In the previous video, we engaged in a brief analysis of a Middle Kingdom date for the
Exodus, as presented in the documentary “Patterns of Evidence” and the works of David Rohl.
While this position shares some of the same concerns as those I have raised in this series,
at this point I am not persuaded that the Middle Kingdom is the appropriate time in
Egypt’s history to look for evidence of the Exodus. As such, I will proceed in this
series assuming a traditional early-date during the 18th-dynasty as the most likely for the
Exodus.
Given everything we have looked at so far, we are now in a position to ask one of the
most important questions a student of the Bible and ancient Egypt can…who was the
pharaoh of the Exodus?
There are four main assumptions I will be using to offer my opinion: 1) the variant
readings of 1 Kings 6:1 support 480-440 years prior to Solomon as round numbers (for our
purposes, a time period of ~1450-1400 BC), 2) a standard deviation of ~5-50 years in
the dates of traditional Egyptian chronology, 3) that the Exodus resulted in Egypt’s inability
to exercise economic and military control of the Levant and 4) that the “Habiru”
of the Amarna letters refer, at least in part, to the Israelite conquest during the reign
of Akhenaten.
(For substance to any of these assumptions, please refer to the earlier videos of this
series.)
Before we go any further though, we should discuss another important assumption – that
the body of the pharaoh was lost in the Yam Suph (the Red Sea). I realize that this is
a frequent point of argument when attempting to identify the pharaoh of the Exodus, so
I wanted to take a minute to address it.
I believe that there is enough in the Exodus account to support pharaoh being drowned in
the sea along with his army. (“The waters returned and covered the chariots and the
horsemen, Pharaoh’s entire army that had gone into the sea after them; not even one
of them remained.” Exodus 14:28) Egyptian custom would have been for the pharaoh to
personally lead his troops, so I think it’s fair to consider the reference to all of pharaoh’s
army having perished as including him also. This leads many to believe that pharaoh’s
body would have been irretrievably lost. However, Exodus 14:30 states that, “…Israel saw
the Egyptians dead on the seashore.” The question that would arise from this is whether
or not pharaoh’s body would have been among those that washed up on the shore? I cannot
give a definitive answer either way. There is enough ambiguity in Exodus 14 though for
us to at least consider the possibility that pharaoh’s body could have been recovered
as one that washed up on the shore. Thus, a common objection that, “since we have
the body of the pharaoh, he can’t be the pharaoh of the Exodus,” may not necessarily
be true. In presenting this video, I will therefore try to be open to either possibility:
that pharaoh’s body was recovered posthumously or that it was irretrievably lost in the sea.
With that being said, let’s begin to narrow our search.
The variant readings of 1 Kings 6:1 give point us to approximately 1450-1400 BC as the time
of the Exodus events. Acknowledging 480 and 440 respectively to be round numbers, there
may even be room to extend this time period to ~1460-1390 BC, although I admit that may
be pushing the issue.
When we examine the traditional chronologies of Egyptian history, three pharaohs emerge
as reigning in or around these dates: Thutmose III, Amenhotep II and Thutmose IV. These pharaohs
are bookended by Hatshepsut and Amenhotep III. Right away, we can rule out Hatshepsut,
since the Biblical text consistently refers to pharaoh as a man – Hatshepsut being a
female pharaoh. The current dates for the remaining candidate pharaohs are as follows:
Thutmose III – 1458-1425 BC, Amenhotep II – 1427–1397 BC, Thutmose IV – 1397–1388
BC, Amenhotep III – 1388–1351 BC.
By these dates, the strongest candidate for the, “480 years,” of the Masoretic reading
of 1 Kings 6:1 is Thutmose III. The range of standard chronological deviation would
make Amenhotep II a plausible alternative according to this reading.
In contrast, Amenhotep II is the strongest candidate for the, “440 years,” of the
Septuagint’s reading. Thutmose IV is a plausible alternative at this date even by conventional
dates, with standard chronological deviation only strengthening his case. Amenhotep III,
though an outlier by traditional dates could be considered a second alternative by chronological
deviation.
Now that we have established the likelihood of each pharaoh being that of the Exodus by
chronology, let’s examine the state of Egypt during each of their reigns for evidence of
economic and military weakness.
Even though an exact interpretation of the, “480 years,” of the Masoretic reading
of 1 Kings 6:1 lands during the reign of Thutmose III, we can almost immediately rule him out
as the pharaoh of the Exodus. The reason is that Thutmose III is arguably the strongest
ruler in all of ancient Egyptian history. Rather than there being evidence of weakness
during his reign, Egypt is at the height of its imperial power and influence. If the Exodus
occurred during his reign, Egypt would not be as strong and wealthy as it was.
Amenhotep II has historically been a popular candidate for those advocating an early date
of the Exodus; reason being that the high chronology of Egypt has typically placed him
on the throne during the year 1446 BC – the date supported by an exact interpretation
of 1 Kings 6:1 in the Masoretic. Even in the current chronology, he does have the support
of the exact interpretation of the Septuagint’s reading. The first two years of his reign
were a co-regency with his father Thutmose III (which further rules out Thutmose III
as the Exodus pharaoh). An interesting point to consider is that his successor, Thutmose
IV does not appear to have been in line for the throne upon Amenhotep II’s death. (As
evidenced by the “Dream Stele” erected between the paws of the Great Sphinx of Giza.)
