“iii”

: Hi all di
Bible aes to stOry

3s
s<=s

Vs eo "YAM Be
: a
«tf
rit |
A
Sy
BES
m
omy
(

=
»)
‘
Te s F:fe
Za \ re
OAT
j
7

ceca: aS
=
=
—
ee
Toy
I
oy
—
— 5
Bh

f =F i HiT ij \ = = =o
4) ! \ es
fr Hii H \
} \\ ii
2 BiSenne
wae wit way
een Wie
Gin hin
Sines aaaad)
= F; j = , — _ ’:
| ~ ‘ x
Sire 3 2 }
ye SOL = : s 1
=
e F
Sino if el i oe H
a ¢ ~
~
o Hen iS ela? ct: 2
I
7? a aA 7 ae ae
wa

-al
= os
y = 4 Ae ' .

fa. ; rn a Yi 7 o

-
Be ;
— a a
Pestory
iPrsraPaes: ats. 10. VNOR SL.

7 7

7 -
4's -

fi -

: a

' My ~)
‘ nd §
= a;

¥ a
: Si pe ee
oa
‘= ae
re
iss © 7 ro
.
aoe te

1194
” oe

A474
wage

Egypt .
Bible History
From Earliest Times to 1000 B.C.

Charles F. Aling

BAKER BOOK HOUSE

Grand Rapids, Michigan 49506
Copyright 1981 by
Baker Book House Company

ISBN: 0-8010-0174-9

Printed in the United States of America

Theology Library
SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
AT CLAREMONT
California
 Contents

Introduction 5
Egyptian History Through the Time of Abraham 15
Joseph's Early Years 25
Joseph's Rise to Prominence 41
The Sojourn and Bondage 53
The Exodus: The Date 77
The Exodus: The People and the Events oT
Israel and Later Egyptian History 111
ke Cultural Contacts Between Egypt and Israel
OnNoanspwhd 123
Epilogue 133
Bibliography 135
Subject Index 141
Scripture Index 145
a” AeA SS BT oh seek? rueageltl cael
p
ws
ei
+ % Beis 4
~
Ba, ewe “raed * Shep
so.
Lig ith + “nie
i 9 eet oe
a

5 e x iyi 77 ot
4
Tt watt wel ah Ta
etre art) biw siqu tT! a eae ‘
tii notatt rua) Np A s@huad bw

‘went ate seyayed a qearteyol abelw)> in

id
: errs ;
i:
rs
. oR Sh
a;
i ae erewit
Es mii cus
 Introduction

The Biblical Importance of Ancient Egypt

Ever since the great archaeological discoveries made in

Egypt in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, cul-
minating in the excavation of the virtually intact tomb of Tut-
ankhamon in 1922, interest in the civilization along the Nile
has grown rapidly. Books, both popular and scholarly, some
of good quality and some of bad, have appeared in increasing
numbers; and organized tours of Egypt have become com-
monplace. Along with general interest has come a new re-
alization of the importance of ancient Egypt as one of the
primary stages in mankind's historical development; histori-
ans writing since the pioneer work of James H. Breasted have
generally acknowledged the many cultural debts which the
modern Western world owes to Egypt.’ But for the student
of the Bible this is not enough. If Egyptian history is impor-
tant for the study of modern civilization, its importance is
compounded many times for the study of the Bible. Two
aspects of this importance can be stated rather briefly.
First, Egypt was a part of the Old Testament world, just as
much as were Assyria, Damascus, Babylon, and even Israel

1. See James H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, 2nd ed. (New York: Charles Scrib-
ner’s Sons, 1946).
6 Egypt and Bible History

itself. The great pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom (2000 — 1786

B.C.) were the contemporaries of the patriarchs; the imperial
pharaohs of the New Kingdom (1570 — 1085 B.c.), Egypt's great
period of conquest and expansion, were contemporary with
Moses and Joshua. Thus, if we are to understand the Word
of God in its proper historical context (which is imperative),
we must know something of Egyptian history and civilization.
As we explore Egyptian customs and practices, portions of
Israel's history such as the story of Joseph and the subse-
quent period of bondage become much more real to us; and,
as will be seen later, unclear and seemingly insignificant verses
or parts of verses appear in a new light as important refer-
ences to local custom. We will note that the chronology of
Scripture with respect to the career of Joseph, the length of
the sojourn, and the time of the exodus fits perfectly with
what is known of Egyptian history. Also we will appreciate
God’s sovereignty over human history, as we see Egypt's mil-
itary might decline suddenly at exactly the time of the con-
quest of Canaan by Joshua. Finally, we will learn to refrain
from misinterpretation of Scripture by avoiding the allegorical
method which is sadly so common today, and which sub-
stitutes man’s ideas for the clear meaning of God’s Word. We
will see the strength of adhering to the grammatical-historical
method of interpretation. Our rewards will be many as we
examine Egyptian history as an integral part of the Old Tes-
tament narrative.
Although basically outside the scope of this book, a second
reason why the Bible scholar of today should be interested
in Egypt is the great emphasis which the Lord gave to Egypt
in the prophetic sections of His Word. Large portions of the
books of Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel deal with Egypt's pro-
phetic future, yet few students of the Bible know or appear
to care about the topic. To God it was an important subject.
Note, for example, that Ezekiel has four chapters (29 — 32)
dealing specifically with Egypt. It therefore behooves us as
Introduction 7

students of God’s Word to know something about the nation

of Egypt in Old Testament times. So let us begin!

The Geography of Egypt

Any treatment of Egypt's civilization must begin with a

description of that nation’s unique geographical features, since
those features did so much to shape the culture of that part
of the world. Egypt is located on the continent of Africa, but
this is somewhat deceptive. The Sahara Desert and the im-
passable cataracts of the Upper Nile successfully isolated the
Egyptians from the rest of Africa, and what foreign contacts
occurred were with western Asia instead of Africa. Thus, the
Egyptians must first be considered part of the Near East
rather than part of Africa.
Once we place Egypt in the Near Eastern cultural sphere,
we may begin to examine briefly three key geographical fea-
tures which have influenced Egyptian civilization from time
immemorial. The first of these is the Nile. This great river,
flowing north from equatorial Africa to the Mediterranean,
was in ancient times and is today the single most important
geographical feature in Egypt, being both the source of life
for all crops (rainfall is negligible in Egypt) and the major
highway for all travel and transportation in Egypt. Once a
year in ancient times the Nile flooded, bringing both water
and rich, fertile soil deposits from far upriver. This predictable
flooding and revitalizing of the soil made the Nile Valley one
of the earth’s richest agricultural areas. And, indeed, farming
and life in general in Egypt are restricted for the most part
to the Nile River Valley, which is narrow in Upper Egypt (the
south) but fans out gradually in Lower Egypt (the north, com-
monly called the delta). The rest of Egypt as seen on the
maps of today is desert. Man lives, then, on about 3 percent
of what our maps call Egypt—the other 97 percent is track-
less waste!
A second major geographical feature that was crucial in
 Egypt and Bible History

Heracleopolis ey) Gulf

=“_
°.. SINAL Ol,
of

e ~~
ebeni Hasan

Tell el-Amarna

RED SEA

First Cataract

Abu Simbel,
ANCIENT EGYPT
100
Introduction 9

Contrast between the desert and cultivated area.

shaping the civilization of the Nile Valley was the isolation of

the area. The sea in the north, deserts in the east and west,
and the cataracts of the Nile in the south, all cut foreign
penetration into Egypt to a mere trickle during most periods
of the nation’s long history. This geographically imposed iso-
lation allowed and encouraged the development of a unique
civilization.
Finally, the geographical environment of Egypt gently but
firmly molded the lifestyle. The concentration of population
along the easily traveled Nile led to cultural unity. The nature
of the land encouraged farming, which became (and still is
today) Egypt’s main means of livelihood. The lack of good
timber for construction forced the Egyptians to turn to what
was available and abundant—brick made from mud and
eventually stone, in the use of which the Egyptians became
master craftsmen.
In this land of relative safety, potential prosperity, and
abundant (if limited in type) material resources, one of the
great riverine civilizations developed through many centu-
ries. By the time Abraham visited Egypt, its history was al-
 10 Egypt and Bible History

ready long. Before we trace that history, we must say a few

words about the study of ancient Egypt by scholars of today.

Egyptian History

Modern Egyptologists divide the history of Egypt into a

series of major periods.” The periods of Egypt’s strength are
called Kingdoms; those of weakness, Intermediate Periods.
Even before the first of the Kingdoms there were two periods
that can be considered developmental: the Predynastic Age
(4000
— 3100 B.c.) and the Archaic Period (3100
—2800 B.C).
We then come to the first great period of Egypt, the Old
Kingdom (2800 — 2200 B.c.), followed by a time of weakness
called the First Intermediate Period (2200— 2000 B.c.). The
Middle Kingdom (2000 — 1786 B.Cc.), another great period, al-
beit not quite as glorious in some respects as the Old King-
dom, followed the First Intermediate Period, and was
succeeded in turn by another time of difficulty called the
Second Intermediate Period (1786 — 1570 B.c.). This last age
is often described as the Hyksos Period, named after foreign-
ers from Syria-Palestine who entered the delta and gradually
took it over until their expulsion about 1570 B.c. Finally, we
come to the greatest of all periods of Egyptian history, the
New Kingdom or Empire (1570— 1085 B.c.). During this era
the Egyptians became imperialistic conquerors for the first
time in their long history, annexing Syria-Palestine into an
Egyptian empire.
We can further subdivide the periods of Egyptian history
into numbered dynasties or groups of kings (a dynasty may
or may not have been a succession of rulers from the same
family line):

2, Many good histories of ancient Egypt are available in English.An excellent

and nontechnical work is that of George Steindorff and Keith C. Seele, When
Egypt Ruled the East (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965). A more technical book
is Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction (New York: Oxford
University, 1966). More readable, although outdated by many recent archaeolog-
ical discoveries and much research, but still a classic, is Breasted’s History.
For
an analysis of Egypt's cultural development, see John A. Wilson, The Culture
of
Ancient Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956).
Introduction 11

Archaic Period—dynasties 1—2

Old Kingdom—dynasties 3—6
First Intermediate Period—dynasties 7—10
Middle Kingdom—dynasties 11—12
Second Intermediate Period—dynasties 13—17
New Kingdom—dynasties 18—20
Post—New Kingdom—dynasties 21 and following

A word about our sources of information is necessary at

this point. How do we know anything at all about Egypt's
past since the Egyptians themselves have left us not one
single written “history book”? It is true that the Bible gives us
some information about Egypt, but, since God never intended
His Word to serve as a detailed history of a pagan people,
whole periods (such as the Old Kingdom) are left out, and
few kings are even named. The Bible does not speak enough
about matters of Egyptian secular history for us to compile
a continuous narrative. We are forced to look outside the
Bible’s pages for the specifics of Egyptian history.
Many classical Greek and Roman authors wrote about
Egypt, some briefly and others extensively. Unfortunately, the
Greeks and Romans knew very little about Egypt since that
nation had already passed its time of greatness by hundreds
of years when the classical writers lived. Thus, the pages of
authors such as Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus provide us
with garbled and distorted truth at best, and with mere folk
tales current in their day at worst. The one exception is the
Egyptian priest Manetho, who lived under the Ptolemies
(Greek kings of Egypt after the conquest of the known world
by Alexander the Great) in the third century B.C. This priest
wrote a history of his native land in Greek, and seems to have
known enough of the ancient hieroglyphic script to be able
to utilize temple records in his research. Unhappily, Mane-
tho’s original work has not been preserved down to the pres-
ent. We have only parts of it in the form of fragments quoted
by later writers who were mainly interested in Manetho’s
lists of kings and the number of years each of those kings
reigned. A further difficulty lies in the fact that the later writ-
12 Egypt and Bible History

ers who have quoted Manetho are rarely very careful about
how they do so; different authors disagree in their quotation
of the same passage. The usefulness of Manetho’s figures for
the study of Egyptian history is thus very limited; it is safest
to rely on his numbers only when they are in agreement with
numbers on contemporary monuments of the king in
question?
The decipherment of the hieroglyphic script in the early
nineteenth century gave us the key which unlocks the secrets
of Egypt’s past. Today, scholars can read literally thousands
of Egyptian records written on stone (and other materials) by
the ancient Egyptians themselves. It is true, however, that
these records give us a slanted picture of ancient Egypt in
several ways. For one thing, because the writings were in the
main intended for public consumption or to impress the
gods, the records of Egypt are something less than totally
candid. Never, for example, would a king or an official de-
scribe himself as anything but the greatest person ever to
hold his particular office. Another distortion stems from the
religious character of most of Egypt’s surviving monuments.
Most of what remains (although not all) is either cult build-
ings such as temples, or funerary structures, including tombs
and related buildings. From this has come the false idea that
the Egyptians were preoccupied with death and the afterlife.
And yet, despite these distortions and other shortcomings
(such as the almost total absence of business and legal doc-
uments) we have, thanks to the many inscriptions preserved
in the dry climate of the Nile Valley, a considerable knowledge
of ancient Egypt's history and culture during Old Testament
times.

A Word About Chronology

Finally, a note is necessary as to how we know the dates
for the kings and periods of Egyptian history. It is a fact that

3. Most modern writers who seek to revise Egyptian chronology to fit their
conceptions of biblical chronology rely too heavily on Manetho’s figures, without
understanding the problems involved. It is wisest to base chronology on Egyptian
hieroglyphic monuments, and not on the confused remains of Manetho.
Introduction 13

we know more about the chronology of Egypt than about

that of most Near Eastern nations. This is due to the Egyp-
tians’ interest in astronomy. Egyptian astronomers showed
particular interest in the rising of the Dog Star Sirius (or
Sothis). They were especially pleased when Sirius rose at the
same time the sun rose, and even more so when this simul-
taneous event occurred on New Year’s Day in the spring of
the year. Now it is a fact known to modern astronomers that
Sirius rises with the sun on the same day for four years; then
its rise with the sun shifts one day later in the year, and so
on through the calendar. After 1,460 years, Sirius’s rise with
the sun has moved through the entire year back to the day
on which it started the cycle. Calculations show us that in
ancient times such a cycle would have begun on the Egyptian
New Year's Day in three specific sets of four years: around
4240 B.C., 2780 B.C., and 1320 B.C.
To show how all this helps us, we need but to take one
specific example.* In a document dated to year 120 of Egypt's
Twelfth Dynasty, Sirius is said to have risen with the sun on
the 225th day of the year. Remembering that the rise of Sirius
shifts one day later every four years, we must date this doc-
ument 900 years (4 X 225) after 4240, 2780, or 1320 B.c. Of
these three starting dates, only 2780 is reasonable; 2780 mi-
nus 900 yields 1880 for year 120 of Dynasty Twelve, the year
of our document. And, if 1880 is year 120, the dynasty must
have begun about 2000 B.c.
As a check on this astronomical method of establishing
Egyptian dates, we can employ what Egyptologists call “dead
reckoning”: adding together the regnal years of kings from a
known point in time to an unknown date. Starting from 525
B.C., the known date of the Persian conquest of Egypt, and
counting back to the start of the New Kingdom, we arrive at
1577 B.C. Using the astronomical method outlined above (with
the details omitted), we arrive at 1572 B.C. for the beginning
of the New Kingdom, which is close enough to 1577 to show

4. Taken from James H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago: Univer-

sity of Chicago, 1906), vol. 1, par. 38ff.
14 Egypt and Bible History

us that we are substantially correct. We can indeed have

confidence in the dates for Egyptian kings given us by mod-
ern scholarship. As we will see, these dates do not in any
way disagree with or contradict Scripture.
 1
Egyptian History Through
the Time of Abraham

Events in Egvpt Before Abraham

When Abraham came down to Egypt in about 2090 B.c.,!

that country had already passed through over one thousand
years of recorded history, and through another millennium
of prehistoric development before that. We need not linger
here on the various stages of Egypt’s prehistoric (the term
merely means “before writing”) culture; these have been am-
ply treated elsewhere? and have little biblical relevance. Suf-
fice it to say that during Egypt's prehistory, extending roughly
from 4000 to 3100B.c., the Egyptians worshiped the same
gods, lived the same kind of life, spoke (and were beginning
to write) the same language, and had the seeds of the same
political and social institutions that we see throughout the
long history of the Nile Valley's civilization.4 And toward the
end of this formative period came one of the most significant
events of all, the unification of Egypt into one kingdom (called
Upper and Lower Egypt) by a shadowy Upper Egyptian king
called Menes. This Menes was either the first or some other

1. On the dates for Abraham, see p. 21.

2. A good general summary of predynastic Egypt may be found in Jean Bot-
tero.et al., The Near East: The Early Civilizations (New York: Delacorte, 1967),
pp. 232 — 57.
3. Ibid., p. 232.
15
16 Egypt and Bible History

early ruler of what we now call Dynasty One; with him and
his successors begins the recorded history of dynastic Egypt.
The Archaic Period (Dynasties One and Two, 3100 — 2800
B.C.) also has little direct biblical relevance, but saw further
elaboration of those ideas and institutions formulated in pre-
historic times.4 The Archaic Period was succeeded about
2800 B.c. by the first of Egypt's truly great ages, the Old King-
dom. We must pause here to describe the grandeur of this
important period.
Of the kings, events, battles, and personalities of Dynasties
Three through Six we know very little.» The most important
king of Dynasty Three was Djoser, because it was during his
reign that building with large stones was initiated.® Djoser’s
vizier and chief architect Imhotep, a sort of superhuman jack-
of-all-trades who was deified in later Egyptian history mainly
because of his medical knowledge, is credited with inventing
techniques of stone construction.’ Imhotep built the first of
the Egyptian pyramids, the step pyramid of Sakkara, as a
tomb for his king. Later, the Egyptians perfected their use of
stone and were able to build smooth rather than terraced
pyramids.
Pyramid building reached its climax under kings Khufu
(Greek, Cheops) and Khafre (Greek, Chephren) of Dynasty
Four’ While virtually nothing is known of the reigns of Khufu
or Khafre (or about most of the other kings of their dynasty)
aside from the pyramids they built at Giza near modern
Cairo, these structures are witness enough to the wealth and
power of the Old Kingdom. The Great Pyramid, as Khufu’s
4. On the period in general, see W. B. Emery, Archaic Egypt (Baltimore: Pen-
guin Books, 1961). For an exciting discussion of how Egyptian civilization came
of age during Dynasties One and Two, see John A. Wilson, The Culture of Ancient
Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1956), pp. 43 —68.
5. See Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction (New York:
Oxford University, 1966), chapter 5.
6. Bottero, Near East, pp. 282ff.
7. On Imhotep see J. B. Hurry, Imhotep, the Vizier and Physician of King Zoser
(Oxford: Oxford University, 1926).
8. The best discussion of Egyptian pyramids is I. E. S. Edwards, The Pyramids
of Egypt (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1947). For a more popular treatment see
Ahmed Fakhry, The Pyramids (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961).
Egyptian History Through the Time of Abraham 17

A Fourth-Dynasty
pharaoh and his queen—
Menkaure and Khamerer-
Nebty II. Courtesy,
Museum of Fine Arts,
Boston.

tomb has been named, was rightly classified as one of the

seven wonders of the world, and contains enough blocks of
stone (much of which was quarried in the immediate area)
to build a wall ten feet high around France!? Pyramids con-
tinued as the basic type of royal tomb through the rest of the
Old Kingdom, but with the end of Dynasty Four their great
age came to a close. The pyramids of Dynasty Five and Six
were small in comparison with their Fourth-Dynasty coun-
terparts, and have not attracted much popular attention.
The major event of Dynasty Five was religious: a new major

9. Edwards, Pyramids, p. 117.

 18 Egypt and Bible History

The Great Pyramid of Khufu

god, the sun god Re of Heliopolis, was elevated to

promi-
nence. This event is called by historians the “Re Revolu
tion.”!°
Before Dynasty Five the falcon god Horus had
been pre-
10. Wilson, Ancient Egypt, pp. 871f.
Egyptian History Through the Time of Abraham 19

eminent, but the sun god now superseded him. Re, later to be
combined with the god Amon of Thebes, remained Egypt's
supreme deity until Christianity conquered the Nile Valley.
At the end of Dynasty Six (about 2200 B.c.) the central
authority began to decline, and the local princes throughout
the Nile Valley started to show clear signs of independence
from royal control.'' Weakened by the dual problems of de-
centralization and economic collapse hastened by too much
government expenditure for tomb building, the Old Kingdom
passed away and the First Intermediate Period began.

Culture in the Old Kingdom

The essence of political theory in the Old Kingdom was

that the king was a god on earth; he was not the head of
state, he was the state. Before Dynasty Five he was the em-
bodiment of Horus, and after the Re Revolution he was also
considered to be the physical son of Re. The king’s word was
law, and he was assisted in ruling the land by an army of
officials who administered Egypt’s population and agricul-
tural wealth.
A key point to remember about the Old Kingdom is that
Egypt was not in any way imperialistic as yet. The days when
Egyptian armies would march south to incorporate Nubia
(the modern Sudan, biblical Ethiopia) or would drive deep
into Syria-Palestine lay far in the future.'? Nor should we
think of the typical Egyptian of this age as a sober, mysterious
person preoccupied with death. In reality, the philosophy of
the day was one of carefree, happy optimism.'* This is re-
vealed to us through the literature and art of the period,
which depict the Egyptians as a people who enjoyed life to
the full. Even the building of elaborate tombs was done to
ensure a happy life in the next world, and shows just how
much the Egyptians loved life. They expended every effort to
prolong it even beyond the grave.

11. Bottero, Near East, p. 327.

12. Wilson, Ancient Egypt, p.82.
13. Ibid., p. 78.
20 Egypt and Bible History

While on the subject of burial and tombs, we must pause

to discuss another aspect of the study of pyramids. Some
modern writers, following the lead of Charles Piazzi Smyth
in the last century, have denied that the Great Pyramid of
Khufu was ever intended as a tomb, but was instead a mysti-
cal structure in whose very angles of construction are hidden
the secrets of the universe. Such claims are of course absurd,
having not one shred of hard evidence behind them. All such
theories must be viewed as the products of active modern
imaginations—they have no support from Egyptian texts or
from archaeology. The idea that the Great Pyramid contains
hidden messages from the past for us has sadly been taken
a step further by those who wish to see in this famous struc-
ture the “Bible in stone”; they attempt to trace events proph-
esied in Scripture in the passageways and rooms of the pyr-
amid, and thus enter the realm of theological error. The
pyramid is merely a large tomb; it is not to be equated in any
way with the Bible, for there is only one source of special
revelation to man—the Word of God!!*

The First Intermediate Period

Following the collapse of the strong kings of the Old King-

dom, Egypt entered upon its first time of weakness and con-
fusion, the First Intermediate Period (2200— 2000 B.c.,
Dynasties Seven through Ten). Although royal monuments
from this period are relatively scarce, literary texts describing
the evils of the age do exist. Some of the most important of
these texts are “The Admonitions of Ipu-wer,” “The Dispute
of a Man with His Soul,” and “The Tale of the Eloquent Peas-
ant.”'* The same basic theme weaves its way through these
literary works—the breakdown of central authority and of

14. For more detailed discussion of the pseudoscience of pyramidology see

Wilbur M. Smith, Egypt in Biblical Prophecy (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957), chapter
13.
15. Excellent translations of these literary works are available. See, for ex-
ample, Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University
of California, 1973, 1976).
Egyptian History Through the Time of Abraham 21

the very social fabric of Egypt.'® To be sure, Egypt still had

kings; Dynasties Seven and Eight ruled weakly from Mem-
phis, and were followed by Dynasties Nine and Ten in Her-
acleopolis. But no pharaoh of this period could claim authority
or prestige anything like that of the kings of the Old Kingdom.
Egyptologist Jean Vercoutter has divided this troubled age
into three parts.'’ First, there is the time of the demise of the
Old Kingdom, attended by Asiatic infiltration into the delta
and great social upheaval. Second, following a brief period of
calm under Dynasty Nine, Egypt entered a time of prepara-
tion for civil war between Dynasty Ten of Heracleopolis and
the nobles who later became Dynasty Eleven of Thebes. Third,
Thebes gradually conquered all rival power centers and
started what historians call the Middle Kingdom.

Abraham in Egypt

The first major contact between the Hebrews and Egypt

was Abraham’s descent into the Nile Valley, recounted in Gen-
esis 12:10—20. Chronologically, this visit must have occurred
during the First Intermediate Period. This can be demon-
strated scripturally by counting back from a known reference
point, the fourth year of Solomon’s reign, 966 B.C. According
to I Kings 6:1, the exodus took place 480 years before Solo-
mon’s fourth year, or 1446 B.c. Jacob entered Egypt 430 years
before the exodus (Exod. 12:40), or in 1876 B.C., when he was
130 years old (Gen. 47:9). Jacob's birth date was therefore 1876
plus 130, or 2006 B.C. Since Isaac was sixty when Jacob was
born in 2006 (Gen. 25:26), Isaac was born in 2066 B.c.; Abraham
was 100 at that time (Gen. 21:5), thus being born himself in
2166 B.c. Abraham began his migration from Ur at seventy-
five (Gen. 12:4), or in 2091 B.C. His journey to Egypt presum-
ably followed his arrival in Canaan very closely, thus fitting
into Vercoutter’s second stage of the First Intermediate Period.

16. See, for example, “The Dispute of a Man with His Soul,” in Lichtheim,
Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.1, pp. 163ff., in which a man debates with his
soul concerning the merits of death.
17. Bottero, Near East, pp. 327ff.
22 Egypt and Bible History

The story of Abraham’s sojourn in Egypt is well known. He

descended into Egypt from Canaan because of famine, pass-
ing off his beautiful wife Sarah as his sister so that the Egyp-
tians would not kill him and take her for themselves. The
pharaoh, who in accord with normal practice in the Penta-
teuch is not named, seized Sarah anyway, on the recommen-
dation of his officials, but paid Abraham for her with gifts of
animals and servants. But since Sarah was Abraham's wife,
God plagued the pharaoh until he gave her back to Abraham,
and expelled the pair from the country. Our task is to examine
these events in light of what is known about the First Inter-
mediate Period.
In the first place, it is a generally accepted fact that during
Egypt's two Intermediate Periods Asiatics entered the Nile
delta relatively at will.'? Thus, it would not be difficult for a
Bedouin chieftain like Abraham to enter Egypt across borders
which were not guarded as they were during times of strong
central government. Motives for Asiatic infiltration are not
hard to imagine; shortage of food, as was the case with Abra-
ham, and the general attraction of Egypt's civilization are
plausible explanations. Trade also was a strong reason to visit
Egypt. A famous painting in the tomb of Knumhotep at Beni
Hasan is often rightly cited as illustrative of Abraham’s visit
to Egypt, although the scene dates from the later Middle
Kingdom.'? In this colorful scene an Asiatic chief, Absha,
comes to Egypt, accompanied by thirty-seven of his country-
men, bringing eye paint to trade. Such visits were evidently
not uncommon during times of Egyptian strength, and can
be considered even more common in times of weak border
security.
If Abraham came to Egypt reasonably soon after 2091 B.C.,
he may have been there during the reign of Wahkare-Kheti III

18. For the First Intermediate Period see Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs,
pp. 109ff., and for the Second, John Van Seters, The Hyksos:A New Investigation
(New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1966), chapter 7.
19. Percy E. Newberry, Beni Hasan (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Thibner and
Co., 1893), vol. 1, plate XXXI.
Egyptian History Through the Time of Abraham 23

(ca. 2120 — 2070 B.c.),?° one of the last stable rulers of Dynasty
Ten. Coming, as Abraham did, from the north, he would log-
ically have contacted a Heracleopolitan monarch rather than
a prince of Thebes farther south.
We are fortunate to have a fairly long literary text, “The
Instruction for King Merikare,” from the days of Kheti’s son
and successor Merikare, the last strong king of the dynasty;
the document purports to be the advice of King Kheti to the
future king.?! Although we do not know whether Kheti ac-
tually had a part in the composition of this work, and al-
though it would be rash to state dogmatically that Kheti III
was the pharaoh met by Abraham, since our chronological
knowledge of the First Intermediate Period is not totally firm,
the material contained in the “Instruction” certainly sheds
light on times not far removed from, and very possibly con-
temporary with, Abraham's descent into Egypt. Thus we may
glean some hints about what Egypt was like in Abraham's
day, and about what was considered proper kingly behavior
in that time. Kings are exhorted to be just, first in their pun-
ishment of criminals, and also, more to the point in the case
of Abraham, in respecting the property of others. King Mer-
ikare is challenged: “Do justice, then you endure on earth;
calm the weeper, don't oppress the widow, don’t expel a man
from his father’s property, don’t reduce the nobles in their
possessions.””? While these injunctions obviously refer to na-
tive Egyptian nobles, it is clear that unrightful seizure of an-
other’s property by the king was considered wrong. We see
the pharaoh’s guilt reflected in his attempt to pay Abraham
for his “sister” (Gen. 12:16), and finally in Sarah’s release when
the king finds out he has seized another man’s wife.
Another text of the First Intermediate Period, “The Tale of
the Eloquent Peasant,’?? amplifies the theme of the unright-
ful seizure of property even further than does the “Instruc-
tion.”Afarmer from the Wadi Natrum area just outside Egypt

20. The dates are Vercoutter’s, in Bottero, Near East, p. 334.

21. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol.1, pp. 97ff.
22. Ibid., p. 100.
23. Ibid., pp. 170ff.
24 Egypt and Bible History

goes down to the Nile Valley for food, just as Abraham did.
He takes trade goods with him, loaded on the backs of his
donkeys; but in Egypt he is met by a rapacious official who
seizes his donkeys on a false pretext. The peasant addresses
nine eloquent appeals to the king’s chief steward in an effort
to have his property returned, and he is finally successful.
Two things become obvious to us from this story. Unlawful
seizure of property by government officials was a real pos-
sibility, or the account would not have been believable to its
Egyptian audience. Also, arbitrary confiscation of private
property was considered wrong, as the ending of the story
clearly testifies (the guilty official is seized by the chief stew-
ard, and his property in turn is handed over to the wronged
peasant).
The story of Abraham's temporary loss of Sarah in Egypt
is, then, perfectly understandable in the turbulent setting of
the First Intermediate Period.*4* Abraham did not remain in
the land of the pharaohs but returned to Canaan; it would
be more than two centuries before another Hebrew, Joseph,
under very different circumstances, was to enter Egypt.

