Introduction

 

The Exodus from Egypt was the seminal event in Jewish history. This was when the Israelites became a people, when they achieved their freedom, and exchanged their mastership by Pharaoh for the mastership of God. The Exodus paved the way for the Revelation at Mount Sinai and their eventual entry into the Promised Land. The Ten Plagues and the Exodus were also the only times in the history of the world that God overtly manifested His presence. In so doing, the Jewish people became witnesses to His continuing involvement in human history. 

​

Jewish tradition has ensured that this event remains engraved in Jewish memory. The months of the Jewish year are configured around the Exodus, with Nisan, when the Exodus occurred, being the first month of the year. On the Passover festival, Jews relate the Passover narrative while eating bitter herbs and unleavened bread to immortalize their time in slavery and commemorate their release from servitude. When the Sanctuary and Temple existed, participation in the Paschal sacrifice was obligatory for all members of the covenant. Important Jewish precepts also revolve around the memory of the Exodus, such as redeeming the firstborn son of the family, wearing phylacteries, and putting fringes on the sides of garments (Exodus 13:9). Even the Sabbath is linked both to the Creation of the universe and to the Exodus from Egypt (ibid 13:12-13). 

 

Were such a vital event as the Exodus to be allegorical, or if the Bible is presenting a highly imaginative account with only a small kernel of truth, then the veracity of the entire Torah becomes suspect, including the giving of the Ten Commandments on Mount Sinai. The notion that Jewish slaves were taken from Egypt to become a nation under the rule of God becomes meaningless. The role of the Jewish people in demonstrating God’s involvement in human history becomes questionable. In essence, the entirety of Jewish theology begins to crumble. 

 

Having said this, there is no reason that there should be proof of the Egyptian exile or an Israelite exodus. Slaves do not build monuments. The water level in the area of the Nile Delta has risen, making archeology in this area difficult. In any case, Israelite homes would be impossible to differentiate from Egyptian ones since the Israelites in Egypt were highly assimilated. The buildings they constructed as slaves were Egyptian temples and not Jewish buildings. Only the fact that they were enslaved kept the Israelites as a distinct people.1

 

Given that it is unlikely that definitive proof of the Exodus will ever be obtained, we have to approach this issue from a different angle. The best we can do is to look for indirect evidence. If there is a considerable amount of indirect evidence, then the authenticity of the Torah account becomes more likely.

 

An essential matter we have to deal with immediately is the date of the Exodus or the conquest of Canaan. Either is adequate, since they are separated by only 40 years. If our dating for either is incorrect, then no amount of indirect evidence is likely to surface and it would seem as if the Exodus never happened.

 

A 13th century conquest and Rameses II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus 

 

Many scholars suggest that the conquest of Canaan occurred in the 1200s BCE, and they focus on Rameses II as the possible Pharaoh of the Exodus. His father Seti I may therefore be the Pharaoh who initiated the oppression.2

 

Rameses II ruled from 1279 to 1213 BCE based on the low chronology and 1304 to 1237 BCE on the high chronology. The name Rameses II means the “son of Ra,” and Rameses II was the grandson of Rameses I who was of non-royal birth and came from a noble family from the Nile Delta region. Ramses II established the city of Pi–Rameses (meaning the House of Rameses) as his new capital and resided in the Nile Delta on the ruins of the Hyksos capital of Avaris. On the assumption that the Israelites were still in Egypt, this new, or more accurately rebuilt city, would have been close to Israelite settlement. 

 

That Rameses II was born in the Nile Delta accounts for the fact that he worshipped the sun god Ra rather than Amun or Amun-Ra, who were the gods of the 18th dynasty Pharaohs who livedg in Thebes. The gods of Egypt were sometimes associated with specific locales and Ra had been a state deity in northern Egypt from the time of the 5th dynasty. 

 

The following verse describing the Israelite’s path from Egypt during the Exodus is often taken as supporting evidence for Rameses II being the Pharaoh of the Exodus:

​

“The children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, the men, aside from the children” (Exodus 12:37).

 

However, it is unlikely that this particular “Rameses” was named after either Rameses II or his capital city Pi-Rameses. The Israelites settled in “the land of Rameses” when they arrived in Egypt and this was many years before the Exodus (Genesis 47:11). The Israelites are also recorded as building storage facilities or a temple of “Ra’amses” during the Egyptian oppression. This could have been in Heliopolis or anywhere else in the Nile Delta. 

 

Moreover, the history of Rameses II does not accommodate loss of his army or loss of a large body of slaves. In fact, Rameses II is often regarded as Egypt’s greatest and most powerful leader. The early part of his reign was focused on building cities, temples and monuments, and he engaged in numerous military campaigns in Syria, Nubia and Libya. 

