Introduction

In the biblical story of the exodus, the central villainous figure is the Egyptian pharaoh. As a matter of fact, two such figures of evil royalty are mentioned in the story. The first is a pharaoh who enslaves the Hebrew population, forcing them to build twin store cities named Rameses and Pithom. This pharaoh dies midway through the story and is replaced by one who is unlucky enough to feel the wrath of Yahweh’s ten plagues and who eventually frees the Hebrews from slavery. Unfortunately for those trying to determine the historicity of the exodus story, the Hebrew text does not give names of either pharaoh at any point in the narrative. This makes placing the exodus within a historical framework very difficult. That is not to say, however, that history and Bible enthusiasts alike have not tried to solve the mystery of who were the pharaohs of the exodus.

In this article I will examine two attempts to name these two Egyptian kings. The first assumes the reliability of the text in giving historically accurate names to the two store cities, Pithom and Rameses. The second attempt to name the pharaohs relies upon the Bible’s own internal chronology and tries to place the date of the exodus within the known framework of Egyptian dynasties. Do either of these mutually contradictory attempts to name the pharaohs of the biblical exodus help in solving the mystery of when in recorded history the Hebrew slaves departed from slavery in Egypt to form their own nation: Israel?

So the Story Goes…

The Bible’s story of the Hebrew exodus from bondage in Egypt tells us of two pharaohs who oppressed the descendants of Jacob. The story actually begins in the book of Genesis where we learn that one of Jacob’s sons, Joseph, has risen to great power in the land of Egypt after having been sold into slavery by his brothers (Gen. 37:12 - 41:57). Because of a great famine that sweeps into Canaan, the land in which Jacob and his family has settled, Joseph and the pharaoh with whom he had found favor, invite Jacob’s family into Egypt to wait out the disaster (Gen. 45:1 – 47:12). Many generations pass and Jacob’s family grows into a population of millions (see note 8). It is during this population boom that we first hear of the pharaoh who first oppressed the growing Hebrew horde. He is mentioned in Exodus 1:8 in which this pharaoh is introduced as a king who rose to power “who did not know Joseph” and thus, it would seem, had no respect for Jacob’s children. It is this pharaoh who fears the Hebrews’ great numbers and puts them under servitude. This is the pharaoh who forces the Hebrews to build for him the store cities of Rameses and Pithom.

As the story continues, Moses is born under this pharaoh and commits a crime in the land of Egypt. To avoid punishment, Moses flees into the wilderness, to a place called Midian. It is during Moses’ time in exile that the text reports the first pharaoh’s death (Ex. 2:23). By inference a second pharaoh arises to take the first’s place and it is this person who is the actual pharaoh “of the exodus.” He is the one who hardens his heart at the conclusion of each of the ten plagues save the last. This is the pharaoh whose chariots race after the Hebrews as they flee across the dry ground of the parted Red Sea only to see his army consumed by the returning walls of water. Therefore, when considering the pharaohs of the exodus story, it is important to recall that there are two such individuals in the core narrative and that naming each of these men would assist in placing the tale within a reliable historical framework.

Was Rameses II the Pharaoh of the Oppression/Exodus?

A serious complication for the interested historian who wishes to set the story of the exodus in a historical framework is the fact that nowhere in the biblical text are the names of either pharaoh given. But because the narrative names instead the store cities built by the first pharaoh, many people interested in documenting the historicity of the exodus story begin by trying to place these cities within the known history of ancient Egypt. From Exodus 1:11 we are told that the Hebrew slaves built the cities of Rameses (or Ramesses) and Pithom. According to Kenneth Kitchen’s book, On the Reliability of the Old Testament, the name Rameses was

And Pi-Ramesse, according to Kitchen, lay conveniently in the eastern Nile delta. Pithom, too, is identified by Kitchen as a very real archaeological site –noting that the Hebrew Pithom is “universally recognized as standing for Egyptian Pi(r)-(A)tum, ‘domain (lit. house) of (the god) Atum,’” (p. 256) and identified with Tell er-Retaba—also in the east Nile delta. So, if we are going to take the Bible seriously, and assume that it is reliable in naming the cities of Pithom (Pir-Atum) and Rameses (Pi-Rameses), then the only king of Egypt capable of fitting the bill and ordering cities of such names built within the historical framework archaeology has given us would be Rameses II, who ruled from 1279 to 1212 BCE. [1] However, as we are about to see, pinning Ramseses II as the first biblical pharaoh mentioned may not be as easy as simply identifying the only Egyptian pharaoh capable of ordering cities named Rameses and Pithom built, if we assume we can lean upon the reliability of the Old Testament (especially Ex. 1:11).

