Apologies up front: the first few sections of this webpage are decidedly acerbic, for which I apologize. So maybe just skim the content until you get to "Historical 'fit'" intra-page link #H, which takes you through the history from Joseph's time, forward.
For God Structures Time Based On The Meaning Of Each Time Segment, for even Time itself is used to teach you more about God Himself. Real Time, Real God, real Meaning you can test. Once you see how He did the accounting in Dan9:25-26 based on the longevity of the 1st Temple versus its own 490 'promise' of time, you see the entire structure. Then it's a matter of tracing the Bible date-verses using that Structure, to date stuff. From that, comes added knowledge about the Character of God, not merely a greater certitude about the Fact He is Who He is. Pretty powerful proof of an interpretation, really. So you can also be sure you're not hallucinating meaning. Bible is thus your Textbook, the Holy Spirit your Mentor, and you really learn much via all that date searching. Not at all arcane.
So you can measure the years all the way down to Christ's death in 30AD owing to Jewish rejection, versus the Daniel-9 scheduled 37AD. It's tedious to do this, but far simpler and cheaper than chasing after relics. Makes any archeological work a whole lot simpler too. As a nice side benefit, you thus know where to look for your relics, astronomical data, etc. Frankly, Bible could be used to interpret and correct much of the historical data we have, so we'd have better empirical results.
It's an old lawyer's or politician's trick to "prove" what one wants to prove by asking and answering the wrong questions. Deflects attention away from the right questions, gets the listener to agree with the opinion one wants 'bought' by answers given which -- of course -- discredit the object of such questions. Just turn on CSPAN during a committee hearing, or go to any trial, see how it plays. Research that slants will likewise ask and answer the wrong questions to get the conclusions, it wants. The layman usually doesn't have the wherewithal to vet accuracy, so if the story sounds cohesive, seems sprinkled with enough facts and the researcher looks respectable, hey -- it was on TV, so it must be true. Yeah, right. Please, then -- test what you read here. Clearly, I'm convinced of a certain answer. Test what you read, see if the right questions and answers are handled, k?
So when it comes to the dating of the Exodus, don't be surprised to find that the wrong questions are asked there, too; so no 'proof' is deemed found. Yeah, if your keys are in the glove box and you insist on searching in the trashcan, you won't find the keys. You'll find in your researches that a whole lot of respectable folks routinely assign the wrong dates to the Exodus, and have done so for generations. Of course, then any searches for confirming data will be in the wrong time period, so nothing will be found. Then, oh! the Exodus didn't happen! Yeah, not then it didn't. Using the Bible's own system of dating, the Exodus happened 1440BC. We can date it accurately, because the Bible timeline begins its count of Israel the nation based on Exodus as its Birthdate. The page top link, "Dan 9 Timeline" will acquaint you with the structure, and the many independently determined dates in history that tie to the Biblical dates via its timeline system.
[In Central Park New York City, there's an obelisk named Cleopatra's Needle. It's not from Cleopatra, but from Thutmose III. Meaning, a chronicle of Moses' time under Hatshepsut (more follows below). The transportation for which, was donated by a rich person (Thank God), William H. Vanderbilt, son of Commodore Vanderbilt, the guy who created a stable American transportation infrastructure, and thus brought US out of our medieval European mindset. Source: the Vanderbilt Women by Clarice Stasz, p.81. Encarta will only tell you that Ismail Pasha donated one of the Needles to Britain, and the other, to the US, in 1878 and 1880, respectively. The transportation, however, was astronomically expensive. So now that Egypt is trying to get back all her relics, don't count on it happening anytime soon: transport costs are much higher, now. See? Pretty good thing God gave that guy so much money, huh: the Bedouin and other people in Egypt routinely break up priceless artifacts they find to get more money from selling the pieces (i.e., read up on Qumran), so we'd not have this obelisk if William H. didn't value spending the money on it to bring it here. Same story, for how we even get a Bible to read: torn shreds, sometimes -- greed, over Read.]
God is not so petty or wasteful to retaliate against our prejudices against Him. Instead, He graces us all out, no matter how prejudiced against Him we ALL are (no exceptions, it's in the genes). Watch how Bible's dating corrects the centuries' off error of typical scholarship. Gee, God really can count.
Source Material Used for this webpage: Pharaonic dates and biographical data below only come from my 1985 set of Encyclopedia Britannica, hereafter abbreviated to "EB". On the internet, there's sooo much variation on Biblically-significant Pharaohs, a reader goes crazy: even the "Encyclopedia of the Orient" has in its dogpile description, that Amenhotep II reigned from 1450-1424BC, like my set of EB says -- but when you click on the Orient's link, you see text which changes his reign to "1427-1400" BC! Another link wipes out even Hatshepsut's reign, putting Amenhotep II in her place, killing him off at 1482BC! Worse, www.britannica.com changes his reign to "1426-1400BC". All the other dates of the Pharaohs are changed, too! What happened to scholarship since 1985? Downright weird, what's sometimes on the internet. So I'm only using my 1985 set of EB for Pharaonic dates, because it makes sense, versus what else is out there. [Particular reigns were from the Macropedia abstracts; the main EB article titled "Egypt, History of" was used as well.]