 

 

The archeological evidence against a 13th century BCE conquest

 

The burning of the important Canaanite city of Hazor in northern Israel is often regarded as strong evidence for the involvement of Ramses II. As related in the Book of Joshua:

 

“Joshua returned at that time and captured Hazor and put its king to death with the sword because Hazor was formerly the leader of all those kingdoms. They killed every soul that was there — by the edge of the sword were they utterly vanquished — not one soul remained. He burned Hazor with fire. And all the cities of these kings and all their kings Joshua captured and put to death. Only Hazor did Joshua burn” (Joshua 11:10-11, 12, 13).

 

Evidence has been found of a very significant conflagration in Hazor’s upper city, but not in the lower city. An Egyptian offering table was also found in the rubble with hieroglyphic writing indicating that it was dedicated by a high priest of Ramesses II. This conflagration has therefore been dated to the middle of the 13th century BCE, which was towards the end of the Late Bronze Age. Carbon-dating of grain storage also accords with this date. This means that the Israelite invasion of Canaan can be dated to about 1250 BCE during the reign of Ramesses II. This date for Joshua’s conquest of Canaan is widely accepted by academics and archeologists.

​

However, there are a number of problems with this conclusion. Archeology at Hazor has demonstrated that following this conflagration there was no significant settlement in the city for the next 100 to 200 years other than in the upper city, where settlement was of a semi-nomadic nature, and foundations found were only for tents and huts. This does not accord with the account in the Book of Judges of a recovery of Hazor following Joshua’s conquest of the land.

 

However, there was another Israelite victory over the Canaanites of Hazor. Later in the Book of Judges we read that the Israelites were under great pressure from the Canaanites who had reestablished their city:

 

“And God gave them [the Israelites] into the hand of Jabin, the king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor, and the chieftain of his army was Sisera. . . And the Children of Israel cried to God, for he had 900 iron chariots, and he op- pressed the Children of Israel mightily for 20 years” (Judges 4:2-3).

 

As the prophetess Deborah foretold, Sisera’s army was routed by her commander Barak at Mount Tabor following which “God subdued on that day Jabin the king of Canaan before the Children of Israel. And the hand of the Children of Israel pre- vailed constantly harder against Jabin the king of Canaan until they destroyed Jabin, king of Canaan” (Judges 4:23-24).

 

There is no mention in the Bible that the city was burned down at this time, but it is highly likely that this is what happened. Hence, the conflagration found by archeologists may well have been due to the army of Devorah and Barak. This Israelite attack was a knock-out blow to Canaanite settlement in the northern part of the country and also the end of the Canaanite threat to the Israelites. This would explain the minimal settlement of the city following the conflagration. If this is true, a presumed date of the Exodus of 1250 BCE is off by several hundred years.

​

Archeological excavations at Tel es-Sultan, the ancient fortified city of Jericho, are also very much against a 13th century BCE conquest. Excavations have revealed a 15-feet high stone wall at the base of an embankment that surrounded the tel. The embankment itself was plastered over and at its top was a mudbrick double-layered wall surrounding the city to a height of 8 feet. This double wall has been dated to the Early Bronze Age. However, what was found was that red bricks from this top wall were heaped up beyond the stone wall at the base of the embankment such that an enemy would have been able to climb over it this new ramp. This is compatible with the biblical account from Joshua 6:20. The destruction and conflagration in the city dates to the Late Bronze Age. Based on the Canaanite pottery in the city reported by previous excavations, Bryant Wood has dated the destruction of Jericho to about 1400 BCE.3 Interestingly, many full grain storage jars were found in the city ruins compatible with a sudden conquest during the spring rather than a prolonged siege during which the grain would have been consumed, again compatible with the biblical story.4 

 

Two extra-Biblical sources confirm the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan, but are not supportive of a 13th century BCE conquest. One is the Merneptah Stele. This is a victory stele found in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes commemorating a successful military campaign by Merneptah, the son and successor of Rameses II, against Lybia and Canaan in the fifth year of his reign in about 1209 BCE. This stele mentions his victory against “Israel:” 

 

“The princes are prostrate, saying: “Mercy!”

Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.

Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti is pacified;

Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;

Carried off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer;

Yanoam is made as that which does not exist;

Israel is laid waste; his seed is not;

Harru is become a widow of Egypt!

All lands together, they are pacified”.

 

Reliefs of the Canaanite battles in the Karnack temple show the Canaanite city-states Ashkelon, Gezer and Yanoam, while the Israelites are pictured as trampled. If indeed the words “Israel is laid waste” are describing a conflict with the Israelite people this would be difficult to fit into an early 13th century BCE Exodus, since the Israelites would barely have arrived in the country.5

 

Supporters of a late Exodus suggest that the “Israel” mentioned here are not the Israelite people, although it is difficult to imagine who else they would be. No Canaanite tribe has a name resembling this. More logical is to assume that the Israelite people had been in Canaan for several hundred years and were now established in the hill country throughout Judea and Samaria. These villages would have been difficult to conquer in their entirety since they were so spread out, and this stele inscription may have been more bluster than reality. Whatever the reason, this Egyptian military action did not even merit mention in the Book of Judges. 