24. On Abraham's reception of camels from the pharaoh, long considered

anachronistic, see the evidence presented in Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary
on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), p. 143.
 sS
Joseph’s Early Years

The Middle Kingdom

The conquest of all Egypt by the Theban Eleventh Dynasty

inaugurated a second great age of Egyptian civilization, the
Middle Kingdom (2000 —1786 B.c.). Under Dynasty Eleven
power was consolidated in the hands of one family of kings
from Thebes, some of whom took the name Mentuhotep.!
The third and last of the Mentuhoteps was succeeded by his
vizier Amenemhat, who became the founder of Dynasty
Twelve, the most important group of rulers of the Middle
Kingdom. Eight pharaohs (including one woman—Sebek-
nefru) comprise the dynasty:
Amenemhat I 1991 — 1962
Sesostris I 1971 — 1928
Amenemhat II 1929 — 1895
Sesostris II 1897 — 1878
Sesostris III 1878 — 1843
Amenemhat III 1842 — 1797
Amenemhat IV 1798 — 1790
Sebeknefru 1789 — 1786
1. Jean Bottero et al., The Near East: The Early Civilizations (New York: Dela-
corte, 1967), pp. 347ff.
2. The dates are those of William C. Hayes, The Middle Kingdom of Egypt
(New York: Cambridge University, 1964). Our brief account of the Twelfth Dynasty
is based on pp. 34ff.

25
26 Egypt and Bible History

After consolidating his power, the aged Amenemhat I as-

sociated his son Sesostris with him as coregent, a common
practice in Dynasty Twelve. Together these co-kings began
one of the major projects of the Middle Kingdom, the con-
quest of Nubia, a task that was to occupy the attention of
many of their successors.
The reign of Amenemhat I ended with his assassination;
but Sesostris I continued the vigorous policies of his father,
especially in regard to the incorporation of northern Nubia
into the kingdom. His armies pushed their way as far south
as Buhen at the second cataract of the Nile. At home,
Sesostris I was a prolific builder. Monuments at no fewer than
thirty-five sites throughout the Nile Valley stand as eloquent
witnesses to his power and energy.
Under Amenemhat II and Sesostris II further wars in the
south were unnecessary; trade seems to have been Egypt's
major concern. There is evidence of extensive foreign trade
during this time between Egypt and most parts of the ancient
world; the result must have been great prosperity.
By all accounts Sesostris III was the most important ruler
of the Twelfth Dynasty. The conquest and pacification of Nu-
bia, neglected for two generations, were begun again on a
grand scale. In a series of campaigns (some led by Sesostris
himself) the southern border of Egypt was extended to Semna,
and a string of fortresses was built to solidify Egyptian strength
in the south.
Also of interest are certain administrative reforms made by
Sesostris III. Amenemhat I, in establishing a new dynasty, had
been forced to depend upon the powerful nobles of the nomes
(districts) of Egypt for support. Under Amenemhat and his
successors these nobles were granted increased power and
even a measure of independence in return for their support
of the dynasty. But Sesostris III would not tolerate the resul-
tant growth of the nomarchs’ power and the corresponding
decline of his own authority. Although details are not known,
it is clear that Sesostris III broke the power of these officials
and transferred their authority to many newly created
positions.
Joseph’s Early Years 27

Amenemhat III did not need to be a great warrior; his

father had done all the fighting necessary to bring peace to
the land. Under Amenemhat Egypt reached the highest level
of prosperity attained during the Middle Kingdom. His reign
was one of rapid economic expansion, including massive ex-
ploitation of mines and quarries, foreign trade, and, most
interesting, a large-scale land reclamation project in the Fa-
yum region to the west of the Nile.
The last two pharaohs of the dynasty were Amenemhat IV
and his sister Sebeknefru2 Amenemhat IV appears to have
been a strong ruler, but Sebeknefru was not. Little is known
of her brief reign; after her death power slipped into the
hands of a family of former viziers who became Dynasty Thir-
teen. The great days of the Middle Kingdom were over.
In literature and the arts, the Middle Kingdom was a clas-
sic age. Many of the greatest literary masterpieces of all Egyp-
tian history come from Dynasty Twelve* Among the most
famous are the “Story of the Shipwrecked Sailor,” a fanciful
tale about the adventures of a sailor marooned on an island
inhabited by a giant serpent, and the “Story of Sinuhe,” the
semifactual account of an official who fled Egypt at the time
of the assassination of Amenemhat I> These and other lit-
erary works of the same period are written in Middle Egyp-
tian, the classical form of the long-lived Egyptian language.
In art and architecture also the surviving examples from
the Middle Kingdom show us that this was a truly great time
for Egypt Relief sculpture, statuary, forts, temples, and paint-
ings are all witnesses to the skill of Middle Kingdom crafts-
men. The kings built brick pyramids, but these are poor
examples of funerary architecture; most of them are shape-
less piles of rubble today.

3. William C. Hayes, Egypt: From the Death of Ammenemes III to Seqnenre II

(New York: Cambridge University, 1962), pp.3 — 4.
4. See Hayes, Middle Kingdom, pp. 62 —70, for an excellent summary of Mid-
dle Kingdom literature.
5. Miriam Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University
of California, 1973, 1976), vol.1, pp. 211, 222.
6. For a brief survey see Hayes, Middle Kingdom, pp. 51ff.
28 Egypt and Bible History

Middle Kingdom shrine at Karnak.

In religion, the Middle Kingdom saw the rise to promi-

nence of several new gods,’ the most important of which was
Amon of Thebes, who was equated with Re and made into
a new composite deity called Amon-Re. Also newly important
in the Middle Kingdom were Montu, a falcon-headed war
god of Thebes, and Sebek, the crocodile deity of the Fayum
region. Another religious development of this age was what
William C. Hayes calls the “democratization of the hereafter,”
the belief that Egyptians other than the king and his highest
officials could have a part in the afterlife? The catch was, of
course, a financial one. The lowliest subject of the pharaoh
might gain immortality, but only if he could afford to buy the
appropriate magical spells.

Joseph’s Entrance into Egypt

Before we investigate the years spent by Joseph in Egypt,

a word of caution is necessary. We should not expect to find

7. Ibid., pp. 57ff.

8. Ibid., pp. 59ff.
Joseph’s Early Years 29

Egyptian references to Joseph or even necessarily to specific

events in the biblical record, for secular sources of informa-
tion are relatively few, and our knowledge of private individ-
uals in this period is scanty.
We may rather expect results of two other kinds. First, we
can expect to obtain a wealth of illustrative background in-
formation which shows us what Egypt was like in Joseph’s
day. Such information brings the Bible into better focus; we
see it as a book of real people living in a real and colorful
world. Second, and perhaps more important, we may expect
to illuminate and explain obscure portions of the biblical
narrative, portions we cannot fully understand outside of an
Egyptian context.
As we have already seen (p. 21), according to the biblical
chronology Jacob’s migration into Egypt must be dated to
approximately 1876 B.C. Since Joseph had already been there
for some time, a Middle Kingdom date for his sale into Egyp-
tian slavery is required.’ This fact is in contradiction to most
current scholarly opinion, which places the career of Joseph
in the Second Intermediate Period, under the Asiatic Hyksos
who ruled in the delta region for a number of years after the
end of the Middle Kingdom.!° This view rests on two argu-
ments. The first is a statement of Josephus drawn from Mane-
tho that Joseph was in Egypt under the Hyksos.'! A second
argument is that since Joseph was an Asiatic, it would be
logical for him to rise to power when fellow Asiatics ruled in
Egypt.'* Neither of these arguments is strong and neither fits
the biblical chronology. It is best to disregard Josephus unless
9. See James R. Battenfield, “A Consideration of the Identity of the Pharaoh
of Genesis 47,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15 (Spring, 1972):
77 — 85.
10. Among Egyptologists see W. M. F Petrie, Egypt and Israel (London: Society
for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1911), p. 27; T. Eric Peet, Egypt and the Old
Testament (Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 1924), chapter 4; and, more recently,
Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Joseph,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p.657. Among biblical scholars, see the full discussion
with bibliography in John Bright, A History of Israel, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: West-
minster, 1972), chapters 2 and 3.
11. Josephus Against Apion 1.14.
12. Peet, Egypt, p.73.
 30 Egypt and Bible History

there is archaeological confirmation of his assertions, and it

is best not to link Joseph to the Hyksos just because both
came from Syria-Palestine.As we will see, the details given in
Genesis fit far better with the Middle Kingdom than with the
Second Intermediate Period.
As to Joseph’s exact date within the Middle Kingdom,
James R. Battenfield has collated the biblical information with
the accepted chronology of the Middle Kingdom.!? In sum-
mary, Joseph was sold into slavery in approximately 1897 B.C.,
during the last years of Amenemhat II. It was then Sesostris II
who first imprisoned and later elevated Joseph to a position
of power in about 1884 B.C.; but since that pharaoh died in
1878, the bulk of Joseph’s career belongs in the reign of the
great king Sesostris III.
In recent years a great deal of study has been given to the
subject of slavery, and of Asiatic slaves particularly, in ancient
Egypt.'* The number of Syro-Palestinian slaves in Egypt grew
steadily during the late years of Dynasty Twelve and during
all of Dynasty Thirteen. While some of the Asiatic slaves were
without doubt prisoners seized by the Egyptians during raids
into Palestine,'* many must have entered Egypt by means of
a slave trade. This is indicated, according to both German
Egyptologist Wolfgang Helck and Hayes, by the predomi-
nance of female slaves over male in our extant source ma-
terial.'® If most of the foreign slaves began their servitude as
prisoners of war, we would expect to find an excess of male
rather than female slaves. While it is true that there are no

13. Battenfield, “Identity of the Pharaoh,” pp. 84— 85.

14. On Egyptian slavery in general see A. Bakir, Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt
(Cairo: Linstitut Frangais d’archéologie orientale, 1952). On Asiatics see John Van
Seters, The Hyksos: A New Investigation (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1966),
pp. 90ff.; William C. Hayes, ed., A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in
the
Brooklyn Museum, Wilbour Monographs 5 (Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1972
reprint); and G. Posener, “Les Asiatiques en Egypte sous les XIle et XIIle Dynas-
ties,” Syria 34 (1957): 145 — 63.
15. Van Seters, Hyksos, pp.90— 91.
16. Wolfgang Helck, Die Beziehungen Aegyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und 2.
Jahrtausend vor Christi (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971), p.78; and Hayes,
Papyrus, p.99.
Joseph’s Early Years 31

preserved records of a slave trade,'’ this cannot be used as

evidence that such a trade did not exist. If, as the biblical
record indicates, the slave trade was in the hands of Asiatics
and not Egyptians, there were probably few if any records
kept by Egyptian scribes. Further, any such records would
have been kept on papyrus, and the chances of examples
surviving to the present day would be minimal, since the
trade would have been concentrated in the delta close to the
frontier, an area whose climate is not conducive to the pres-
ervation of papyri.
As an illustration of the profusion of Asiatic slaves in Mid-
dle Kingdom Egypt we need but look at the long list of slaves
on one papyrus published in 1955 by Hayes.'® Over half of
the slaves listed are Asiatics; the rest are native Egyptians.
The papyrus, which dates from the late Twelfth Dynasty, is
evidence that Palestinian slaves like Joseph were common in
Egypt at that time.

Joseph in Potiphar’s House

Potiphar the Egyptian

When Joseph reached Egypt, he was purchased by an
Egyptian official called Potiphar (Gen. 37:36). As the previously
mentioned papyrus shows, there is nothing unusual in this
purchase; private individuals (not just the king) could and
did own slaves during the Middle Kingdom.'? But before we
examine Joseph’s servitude in Potiphar’s household, we must
consider Potiphar himself. His name and titles present us
with a series of difficult problems.
The first difficulty is the name Potiphar itself. Virtually all
scholars are agreed that the Hebrew word Potiphar is the
equivalent of Egyptian pa di pa Ra, meaning “the one whom
[the god] Re has given.””° The problem with this name cen-

17. Van Seters, Hyksos, p.91.

18. Brooklyn Papyrus 35.1446—Hayes, Papyrus, pp. 87, 92ff.
19. Ibid., pp. 133 — 34.
20. For discussion, see J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, Orientalia et Biblica Lov-
aniensia III (Louvain, 1959), pp. 146 — 48.
 32 Egypt and Bible History

ters around the word pa, the Egyptian definite article, which
occurs twice in Potiphar. The use of pa alone in personal
names is almost, but not totally, a late development, rarely
occurring in the Middle Kingdom. Hermann Ranke in his
authoritative study of Egyptian personal names lists 727 names
with pa as the first element; of these only fifteen date from
earlier than the New Kingdom?! A name beginning with pa
is therefore unlikely, but not impossible, in the Middle King-
dom. The theory that Potiphar is a personal name passes
from the realm of the unlikely to that of the impossible, how-
ever, when we consider the combination pa + di + divine
name. Of 109 names which exemplify this formula (pa + di
+ divine name) one comes from Dynasty Eighteen and one
from Dynasty Nineteen—all the rest are known only from
extremely late periods of Egyptian history (after 1000 B.C.).
Not one example comes from as early as Dynasty Twelve.
Several solutions to the name problem have been pro-
posed,” but no scholar has been able to explain a man’s
having a name with a grammatical construction not other-
wise attested until nearly a thousand years after he lived. The
best solution is to understand “Potiphar” as a descriptive ep-
ithet meaning “one who is placed on earth by Re” (ie., an
Egyptian), and not as a name at all.
In support of this we note that it would be surprising to
find a name in the Genesis account. Only two Egyptian men
are “named” in the entire story of Joseph, Potiphar and Jo-
seph’s father-in-law Potiphera. No pharaoh is named in the
Genesis narrative. Now it is odd that the names of these two
individuals are given while no one else is accorded that priv-
ilege; and it is doubly odd when we realize that both names

21. Hermann Ranke, Die Aegyptische Personennamen (Glickstadt: J. J . Augus-

tin, 1935), vol.1,pp.
99 —129.
22. The view of Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Potiphar’” and “ Potipherah,” in New Bible
Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p.1012,
that Poti-
phar is a Mosaic modernization of an older type of name does not seem
con-
vincing; on the other hand, the view of Joseph P Free, Archaeology
and Bible
History (Wheaton, IL: Scripture Press, 1962), pp.77— 78, that the names
found in
the story of Joseph can occur “early,” is not valid for the construction
pa+di+
divine name,
Joseph’s Early Years 33

are variations of the same Egyptian phrase, pa di pa Ra.

These strange facts cast doubt on regarding Potiphar and
Potiphera as names.
Further, the meaning of pa di pa Ra is significant. The idea
conveyed by the phrase is that the individual was placed on
earth by Re, and was in a manner of speaking the offspring
of that deity. Something similar occurs elsewhere in the Old
Testament. Shamgar, one of the minor judges, is called the
son of Anath in Judges 3:31 and 5:6. Since the name Shamgar
is probably foreign,”* there is a strong possibility that he was
not a Hebrew. The phrase “son of Anath,” then, may mean
that Shamgar was a member of a nationality that worshiped
the Canaanite goddess Anath. The phrases “son of Anath” and
“the one placed on earth by Re” would be similar in that they
designate the national origin of the men so described. Poti-
phar thus may be merely a phrase stressing the fact that the
man who bought Joseph was an Egyptian, and not a name
at all, any more than the phrase “son of Anath” is a name.
This explanation removes the chronological impossibility dis-
cussed above, for a pa di phrase so understood would be
acceptable in a document written by Moses in about 1400 B.c.
A second problem regarding Potiphar is his pair of titles,
officer (saris) of the pharaoh and captain of the guard (sar
hatabbahim), given in Genesis 37:36 and 39:1. Saris is often
taken to mean eunuch,?* but this seems unlikely for two
reasons: Potiphar was a married man,”° and also, as far as we
know, eunuchs were very rare in ancient Egypt.?’ The solu-
tion to this difficulty is to translate saris as officer and not
eunuch at all. This fits both the Egyptian practices of the day
and the use of the term saris and related words in Semitic

23. Kitchen, “Potiphar” and “Potipherah,” p. 1012.

24. See EF F Bruce, “Shamgar,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p. 1170.
25. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965), vol. 2,
p.974. See also the detailed study of Gerald E. Kadish, “Eunuchs in Ancient
Egypt?” Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civiliza-
tion 35 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969), pp. 55 — 62.
26. John J. Davis, Paradise to Prison (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975), p. 269.
27. Kadish, “Eunuchs,” p. 61.
34 Egypt and Bible History

languages (it is even possible that saris can be equated with

the Egyptian word sr [official],?8 but such an equation is not
universally accepted). In Babylonian documents the term
Saresi, or saris, is used to mean official, and there is no
evidence that it has anything to do with eunuchs. Only in
the specialized use of the Assyrians does the term mean
eunuch;”? it is not correct to carry this meaning over into
Hebrew. Saris in the story of Joseph means simply officer.
The second title, sar hatabbahim, is more difficult to in-
terpret. Most probably it refers to some type of commander
of royal bodyguards, but establishing an exact Egyptian
counterpart is too problematic for us to be dogmatic. In any
case, it is certain that the pharaohs of the Middle Kingdom
had bodyguards, since the term “bodyguard of the king” is
known from as far back as the Old Kingdom,?! and is thus
not out of place in the story of Joseph. Also, the fact that the
pharaoh’s guard commander was a native Egyptian casts ex-
treme doubt on the theory that the story of Joseph is to be
dated in the Hyksos Period—it does not seem probable that
a foreign pharaoh would have had an Egyptian, a member
of a conquered race, in such a post.

The Positions Held by Joseph Under Potiphar

According to Genesis 39:2—3-Joseph began his career in

Egypt as a household slave of Potiphar. Recent historical re-
search has shed a great deal of light on this aspect of Joseph's
life. From monuments of the Middle Kingdom Helck has
compiled a list of Asiatic slaves which presents a striking
parallel to Joseph’s employment+? Of forty-eight Asiatics
28. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Woérterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache
(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1926 — 1931), vol. 4, p. 188.
29. John A. Brinkman, A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, Analecta
Orientalia 43 (Rome, 1968), pp. 308 —11.
30. William A. Ward, “Egyptian Titles in Genesis 39— 50,” Bibliotheca Sacra
114 (January, 1957): 41. For a view that the title refers to someone involved with
the royal food supply, see Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, pp. 31ff.
31. Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch, vol. 4, p.340.
32. Helck, Beziehungen, p.77, n.2.
Joseph’s Early Years 35

listed, only six have specific titles: four are called cupbearer
(butler), and two are listed as domestic servants of their mas-
ters, thus holding posts identical to that of Joseph in Genesis
39:2. Helck has also tabulated the Asiatics listed in the pa-
pyrus we discussed on page 31:33 two were domestic ser-
vants, one was a brewer, two were cooks, and one was a
teacher** We thus find that of those foreign slaves whose
specific jobs are given in our source material, Asiatic house-
hold servants were among the most common in Egypt during
the Middle Kingdom. Joseph fits the pattern well, beginning
his servitude as a domestic servant alongside others of his
nationality.
Like most high Egyptian officials, Potiphar evidently had
agricultural estates. In Joseph he recognized the makings of
an able steward for those estates, and, after a period of time,
promoted him to be over all his possessions (Gen. 39:4). The
Egyptian phrase for steward is “the one who is over the
house,” with the term house having the broader meaning of
estate>>
Regarding the specific duties of a steward, we may turn to
several holders of the office in the better-documented New
Kingdom (1570 — 1085 B.C.) and examine their subsidiary ti-
tles. A certain Djehuty like Joseph was steward of a high
governmental official, Mery, who was the high priest of Amon
under Amenhotep II. A funerary cone of Djehuty?® records
that he was scribe of offerings (this shows that he was literate)
and chief of agricultural slaves?’ Another high priest of Amon
had a scribe and steward named Amenhotep, again obviously

33. Hayes, Papyrus, p.103.

34. Helck, Beziehungen, p. 78.
35. Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford: Oxford University,
1947), vol.1, p.46.
36. Norman de Garis Davies, A Corpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones
(Oxford: Oxford University, 1957), vol. 1, no. 402.
37. For a discussion of the term see Bakir, Slavery, pp. 25—27. Bakir con-
cludes, despite the fact that those designated by this term were sometimes do-
mestic servants, that they “may rightly be regarded as slaves put to work especially
on land” (p. 27).
36 Egypt and Bible History

a literate man3® One of Egypt's viziers had a scribe, steward,

and chief of agricultural slaves named Amenemhat.” It is
quite clear from these examples that the office of steward
was fairly common in the households of Egypt's great officials
and that literacy was one of the prerequisites for the job. It
is also clear that one of the major areas of responsibility of
these men was supervision of agricultural slaves on the es-
tates of their masters and of agricultural work in general. The
remark at the end of Genesis 39:5 that everything that Poti-
phar had was blessed, including his possessions in the field,
refers to Joseph’s supervision of agriculture, and thus is a
touch of authentic detail. But further, we see in Joseph’s po-
sition as a supervisor of agriculture that the Lord prepared
him for his remarkable achievements in the upcoming days
of famine.*°

Joseph in Prison

The next episode in Joseph’s life is a familiar one; Poti-

phar’s wife attempts to lure Joseph into an adulterous rela-
tionship, and, failing in her attempt, accuses her husband’s
steward of the very sin that he resisted (Gen. 39:7—20). Joseph
is thrown into prison on her false charges.
The Egyptian “Tale of Two .Brothers,”*! which centers
around a similar attempted seduction of an honorable man
by a married woman who then accuses him of immorality,
has been cited as the inspiration for the incident of Joseph
and Potiphar’s wife? But this most certainly is not the case.
Despite the similarity of motif, there are major differences
between the fictional Egyptian work and the biblical ac-

38. Davies, Corpus, vol. 1; no. 123.

39. Ibid., no. 128.
40. Vergote's view (Joseph en Egypte, p.98) that Joseph was concerned only
with interior household duties can certainly not be correct.
41. Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, vol. 2, pp. 203 —11.
42. See Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B.
Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1950), p. 23.
Joseph’s Early Years 37

count.3 Tales of this kind circulated widely in the ancient

Near East; there need not be any connection at all between
the story of Joseph and the “Tale of Two Brothers.”44 Beyond
the realm of fiction, we find references to adultery and its
punishments in Egyptian wisdom literature 4°
In any case, Joseph was wrongfully cast into prison4° The
papyrus with which we are already familiar provides us with
abundant information about Egyptian prisons and their pur-
poses. The prison was most commonly called the khenret,
literally the “place of confinement.”4’ It included both a for-
tress made up of cells like a modern prison and a sort of
labor-camp barracks; prisoners were often used as forced
labor. Like their modern counterparts, Egyptian prisons were
filled with convicted criminals serving for a specific period
of time determined by the criminal courts. But there were
also individuals awaiting execution. Joseph was apparently
serving a sentence of a specified number of years, while the
butler and the baker were awaiting execution.
The Egyptian Great Prison at Thebes, particularly promi-
nent in the Middle Kingdom (and perhaps, but not certainly,
the actual prison of Joseph’s confinement), had a full staff of
officials, mainly scribes and guards, under the supervision of
an overseer of the prison. Instances of the use of this title are
somewhat rare, but there are examples from the time of Jo-
seph, including the reference in Genesis 39:21 to “the keeper
of the prison.” Since Joseph was literate, having been a stew-
ard, it is not inconceivable that he became a scribe of the

43. For example, in the biblical account Joseph and Potiphar are not brothers,
nor are there any mythological elements. For a complete list of differences see
Harold G. Stigers, A Commentary on Genesis (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1975),
p. 284.
44. This conclusion is reached by no less a critic than D. B. Redford, A Study
of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 93.
45. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, pp. 22 — 24.
46. Although the normal punishment for adultery was death; see Vergote,
Joseph en Egypte, p.24.
47. Our information on Egyptian prisons is drawn from Hayes, Papyrus,
pp. 37
— 42.
38 Egypt and Bible History

prison as a result of the promotion mentioned in Genesis

29227
While in prison, Joseph met the royal butler and the royal
baker, who were seemingly awaiting execution for some of-
fense. Both titles are amply attested. The butler was literally
the cupbearer of the king, a term which fits the Hebrew
mashgeh (the one who furnishes drink) better than does our
English word butler.*° J. Vergote in his study of the story of
Joseph cites an example of a cupbearer of the king in the
Middle Kingdom.*°
Baker was also a common title in the Middle Kingdon
but it is not possible to determine exactly what is entailed
by the title in Genesis, since there were three different Egyp-
tian words for baker in use during the Middle Kingdom.*! In
any case, the post was obviously a necessary one since bread
was one of the staples of the Egyptian diet.>?
Both men dreamt while in prison, and Joseph interpreted
their dreams for them. The butler, who dreamt of grapevines
and squeezing grape juice once again into the pharaoh’s cup,
would be returned to his post; and so he was. The baker,
who saw birds eating baked goods from baskets on his head,
would lose his head. His dream also came to pass. From
Dynasty Nineteen (ca. 1300 B.C.) comes an Egyptian book on
dream interpretation*? While no exact parallels to the dreams
of the butler or baker are present in this work, we can learn
two things from the book. The Egyptians, at least by Dynasty
Nineteen but probably earlier as well, believed dreams could
help foretell the future. Also, we find that the meaning of
dreams was thought to be allegorical, just as in this part of
the story of Joseph. Seeing a large cat, for example, meant
that a plentiful harvest was coming. On the other hand, a
dream about catching birds was considered an evil omen—

48. Ward, “Egyptian Titles,” p. 43.

49. Ibid.
50. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, p. 33.
51. Erman and Grapow, Worterbuch, vol. 6, p.17.
52. For an interesting discussion see Ward, “Egyptian Titles,” p. 45.
53. For some excerpts, see Ancient Near Eastern Texts, p. 495.
Joseph’s Early Years 39

it meant that the dreamer would lose his property. Or, if one
dreamed of seeing one’s own face in a mirror, the obtaining
of another wife was predicted.
Despite his promise to tell the pharaoh of Joseph, the
butler totally forgot his friend in prison when he was restored
to favor. Before the next series of important events in his life,
Joseph had to wait two long years in prison.
 tii ees
waihateto of si~—- Dtt Aoa
— eh ine pi )
5 glans) te plete gel oe «2
Dee eniniy “+ i — ni es phot tui ra ere

bia a
. Wii '
a
;
.
, of “14
'
(alt aye — ed
"7 + bertaby
=
7s
' : 5
pe 9: ther
oakim
J, 4 oa < 4
. aes ' ngs CO 1 ae
eee 2s (rs BY
‘ion ysial ji i
2 -t So ay
a Het

mE &
=a ~g

“of
+o" a

a
7 sy! _
Fae - OD ie 7 ” bane

od vil 4 ’
7 = 7 ; :

ma mie” g a © a ji» 4
S&S + —S
_ te coll yD Se. §
Pa “ey ~ * Stes

zt. * Bs oo
7
< i ¥? s
$ o
;
f
—
— i
-—~s
ne A alia
iJ =

-_ AE a > ver tT}

i ; i = » se
.| . 2 | as Pa 7 -

«Get aR ee oe
wh
*
en sc om
SHR a 4

ie eq 2: eyed wwe at f

us z “AF
5 os “oe ws
wn . ge ou
' ang > —_ * ag
-_ \ ’ —
 54
Joseph's Rise to
Prominence

Joseph Before Pharaoh

While Joseph languished in prison, forgotten completely

by the restored butler, the king of Egypt (without much doubt
Sesostris II) had a recurrent dream. Before considering that
dream, a word about the king’s title is in order. The Egyptian
term transliterated “pharaoh,” meaning literally “great house,”
was used in Joseph's day and earlier only as a designation
for the palace and never for the king personally. We must
remember, however, that Moses and not Joseph is the author
of the Genesis account, and Moses lived in Dynasty Eighteen
(see chapter 5); it was during that dynasty that the term phar-
aoh began to be used as a personal title of the king. The
earliest preserved example of the king's being addressed di-
rectly as pharaoh comes from the reign of Akhenaton (early
fourteenth century B.C.), shortly after Moses’ death.’ Thus the
biblical usage conforms to the practice current at the time
of authorship; Egypt's king in Joseph’s day is described by
Moses in terms familiar to his own day. It is also interesting
that Moses nowhere uses the title pharaoh in conjunction
with a proper name, as Jeremiah does when he refers to

1. See Alan H. Gardiner, Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study

of Hieroglyphics, 3rd rev. ed. (New York: Oxford University, 1957), p. 75.