The regnal years' listing below was mainstream in 1985 and (largely) in prior years. But the Bible's information 'suits' those years, as you'll see by the time you finish this page. The same information in BIBLE might suit other regnal configurations, too, I don't know. This is what I'm using, to show the method.
Bible doesn't say the names of the Pharaohs, generally; no names are given for Pharaohs related to Joseph or the Exodus. Now I know why: God foreknew there would be so much confusion! So you go by what happened during those YEARS, and whoever the Pharaoh really was, that's the guy! Still looks like the EB dating is the most sensible. So here's what my set of EB lists as the reigns of the relevant Pharaohs:
Other Pharaohs mentioned here are for histo-cultural background information. I'd rather not list all the dates I have from the 12th through the 19th dynasty.
You can find a good many more articles on the internet, simply by searching on "Exodus 1440 BC" and "Amenhotep II". None of the articles wholly agree with each other. Yeah, since there was so much defacing done due to the Exodus, and because the Exodus is related to BIBLE: so it becomes a political football, in academia. Amazing, how to be anti-Bible is called "objective", but to give more credence to known defacing of monuments, and to ignore solid political evidence of the Exodus historically VIA the Bible, is called "subjective". So now you know why I just stick to my 1985 set of Encyclopedia Britannica for this writeup. You can examine other sources for yourself at your leisure.
Funny how it's the Biblically significant Pharaohs whose identities and dates are the hardest to pin down, huh. You just know this dating quest wouldn't be so convoluted, if it weren't related to the Bible, huh. Good thing God gave us His Word, rather than surrendering our learning to mere relics and academia's always-hedged guesses.
Again, you'll first need to understand Mirroring.htm's accounting system, to fully understand the significance of these real historical replays within the last 120 years of each 490-year period. Especially, since the 490s are layered atop each other, benchmarked to believers, then Temple, and finally to Christ. Very deft, complex, and demonstrably from God (with Satan reacting): so you trust His System when it comes to the much smaller task of merely dating the Exodus. Don't need the Sothic method or even the stars (lol God forbid astrology in Deut 18, so won't use the stars as proof); though you can improve those methods, if you use the Divine method.
Consequently I really don't care which Pharaohs were reigning in 1440BC; the Timeline, itself accounts for all time from Adam through Christ; the Pharaohs and their regnal years are thus based on the long-stable extra-Biblical data we have. If we find that data is wrong, we'll be able to attach the right names. But we shouldn't go bass-ackwards, trying to look at the Pharaohs to see when the Exodus was. We should use the Bible, first. That's what I'm doing here.
So for the sake of argument, the data below 'fits' the relevant Pharaohs to the Biblical account, and thus two independent dating methods make a remarkable case for what really happened; however the Biblical account does not say whether "Pharaoh's daughter" had any political issues or problems bearing children, etc. Turns out Hatshepsut did, and what seems like the most accurate dating for her puts her there as "Pharaoh's daughter". So her identity, as with all the Pharaonic identities, are extra-Biblical conclusions based on extra-Biblical data. But you be the judge.
Given what Bible says and what historical facts we have, the following 'hints' should have alerted scholars where to look in history for the right Exodus date:
Given all the trashing of relics practiced by the Arabs to make more money, and given the Egyptian penchant for whitewashing their own history, your search for data of any kind is problematic. What I liked about that "www.sacred-texts.com" site was its promise of lots of writing left behind. In a large body of writing -- i.e., the Bible -- you can find all kinds of linkages that in a smaller set wouldn't be apparent: omissions, inclusions, later reversals, etc. Counterfeits and coverups don't hide well when you have large masses of data. The trick is to know how to search the data -- but the evidence will be in there. Too little information is like the blind man and the elephant. But there is a LOT of information, here.
And what you find, is that the Thutmose name, which is supposed to be the "zenith" (per EB), isn't so well liked, but rather --defaced. Moreover, no one after Thutmose IV takes the name, and even he seems to be defaced, maybe for taking the name. Big warring, then from one reign to the next, trying to blot out the Thutmose name. Why? So that should have alerted the scholars to focus on this. Of course, in the early 20th century, it was mainstream theology to focus on the Thutmose house; but that window of recognition didn't last long.
Yet the supposed presence of so many Thutmose III scarabs all over Palestine helps you know when the Exodus occurred, given Exodus 11:2. Refer to "A History of Egypt: From Earliest Times to the Present" for a 1905 analysis of history. For the controversy concerning scarabs, refer to this page: "The Significance of Scarabs". Again, you'll have to draw your own conclusions.