 

Another important piece of evidence for an early conquest are the Tel el-Amarna Letters. These letters date from the middle of the 14th century BCE and originate from the royal archives of Akhetaten, the capital city of Egypt at the time of Amenhotep IV. Three hundred and eighty tablets have been found and 300 of them include correspondence between Egypt and its vassal cities in Canaan and Syria. Canaan at this time was loosely controlled by the Egyptians. Eighteen of these letters contain complaints to the Pharaoh about the social disorder in the country as a result of the activities of the “Habiru.” The meaning of this term is uncertain and it could be referring derogatively to bandits, brigands or mercenaries, but could also be referring to the Israelites. 

 

Of considerable interest is that all the Canaanite cities writing letters of complaint are those specifically mentioned in the book of Judges as not being conquered by Joshua. Meitlis comments “In short, the list of major city-states found in the El-Amarna letters matches almost exactly the cities that the Bible regards as cities that survived as Canaanite cities during the period of the Judges.”6 Meitlis also quotes the Israeli archeologist Amihai Mazar who writes “The list of unconquered cities (Judges 1:15-35) is corroborated by archeological research. In many of the cities mentioned, especially in the Jezreel and Bet-Shean Valleys, we find continuity in the survival of Canaanite culture up until the close of the 11th century BCE.”6,7

 

Consider the city of Shechem. This city receives no mention in the book of Joshua, which is surprising since it was a large Canaanite city-state in the central highlands. The Armana Letters could indicate why. We read in these letters that the king of Shechem is accused by his rivals of maintaining good relationships with the Habiru and had even given some of them land.8 The king of Shechem wrote several letters to Amenhotep IV that he was Pharaoh’s loyal vassal and in one letter he wrote that he was handing over his son who had been collaborating with the Habiru. The king of Megiddo also complains that he is facing an attack of a coalition of Habiru and Shechemites. Interestingly, the city of Jericho receives no mention in any of the letters, presumably because it was no longer Canaanite controlled.

 

In conclusion, admitting to a 13th century BCE conquest is tantamount to saying that the Conquest of Canaan never happened. But if not in the 13th century BCE, what alternative date could there be for the conquest of Canaan?

 

To answer this question, we need to look again at the biblical text.

 

 

Dating the Exodus from Biblical sources

 

The Book of Kings relates: 

 

“In the 480th year after the Children of Israel’s exodus from the land of Egypt – in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month – he built the Temple for God” (Kings I 6:1). 

 

The destruction of the First Temple has been reliably dated to 587 BCE on the basis of Greek historians and Babylonian and Persian records. From knowledge of the reigns of the kings of Judah and Israel as described in the Bible, Solomon’s ascension to the throne can be dated to 970 BCE.  Solomon began constructing his temple 4 years into his reign, in 966 BCE. Thus, the date of the Exodus was 480 years before this - in 1446 BCE.

 

To what extent can this figure of 480 years from the Exodus to Solomon’s Temple be relied upon? 

 

The Exodus was the beginning of Israelite history, and even without computers it makes senses that a record was kept of the passing of the years from the time of the Exodus.

 

Is it possible that this number has symbolic meaning, since assigning symbolic meaning to numbers was common practice in the Torah? 480 is 12 x 40. The number 40 does have significance in the Bible, although not the number 12.

 

Another way of assessing the historicity of this date is to see whether it is internally consistent chronologically with other parts of the Bible.   

 

During the time of the Judges, the tribe of Manasseh was experiencing military pressure from the Ammonites on the eastern side of the Jordan, and an individual named Yiftah was called upon to save his tribe. Yiftah had been previously thrown out of his tribal home by his siblings because he was the son of a concubine or harlot. Now, at this time of need, his military prowess was needed. The Book of Judges records a speech he made to the Ammonites before engaging with them militarily. In this speech he asks why it had taken them so long to make the claim that the Israelites had stolen their land.9 Part of his speech reads as follows: 

​

“While Israel dwelt in Heshbon and its towns, and in Aror and its towns, and in all the cities that are along by the side of the Arnon, three hundred years, why did you not recover them within that time?” (Judges 11:26)

 

It could be argued that Yiftah was a non-erudite military leader who was unlikely to have had access to reliable historic data. Nevertheless, this was a diplomatic message and it is unlikely that he conjured up this number, although he could have done some rounding off. 

 

According to the Bible there was probably adequate time to accommodate 180 years from the time of Yiftah to the time of King Solomon, accepting that there may have been overlap of some of the judges, that the Book of Judges may not have accounted for all the years in its account of the judges, and that 40 years needs to be added for the Israelite wanderings in the desert following the Exodus. Hence, from the time of Yiftah to the beginning of the reign of Solomon, the following judges, prophets and kings are yet to come – the judges Ibzan (7 years), Elon (10 years), Abdon, and Samson (years unknown), the prophet Eli (40 years) and Samuel (years unknown), and the kings Saul (2 years) and David (40 years).  