41
42 ; Egypt and Bible History

kings of Egypt, for example, in the case of Pharaoh Hophra

(Jer. 44:30). Such usage was common in Jeremiah’s day, but
would have been out of place in an earlier document.
Pharaoh's persistent dreams are familiar to all students of
the Bible, and need not detain us here.? He dreamt of seven
lean cattle devouring seven well-fed ones, and seven poor
ears of grain consuming seven good ears. The magicians (har-
tom) of Egypt were unable to interpret the king’s dreams
(Gen. 41:8). This Hebrew word is obviously borrowed from
the Egyptian term for magician (hry-tp), a title designating
one versed in sorcery, the black arts, and the evidently im-
mense body of literature that had grown up around these
subjects. These magicians also had connections with the
House of Life, the place of compilation, study, and storage of
Egypt's learned literature, a fact which helps explain the ref-
erence to wise men in the same verse?
At this point in the narrative (Gen. 41:9ff.) the restored but-
ler remembered how Joseph had correctly interpreted both
his dream and that of the baker, and recommended the skills
of his fellow prisoner to the king. Pharaoh sent for Joseph,
but some preparation was necessary before an audience could
take place. Before approaching the pharaoh, Joseph had to
shave and change his clothes (Gen. 41:14). The change of
clothes presumably relates to cleanliness, a matter of great
importance to the ancient Egyptians. If we may believe the
account of the Greek writer Herodotus (fifth century B.C.), the
Egyptians abhorred lice, washed their clothes and bodies
regularly, and shaved often for cleanliness’ sake4 In regard to
the shaving, we have but to look at the vast number of extant
Egyptian paintings and statues in order to see that the Egyp-
tians practiced the removal of facial hair and even the com-
plete shaving of the head. In one well-known tomb painting

2. Adetailed discussion may be found in J. Vergote, Joseph en Egypte, Orien-

talia et Biblica Lovaniensia III (Louvain, 1959), pp. 48ff.
3. Adolf Erman, A Handbook of Egyptian Religion (London: Archibald Con-
stable and Co., 1907), p.160.
4. Herodotus Histories 2. 35 — 36.
Joseph’s Rise to Prominence 43

a ere

Barbers at work.

there is even a glimpse of Egyptian barbers at work and of

men waiting to be served.
After being made presentable, Joseph went before the
pharaoh and interpreted the dreams, forecasting seven years
of plenty followed by seven years of famine, and recom-
mended that a wise man be placed in charge of preparations
for the coming famine. The overseer would, in following Jo-
seph’s advice, gather up one-fifth of the land’s produce dur-
ing the good years for distribution in the time of shortage.
Pharaoh recognized God’s wisdom in this plan and ap-
pointed Joseph to be the official responsible for implement-
ing the program. Joseph was put in charge of the pharaoh’s
house and made ruler over all the land of Egypt, second only
to the pharaoh himself (Gen. 41:40—41). He was given the
pharaoh’s ring, linen robes, a gold chain to be worn around
his neck (v. 42), and a chariot (v. 43).
Of the three gifts mentioned in Genesis 41:42, the gold
collar occurs frequently in Egyptian artistic representations.
D. B. Redford cites thirty-two examples of tomb paintings
showing the king granting gold necklaces to loyal officials®

5. The scene is in the tomb of Userhat at Thebes. The Ancient Near East in
Pictures, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1955), fig. 80.
6. D. B. Redford, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1970), pp. 208ff.
44 | : Egypt and Bible History

ae A Pees AY } ah ;

Egyptian official wearing a gold chain.

Redford correctly draws two conclusions about these paint-

ings. First, none of them have anything to do with induction
into high office, but on the contrary depict presentations of
rewards, and second, at least in the period before the Amarna
Age (fourteenth century B.C.), the rewards were given for ac-
tual service performed. Redford also concludes, however, that
since gold was given as a reward for service and not as a
symbol of induction into office, the biblical account does not
reflect Egyptian custom. But why must we regard all of Gen-
esis 41:37—46 as a description of Joseph's investiture? It seems
better to view the formal investiture as ending with verse 41
(the pharaoh’s statement that he has established Joseph as
ruler over Egypt), and to take verse 42 as a description of
Joseph’s rewards for explaining the king’s dreams.
The chariot mentioned in verse 43 might also be thought
problematic, since the Egyptians did not use the horse-drawn
war chariot earlier than the New Kingdom (1570 — 1085 B.C).
But need we conclude that chariots were common in Jo-
seph’s day, or even that they were then being used as weap-
Joseph's Rise to Prominence 45

ons of war simply because Joseph received one from the

pharaoh? The wording of verse 43, that Joseph was given the
pharaoh’s second chariot, implies that such vehicles were
not common, and suggests that even the king had very few
of them. Nor is anything ever said in the story of Joseph
about chariots (Joseph’s or anyone else’s) being used in battle.
There is reason to believe that the Egyptians could have had
a small number of chariots during the Middle Kingdom, since
there is in fact some evidence at least regarding horses. John
Van Seters, in his study of the Hyksos (invaders of Egypt after
the Middle Kingdom), mentions that the skeleton of a horse
was found by the excavators of the Middle Kingdom fortress
at Buhen.’ Since the horse was obviously known, there may
have been chariots as well, at least in limited numbers and
for limited uses.
As a final gift, Joseph received an Egyptian name and an
Egyptian wife, Asenath, daughter of Potiphera, priest of On.
As for Joseph’s name (Spnt p‘nh in Hebrew), scholars have
reached no certain conclusion about the Egyptian original.
Perhaps the best suggestion to date is that of Leibovitch, who
has posited an Egyptian name meaning “The Nourisher of
the Two Lands, the Living One.” This name approximates the
consonants of the Hebrew, fits Joseph’s accomplishment in
planning for the famine, and is roughly similar to several
known names from the Old and Middle Kingdoms’
Potiphera and Asenath are not as difficult to deal with.
Potiphera is virtually identical with Potiphar, and like the
latter is probably a statement of the nationality of the father
of Asenath rather than a personal name. He was simply one
placed on earth by Re, a “son of Re.” Asenath, however, is
beyond doubt a proper name, most likely ns-nt, “Belonging

7. John Van Seters, The Hyksos: A New Investigation (New Haven, CT: Yale
University, 1966), pp. 184 — 85.
8. See Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Zaphnath-Paaneah,” in New Bible Dictionary, ed.
J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), p.1353, and the extended dis-
cussion in Redford, Study, pp. 230 — 31.
9. Hermann Ranke, Die Aegyptische Personennamen (Gluckstadt: J. J. Augus-
tin, 1935), vol. 1, p. 406, nos.
16 — 22.
46 Egypt and Bible History

to [the goddess] Neith.” This type of name occurs from the

early periods to the later, and is commonly found in the
Middle Kingdom.'°
The title given to Joseph's father-in-law, priest of On, is
interesting. On is the Egyptian city iwnw (Greek, Heliopolis),
the center of worship of the sun god Re. It may be assumed
without much doubt that Asenath’s father was a high-ranking
priest of Re, and therefore one of the leading religious dig-
nitaries of Egypt. He may even have been the high priest,"!
since Joseph’s marriage to his daughter was considered to
be a great honor. That Joseph’s bride was the daughter of a
priest of the sun god is an important confirmation of a Mid-
dle Kingdom date for these events, since the Hyksos kings
(after 1675 B.C.) made Set the primary deity of their rule rather
than Re.'* Had Joseph’s pharaoh been a Hyksos, he would
most likely have given Joseph a wife from the family of some
priest of Set instead of Re.

Joseph as Second Ruler of Egypt

Much study has been given to what titles Joseph had (and
did not have) in the Egyptian government. The chief difficulty
lies in the fact that for the most part the Hebrew narrative
does not preserve translations or transliterations of Egyptian
titles, but attempts rather to paraphrase or describe them.
And since the functions of Egyptian officials often overlapped,
it is hard to determine with precision which title is meant in
a given passage of Scripture.
To begin with the most obvious titles, it seems certain that
Joseph became chief steward of the king. Genesis 41:40 quotes
the pharaoh as saying that Joseph would be over the king’s
house; in Egyptian usage this meant over his estates and
agricultural holdings as well as the royal residence itself. This

10. Ibid., vol. 1, p.176, no. 14.

11. So Alan Rowe, “The Famous Solar City of On,” Palestine Exploration Quar-
terly 94 (1962): 134 —35.
12. The view that the Hyksos completely suppressed the worship of Re can
no longer be accepted. See Van Seters, Hyksos, pp. 172 —73.
Joseph’s Rise to Prominence 47

appointment is reiterated in the important summary of Jo-

seph’s titles in Genesis 45:8, where he is called “lord of all his
[pharaoh’s] house.”
Chief stewards were first and foremost administrators of
the king’s personal agricultural lands, and had within their
jurisdiction the royal slaves who labored upon these lands.!*
This conforms exactly to Joseph's experience in the house
of Potiphar, where he had responsibilities over the fields and
most certainly over the agricultural laborers. It also conforms
to his agriculture-related duties in preparing Egypt for the
coming famine, as would his second task as chief steward—
superintending the royal granaries. A further task of the chief
steward was oversight of the king's cattle and other animals.
A reflection of this particular duty is perhaps seen in the
pharaoh’s offhand question to Joseph in Genesis 47:6, where
he asks if any of the children of Israel have special talent in
this area. All considered, the agricultural nature of the office
of chief steward gave Joseph the opportunity to help save
Israel from starvation. Note what he says to his brothers in
Genesis 45:7: “And God sent me before you to preserve you
a posterity in the earth, and to save your lives by a great
deliverance.”
Genesis 45:8 also mentions another important Egyptian
dignity, calling Joseph “father to Pharaoh.” As has been cor-
rectly pointed out by William A. Ward, this is the title father
of god, where the term god refers to the king.'* The title had,
like many Egyptian titles, several uses. It could mean the
literal father of the king, the father-in-law of the king, the
king’s private tutor, or it could even be used of minor priestly
functionaries. None of these positions of course were held by
Joseph. But another very common use of the title was to
designate important officials who were unrelated to the king

13. The most complete job description of the office of chief steward is Wolf-
gang Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs (Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1958), pp. 103 — 04.
14. William A. Ward, “The Egyptian Office of Joseph,” Journal of Semitic Stud-
ies 5 (1960): 149. The title is further discussed in Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyp-
tian Onomastica (Oxford: Oxford University, 1947), vol.1, pp. 47ff.
48 Egypt and Bible History

but had performed some valuable function or held some

exalted position.'* The title was particularly common among
viziers, a fact we must remember when we consider whether
Joseph was ever prime minister or not.
Ward has seen two other titles in the biblical description
of Joseph, seal-bearer of the king, which he assigns on the
basis of the mention of the ring in Genesis 41:42, and overseer
of the granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt, which he assigns
on the basis of the obvious need for grain in preparation for
the famine.!® As for the title seal-bearer, Ward may well be
right; there is simply not enough information in the biblical
text to conclude the case one way or the other. It is not
possible, however, that Joseph was overseer of the granaries,
since this title did not appear until the Eighteenth Dynasty,
long after the days of Joseph. In the Middle Kingdom re-
sponsibility for crop administration fell under the vizier or
prime minister.'? This brings us to the most controversial
question regarding Joseph’s titles: was he ever vizier of Egypt?
Ward is the strongest advocate of the view that Joseph was
never vizier of Egypt. His chief argument is that phrases such
as “ruler over all the land” (Gen. 41:43) and “ruler throughout
all the land of Egypt” (Gen. 45:8) are merely Hebrew transla-
tions of high-sounding but basically meaningless Egyptian
epithets given to all important officials.'? While no one denies
that Egyptian officials did have epithets that were, as far as
we know, devoid of specific meaning, most of the biblical
phrases in question are not exact renditions of the typical
airy epithets. The only such common epithet which is ap-
plied to Joseph is “chief of the entire land,” which was, as
Ward points out, sometimes used by officials who were of
lesser rank than vizier. Unfortunately for Ward’s case, how-
ever, the epithet in question was most often used by viziers,
and is thus stronger evidence that Joseph held that position
than that he did not. Also, for the strongest of all the phar-

15. Redford, Study, p.191, has not considered this common use of the title.
16. Ward, “Egyptian Office,” pp. 145ff.
17. Helck, Verwaltung, p.154.
18. Ward, “Egyptian Office,” pp. 148 — 49.
Joseph’s Rise to Prominence 49

aoh's statements, “Only in the throne will I be greater than

you’ (Gen. 41:40), Ward can find no exact Egyptian parallel at
all.
It seems far better to accept Genesis 41:40 at face value
and assume that Joseph was indeed vizier. In support of this
contention, let us briefly compare some of Joseph’s respon-
sibilities with the well-known duties of Egyptian viziers.!° The
vizier was indeed the number-two man in all Egypt, directly
subordinate to the king. It was his job to supervise the ma-
chinery of government at all levels, to keep all administrative
records, to appoint lower officials, to receive embassies, and
to supervise agriculture, construction work, and industry
generally. When we see Joseph preparing Egypt for the com-
ing famine, we see nothing less than an all-powerful vizier at
work. Not only was crop management directly under the
vizier in the Middle Kingdom, but who else could have car-
ried out such massive land reforms as those mentioned in
Genesis 47:20—26? Also, as we have mentioned, the vizier was
charged with the reception of foreign embassies, a duty we
see Joseph performing when his brothers travel to Egypt in
search of food. Finally, the report brought back to Jacob by
the brothers that Joseph was governor over all Egypt (Gen.
45:26) is best taken to mean that Joseph was indeed vizier
under kings Sesostris II and the great Sesostris III.
In regard to the seven-year famine, let it be said that we
have no certain record of this particular catastrophe, which
would have fallen during the reign of Sesostris III. But we do
have an interesting text from the Ptolemaic period which
refers to a famine of seven years’ duration and the measures
taken to alleviate it; supposedly this event occurred in the
reign of King Djoser in the Old Kingdom.”° This text shows
at least that there was some knowledge of a famine lasting
seven years; and, further, it is just possible that this text is a
garbled Ptolemaic recollection of Joseph's famine and not

19. On the duties of the vizier, see William C. Hayes, Egypt: Internal Affairs
from Tuthmosis I to the Death ofAmenophis III (Cambridge: Cambridge University,
1966), part 1, pp. 43ff.
20. For analysis and bibliography, see Redford, Study, pp. 206— 07.
50 | : Egypt and Bible History

¥
TATUM TATU
ants
oe

eres Ml
Egyptian tomb painting.

one in Djoser’s day. We must remember that Djoser had a

vizier famous for wisdom, the semilegendary Imhotep. It
would not be difficult for people living over one thousand
years later to attribute Joseph’s accomplishments to another
famous vizier; we should also consider the fact that the in-
scription about Djoser’s famine was found near the site of a
Jewish colony in southern Egypt, thus making reference to
Joseph highly possible?!
Finally, we must address ourselves to the complex issue
of Joseph’s land reforms described in Genesis 47:20—26. Al-
though the system of land tenure in Middle Kingdom Egypt
is poorly understood, it is clear that in this age, as in all
periods of Egyptian history, some private ownership of land
continued to exist? But the abolition of private property is
perhaps not what is implied in the biblical passage. An im-

21. Ronald J. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” in J. R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of
Egypt (New York: Oxford University, 1971), p.271.
22. Redford, Study, pp. 236— 37.
Joseph’s Rise to Prominence ol

Osiris, god of the nether world.

portant social reform did in fact take place during the very
time of Joseph, the reign of Sesostris III. Sesostris broke the
dominance of the great nobles of the land. It is noteworthy
that in the late years of his reign the records of the nomarchs
(provincial chiefs) and the building of impressive tombs for
officials in the provinces came to an end.” It is probable
that there is some link between the decline of the great no-
bles and Joseph’s land reforms,” but the details must await
further research.
The last verse in the Book of Genesis tells us that Joseph
died at 110, and was embalmed and put into a coffin in
Egypt. At that time 110 years was considered the ideal life-
span,*> and the embalming of bodies was fast becoming a
key part of Egyptian funerary practice.
23. For the details see William C. Hayes, The Middic Kingdom of Egypt (New
York: Cambridge University, 1964), pp. 44 — 45.
24. So James R. Battenfield, “A Consideration of the Identity of the Pharaoh
of Genesis 47,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 15 (Spring, 1972):
82ff.
25. See the statement at the end of the “Instructions of Ptah-hotep,” in Miriam
Lichtheim, Ancient Egyptian Literature, 2 vols. (Berkeley: University of California,
1973, 1976), vol. 1, p.76.
52 Egypt and Bible History

The death of Joseph initiated a change in the attitude of

the Egyptians toward the resident Hebrews, although the
effects of this change were not immediate. But within a cen-
tury of the reign of Sesostris III, the entire political and social
situation in Egypt was to change radically, and with these
changes came the oppression of the children of Israel.
 af
The Sojourn and Bondage

Egypt After Joseph

The Hyksos
With the end of Dynasty Twelve (ca. 1786 B.C.) the greatness
that had characterized the Middle Kingdom had run its
course. Under the ephemeral rulers called the Thirteenth
Dynasty, Egypt was no longer a great power; and with the
decline of central authority came ever increasing infiltration
of Asiatics into the delta. Eventually, although the details are
obscure and still a matter of scholarly debate,' the Asiatics
usurped power and established a kingdom of their own in
the Nile delta. These Asiatics adopted much of the culture of
Egypt, and their pharaohs are known to historians as Dy-
nasties Fifteen and Sixteen, or as the Hyksos, a corruption of
an Egyptian term meaning “Rulers of Foreign Countries.”
Although the period of Hyksos rule (ca. 1675 — 1570 B.C.) is
one of the most poorly documented periods of Egyptian his-
tory, modern research has shown that some of the old ideas
about this age are untrue. The most significant of the mis-
conceptions is that the Hyksos possessed a vast empire in
Syria-Palestine and from there sent out their chariots in a

1. See John Van Seters, The Hyksos:A New Investigation (New Haven, CT: Yale
University, 1966), chapter 8, for the latest arguments.

53
54 : Egypt and Bible History

massive and highly organized invasion of Egypt. We now re-

alize that no such attack occurred, nor did the Hyksos have
an empire of any kind outside of Egypt. A second wrong idea
current in recent years is that the Hyksos ruled all of Egypt.
It is now known that they ruled only the northern part of the
country; the south remained under the control of native
Egyptian rulers. Finally, it has been popular, on the basis of
wrong interpretations of Egyptian texts, to see the Hyksos as
persecutors of native Egyptian religious beliefs. While it is
true that the Hyksos showed preference to certain Egyptian
deities (notably Set), they did not actively suppress the wor-
ship of any gods as far as we know.
About 1570 B.c. the native rulers at Thebes in Upper Egypt
(first the Seventeenth and then the Eighteenth Dynasties)
succeeded in expelling the Hyksos from the delta, united the
country, and inaugurated Egypt’s greatest period of all, the
New Kingdom.

Dynasty Eighteen: The Early New Kingdom

Many recent studies have placed our knowledge of the
chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty on a fairly firm foot-
ing.” There is little likelihood of substantial error in the fol-
lowing list of kings and dates:

Ahmose I 1570 — 1546

Amenhotep I 1546 — 1526
Thutmosis I 1526 — 1518
Thutmosis II 1518 — 1504
Hatshepsut 1504 — 1482
Thutmosis III 1504 — 1450
Amenhotep II 1453 — 1415
Thutmosis IV 1415 — 1401
Amenhotep III 1401 — 1364

2. See Erik Hornung, Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des

Neuen Reichs (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964); or more recently, E. F Wente
and C. Van Sicklen, “A Chronology of the New Kingdom,” in Studies in Honor of
George R. Hughes, ed. Janet H. Johnson, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization
39 (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1976), pp. 217— 61.
The Sojourn and Bondage 55

Akhenaton 1364 — 1347

Smenkhare 1347 — 1344
Tutankhamon 1344 — 1335
Ay 1335 — 1331
Horemhab 1331 — 1304.

Ahmose I, the founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, was

the brother of the last king of the Seventeenth Dynasty, Ka-
mose, and finished the expulsion of the Hyksos begun by his
predecessors. After a reign of about twenty-four years, which
included a war with Nubia and the crushing of a rebellion
at home, Ahmose died and was succeeded by his son
Amenhotep I.
The new king finished the consolidation of power begun
by his father, campaigning in Nubia again and even repelling
a Libyan invasion of the western delta. By the end of his
twenty-year reign, it was clear that. the Theban Eighteenth
Dynasty was securely in control of the land and Egypt was
on the threshold of a new golden age in its history.
The death of Amenhotep I created a potential dynastic
crisis, for the king had no son. Fortunately, one of Amenho-
tep’s female relatives (either his sister or his daughter) was
married to a prominent general, and the crown passed to
him as Thutmosis I.
The new king fought two Nubian campaigns, but of greater
importance was a deep thrust into Syria-Palestine, penetrat-
ing all the way to the upper Euphrates River, where a victory
stele was set up in commemoration of the defeat of the local
princes. This was the first of many such invasions of
Syria-Palestine by the pharaohs of Dynasty Eighteen, the net
result of which was the creation of an Asiatic empire for
Egypt. That, however, came later; Thutmosis’s campaign was
in reality only a raid.
After reigning about seven years, Thutmosis died, causing
an interesting succession problem. He and his queen had no

3. For the history of Dynasty Eighteen, see George Steindorff and Keith C.
Seele, When Egypt Ruled the East (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1965).
56 . . Egypt and Bible History

istshenstits caperat an el-Bahri.

son to succeed as pharaoh, but did have a daughter, Hat-

shepsut. She was, being female, considered unfit to be king,
and was therefore compelled to marry her half brother Thut-
mosis, son of Thutmosis I by a secondary wife. The new king
reigned as Thutmosis II for about fourteen years, but was not
a talented ruler.
In 1504 B.c., Thutmosis II died; like his father, he had no
heir by his queen, Hatshepsut. A son by a secondary wife was
named king as Thutmosis III, but since this prince was a
mere boy incapable of ruling, the strong-willed Hatshepsut
seized the real power and ruled for twenty-two years as vir-
tual king. Thutmosis III was forced into the background dur-
ing Hatshepsut’s dominance.
Hatshepsut was a colorful ruler. She sent a trading expe-
dition to the fabled African land of Punt, which she com-
memorated by a series of scenes in her beautiful terraced
temple built against the cliffs at Deir el-Bahri on the west
side of the Nile at Thebes. Aside from these peaceful pursuits,
the “Female King” apparently had some warlike inclinations,
for there is evidence that Hatshepsut conducted at least four
campaigns. In one of these operations she even led the army
in person!
After twenty-two years of rule, Hatshepsut disappeared
from the scene, whether by a natural death or through foul

4. D. B. Redford, History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt

(Toronto: University of Toronto, 1967), pp. 62ff.
The Sojourn and Bondage 57

« HY - ?

‘ ¥ .

¢- ‘ En - 3 . a

Pylon at Karnak.

play we cannot tell. Thutmosis II] emerged from the shadows

to rule as well as reign, becoming perhaps the greatest king
Egypt ever had.
If we count back to his coronation, Thutmosis III reigned
for fifty-four years; his effective rule began, however, in 1482
B.C. From that year to his death in 1450, Thutmosis cam-
paigned seventeen times, mainly in Syria-Palestine but also
in Nubia. The result of these wars was the creation of an
Egyptian empire in the Levant, for Thutmosis occupied much
of the territory in which he fought.
The booty brought back from Thutmosis’s Asiatic wars was
immense. Lists of slaves, cattle, and precious metals form the
bulk of the king’s famous annals inscribed on the walls of the
great temple of Amon-Re at Karnak. The fact that these rec-
ords were placed in a temple rather than a palace bears
witness to another significant factor of Thutmosis’s reign, the
rise in wealth and power of the priesthood of the state god
Amon-Re. Much of the wealth taken in war was given to the

5. For these annals, see James H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chi-
cago: University of Chicago, 1906), vol. 2, par. 406ff.
58 : Egypt and Bible History

Obelisk at Karnak.

god, as the annals show, and further expenditure of state

funds was lavished on construction at Karnak and other tem-
ples. It was during this age that the priests of Amon reached
a position of influence second only to the king himself. The
seeds of the religious revolution of AKhenaton were sown.
Late in life, the elderly Thutmosis III raised his son Amen-
hotep to the kingship, creating a coregency of something
approaching three years. In 1450 the old king died, and
Amenhotep II began his long sole reign as pharaoh ®

6. Previous estimates placed the sole reign of Amenhotep II at about twenty-

five years, but it now seems that thirty-five is closer to the truth. See Wente and
Van Sicklen, “Chronology,” pp. 227ff.
The Sojourn and Bondage 59

Amenhotep was a true son of his father. We are fortunate

to have extant records telling of the king's great athletic and
military prowess, particularly in the areas of archery and
horsemanship.’ Despite Amenhotep’s interest in things mil-
itary, however, he has left records of only three major wars,
in years three, seven, and nine of his reign Since the wars
of years three and seven are both called the first campaign,
D. B. Redford, following Alt, believes that Amenhotep did in
fact have two “first” wars: one before the death of Thutmo-
sis II and one after he became sole monarch.’ If this is true
(and it appears very likely), the war of year three took place
in 1450, that of year seven in 1446, and that of year nine in
1444. This point will be of interest when we consider the
exodus.
Following the uneventful reign of Thutmosis IV (who was

7. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B.
Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1950), pp. 244 — 45.
8. On all of this see D. B. Redford, “The Coregency of Thutmosis III and
Amenophis II,” Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 51 (1965): 118ff.
9. Ibid., p.120.
60 ' Egypt and Bible History

Statue of Amenhotep Il.

a son of Amenhotep II, but not the firstborn—see p.104),

Amenhotep III sat on Egypt's throne for thirty-eight years.
His reign was one of comparative peace and great prosperity,
but was also the prelude to the great religious and social
upheaval known as the Amarna revolution.
Akhenaton (originally Amenhotep IV), son of Amenho-
The Sojourn and Bondage 61

Amenhotep II in his chariot. Courtesy, Howard F. Vos.

tep III, began to reign at the death of the elder king in 1364 B.c.!°
In the new king’s sixth year of rule, Akhenaton and his queen
Nefertiti officially abolished the worship of the state god Amon-
Re, abandoned Thebes and its established bureaucratic tra-
dition, and set up a new capital on virgin soil at Tell el-
Amarna in Middle Egypt. The new state god was the Aton,
the raw disk of the sun; a priesthood and dogma were de-
veloped to replace those of Amon-Re. The army, evidently
supportive of these changes, was called home from Palestine,
and Egypt's empire was neglected. The neglect of foreign
affairs is clearly revealed in the extensive diplomatic corre-
spondence known as the Amarna Letters which was found

10. The present author does not believe a coregency between Amenhotep III
and Akhenaton existed. See Redford, History and Chronology, chapter 5, for a full
discussion.
62 ; Egypt and Bible History

Akhenaton and Nefertiti

with offerings for the sun-
god Aton. Photograph,
Courtesy of The Metropol- = Ys Sei
itan Museum of Art. 009 fesseews

at the capital. In these documents princes and chieftains in

Syria-Palestine pleaded for military aid from the pharaoh
against attackers, but no help was forthcoming.
One of the great misconceptions commonly held concern-
ing Akhenaton is that he was a monotheist. Such was simply
not the case. Not all Egypt's gods were abolished along with
Amon-Re, nor did the king deny that he himself was divine.
Quite the contrary, AKhenaton became the intermediary deity
through whom the common people worshiped the Aton. The
people venerated their divine king; he in turn worshiped the
new sun god. Another important fact to remember is that
Akhenaton most certainly had motives for changing Egypt’s
religion that were far from religious. The Amon priesthood
had become wealthy and too powerful, a rival institution to
The Sojourn and Bondage 63

Bust of Nefertiti. Courtesy of

the Oriental Institute, University
of Chicago. (The photograph
depicts an Oriental Institute
cast which is a reproduction of
the original in the collection of
the Egyptian Museum at Char-
lottenburg Castle in West
Berlin.)

the throne itself. Something drastic had to be done to weaken

the priests, and the Amarna revolution was the solution.!!
Akhenaton’s religious beliefs died with him. The last phar-
aohs of Dynasty Eighteen led a return to the old capital at
Thebes and to the old gods as well. Efforts were made to
suppress even the memory of the reformer and his religion.
The details of the reigns of Smenkhare, Tutankhamon (the
boy king whose tomb was found virtually intact), Ay, and Hor-
emhab need not detain us here. These last kings of the dy-
nasty merely stabilized Egypt for the renewal of greatness in
Dynasty Nineteen.