Bible says the Egyptians gave valuables in enormous quantity to departing Jews and their converts, so such valuables were in the wilderness, and then in the Land. People would have traded with them, or otherwise used them, which accounts for the wide distribution of the scarabs. It needn't be a worship thing or a hate thing -- as some scholars suppose -- but simply hoarding, or having a souvenir of a very memorable time. Amenhotep II is only recorded as having 9 years' battles -- very abnormal. And he wasn't Pharaoh but for those 9 years, by the time Moses went to 'visit'. So there wouldn't be too many of his own scarabs, and who would want them? Whereas, if the real Thutmose III for the Hatshepsut years was Moses -- and you'll see below why that idea makes sense -- then yes, such scarabs would be desirable for those departing, but not so desirable a memento for those staying behind. People don't like being reminded of their negativity. In short, the presence of material identifiable as belonging to Thutmose III, should be widespread in the Middle East -- it was the booty of those departing.
Just the same, people should be skeptical of relics; you can always draw antithetical conclusions based on the same facts, which is why most courts won't allow convictions based on circumstantial evidence. Especially here, where we have widespread evidence of tampering/defacement. A mummy in a tomb is labeled "Amenhotep II"; how do you know it's really him? Same problem as the Christians have with their relics, all too drooly over some mere assertion that Peter is buried in Rome, some new ossuary's bones are from James, some old wood is from the Ark, or that some burial cloth is Christ's. Sheesh: sucker born every minute. What facts don't fit, you must then quit. What facts do fit, you must admit. When facts are defaced, they must be replaced. The truth always hangs together as a coherent whole, so long as you keep on questioning the premise. False premise, false conclusion, and then whatever facts you have, you can't properly discern.
In short, you're better off using what the Bible says, and then reconstruct the chronology it provides, to the historical 'evidence' you think you have. Then test for plausibility. That's what I'll do here, after this 'alphabet' list of bullets.
So, his son by adoption was Thutmose I, a general of his staff who was unrelated; the latter married Amenhotep's widow ("God's Wife") Ahmose upon Amenhotep's death. Followed by, Thutmose II, III. The latter was supposed to be Egypt's greatest Pharaoh, per EB.
Hmmm. Seems like something's going on, here. One generation repudiates the Thutmose house, another reclaims it, and the last of the line, goes wacko over monotheism -- all a good century+ before the usual dates given for the Exodus by scholars. What happened? Weren't the scholars alerted by these odd facts? Nothing fits the Ramses data, that scholars should date Moses with Ramses II. The closest 'logic' I could find goes back to the days of the Ottoman Empire, when some scholar then concluded that because Ramses was so successful, surely Moses was born then. Yeah. Then, there was another who, looking at Akhenaton, decided that the monotheism was influenced by Moses, so surely Moses came before that. Yeah, but didn't anyone just ask Bible? [I don't want to name the names of these folks, just point out the errors, since they are typical of the genre. Speculation by a hoary head becomes a cast-in-stone 'truth' by later scholars, who don't vet the hoary head, since it was a hoary head. Making gods out of people dishonors even the people, let alone God Himself.]
As will be repeated later in this page, Amenhotep II only had 9 annual campaigns of his own. So if he came to power in 1450BC, then his rule ended at the Exodus, one way or another. It makes sense that either the concubine's son or Amenhotep II -- or even Thutmose IV -- would be keen on defacing a Moses. If what the Bible says is true, Moses shamed Egypt twice: first, by abdicating; and then by shaming the current Pharaoh directly. A HEBREW slave boy put on the throne by a woman! Too much shame, to tolerate.
See a video on Discovery or History channel about how the Ramses did it, to get the idea. The Ramses were real keen on expunging any past Pharaohs who would dishonor their lineage; moreover, it was common to just tack ON to a 'good' pharaoh's reign, the years of some successor who was not so good. That practice was not without precedent, which scholars know. So why didn't anyone clue into the unusual nature of this Thutmose III, and ask gee, were there two of them? Plenty of reason to suspect it, especially since they know defacement occurred; since they know one of the temples of Thutmose did tack on years that belonged to Hatshepsut's so-called regency period (first 22 years).
Yeah, and worse -- since slavery in modern times was largely agricultural, the debunkers ASSume that any slavery is agricultural, and then project their false ideas on the Bible. Without reading it, of course. That's bad scholarship, k? [They do the same thing with Genesis -- God never depicts Adam as a hunter-gatherer or meat-eater, but a taxonomist; nor is Cain a meat eater, but a farmer and a city-builder. So are the other kids. But that stops no one from calling the Bible a liar because it accounts Adam's Fall back to 4106 BC (see GeneYrs.xls for the Bible chronology, test it yourself).]
Ask wrong questions, get wrong answers! Bible is real clear on the nature of the Hebrew slavery and why it happened, saying they were involved in agriculture before the enslavement, living in Lower (northern) Egypt, around the Delta area, Genesis 47:6. But when they were enslaved beginning in the reign of Amenemhet III, they were enslaved as BUILDERS, to take away the land from them, since "Goshen" was some of the most fertile land in Egypt, Genesis 47:6, Exodus 1:8, :11, 8:22.