 

The Book of Chronicles records there were eighteen generations from Korach (who perished in the wilderness after the Exodus) until Heman who sang in Solomon’s Temple (Chronicles I 6:18-22). This would lead to a realistic figure of twenty-seven years per generation. This same paragraph also records that there were ten generations of priests from Pinhas (the zealous priest in the desert with Moses) until Azariah, who served in Solomon’s temple, which is 48 years per generation (ibid I 6:30-35).

 

Problematic, however, is a statement in this same chapter of Chronicles that there were seven generations of Levites from Gershom (the son of Levi) to Jeathrai, who served as a Levite in Solomon’s Temple (ibid I 6:1-6). The end of the Book of Ruth also relates that David was the fifth generation from Nachshon, a leader of the tribe of Judah who was alive at the time of Exodus (Ruth 4:20-21). Boaz was old when he married Ruth (ibid 3:10). Nevertheless, it is difficult to see how five generations could be accommodated into the 480 years from the time of the Exodus to the birth of David. There is no explanation for these difficult passages, although it is conceivable that individuals were left out in these particular genealogical lines. 

 

A look at Egyptian history – who could have been the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

 

Extremely helpful is to see how the date of 1446 BCE fits into Egyptian history. For example, we can ascertain who would likely have been Pharaoh at this date and then ascertain whether his history is compatible with his being the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

 

First, some information about dating in ancient Egyptian. Two dating systems are used by scholars to determine the reigns of the Pharaoh’s – a low chronology and high chronology. An astronomic observation, the heliacal rising of Sothis, was recorded on papyrus in the 9th year of the reign of Amenhotep I, an early Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty. Astronomers are able to pinpoint precisely the year in which this event occurred by charting the positions of stars in antiquity. However, the precision of this calculation depends considerably on the latitude at which this observation was made. Therein lies the problem. The papyrus was found in Thebes, but the observation could have been made in Thebes, Memphis, Heliopolis, or any other Egyptian city, leading to an uncertainty of 25 years. The earlier dating (assuming the rising was observed at Memphis) constitutes the “low chronology” and the later dating (with the observation being made at Thebes) is the “high chronology.” 

 

Which of these two systems is most accurate has been a matter of debate for many years. However, a recent study using radiocarbon dating of biological specimens obtained from museums favors the low chronology for the Middle Kingdom and the high chronology for the later New Kingdom, which includes the 18th Dynasty, the dynasty of most interest to us.10 Having said this, this essay finds the low chronology somewhat more helpful for fitting ancient Egyptian history into Biblical dating. Regardless, the dates in Table 1 below should not be regarded as being highly precise, particularly when one goes back earlier than the reign of Amenhotep I.

 

Accepting 1446 BCE as the date of the Exodus, and depending on whether one uses the low or high chronology, this would be either towards the end of the approximately 54-year rule of Thutmose III or the beginning of the 26-year reign of his son Amenhotep II. The ascension of Amenhotep II is usually dated to 1453 BCE using the low chronology or 1427 BCE by the high chronology (see table 1).

 

Table 1. The early pharaohs of the 18th dynasty with the approximate dates of their rule

Ahmose 1

1570 to 1546 or 1551 to 1527 BCE

Amenhotep 1

1546 to 1526 or 1525 to 1504 BCE

Thutmose 1

1526 to 1513 or 1506 to 1493 BCE

Thutmose II

1513 to 1499 or 1493 to 1479 BCE

Hatshepsut

1512 to 1490 or 1479 to 1457 BCE

Thutmose III

1504 to 1450 or 1479 to 1425 BCE

Amenhotep II

1453 to 1419 or 1427 to 1397 BCE

 

From the wording of the Bible, it seems more likely that the Exodus happened towards the beginning of the reign of Ahmenhotep II rather during the reign of Thutmose III, in that the Torah tells us:

 

“During those many days, it happened that the king of Egypt died and the Children of Israel groaned because of the work and they cried out. Their outcry because of the work went up to God. And God heard their moaning …..” (Exodus 2:23-24). 

 

The ruler proceeding Thutmose III was a woman named Hatshepsut. If Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, the Bible should have referred to Hatsheput as the “Pharaoh” or “queen” that died rather than “king of Egypt.” Hatsheput did often regard herself as king rather than queen of Egypt, and many of her statues show her with the false beard typical of the Pharaohs. However, her own view of the matter should not have changed the emphasis of the Bible. 

 

Moreover, there is no record of any large gaps in Thutmose III’s military activities suggesting a decrease in military or construction projects as a result of his losing his chariot force and slaves at the Reed Sea. The Pharaohs did not engage in colonizing activities, but had periodic campaigns outside of Egypt to collect tribute, and this tribute was brought to their temples as gifts for the gods. Egypt was a rich country and could afford a large standing army and the chariot force was a critical component of this. If Pharaoh’s chariots had been destroyed, the army would have been rendered impotent for a number of years and this should be reflected in less military campaigns. The Pharaohs also engaged in extensive temple building, and these building projects were recorded on the walls of their temples. Loss of a large number of slaves should be reflected in a decrease in state building activity. 