11. For details see Charles F Aling, “A Prosopographical Study of the Reigns
of Thutmosis IV and Amenhotep III” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota,
1976), chapter 10.
64 Egypt and Bible History

The Bondage

The Length of the Sojourn

The preceding digression from the biblical account is nec-
essary background to our discussion of the sojourn and ex-
odus. Two basic views are held today regarding the length of
Israel's stay in Egypt.'* The first view is that the total length
of the sojourn was 215 years. This is based on Galatians 3:16—
17, which seemingly places the giving of the law to Moses
430 years after the promises made to Abraham in Genesis
12:1—3. Since these promises (ca. 2091) preceded Jacob's en-
try into Egypt (ca. 1876) by 215 years, the sojourn in Egypt
would have lasted 215 years. A sojourn of only 215 years is
seemingly supported by Exodus 6:16—20, which mentions
only four generations from Levi to Moses, and by the Sep-
tuagint reading of Exodus 12:40, which, in reference to the
sojourn, substitutes 215 years for the 430 years of the Hebrew
text.
But the primary evidence seems to favor a longer sojourn
of 430 years. First and foremost, the Hebrew text asserts that
the Israelites spent 430 years in Egypt (Exod. 12:40—41); and,
as Leon Wood states, the Hebrew text must be favored over
later versions.!? Second, God told Abraham in Genesis 15:13
that his descendants would be afflicted in a foreign land for
four hundred years. Nor need we regard Exodus 6:16—20 as
strictly genealogical. This passage probably is meant to give
Moses 'tribe, clan, and family rather than specific individuals.
The only apparent remaining difficulty with a 430-year so-
journ lies with Galatians 3:16—17. But after further examina-
tion of that passage, this difficulty passes away. William
Hendriksen in his commentary on Galatians puts his finger
on the most logical solution: in verse 16 Paul states that the
promises were made not only to Abraham but to his seed or
descendants as well.'* Thus, the 430 years could begin with
the confirmation of the promises to Jacob (Gen. 28:14), mak-
ing the sojourn itself 430 years and conforming to the Hebrew
reading of Exodus 12:40. It seems best to accept the 430 years

12. These views are treated at length in Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel's His-
tory (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), chapter 5.
13. Ibid., pp. 83 — 84.
14. William Hendriksen, Galatians (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968), pp. 138
— 39.
The Sojourn and Bondage 65

in accord with the Hebrew text, and reject the 215 years of
the Septuagint.

The Start of the Bondage

It is unlikely that the bondage of the resident Hebrews
began as soon as Joseph was dead. There may have been
sporadic and isolated cases of persecution against the Jews,
but in general the Egyptians must have remembered Joseph
and what he had done for their country. Nor would resident
Asiatics have been a source of concern to the natives of the
land; quite the contrary, the last years of the Middle Kingdom
witnessed an increasing influx of Asiatics, most of whom
adopted the civilization of their new home. Some, like Joseph,
reached positions of authority and even intermarried with
Egyptians, despite their original servile status.'*
Organized persecution began, according to Exodus 138,
with the rise to power of a new king over Egypt who did not
know of Joseph. In his definitive article on the oppression
and exodus, John Rea effectively argues that the king who
knew not Joseph was one of the Hyksos pharaohs of the
Second Intermediate Period.'* Rea’s thesis rests on two points
in Scripture and one archaeological factor. First, the Hebrew
phrase translated “arose. ..over Egypt” might better be ren-
dered “arose against Egypt”; in other Old Testament passages
the preposition ‘al is often used to refer to violent seizures
of the throne, but never to peaceful succession of kings. The
idea of violent seizure of the throne fits the Hyksos better
than any native Egyptian ruler of this period. Second, in Ex-
odus 1:9—10 the oppressing king, in giving his reason for re-
ducing the Hebrews to slavery, states that they have become
“more and mightier than we,” and he fears they may join
with his enemies. It is inconceivable that the Israelites could
ever have outnumbered the natives of Egypt, but it is very
possible they could have been more numerous than the Hyk-

15. Van Seters, Hyksos, p. 90.

16. John Rea, “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus,” Grace Journal
2, no. 1 (1961): 6—10.
66 Egypt and Bible History

sos ruling minority. On the archaeological side, the biblical

statement that the Hebrews labored at the city of Ramses fits
the Hyksos Period.
This brings us to one of the most difficult questions re-
garding the sojourn and bondage. Exodus 1:11 affirms that
the Hebrew bondage began at two cities, Pithom and Ramses.
Before much can be said concerning these places, we must
consider the controversial issue of their exact location. Schol-
arly debate over the location of Pithom (Egyptian pr itm,
House of Atum) has narrowed the choice to three
possibilities!”
1. Tell el-Maskhutah. This eleven-acre town, located near
the eastern end of the Wadi Tumilat in the northeastern part
of the Nile delta, was the choice of the noted Swiss Egyptol-
ogist Edouard Naville. His identification was based primarily
on two post—New Kingdom inscriptions which make refer-
ence to the city as Per Atum,'® and on the fact that Tell el-
Maskhutah is situated on the main route out of Egypt toward
Palestine. Unfortunately, the name Per Atum for this city is
very late (first used in the reign of Osorkon II, ninth century
B.C.), its name in the New Kingdom being Tcheku. Moreover,
the location of the city near the eastern frontier (on a poten-
tial escape route from Egypt) makes it unlikely that foreign
slaves would be stationed there. Most scholars today have
abandoned the idea that Tell el-Maskhutah was biblical
Pithom.
2. Tell er-Retaba. Tell er-Retaba, also located in the Wadi
Tumilat but slightly to the west of Maskhutah, is the choice
of Alan H. Gardiner and T. Eric Peet, among others.!9 Two
points support this identification. First, the evidence linking
Maskhutah with Pithom is far from conclusive; in fact, the
references to that city as Tcheku cast strong doubt on its
being Pithom, since many scholars equate Tcheku with bib-

17. For all the arguments see E. P. Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses: Their Location
and Significance,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 27, no.4 (1968): 291 — 99.
18. Ibid., p. 294.
19. For a summary of the arguments, see T. Eric Peet, Egypt and the Old
Testament (Liverpool: University of Liverpool, 1924), pp. 67ff.
The Sojourn and Bondage 67

MEDITERRANEAN SEA

LAKE
MENZALEH

GOSHEN
Tell el-Maskhutah
Tell er-Retaba ae
e

Heliopolis

EGYPT, the Eastern Delta Region

lical Succoth, which was east of Pithom. Second, Retaba had

a temple of Atum, and could thus qualify as the “House of
Atum,” that is, Pithom.
3. Heliopolis. E. P. Uphill,
writing in 1968, made an ap-
pealing case for the equation of Heliopolis (Egyptian iwnw,
Hebrew On) with Pithom.”° He points out that this city above
all others in Egypt was the center of solar worship (Atum
was a sun god), and even had temples known as Per Re
(House of Re) and Per Atum (House of Atum). Nor in the case

20. Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses,” pp. 296ff.

 68 Egypt and Bible History

of Heliopolis is there any problem with the date. Heliopolis

was the center of the cults of Re and Atum as early as the
Old Kingdom.
Of the three possibilities, Tell er-Retaba and Heliopolis seem
to be the only viable choices for biblical Pithom. All that can
be said with certainty at present is that Pithom was in north-
ern Egypt and probably is to be identified with one of the
great centers of solar worship.
With Ramses, originally known as Avaris, we are on firmer
ground thanks to recent textual research and excavations.
Until recently, the one-thousand-acre delta city of Tanis (bib-
lical Zoan) had been identified with Ramses, chiefly on the
basis of the many statues and other monuments of the Nine-
teenth-Dynasty king Ramses II (1290 — 1223 B.C.) found there,
. some of which even carry inscriptions referring to deities “of
Ramses” (the city, not the king)! But several facts can be
cited against this identification: (1) In order to have been
Avaris-Ramses, Tanis must have been a major city in two
periods, the Nineteenth Dynasty (the dynasty of Ramses II)
and the Hyksos Period, when Ramses, known as Avaris, was
the capital of northern Egypt. And yet Tanis yields no small
everyday finds from these periods; its earliest large-scale hab-
itation began only with Dynasty Twenty-one.2? (2) Of the ob-
jects found at Tanis bearing the name of Ramses II, not one
was found in a building constructed during his reign. On the
contrary, they were haphazardly scattered about, and those
blocks with King Ramses’s name on them were clearly reused
as building material by later rulers.7 Ramesside objects were
thus brought here by the kings of Dynasty Twenty-one. There
is no evidence of earlier building at Tanis. (3) In a well-known
list of cities from the Nineteenth Dynasty, Tanis and Ramses
are both mentioned—and are separated by the names of
several other cities.** They are clearly different places.
If Tanis was not Ramses, where was the biblical city? Ex-

21. See the list in Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses,” pp. 305 — 06.
22. Van Seters, Hyksos, p.131.
23. Ibid., pp. 130ff., and Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses,” pp. 307— 08.
24. Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses,” p. 307.
The Sojourn and Bondage 69

citing new archaeological evidence has come to light, sup-

ported by the sound study of previously known textual
material, which shows beyond serious doubt that Avaris-
Ramses was located in the Khatana-Oantir Tell ed-Daba area
in the eastern delta, south of Tanis.2* There are several pieces
of supporting evidence: (1) Small finds from the days of Ram-
ses II abound in the Qantir area. Particularly impressive are
the many glazed blue tiles for use in a royal palace, some of
which name Ramses II and others Seti I (the father of Ram-
ses). In the same area there was a factory for the manufacture
of these tiles, with ten thousand tile molds of eight hundred
different types. (2) Qantir also has provided numerous small
finds (mostly pottery) from the Hyksos Period and even the
earlier Middle Kingdom. Unlike Tanis, this city was obviously
a large habitation site in times earlier than Dynasty Twenty-
one or Dynasty Nineteen. (3) Oantir’s location, buildings, and
gods correspond with all that we know of Per Ramses (Egyp-
tian, “House [or city] of Ramses”) from Egyptian literary
sources. (4) Ostraca have been found north of the tile factory
which actually bear the name Per Ramses.
The case for Khatana-Oantir Tell ed-Daba being Per Ram-
ses seems conclusive. The identification is supported by such
notables in the field of Egyptology as Mahmud Hamza and
Labib Habachi, both experts on the archaeology of the delta.
This identification permits us to date the start of the bondage
in the Hyksos Period, for Qantir thrived as early as the Middle
Kingdom.

The Height of the Bondage

We are informed in Exodus 1:13—14 that as time passed,
the labor of the Hebrews was heightened and extended. They
worked in mortar and brick as well as in all types of agri-
cultural labor. We may conclude from this that their service
spread geographically too, away from the cities of Pithom
and Ramses. The identity of those who heightened the bond-

25. For a summary of the arguments see Van Seters, Hyksos, pp.132ff, and
especially Uphill, “Pithom and Ramses,” pp. 308ff.
70 ‘ Egypt and Bible History

age is also told us (v. 13): it was the native Egyptians them-
selves, not the Hyksos. Here we are probably to recognize the
early pharaohs of the Eighteenth Dynasty, as John Davis has
recently suggested.”° It is likely that the king of verse 15 who
ordered the Hebrew midwives to kill Israelite male infants
was Thutmosis I, although this cannot be stated with certainty.
In regard to the materials mentioned in verse 14, mortar
and brick, a number of interesting points may be raised. By
mortar (or clay, Hebrew homer) we are not to understand
that some form of modern cementing material was used;
nothing of the kind was known in the ancient world before
Greco-Roman times. In brick construction work (which com- -
prised the majority of all architecture in ancient Egypt) the
sandy Nile clay was used as an adhesive. It was ideal for this
purpose.”’ The bricks mentioned were certainly the common
Egyptian sun-dried bricks, the normal building material in
the timberless Nile Valley. Incidentally, the purpose of chopped
straw in Egyptian brickmaking was to strengthen the brick
and to increase its moldability.
Kenneth Kitchen’s recent discussion of brickmaking in
Egypt sheds light on some of the details in Exodus 1—5.78
From Egyptian texts we learn that a dual administration ex-
isted for brickmaking, consisting of Egyptian supervisors
holding authority over foremen (cf. Exod. 5:6). Also, produc-
tion quotas, down to the last brick, were set.
As a final note on the making of bricks by the Hebrews,
there is a famous painting at Thebes in the tomb of Rekhmire,
vizier under the great Pharaoh Thutmosis III, which depicts
foreign slaves (both Nubians and light-skinned Syrians) mak-
ing bricks.’? Since the exodus followed shortly after the death

26. John J. Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971),
p.49.
27. See A. Lucas and J.R. Harris, Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries
(London: Edward Arnold, 1962), pp. 74—75.
28. Kenneth A. Kitchen, “From the Brickfields of Egypt,” Tyndale Bulletin 27
(1976): 137 — 47.
29. See the discussion of this scene in Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of
Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes, Metropolitan Museum of Art Egyptian Expedition Publi-
cations 11 (New York: Arno Press, 1973 reprint), pp.54 — 55.
 The Sojourn and Bondage TA

Sane ineaahteonnte eo yt Aa the tomb of Rekhmire). Pho-

tography by the Egyptian Exhibition, The Metropolitan Museum of Art.

of Thutmosis III (see chapter 5), this scene must depict the
last difficult days of the bondage. It is the only depiction of
brickmaking in all of the hundreds of tomb paintings from
the New Kingdom.

The Rise of Moses

Moses, the man chosen by God to deliver the Israelites
from their bondage, was born about 1526 B.c. at the end of
the reign of Amenhotep I2° The account of his being placed
in an ark in the Nile by his mother and the discovery of that
ark by the pharaoh’s daughter is familiar to all of us. The
infant was named Moses by the Egyptian princess after he
was taken from the water. It is only natural that the pharaoh’s
daughter would select an Egyptian name familiar to her; and
in fact Moshe (Hebrew) corresponds (with one consonantal

30. This is deduced from the fact that he was eighty at the time of the exodus,
which took place in about 1446 B.c. See chapter 5.
72 , Egypt and Bible History

change, s to $)3! to the common Egyptian root ms, meaning

“to give birth.” In Egyptian names ms was often combined
with the pronoun sw (him) and the name of a deity, yielding
“the god X bore him.” Typical examples abound, including
the well-known names Ramses and Amenmeses, translated
“Ra [Re] is the one who bore him” and “Amon is the one who
bore him.”
The question might be asked how viewing Moses as a
name like Ramses or Amenmeses can be squared with the
statement of Exodus 2:10 that the infant was called Moses by
the pharaoh’s daughter because she drew him out of the
water. It is to be noted that the name of any Egyptian deity
could be prefixed to the phrase ms-sw—we need not see in
the name Moses a shortening of either Ramses or Amenmeses.
For obvious religious reasons we may assume Moses dropped
the pagan deity’s name upon identifying himself with the
Hebrew people and their God. When the pharaoh’s daughter
named the child drawn from the waters of the Nile, she may
well have selected one of the deities associated with that
river, such as Hapi or Osiris. Names compounded with Hapi
abounded in the New Kingdom,*? as did names in which
Osiris is an element*? The actual name Osiris-meses is
even attested, although from a later period than the days of
Moses.** It seems likely that some such name as Hapi-meses
or Osiris-meses was given to Moses. Thus the pharaoh’s
daughter would have named the child something like “the
Nile god bore him” because she drew him out of the water.
It is sometimes stated that Hatshepsut, the daughter of
Thutmosis I, is the princess spoken of in the Book of Exo-
dus.*> While such an identification is tempting in the light
of Hatshepsut’s domineering personality and her later ac-

31. For an explanation of the consonantal change see J. Gwyn Griffiths, “The
Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses,” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 12
(1953): 225 — 31.
32. Hermann Ranke, Die Aegyptische Personennamen (Gliickstadt: J. J. Augustin,
1935), vol. 1, p. 234, nos. 8—9.
33. Ibid., pp. 84 — 85, nos. 21ff.
34. Ibid., p. 84, no. 26.
35. Wood, Survey, pp. 117ff. See Davis, Moses, p.52, n.19, for further references.
The Sojourn and Bondage 73

complishments as a female king, we should not place too

much stock in such a theory. We must remember that the
kings of Egypt often had dozens of daughters, born of their
many concubines as well as of the queen herself.
A further reason for caution is the young age of Hatshepsut
at the time of Moses’ birth (ca. 1526 B.c.). According to the
chronology espoused here, Moses was born in the last year
of the reign of Amenhotep I or possibly at the start of the
reign of Thutmosis I. Thus, as the daughter of Thutmosis I,
Hatshepsut was probably very young at the time of Moses’
birth. Even though Thutmosis I had married a sister or
daughter of AmenhotepI well before the death of the old
king,*° it is difficult to think of Hatshepsut’s being old enough
in the first year of her father’s reign to adopt a son3’ We
must, in view of these difficulties, exercise care in our theories
regarding the identity of the pharaoh’s daughter, however
attractive an identification with the famous Hatshepsut may
be.
The first forty years of Moses’ life (extending from the reign
of Thutmosis I to the last years of the joint rule of Hatshepsut
and Thutmosis III) were spent at the Egyptian court, where
he received the best education of the day (Acts 7:22). It is
worth taking time to investigate the education of a prince in
the New Kingdom, since this education prepared Moses for
the two great tasks of his life, the leading of Israel out of
Egypt and the writing of the Pentateuch.
Teachers were selected not from a class of professional
scholars but from among the officials of the land who were
favorites of the reigning king?® In some cases these were
military men; sometimes they were civil officials, like the great
chief steward Senmut, tutor of Hatshepsut’s daughter. The

36. For the evidence see Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Intro-
duction (New York: Oxford University, 1966), pp. 177— 78.
37. Little is known about Hatshepsut'’s age at the start of her reign or at her
death.
38. Hellmut Brunner, Altaegyptische Erziehung (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasso-
witz, 1957), pp. 32 — 33.
74 | Egypt and Bible History

subjects taught may be placed into two categories: academic

subjects and physical education.
Instruction naturally began with reading and writing.?
The student was trained in both the hieroglyphic and the
hieratic scripts, spending endless hours in copying and
memorizing voluminous lists of words and names. The stu-
dent was also expected to study foreign languages of the
Near Eastern world. This doubtless included Akkadian (the
language of Babylonia) and the Canaanite dialects necessary
for dealing with the peoples of Syria-Palestine. Some math-
ematics was included, and perhaps a little music. A last ac-
ademic subject considered of primary importance was
rhetoric. The Egyptians highly valued the ability to speak well
in public, and accordingly it received heavy attention during
the years of formal education. Rhetoric in Egypt comprised
not only public speaking but also proper style in writing.
Moses certainly put his skills in these last areas to good use,
first as a speaker before the pharaoh and before his own
people, and second as the writer of the first five books of the
Bible.
In the areas of physical training, Egyptian court education
was equally rigorous. It included, of course, sports but also
military training, again something useful for Moses in his role
as leader of the new nation of Israel. The two major military
skills taught were chariot driving and archery, but we may
assume that the handling of other weapons was also in-
cluded. The sons of Egyptian kings were encouraged to model
themselves after the pattern of the ideal warrior.
It is sometimes asked if a foreigner could in fact be edu-
cated at the royal court, and the answer is an emphatic yes.
It was common practice in the days of the Egyptian empire
to educate the sons of Syrian kings in the Egyptian court.
Moses would fit in with such students easily.
It was also possible for foreigners to gain high positions in
the New Kingdom*° Two of the best-known examples are
39. The description of education is drawn from Brunner, Erziehung, pp. 98ff.
40. See the excellent discussion in Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Moses,” in New Bible
Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 844 — 45.
The Sojourn and Bondage 75

Hekareshu and his son Hekerneheh, who served under Thut-

mosis IV and his predecessor Amenhotep II*! The father
probably made his reputation in the army, and then served
in the very responsible position of tutor to the king’s sons.
Hekerneheh was himself raised at court and ultimately suc-
ceeded his father as tutor of the royal princes. Late in life he
was also given a high rank in the military, commander of the
chariotry. The careers of these two foreigners illustrate that
Moses’ position at court need not be considered unique.
Because of the great number of royal children born to the
rulers of the Eighteenth Dynasty, it is useless to speculate
about how high Moses could have risen. It seems rather
doubtful that he was in line for the throne; there were cer-
tainly other individuals with better claim than he. In any
case, Moses forsook his position at court when he fled the
country after killing an Egyptian taskmaster. This event oc-
curred when Thutmosis III was ruling jointly with Hatshep-
sut. The return of Moses after forty vears in the wilderness
took place after the death of Thutmosis III (Exod. 4:19), during
the early years of Amenhotep II. The following chapter will
focus on chronological details.

41. For full information see Aling, “Prosopographical Study,” pp. 149ff.
ce aaa seat nasi itciateatatidheahiaaiiiie
cot nite: Pht rpaane samuonandrinaen ie hod
eh GePer tes
ha ie eet Te 5|> hae (Wad = ” Died; REAL
’’ athe ji eye
eat
seine Somat — wohbor siponaktl ‘ al sellhee
diciti.
hie trends hoger tadeng li tt sso asec |¥ vt reat et
mew Kote Mocae hated Seeienge ae
cc VDE Sar wrwergny erilirt ety peor evehs Lawes “.
= he horde onic pie _ wee. aire i wurst oe 2
Ln atu Caen roe en cee Hie es ephaweor |
zs joeds fy cru ea sD
beesvies Ort biA a iaery aad: i an AEE
+P 7 ene was *y = tad Ubesteedex vai ye: oars Hee vA hee art
ha . mip ae orale:A Je pea pr Tor it i reac re
| eames ip) ae nny? nef eedbyPaquerty tactsa
~ ia, deft ye Win tale e vr elect ihit ve merle F a
i a talren? rector ieee wise aap ant see wee
= rh “2
an
if + iptees ohett atatding F laioae ray aor vir
Monte abt piRal’ a cal ag (er ba, Stil rhs Be
etirebe-reitan pier!
Hy tied _— sat seak> haben
=< auaia ony elt iey by Pers Surit wane" peer
engntc qi yore le oul if ty atcriremana in) row aaa
spa ie ial pli Ga 5 loa daatayel cg sete 5a
—
7 iy theseya, Ui eet Loh <oArrer np OE
-_ tay Ural. agedih eatheraint ear Ar ‘ge eh
Jota 4 ‘Me iTee By HPF ay ‘ _— : fi <= ru cee

ith Maug i wae cine i he a 3 vial anime bul

SaasnatChat The Tag) oo shear Seba ‘es
“2 ithe ante Gl Egan rs a ang A owt
% 7 arr Gewese sift iy b fami zs (s " whe awit 7 ; we
oe | al z
_ ie k ny eat) e ‘a au) a +t to oor |
oohteat

| ae w at (had ereve) Cale a ‘a ay sel v

hteat i’ <n Dees aal A
a kav s (eet es 1? ti
bewe «1iTy Hp ie
k a iabki ta i ae Lee at
Md cat) 48 We AO a bi
j 1 “S a it
: ~
; . ie search! Tt ae y ais seo onl hath

pe alno poxilinlertorlignaenanoe
wens me
-
= atte
“4 + eho Ne : thar d hii nis toys ; si he aes
~ ed oe 1 * hae ay ‘i uh wee nt haga
mf, “Subes, Dhank - iP
= hiss
ee Re s
: owe p at ony bens . $
oe a ASO qj einen:
 5
The Exodus
The Date

There is perhaps no single problem in Hebrew history

which has been contested as long or as hotly as the question
of the date of the exodus. The exodus itself is important
because it lies at the heart of Israel’s history, the time when
national Israel was born; its date is central to scriptural chro-
nology. This key biblical problem has drawn the interest and
labors of scholars in many areas, including Hebrew, cunei-
form, Egyptian philology, Near Eastern history, and archae-
ology. These specialists have raised as many questions as they
have answered, and the central issues are by no means solved
to everyone's satisfaction. It is not our purpose to describe
in full the history of the problem of the date of the exodus;!
such a task would be far too complex and would need more
space than is available here. We will, however, survey the
major positions on this issue held by twentieth-century
scholars, and present what we believe to be sound arguments
for the so-called early date.

1. For an early summary of scholarly opinion see H.H. Rowley, “Israel's So-
journ in Egypt,” Bulletin of the John Rylands Library 22 (1936): 243 — 90; or G. Ernest
Wright, “The Epic of Conquest,” Biblical Archaeologist 3 (1940): 25 — 40. The most
recent summary, with additional bibliography, appears in John J. Bimson, Re-
dating the Exodus and Conquest, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5
(Sheffield, 1978), pp. 15ff.

77
78 : Egypt and Bible History

The Primary Data

The Key Biblical Passages

There are three biblical references which bear directly on
the date of the exodus:
1. I Kings 6:1 states categorically that the start of Solomon's
construction of the temple in the fourth year of his reign (966
B.C.) followed the exodus by 480 years. Simple addition gives
us 1446 (give or take a year) for the exodus.
2. The period from the start of the conquest of Canaan to
the days of Jephthah is given in Judges 11:26 as 300 years.
Jephthah judged Israel in about 1100 B.C.;?7 adding 300 to
1100, we arrive at 1400 B.c. for the start of the conquest, and
consequently at a date in the fifteenth century for the exodus.
3. Exodus 1:11 deals with the bondage, stating that the
Hebrews labored at two cities, Pithom and Ramses. The men-
tion of Ramses is a main pillar of the theory that the exodus
took place far later than the fifteenth century, for King Ram-
ses II, the king after whom the city was named, did not reign
until the thirteenth century. Thus it is held by many, includ-
ing some conservatives,? that Israel was still in bondage in
the 1200s and entered the Promised Land some two hundred
years later than what the Bible would seem to indicate in the
other two passages.

Extrabiblical Information
There is no direct mention of the Hebrews in bondage, the
plagues, the exodus, or the conquest, in any Near Eastern
literature outside of the Bible; but this does not mean that
there is nothing pertinent in the ancient literature. We should
not expect to find records of these events, for Near Eastern
peoples were slow to acknowledge defeats, and the exodus
and the accompanying occurrences certainly were defeats.

2. For details see Leon Wood, A Survey of Israel's History (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1970), pp. 89ff.
3. So Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity, 1966), pp. 57ff.
The Exodus: The Date 79

Nor can we expect much to be written about slaves. We must

remember that such people were chattels, and any mention
of them would be purely incidental and as brief as possible.
On the other hand, the corpus of preserved historical rec-
ords from Egypt and other Near Eastern lands does provide
some hints regarding the date of the exodus. We will have
occasion to refer to several documents in the course of our
discussion; for now, we will cite only the so-called Israel Stele
of Merneptah,* the Nineteenth-Dynasty king who succeeded
Ramses II in 1223 B.C.
The Israel Stele was inscribed and erected after Merneptah
expelled an army of Libyan invaders from the Nile delta about
1218 B.c. Although it is a poetic hymn and not a detailed
historical account, and attempts to show the pharaoh as a
universally triumphant warrior, the Israel Stele does refer to
some specific foreign campaigns. Near the end of the text
there appears a list of cities and nations subdued by Mer-
neptah, and this list contains the only known reference to
Israel in all Egyptian texts:

The princes are prostrate, saying Mercy! Not one raises his
head among the Nine Bows. Desolation is for Tehenu; Hatti
is pacified; plundered is the Canaan with every evil; carried
off is Ashkelon; seized upon is Gezer; Yenoam is made as
that which does not exist; Israel is laid waste, his seed is
not; Hurru is become a widow for Egypt! All lands together,
they are pacified...

The importance of this reference to Israel is not the as-

sertion that Merneptah defeated the Hebrews, but the fact
that he listed them as a nation along with other Palestinian
peoples. This demonstrates that Israel was already estab-
lished in Palestine by about 1220 B.c., and has great impli-
cations for the question of the date of the exodus. We will

4. For a translation of and commentary on the stele see Ancient Near Eastern
Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Prince-
ton University, 1950), pp. 376ff.
5. Ibid., p. 378.
80 ; . Egypt and Bible History

return to this point later; here we use it merely to illustrate

the bearing that nonbiblical textual material can have on our
subject. .
Turning from literary evidence to archaeological materials,
we note that there is no clear proof of the Hebrew sojourn
or of the exodus in Egyptian archaeology. Therefore we must
turn to Palestine and attempt to ascertain the date of the
conquest, which followed the exodus by forty years. If we
can date the conquest, we can also date the exodus.
Archaeology in the last century has done wonders to un-
fold the history, layer by layer, of Palestine’s cities. Names
such as Jericho, Lachish, and Hazor have become common-
place to those of us reading archaeological literature. It must
be remembered, however, that archaeology is not an exact
science; disagreements among the experts occur as a matter
of course over how to interpret what has been found. Further,
and this is an important point, even if archaeologists discover
that a certain city was violently destroyed and come to a
tentative agreement on the date of its destruction, there still
remains the matter of deciding who destroyed the town. We
will have occasion to examine several examples of this type
of problem regarding the Israelite conquest. We must keep
in mind that, contrary to popular opinion, archaeology has
not provided concrete evidence for dating the conquest and
the exodus.