Which is what happened under Amenemhet III, one of Egypt's famous 'builder' Pharaohs, per EB; though of course EB mentions nothing about the Hebrews being there. Note the tactic well: by making them BUILDING slaves on their own land, they are effectively disenfranchised from that land, in the name of building STORAGE cities on the same ground. Not too hard to do: 'the people' need storage against any future famine! For famine was common, and everyone knew to go to Egypt during a famine. And of course you need the storage near where you grow the crops. So, kinda like today's tactic: Government announces it's building a freeway, to reduce congestion 'for the people'; and oh, by the way -- it's gonna go right through your house! Government thus offers you some pittance to 'compensate' you for the house; but of course two seconds after the news is out, your house is utterly worthless to any other buyer. Not sure that's the tactic which Amenemhet used; Hitler did much the same thing to the Jews long before the attacks against them escalated to the smash-window genre. Thus you see the kind of creeping or sudden trickery which can be played on someone, to look like 'freedom' which is slavery. Governments are masters at this trickery, past or present. It's Satan's world, see.
Yeah, and God still gives Grace! For had Goshen not been 'converted' like this, by the time the locust plague hit Egypt (Exodus 10), there was no food anywhere to be had, no livestock. Only Goshen -- with its storage cities intact, presumably -- was spared. Compare what Pharaoh wants in Exodus 10:8, versus 10:24. By v.24, he doesn't want hostages, he wants FOOD. Blessing by association, baby. We curse Him, He blesses us. Preview of coming attractions: Revelation (seventh-seal) Trib plagues are patterned after the Exodus plagues, so the world cannot mistake Who is doing them. Check it out for yourself.
Yet the weird contention by some among the world's 'scholars' who debunk the Exodus: they wrongly define Israel's slavery as agricultural; of course that's not the kind of slavery Egypt practiced, so lo! Israel wasn't there! Can you imagine, this fake-lawyer trick of 'scholarship' is 'respectable'? My 1985 EB has that claim; I've seen it from time to time in documentaries, too; you'll find it on the internet: too embarrassing to name the names of these 'scholars'. For everyone knows from the Book of Exodus (or even the "Ten Commandments" movie), that the sons of Jacob (aka Jews aka Israel) were enslaved in Egyptian building projects, from which comes the aphorism about making bricks without straw. Everyone can know that Amenemhet III was a nut for building projects, as indeed every Pharaoh was. Cain went out and built a city, and so the building idea being associated with greatness, is as old as Cain (see Genesis 4 account). In Egypt, that building idea represented its preoccupation with death -- and hence its obsession to appease the gods. These are common facts. But if you ask the wrong questions, you can ignore the right facts.
You see something of these same trends in Greece (etc.) circa 3000 BC, and perhaps this trend in Egypt is due to the Greeks then, for there are many similarities between the two cultures and their religious stories. Bear in mind that Methusaleh was born circa 3419BC per Bible's Gen5 chronology (see GeneYrs.xls), so the world was on red alert that the Flood was coming (Methu+saleh= "when he dies, destruction comes"). So you'd expect much apostacy worldwide, and you'd expect it to have the same character. Moreover, often in history the Greeks roamed and caused trouble; the people thus attacked, united. So here in Egypt, their native rulers were considered caretakers for the gods, and had at least quasi-pontificatory status. So they regarded themselves as the on-earth priestly nation for the gods; hence each city was supposed to be patronized by a god. So building was a way of honoring the god. So it was a big deal. So in all those cities, archeological excavations near the building projects show large populations of slaves lived nearby; and you can find them long before the 1300's BC. You won't find anything of Jewish cultural character, since there was no Jewish culture until after the Exodus. So they'd look, dress, act Egyptian (witness how the daughters of Jethro first described Moses as "Egyptian", Exodus 2:19).
After 400 years, things morph. So the Egyptian religion and culture by the 1500's would be much more a mixture of the many times the Hebrews had talked of The Real God, and the Egyptian pantheon. So for that reason also, you won't find anything of distinctly Jewish character. The Law had not yet come.
There are no Ramses pharaohs until the 19th dynasty, and the very name smacks of aping Hatshepsut's ruse to hold power (covered below, #9). Yet Ra is the head god in the pantheon; so obviously the cities are older, and the reason earlier Pharaohs took the names of lesser gods, was in honor of Ra. But yet another clue to the real Exodus is here; for as time passes, especially after Amenhotep II, the need to take higher names, rejecting the older ones, reaches a climax in Akhenaton (Ra=Aton), so the Exodus had to happen before he even reigned. It's logical that once a Pharaoh takes the highest name, if a later one opts for a lower name, the next guy will make up for that sleight and go back.. hence Ramses is later, not earlier. So the definition of what 'honors', began with the idea one should take a lower name; but ends in reverse, with the idea one takes the same name; that reversal happened due to the Exodus. For that's the first time THE God the Highest calls His People "Israel"="Prince of God" -- by His Own Name. That was new. New to Israel, which didn't exist until then; new to the Egyptians, and new to everyone else. Trace how people name themselves from the Exodus forward, versus prior. Big change: Jewish names end with -el from that time forward. Other cultures aped that idea, too. Notice how the angels have that suffix, as well. But the people before this time, didn't.