 

All of this makes it difficult to fit the Exodus into the reign of Thutmose III, in that we know that he was an extremely powerful and successful Pharaoh. He engaged in sixteen foreign military campaigns and built up the most formidable army in the Middle East. We also know (because he tells us) that he was a great builder, constructing over fifty temples, including massive additions to Egypt's chief temple in Karnak. The Egyptian construction industry reached its pinnacle in design and style at this time, never again to be equaled. 

 

Moreover, if Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, an Exodus of 1446 BCE would have been towards the end of his rule and well after the death of Hatshepsut. However, the Torah verse previously quoted implies that the Exodus took place shortly after the death of the new Pharaoh’s father. Israelite crying out and God’s listening could have extended over many years, but it is more within the sense of the verse that the crying and listening occurred within a relatively short time. Rabbinic exegesis picks up on this. A Midrash points out that unlike false gods who have no ability to listen, when God listens, He answers quickly.11  

 

All this points to his son Ahmenhotep II as being the most likely candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus.

 

Amenhotep II was 18 years old when he became Pharaoh. For the first two years of his reign, he ruled as a co-regent with his father Thutmose III and the Israelites would have been familiar with Amenhotep’s policies even before his father died. Amenhotep would almost certainly have wished to continue the building endeavors of his father and for this he needed slaves. For the Israelites, the future portended harsh labor without respite. Thus, there would have been good reason that they “cried out” when Amenhotep II took over the full reins of power. Amenhotep II’s wish to emulate the building accomplishments of his father could also account for his stubbornness in his dealings with Moses.    

 

Unlike his father, Amenhotep II led only two or three campaigns during his more than 29-year rule, with his last campaign being in the 9th year of his rule.12 This is surprising, since in theory his father should have bequeathed him a large standing army. According to scholars, cracks began to appear in the power of the Egyptian empire during his reign.13  

 

Amenhotep II did engage in building, but never on the scale of his father, and his building projects largely focused on “enlarging smaller temples all over Egypt.”14 This also is surprising since a large body of Israelite workers should have been available to him from the time of his father – unless, of course, many of them had left Egypt early in his reign.    

 

One author has this to say about the reign of Amenhotep II:

 

“It seems possible to consider this reign as unsuccessful, a time of decline; a few exploits abroad, a few preserved memorials, an almost complete absence of [self-documented] sources after the ninth year of the reign.”15

 

It is also noteworthy that Amenhotep’s successor, Thutmose IV, was his son but not his firstborn or heir apparent. This also fits into the Biblical story, since Amenhotep II’s firstborn would have died during the plague of the firstborn.

 

One further issue needs clarifying. The kings of the 18th dynasty were mummified and their mummies placed in tombs in the Valley of the Kings in Thebes. This includes that of Amenhotep II whose mummy was discovered in 1898 in the Valley of the Kings in its original sarcophagus. However, according to the Bible the Pharaoh of the Exodus drowned in the Sea of Reeds. 

 

Or did he? 

 

Jewish tradition is inconclusive on the matter. The author of Psalm 136 was clearly of the opinion that he did:  

 

“But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Reed Sea, for His mercy endures forever” (Psalms 136:15).

 

Nevertheless, although Pharaoh’s army was totally destroyed by drownin, there is no verse in Exodus stating explicitly that Pharaoh died at that time:  

 

“He [Pharaoh] harnessed his chariot and took his people with him. He took six hundred elite chariots and all the chariots of Egypt with officers on them all” …. “The water came back and covered the chariots and the horsemen of the entire army of Pharaoh who were coming behind them in the sea – not one of them remained (literally: there did not remain of them up to one)” ….  Pharaoh’s chariots and army He cast in the sea and the select of his officers were sunk in the Sea of Reeds” (Exodus 14:6-7, 14:28, 15:4). 

 

There are also midrashim concluding that Pharaoh remained alive after this debacle as a witness to this story.16

 

The Egyptian oppression

 

Having tentatively dated the Exodus to 1446 BCE and to the reign of the 18th dynasty Pharaoh, Amenhotep II, it is now possible to examine the beginning of the Israelite exile in Egypt as related by the Torah to see if this also fits into Egyptian history. 

 

The Bible begins the story of the Israelite oppression with the following verses:

​

“A new king arose over Egypt who did not know of Joseph. He said to his people, “Behold! The people, the Children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we. Come let us deal wisely to it lest it become numerous and it may be that if a war will occur, it, too, may join our enemies and wage war against us and go up from the land” (Exodus 1:8-10). 

 

These verses seem to indicate that this succession was different from previous successions. This was a king who not only did not know of Joseph but who was a “new king”. But do not all successions bring a “new” king? 

 

Egyptian history provides an answer to this question.  

 

The Pharaoh in question was likely Ahmose I who was from the southern kingdom of Egypt and who succeeded in uniting northern and southern Egypt and expelling the Hyksos from the Nile Delta. This struggle was begun by his grandfather, who likely lost his life in the attempt, was continued unsuccessfully by Ahmose I’s father, and finally completed by Ahmose I. The rule of Ahmose I over a united Egyptian kingdom began somewhere between 1570 BCE to 1551 BCE (see Table 1).