The History of the Problem

in the Twentieth Century

Although many dates have been suggested for the exodus,

we will restrict our discussion here to four major positions
held by segments of the twentieth-century scholarly com-
munity:

1. The extreme late date: 1220 B.C. This position became pop-
ular after 1911, when it was endorsed by W. M. F. Petrie.
2. The early date: 1446 B.c. Publication of J. W. Jack’s Date of
The Exodus: The Date 81

the Exodus resulted in increased support for this theory

during the 1920s.
3. The extreme early date: 1470 B.c. This view was first pro-
pounded in 1978 by John J. Bimson.
4. The iate date: 1280 B.C. We will reserve our discussion of
this theory until last because it is the most widely held
today. It received major impetus beginning in the 1930s
from the work of William Foxwell Albright.

The Extreme Late Date: 1220 B.C.

The theory placing the oppression in the days of Ramses II

and the exodus in the reign of his successor Merneptah,
although originating in the nineteenth century, reached its
highest popularity after 1911, when it received the support
of W. M. F. Petrie, one of the greatest excavators of his day.
This view of the exodus rests on one major argument: since
the Hebrews labored in the city of Ramses, the bondage must
necessarily have fallen during the reign of Ramses II (1290 —
1223 B.C.), after whom the city was named. The exodus fol-
lowed Ramses’s death, occurring in the early years of Mer-
neptah’s reign. If we allow 430 years for the sojourn (Exod.
12:40), Joseph and the start of Israel’s residence in Egypt are
to be dated in the seventeenth century B.C., during the time
of the Hyksos domination.
The extreme late date has three glaring problems:
1. I Kings 6:1, as we have seen, states that the exodus oc-
curred 480 years before Solomon’s fourth year, thus in about
1446 B.C. This is in blatant contradiction to Petrie’s espousal
of 1220 as the date of the exodus.
2. We have argued that Joseph belongs in the Middle King-
dom (pp. 21, 29). Even if we ignore the chronological data
given in Scripture, the life of Joseph fits better in the Middle
Kingdom than in the Second Intermediate Period. A few ex-
amples will make this quite clear.
Joseph is stated to have ruled over all the land of Egypt

6. Cfh.W. M. F Petrie, Egypt and Israel (London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1911), chapter 3.
82 . . Egypt and Bible History

(Gen. 45:8). This precludes his serving as vizier under a Hyk-

sos king because the Hyksos never controlled all of Egypt.
Further, Joseph’s first master was Potiphar, who is specifically
called an Egyptian and a commander of the king’s guards
(Gen, 39:1). It does not seem likely that a foreign king would
entrust his personal safety to one of the natives of a subju-
gated land. Nor would a Hyksos pharaoh have rewarded Jo-
seph by marrying him to the daughter of a priest of the sun
god; a Hyksos king would probably have chosen the daughter
of the high priest of Set, the favorite god of the Hyksos. Finally,
the general details of the story of Joseph fit far better in a
period of native rule than in a time of foreign domination.
Dating Joseph to the Hyksos period is based on two ar-
guments, both weak and inconclusive. The first is that since
Joseph was a fellow Asiatic, it is likely that it was the Hyksos
who elevated him to prominence. This argument is pure sup-
position, and is not based on any evidence whatsoever; in
fact, it contradicts the biblical material cited above. Second,
if we start with the presupposition that the exodus occurred
in about 1220 B.c., dating Joseph to the Second Intermediate
Period accords with Exodus 12:40, which allows 430 years for
the sojourn. Adding 430 to 1220 yields a date in the seven-
teenth century for Joseph. But it is inconsistent to accept
Exodus 12:40 at face value while totally rejecting I Kings 6:1.
If we accept one of these chronological references, why not
accept both?
There is no good reason to assign Joseph to the days of
the Hyksos; on the other hand, there are many good reasons,
including both biblical chronological references and the
background details of the story of Joseph,’ to date the start
of the sojourn two centuries earlier, in the days of the Twelfth
Dynasty.
3. The Israel Stele of Merneptah is a major stumbling block
for the extreme late date. How could the exodus have taken
place as late as 1220 when Merneptah was able to name
Israel as a Palestinian nation a scant two years later, in 1218

7. See chapters 2 and 3.

The Exodus: The Date 83

B.C.? There is no room for the forty years in the wilderness

and the period of conquest described in the Book of Joshua.
Efforts by scholars to reconcile the Israel Stele with the
extreme late date have not been convincing’ This point has,
except for a small minority of scholars, led to a decrease in
the popularity of the position made so attractive by Petrie.

The Early Date: 1446 B.C.

In the 1920s another theory became popular, which dated
the exodus to about 1446 B.C. This position, which we shall
call the early date for the exodus, originated at an earlier time
but became widely held only after the publication of J. W.
Jack’s Date of the Exodus in 1925 The early date is based
primarily on a literal acceptance of I Kings 6:1, which places
the exodus 480 years before Solomon’s fourth year. Jack also |
stressed the political condition of Syria-Palestine in about
1400 B.C., where, according to information contained in the
diplomatic archives known as the Amarna Letters, a people
called the Habiru were causing trouble by assaulting cities.
Pharaoh Akhenaton paid little heed to the pleas of the Pal-
estinian vassal kings for military assistance, allowing the Ha-
biru to raid the cities unmolested. Proponents of the early
date found it hard to resist the temptation to equate the
Habiru of the Amarna Letters with the biblical Hebrews under
Joshua. After all, here was evidence that a group of raiders
were attacking Palestinian cities at about the right time, and

8. A typical view is espoused by J. G. Duncan, New Light on Hebrew Origins

(Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allenson, 1936), namely, that Merneptah defeated the Is-
raelites while they were wandering in the wilderness; this makes no sense in the
light of the evidence that Merneptah did in fact capture cities in Palestine. W. FE
Albright’s proposed proof that Israel was still wandering when beaten by Mer-
neptah (From the Stone Age to Christianity [Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1957],
pp. 255 — 56) is without foundation. He argues that the determinative used with
the word Israel is the determinative used for a people and not for a land. Un-
fortunately, the Egyptians were not consistent in their use of determinatives. And
even if this were an indication that Israel was a relatively new nation on the
Palestinian scene, we have no way of knowing how new. The conservative Egyp-
tians were very slow to change the way in which they wrote words.
9. J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1925).
84 : Egypt and Bible History

even the name of the attackers appeared to be similar to the

word Hebrews (see p. 109).
In regard to the bondage at Pithom and Ramses, Jack as-
serted that the city of Ramses could well have been built far
earlier than the reign of Ramses II, with that king merely
changing the name to reflect his own greatness and building
operations there.!° Thus, the reference in Exodus 1:11 may
mean only that the Hebrews served at a city which was later
renamed Ramses; they did not necessarily labor under King
Ramses II. Modern archaeological work in the Khatana-Qan-
tir area has shown Jack’s first assumption to have been cor-
rect. Avaris-Ramses was not a new foundation of Ramses II,
but existed as a city at least as far back as the Middle King-
dom, thus allowing a Hebrew bondage under the Hyksos.
For a short period of time Jack’s theory held the field. But
serious archaeological work in Palestine, beginning in the
1930s, discovered what appeared to be a vital flaw in his
viewpoint, and turned the tide against him. The cities of Pal-
estine conquered by the incoming Hebrews seemed to yield
a unanimous verdict for a later exodus, since many of them
were burned in the last quarter of the thirteenth century or
later, and not in the fifteenth or early fourteenth centuries.
Nor was this all. Scholars began to disassociate the terms
Hebrew and Habiru, showing that they were in all probability
not linguistically equatable, and showing that the Habiru ac-
tivity as recorded in the Amarna Letters was in no way iden-
tical with the conquest described in the Bible. By the
mid-1930s most scholars had abandoned Jack's early date
and had accepted a new thesis which still holds the field
today, the late date for the exodus.

The Extreme Early Date: 1470 B.C.

John J. Bimson, in his study Redating the Exodus and Con-

quest (1978), has put forward a new thesis regarding the ex-
odus, dating it to about 1470 B.C. This view is based on ar-
chaeological evidence of the destruction of the cities of

10. Ibid., p.31.

The Exodus: The Date 85

Palestine at the end of the Middle Bronze Age. The view held
by many scholars today is that the Hebrew conquest oc-
curred in the Late Bronze Age, but Bimson prefers to equate
the widespread destruction at the end of the Middle Bronze
Age with the Hebrew attacks. Traditionally, the Middle Bronze
Age is thought to have ended about 1550 B.C., and the vast
destruction which marks its end is thought to be connected
with the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt.'! Bimson, how-
ever, lowers the date of the end of the Middle Bronze Age
from 1550 to about 1450. He bases his redating on his study
of a type of pottery called bichrome ware, which appeared
in Palestine at the end of the Middle Bronze Age or at the
start of the Late Bronze Age. Bichrome ware has traditionally
been associated with the Hyksos, and its appearance in Pal-
estine has thus been thought to coincide with their expulsion
from the Nile Valley shortly before 1550 B.c. Bimson points
out, correctly, that bichrome ware in Egypt (and in other
places as well) has no relation whatever to the Hyksos; in
fact, it is found in mid—Eighteenth Dynasty contexts in Egypt.!”
Thus, its introduction into Palestine, and hence the transition
from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age, should be dated
about 1450 B.C.
If the destruction of the cities of Palestine at the end of the
Middle Bronze Age occurred as late as 1450, the conventional
view linking their destruction with the expulsion of the Hyk-
sos must be abandoned. Bimson proposes that the destruc-
tions were the work of the Hebrews in about 1430 B.c. Adding
forty years for the wandering in the wilderness, he arrives at
a date of 1470 B.C. for the exodus itself.
There are three difficulties with the view of Bimson:
1. Bimson does not accept I Kings 6:1 literally, but states
that he is “assuming that I Kings 6:1 provides only a rough
guide to the time of the Exodus, not a precise indication.”!”
His rejection of 480 years as the length of time between Sol-
omon’s fourth year and the exodus is defended by reference
11. Bimson, Redating, pp.116 —17.
12. Ibid., pp. 167ff.
13. Ibid., p. 102.
86 Egypt and Bible History

to the as yet poorly understood chronological information

given in the Book of Judges, which appears to yield more
than 480 years for this period.
2. Assuming with Bimson that the destruction of Pales-
tine’s cities at the end of the Middle Bronze Age occurred in
about 1450 rather than 1550 B.c., the most logical conclusion
is that the destroyers were the energetic conquering phar-
aohs of the middle Eighteenth Dynasty, and not the Hebrews.
The most obvious case in point is Megiddo.
Bimson states that since Egyptian records speak of a seven-
month siege of Megiddo by Thutmosis III during his first
campaign, but make no specific mention of the destruction
of the city, we may conclude that the city was besieged but
not destroyed by the Egyptians.'* Such a view regarding Me-
giddo seems unrealistic. The logical conclusion of a seven-
month siege ending with massive booty for Egypt would be
the destruction of the city involved. Regarding the other cities
of Palestine, are we to assume that none of them were de-
stroyed in the seventeen Asiatic campaigns of Thutmosis III,
not to mention the wars of Thutmosis I and Amenhotep II?
The very nature of ancient warfare makes this extremely un-
likely. Further, the character of the annals of Thutmosis III
makes any reference to specific acts of destruction unlikely.
The annals are in the main tribute lists, and not detailed
records of the tactical maneuvers of the Egyptian army. Even
when pitched battles were fought, we are told little or noth-
ing of their details. The military scribes were mainly inter-
ested in the booty. We must also remember that the annals,
in their present form on the temple walls at Karnak, were
not even exact copies of the military journals, but were re-
fined editions made by temple scribes, men who were even
more concerned with spoils as opposed to tactics than were
the military scribes in the field.
Since we know the Egyptians were very active militarily in
Syria-Palestine in the mid-fifteenth century B.C., it seems best

14. Ibid., p.154.

The Exodus: The Date 87

to view the destruction of cities in that period as the work

of the pharaohs.
3. Another stumbling block to Bimson’s view involves the
method of capture of Palestinian cities by the Hebrews. In
the violent destructions at the end of the Middle Bronze Age
burning was a regular feature. The Bible clearly states, how-
ever, that after the burning of Jericho and Ai, only Hazor was
burned by the Hebrews (Josh. 11:13). Bimson’s interpretation
that this refers only to northern cities is without support and
is unconvincing.'*
The Late Date: 1280 B.C.
By far the most important scholar in the formulation of
the late-date theory of the exodus was the great American
archaeologist William Foxwell Albright. Beginning in the
mid-1930s, Albright, basing his views on his own field work
and reinterpretation of the conclusions of other excavators,
theorized that the main thrust of the Hebrew conquest came
not around 1400 B.c. but later, at the end of the thirteenth or
during the first half of the twelfth century.'® At Lachish, Bethel,
and Tell Beit Mirsim (as well as other places) Albright found
evidence of burning and general destruction dating to a pe-
riod well after the early fourteenth century.'? One city, how-
ever, fell not in the thirteenth or twelfth centuries, but earlier,
perhaps in the mid-fourteenth century—Jericho. This led
Albright to propose two separate exoduses, one early (re-
flected in the Amarna references to the Habiru, who Albright
said were Hebrews), and one late, under Moses. The later
exodus is the one described in the Bible, and Albright dated
it to about 1280 B.c. As the years passed, Albright and his
numerous followers tended to deemphasize the first exodus
and to stress the later one.

15. Ibid., p. 277. In the light of Bimson’s theory that the lack of specific records
of destruction means that the Egyptians rarely destroyed cities, his statement
that “we should not assume that a conquered city was not burned simply be-
cause the narrative does not specifically record the fact” is curious.
16. For a summary of his conclusions see Albright, Stone Age, pp. 254ff.
17. For discussion and bibliography see John Bright, A History of Israel, 2nd
ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972), pp. 126ff.
88 Egypt and Bible History

There are four major reasons why the late date is the one
most commonly held by scholars today:
1. The archaeological evidence from Palestine (according
to Albright and his supporters) seemingly dates the conquest
much later than 1400 — 1350 B.C.; that is, in the last quarter
of the thirteenth or the first half of the twelfth century B.C.
Many of the cities associated with the Hebrew conquest show
clear evidence of burning in the later period, but not in 1400
BG
2. Exodus 1:11 states that the Israelites did construction
work at the city of Ramses. Since the city was named after
King Ramses II (1290 — 1223 B.C), it is thought that the He-
brews must still have been in Egypt during at least some part
of that pharaoh’s reign.
3. The biblical accounts of Moses before the pharaoh
seemingly imply that these audiences took place near the
area where the majority of the Hebrews lived, the land of
Goshen in the Nile delta. It is argued by supporters of the
late date that the Eighteenth-Dynasty pharaohs had no delta
residence, and that it was not until the Nineteenth Dynasty
that Egyptian kings of the New Kingdom established a north-
erm capital within easy traveling distance of Goshen.
4. In Numbers 20—21 we learn that Israel was denied pas-
sage through the territory of the Edomites and the Amorites.
Nelson Glueck, after extensive surface exploration of the
Transjordan region, concluded that no sedentary kings re-
sided there until 1300 B.c.'? Thus, according to the propo-
nents of the late date for the exodus, the episodes involving
the Edomites and Amorites could not have taken place in
about 1400 B.C., but reflect a later period.

18. See, for a sampling of.the evidence, W. F Albright, “Archaeology and the
Date of the Hebrew Conquest,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Re-
search 58 (April, 1935): 10-18; “Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish
and Megiddo,” BASOR 68 (December, 1937): 22-26; and “The Israelite Conquest
of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology,” BASOR 74 (April, 1939): 11-23. Albright’s
views have been adopted by such experts in biblical archaeology and history as
G. Ernest Wright, John Bright, and Jack Finegan.
19. Full discussion and bibliography may be found in Bimson, Redating,
pp. 67 — 74.
The Exodus: The Date 89

Although the late-date theory is highly popular today, the

arguments upon which it rests are not as strong as they
appear at first glance. While it is beyond the scope of the
present work to examine them in detail,?° we must briefly
consider the strengths and weaknesses of each of these
arguments.
1. From the very outset, the search for evidence of the
Hebrew conquest of Canaan has been based on a false as-
sumption. It has been assumed that all the cities captured
by the Israelites were burned, resulting in clear archaeolog-
ical evidence in the form of layers of ash and other burnt
debris. But burning was not part of the taking of every city;
in fact the Bible states categorically that burning was not part
of the conquest of most cities taken by the Hebrews.
The biblical record is clear in this regard: only three Pal-
estinian cities were burned—Jericho (Josh. 6:24), Ai (Josh.
8:28), and Hazor (Josh. 11:11—13). Other captured cities were
not destroyed by fire. Joshua 11:13 is worth quoting in full:
“But as for the cities that stood still in their strength [Jericho
and Ai had previously been burned], Israel burned none of
them, save Hazor only; that did Joshua burn.” Thus in seeking
to establish a correlation between archaeological evidence of
the burning of Canaanite cities and the conquest of Joshua,
we must restrict ourselves to (a) Jericho, (b) Ai, and (c) Hazor.
Evidence of burning at other sites is irrelevant.
a. Erosion of the soil and John Garstang’s misinterpreta-
tions of the archaeological evidence have rendered Jericho
one of the most difficult of all biblical cities to investigate?!
Garstang’s startling announcement that he had found the
ruins of the city attacked by Joshua was an incorrect inter-
pretation of his findings.?? Kathleen Kenyon showed conclu-
sively that the walls he identified as Late Bronze (ca. 1400
B.C., which would be consistent with the early date for the

20. Bimson’s work presents the most recent refutation of the arguments for
the late date.
21. See the excellent summary of the archaeology of Jericho in Bimson, Re-
dating, chapter 4.
22. Ibid., pp.118—19.
90 : Egypt and Bible History

exodus) were in fact Early Bronze Age fortifications, half a

millennium older than Garstang had thought.?? It must be
emphasized, however, that rejection of Garstang’s conclu-
sions does not necessarily mean rejection of 1400 as the date
of the fall of Jericho; rather it means that evidence indepen-
dent of Garstang’s wrongly identified walls must be sought.
If Garstang’s walls are not proof of an early conquest, what
evidence is there of Joshua’s attack? The answer is, “very
little.” It is virtually certain that the city fell to the Hebrews
at some time during the Late Bronze Age, but erosion has
removed almost all traces of Late Bronze Age Jericho. The
few traces that do remain allow us to conclude with certainty
that there was indeed a town at Jericho in Late Bronze times,?*
but because of the erosion we cannot say how extensive the
Late Bronze settlement was. The major question to ask at
this point is, when was the Late Bronze city destroyed? Ken-
yon’s answer does not harmonize with either the early or the
late date for the exodus. She dated the fall of Late Bronze
Jericho to the decades around 1325 B.C.,?° too late for a con-
quest in about 1400 and too early for a late exodus during
the reign of Ramses II.
An interesting alternative view has been offered by Bruce
K. Waltke, who wishes to push back the date of Late Bronze
Jericho's fall to about 1400 B.Cc., in accord with an early date
for the exodus.”® Waltke contends that pottery found in the
scant remains of the Late Bronze city is from the Late Bronze
IIA period, 1410 — 1340 B.c. To pinpoint the date of destruc-
tion more precisely within these years, Waltke argues that no
Egyptian scarabs later than the reign of Amenhotep III have
been found, thus indicating a destruction before the reign of
Akhenaton. Further confirmation that Jericho was destroyed

23. Kathleen Kenyon, Archaeology in the Holy Land, 3rd ed. (New York: Praeger
Books, 1970), p. 210.
24. Ibid., pp.210—11. The evidence consists of scanty remains of houses, a
small quantity of pottery, and some tombs.
25. Ibid., p.211.
26. Bruce K. Waltke, “Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early
Date of the Exodus,” Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (1972): 39ff.
The Exodus: The Date 91

before Akhenaton may be seen in the fact that Jericho is not

mentioned in the Amarna Letters. If Waltke is correct, Late
Bronze Jericho was burned by Joshua before the end of the
first quarter of the fourteenth century at the latest. It must
be kept in mind, however, that so little remains of the city of
Joshua's day that any conclusion is extremely dangerous. All
that can be said with certainty from an archaeological stand-
point is that a date around 1400 for Jericho’s fall is as possible
as any other date which has been suggested.
b. At the present time it is impossible to conclude any-
thing about the exodus and conquest from Ai, since the city
has not been certainly identified.?’
c. Hazor, a northern site thoroughly excavated by Yigael
Yadin, was the third city burned by the incoming Hebrews.
Yadin and other scholars have used the archaeological ma-
terial from this city as proof of a late conquest (ca. 1230 B.C),
and hence a late exodus. It seems, however, that the use of
Hazor as evidence of a late conquest is based on an arbitrary
and preconceived acceptance of the late date.
It appears that this massive site suffered no fewer than
three destructions by fire in the Late Bronze Age. The first
burning occurred near the end of the fifteenth century, in the
Late Bronze I Period. In the Upper City (Hazor is a two-level
city) the town of Stratum XV represents this period, and was
clearly destroyed by violence; Area H, which contained a tem-
ple, was found buried under nearly two meters of destroyed
brick, and the temple was never again rebuilt. In the Lower
City, the corresponding level is Stratum 2, which also suffered
burning.’ The town of Stratum 1B in the Lower City was
destroyed in about 1300 B.C. The third and last destruction
by fire, seen in Stratum XIII of the Upper City and 1A of the
Lower, was dated by the excavators to about 1230 B.C.
Yadin correctly assigns the destruction of 1300 B.C. to a
campaign of Pharaoh Seti I, but believes on the basis of his
preconceived acceptance of the late date for the exodus that
27. Ibid., pp.38—39.
28. Ibid., p.43. The destruction date is indicated by ceramic evidence and by
a scarab of Thutmosis IV (1415— 1401 s.c.) found in the next level, 1B.
92 Egypt and Bible History

Joshua’s attack can be seen in the destruction of 1230. Waltke

has clearly demonstrated that this view is not compatible
with the scriptural narrative, which states that the Hebrews
took the city twice, once in the initial conquest by Joshua
and again in the days of Barak and Deborah (Judg. 4).?? The
only interpretation that fits all the evidence is to attribute the
1230 burning to Barak, the 1300 destruction to Seti I, and the
late-fifteenth-century attack to Joshua. If Yadin's view is ac-
cepted, there is no archaeological evidence of the events of
Judges 4.

Although the interpretation of the finds at Jericho and

Hazor is complex in the extreme, what has been said here
will make it clear that the archaeological record does not
categorically support the late date for the exodus, as is often
claimed. At Jericho, despite the difficulties caused by erosion,
a case can be made for an early conquest. At Hazor, the case
is even stronger. At that city, the early date for the exodus
provides the most natural explanation of the findings of the
archaeologist’s spade.

2. The reference to Hebrew bondage at the city of Ramses

in Exodus 1:11 creates great difficulty for the early-date po-
sition. At issue is not whether the Israelites could have worked
at this city earlier than the thirteenth century B.C., since most
scholars agree that Ramses existed at least as far back as
Hyksos times, although the name of the town then was Avaris
and not Ramses. The problem here is rather the use of the
name Ramses in Genesis and Exodus long before any king
of that name lived. How could a city be named after a king
who did not reign until almost two centuries later?
The easiest answer to this question is simply to deny an
early exodus and accept the late date3° But two attempts
have been made to reconcile the name Ramses with the early
date.

29. Ibid., pp. 44ff.

30. Cf. Kitchen, Ancient Orient, pp.57 —58.
The Exodus: The Date 93
*

Royal name encircled by a cartouche.

One answer to this problem among adherents of the early

date is to deny that the city was named after Ramses II at
all3! John Rea, in an early presentation of this view, states
that the name Ramses may go back to Hyksos times, since
the genealogy of the Nineteenth Dynasty (of which Ram-
ses II was a member) can be traced back to the delta and
hence to the Hyksos;* He further argues that since the Hyk-
sos kings had a tendency to incorporate the name of the god
Re into their royal names, we might expect to find them
naming a city or region “Ramses” as well.
Upon serious investigation, this view is untenable. In the
first place, use of the personal name Ramses earlier than
Dynasty Nineteen has never been in doubt, but furnishes no
evidence in regard to the city. Individuals (other than kings)
who bore the name Ramses are known from the Eighteenth
Dynasty, but the name was not, as Rea implies, common as
far back as Hyksos times? Secondly, in Egyptian sources

31. See the presentations of this view in John Rea, “The Time of the Oppres-
sion and the Exodus,” Grace Journal 2, no. 1 (1961): 5 — 14; Gleason L. Archer, Jr.
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), pp. 207ff.; and
Wood, Survey, pp. 93— 94.
32. Rea, “Time,” p.10.
33. See Hermann Ranke, Die Aegyptische Personennamen (Gluckstadt: J.J.
Augustin, 1935), vol.1, p.218. There is only one example earlier than Dynasty
Eighteen.
94 ; Egypt and Bible History

nr $F rae

, A

; Lf. i os!aasne
wie
AO 7ORs
Cartouche containing the name Ptolemy (from the Rosetta Stone).
Courtesy, Carl A. Stapel.

the word Ramses in the city name Per Ramses is written in

the royal cartouche or ring, indicating beyond question that
the town was named after a king3* This conclusive point
and the fact that during Hyksos times the city was known as
Avaris eliminate the possibility that the city was named Ram-
ses for some reason other than to honor a Nineteenth-Dy-
nasty pharaoh of that name.
It may be noted also in this connection that use of the
divine name Re in the royal names of Hyksos kings does not
indicate a special regard for that god, but only an attempt to
simulate legitimate Egyptian pharaonic nomenclature. As far
as we know, the Hyksos venerated Set as their favorite deity
rather than Re.
A more attractive explanation of the city name Ramses
from the perspective of those who hold to the early date is

34, Alan H. Gardiner, Ancient Egyptian Onomastica (Oxford: Oxford University,

1947), vol. 2, p.171.
 The Exodus: The Date 95

that of Merrill F Unger** Unger theorized that the term Ram-

ses replaced the older name Avaris in the scriptural text to
make the account of the bondage more understandable to
later readers, who would not know the location of Avaris, but
would recognize the city by its new name, Ramses. Similar
updating of place names can be seen in other biblical refer-
ences. Unger cities an example of this in Genesis 14:14. Here
Abraham pursues his enemies to a city called Dan, but we
know from Joshua 19:47 and Judges 18:29 that this city’s
original name was Laish (Leshem) and that it was renamed
Dan only after the conquest.° In Abraham’s and Moses’ time
the city was called Laish, but after the name had been changed
to Dan the older name was forgotten by the Israelites; Genesis
14:14 was updated to reflect this change. Unger feels that
Ramses is a parallel case. If such a change took place, men-
* tion of the city of Ramses in Exodus 1:11 ceases to be a
convincing argument for the late date for the exodus.
3. The view that Moses could not have confronted the
pharaoh in a delta capital near Goshen at any time before
Dynasty Nineteen can simply no longer be held. All of the
kings who reigned in the fifteenth century (the early date for
the exodus)—Thutmosis III, Amenhotep II, and Thutmo-
sis IV—have left evidence of interest and building enterprises
in Lower Egypt. We will return to this evidence in the next
chapter. All we need say here is that these kings did not
neglect the north and were accessible to Moses, making a
fifteenth-century confrontation in the delta possible.
4. Nelson Glueck’s surface explorations in the lands of the
Edomites and Amorites have been said to rule out the exis-
tence of kingdoms there in the late fifteenth and fourteenth
centuries. If this is true, an early exodus would be unlikely,
since the Edomites and Amorites denied the Hebrews pas-
sage through their kingdoms. If those kingdoms did not exist

35. Merrill F Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1954), pp. 149 — 50.
36. The view that two separate cities of Dan are meant is without foundation.
96 : Egypt and Bible History

this early, the events described in Numbers must have oc-

curred at a later time.
Today, however, Glueck’s findings are being questioned.*’
Recent archaeological discoveries in Transjordan indicate that
there may indeed have been sedentary habitation in this area
in the period around 1400 B.c. Further research may negate
Glueck’s theory that the Edomites and Amorites were not
sedentary kingdoms in Transjordan at the time. But even
without such a reinterpretation, the theory that there was no
settled habitation in Transjordan during the Late Bronze Age
does not rule out an early exodus. It seems perfectly possible
that strong nomadic kingdoms, leaving little or no archaeo-
logical trace, could indeed bar the Israelites from their territory.

It is hoped that the preceding short discussion has shown

the basic weaknesses of al! four of the main arguments used
to defend the late date for the exodus. At the very least, they
are not as ironclad as adherents of the late date would have
us believe.
On the other hand, there is no good reason to reject an
early date for this great event in Israel’s history, a date around
1446 B.C., and a conquest beginning forty years later, about
1400 B.c. This view is based upon literal acceptance of
I Kings 6:1, and in the opinion of the present writer fits the
other literary and archaeological material best. The next
chapter examines the events and personages of the exodus
from this perspective.

37. See Bimson, Redating, pp. 67ff., for further details and references.
 6
The Exodus
The People and the Events

Accepting the early date for the exodus (ca. 1446 B.C.) as
best satisfying the scriptural and the extrabiblical evidence,
we find that this great event occurred in the early years of
Pharaoh Amenhotep II (1453 — 1415 B.c.). In chapter 4 we saw
that this king fancied himself a talented athlete and warrior
like his father, the great Thutmosis III. Amenhotep’s boasts
about his own skills and accomplishments are reminiscent
of the character of the pharaoh confronted by Moses.
The Bible implies that Moses had easy access to the phar-
aoh when confronting him with the repeated demands to let
God’s people go. Since the bulk of the Hebrews resided in
northern Egypt, in the land of Goshen, it would naturally
follow that the meetings between Moses and the pharaoh
took place in the delta. Our first task in this chapter is to
investigate whether Thutmosis III, who must have been the
pharaoh at the height of the oppression, and Amenhotep II,
the pharaoh of the exodus, built or resided in the delta.