Akhenaton made a shrewd political move to content a populus, as well as to sideline, marginalize the power of the many Egyptian priesthoods; it's a lot like Henry VIII's break with the Catholic Church, in that sense. Egypt from the beginning was a political patchwork, as most gradually-uniting large polities are; fiefdoms of many kinds -- especially the religious ones -- are only defeated long-term if you can cultivate the masses to support you directly. So Akhenaton capitalized on his high status religiously, to serve political ends. By inventing a new priesthood using the long-standing belief in Ra, all the lesser gods worshipped -- and their priesthoods -- are sidelined. Yet, tradition remains. So this switch tells you that Egypt was in religious ferment at the time; else he couldn't have made such a switch.
Further, this development of Aton (nee: Ra) was designed to counter and compete with, not conform to, Israel's God: precisely because Atun is only One. For Israel's God is Three, not One: Father, Son, Spirit. So Akhenaton is shrewd to newly claim monotheism, thus marginalizing both the Egyptian priesthoods and remembrance of Israel's Godhead. Akhenaton's attempt backfired, and would be repudiated (priesthoods like their power); but so long as he was alive, he had some success.
Look how obvious the proof that Bible's not monotheistic: Father Son and Spirit are Three Separate Persons. So "monotheism" is really the wrong description for the Biblical God, and always has been: it's a bad term some invented to assert the Genuine Truth that They are of Co-Identical, Infinite Nature/Attributes. Not polytheism, since in polytheism the gods are not equal in nature/essence. So neither polytheistic nor monotheistic, but Trinity, is the Real nature of Each "God". So they are truly "One", alright: but "one" in either the Hebrew or Greek inspired texts more often first means "united", with stress on the voluntary nature; means "unique", i.e., One Son, One Father, One Spirit, hence is not restricted to one person of the Same Identical Essence; means "same as", "first". Yeah, Same Essence, Each One Wholly God. That's not "only one God" (which is a mistranslation, anyway). Look up all the "one" verses in the original language texts and ponder the "one" wordplay, see for yourself. Sometimes it really helps to do one's homework in The Bible. Amazing, how huffy people get when you try to show 2Cor13:14 as Three Identical, Co-Equal, Same-Essence Gods: the THREE Greek articles deftly state all that.
So now you know something else: MANY EGYPTIANS CONVERTED. Sure, maybe a lot of them converted to get into that fertile land of Goshen, or get the favorable treatment the Jews got; but many more, because they believed in Joseph's God. So there you have the numbers problem -- not due to unusual fertility in the Jews themselves, but due to conversion. Not too hard to understand a new Pharaoh and his vizier, would worry.
So how could they be tricked? Well, remember how slavery was generally used at the time. Slavery doesn't necessarily mean lowlifers or bad living conditions; it means the "master" owns you, and there's a certain contractual consent implied. For you probably don't knife your couch, since you use it; you don't kick the dog, since you don't want him to bite that foot while you sleep. By the same token, if you have skilled slave labor, you don't just beat it up: skilled labor is smart, not dumb. Slavery wasn't pooh-poohed like it is today, and many a slave had great responsibility. Great security, too. Witness how the Israelites wanted to go back to Egypt, complaining many times to Moses as they went in circles in the "wilderness". So if slavery were so bad -- why did they want to return to it? Gee whiz. A little Bible reading goes a long way.
Moreover, slavery was often considered an honor, a security, and it came in two flavors, one of which was voluntary -- which is why the later Mosaic Law had proscriptions against it, limiting its time. Further, you can't get your pyramid built by poorly feeding your workers, and you can't manage a large population of slaves strictly by the whip, lest they overwhelm you with their large numbers. You have to practice psychological slavery to get a competent physical kind -- especially, if you want it to reproduce. Sheesh. That's how communism and every other ism, every religion, gets its power! Does no one think of these obvious facts?
Next, if a slave population is isolated, as the temple-building slaves were: then they essentially have their own society to themselves. They have their own internal management and life. Not too shabby. Again, if we would look at Bible, we'd realize the Hebrews weren't keen on being freed by Moses. Moses suffers all kinds of insults and cold-shouldering by the Israelites, as the Exodus account shows. They do not respect him. So if slavery were so bad -- why weren't they salivating for his help? God had to arm Moses with a mouth (Aaron), and a couple of Divine tricks (the leprosed hand and rod) to get them to hear him. So, think: slavery gets pretty comfortable, too. All through the years in the wilderness the Israelites never let Moses forget he brought them out of a nice place (never mind that the 'fiery serpents' -- so named for the way the venom felt -- could zap them at any time). They ever wanted to return to it.
For, the key to enslavement is to foster a docile, worshipful mentality in the subjects. Carrot and stick, with a lot of carrots: fostering a reverent mystique in the master, etc. That's how slavery largely worked in the ancient world. You don't mistreat your property, if you want it to be competent, see. Severity in treatment was judiciously used to keep the population respectful. Understand that the culture of the ancient world prized what today we'd call machismo, or the Caudillo. The Strong Man. So it was expected that any punishment would be severe, and to not do that was to be weak. And therefore, despised.