 

The unification of Egypt by Ahmose I was a highly significant event in Egyptian history and his 18th dynasty would become one of the most successful and powerful in Egyptian history. This unification would also have serious implications for the Israelite people. 

 

Scholars still debate who the Hyksos were that Ahmose I defeated. The most accepted theory is that they were a Semitic people who invaded northern Egypt during a period of political instability in Egypt. The beginning of their 15th dynasty is usually dated to between 1663 to 1648 BCE and they ruled during what is called the Second Intermediate Period of the Middle Kingdom. They established themselves in the Nile Delta and Middle Egypt, and ruled over southern Egypt for a time. 

 

The Jewish Roman historian Josephus, quoting from the work of Manetho, describes the Hyksos invasion of Egypt as follows: 

 

“By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow; and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of gods… Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis.”17   

 

Some scholars question this description and suggest that the Hyksos could have infiltrated into Egypt more peacefully before seizing power, although this seems a less likely scenario. The Hyksos are credited with bringing chariots and improved bows and maces into Egypt, and this new technology would have given them an advantage in warfare. Chariots would subsequently become the “tanks” of the ancient world.

 

The Hyksos established their administrative capital in Avaris in the northeast region of the Nile delta.18 They also adopted Egyptian ways to make themselves accepted by their Egyptian subjects. Nevertheless, they were always regarded by the Egyptians as foreigners. The name Hyksos comes from two Egyptian words “hekau khasut” meaning foreign rulers.

 

An interesting question is whether the Pharaoh who related his dreams to Joseph could have been a Hyksos king. The answer to this depends on how long the Egyptian exile lasted and when Joseph brought his family to Egypt. If Joseph did indeed work for the Hyksos, it is not surprising that Ahmose I “did not know of Joseph” and had no interest even in finding out what Joseph had done for Egypt.  

 

Unfortunately, there is very little archeological evidence from the Hyksos period. The high water table has made archeology in this area difficult. In addition, when the Egyptians succeeded in expelling the Hyksos from Egypt, they erased all traces of their occupation, since this was not a period they were particularly proud of. It is not surprising, therefore, that no mention of Joseph has been found in Egyptian historic records.  

 

Whether or not Joseph and the Hyksos were contemporaries, the Israelites and Hyksos probably lived closely together, since the Israelites also settled in the Nile Delta. 

 

The children of Jacob were herdsmen rather than farmers. The Nile River overflows its banks during the summer months and deposits silt on the sides of the river. This increases the fertility of the fields and makes them suitable for growing grains and vegetable gardens. However, these fields are surrounded by desert, so that Middle and Lower Egypt would have been unsuitable for herdsmen. The Nile Delta area, on the other hand, would have been excellent terrain for sheep and cattle grazing. The land of Goshen in the Nile Delta was also where they were permitted to settle. 

 

If Joseph worked for the Hyksos, it is likely that the Israelites had a very close relationship with them. The Israelites may even have been a favored population in the Delta area. However, when Ahmose I took over the country, the Israelites would suddenly find themselves in a very different situation. Like the Hyksos who had just been expelled, they were a foreign people. They may have also been too numerous, powerful and entrenched in the country to be evicted. Nevertheless, in Ahmose’s eyes they were a potential threat. If they were to join a counter-coup, they could have reversed the gains he had made for the Egyptian people. It needed the cunning of a person like Ahmose I to figure out how this problem could be resolved. His solution was persecution and enforced labor:  

 

“So they appointed tax collectors over it in order to afflict it with their burdens; they built storehouses (miskenot) for Pharaoh, Pithom and Ra’amses . . . They embittered their lives with hard work, with mortar and with bricks and with every labor of the field, all their labors that they performed with them was crushing labor” (Exodus 1:11-14).

 

The Hebrew word Pithom probably comes from the words ‘Pi-Atum’ which means ‘the house of Athum’ and “Ramases” means ‘born to Ra.’ Both Athum and Ra were gods of the Nile Delta. It is very possible, therefore, that the Israelites were building administrative and storage facilities for temples of worship for the sun gods and not storage cities to benefit the populace. This building of temples is very typical of the activities of the 18th dynasty Pharaohs. 

 

Their building of these temples would have had a significant consequence for the Israelites. The role of religion was extremely pervasive in Egyptian society. If the Egyptians had invited the Israelites to their pagan worship, they may well have been attracted to idol worship. However, building pagan temples in conditions of forced labor was another matter entirely and would have given the Israelites a very different perspective on pagan worship. This could explain why despite a sojourn of hundreds of years, the Hebrews brought nothing of Egyptian mythology and very little of Egyptian culture with them into the desert and into their new country.

 

Who was the Pharaoh who issued the directive that all male Israelite children be killed? From the wording of the Bible, it could have been the same “new Pharaoh” who initially enslaved the Israelites. A later Pharaoh is also possible and would not contradict the words of the Torah. This leader initiated a new policy when he realized that forced labor had been unsuccessful in achieving Israelite population control.  