Looking back at the chronology presented in the Bible for the exodus story, we learn that the author(s) of the text does not give any indication as to when in the career of the first pharaoh were the cities of Rameses and Pithom commissioned to be built. The commission could have come at any time during his reign:

Because we have no chronological marker in which to place the commissioning of the building of the store cities, for simplicity’s sake I will assume that it occurred within the first year of the monarch’s reign, c. 1279 BCE. [2] This assignment is not as arbitrary as it may first seem, however. If we are to grant that Rameses II is to be identified with the first pharaoh of the exodus story (as Kitchen does in his book along with several other Christian and Jewish apologists), then it is to the benefit of the one making such a claim to have Rameses II reign for as long into the exodus story as possible. Reasons for fitting the exodus within most of Rameses II’s reign will become evident momentarily.

According to the biblical text, Moses was born following the edict by Pharaoh to have the Hebrews build the cities of Pithom and Rameses. Again, however, the narrative is silent as to how much time separated the enslavement of the Hebrews and the birth of Moses. Nevertheless, the text may help us speculate as to how much time separated these two events. According to Exodus 1:12, even after imposing harsh taskmasters upon the Hebrews and the commissioning of the building of Rameses and Pithom, the Hebrews nonetheless continued to multiply and spread out across the land of Egypt. Obviously, some amount of time elapsed in order for such multiplication and spreading to be noticed! One could assume at least a year passed before such an observation. [3] The next biblically narrated event is the order from Pharaoh to have the male children killed at birth by the Hebrew’s midwives (see Ex. 1:15-16). It seems apparent from the text that this edict was given because the king noticed the multiplying Hebrews and their growing strength within his land (and at this point we are assuming this occurred one year following the commissioning of the building of Pithom and Rameses, c. 1278 BCE). When the order to kill the children wasn’t followed, the Pharaoh commanded all his people to kill every boy that was born to the Hebrews. [4] It is following these orders that the story describes the birth of Moses. The text again is not clear if Moses’ mother became pregnant before the Pharaoh ordered the killing of the Hebrew male children, during the order or after. Assuming the best possible scenario for the biblical inerrantist, I will assume that the pregnancy occurred during the edicts and that Moses’ birth followed shortly thereafter. That would place the birth of Moses c. 1277 BCE, roughly two years into Rameses II’s reign.

The next chronological marker, which is of little help, is the mention in Exodus 2:11 of Moses having “grown up.” How old would Moses have been to have been considered “grown up” by the biblical author? It is impossible to tell from the story itself, however, we do get help much later in the Bible, specifically from the New Testament Book of Acts. According to its author [5],

Moses had killed the Egyptian and this is what caused him to flee to the wilderness of Midian. He feared for his life because, according to Exodus 2:15, the Pharaoh sought to execute him for his crime. While in Midian, Moses got word from God that the pharaoh who sought his life had died. Exodus 4:19,

This would then remove Rameses II from the stage of the exodus saga. But how long had Moses been in Midian when he got word that the Pharaoh was dead? Again, we can look to the Book of Acts, specifically chapter 7, verse 30:

In the Book of Exodus, the burning bush story comes while Moses is exiled in Midian. It is from this bush that Moses hears the voice of the Hebrew god and is commissioned to return to Egypt and free the Hebrew slaves. It is when Moses leaves for Egypt that he learns of Pharaoh’s death. The text does not tell us that Moses left for Egypt immediately following the command from Mt. Sinai, but for simplicity’s sake, I will assume that he did. That means that 80 years had elapsed between the time that Moses was born and the day he left for Egypt to perform the miracles that would eventually set the Hebrew’s free.

Earlier, I surmised that Moses was born c. 1277 BCE. Eighty years would place his return to Egypt in c. 1197 BCE, if the Bible is to be taken literally, as so many Christian fundamentalists do, and if we are to assume the historical reliability of the Old Testament. Rameses II reigned for a total of 67 years, from 1279 – 1212 BCE. Who, then, succeeded Rameses II and was ruling Egypt c. 1197 BCE? According to Egyptian chronology that would have been the pharaoh Seti II who ruled from 1199 – 1193 BCE. If Moses arrived in Egypt within a year of hearing the command from God, (c. 1197-1196 BCE, which seems a reasonable assumption) then this would have been the king who met him and suffered the wrath of the Hebrew deity.

If indeed Seti II met with Moses (and Aaron), suffered the ten plagues and the loss of his own firstborn son, and eventually freed the Hebrew slaves, known history presents this theory with a serious problem. Rameses II's immediate successor was Merneptah who ruled from 1213 – 1203 BCE (Merneptah was followed by Amenemses [1202-1199 BCE] who was in turn followed by Seti II). Merneptah held a ten-year reign which would have coincided with the time Moses was still exiled in Midian. Note that the exodus had not occurred yet and that the nation of Israel was still toiling under bondage in Egypt. However, Merneptah has left us a stele telling of a military campaign he launched against Israel in Canaan during his reign! [6] In fact, this is the first mention of Israel, as such, in any extrabiblical text. This stele is proof that Israel was already in Canaan at the time of Merneptah! How could this be if Moses had not even returned from his exile in Midian to lead the nation of Israel out of bondage? The people had not yet been led through the forty years in the wilderness and had not exalted in the long conquest of Canaan to establish themselves as a people there in the first place! None of these things could have occurred by the time Merneptah took the reigns of power and launched his army into Canaan to attack the Israelites, if we are to believe that the Bible is inerrant and take seriously the names given to the store cities of Rameses and Pithom.

