ws in the logic of those who reject the Biblical Exodus or assign it to unnamed writers many centuries later. He notes that the price of 20 shekels is

s BC.Another Biblical reference used to date the Exodus is found in Judges, where Jephthah tells the Ammonites that Israel had been in the land for 300 years (Jgs 11:26). Again, there is acceptance among the experts that Jephthah’s victory over the Ammonites took place around 1100 BC. This would place the arrival of the Israelites in Canaan near 1400 BC, precisely 40 years after the Exodus. Thus both Biblical dates for the Exodus agree.In spite of this Biblical evidence, most minimalist scholars believe the Exodus took place around 1260 BC, a date that contradicts the Biblically-derived dates by almost two centuries. Minimalists generally give three main reasons for this later date of the Exodus: (1) the mention of the Israelites’ building of the city of Rameses (Ex 1:11); (2) the archaeological evidence that no sedentary population lived in the Transjordan and Negev regions between 1900 and 1300 BC; and (3) the widespread devastation of cities and towns of central Canaan during the 1260s BC.Let’s consider whether these reasons are grounds for a date that contradicts the Bible.The City of RamesesMany archaeologists assume the city of Rameses was named after Rameses II, a famous Pharaoh who was a great builder. Yet the term Rameses simply means “born of the god Ra” (or Re) and had been used in monuments centuries before the time of Pharaoh Rameses II. The Bible itself mentions the same name when it speaks of Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt, hundreds of years before the reign of Rameses II:So Joseph settled his father and his brothers in Egypt and gave them property in the best part of the land, the district of Rameses, as Pharaoh directed (Gn 47:11).So the argument that Moses lived in the 1200s because the Israelites helped build a city with the name Rameses is not convincing.In fact, Manfred Bietak, the excavator of Rameses (Tell el-Dab’a), has determined that the name of the site at the time the Israelites were there was at first Rowaty, and then later changed to Avaris. The name Rameses was not used until the city was rebuilt by Rameses II in the 13th century. Thus the use of the name Rameses in Exodus 1:11 and Genesis 47:11 is a case where a later Biblical writer updated the text to reflect the changed name of the city, as we see in some other Biblical passages. We have the same situation with regard to Pithom, the other store city named in Exodus 1:11. That name was not in use until the Saite Period, ca. 600 BC.Column fragment with the cartouche (oval with royal name inside) of Rameses II, Qantir, Egypt. Rameses II built a royal center here in the 13th century BC, and from that time on the location was known as Rameses. Earlier, when the Israelites lived there, the city had several different names. When the Biblical text was updated, the older, forgotten, names of the city were replaced with the newer, more familiar, name of Rameses. Bryant Wood.Evidence for SettlementsThe second argument against the traditional date for the Exodus is based mainly on the work of archaeologist Nelson Glueck in the 1930s, which failed to find evidence of permanent



settlements in the Transjordan and the Negev regions
between 1900 and 1300 BC. This region should have shown a sizable presence of Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites at that time, since the Biblical account mentions their strong opposition to the Israelites.However, more-recent excavations have shown many settlements in the area that Glueck did not find. Archaeologist John Bimson notes thatGlueck’s initial conclusions were definitely wrong [indeed he later retracted them], and it is disappointing to find scholars citing them as if they were still valid evidence. All too often the 13th century date for the Exodus has been perpetuated by the baseless repetition of outmoded views (Bimson and Livingston 1987:44).Widespread DestructionThe third argument used to date the Exodus to the 1200s BC is the archaeological evidence for the destruction of several Canaanite cities during this period. Scholars believe this took place when Joshua invaded and conquered Canaan.Yet, if the traditional 1400s date for the Exodus is maintained, the archaeological evidence seems to fit much better, for destruction levels in Canaanite cities such as Hazor and Jericho also date to the 1400s. If Joshua conquered Canaan after 1400, this would have given the Israelites time to eventually take over much of the land during the 300 years of the judges. The Bible is clear that there were many cities the Israelites didn’t conquer during Joshua’s time or even during the time of the judges (Jos 13:1; Jgs 3:1–6). The archaeological record does support such a gradual process.Dealing with the present findings, archaeologist Randall Price concludes:The signs of widespread destruction at certain sites should not be considered as archaeological evidence against the Biblical chronology and for a late date for the Conquest [by Joshua]. These destructions better fit the period of the Judges, during which ongoing warfare was commonplace (1997:147).Dr. Merrill adds:Signs of major devastation in the period from 1400 to 1375 would be an acute embarrassment to the traditional view because the Biblical witness is univocal that Israel was commanded
to annihilate the Canaanite populations, but to spare the cities and towns in which they lived. And the record explicitly testifies that this mandate was faithfully carried out. The only exceptions were Jericho, Ai, and Hazor (1996:73).We find, then, that the archaeological evidence better fits the traditional date of the Exodus backed by the Bible.Aerial view of Khirbet el-Maqatir, Israel, looking north-northwest. Excavations here by the Associates for Biblical Research have produced evidence of a small fortress that matches the Biblical requirements for the Ai conquered by the Israelites. Randy Cook.Recent DiscoveriesAnother argument that the Exodus never occurred is that there are no signs that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai desert for 40 years. However, we must remember that during the Exodus the Israelites were forced to live nomadic lives. No longer did they reside in villages with sturdy houses and artifacts that could have survived as evidence. Instead, in the wilderness environment, every item language learning