Thutmosis III and Amenhotep II in the Delta

It does not make sense to assume that the kings of Dynasty

Eighteen neglected the Nile delta region. In their capacity as
kings of Upper and Lower Egypt, the pharaohs would have
been expected to show an interest in both the north and the
97
 98 Egypt and Bible History

south. Further, campaigns into Palestine must of geographic

necessity have been launched from northern Egypt; it is highly
likely that the kings resided nearby while preparations for
such operations were under way. The delta also had other
advantages as an area of temporary royal residence. It was
(and still is) the most agriculturally productive part of the
country; and Egypt's oldest major city, Memphis, was located
just south of the delta. Another advantage not to be over-
looked is climate. The delta offers a welcome relief in summer
from the extreme heat of Upper Egypt.
Unfortunately, on account of the high water-table relatively
few archaeological monuments remain in the delta. But there
is some proof that the kings of Dynasty Eighteen, and espe-
cially Thutmosis III and Amenhotep I, did not neglect the
delta, but in fact built and periodically resided there, just as
we would expect in view of the natural advantages of the
area.
Thutmosis III was a great builder. While most of his known
construction works were in Upper Egypt, he did not forsake
the north. A pair of obelisks known popularly as “Cleopatra’s
Needles” were erected by Thutmosis at Heliopolis. One now
stands in New York, and the other in London.' Fragments of
a similar red granite obelisk have been found at Heliopolis,
and now reside in the Cairo Museum. A black granite statue
of Thutmosis III was found at Alexandria; its exact origin
is not known, but it probably was not brought all the way to
the Ptolemaic capital from Upper Egypt. The door jambs of
the south gate of the great solar temple at Heliopolis bear the
name of Thutmosis III.4 From the same city comes a stele,
dated to the forty-seventh year of Thutmosis III, which com-
memorates his building activities at the great solar temple5

1. Bertha Porter and Rosalind L.B. Moss, Topographical Bibliography of An-

cient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings (Oxford: Oxford University,
1934), vol. 4, p. 4.
2. Ibid., p. 60.
3. Ibid., p.5.
4. Ibid., p. 61,
5. Ibid., p. 63.
The Exodus: The People and the Events 99

Finally, a black granite door jamb of Thutmosis III was found

near the Cairo citadel; it probably also came from Heliopolis ®
There are also scattered literary references connecting
Thutmosis III with building activity in northern Egypt. One
of the best examples is a papyrus referring to a dockyard of
Thutmosis III at a place called Perunefer.’ While the exact
site of Perunefer is still debated, it is certain that it was lo-
cated in the north.
Admittedly this list is not extensive, but neither is it ex-
haustive. It is presented merely to show that Thutmosis III
did not abandon the delta. But it is Amenhotep II, and not
Thutmosis III, who by implication was living in the delta and
met Moses at the time of the exodus. And in Amenhotep’s
reign there was a decided increase in the number of mon-
uments built in the north.
It is interesting to note that Amenhotep II was born in the
north, at the great city of Memphis, just south of the delta.
This is stated on a scarab in the collection of W. M. F. Petrie®
If a royal prince was born in the north, Thutmosis III must
have had a royal residence there. Further information re-
garding Amenhotep’s early life is learned from the Sphinx
Stele, an inscription found at Giza which describes his ath-
letic prowess as a youth? This text places the king’s early
athletic accomplishments at Memphis; evidently the young
ruler continued to reside in the northern city of his birth
even after his accession. From other sources we learn that
Amenhotep, before he became king, resided with his nurse
in Perunefer.'°
One of the most well-known of Amenhotep’s officials was
Ken-Amon, the son of the king’s boyhood nurse. The main

6. Ibid., p. 69.
7. Labib Habachi, Tell Basta, Supplement to Annales du service des antiquités
de l'Egypte (Cairo, 1957), p.115.
8. W.M. £ Petrie, Scarabs and Cylinders with Names (Cairo: British School of
Archaeology in Egypt, 1917), pl. XXX.
9. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B.
Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University, 1950), pp. 243ff.
10. Wolfgang Helck, Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs (Leiden:
E.J. Brill, 1958), p. 366.
100 Egypt and Bible History

title held by Ken-Amon was chief steward of the king in Pe-

runefer,!! showing that Amenhotep had estates at that north-
erm site which were large and important enough to require
a chief steward. Other Eighteenth-Dynasty pharaohs also had
chief stewards in the north as well as in the south.'? These
delta estates were probably used as a summer residence, as
well as a source of income, especially in the case of Amen-
hotep II, who had ties with the northern part of the country
from the days of his youth. :
Like his father, Amenhotep II built in the delta. He has left
several traces of construction work at Bubastis in the eastern
delta. Among the ruins of a temple at Bubastis, Edouard
Naville found a red granite block bearing the name of Amen-
hotep II, and Labib Habachi has added a second, dedicated
to the goddess Bast, and evidently a part of a wall of that
deity’s temple.'* An inscription from Tura, dated to the fourth
year of Amenhotep II and attributed to an official named
Minmose, alludes to continued building of temples in the
north during Amenhotep’s reign.!*
The evidence presented here demonstrates that, despite
the generally meager remains in the delta region from pe-
riods before Dynasty Nineteen, Amenhotep II was born and
raised in this area, built there, had estates there, and in all
probability resided there at times, at least in his early regnal
years. Thus, in accord with the early date for the exodus, it
is quite plausible to picture Moses confronting Amenho-
tep II in this general area.

Amenhotep II and the Exodus

As we have already seen (p. 59), Amenhotep II fought only
three wars of consequence in his long reign, probably in 1450,

11. Norman de Garis Davies, The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes (New York:
Metropolitan Museum ofArt, 1930), p. 12.
12. See Charles F Aling, “A Prosopographical Study of the Reigns of Thutmosis
IV and Amenhotep III” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976), pp. 190ff.
13. Edouard Naville, Bubastis (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Triibner and Co,,
1891), p.30.
14. Habachi, Tell Basta, pp. 89ff.
15. Alan H. Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs:An Introduction (New York: Oxford
University, 1966), p. 199.
The Exodus: The People and the Events 101

The Valley of the Kinge

1446, and 1444 B.c. The first two were major campaigns, but
it is of interest to us that the war of year nine was a minor
one, the Egyptian forces not penetrating into Palestine any
further than the Galilee region.!® We thus see that the major
wars of Amenhotep II took place within the first seven years
of his reign, and in fact no military activity is recorded after
year nine. This early end of fighting by a king who went out
of his way to boast of his talents in military areas is difficult
to understand without taking into account the events re-
corded in the Book of Exodus. The explanation of Amenho-
tep’s cessation of campaigning may be found in Exodus 145 —
28. We read that the pharaoh pursued the departing Hebrews
with an army including six hundred chariots, and that this
host followed the Israelites along the path opened by God
through the waters of the Red Sea. When the Egyptians were
in the midst of the sea, Moses at God’s command stretched
out his hand over the sea, and the waters returned to their
normal position, destroying the chariots and soldiers of the
pharaoh (v. 28). Amenhotep II never fought another major war
simply because he was incapable of doing so; the loss of six

16. Ibid., pp. 202ff.

102 Egypt and Bible History

Sarcophagus of Amenhotep Il, probable pharaoh of the exodus.

hundred chariots certainly crippled his army and prevented

massive campaigns on the scale of those of the king’s early
years. But what of the pharaoh himself? Was he also drowned?
Amenhotep II ruled for more than thirty-five years (1453 —
1415), even though the exodus occurred in about 1446 B.C.,
his seventh regnal year. When he died, he was buried in a
rock-cut tomb in the Theban necropolis like the other kings
of his dynasty, and his mummy has been preserved to the
present day. How can this be reconciled with the popular
theory that the pharaoh of the exodus perished in the waters
of the Red Sea with his soldiers?
The fact is that the Bible simply does not say that the
pharaoh drowned. Exodus 14:28 tells us that the pharaoh’s
army was totally obliterated, but says nothing of the king
himself. The view that the king was also drowned is derived
not from the Exodus account at all, but from Psalm 136:13—
15: “To him which divided the Red Sea into parts: for his
mercy endureth for ever: and made Israel to pass through
the midst of it: for his mercy endureth for ever: But overthrew
Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea: for his mercy endureth
for ever.” The point made by the psalmist is that God delivered
The Exodus: The People and the Events 103

Israel and punished the Egyptians; no attempt is being made

to present minute details of the events described. To say that
the pharaoh was overthrown in the Red Sea is in no way
proof that Amenhotep II drowned. It is a figure of speech. We
use the same type of statement when we say, for example,
that Hitler was defeated in Russia. We do not mean that the
man Adolf Hitler lost his life in Russia; we mean that his
armies were defeated there. Hitler himself did not die on the
battlefields of the Soviet Union, but died by his own hand in
his bunker in Berlin. Without confirmation in the Exodus
account, we have no right to use Psalm 136:15 to claim that
the pharaoh drowned.

The Ten Plagues

There are several recent and authoritative English ac-

counts of the biblical plagues in the light of Egyptology, mak-
ing a detailed discussion here unnecessary.'? We will limit
our treatment to some observations not often made by pre-
vious authors.
It is often asked whether there are any Egyptian records
mentioning the plagues, and, if not, why none exist. The
answer is that there are no such references, but neither should
we expect any. The peoples of the ancient Near East kept
historical records to impress their gods and also potential
enemies, and therefore rarely, if ever, mentioned defeats or
catastrophes. Records of disasters would not enhance the
reputation of the Egyptians in the eyes of their gods, nor
make their enemies more afraid of their military might.
Only in the case of the last plague, the death of the first-
born sons, can we expect any Egyptian evidence. This plague
extended to the family of the pharaoh himself. Since we know
a good deal about the royal families of Dynasty Eighteen, we
can investigate to see whether Amenhotep II was succeeded

17. See John J. Davis, Moses and the Gods of Egypt (Grand Rapids: Baker,
1971), pp. 84ff.; or Kenneth A. Kitchen, “Plagues of Egypt,” New Bible Dictionary,
ed. J. D. Douglas (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962), pp. 1001 — 03.
104 ; Egypt and Bible History

by his eldest son, or by another son, as we should expect in

the light of the last plague.
A stele!® set up between the forepaws of the great Sphinx
at Giza byAmenhotep’s successor, Thutmosis IV, is often cited
as evidence of the death of Amenhotep’s firstborn.'? In this
document Thutmosis tells of an incident in his youth before
he became king. He was hunting in the vicinity of the Sphinx,
and while resting by that venerable but sand-covered mon-
ument, the prince had a dream. The solar deity represented
by the Sphinx promised him that if he would remove the
sand around the statue, Thutmosis would some day be king.
The startled youth complied with this request, and eventually
succeeded his father as Thutmosis IV. The implication of this
text is obvious. At some time during his youth, Thutmosis
was not the eldest living son of Amenhotep II, and thus had
little hope of inheriting Egypt’s throne. It would seem, there-
fore, that we have in this account a confirmation of the tenth
plague. Thutmosis had an elder brother, and did not expect
to be king; but that brother died in the last plague, and Thut-
mosis became crown prince.
Unfortunately, closer examination of the evidence does not
allow us to use the Sphinx Stele as proof of the tenth plague.”°
Thutmosis IV began to reign no earlier than 1415 B.c. and
died in 1401. His mummy shows him to have been about
twenty-nine at his death; therefore, he was born in about
1430, more than a decade after the events described in the
Book of Exodus.
There is, however, some evidence of the final plague with-
out resort to the Sphinx Stele of Thutmosis IV. Thutmosis is

18. James H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt (Chicago: University of Chi-

cago, 1906), vol. 2, par. 810 — 15.
19. See Merrill F Unger, Archaeology and the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1954), pp. 142 — 43; Gleason L. Archer, Jr, A Survey of Old Testament
Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1964), p.218; and, most recently, Leon Wood, A
Survey of Israel's History (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970), p. 128.
20. On all of this see Charles F Aling, “The Sphinx Stele of Thutmose IV and
the Date of the Exodus,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 22 (June,
1979): 97 — 101.
The Exodus: The People and the Events 105

known to have had a number of older brothers?! A certain

Khaemwaset is known to have held military office under his
father Amenhotep II, and to have been married. A second
son, Webensenu, also held high military rank. Like Khaem-
waset, Webensenu obviously never lived to become king. In
the case of the latter, it is certain that he died before Amen-
hotep II, for he was buried in his father’s tomb (a king’s tomb
was sealed immediately upon burial). A third prince, Amen-
hotep, is known from a dated document to have been a
grown man in year twenty of his father’s reign (1433 B.C.). He
was a priest of the Memphite deity Ptah. Again as is the case
with the other two brothers, he did not survive into the reign
of Thutmosis IV.
From these facts a hypothetical reconstruction of events
can be made. Webensenu was probably the firstborn son of
Amenhotep II, since he was granted the privilege of burial in
the royal tomb of his father. It is reasonable to regard this
prince as the son of Amenhotep II killed in the tenth plague,
for he never lived, as far as we know, to marriageable age.
Amenhotep was probably next in age, and reached a mature
enough age to hold a responsible priesthood at Memphis.
He was certainly older than Thutmosis, for Thutmosis was
born in about 1430 B.C. We also know that prince Amenhotep
died before Amenhotep II, for Thutmosis eventually received
the title of the king’s eldest son, a title he could not have
held if any of his older brothers were living. It is reasonable
to see in prince Amenhotep the elder brother who the young
Thutmosis, at the time of his dream beside the Sphinx,
thought would be the next king but who died sometime
before Amenhotep II, thus making Thutmosis IV the heir to
the throne. Of Khaemwaset little can be said. Where he fits
we do not know; whether he was older or younger than
Thutmosis we can only guess. All that is certain is that he
did not become king; perhaps he died also, like his two broth-
ers, before Amenhotep II.

21. Ibid., pp. 99ff., for details and references.

106 : Egypt and Bible History

The question often arises whether Exodus 12:12 ought to

be interpreted to mean that each of the ten biblical plagues
attacked an individual god of the Egyptian pantheon. The
entire phenomenon of the plagues certainly made a mockery
of Egypt's religious system, for the pagan gods were power-
less to protect their worshipers; but it seems doubtful that
each separate plague was directed against a different deity.
The plain fact of the matter is that some of the plagues (the
first, second, seventh, ninth, and tenth) appear to attack in-
dividual gods while others do not (the third, fourth, sixth,
and eighth).
In the first plague the Nile was turned to blood. Although
this plague was basically a blow against Egypt's water supply,
it was also quite obviously an attack against the Nile god,
Hapi. The god and the river were synonymous; by becoming
blood, the river lost its ability to bring life and fertility to the
land. Hapi was rendered powerless.
The second plague inundated the land with frogs. Egypt
had a number of frog (or perhaps toad) deities, the most
popular of which was probably Hekat, a goddess of child-
birth. The plague certainly mocked her function. Frogs, as-
sociated with the fertility goddess, became exceptionally and
disgustingly abundant.
The seventh plague, hail and severe thunderstorms, was
directed against the crops of Egypt. This plague was mainly
intended to cripple Egypt's economy, which was based on
the land’s amazing agricultural productivity. It may also be
seen as an attack on the gods of Egypt who were considered
responsible for that productivity, primarily Re and other solar
deities, and Osiris, a god of the dead who was intimately
connected with grain.
In the ninth plague darkness of great magnitude came
over Egypt. This was the paramount attack on Egypt's sun
god Amon-Re, and on all other less important solar deities.
The sun god was powerless to shine through the darkness,
a phenomenon which must have been unusually terrifying
to the Egyptians, since theirs was a country where even cloud
cover was a rarity. This darkness cannot be understood as an
The Exodus: The People and the Events 107

eclipse. The Egyptians knew of eclipses and did not fear

them; also, the thick darkness of this plague was more op-
pressive than any eclipse.
The tenth plague, the death of the firstborn, attacked Egypt's
living god, the pharaoh. The god-king was unable, despite his
supposed divinity, to prevent the death of his own son, who
died like all the other firstborn of the land. The god-king was
shown here to be no stronger than his lowest subject.
The fifth plague is a special case. This plague brought dis-
ease and death to a large number of Egypt's livestock, in-
cluding cattle, horses, asses, camels, oxen, and sheep. The
list of affected animals in Exodus 9:3 is interesting, for the
order in which the beasts appear is not random. The animals
are listed in order of their importance, from cattle (the most
important) to sheep (the least important). Cattle were highly
valued by the ancient Egyptians, being associated with agri-
cultural wealth. The title overseer of cattle was conferred on
some of the highest officials of the land. The kings and the
great temples measured their wealth at least partially in num-
bers of cattle. Horses, listed second in verse 3, were of course
important for their military role. The days of the exodus were
the great days of chariot warfare, and horses were as vital for
the armies of Eighteenth-Dynasty Egypt as oil is to our mod-
ern military machines. The next animals mentioned, asses,
were the chief beasts of burden throughout the second mil-
lennium. Only after 1000 B.c. did the ass give place to the
camel. Camels, oxen, and sheep are at the end of the list,
since they were far less important than the other animals
named. Sheep correctly occupy the final position; they were
unpopular in ancient Egypt.
While it is true that several Egyptian deities were associ-
ated with the cow (primarily the goddess Hathor), it is per-
haps best not to view this plague as an attack on specific
deities. We would be hard pressed to discover a horse or ass
deity in any way prominent in Egyptian worship. Whether
such gods existed at all is a matter of conjecture, and there
was certainly no camel deity. The common denominator
among these animals is surely economic and not religious.
108 . ‘ Egypt and Bible History

The plague was a blow aimed at Egypt's livestock, and any

attack on Egyptian religion was purely secondary. This plague
should probably not be regarded as an attack on Egyptian
gods.
The other four plagues are definitely not to be regarded
as attacks on particular gods or goddesses of ancient Egypt.
In the third plague the dust of Egypt was turned into some
type of insect, probably either gnats or mosquitoes.” The
purpose of this plague seems to have been twofold. First, it
obviously brought discomfort to the population of Egypt. Sec-
ond, as John Davis points out, this plague made a mockery
of the personal cleanliness which was so important to the
priests of Egypt.’ But the third plague attacked no specific
god or goddess. The only insect the Egyptians connected
with their gods was the dung beetle, which was associated
with the solar cult; and the beetle played no part at all in the
third plague.
The fourth plague was a covering of the land of Egypt with
What the Hebrew text calls “swarms”; this can refer only to
flies in unprecedented numbers. Flies would of course bring
discomfort as they infested the land, and a further dimension
is added by the fact that flies carry disease. It is virtually
certain that the “boils with blains” of the sixth plague refers
to skin anthrax carried by the flies of the fourth plague+ No
fly god existed in Egypt; therefore, no specific deity was at-
tacked by the fourth plague. Nor was the sixth plague an
attack on any individual god or goddess of Egypt. Its effects
were obviously directed against Egypt's human population,
not its deities.
Finally, the eighth plague, the plague of locusts, must be
assigned to the category of plagues which did not mock any
specific Egyptian deity. The Egyptians disliked locusts and
did not worship them; the most common Egyptian word for
grasshopper is in fact best translated by the English phrase

22. Davis, Moses, p.103.

23. Ibid., pp. 103 — 04.
24. Kitchen, “Plagues,” p. 1002.
The Exodus: The People and the Events 109

“son of robbery,”** and shows the disgust with which the

Egyptians viewed this insect. This plague was mainly eco-
nomic, not directed at any god.

Final Observations on the Exodus and Conquest

We will make no attempt here to discuss the difficult ques-

tion of the route of the exodus. The subject has never been
satisfactorily resolved, and details remain a matter of conjec-
ture. Many of the places mentioned in the Bible still await
identification.
One important footnote to the conquest of the Promised
Land must be added. The Amarna Letters, diplomatic cor-
respondence coming in the main from the reign of Akhena-
ton (1364 — 1347 B.C), tell of attacks on some of Syria-Palestine’s
cities by raiders known as the Habiru. Superficially, the words
Habiru and Hebrew appear to be similar, and this has led
some scholars to identify these raiders with the advancing
Israelites under Joshua.”®
For a number of reasons such an equation cannot be ac-
cepted, however tempting it may be to find in it extrabiblical
literary evidence of the conquest.’’ First, there are severe lin-
guistic difficulties in equating the terms Habiru and Hebrew;
they are not by any means identical. Second, the Habiru as
conquerors exhibited major differences from the Israelites.
The Habiru operated in small marauding bands and not in
massive armies like the biblical Hebrews. When they took a
city, they tended, unlike the Israelites, to move on without
making any attempt to settle it. Nor was the main Habiru
activity in the areas where Joshua made his major efforts.
Third, none of the well-known Hebrew names appear in the

25. Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Worterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache
(Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1926 — 1931), vol. 3, p. 461.
26. So J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1925),
pp. 237 — 41.
27. For the details of what follows as well as for additional reasons, see Mer-
edith Kline, “The HA-BI-RU—Kin or Foe of Israel?” Westminster Theological Jour-
nal 20 (November, 1957): 46ff.
110 j Egypt and Bible History

Amarna Letters as leaders among the Habiru. Their leaders

are totally different individuals. Fourth, the Habiru did not
appear on the Palestinian scene suddenly in the reign of
Akhenaton. They are known to have been in the area earlier,
in the days when the Israelites were still in bondage in Egypt.
Finally, equation of the Hebrews with the Habiru poses an-
other serious chronological problem. The tendency among
many Egyptologists in recent years has been to lower the
dates for Akhenaton’s reign and hence for the bulk of the
Amarna Letters as well. At one time it appeared that Akhena-
ton was reigning already in 1400 B.c., but it now seems more
probable that his father Amenhotep [I was only just com-
mencing his own reign at that time. Thus, Joshua’s work in
Palestine had been completed for several decades by the time
of the writing of the Amarna Letters. It is best to see no
connection between the Habiru and the biblical Hebrews.
 o
Israel and Later Egyptian
History

The Late New Kingdom:

Dynasties Nineteen and Twenty

The Nineteenth Dynasty (1304 — 1200 B.C.)

The death of Horemhab in about 1304 B.c. brought the
great Eighteenth Dynasty to a close; Horemhab appointed
his vizier to succeed him, and this man, the founder of the
new dynasty, ruled briefly as Ramses I (1304 — 1302). The new
dynastic family seems to have originated in the delta; in any
case, Egypt recovered from the problems of the religious rev-
olution of the late Eighteenth Dynasty and entered a new
and final period of greatness.
The first of the great kings of Dynasty Nineteen was SetiI
(1302 — 1290), the son of Ramses I. In his rather short reign
Seti did much to restore Egypt's position as a leading military
power of the Near Eastern world.' Seti I fought four cam-
paigns. The first penetrated deep into Palestine, along the
coastal plain and into the Esdraelon Plain, ultimately reach-
ing Beth-shan. Hamath, Acre, and Tyre also fell to the Egyp-
tians. The second campaign included the reduction of Kadesh
on the Orontes. The third was a western campaign against

1. For details see R. O. Faulkner, Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth
Dynasty to the Death of Ramesses III (New York: Cambridge University, 1966).

111
112 ; Egypt and Bible History

the Libyans, but the fourth was fought once again in Syria,
this time against a newly emerging Anatolian power, the Hit-
tites. This campaign was the beginning of a generation of
trouble between the two great empires.
At home, Seti I was an active builder in the tradition of
Egypt's great pharaohs. The beginning of construction of the
famous Hypostyle Hall at Karnak and extensive building at
the temple complex of Osiris at Abydos show that Egypt's
ELE LEI LER GLEE
LE EEE TONER LG SS TS

Ceiling painting: tomb off Seti |,

I.
Israel and Later Egyptian History 113

Hypostyle Hall at Karnak.

prosperity had returned to a level comparable to that of the

middle Eighteenth Dynasty.
Ramses II (1290 — 1223), son and successor of Seti I, was
the greatest figure of his age, and was perhaps Egypt’s most
important king after Thutmosis III? His most well-known bat-
tle was fought against the Hittites at Kadesh in 1285 B.c. The
battle was an Egyptian attempt to check Hittite expansion
into north Syria. If we may believe the claims of Ramses II,
utter defeat at Kadesh was avoided only by the personal
bravery of the pharaoh, who narrowly escaped a Hittite am-

2. Ibid., pp. 11ff.

114 : Egypt and Bible History

Cartouche of Ramses Il.

bush. In any case, the battle was of uncertain outcome, and

Hittite hegemony over northern Syria was not ended; some
years after Kadesh Egypt and the Hittites signed a treaty,
however. Other wars of Ramses II included several raids into
the Negev and Transjordan regions and a vigorous defense
of the delta when the Libyans invaded.
The fame of Ramses II probably stems more from his im-
pressive building operations than from anything else? In all
probability, he erected more structures than any other king
of Egypt, including temples at Abu Simbel in the south, Aby-
dos, and Memphis. He added massive sections to the temples
of Amon-Re at Karnak and Luxor, and west of the Nile at
Thebes built a large funerary temple known today as the
Rameseum.
Ramses II reigned so long that when he died (after sixty-
seven years of rule) he was succeeded by his thirteenth oldest
son, Merneptah. There are two noteworthy events from the
reign of Merneptah (1223 — 1214): his Palestinian war and his
defense of Egypt against the first incursion of the so-called
Sea Peoples.
We have already had occasion to cite the Palestinian cam-
paign of Merneptah because of the mention of Israel as a
defeated nation in the king’s hymn of victory describing this
war (p. 79). While it is certain that Merneptah actually cam-
paigned in Syria-Palestine,* the statement that Israel was dev-

3. Ibid., pp. 16ff.

4. Ibid., p. 20; Kenneth A. Kitchen, Ancient Orient and Old Testament (Downers
Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity, 1966), p. 60.
Israel and Later Egyptian History 115

The Rameseum.

astated and was without seed need not be taken literally. It

should be remembered that the statement comes from a po-
etic text and not from a historical inscription; all we need
accept is that some part of Israelite territory was ravaged by
an Egyptian army.
Of equal interest is the joint invasion of the delta by the
Libyans and the “Peoples of the Sea” in the fifth year of Mer-
neptah. The Sea Peoples, in this case comprising the Sherden,
Sheklesh, Lukka, Tursha, and Akawasha, came from the Ae-
gean world.’ They were the first wave of a mass migration of

5. Faulkner, Nineteenth Dynasty, p.19.

116 Egypt and Bible History

; Bie| “~
eta

Columns of the Rameseum.

people that would shake the world of Egypt, Anatolia, and

Syria-Palestine to its very foundations in the half century
following Merneptah’s reign. The pharaoh successfully averted
their attempt to conquer Egypt.
The last days of Dynasty Nineteen are poorly known; all
that is certain is that these were times of intrigue, dynastic
struggle, and weakness. No individual kings of this period are
worthy of comment here. About 1200 B.C., after the reign of
Queen Tewosret (the fourth woman in Egyptian history to sit
on the throne of the pharaohs), the dynasty vanished.
Despite the fact that several rulers of the Nineteenth Dy-
Israel and Later Egyptian History 117

nasty fought wars in Palestine, no mention of these cam-

paigns is made in the Bible. This seeming biblical ignorance
of the wars of Seti, Ramses II, and Merneptah has long puz-
zled scholars, and has elicited a number of explanations®
The most convincing answer to this question is that of
Leon Wood, who states that the Egyptian campaigns simply
did not concern the Hebrew authors.” The Book of Judges,
where we would expect to find mention of the Egyptian wars,
was not written to be a detailed historical record, but was
intended to be an account of the spiritual high and low
points of the tribes of Israel, and of God’s punishment of
Israel's sin through the use of oppressive pagan nations. Egypt
played no role in the divine punishment, and so was left out
of the account. Further, Wood points out that the areas
through and in which the Egyptians campaigned (the coast
and the Esdraelon Plain) were not major sites of Israelite
occupation.

The Twentieth Dynasty (ca. 1200 — 1085 B.C.)