It is not chronologically possible for both the biblical account of the exodus and known Egyptian history to be correct. Since the hard data of archaeology has proven the dates of Egyptian chronology correct, the fault must therefore lie with the Bible. Is, therefore, the Old Testament account of the exodus reliable? Obviously not, if we are to take seriously the names given to the two store cities and attribute their construction to Rameses II [7]. But because the Bible does not specifically name Rameses II or Seti II as the pharaohs of the exodus story, some biblical inerrantists believe they have some wriggle room in which to name another set of pharaohs to these roles.

Another View of Rameses II

Simply attributing the naming of the store city of Rameses to the pharaoh of the same name is not the only way to link Rameses II to the story of the exodus. In dating this pivotal biblical event, Cambridge University physicist Colin Humphreys –not generally thought of as a Bible apologist but who authored a book which attempted to explain the “extraordinary” biblical stories, including the Exodus, using “natural causes”—links not Rameses II to the building of the store cities mentioned in Exodus 1:11, but saddles his father, Seti I with this honor. It is then Rameses II who greets Moses upon his return from Midian and ends up losing his army in the return of the waters of the Red Sea. Humphreys writes regarding the city,

Regarding the date for the commissioning of the building of the city, and the date of the exodus, Humphreys explains,

Humphreys uses a slightly different chronology than the one I presented above. He actually explains that scholars differ on their dating of the Egyptian pharaohs, some taking a “low chronology,” meaning that –given the available evidence—dates falling into this range are the latest possible. Then there is something known as the “high chronology” which gives slightly earlier dates than the “low.” Given these considerations, Humphreys suggests that Seti I reigned from 1318 to 1304 BCE and his son, Rameses II, ruled from 1304 to 1238 BCE (recall that I dated Rameses II from 1279 – 1212 BCE).

Humphreys arrives at his choice of Rameses II as the pharaoh who suffered the plagues of Yahweh by reinterpreting the traditional chronology as given in the Bible. When the Hebrew text says that x-number of years elapsed between two events, Humphreys argues that a “year” in the Bible doesn’t really mean a “year” in the conventional sense. He argues that the ancient Hebrews actually calculated time, in part, by human generations. He claims that a generation, in biblical times, was rounded at 40 years. Therefore, when the Bible claims that the Hebrews wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years, that it was not for 40 years but for “one generation.” When it says that Moses was 40 years old when he killed the Egyptian and eighty upon his return, he really wasn’t 40 years old or eighty years old when he did these things. The Bible clearly doesn’t mean what it plainly says, so argues Humphreys. So, if the Bible suggests that 480 years elapsed between two major events and this is how modern scholars can attempt to date the exodus (see below), then 480 years doesn’t really mean 480 years but twelve “generations.” The key, then, is to determine how long a “generation” was in the minds of the biblical authors who, according to Humphreys, used this measurement of time in their stories. Humphreys concludes, based upon data from A History of Israel, that,

I am not going to argue the merits or lack thereof of Humphreys’ presentation of why he believes his chronology is correct. I happen to agree, for the most part, that a generation in biblical times would have been significantly lower than what it is today. I even think the proposed twenty-five years above may be a bit high, given the available data I present in another article on this site [8]. But, Humphreys’ chronological speculations really don’t matter for the sake of determining whether or not history and the accompanying archaeological record will support Seti I and Rameses II as the pharaohs of the exodus story.

First of all, assume that Seti I was the pharaoh the biblical author(s) had in mind who they believed (or were inspired to write) instituted Hebrew slavery and commissioned the building of the store cities Pithom and Rameses. What do we know about Seti I and does his historical character and length of reign match what the Bible tells us of this proposed first pharaoh of the exodus story? Seti I was the son of Rameses I and indeed was likely the commissioner of the store city of Pi-Rameses in the Nile delta. Early in his first year as pharaoh, Seti I launched a military campaign into Syria. This campaign took him up the coast of Gaza as far north as the area of Tyre. All of this, and other military exploits, were well documented in reliefs on the walls of the great temple of Amun at Karnak. To think that this pharaoh was concerned about a swelling mob of Hebrews in his own delta, and that the subjugation of this nation under his rule for the safety of Egypt was not equally documented is virtually unthinkable.