A useful date for determining the identity of this Pharaoh is that of Moses’ birth, since Moses’ family was directly affected by this decree.  

 

The Book of Exodus relates that “Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:7). The period of the ten plagues would have been quite brief and probably lasted less than a year. This is evident from the fact that Moses first spoke to Pharaoh when he was 80, that he led the Israelites for 40 years in the wilderness, and died when he was 120 years (Exodus 1:11). One can conclude, therefore, that Moses was born in about 1527 BCE.

 

Depending on whether one uses the high or low chronology, the date of 1527 BCE is compatible with either Ahmose I, Ahmenhotep I or Thutmose I being the Pharaoh who initiated this cruel decree. As explained previously, the low chronology seems to be more helpful in fitting the story of the Exodus into the events of the Egyptian exile, and Thutmose I may well be the Pharaoh responsible.  

 

There is another good reason for focusing on Thutmose I. Until the time of Thutmose I, Thebes was the main administrative center for the Egyptian kingdom. However, Thutmose I moved his center north to Memphis together with his army. Memphis is on the Nile and close to the Nile Delta. From now on the Israelites and the Pharaoh’s will be in close proximity to each other – and this will not be an amicable relationship.

​

The fact that Thutmose I moved close to the Delta would also explain how Pharaoh could so easily have spoken to the Hebrew midwives. If the Pharaohs had been living in Thebes, this would be a 1½-week journey by donkey to relay a message. It could also explain how Moses could be rescued by the daughter of Pharaoh when he was sent down the Nile in a reed basket.

 

Who was this “daughter of Pharaoh” who rescued Moses from the Nile? This might seem an impossible question to answer since Pharaoh likely had a number of wives. He would have had a primary wife who was his queen and also secondary wives. An intriguing suggestion is that the stepmother of Moses was the daughter of his primary wife. Her name was Hatcheput.

 

Thutmose I ‘s primary wife was Ahmes and she had only a single child, a daughter, Hatsheput. Hatsheput married a stepbrother from a secondary wife Mutneferet to solidify the succession. This husband was Thutmose II. Thutmose II might have been young when he ascended to the throne and he died young after being Pharaoh for 13 years. Hatsheput now found herself a regent for a very young stepson. Hatsheput had no sons, only a daughter, and this stepson was born to a secondary wife of Thutmose II.  Although initially a regent, it is generally agreed that she assumed the position of Pharaoh, and was quite successful at it too. So successful, in fact, that she began thinking of herself in a rather manly way and as mentioned some of her monuments show her with the typical beard used by the Pharaohs. She did all the things that a Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty was supposed to do. She built temples throughout the country and engaged in military campaigns and recorded her triumphs with statues and other monuments. When she passed away, she was succeeded by this stepson Thutmose III.

 

And then something strange happened. Decades after her death many of her cartouches and monuments were smashed. The damage is too extensive to have been carried out randomly by vandals and must have been officially sanctioned. It could have been sanctioned by her stepson, or the Pharaoh after him Ahmenhotep II. Historians are at a loss to explain why it happened. One suggestion is that Hatsheput was an affront to the Pharaoh’s masculinity – but this is a rather lame reason and does not explain why the damage was perpetrated years after her death. If Thutmose III had wanted to be nasty to his stepmother, he had plenty of opportunity to do so soon after she died.

 

There is another suggestion that fits into the Exodus story. Hatsheput was the daughter of Thutmose I. Could she have been the foster mother of Moses? She had only one daughter and may already have been scheming to avoid just the type of succession problem that did in fact transpire. If Moses had kept to the script, he could have been directed to marry Hatsheput’s daughter and become Pharaoh of Egypt! 

​

This may be taking speculation too far. Nevertheless, it is possible that Hatsheput was recognized by the Egyptians as the person who had saved Moses and brought him into the royal palace. When Moses destroyed the agriculture of Egypt, destroyed the Egyptian army, and released Pharaoh’s slaves, there was only one way for the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Amenhotep II, to get back at his stepmother - and this was to destroy her image. This was more than symbolic. These images were intended to help her descend into the underworld.

​

Clearly, there are no proofs her. Nevertheless, Biblical and Egyptian history do seem to fit together very nicely. 

 

Conclusions

 

Many academicians consider the Exodus to have taken place in the 1200’s BCE, if it took place at all. However, this date fits in poorly with Egyptian history, and the Pharaoh at that time, Rameses II, is an unlikely candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus based on descriptions of his temple building and his numerous military campaigns. On the other hand, the history of the Egyptian 18th dynasty fits in nicely with a Biblically derived date for the Exodus of 1446 BCE.19

 

Archeologists may well find evidence in the future that will enable them to date the conquest of Canaan more definitively. In the meantime, there is enough indirect evidence to indicate that a conquest of Canaan truly happened. It is also a reasonable presumption that this was proceeded by an Exodus from Egypt.