The main king of Dynasty Twenty was its second ruler, the
great Ramses III (1198 —1167). In foreign affairs his main
achievement was the defense of Egypt against the major as-
saults of the Libyans and the Sea Peoples, who invaded the
delta three times between the king’s fifth and eleventh regnal
years.’ Upon winning these wars depended Egypt's very sur-
vival, and Ramses III must be given the credit for saving his
nation. The Hittite Empire was not so lucky; it succumbed
to the Sea Peoples in about 1190 B.C. Many Syro-Palestinian
cities (including Ugarit) also suffered destruction during these
invasions.
Ramses III recorded his victories on the walls of his mag-
nificent funerary temple at Medinet Habu, west of the Nile

6. For a good summary of the various views see John J, Bimson, Redating the
Exodus and Conquest, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 5 (Sheffield,
1978), pp. 76ff.
7. Leon Wood, The Distressing Days of the Judges (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1975), pp. 87 — 88.
8. Faulkner, Nineteenth Dynasty, pp. 27ff.
118 . Egypt and Bible History

eae

Medinet Habu—mortuary temple of Ramses Ill.

at Thebes. Many of the specific Sea Peoples named are al-

ready familiar to us from Merneptah’s inscriptions; but one
of the new groups is of extreme interest to students of the
Bible—the Plst, who are certainly the Philistines of the Old
Testament. They appeared en masse in the Levant in about
1190, as a part of the Sea Peoples, and first played a major
role in Israelite history in the days of the judges, a period
corresponding chronologically to the Egyptian Twentieth
Dynasty.
There is nothing biblically noteworthy about the remaining
kings of the Twentieth Dynasty (Ramses IV—XI). Egypt, ex-
hausted by its struggle with the Sea Peoples, declined from
the status of a world power. Each ruler of the dynasty took
the name Ramses, reflecting the stagnant quality of Egyptian
politics. Instead of looking to the future, the kings, as is shown
by their imitation of Ramses II and III in their choice of
names, looked only to Egypt’s glorious past. None of the later
kings bore the illustrious name with exceptional credit. Fi-
nally, the Twentieth Dynasty died out, and with its end came
a breakdown of Egyptian unity. The kings of the Twenty-first
Israel and Later Egyptian History 119

Relief showing captive

Philistines (Medinet
Habu). Courtesy, Keith N.
en Schoville.
Dynasty controlled the delta only, while the high priests of
Amon exercised near royal authority in Upper Egypt. The
pharaohs of this period ruled from Tanis in the delta; neither
they personally nor the Egypt of their day can make any
claim to real greatness.’

The Philistines

The Philistines, one of the Sea Peoples and a constant

enemy of Israel through the period of the judges and on into
the united monarchy, arrived in Palestine at the same time
that the Sea Peoples invaded Egypt (ca. 1190 B.c.). They seem
to have settled along the coast after their repulse at the hands
of Ramses III; perhaps the Egyptians allowed and encour-
aged their settlement in Palestine. Of the five cities which
became major Philistine centers, only Ashdod has been ex-
cavated.!° Findings there and at other cities having sizable
Philistine populations provide clues to the complex problem
of Philistine origins: their pottery and architecture exhibit
definite ties with the Aegean world.'!

9. For a survey of this period see Kenneth A. Kitchen, The Third Intermediate
Period in Egypt (Warminster: Aris and Phillips, 1972), pp. 255ff.
10. For a summary of findings, see Moshe Dothan, “Ashdod of the Philistines,”
in New Directions in Biblical Archaeology, ed. David Noel Freedman and Jonas
C. Greenfield (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), pp. 17 — 27.
11. Kenneth A. Kitchen, “The Philistines,” in Peoples of Old Testament Times,
ed. D. J. Wiseman (New York: Oxford University, 1973), p. 61.
120 | . Egypt and Bible History

The Bible states that the Philistines came to the Levant

from Caphtor (Jer. 47:4; Amos 9:7; cf. Deut. 2:23). It is now
quite certain that Caphtor (Egyptian, Keftiu) was the island
of Crete,!2 but we need not conclude that Crete was the
original homeland of the Philistines. Amos 9:7 parallels the
coming of the Philistines from Caphtor with the exodus of
Israel from Egypt, and Egypt was certainly not the original
homeland of the Hebrew tribes. Caphtor may have been a
temporary stopping place for the Philistines midway between
their place of origin farther north and the biblical world of
Egypt and Palestine.
There is in fact good evidence for seeking the place of
origin of the Philistines in Asia Minor. The type of feathered
headdress associated with the Philistines (and with other Sea
Peoples)!? was worn in Caria, in southwest Anatolia. Further,
certain Philistine words and proper names have Anatolian
connections.'* Perhaps the clearest example is the name of
the best-known Philistine of all, Goliath, which is similar to
the Lydian name Alyattes. Finally, there is scriptural evidence
(I Sam. 7:11) that the Philistines worshiped a deity called Car,
as did the inhabitants of Caria in southwest Asia Minor. Seem-
ingly the incoming Philistines brought with them a deity from
their homeland.
One thing is quite clear: the Philistines had connections
with the Aegean world, connections which extended far be-
yond Crete. Little or nothing has been found on that island
which can be in any way interpreted as Philistine; the much-
discussed Phaistos Disk was almost certainly an import to
Crete. The relevant biblical passages must mean the Philis-
tines came to the Levant by way of Crete; how long they
spent on the island is not known.

Solomon and Egypt

Israel moved steadily in the direction of centralized gov-
ernment during the last quarter of the second millennium

12. Ibid., pp.54—56.

13. Ibid., p.57.
14. Ibid., p. 67.
Israel and Later Egyptian History 121

B.C., finally achieving full unification under David (1010 — 970)

and Solomon (970 — 930). The period of the united monarchy
was a glorious one, as is reflected by the military successes
of David and the peacetime accomplishments of Solomon.
Under Solomon, Israel temporarily found itself one of the
major powers of the Near Eastern world. This was due not
only to Solomon’s wealth and wisdom; it was also a result of
the weakness of the larger nations. Assyria was not yet ready
to expand into Syria-Palestine; the power of the Philistines
had waned, thanks to David's vigorous warfare; and Egypt
was weaker than it had been for many years. Solomon was
as strong a monarch as any in his world. This is illustrated
by his relations with Egypt.
I Kings 3:1 states that Solomon and one of Egypt's kings
made an alliance, which was cemented by a diplomatic mar-
riage between Israel’s king and a daughter of the reigning
pharaoh. This shows the unprecedented power and impor-
tance of Israel at the time. Normally, it was the practice of
Egypt's kings to receive the daughters of other rulers into
their own harems, not to give their own daughters in mar-
riage to foreign kings. The granting of an Egyptian princess
to Solomon was a major concession by the pharaoh; it shows
that he treated Israel as an equal.
Kenneth Kitchen has shown that the king of Egypt who
became Solomon’s father-in-law could have been none other
than Siamun, the sixth king of Dynasty Twenty-one, who
reigned from 978 to 959.'!° The Bible states that the king of
Egypt captured and gave to Solomon the Philistine town of
Gezer (I Kings 9:16). This indicates that Siamun was the king
concerned, for a relief from the temple of Amon at Tanis
depicts Siamun smiting prisoners of war whose primary
weapon was the Aegean-Anatolian double ax. Although these
enemies are not named, there can be little doubt that the
relief represents a campaign of Siamun into Philistine terri-
tory.'® Siamun evidently found it to his political advantage to
be Solomon’s friend and ally; hence the marriage alliance.

15. Kitchen, Third Intermediate Period, pp. 280 — 83.

16. Ibid., p. 281.
 s ory ‘ = + ‘one
Bae w 2
a += ie FE

i & *ad ie Ae agit

Pha
rns oa ~
we 90 a secs aay i = afar
eat
¥
itttee

Aes: « aie 409 etecleat

wns Teen ay bs niteneys
a ;

tease
ee
oe‘Sor me)

ie
a ai :
andieee' ius ret dif aici gitpteees Serr
ested agall tae aie baad feltfh 3te A ne ' ini
che Lal wt aeeuil
Binowie nema
re Perry rite‘ “fis \& fe
NEE SIS
it
Vion bre)Malt eres: } honespat, ahah Sees
_ reyacyboidis OL tas {2:32 aepanong rll dare ba Matiwenkeait ste a Aang yise Oe:
i~ Oh 4 iieeyn ow adigter ot édivefic + hi ploseti dora: hati =
+h(aad
es ude,Biges ¢ vPLaee 4 prevod Jaewt-ti ruth wadnces EN
iad el bey ahpkaereniite® kr atte
Bl lesvtints p aot
mids Votes wae Sing rina pt cabo
a eaSpyies pet Wetit ‘shale ie cides io eet &6 a
oad ee ee ee ores iy figabadr
riggs wif ore rept 5. tirecapttira Paste mrgathesett
peaocron sptaeeey Lyre iced op 8 netssaya kte SYR a
thew ainda pewtt Whe af leet onde) anal’ relopnn alee
rte He entcpestiel: eae eens eal oe ee oe peer
ee tev
, etherAaaige ike ier Jeni) coalg- ott. peat eather cipeck Gini
acd trayBs\ eit aoe attr egirdiap vem
inp date)
_ ett bah
> ” edicatesWevetnan: rucha,Http jerraceyymin. heme DAME
A piety hes Hay Was ; hag » a «m evel be wert ont noel
ot eagle Yer: satis wile tvzl? trey ane wheat) tin mt af
araieh der rea b aneetsd tahoe sna eee ee aa! trata! “
7 See Gara chee ory i eTEL” heyy techie |Te unecerniielan
2| ee Were ee
- Sinenegreigs eer a eu
= asain Ned sshd! re AT Ce Ga OR I
ToT dink te anypiGhe aa not > ANE ey A
Pa Hs ay"fe bebe ooh Wi Swpeten; prvdirss ensue
“att Acer xa ofdeah funiiods sibel ot asict 6
dae >me deal) (tab eirg ees Cush envenels Dama jon oe
teat oP Sint scene to,iiPORTED
2_ Reger why prio ae Qieval J

= : =a noni <a UAe wt operat ee) wi

Weer 8
“er ens ae
Sa ae ie a
* A tales
 §
Cultural Contacts Between
Egypt and Israel

It is to be expected that when two nations share a com-

mon border, as did ancient Israel and Egypt, each nation will
exert some cultural influence upon the other. Normally, the
stronger and more advanced state takes the lead in exerting
such influence; but the smaller country can also make its
influence felt. Mutual cultural borrowing between Egypt and
the Hebrews was further stimulated by Israel’s four-hundred-
year residence in Egypt, and by the flight of some Jews to the
Nile Valley at the time of the Babylonian captivity.

Israel’s Debt to Egypt

Many elements of the advanced civilization of the Nile Val-

ley were borrowed by the Hebrews; it is impossible to men-
tion more than a few of them here (on most of the following
points we are heavily indebted to the work of the Canadian
scholar Ronald J. Williams). Let it be said at the outset that
the present author regards Israel’s unique religious beliefs to
be the product of divine inspiration and not cultural
borrowing.

Linguistic Borrowing
Williams has assembled a number of examples of common
Egyptian idiomatic phrases which have been carried over
123
124 : Egypt and Bible History

into Hebrew and which appear in the Old Testament:!

1. In Ecclesiastes 4:8, reference is made to a person who does

not have a “second,” meaning a companion or fellow. The
use of the term second to mean “companion” is purely
Egyptian; it does not occur elsewhere in known Hebrew
literature.”
2. In I Kings 18:42, the prophet Elijah is said to have put his
face between his knees as a gesture of sadness and mourn-
ing. The same idiom has been found in Ugaritic literature,
but ultimately the phrase is Egyptian; it is the most com-
mon Egyptian expression for being in a state of mourning?
3. Lamentations 4:20, referring to King Zedekiah, calls the
Hebrew king the “breath of our nostrils.” This description
of a king, though unique in Hebrew literature, is shown by
Williams to have been well known in Egyptian texts de-
scribing the pharaoh. Ramses II, for example, is specifically
called the “breath of our nostrils” in an inscription from
Abydos.4
4. Proverbs 17:27 provides an example of a Hebrew phrase
which is difficult to interpret without knowledge of its
Egyptian origin. The Hebrew text speaks of a man of
understanding having a “cool spirit’; the phrase is unique,
not occurring anywhere else in Hebrew literature. Williams
observes that the Egyptians used the terms hot and cold
to mean “passionate” and “calm,” respectively. Thus, the
statement in Proverbs means that a man of understanding
has a calm spirit

Beyond the Egyptian idioms appearing in the Old Testa-

1. Cf. Ronald J. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” in J. R. Harris, ed., The Legacy of
Egypt (New York: Oxford University, 1971), pp. 264—65; and idem, “Some Egyp-
tianisms in the Old Testament,” in Gerald E. Kadish, ed., Studies in Honor of John
A. Wilson, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 35 (Chicago: University of Chi-
cago, 1969), pp. 93 — 98.
2. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” p. 264.
3. Ibid., p. 265.
4. Williams, “Some Egyptianisms,” p. 93.
5. Ibid., p.97.
Cultural Contacts Between Egypt and Israel 125

ment, Williams also has found a number of metaphors bor-

rowed by the Hebrew authors of the Bible. The most striking
example of an Egyptian metaphor in the Bible is the descrip-
tion of God as a potter who shapes the lives of men (Job 10:9;
33:6; Isa. 29:16; 45:9; 64:8; Jer. 18:2—6). This phrase had its
origin in the religious and wisdom literature of Egypt (where
it was of course used of pagan gods), was borrowed by the
Old Testament writers, and eventually found its way into the
New Testament (Rom. 9:21)°
Many transliterated Egyptian words also made their way
into Hebrew. This is to be expected, given the close interac-
tion between the two nations. Pharaoh is certainly the most
common of these words; hartom, meaning “magician,” is
another. Shushan, meaning basically “lily” or “blossom,” is
from Egyptian ssn, “lotus.” Shésh, “white marble,” is from
Egyptian ss, “alabaster.” Hebrew suph, “reeds,” is derived from
Egyptian twfy, with identical meaning. These few examples
must suffice, but the list could be greatly extended.’
And finally, considering the Hebrew sojourn in Egypt, it
should come as no surprise that several Egyptian proper
names are found among the Hebrews of the Old Testament,
especially among Israelites who lived either through part of
the bondage or shortly after the exodus?

1. Moses comes from the Egyptian verb ms, “to bear a child.”
Normally, such a root would have been combined with
the name of a deity, as in Ramses, Amenmeses, and
Thutmosis.
2. Hebrew Phinehas is derived from Egyptian p> nhsy, “the
Negro.”
3. Hebrew Hophni originated in Egypt as hfnr, “the tadpole.”
4. Merari is Egyptian mrry, “beloved.”

6. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” p. 268.

7. Ibid., pp. 263 — 64; see also Adolf Erman and Hermann Grapow, Worterbuch
der Aegyptischen Sprache (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1926 — 1931), vol. 6, pp. 243 —
44.
8. For nos. 1—4, and for others, see Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” pp. 262 —
63.
126 : Egypt and Bible History

5. Miriam is probably derived from mry imn, “beloved of

Amon.”

Wisdom Literature

The Egyptians made an outstanding contribution in the

area of wisdom literature. They placed great emphasis on the
wise man, and loved to compile collections of the sayings or
teachings (actual or alleged) of sages of the past.” Many of
the best-known works are instructions in right behavior, and
bear strong similarity to portions of biblical wisdom literature,
particularly the Book of Proverbs.
Similarities between Proverbs and Egyptian wisdom liter-
ature extend beyond likeness of literary type; several sections
of the Book of Proverbs appear to have been directly or in-
directly derived from Egyptian originals. Let it be said here
that this borrowing from Egyptian sources in no way detracts
from the inspiration of Proverbs; truth is truth, no matter
what its origin. The Egyptian maxims quoted in Proverbs are
no less divinely inspired than Paul's quotations from the pa-
gans Aratus (Acts 17:28) and Menander (I Cor. 15:33).
Two examples may be cited to illustrate the dependence
of parts of Proverbs on Egyptian wisdom literature. In Prov-
erbs 25:21—22 (and again in Rom. 12:20) there is an injunction
to be kind to one’s enemies, feeding them when they are
hungry and giving them drink when they are thirsty. In so
doing, one “heaps coals of fire” upon their heads. A similar
expression occurs in a late Egyptian tale.!° In the story of
Setna, a guilty individual carries a brazier of hot coals on his
head as a gesture of penance. Realizing what the Egyptians
meant by the phrase aids us in interpreting the biblical pas-
sage. When we do good to our enemies, we are not bringing
punishment on them, but, on the contrary, are helping them
come to an attitude of repentance.

9. For discussion see Georges Posener, “Literature,” in J. R. Harris, ed., The

Legacy of Egypt (New York: Oxford University, 1971), pp. 220 —55.
10. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” p. 267.
Cultural Contacts Between Egypt and Israel 127

Another section of Proverbs derived from an Egyptian orig-

inal is Proverbs 22:17—23:14. This portion of Scripture contains
close paraphrases of many of the maxims found in a late-
Nineteenth-Dynasty version of the “Wisdom of Amenemope,”
which itself originated in the Eighteenth Dynasty.!! An ex-
ample or two from the Bible and from Amenemope will show
the similarity. The reader is exhorted by Amenemope to avoid
financial gain, and theft of riches; ill-gotten wealth will take
wings like geese and fly away into the sky. This is paralleled
by Proverbs 23:4—5 where exertion for wealth and thievery
of riches are also condemned; riches will make themselves
wings and fly away into the sky like an eagle. In a second
example, Amenemope challenges his audience: “Give your
ears and hear [the words which are] said, give your mind
over to their interpretation; it is profitable to put them in
your heart, but woe to him that neglects them!”!? Substan-
tially the same thought is presented in Proverbs 22:17.

Social and Political Institutions

We would expect to find that Egypt's highly organized

bureaucracy influenced the government of Israel, since that
government was shaped and refined by Solomon, a king who
had solid connections with Egypt. Williams has demon-
strated that such was indeed the case.'3 Scribal schools of
the Egyptian type were established in Jerusalem to train young
men for governmental service. Beyond this, several obviously
Egyptian titles are found in the Israelite bureaucracy (some
of these extended back as far as the reign of David). Chief
among these are the titles “royal companion” (I Chron. 27:33)
and “one who is over the household” (I Kings 4:6), that is, the
chief steward. Even Solomon’s division of Israel’s labor force

11. For a summary see ibid., pp. 277ff. The theory that the Egyptian text was
borrowed from a Semitic original has been successfully and finally refuted by
Ronald J. Williams, “The Alleged Semitic Original of the Wisdom of Amenemope,”
Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 47 (1961): 100 — 06.
12. William K. Simpson, ed., The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of
Stories, Instructions, and Poetry (New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1973), p. 244.
13. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” pp. 272— 73.
128 5 Egypt and Bible History

into three-month shifts (I Kings 5:14) appears to have been

based on Egyptian practice.
Egyptian influence is also visible in Israel’s military organi-
zation. In Joshua 1:10, reference is made to the scribes of the
people (the word scribe is often translated “officer”). The use
of military scribes in the Hebrew army was most certainly
modeled on Egyptian practice; the Egyptian army had an
abundance of scribes at different levels.'* One of the Egyptian
military scribal officials in fact performed the very function
that we see in Joshua 1:11; he published the commands of
the leadcrship among the troops.!*

Egypt’s Debt to Israel

In few cases does cultural influence flow in one direction

only. We would expect to find, perhaps to a limited extent,
examples of Egyptian borrowing of some elements of the
civilization of Syria-Palestine.
And Williams has indeed pointed
out several items adopted by Egypt from its eastern neighbors.
A number of Hebrew words and phrases were borrowed
by the Egyptian language during the New Kingdom or in
later periods. A Hebrew phrase meaning “footstool” appears
in the New Kingdom story “Truth and Falsehood,” and the
Hebrew expression “fear of God” occurs uniquely in the in-
scriptions in the tomb of Petosiris, dated to the late fourth
century B.c.'° Some other Semitic (Hebrew and Canaanite)
words found in Egyptian include ym, sea; mrkbt, chariot;
mktr, fortress; tpr, scribe; ktm, gold; sbd, rod; mkmrt, net;
grt, wagon; krr, holocaust; brt, covenant; ‘Sg, to misuse; and
itz, the interrogative word “which.”!”
We have already had occasion to mention a literary motif
borrowed from Israel by the Egyptians, the motif of the seven-
year famine (p. 49). The Ptolemaic text recording the seven

14. See A. R. Schulman, Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian
New Kingdom (Berlin: Verlag Bruno Hessling, 1964), pp. 62ff.
15. Ibid., p. 66.
16. Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” p. 265.
17. Ibid., p. 264.
Cultural Contacts Between Egypt and Israel 129

years of famine places that event far too early, associating it

with the reign of Djoser of Dynasty Three; but this text cer-
tainly owes its inspiration to the account of the great famine
in the days of Joseph.!®

Hebrew Monotheism and Egyptian Religion—

An Invalid Connection
It was particularly fashionable at the turn of the last cen-
tury and in the early years of the 1900s to find Israelite bor-
rowings from Egypt which in reality were nothing of the kind.
Zeal to discover the roots of Hebrew monotheism in the older
civilizations of the Near East prompted even great scholars
such as America’s first professional Egyptologist James H.
Breasted to find connections where none existed. Two ex-
amples, both related to Egypt's Amarna period and popular-
ized by Breasted, may be cited.
Pharaoh Akhenaton of the Eighteenth Dynasty made active
war upon many of Egypt's traditional gods, chief of whom
was the Theban deity Amon-Re. The king’s motives must have
been political and economic in the main,!? but the result was
an organized persecution of many of Egypt's cults and their
replacement with the worship of the Aton, a sun god. Breasted
saw the new religion of Akhenaton as a form of monotheism,
and thought that it heavily influenced the Mosaic religion of
Israel.° But modern research has all but destroyed Breasted’s
theory! It has been pointed out, for example, that Akhena-
ton’s religion was not really monotheistic at all?? The king
himself was still regarded as divine, and solar deities other
than Aton continued to be venerated. Even the term sole god

18. Ibid., p. 271.

19. Charles F Aling, “A Prosopographical Study of the Reigns of Thutmosis IV
and Amenhotep III” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976), chapter
10.
20. James H. Breasted, A History of Egypt, 2nd ed. (New York: Charles Scrib-
ner’s Sons, 1946), p. 376.
21. See the assessment of Williams, “Egypt and Israel,” p. 287.
22. For discussion see John A.Wilson, The Culture of Ancient Egypt (Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1956), pp. 224ff.
130 } Egypt and Bible History

as used of the Aton was not new. The same phrase had been
used to describe several of Egypt’s gods before the Amarna
revolution, and meant basically that the god so described
was without equal, not that he was the only deity. Nor did
the worship of Aton have anything to do with Hebrew reli-
gion. Akhenaton’s beliefs were confined, as far as we know,
within a narrow court circle; among the general population
of Egypt there was no broad base of belief in the Aton that
could have spread to the Hebrew slaves. Also, Akhenaton’s
ideas seem to have lost all support within a generation; after
the end of Dynasty Eighteen, little trace remained of his new
religion. Further, Atonism did not have the impressive ethical
content for which Hebrew religion is noted. Finally, and most
importantly, according to the chronology we have adopted
Moses lived before and noi after Akhenaton. It is therefore as
impossible to say that Moses derived his religious beliefs from
the heretic king as to say that Abraham Lincoln learned his
political philosophy from John F. Kennedy.
Breasted supported his view that Hebrew monotheism was
of Egyptian origin by citing the similarity of a key document
of Atonism, the great Sun Hymn from Tell el-Amarna, to Psalm
104.73 There are indeed many points of resemblance; but, as
John A. Wilson has observed, many of the thoughts present
in the Sun Hymn can be found in Egyptian religious literature
from both before and after the Amarna period, and are not
the creation of Akhenaton and his scribes and priests.74 Some
of the ideas were generally present throughout the Near East,
such as the idea that a god is the good shepherd of his
people. It may be that the psalmist was familiar with some
of the phrases used in ancient Egypt and in other Near East-
ern lands to describe their deities. This is a subject which
needs further research. But we can at least assert that Psalm
104 is in no way dependent upon any one specific text such
as the great Sun Hymn; and if we dissociate these two texts,

23. Breasted, History, pp. 3711f.

24. Wilson, Culture, pp. 228— 29.
Cultural Contacts Between Egypt and Israel 131

we weaken the chief argument used to connect Hebrew mon-

otheism with Egypt.
It is hoped that the brief summary given in this chapter
will both stimulate and caution students of Hebrew-Egyptian
cultural connections. Much cross-cultural borrowing has been
discovered in the areas of language, literature, and social in-
stitutions. Egypt's far older civilization had much of value to
contribute to Israel in these areas. On the other hand, the
reader must be cautioned that, as we have tried to show, this
borrowing was not a one-way process. Egypt took much from
its neighbors. Further, it must be stressed again that Hebrew
religion, while borrowing some literary types and even some
specific proverbs, was the product of divine inspiration, and
as such was totally and profoundly different from the reli-
gions of the surrounding nations, including Egypt.
 ; scp 00faverth
ond Sy diet saver taney
x oui, rina
absbied
cMniyhie os aeA8.
bet peweurd) coat Thy wists Sean fmm paw
:
— ;
trom bned et atr nkLaasta ac
;
7 a (ae Lit serie etta aaytent git. specs pat?
carcraise to wlontarthaath etoile yivie «hea arel
aU at wae pon eet word hcerwt oe: ae tyeng
shal cerviten Lhe) ay here fi Pre |
—% out’ :
_ rl Gene et ee ae > AA 4c Boloahcr' dys AMES

petit Tit paca Su eS OL eT oA —#

or ene PP bane x LaeerTAMR NS MOR,
Reena Bynteeiert ean se
‘tynePe crol agen nepal to enchant 8nee degak
ich al seesi sotauttorn igionHath sey siou
gt Anoo! partyOe an ante pia 7%.meat YA ae
a-2%e duit’, t Chit iy a ai ye vets Pell oui 4
yt ee ; s vy pe .
ie : a — os i aod at j we PE i i} alt 5 eared 4
af “* : : ‘ - ‘ : ~ F
Le [oearmay TAM ayh Fr. ae
7 er os t phe ne . nelius
eu ad a za bax) . mM Jugs! "
Papen 4 tags a9 een
iteSiviverl, thw gr eel har) et e rel ionaahe

: “RBS Tere aol lange alaghty,grcrinats im aphemtasagIe NS rm

‘a A. Vike)tag (aperowas, ibe ¥ iA tee eg ee gnee

: hes a> Dire ot Car Nee 408 vie epinsians Prgperten b

a j Soin thealgeoe ptt ale “dev din“ih cans eed es

a Patosomal noid Andi small orsh Vex at rare) perenae 7 a

ate Yun Vey sore etHie ee

ees Palaces ,

Twa be rh ules tlvas rd & Oe ant de

per “oA, & ofmre oo Tet . emi 7 fogs ss

7 oe akepire ulewlin-ahulient Raguet hut wi coker?

Da we wed — ' ~~ ie ar een, The + aa >

ee “Waeds tacts Yr arch, Bats ieee N ile

tet tae’ thas lec
ah = he gotagt Sat rivers
F q
“ ne

‘a — ar ye ES
. 7 'e +44—%) 2cca -

‘2
; - 7
 Epilogue

It is hoped that the material presented in this small book

will be both a help and an encouragement to the student of
the Bible who knows little about Egyptology. Admittedly, many
of the views and evidences presented are not original with
the author, but have been gathered from a wide range of
literature (both secular and theological) produced by the best
minds in the field.
As we conclude our survey of Egypt and Old Testament
history, we may jook back over the ground we have covered
to see again its importance for the study of Scripture. It must
be stressed that the people and events of Bible times fit into
a broader historical picture than is given in the pages of the
Bible. A knowledge of this broader historical picture is vital
to a proper understanding of the details of the biblical nar-
rative. We cannot, to cite one example, fully appreciate God's
deliverance of His people from bondage in Egypt if we do
not understand that Egypt was at that time the greatest na-
tion on the face of the earth, at the height of its power both
economically and militarily. A second obvious example is the
career of Joseph. Many of the details of his servitude and rise
to prominence in Egypt are all too often ignored, or, worse
yet, totally misinterpreted. Only through a study of Egyptian
customs do otherwise obscure details come into focus.
One of the aims of this study has been to defend the bib-
133
134 , Egypt and Bible History

lical chronology for the sojourn and exodus. It is hoped that

the reader has seen that the exodus can indeed be dated in
the fifteenth century B.C. and need not be placed in the
thirteenth. Joseph’s career in Egypt need not be assigned to
the Hyksos Period, but, like the exodus itself, fits better just
where the biblical chronology places it. The serious Bible
student does not need to move to either of the two extreme
positions so common today: disregarding the biblical data
and redating the sojourn and exodus to a later period, or
accepting one of the absurd and radical (and totally unsup-
ported by the primary evidence) revisions of Egyptian chro-
nology. The biblical events fit best where the Old Testament
places them.
Much more could have been said on all of the topics cov-
ered; it was not possible, nor, in a book intended for the
general reader, was it desirable to be exhaustive. The general
purpose of this book has been to renew interest in Egyptol-
ogy as a tool for biblical study, and to stimulate learning and
research in this field among biblical scholars. If this work will
“prime the pump” in this regard, it will have been in some
measure successful.
 Bibliography

The following abbreviations have been used:

BASOR Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental

Research
JEA Journal of Egyptian Archaeology
JETS Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society
JNES Journal of Near Eastern Studies
JSS Journal of Semitic Studies
NBD New Bible Dictionary, ed. J. D. Douglas. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1962
PEQ Palestine Exploration Quarterly

Albright, W. F. “Archaeology and the Date of the Hebrew Conquest.” BASOR

58 (April, 1935): 10
— 18.
. From the Stone Age to Christianity. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1957.
. “Further Light on the History of Israel from Lachish and Me-
giddo.” BASOR 68 (December, 1937): 22 — 26.
. “The Israelite Conquest of Canaan in the Light of Archaeology.”
BASOR 74 (April, 1939): 11 — 23.
Aling, Charles F. “A Prosopographical Study of the Reigns of Thutmosis IV
and Amenhotep III.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1976.
. “The Sphinx Stele of Thutmose IV and the Date of the Exodus.”
JETS 22 (June, 1979): 97 — 101.