Granting for the moment that Humphreys is correct, and when the Bible claims forty years passed for an event, or for the years of one’s life, it actually meant a “generation” of roughly 25 years, we have to look again at the chronology given in the exodus story for the major events of the narrative so we may align them with known Egyptian events. The Bible claims that Moses was 40 when he killed the Egyptian (Acts 7:23). According to Humphreys, that means Moses was actually closer to 25 years old. However, Seti I only reigned for about 14 or 15 years. It would therefore be impossible for Moses to have been born, as the exodus story is presented in the Old Testament, after the pharaoh had enslaved the Hebrews and commissioned them to build the store cities of Pithom and Rameses. Even if Seti I had commissioned their building in the first year of his reign and Moses had been born within a month of their ground-breaking, Seti I would have been dead some ten years before Moses killed the Egyptian and fled into exile. The Old Testament is therefore not reliable, if we are to take Humphreys’ suggestion that it was Seti I who set taskmasters over the Hebrews and forced them to make the store cities of Pithom and Rameses, when the scriptures states that this pharaoh did not die until sometime after Moses had spent some time in Midian, having fled from the wrath of this monarch.

But what if we assume that Bible simply does not mention the death of Seti I and that this reference to the death of the pharaoh who wished justice upon the murderous Moses was actually Seti I’s successor. If we are to believe Humphreys’ chronology and take seriously the suggestion that a “generation” in biblical times was roughly 25 years, that would mean that Moses killed the Egyptian during the reign of Rameses II and that it was this pharaoh who then dies while Moses is in exile. But Rameses II ruled for 67 years (or 66 according to Humphreys’ book) and it clearly states in the Bible that Moses stayed in Midian until he was 80 years old (Acts 7:30)—which, of course, means that Moses was 50 when he returned to Egypt since “40 years” doesn’t really mean 40 literal years in the biblical text but “one generation” of roughly 25 years. [9] Therefore, if the Bible claims Moses was 80 “years” old when he returned from Midian to set the captive Hebrews free then, according to Humphreys’ reckoning, only one “generation” had passed while Moses was away—a mere 25 years. But if Rameses II came to power while Moses was still a young man in Egypt who had not yet killed the Egyptian, and if Moses had only spent 25 years in Midian, that is not enough time for a pharaoh who ruled 66-67 years to die while Moses was away. It seems that no matter how you slice it, no matter how someone tries to rewrite the Hebrew Scriptures, the biblical story of the exodus and the historical and archaeological records simply don’t compliment one another.

But, say for the moment that Seti I was truly the pharaoh who enslaved the Hebrews in his first year as king. Also, take seriously the traditional Egyptian chronology as given in Humphreys’ book. In addition, let’s agree that “years” in the Hebrew Bible don’t really mean “years” in the conventional sense of 365 days, but that the term when used alongside certain numbers is formulaic for an ancient “generation,” roughly calculated as 25 years in length. And finally, assume that Moses had been born in the first year of Seti I’s reign. How, then, would biblical chronology and known Egyptian chronology line up? First of all, Seti I would have died when Moses was a teenager and this is not mentioned in the biblical text. The first mention of Moses after his birth is the story of his murder of the Egyptian at age “40.” Given Humphreys’ explanation, this would mean that Moses was actually closer to 25 years old and already about ten years deep into Rameses II’s reign. The next chronological marker we read about in the Bible is Moses’ return from his exile in Midian at the age of “80.” Again, according to Humphreys, this would have been closer to Moses’ 50th birthday and roughly 25 years after his flight from Egypt. Since Moses’ departure was about ten years into Rameses II’s reign, 25 years would place him back into Rameses II’s court upon his return since Rameses II ruled for about 67 years. However, the Bible clearly states that the pharaoh who had sought Moses’ life after he had killed the Egyptian had died while Moses was away in Midian and that this was one of the reasons it was “safe” for Moses to return to Egypt (Ex. 4:19). This simply couldn’t be referring to Rameses II given Humphreys’ “new chronology.”

Regardless, if Moses had returned to Rameses II’s court, no archaeological records exist to substantiate the biblical claim that the pharaoh who met Moses out of Midian saw his nation of Egypt suffer under extreme and debilitating plagues that literally brought the land to its knees. History tells us that Egypt actually enjoyed one of the most prosperous reigns under Rameses II, and that the nation was at its military finest. [10] There is absolutely no mention, absolutely no indication, that Rameses II’s army was decimated by losses of first-born males in the final plague of Yahweh or that (at least) a significant portion of its troops died when the great walls of water came rushing back after having been parted by the miracle of the parting of the Red Sea.

And even if we again assume, with rapidly lessening conviction, that the Hebrews did indeed flee Egypt under the reign of Rameses II who pursued them to the Red Sea, what then of the 40 “years” wandering in the desert of Sinai? Again, according to Humphreys, the 40 “years” was actually just one generation of 25 years (see note 9). If the Hebrews had fled Egypt roughly 35 years into Rameses II’s reign (Moses left for Midian 10 years into Rameses II’s reign and returned 25 years later in Rameses II’s 35th year) that means that Joshua and the new generation of Hebrews would have entered Canaan when Rameses II was still ruler over Egypt—in his 60th year! History records that Rameses II, and his successor Merenptah, had a firm grip over the area of Canaan and it is highly unlikely that a band of former slaves would have been able to avoid the remaining armies of the pharaoh and come to dominate the area of the so-called Promised Land. [11] In fact, it is Merenptah –as stated earlier—who first records the name “Israel” on a victory stele, claiming to have utterly destroyed the people of this name in a campaign in the land of Canaan. Surely the Bible is not recording very accurately the history of the region!