 

References

1. According to the Mechilta, the Jews remained distinctive from the Egyptians in their language and names, in there not adopting Egyptian immorality, and not harboring informers in their midst. Others add that they also were distinct in their attire. All of this seems plausible, but cannot be proven. Of course, none of this can be proven.

2. What is the Biblical date for the Exodus? A response to Bryant Wood. JETS 50/2 (June 2007) 225-24721.  

3. Did the Israelites Conquer Jericho? A New Look at the Archeological Evidence by Bryant G. Wood in Biblical Archeology Review March/April 1990. I have summarized this article but without adding the proceeding archeological excavations done by others with which Wood disagrees. Wood’s assessment from their excavations is very much based on the Canaanite pottery found within the city, including locally manufactured and imported pottery typical for the Late Bronze Age and which he feels was incorrectly evaluated by Kathleen Kenyon. Radiocarbon data is not quite consistent with Wood’s theory, but there may be reasons for this. An article which focuses more on the disputes and that includes radiocarbon dating data is Jericho chronology dispute in Conservapedia. (https://www.conservapedia.com/Jericho_chronology_dispute).

4. That the conquest of Jericho occurred in the early spring is evident from Joshua 2:6, 3:15, 4:9 and 5:10.

5. The Appearance of Israel in Canaan in Recent Scholarship by Patrick Mazani in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil and Paul J Ray, Jr. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 3, p108, Winona Lake, Indiana. 2008.

6. The Conquest of the Land of Israel in Excavating the Bible. New Archeological Evidence for the Historical Reliability of Scripture by Yitzhak Meitlis, p93, Eshel Books, Maryland, USA,.2012.

7. The Relationship between Archeology and Historical Research by Amihai Mazar in Lee Levine and Amihai Mazars eds. The Controversy over the Historical Validity of the Bible (Heb), Jerusalem, 2001, p107. 

8. The Appearance of Israel in Canaan in Recent Scholarship by Patrick Mazani in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil nad Paul J Ray, Jr. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 3, p106, Winona lake, Indiana. 2008.

9. Shortly before the Exodus, the Amorites west of the River Jordan, under King Sihon, invaded and occupied a large portion of the territory of Moab and Ammon. The Ammonites were driven from their rich lands near the River Jordan by the Israelites and they retreated to the mountains and valleys to the east. The former territories of the Amorites remained in Israelite hands. 

10. Ramsey CB et al. Radiocarbon-based chronology for dynastic Egypt. Science 2010;328:1554-1557.

11. Yalkut Shemoni, Parshat Shemot 169.

12. D. Petrovich D in an essay entitled “Amenhotep II and the historicity of the Exodus-Pharaoh”, TMSJ 17/1 (Spring 2006) pp 81-110, writes that Amenhotep II’s last campaign in the 9th year of his rule was quite atypical.  It went no further than Palestine and brought back 101,128 slaves and 1,032 wooden chariots. This author suggests that his capture of so many slaves and chariots was needed to fill the void left by the evacuation of his Hebrew slaves and loss of his chariots.

13. The Macmillan Bible Atlas by Yohanan Aharoni and Michael Avi-Yonah, New York, Macmillan, 1977. 

14. Amenhotep II in Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II 

15. Vandersleyen, L’Egypte 2:341.

16. The Midrashic literature is divided on this matter. The Midrashic work Yalkut Shimoni (Yalkut Shemoni 238) states the following: “The water came back and covered the chariots and the horsemen….”  – this includes even Pharaoh; this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda who quotes the verse ‘Pharaoh’s chariots and army …’  Rabbi Gamliel says: except for Pharaoh, about whom it says: ‘On account of this I have left you standing [in order to show you My power and so that My name may be declared throughout the world]’ (Exodus 9:16). The point bothering Rabbi Gamliel is that according to the Bible, Pharaoh’s role was to be a living witness to God’s power, ‘so that My name may be declared throughout the world,’ a role he obviously could not fulfill if he perished.  Another Midrash (Midrash Aggadah Shemos 14:28) picks up on the Bible’s words that ‘there did not remain of them up to one.’ The expression “up to one” is a Biblical idiom that usually means no one. However, the Midrash concludes that there was indeed up to one person who survived the splitting of the Reed Sea, and this was Pharaoh himself.  

17. Quoted in History of Egypt from the Earliest Time to the Persian Conquest, James Henry Breasted, p. 216, republished 2003. 

18. Avaris was located near the modern Tell el-Dab'a. It was then a busy port, trade and administrative center on the eastern-most branch of the Nile. It was abandoned during the 18th dynasty, but the area was rebuilt by Ramses II as his administrative capital, Pi Ramesses.   

19. For a list of scholars who accept this approach see Classical Models for the Appearance of Israel in Palestine by Paul J. Ray Jr. in Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, eds Richard S. Hess, Gerald A. Klingbeil and Paul J Ray, Jr. Bulletin for Biblical Research Supplement 3, p79, Winona Lake, Indiana. 2008.