The Jews are always tricked into slavery, beginning with Jacob. He was tricked into serving 20 years out of the initial agreement for 7, and Laban changed Jacob's 'wages', 10 times (Genesis 31:41). So, they are tricked again, Exodus 1:8. Most recent example is Germany prior to WWII; that was used for the current 'trick' of herding the Jews back to Israel proper, a 2000-year-attempt, disclosed as Satan's Revelation 13-17 "shub" ("return") plan; it fostered the current return to Israel against God's orders (covered in LvS4a.htm "Stone Witnesses" and "Revelation 6-17 trends" links). [Sigh: this is not to say Israel should not exist. Quite the opposite. It is instead to say that we all get tricked, and Israel is the quintessential Biblical example of human nature; we should learn from her and protect her; NOT be anti-semitic, like Satan is. Whoever's appointed God's Chosen -- which during Church is anyone who believes in Christ, Jew or Gentile, Galatians 3:26-28 -- is Satan's target. Jews are still protected even while unbelievers, under Genesis 12 and like clauses. Woe to anyone who won't defend them, however much they always do the Kadesh-Barnea opposite of God's Will (i.e., pattern of Deut 1:44 in context).]
Any people is tricked into slavery, especially if they have faith in something. Always use the faith, to advance the ruse.
Notice that with the change of the status of the Hebrews, moving them to do all that building, vacated much of the land of Goshen, which was contiguous to what we know as the Saudia Arabian peninsula -- long a land bridge for invading armies, as even Israel has always been -- so the Egyptian Delta region becomes populated with new foreign peoples.. who eventually take over Lower (northern) Egypt. The situation lasts until the late 1500's BC, when Kamose manages to largely drive them out. His successor Ahmose, finally reunites Egypt under himself, and Egyptians rule Egypt once more. The vizier status remains, however. Hence the "king" (Melek, probably vizier) in Exodus 1:8 and Exodus 1:15 are separated by some 300 years, but similar power to influence a relatively new dynasty. King-makers.
Ahmose I, as noted earlier, reunited Egypt against the Hyksos. His victory was significant, but the Hyksos would remain a problem until sometime between 1504-1480BC: the time when Moses was an adult in Hatshepsut's house, fighting against them. Looks like when they left in the late 1500's, they mixed with, allied with, the Mitanni and kept on causing Egypt trouble.
See EB's "Egypt, History of" article on the "Second Intermediate Period", which it classes as a time of "social..upheaval", beginning somewhat during, and after Amenemhet III. Of course, the social upheaval would have been the enslaving and moving of those many Hebrews -- who aren't mentioned by name in EB.
The only other suitable husband for so high a Queen would have to come from outside Egypt -- perish the thought! -- maybe among the Mitanni, or other royal houses -- which meant that Egypt would fall under foreign control. Well, that's what her father and her father's father, had just succeeded in thwarting. So the last thing she'll want to do, is marry again. Now, she doesn't have to marry: she can well claim Isis rescued one of those Hebrew male babies, and brought him to me so foreigners will never dominate us! After all, the Hebrews have been with us 400 years -- are they not our servants? Shall not Isis protect us this way? Remember the text of Exodus 1:15-22? Pharaoh didn't punish those midwives. So this whole drown-the-males business was short-lived. Just long enough for a Moses to be floating up to the Palace.
So Hatshepsut found a solution to the no-male-heirs problem floating in the Nile -- Moses (="drawn/born from the water"): thus Hatshepsut has a politically acceptable tale to justify a legal heir, without remarriage. Little did Hatshepsut know the name she gave him would become God's way of explaining who he would become, for the qal active participle of masha is similar: he who draws out, God's people. (BTW: -mose suffix in Egyptian then meant a god-begotten individual, according to the lexicons I have -- the "o" sound is very short (like sound of "w"), and the "e" is but a breath. Interesting how there's an etymological connection, per BDB, to cleaning out a camel's uterus -- i.e., after birth. Paul talks of the Baptism of Moses in Romans or somewhere, this way.)
Handy also, to quell what must have been a good bit of unrest among the Egyptian common people, for all that killing of male babies. A lot of intermarriage existed among the laid-back Egyptians; plus, if the trained slaves of such white-collar status were being persecuted, what's to stop Thutmose I from treating the Egyptians, the same way? People aren't distant from each other's sufferings, because they are wont to conclude, that could happen to me. So, that's another reason why Hatshepsut didn't keep Moses' origin a secret; which we know she didn't, since the nursemaid for the boy was his own mother, Exodus 2:7. And as for the god-delivered-him tale, it was a big plus that he was so handsome: Acts 7 calls him "beautiful" (big Bible keyword for handsomeness). So this blessed event must have ended that kill-all-males persecution: and it set up the method for God to best communicate let my people GO! to the Egyptians 80 years later -- so they could know yet again, Who the Real God was.
For Moses' part, he's really falling in love with his God. So as he grows up, the problem of marrying and becoming Pharaoh becomes more of an ethical issue for him. So he wouldn't be chomping at the bit to have Hatshepsut give her daughter's hand in marriage.