In order for history and the Bible to line up, one or both must suffer. And since we are to assume that the Bible is the word of an almighty and omniscient god, and since we are therefore to logically assume its reliability, why do men so frequently have to rewrite it for us in order to force-fit it into what archaeology is telling us about the true history of the ancient Near East? If the Old Testament is “reliable,” why isn’t it plainly so?

Another Approach: Following Biblical Chronology

Having realized the futility of trying to assign Rameses II as the pharaoh of the exodus story who commissioned the building of the store cities Pithom and Rameses, in spite of the clear naming of these cities within the biblical text, some proponents of biblical inerrancy will focus their efforts instead upon ignoring the naming of the cities and figuring out the date of the exodus from the Bible’s own internal chronology (accepting it, of course, as plain language and not reassigning the meaning of “years” to a speculative assumption about the length of an ancient “generation” as Humphreys does above). According to a summary of this biblical chronology in his article “The Patriarchal Age” found in the BAR publication, Ancient Israel, P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., William F. Albright Professor of Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, John Hopkins University, notes,

Obviously, then, the Bible’s own chronological details eliminate Rameses II from consideration as one of the pharaohs of the exodus as it places the event c. 1446 BCE while the pharaoh Rameses II reigned from 1279-1212 BCE. This, then, places a burden upon those who believe in the reliability of the Bible’s naming of the twin store cities. If Rameses II was the only pharaoh with this name who commissioned great building projects in the east Nile delta, why does the Bible claim that the pharaoh who built these cities used the name Rameses for one of the cities? Biblical inerrantists who reject Rameses II as one of the pharaohs of the exodus do not have a satisfactory answer. Instead, they ignore this question (or create more problems by coming up with “theories” to explain away the discrepancy [12]) and carry on with the Bible’s own chronology of events as outlined above.

Biblical inerrantist Gleason L. Archer is a good example of one such believer who ignores the naming of the store cities in the Old Testament and names the pharaohs of the story instead based upon known Egyptian history and the chronological information found in the Hebrew text. In his popular apologetics book New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, Archer explains that the “Exodus must have occurred back in 1446 or 1445 [BCE].” (p. 115) This agrees completely with McCarter’s chronology above. Archer goes on to explain,

It seems somewhat of a stretch to me to claim that, just because the apparition to Thutmose IV was “unusual,” that it was a “given” that, if Thutmose IV really was the legitimate heir to the throne, that such a stele would indicate that something unusual must have happened to the true heir to the throne (death) so that the “prophecy” of Harmakhis-Khepri-Re-Atum came true[14]. Connecting this “prophecy” with the tenth plague of Moses seems a bit far-fetched.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Thutmose IV would have been the pharaoh upon the Egyptian throne when Joshua and the freed band of Hebrews are biblically said to have been invading the so-called Promised Land. That was 40 years after their departure from the east Nile delta. Gleason Archer and many other like-minded apologists maintain via biblical chronology that Thutmose III was the pharaoh mentioned in the beginning of the book of Exodus. How, then, does the accepted chronology of the Egyptian kingships correspond with the biblical chronology of Moses’ life and the story of the exodus?

Recall, again, that it is convenient to assume that the pharaoh mentioned in the book of Exodus who commissioned the building of the store cities of Pithom and Rameses did so within the first year of his reign. If this were true of Thutmose III then the Hebrews began work on these cities in 1501 BCE. Thutmose III ruled for 54 years. If Moses had been born in the same year as the commissioning for the building of the cities, he would have fled Egypt for Midian c. 1461 BCE. Thutmose III would still have been alive and so this does not yet create a problem for the biblical inerrantist. Moses is said to have stayed in Midian for 40 years, returning to Egypt in c. 1421 BCE. During his time there the Bible tells us that the first pharaoh died. This works out well for biblical inerrantists since Thutmose III died c. 1447 BCE. Amenhotep II then took the reigns of power and ruled for 26 years. But here is where we have a problem. If we believe the biblical chronology and date Moses’ return to Egypt from Midian in 1421 BCE, that is the same year in which Amenhotep II is said to have died!

Granted, there is some slack that could be cut here and the biblical inerrantist given the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the Egyptian chronology, as best as can be ascertained from the material remains and interpretation by archaeologists, is off by a number of years. [15] Giving this latitude Amenhotep II could have still been alive when Moses returned from Midian and instead died a year or two following the exodus. So far, there are no glaring differences between the chronology of Thutmose III and Amenhotep’s rulerships and the timeline of the biblical exodus. But what about the historical details regarding these pharaohs’ reigns?