135
136 ; Egypt and Bible History

Archer, Gleason L., Jr. A Survey of Old Testament Introduction. Chicago:

Moody, 1964.
Bakir, A. Slavery in Pharaonic Egypt. Cairo: Linstitut Frangais d’archeéologie
orientale, 1952. ;
Battenfield, James R. “A Consideration of the Identity of the Pharaoh of
Genesis 47.” JETS 15 (Spring, 1972): 77 —85.
Bimson, John J. Redating the Exodus and Conquest. Journal for the Study
of the Old Testament 5. Sheffield, 1978.
Bottero, Jean, et al. The Near East: The Early Civilizations. New York:
Delacorte, 1967.
Breasted, James H. Ancient Records of Egypt. 5 vols. Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1906.
______. A History of Egypt. 2nd ed. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1946.
Bright, John. A History of Israel. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972.
Brinkman, John A. A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia. Analecta
Orientalia 43. Rome, 1968.
Bruce, F. F. “Shamgar.” NBD, p. 1170.
Brunner, Hellmut. Altaegyptische Erziehung. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrasso-
witz, 1957.
Davies, Norman de Garis. ACorpus of Inscribed Egyptian Funerary Cones.
Oxford: Oxford University, 1957.
. The Tomb of Ken-Amun at Thebes. Metropolitan Museum of Art
Egyptian Expedition Publications 5. New York: Metropolitan Museum
of Art, 1930.
. The Tomb of Rekh-mi-Re at Thebes. Metropolitan Museum of Art
Egyptian Expedition Publications 11. New York: Arno Press, 1973 reprint.
Davis, John J. Moses and the Gods of Egypt. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1971.
. Paradise to Prison. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1975.
Duncan, J. G. New Light on Hebrew Origins. Naperville, IL: Alec R. Allen-
son, 1936.
Edwards, I. E. S. The Pyramids of Egypt. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1947.
Emery, W. B. Archaic Egypt. Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1961.
Erman, Adolf. A Handbook of Egyptian Religion. London: Archibald Con-
stable and Co., 1907.
, and Hermann Grapow. Worterbuch der Aegyptischen Sprache.
7 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1926 — 1931.
Fakhry, Ahmed. The Pyramids. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1961.
Faulkner, R. O. Egypt: From the Inception of the Nineteenth Dynasty to
the Death of Ramesses III. New York: Cambridge University, 1966.
Free, Joseph P. Archaeology and Bible History. Wheaton, IL: Scripture
Press, 1962.
Freedman, David Noel, and Jonas C. Greenfield, eds. New Directions in
Biblical Archaeology. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971.
Bibliography 137

Gardiner, Alan H. Ancient Egyptian Onomastica. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford

University, 1947.
. Egyptian Grammar: Being an Introduction to the Study of Hier-
oglyphics. 3rd rev. ed. New York: Oxford University, 1957.
. Egypt of the Pharaohs: An Introduction. New York: Oxford Uni-
versity, 1966.
Griffiths, J. Gwyn. “The Egyptian Derivation of the Name Moses.” JNES 12
(1953): 225 — 31.
Habachi, Labib. Tell Basta. Supplement to Annales du service des anti-
guités de l'Egypte. Cairo, 1957.
Harris, J. R., ed. The Legacy of Egypt. New York: Oxford University, 1971.
Hayes, William C. Egypt: From the Death of Ammenemes III to Seqnenre
II. New York: Cambridge University, 1962.
. Egypt: Internal Affairs from Tuthmosis I to the Death of Amen-
ophis III. New York: Cambridge University, 1966.
; . The Middle Kingdom in Egypt. New York: Cambridge University,
1964.
, ed. A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Mu-
seum. Wilbour Monographs 5. Brooklyn: Brooklyn Museum, 1972 reprint.
Helck, Wolfgang. Die Beziehungen Aegyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. und
2. Jahrtausend vor Christi. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1971.
. Zur Verwaltung des Mittleren und Neuen Reichs. Leiden: E. J. Brill,
1958.
Hendriksen, William. Galatians. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1968.
Hornung, Erik. Untersuchungen zur Chronologie und Geschichte des
Neuen Reichs. Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1964.
Hurry, J. B. Imhotep, the Vizier and Physician of King Zoser. Oxford: Oxford
University, 1926.
Jack, J. W. The Date of the Exodus. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1925.
Kadish, Gerald E., ed. Studies in Honor of John A. Wilson. Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization 35. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1969.
Kenyon, Kathleen. Archaeology in the Holy Land. 3rd ed. New York: Prae-
ger Books, 1970.
Kitchen, Kenneth A. Ancient Orient and Old Testament. Downers Grove,
IL: Inter-Varsity, 1966.
. “From the Brickfields of Egypt.” Tyndale Bulletin 27 (1976): 137 —
47.
. “Joseph.” NBD, pp. 656 — 60.
. “Moses.” NBD, pp. 843 — 50.

nana
. “Plagues of Egypt.” NBD, pp. 1001 — 03.
. “Potiphar.” NBD, p. 1012.
. “Potipherah.” NBD, p. 1012.
. The Third Intermediate Period in Egypt. Warminster: Aris and
Phillips, 1972.
138 : Egypt and Bible History

. “Zaphnath-Paaneah.” NBD, p. 1353.

Kline, Meredith. “The HA-BI-RU—Kin or Foe of Israel?” Westminster
Theological Journal 19 (1956): 1—24; 19 (1957): 170—84; 20 (1957):
46 — 70.
Leupold, H. C. Exposition of Genesis. 2 vols. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1965.
Lichtheim, Miriam. Ancient Egyptian Literature. 2 vols. Berkeley: Univer-
sity of California, 1973, 1976.
Lucas, A., and J. R. Harris. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Industries.
London: Edward Arnold, 1962.
Naville, Edouard. Bubastis. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner and Co.,
1891.
Newberry, Percy E. Beni Hasan. 4 vols. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trub-
ner and Co., 1893.
Peet, T. Eric. Egypt and the Old Testament. Liverpool: University of Liver-
pool, 1924.
Petrie, W. M. F. Egypt and Israel. London: Society for Promoting Christian
Knowledge, 1911.
______.. Scarabs and Cylinders with Names. Cairo: British School of Ar-
chaeology in Egypt, 1917.
Porter, Bertha, and Rosalind L. B. Moss. Topographical Bibliography of
Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Texts, Reliefs, and Paintings. 7 vols. Ox-
ford; Oxford University, 1927 — 1964.
Posener, G. “Les Asiatiques en Egypte sous les XIIe et XIIIle Dynasties.”
Syria 34 (1957): 145 —63.
Pritchard, James B., ed. The Ancient Near East in Pictures. Princeton:
Princeton University, 1955.
. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament.
Princeton: Princeton University, 1950.
Ranke, Hermann. Die Aegyptische Personennamen. 2 vols. Glickstadt:
J.J. Augustin, 1935.
Rea, John. “The Time of the Oppression and the Exodus.” Grace Journal
2, no.1 (1961): 5—14.
Redford, D. B. “The Coregency of Tuthmosis III and Amenophis II.” JEA
51 (1965): 107
— 22.
. History and Chronology of the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt. To-
ronto: University of Toronto, 1967.
. A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1970.
Rowe, Alan. “The Famous Solar City of On.” PEQ 94 (1962): 133 —43.
Rowley, H. H. “Israel's Sojourn in Egypt.” Bulletin of the John Rylands
—90.
Library 22 (1936): 243
Schulman, A. R. Military Rank, Title, and Organization in the Egyptian
New Kingdom. Berlin: Verlag Bruno Hessling, 1964.
Simpson, William K., The Literature of Ancient Egypt: An Anthology of
Stories, Instructions, and Poetry. New Haven, CT: Yale University, 1973.
Bibliography 139

Smith, Wilbur M. Egypt in Biblical Prophecy. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1957.

Steindorff, George, and Keith C. Seele. When Egypt Ruled the East. Chi-
cago: University of Chicago, 1965.
Stigers, Harold G. A Commentary on Genesis. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
1975.
Unger, Merrill F.Archaeology and the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 1954.
Uphill, E. P. “Pithom and Ramses: Their Location and Significance.” JNES
27 (1968): 291 — 316; 28 (1969): 15 — 39.
Van Seters, John. The Hyksos: A New Investigation. New Haven, CT: Yale
University, 1966.
Vergote, J. Joseph en Egypte. Orientalia et Biblica Lovaniensia III. Louvain,
1959.
Waltke, Bruce K. “Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early
Date of the Exodus.” Bibliotheca Sacra 129 (1972): 33 — 47.
Ward, William A. “The Egyptian Office of Joseph.” JSS 5 (1960): 144 — 50.
. “Egyptian Titles in Genesis 39 — 50.” Bibliotheca Sacra 114 (Jan-
uary, 1957): 40 —59.
Wente, E. F, and C. Van Sicklen. “A Chronology of the New Kingdom.” In
Studies in Honor of George R. Hughes, ed. Janet H. Johnson, pp. 217 —
61. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 39. Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1976.
Williams, Ronald J. “The Alleged Semitic Original of the Wisdom of Ame-
nemope.” JEA 47 (1961): 100 — 06.
Wilson, John A. The Culture of Ancient Egypt. Chicago: University of Chi-
cago, 1956.
Wiseman, D. J., ed. Peoples of Old Testament Times. New York: Oxford
University, 1973.
Wood, Leon. The Distressing Days of the Judges. Grand Rapids: Zonder-
van, 1975.
.A Survey of Israel's History. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1970.
Wright, G. Ernest. “The Epic of Conquest.” Biblical Archaeologist 3 (1940):
25 — 40.
 i ‘vig
hisal Ht coiti in ‘4 3
‘sar Dende es we “rier thr ane
e-rdgnill dine? ¢ Her
dent tas ings fsa) sheet, ee
wi of L Myatt ofCone doar anal Ps
deaiodides Progen.) Por Fates rm “ mi.
aoCoiietree,M0 SAI 5
if takmk” Aesatipsttiviaglt tive ted perwe — mishtapniccue
si4re
= sts By5
fap Pe ieee’ Spee, Ps . a ony) Mc (Pe dats 4
~ 7“ oe hegoast vanes ea neither a atw » he Seat yb secret

= SRE fen eo
- * ‘yanineanetTo aia ee cautetR be Calpe tee ns nap ole
Nei) ay ¥} wa tae ; pues is

s rut drat pitt AviARE Sere tits si ee

ee ich ob (ET Okr woes veil wvhord tei te :
— race bes partes: tds +See be hediy deat tare ’
sleet
Re MNS IR OLaircren? ett wTcrares cae
tte le eles toe wie rea tery 7
he ‘mobenning WAcete ayehetae uid t eben a4 salt
vith aa JA Rabe|
: ery. pion 43% inant th a TS ataA ff ers 77" oon
WD afer ele ine rete me » idee TaD
« ae be LvertrQay 4 over ee
SI ord AN eA Tata gry point Cea, eel Li a ae
a ete 34 (ASR 14 oe, odor (Wer! Thun W. ~Sepeueyf
: Shettyhee i oa bem mc} en ty,ditiaiies $y! ga, nie wat pitrsnclcr 3 -
sot ae. at mt aphyeetn ow a 4 * Seer :

tna whereoner aoontt eiah aii Ve amteninty ele nee

7
Rrxeve Ptatiaes
oer heyahl aired), terse ait York % imme
rani HB he trod wl wwe phy7
ay) 1% Ans Snr Ver > a re wiley.

we Rly regeddan ‘ ai ied? Anceemabetg ys solkh Parpiesapibin ae)

We 6 agents ero) Wenldt “Lapses iy ateyll antl" conml
> aril
oul a0 f ve » a Sarva ol «onag aneiegs Bern % "4m
: : a a Se
-_ 3 t

: : a 7
be —— rin tow i? (Apri Se i tee ha i» ae a ern
i tie Derg @ ~ ode Ukr ; r e y nae -)
as sagt ue’ thet Gee rs — 5. 9 rhe ’
— : ~~ 1 _ ‘ i vs : caey i ee wv. & 2 id

lee Slag. Diet Aegean ‘nde Cae 1% tm em tat OT ml

) Wie 2. ee hag ere hr Lae, Ml a si ae

a
< talline
ee
\ weil wks tise teh. Org
ae Farigilowh, Mortar Ley Seawall ekan Of ; \ eins _
ope ~ a iy is ‘ ris iam sue

a ee ty sears ‘th
.

wee. Se es
 Subject Index

Abraham, 15, 21—24, 64 Asiatic slaves, 30—31, 34—35, 65

Abu Simbel, 114 Asses, 107
Abydos, 112, 114 Astronomy, 13
Afterlife, 19, 28 Aton, 61—62, 129—30
Ahmose I, 54, 55 Avaris, 68, 84, 92, 94, 95
Ai, 89, 91
Akhenaton, 55, 58, 60—63, 83, 90—91, Baker, 38
109—10, 129—30 Barak, 92
Albright, William Foxwell, 81, 83, 87— Barbers, 43
88 Bichrome ware, 85
Amarna Letters, 61—62, 83—84, 87, 91, Bimson, John J., 81, 84—87
109—10 Bodyguards, 34
Amarna revolution, 60—63, 130. See Bondage, 64—75, 78, 92
also Akhenaton Breasted, James H., 5, 129—30
Amenemhat I, 25, 26 Brickmaking, 69—71
Amenemhat II, 25, 26, 30 Bronze Age, 85—86, 89—90
Amenemhat III, 25, 27 Bubastis, 100
Amenemhat IV, 25, 27 Burning of cities, 84, 87—88, 89, 91
“Amenemope, Wisdom of,” 127 Butler, 38—39, 42
Amenhotep, prince, 105
Amenhotep I, 54, 55, 71, 73 Caphtor, 120
Amenhotep II, 54, 58—59, 75, 95, 97— Caria, 120
105 Cattle, 107
Amenhotep III, 54, 60, 110 Chariot, 43, 44—45
Amenhotep IV. See Akhenaton Cheops. See Khufu
Amenmeses, 72 Chronology, 12—14, 21, 29—30, 64—65,
Amon, 19, 28 73, 77—96, 134
Amon-Re, 28, 57—58, 61, 106, 114, 129 Cleanliness, 42, 108
Amorites, 88, 95—96 “Cleopatra's Needles,” 98
Anath, 33 Crete, 120
Anatolia, 120 Cultural contacts with Israel, 123—31
Archaeology, 80 Cupbearer, 38
Archaic Period, 10, 11, 16
Asenath, 45—46 Dan, 95
Ashdod, 119 Darkness, 106—07

141
142 Subject Index

“Dead reckoning,” 13 Habiru, 83—84, 87, 109—10

Deir el-Bahri, 56 Hail, 106
Delta, Nile, 88, 95, 97—100 Hapi, 72, 106
Djoser, 16, 49—50, 129 Hatshepsut, 54, 56, 72—73, 75
Dog Star, 13 Hazor, 87, 89, 91—92
Dreams, 38—39, 42—43 Hebrews, 83—84, 85, 87, 109—10
Dynasties, 10—11; One-Two, 16; Three, Hekareshu, 75
16; Four, 16—17; Five, 17—19; Six, Hekat, 106
17, 19; Seven-Ten, 20—21; Ten, 23; Hekerneheh, 75
Eleven, 21, 25; Twelve, 25—27, 30, Heliopolis, 18, 46, 67—68, 98—99
82; Thirteen, 27, 30, 53; Fifteen- Hieroglyphics, 12
Sixteen, 53; Seventeen, 54; Eighteen, Hittites, 112, 113—14, 117
41, 54—63, 70, 86, 88, 97—98, 103; Horemhab, 55, 63, 111
Nineteen, 68, 88, 93, 111—17; Horses, 107
Twenty, 117—19; Twenty-one, 68, Horus, 18, 19
118—19, 121 Hyksos (Period), 10, 29—30, 34, 46,
53—54, 55, 65—66, 69, 70, 81—82, 84,
Early date (exodus), 80—81, 83—84, 85, 92, 93—94. See also Second
92—95, 96, 100
Intermediate Period
Edomites, 88, 95—96 Hypostyle Hall, 112—13
Education, 73—74
“Eloquent Peasant, Tale of the,” 20, Imhotep, 16, 50
23—24
“Instruction for King Merikare,” 23
Embalming, 51
Intermediate Periods, 10. See also
Eunuchs, 33—34
First Intermediate Period and
Exodus, 77—110
Second Intermediate Period
Extreme early date (exodus), 81, 84— Isaac, 21
87
Israel, cultural contacts between
Extreme late date (exodus), 80, 81—83 Egypt and, 123—31
Famine, 36, 43, 47, 49—50, 128—29 Israel Stele, 79, 82—83, 114—15
“Father to Pharaoh,” 47—48
Firstborn, death of, 103—05, 107 Jack, J. W., 80, 83—84
First Intermediate Period, 10, 11, 20— Jacob, 21, 49, 64
24 Jephthah, 78
Flies, 108 Jericho, 87, 89—91, 92
Frogs, 106 Joseph, 28—52, 81—82
Josephus, 29—30
Garstang, John, 89—90 Joshua, 83, 89—92, 109—10
Geography of Egypt, 7—10 Judges, Book of, 86, 117
Gezer, 121
Giza, 16, 99, 104 Kadesh, 111, 113—14
Glueck, Nelson, 88, 95—96 Karnak, 57—58, 86, 112, 114
Gold chain, 43—44 Ken-Amon, 99—100
Goliath, 120 Kenyon, Kathleen, 89—90
Goshen, 88, 95, 97 Khaemwaset, 105
Great Pyramid, 16—17, 20 Khafre, 16
Subject Index 143

Khatana-Qantir Tell ed-Daba, 69, 84 Palestine, 79—80, 85—87, 114—15, 117.

Kheti, 22—23 See also Syria-Palestine
Khufu, 16, 20 Per Atum, 66, 67
Kingdoms, 10 Per Ramses, 69, 94
Perunefer, 99, 100
Laish, 95 Petrie, W. M. F, 80, 81—83
Land reform, 50—51 Phaistos Disk, 120
Late date (exodus), 81, 87—96 “Pharaoh,” 41—42
Levi, 64 Philistines, 118, 119—20, 121
Libya, 55, 79, 112, 114, 115, 117 Pithom, 66—68, 78, 84
Linguistic borrowing: from Egypt, Plagues, ten, 103—09
Israel's, 123—26; from Israel, Plst. See Philistines
Egypt's, 128 Potiphar, 31—36, 82
Locusts, 108—09 Potiphera, 32—33, 45—46
Luxor, 114 Potter (metaphor), 125
Predynastic Age, 10, 15
Magicians, 42 Prime minister. See Vizier
Manetho, 11—12, 29 Prison, 36—39
Maskhutah, 66 Proverbs, 126—27
Medinet Habu, 117—18 Pyramids, 16—18, 20, 27
Megiddo, 86
Memphis, 98, 99, 114 Qantir, 69, 84
Menes, 15
Mentuhotep, 25 Rameseum, 114—16
Merikare, 23 Ramses J, 111
Merneptah, 79, 81, 82—83, 114—17 Ramses II, 68—69, 78, 81, 84, 88, 92—
Middle Kingdom, 10, 11, 25—32, 34— 94, 113—14, 117
35, 37—38, 46, 49, 65, 81, 84 Ramses III, 117—18, 119
Monotheism, Egyptian religion and Ramses (city), 66, 68—69, 78, 81, 84,
Hebrew, 129—31 88, 92—95
Montu, 28 Ramses (name), 72
Mortar, 69—70 Re, 18—19, 28, 32—33, 45—46, 93, 94,
Moses, 41, 65, 71—75, 87, 88, 95, 97, 106
100, 125, 130 Rea, John, 65, 93
Red Sea, 101—03
Naville, Edouard, 66 Reform, land, 50—51
Nefertiti, 61—63 Rekhmire, 70
New Kingdom, 10, 11, 54—63, 74, Religion, Hebrew monotheism and
111-19 Egyptian, 129—31
Nile, 7, 9, 71—72, 106 Retaba, 66—67, 68
Nomarchs, 26, 51 Rhetoric, 74
Nubia, 19, 26, 55, 57
Sakkara, 16
Old Kingdom, 10, 11, 16—20 Sarah, 22, 23
On, 46, 67 Sar hatabbahim, 34
Osiris, 72, 106, 112 Saris, 33—34
144 Subject Index

Scribes, 86, 128 Tanis, 68

Seal-bearer of the king, 48 Tcheku, 66
Sea Peoples, 114, 115—16, 117, 118, Tell el-Maskhutah, 66
119 Tell er-Retaba, 66—67, 68
Sebek, 28 Tewosret, 116
Sebeknetru, 25, 27 Thutmosis I, 54, 55, 70, 73
Second Intermediate Period, 10, 11, Thutmosis II, 54, 56
22. See also Hyksos (Period) Thutmosis III, 54, 56—58, 59, 73, 75,
Sesostris I, 25, 26 86, 95, 97—99
Sesostris II, 25, 26, 30, 41, 49 Thutmosis IV, 54, 59, 75, 95, 104—05
Sesostris III, 25, 26, 30, 49, 51 Tiles, 69
Set, 46, 94 Transjordan, 88, 96
Seti I, 69, 91—92, 111—13, 117 Tutankhamon, 55, 63
Shamgar, 33 “Two Brothers, Tale of,” 36—37
Shaving, 42
“Shipwrecked Sailor, Story of the,” 27
Siamun, 121 Unger, Merrill F, 95
“Sinuhe, Story of,” 27
Sirius, 13
Slavery, 30—31, 34—35, 70, 79. See Vizier, 48—50
also Bondage
Smyth, Charles Piazzi, 20
Sojourn, 64--75 Wahkare-Kheti III, 22 —23
Solomon, 21, 78, 120—21, 127 Waltke, Bruce K., 90—91, 92
Sphinx Stele, 99, 104—05 Webensenu, 105
Steward, 35—36; chief, 46—47, 100 Wisdom literature, 126—27
Sun Hymn, 130 Wood, Leon, 117
“Swarms,” 108
Syria-Palestine, 10, 19, 30, 53, 55, 57,
62, 83, 86, 109, 111—12, 114, 117 Yadin, Yigael, 91—92

A028764
THEOLOGY LIBRARY
CLAREMONT, CALIF,
 Scripture Index

Genesis 12:12—106 Psalms

12:1—3—64 12:40—21, 81, 82 104—130
12:4—21 12:40—41—64 136:13—15—102
12:10 —20—21 14:5 —28—101 136:15—103
12:16—23 14:28—102
14:14—95 Proverbs
15:13—64 Numbers 17:27—124
21:5—21 20—21—88 22:17 —23:14—127
25:26—21 23:4—5—127
28:14—
64 Deuteronomy 25:21 —22—126
37:36—31, 33 2:23—120
39:1—33, 82 Ecclesiastes
39:2—35 4:8—124
Joshua
39:2—3—34
1:10—11—128
39:4—35 Isaiah
6:24—89
39:5—36 8:28—89
29:16—125
39:7 —20—36 45:9—125
11:11—13—89
39:21—37 64:8—125
11:13—87
39:22—38
19:47—95
41:8—42 Jeremiah
41:91f.—42 18:2—6—125
Judges
41:14—42 44:30—42
3:31—33
41:37—46—44 47:4—120
4—92
41:40—46, 49
5:6—33
41:40—43—43 Lamentations
11:26—78
41:42—48 4:20—124
18:29—95
41:43—45, 48
45:7—47 Ezekiel
I Samuel 29—32—6
45:8—47, 48, 82
7:11—120
45:26—49
47:6—47 Amos
47:9—21 I Kings 9:7—120
47:20 —26—49, 50 3:1—121
4:6—127 Acts
Exodus 5:14—128 7:22—73
1—5—70 6:1—21, 78, 81, 82, 83, 17:28—126
1:8—10—65 85, 96
1:11— 66, 78, 84, 88, 9:16—121 Romans
92, 95 18:42—124 9:21—125
1:13—14—69—70 12:20—126
1:15—70 I Chronicles
2:10—72 27:33—127 I Corinthians
4:19—75 15:33—126
5:6—70 Job
6:16 —20—64 10:9—125 Galatians
9:3—107 33:6—125 3:16—17—64
 e~ ™* 7 7 5

- ] tum % “pe i ies

Z ch " " he PAs
iN : 7 3 ¢ i’ps

wien af bon * a. 7 ra : asyst vie os = < ea wt

EE ee -
> aclgbe ) era es Oe ow tea 7 "pat FRE
q| Sante ie ieiare Nery x Jter. oe “Sh “a - a5 it Ser
an a aNegrete
te SER.
4“) a
ee-Oiraleagee !) eb
ee ae
a9 pambsleen
=. <a? wag iD. by vhs ret --% ‘ ; sy
oa eh thitele 2 ckeaet 4. Mitetine a ares 7
ee St ae ari 8 > eee
SOAR eee habs Oh Tee
Ca Re es~ ines i noeieiest? “™,_ bP HaR <
’ Be sia! nF Sepile - : ’ x ez. oR | a
a ane! Le Aaeoed a 24 » oo, oe Paes re

in lil i |3uae treed apt. sae 3

Fae
| Beotarn,BH | : i - RED RE de
. oe
a dese dp ot 8 wallai® i ton vi ie eee
uk eset s, 2g ‘t~ Be >
Said : Se ey :
oe mee ur tee 2 ! nee 2 oe oes ee
i cen = Be mre as nes wha at oe pee
Sebi peer, lee eee tas if TF, Mig ae
ip Poe ihanditndt
= i ae a ‘4 ' etal *

Tide == Fe:
a . oo ee ee
as ab)ha Annie Sisto : 7 ae a > eo 1 4)

seotgaie
rr ; —_ ees be €h «CRE
Te aeLapsient
cath
Re Sint gan +
|
jl
ep cree CFs ‘b—

SE th Oe
; acy i

|
a eee _ of
ht ae rs : 2 ane
Sein : i + “peal a
oF aStihl ee - eee
ep ~~ 8 HF
a & aa
ie

- thet aa : Th OB
ee ere agvia’? ic cendhhale
MT ek , FED 2 Ei Sethe
-~ 1 Saien he i e x
Jos cio ae ae Psi oeshsing
sf Sees we , ea Mf Ai ee
a ries i Bw
7. spans 5) conv 2uh “any EE tee iy
|) ee bd
>t -hoe:
a rear weniTet tajat
~ ot A |i) _
7~

<p ashen AP ER hg | Sal a= 3

ae
. enotriinteacs
7 Rasta ; 7

iu > 5
> eae ; ora det > ’

Et
ok Rati-ane ao,
“~ rele =
,
|
Con
ae
if.428

a
-

bite:
is

“0
a
_

7
;
ce

a4
a

oa
 ahs
q
7
¥
>,

aoe.
wah
ne
Uo
ay 7] 2 > .) 7 «
BS
1197 Aling, Charles Fe
»A47 yet and Bible history : from
L981 earliest times to 1000 BeCe / Charles
Fe Alinge -- Grand Rapids ; Baker Book
House, cidsle
5 pe 3; 22 cme -— ( Baker studies in
Biblical archaeology)
Bibliography: pe 135-1396
Includes indexe

le Bibles OslTe-—-History of Biblical

eventses 2e Biblee Ocle--Antiquit iese
3e Archaeologye 4e Egypt--Antiquities.
Ie Titie IIe Series

Ao 277
CSC 17 SEP 84 8125857 CSTMxc
 $5.95
0174-9.

- From Earliest Times to 40001B.c.

Charles F. Aling
The role of the Egyptians in biblical events is the focus of
this excellent summary of ancient Egyptian history. Es-
pecially that segment related to Bible times comes alive.
Places and people are precisely described and docu-
mented. Special attention is given to the position of
Joseph in the pharaoh’s court, the date of the exodus,
and other Hebrew-Egyptian encounters recorded in the
Bible. x
The text, although carefully researched, is nontechnical.
Yet there is sufficient scholarly material in the footnotes ©
for those who wish to explore more deeply. The book has |
appeal for both laymen and students interested in
Egyptology.

Charles F. Aling is Academic Dean, and Professor of

Biblical Backgrounds and Old Testament, Valley Baptist
Theological Seminary, Minneapolis, Minnesota. He re-
ceived his Ph.D. (in ancient history) from the University
of Minnesota. He is a member of the Near East Archaeo-
logical Society and has participated in two archaeological 'e
expeditions in Egypt (1972 and 1978) as Assistant Field | ©
Director. — m,

The cover illustration is a replica on papyrusof a tomb —

painting which depicts Joseph asking the pharaoh for
permission to allow his brothers to remain in Egypt for
the durationof the famine. From the Papyrus Exhibition,
Giza,Egypt.

BAKER BOOK HOUSE Grand Rapids, Michigan

Canada: G.R. Welch Co. Ltd., Burlington
South Africa: Word of Life Wholesale, Johannesbure
Australia: S. John Bacon Pty. Ltd., Melbc FTS
=INCORPORATED
New Zealand: G.W. Moore Ltd., Auci ene CA 90660