EB kept on mentioning that earlier theories of the reign showed fighting factions, and pooh-poohed them. Yeah, both the EB position and the earlier claims of antagonism reconcile -- if there are two heirs to rally around, and that's the antagonism. Wouldn't have to be the two heirs being antagonistic to each other, or to her. It's not hard to imagine. The Egyptians, for all their God's Wife business, were male-dominated in cultural orientation. It had to chafe that this woman is holding power, making statues of herself as a male. She needed to have An Heir statued with her to justify sustaining that not-married status. But which Thutmose? It had to be Moses, the other was too young, and as he grew, well -- forces would rally behind that other one who at least had royal blood from his father, in him. Ergo the contradictory forces no longer are contradictory. Typical rival factions that every ruling family, suffers.
Acts 7:29 fits with Hebrews 11:27. Common sense would tell you, he had no reason to be afraid since he was Crown Prince or even Pharaoh at the time -- killing the Egyptian was within his right to do. Further, you don't abdicate if you're afraid, capisce? Given the later command by God to go back when "those who would kill you are dead" (Exodus 4:19) -- brackets Exodus 2:14, signifying God had told him to leave in the first place. God frequently does tell people where to go, and quite a bit of awe accompanies any such contact (witness his excuses in Exodus 3 & 4).
When my pastor goes over these events he remarks that Moses had been in love with her, and she him; I don't know why he concludes that. So the wife of a husband she didn't want, and the husband who was quite talented but yet inferior to a usurper by some trick of a dream -- well, that's a pretty potent pot of hatred brewing. It's doubtful whether Neferuri was the mother of anyone. The son who would become Amenhotep II, was born 1470BC, a good 10 years after Hatshepsut died; and Neferuri died even before that.
A ruler's Name is supposed to convey a character that encourages the ruled to regard him as heroic. A 'bad' name means a curse, but a 'good' name means blessing. So if a name changes, you know there was a sense of curse that became associated with the old name. So, a name CHANGE is partly done for revenge, maybe; but politically, to assure the people of future good times. So if Amenhotep II actually perished in the Red Sea deluge with his troops, don't count on Egyptian history to verify it. They'd substitute someone else and call that person Amenhotep II. Do count on the next Pharaoh to not use the same name as the shamed predecessor; do count on the fact that time has a way of romanticizing the past, etc.
People took pride in their strong rulers. So to ennoble a bad time, perhaps a successor ruler's name would be blotted out altogether, and his years tacked on to his more illustrious predecessor. As if the succeeding ruler, never existed. It's a phenomenon of ancient history, and the Egyptians in particular were wont to do such things. Don't know why, then, this fact isn't suspected when it comes to Amenhotep II, especially since the names before and after him, change as they do.
So, note: by the last few plagues, the advisors are begging Pharaoh to give in to Moses' request. Moreover, the population was seriously divided over this problem, for the Egyptians not only give what my pastor quips as "400 years' back wages" to the departing Israelites, but a large number of "mixed multitudes" went with them. Total population of Jews alone was probably something like oh, 1.5-2 million. Total believer population was something like six million, so most of it was comprised of leaving Egyptians. The country would have been depopulated severely. This would make those remaining short of labor (which accounts for why so few building projects are undertaken for awhile after the Exodus), but they would have had a lot more property and food, due to what those leaving, left behind. So Egypt was also helped.
Thutmose IV's reign is characterised as prosperous by EB. Those leaving were largely from Egypt proper. People from the outer parts of the empire would be attracted to come IN -- the plagues didn't last long enough for people at the ends of the empire, to congregate and leave with the Israelites. So, picture, say, northern Egypt just after the Exodus as largely empty. Just as back during the enslavement of the Hebrews, the exits of so many provided a fabulous opportunity for others to move in, get promoted, have a better life. The story of the Exodus spread like wildfire across the Middle East and beyond, so people would come from miles around to get better employment, and life. They would be sorely needed. Prosperity would indeed be the outcome. During this time also Egypt had become distinctly pro-foreign, the EB article on Egypt's early history explains. Well, the friendly pre-Exodus climate, coupled with the Exodus itself, would make for a welcome mix of immigrants. Egypt would sorely need them.
It wouldn't have taken long to rebuild whatever was not recovered from the Red Sea. It's not as though Pharaoh's entire army went into the Sea, since the military itself was mostly on the move, scattered across the widely divergent boundaries that then constituted Egypt. Again, the picture painted by those who believe in the Exodus is overrated in terms of the devastation on Egypt -- on the other hand, the real devastation of DEpopulation, would be a boon, not a bane.
The bane was political, a point which will be covered later.
So it would argue for a much larger population being needed to ferry all that food to the people working in the arid regions on the tombs, etc. where slavery WAS practiced. This separation of peoples also had the added advantage of making such populations, easier to control. So to say that at the time of Amenhotep II there were only 4,500,000 in Egypt based on arable land, is not right.
Additionally, Egypt was a trading nation par excellence. Nearly all the Middle East fiefdoms were. Mobility was the norm, not the exception: the land had to lie fallow, people weren't particularly clean, the trash would collect -- much like in American Indian cultures, though more stable. So a larger population could be sustained, if sufficiently mobile. This, if trade was a major source of revenue -- and we know it was -- would justify the mobility, as well.