Notwithstanding the fact that Thutmose III would not have had a city named Rameses built in his honor as the Bible plainly states was done, many other more practical problems beset linking Thutmose III with the biblical exodus. As noted, the only “proof” Archer gives in favor of this man is that he coincides with the traditional biblical dating of the exodus and the dubious interpretation of the “Dream Stela” that suggests to apologists like Archer that Thutmose III’s grandson may have inherited the throne instead of the “rightful heir,” his older brother, who died in the tenth plague of Yahweh.

In addition to the highly unlikely scenario that pharaoh Thutmose III would have had any cities commissioned bearing the name of Rameses, another issue besetting Archer’s argument is the fact that Thutmoses III [16] had no building activities in the eastern Nile delta whatsoever, regardless of any city names he may have chosen. His prolific construction projects were concentrated in the cities of Abydos, Aswan, Heliopolis and Memphis. While only Heliopolis and Memphis could be considered (with a bit of a stretch) to be situated near the east Nile delta, in no sense could they be confused as store cities with the names Pithom and Rameses. In fact, the names of Memphis and Heliopolis are far better known than those of Pithom and Rameses. Heliopolis’ proper Egyptian name was Iunu which could hardly be confused with Rameses or Pithom. In fact, the Bible refers to Heliopolis by the name On (see Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20) [17], so it is hardly likely that one of the two store cities in Exodus would be confused with a city already named in the text. By the same token, Memphis in Egyptian was Mn-nfr and hardly would be confused with either Rameses or Pithom. Another interesting feature of Thutmoses III’s reign is the fact that when he succeeded his father to the throne, he was too young to effectively rule. This was the single time in ancient Egyptian history when a female ruler, Thutmoses III’s stepmother Hatshepsut, took the reigns of control over the nation. This was a unique moment in Egyptian history and after her death, and Thutmoses III’s release to sole rulership, records of Hatshepsut’s reign were systematically chiseled from her monuments. It is unlikely that her contribution and presence during the Hebrew’s sojourn in captivity would have been overlooked and unmentioned by the biblical author(s). Regardless, Thutmoses III was a brilliant military ruler, having campaigns even in the land that would be Israel. So expansive were his exploits that some historians even refer to him as the Napoleon of ancient Egypt. Thutmoses III took great pride in recording his military victories in minute detail. It is unlikely that the subjugation of millions of Hebrews would have gone unnoticed in his annals. [18]

Turning to the proposed pharaoh of the exodus itself, the ruler who felt the wrath of Yahweh’s plagues, recall that some apologists –Archer included—believe that this role was taken by Thutmoses III’s successor, Amenhotep II. Amenhotep II was known as a ruthless ruler, crushing rebellions even in Palestine, the future home of the freed Hebrew slaves. How likely was it, historically speaking, for this pharaoh to have bowed to the demands of the slaves’ spokesmen, Moses and Aaron? Would he have at first rebuffed their requests, later to acquiesce under the strain of the ten plagues or would he have dealt with Moses and Aaron and the complaints of the Hebrew slaves swiftly and brutally (if we are to assume for the moment that such slaves existed en masse [or in any number] under this pharaoh’s yoke)? As Fletcher notes regarding Amenhotep II’s treatment of the leaders of a Syrian rebellion early in his career:

Are we to believe that this same pharaoh, who so swiftly and brutally dealt with the Asiatic uprising in Syria and “who never hid his contempt for his former enemies” nonetheless allowed Moses and Aaron to threaten, cajole and play magic tricks in his court to obtain even temporary freedom for the Hebrew slaves? It seems far more likely that if Amenhotep II had in his kingdom slaves of the region of Syria and Palestine that he would have treated them in a most inhospitable fashion, likely stringing up any spokesmen they sent before pharaoh to plead on their behalf. It seems historically unlikely that pharaoh Amenhotep II would have allowed Moses and Aaron to get very far with their requests, so deep was his hatred for those of their race.

Besides, as it is with the other pharaohs mentioned, archaeological evidence is totally absent for Amenhotep II’s army having been decimated in the Red Sea. Amenhotep II’s army was one of the stiffest and strongest in Egyptian history. There is no indication that Egypt in the time of Amenhotep II suffered devastating losses of firstborn children, livestock or farmland. It is therefore historically unlikely that Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were the pharaohs mentioned in the book of Exodus. And as is seen in another article on my site [19], the archaeological evidence for a c. 1400 BCE departure from Egypt and subsequent conquest of Canaan is sorely lacking as well.

Final Thoughts

Even though this article has pointed out the great difficulty, and the near impossibility, of naming the historical pharaohs of the Hebrew exodus, there is no end to the creativity of those who maintain the belief in biblical inerrancy. It was not my intention to cover every possible explanation for the discrepancies between historical Egypt and the claims made in the exodus story. My intent was to highlight the main arguments and show how they are lacking in respect to aligning the known history of ancient Egypt and the so-called historical claims of the Old Testament. Biblical inerrantists assert that the Old Testament is reliable—historically, scientifically as well as ethically and theologically. I hope with this article to have called into question that assertion. From a plain reading of the text it is clear that the Bible and known history do not compliment one another. The Old Testament is not reliable, in this sense, with what we know of ancient history. If an omniscient deity inspired the writing of this document, and if historical accuracy was one of this omniscient deity’s concerns, there clearly is a problem with this claim.

