by the promise of the sphinx, if he was Amenhotep’s firstborn and, therefore, rightfully next in line. Remarks Hayes, “This fanciful tale…suggests that Thutmose IV was not his father’s heir apparent, but had obtained the throne through an unforseen turn of fate, such as the premature death of an older brother.”19 To this Rawlinson agrees, as he notes:
It would seem that Thothmes was not the eldest son, or expectant heir of his predecessor, since he ascribes his ascension to the special favor of Harmachis, and relates how that deity appeared to him as he slept, and raised his thoughts to the hope o f sovereignty.20
Late Date Inadequacies Reviewed
In conclusion, the late date view cannot easily explain the difficulties resulting from placing Moses’ birth and life within the framework of its scenario. It cannot provide the intriguing political atmosphere created by Moses being raised in Pharaoh’s home, as does the early view with its association in the Eighteenth Dynasty. It must reject Scripture, manipulate chronology,
BSP 2:3 (Summer 1989) p. 92
suggest archaeological conclusions questionable in light of historical fact, and deny the interpersonal relationships created and unique to only one Dynasty out of thirty!
Archer is certainly accurate when he concludes:
In short, the Late Date Theory, which implies an outright rejection of the Biblical chronology as fallacious in at least three passages, labors under such a complex of difficulties and improbabilities as to be incapable of logical defense.21
Conclusion: The Evidence and Circumstances Support an Early Date
Amenhotep II more than adequately fulfills the requirements needed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. His reign coincides with the early date theory. He demonstrates the pride and arrogance evidenced by the pharaoh in the Biblical account. Widespread rebellion, in which the enslaved Hebrews could have been caught up, was part of his early reign. He evidently suffered some sort of debilitating setback which severely weakened his war machine for a number of years, and could be explained by the devastating loss of his chariots at the Red Sea. Finally, his successor, Thutmose IV, while a son, was not his firstborn, that son having been slain at the time of the tenth plague and passover.
It is the conclusion set forth here, then, that the Exodus of the Hebrew slaves took place some time in the middle of the fifteenth century, approximately 1446 B.C. The Exodus was accomplished during the reign of Amenhotep II, who was the successor to the great Thutmose III, the Pharaoh of the oppression. Subsequently, the conquest of Palestine, as led by Joshua, took place some forty years later, at the end of the fifteenth century and beginning of the fourteenth.22
Furthermore, it is the conviction offered here that the early date view is supported by the weight of archaeological evidence when processed through the grid of historical fact. It must be maintained that the whole area of palestinian archaeology relative to the Exodus and especially the conquest should be reviewed and processed with these historical considerations as guidelines.
The events of Scripture and the Biblical account of the Exodus are in concert far more efficiently with Egyptian history when the Exodus is understood as occurring in the fifteenth century B.C. It is, therefore, this Early Date view which remains the most faithful and consistent with the Biblical text in its record of chronology and history.