Advocates of Amenhotep II as the Exodus pharaoh point to this as substance that Amenhotep
II lost his firstborn son, as described in Exodus 12:29. When we examine the state of
Egypt in the wake of his reign however, we find that Egypt’s power and influence has
not diminished. This is substantiated by the treaty that Thutmose IV established with the
king of the Mitanni, Artatama I to fix Egypt’s northern border. If the Exodus occurred at
the end of the reign of Amenhotep II, it is unlikely that Egypt would be economically
or militarily strong enough to have negotiated this. For this reason, despite his popularity
for some, I don’t believe Amenhotep II is the pharaoh of the Exodus.
The reign of Thutmose IV is considered by some Egyptologists as the height of Egypt’s
imperial power because of the aforementioned treaty with the Mitanni. As mentioned in part
6 of this series though, some interesting circumstances take place following his time
on the throne. To recap, the death of Thutmose IV was apparently premature. Examination of
his mummy has led scholars to assume a time of death between 25 and 28 years of age, free
from indications of disease or trauma. However, a curious observation is that he was emaciated
at the time of his death. For whatever reason, Thutmose IV was not eating well in his last
days. Given that there are no other signs of disease, perhaps he was under a large amount
of stress (as one would expect of the pharaoh who witnessed God’s wrath poured out in
the destruction of Egypt during the ten plagues). It’s in the wake of his reign that Egypt
begins losing control of it’s Levantine territories during the reign of his successor,
Amenhotep III, ultimately resulting the subjugation of Egypt’s number one ally, the kingdom
of the Mitanni by the Hittites during the reign of his grandson, Akhenaten. It is unlikely
that Thutmose IV could be considered as a candidate by even a round reading of 1 Kings
6:1 in the Masoretic, however he is a very good candidate by a round reading of the Septuagint.
Another interesting point is that if Thutmose IV is the pharaoh of the Exodus, the duration
of Amenhotep III’s reign is between 37-38 years – the amount of time Israel wandered
in the desert before the first generation of the Israelites passed away (Deuteronomy
2:14). It’s in the wake of Amenhotep III’s 38 years of rule that the mentions of the,
“Habiru,” in Canann appear during the reign of Akhenaten, which would match up quite
well with Joshua’s conquest. For these reasons, I believe a strong case can be made for Thutmose
IV being the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Amenhotep III’s case is the most unlikely based on chronology – his best bet in this
regard is as a second alternate for the Septuagint reading. However, the circumstances of his
reign are attractive for similar reasons as they are for Thutmose IV; Egypt becomes increasingly
weak during this time and his son’s reign would roughly coincide with the time of the
conquest under Joshua. A weakness for his candidacy though is that these events happen
prior to his death. If the Exodus took place during his reign, this would mean that he
did not perish in the sea crossing. However, let me propose a possible resolution to this.
Recall that the premature death of Thutmose IV likely meant that Amenhotep III ascended
to the throne as a child. If this were the case, he would be pharaoh in title only, as
Egypt would be ruled by intermediaries until he matured enough to rule of his own accord.
Perhaps, then, it’s possible that one of Thutmose IV’s viziers was the acting pharaoh
during this time. If the Exodus occurred during the early years of Amenhotep III, while he
was a child, it may have been this hypothetical official who was the pharaoh of the Exodus.
This is all speculative, but if one is going to propose Amehotep III’s reign as the time
of the Exodus, I think this is most reasonable way to accord it with the historical record.
Given everything we’ve examined, I will offer two proposals for the pharaoh of the
Exodus: the first being in the event that the pharaoh’s body was recovered and the
second being that it was lost in the sea crossing.
If the pharaoh’s body was recovered, then my pick for the pharaoh of the Exodus is Thutmose
IV. Prior to his reign, Egypt is powerful and stable. In the wake of his reign, Egypt
quickly becomes weak and impotent. The record of Amehotep III’s reign and the Amarna letters
during the reign of Akhenaten accord well with the Biblical narrative and make for synchronisms
that don’t work with any other proposed pharaoh.
If the pharaoh’s body was lost, then I would suggest that a ruling intermediary during
the early years of Amenhotep III’s reign was the pharaoh of the Exodus. I believe that
the synchronisms we see with the end of Thutmose IV’s reign are too strong to be pushed forward
beyond the early years Amenhotep III. This means, though, that he would have been a child
and likely not acting as pharaoh for some time. The result is that another individual
was the acting pharaoh in this sequence of events and it would have been this person
who met their demise in the Exodus.
I favor the former idea because the latter relies on speculation. However, I don’t
believe the latter can be ruled out due to the possibility that the pharaoh’s body
was lost in the sea. For the purposes of organizing a timeline, I will regard the Exodus as the
event that resulted in the death of Thutmose IV. With this recognition, we can propose
a timeline of events for the sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt through the beginning
of the time of the judges. The next question then becomes, “who was the pharaoh who oppressed
the Israelites?” We will offer some proposals in the next video.
Please subscribe and click the notification bell so that you will be notified when I release
the upcoming videos in this series. For further reading on this subject, I recommend, “Let
My People Go!” by Steven Collins. You will find a link to this book in the description.