So far the quest to name the pharaohs of the exodus remains elusive and the claim that the Old Testament is a reliable historical document is strained and selective at best.

NOTES

1. Some have tried to claim that the naming of the city of Rameses is an anachronism, placed upon the original city name in the text by a later editor or copyist who wished to “update” the story for contemporary audiences. Those who argue thus have seen the difficulty in aligning the pharaoh Rameses II with the biblical narrative of the Hebrew exodus as well as the trouble such a dating causes for a reconciliation between the known archaeological data of Canaan and the supposed Conquest narrative of the Book of Joshua. To this end, they look to the Bible’s own chronology of events and attempt to determine the date of the exodus from clues within the text and known historical events. Problems raised by this solution will be met in the final section of this article.Return to text

2. History actually records that Rameses II began his building projects very early in his career.Return to text

3. A year assumption is made here much like it is noticed that 9 months after a particular event in a particular place (a blackout in New York City; a blizzard in Lincoln, NE), an inordinate number of babies are born in local hospitals.Return to text

4. The text between the two edicts is interrupted by the narration that the Hebrew deity “dealt well with the midwives; and the people multiplied and became very strong.” (Ex. 1-20) However, unlike the earlier mention in the text of the Hebrews positive response to enforced hardship, this narration does not seem to imply that much time elapsed between Pharaoh’s discovery of the midwives rejection of his orders and his repeat command to all his people to kill the male Hebrew children.Return to text

5. Recall that this article is written to address the fundamentalist assertion that God inspired all the texts of the Old and New testaments and thus, ultimately, is their author. Therefore, regardless of the physical hand that wrote the Book of Acts, the ultimate author of the text is God.Return to text

6. “The Egyptian pharaoh Merneptah (1213-1203 BCE) provides the earliest nonbiblical reference to ancient Israel, in a short poem appended to a much longer prose account of his self-proclaimed victory over the Libyans and their allies, the Sea Peoples. The victory stela (now usually known as the ‘Israel Stela”) was erected in 1209 in Merneptah’s funerary temple at Thebes. The relevant part of the victory ode reads:
   The princes are prostrate, saying ‘Shalom’ [Peace]!
   Not one is raising his head among the Nine Bows.
   Now that Libya [Tehenu] has come to ruin,
   Hatti is pacified.
   The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe;
   Ashkelon has been overcome;
   Gezer has been captured;
   Yanoam is made nonexistent;
   Israel is laid waste and his seed is not; Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.” (p. 124) The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Return to text

7. Some have argued (Ron Wyatt, for example: see “Exodus to Red Sea: Part III” that the name “Rameses” was little more than a title and applied to a variety of kings throughout Egyptian history. As Ron Wyatt explains,
   “Egyptian evidence shows that every native Egyptian king from the time of the so-called 5th dynasty was titled ‘Son of the Sun’ or ‘Rameses’ in addition to his other names. This has caused massive confusion among the Egyptian scholars, who have zeroed in on one particular pharaoh, ‘Rameses II’, and proclaimed him the ‘greatest pharaoh of all Egypt’. All one needs to do is go to the museum in Cairo and view the four statues of ‘Rameses II’ in the main entrance hall- each one is clearly a different person. The inscriptions referring to ‘Rameses’ refer to many different pharaohs.”

   But, as was evidenced in Kenneth Kitchen’s book, how many of these pharaohs would have built a pair of twin cities in the east Nile delta, commissioning one of them to bear the name Rameses? Critics of the attribution of Rameses II to the first king of the Hebrew exodus story do not have an answer and thus they fail to uphold the assertion that the Old Testament is a reliable historical document. Return to text

8. See my article “Playing the Numbers Game”Return to text

9. Humphreys writes, “There is evidence that in the Old Testament forty years is often a round number meaning a generation. For example, Psalm 95:10 writes of the Exodus wanderings, ‘For forty years I was angry with that generation.’…Moses is said to have been forty when he killed the Egyptian slave master and fled to Midian, eighty when he saw the burning bush, and one hundred twenty when he died. The number forty is used so many times in the Bible that it seems clear it is often meant to be taken as a round number, and that in particular forty years often means a generation.”(pp. 32-33) And as shown in the text above, Humphreys argues that a “generation” was roughly 25 years in length. Return to text

10. “In the thirteenth century, Egypt was at the peak of its authority –the dominant power in the world.” (p. 60) The Bible Unearthed Return to text

11. “Secure in possession of Palestine and part of Syria free from outside interference, the [Rameside] administration of these territories was reorganised about this time with key Egyptian strongholds and permanent garrisons. Further unrest [in the region of Palestine/Canaan] was put down by Ramses II’s successor Merenptah.” (p. 200) The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt.