So you end up having the following population groups: trade-related, constantly on the move; building populations, guarded by a third group, the overseers; military would be a fourth group, also constantly on the move; fifth, the agricultural population, likewise controlled, working up and down the banks of the Nile and other delta regions, would 'migrate' as the seasons changed, for different soils and different crops, etc; sixth, the royal household itself must keep moving to keep track of everything. Such an economy can easily sustain a much larger, partly mobile population than 4,500,000.
Question is, if Amenhotep II drowned in the Red Sea with the troops in 1440BC, who took his place? Who is buried in his tomb? Could be he washed on shore; more likely, with all that gold and hardware in the Reed Sea, being as the Egyptians had long been sea-wise, people went in there and got out what they could scavenge. We don't know how many sons Amenhotep II had, but his FIRSTborn was killed in the last plague. It wouldn't be too hard to pretend that he didn't perish in the Reed Sea -- particularly, to counter what was electrifying news around the Middle East. Egypt would have needed to mount some kind of disinformation campaign, to protect itself. Of course, even if he didn't perish with the troops, the shame would have caused his death. Someone would have killed him, replaced him -- something. A machismo culture can't stand this kind of defeat, equitably.
There are a lot of Bible verses on Exodus, and I remember my pastor teaching us that Pharaoh perished in the sea with his troops. But I don't remember which verses he exegeted to prove Pharaoh himself perished in the deluge; there are too many verses for me to check them, now.
So from Thutmose IV onward, witness this new feature: the idea that the gods are competing, not complementary; so if you choose the wrong ones you suffer! That idea was born in the Exodus -- God defeated Pharaoh's gods, and brought the Hebrews out to the Promised Land. That was the interpretation by everyone all around the Middle East, and it persisted throughout the Middle East, even until today. Again, this switch from eclectic to exclusive, whether by monotheism or by defeat -- is another marker of the correct dating for the Exodus. [The battle of who's God is of course what drives radical Muslims and militant Christians, still. Neither group seems to get it that the Real God needs no 'help', as He demonstrated when He did the real Exodus of 1440BC.]
It's difficult to harmonize the many conflicting accounts by Egyptologists for the 18th Dynasty. The conflict centers on Thutmose III, however, and from his reign forward there is a consistent recourse to divine paternity. In one account the claim is made that Amon himself appointed Thutmose III during a priestly service, the latter having been a mere prelate in Amon's temple until his appointment (page 383 in A History of Egypt). Of course, if that was the son (who would have been 13) of the concubine and Thutmose II, it's a handy justification to use. Hatshepsut started the ball rolling by claiming Moses was a gift from Isis, then claiming Amon was her real dad 'inhabiting' Thutmose I when he sired her, so a replacing Thutmose III (replacing Moses) would need a divine mandate, since Hatshepsut had claimed two of them. More important also to find a miraculous sanction, since Hatshepsut's daughter was a God's Wife Heiress and then died childless prior to Hatshepsut.
So however you want to explain why the names changed, the changes depict turmoil, not the centuries-past convention of alternating-god-honorifics. So that begs the question: WHY? I submit it's due to the shame Egypt experienced, which shame of course would never be recorded on stelae. Which shame would instead urge upon the successors, a need to deface and break with the past.
It's certainly much less plausible to claim Moses was born during the Rameses clan 200+ years later. Merneptah's poem saying "Israel is desolate and has no seed" -- is a dead giveaway that Israel had long been a nation. For it was not a nation at the time it left, but rather had become a nation after it entered the Land 200 years prior. To refer to it as a people is apt, for it is God's People, not a 'nation' under a human king as others were. So that imprecation would have meaning, since Gideon had been winning major victories at the time, and in the name of God, not a human king.
And of course Israel's enemies have been denying her existence ever since, even via the mouths of dishonest 'scholars' to this day. Anti-semitism is satanic. That's what you hear via any 'scholar' who discredits Israel's past. Always the same mouth, as the Merneptah stele. For centuries.
This makes it very likely the right location. Sea probably got that name due to the people dying in it, because it was common for Abram et seq. to give places their names, based on some character of an important event taking place at that location. Also, since the Greeks commonly used the name, they knew what happened there. So this linguistic tidbit tells you much. Another name tipoff to an event everyone still debates even happened? Looks like the ancient Greeks had no problem with it. So you should be able to go through ancient literature to the time when the RED Sea was given that name. Clearly the name changed with the Exodus since AT the Exodus it's not called by that name. So it ACQUIRED that name given what happened. A linguistic trace takes time. But language is a good tool, like DNA, for tracking origin and morphing.
So we can be bang-on competent in secular areas, but boy oh boy, if the topic is related to Bible, suddenly sloppiness is routine, constant -- whether we are fans of the Bible or not! Predictable as sunrise. At what point do we catch on that THIS God is real, Adam's sin nature is real.. and Satan's messing with us is real, since for centuries our normal scholarly competence goes right out the window.. but only, when related to Bible.