    Also, “The Egyptian grip over Canaan was firm[during the 13th century BCE]; Egyptian strongholds were built in various places in the country, and Egyptian officials administered the affairs of the region.” (p.60) The Bible Unearthed. Return to text

12. Some inerrantists argue that the naming of the cities Rameses and Pithom are anachronisms imposed upon the text by later copyists ard were not present in the “original” autographs. As apologist Robert Turkel (pen name, James Patrick Holding) writes, “…the obvious solution [regarding the assignment of the name Rameses to the store city in Exodus is] that the city name was a later scribal gloss intended to take the place of a city name that no longer existed, much as ‘Dan’ is named in Genesis although that city did not exist at the time described.” (Taken from his article regarding Jericho at http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_05_04_01.html) What such explanations fail to do, and Mr. Turkel’s is no exception, is reclaim the so-called “original” names of the store cities to prove their case. Such proposals are mere assertions without benefit of explanation. If, indeed, the city names of Rameses and Pithom are later “glosses” on the text, then apologists like Mr. Turkel have the burden of proof of providing the names of the original sites. If Pithom and Rameses are later scribal “glosses,” what original names did they replace? Again, such demonstrations of the reliability of the Old Testament are rarely done.Return to text

13. Please take note that in Archer’s explanation he went from stating that there was a possible innocuous reason for this “Dream Stela” to the fact that there must have been an older brother who was in line for the throne of Egypt ahead of Thutmose IV, thus deceptively drawing his audience to his biblically-based conclusion! Archer presents no evidence that Thutmose IV had an older brother (Amenhotep II’s firstborn) who may have died in the tenth plague of Yahweh.Return to text

14. The so-called “prophecy” of the Dream Stele that Archer doesn’t reproduce for his readers actually has to do with a request from the Great Sphinx to remove the sand that had blown in to cover it, even in Thutmose IV’s day. The stele reports the “prophecy” as one which promises Thutmose IV the throne if he uncovered the Sphinx. The stele reads in part,

    "Now the statue of the very great Khepri (the Great Sphix) resting in this place, great of fame, sacred of respect, the shade of Ra resting on him. Memphis and every city on its two sides came to him, their arms in adoration to his face, bearing great offerings for his ka. One of these days it happened that prince Thutmose came traveling at the time of midday. He rested in the shadow of the great god. (Sleep and) dream (took possession of me) at the moment the sun was at zenith. Then he found the majesty of this noble god speaking from his own mouth like a father speaks to his son, and saying, 'Look at me, observe me, my son Thutmose. I am your father, Horemakhet-Khepri-Ra-Atum. I shall give to you the kingship (upon the land before the living)...(Behold, my condition is like one in illness), all (my limbs being ruined). The sand of the desert, upon which I used to be, (now) confronts me; and it is in order to cause that you do what is in my heart that I have waited."

    The “fulfillment” of this prophecy was, of course, Thutmose IV ascension to the throne of Egypt. What made this “prophecy” come true, obviously, was the removal of the debris that encased the Great Sphinx. Nothing at all in the Dream Stele indicates that Thutmose IV had an elder brother who died, thus fulfilling the “prophecy” reported upon it. Return to text

15. Colin Humphreys notes in his book, The Miracle of the Exodus, that “[t]here is an interlocking network of evidence supporting the conventional Egyptian chronology, and that maximum likely error in the dates at this time [thirteenth century BCE] is about twenty years [in either direction].” (p. 30) I see no reason to dispute Humphreys’ assertion and agree that exact dates cannot be pinpointed in ancient history.Return to text

16. Historical notes here are taken largely from two sources: The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt edited by Stephen Quirke and Jeffrey Spencer, Thames and Hudson, 1992 and Chronicle of a Pharaoh: The Intimate Life of Amenhotem III by Joann Fletcher, Oxford University Press, 2000.Return to text

17. See http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=563&letter=H
    Return to text

18. For additional online information regarding Thutmoses III, see site http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis3.htm
    Return to text

See my upcoming article “On the Unreliability of Jericho” Return to text

SOURCES

Archer, Gleason L. (1982) New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties. Zondervan

Coogan, Michael D., ed. (1998) The Oxford History of the Biblical World. Oxford University Press

Finkelstein, Israel and Neil Asher Silberman (2001) The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origins of Its Sacred Texts. The Free Press

Fletcher, Joann (2000) Chronicle of a Pharaoh: The Intimate Life of Amenhotep III. Oxford University Press.

Humphreys, Colin J. (2003) The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientists’s Discovery of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories. HarperCollins Publishers, Inc.

Kitchen, Kenneth A. (2003) On the Reliability of the Old Testament. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

McCarter, Kyle (1999) “The Patriarchal Age: Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,” Ancient Israel: From Abraham to the Roman Destruction of the Temple, pp.1-31. Biblical Archaeology Society.

Quirke, Stephen and Jeffrey Spencer, eds. (1992) The British Museum Book of Ancient Egypt. Thames and Hudson.
 

---

within All text Title Keywords Descriptions File name   using All words Any words Exact phrase