Millard (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 1

The Rise and Fall,” 478; Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 255. 31. William Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh of the Exodus,” Bible and Spade 16:2 (Spr 2003), 43. Shea compares such updating to that which occurred with Moses’ reference to Dan (Gen 14:14), which was called Laish until sometime after Moses died. He likely implies that this divinely-overseen updating was accomplished long before the OT canon closed, though this is not stated. Wood criticizes Kitchen for allowing an editorial updating for Dan in Gen 14:14, and for Rameses in Gen 47:11, but not for Raamses in Exod 1:11 (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 479). Kitchen’s inconsistency is both troubling and unexplainable. 32. Benjamin Edidin Scolnic, “A New Working Hypothesis for the Identification of Migdol,” in Future of Biblical Archaeology, 91. 33. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 203. 34. Hoffmeier, Israel in Egypt, 125. 35. Kitchen, Reliability of the OT, 308–309. The nine, 40-year periods include the following: (1) the journey from Egypt to Sinai to Jordan (Num 11:33); (2) Othniel’s rule (Judg 3:11); (3–4) 80 years of peace after Ehud’s victory over Moab (Judg 3:30); (5) peace after the deeds of Deborah (Judg 5:31); (6) peace after the deeds of Gideon (Judg 8:28); (7) Eli’s judgeship (1 Sam 4:18); (8) Samson’s judgeship and Samuel’s floruit (Judg 15:20; 1 Sam 7:2); and (9) David’s reign (1 Kgs 2:11). The five aggregate periods include the following: (1) 48 years for Abimelek, Tola, and Jair; (2) 31 years for Jephthah, Ibzan, Elon, and Abdon; (3) 32 years for Saul’s reign, (4) four years for Solomon’s reign; and (5) five proposed years for the rule of Joshua and the elders of his era. 36. John Rea, “The Time of the Oppression and Exodus,” Grace Journal 2:1 (Win 1961), 11. 37. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 259. 38. Umberto Cassuto, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 52. 39. Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482. 40. The 18th Dynasty of Egypt (ca. 1560–1307 BC) not only saw the reunification of Egypt after an era of foreign rule under the Hyksos, but it initiated a radically new era. The northward thrusts of these Theban dynasts continued until Thutmose I crossed the Euphrates River in ca. 1524 BC. Egypt also expanded into Sudan, building temples on a grand scale at Gebel Barkal, about 1,280 mi south of Memphis. The vast riches that the state accrued through these foreign expeditions changed the fabric of Egyptian society. No longer did the nation function in isolation, but in an age of intense political and diplomatic activity, Egypt interacted with Mitanni, the Hittites, Assyria, Babylonia, and a host of principalities in Syria and Palestine (William W. Hallo and William Kelly Simpson, The Ancient Near East: A History, 2nd ed. [Fort Worth: Harcourt Brace College Publishers, 1998], 253). 41. William A. Ward, “The Present Status of Egyptian Chronology,” BASOR 288 (Nov 1992), 58, 59. Not all scholars are convinced that astronomical evidence provides “benchmark dates” for the reigns of given pharaohs. “The absolute chronology of Egypt has been one of the major time-frames for ancient chronology in general, and it is important that scholars in other disciplines understand that absolute dates for Egypt are not as clear and well established as they are often thought to be” (Ibid., 53). Ward suggests that “as long as there is uncertainty as to whether any given coregency of the New Kingdom existed, and if so, how long it lasted, any system of absolute dates must remain inexact” (Ibid., 54). Uncertainty about dates, however, does not characterize all regnal dating, but rather only that of selected rulers. Direct evidence of co-regnal lengths often exists, providing a greater level of certainty about the exact regnal lengths of many rulers. Therefore, if an absolute date that is fixed to a time in the reign of a pharaoh is connected to a series of predecessors or successors whose regnal lengths are certain, benchmark dates can be assigned to their reigns. 42. Ibid., 59. 43. Ibid., 56. Egypt’s New Kingdom (ca. 1560–1069 BC) consists of Dynasties 18–20. 44. Ibid. 45. Egyptologists disagree over the year of Thutmose III’s accession, with three views predominant: the “high chronology” dates it to ca. 1504 BC; the “middle chronology” dates it to ca. 1490 BC; and the “low chronology” dates it to ca. 1479 BC (Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 104). The high chronology is preferred here because of its exclusive agreement with the Ebers Papyrus when assuming a Memphite point of observation for the rising of Sothis. Shea also asserts that the high-chronology view is correct (Shea, “Amenhotep II as Pharaoh,” 43). The high-chronology date used by the present writer dates back two years from the standard number, due to the need to harmonize it with the second Palestinian campaign of Amenhotep II, which will be discussed subsequently. This alteration is justified both by the uncertain regnal length of Thutmose II, whose reign lasted no less than four years or more than twelve years (Amélie Kuhrt, The Ancient Near East ca. 3000–330 BC, vol. 1 [London: Routledge, 1995], 191; Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs [New York: Oxford University Press, 1976], 191), and by the existence of a variable of ±6 years after calculating the date for the rising of Sothis (W. S. LaSor, “Egypt,” in ISBE, vol. 2 [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982], 40). 46. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 109. 47. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 19. 48. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 108. 49. Der Manuelian, Amenophis II, 40. 50. Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111. 51. Ibid., 110. 52. Upon Amenhotep I’s death, Thebes was the most prominent city of the native Egyptians, who recently had regained control of their land and embarked on what would become over 150 years of unbroken prosperity. Yet Thutmose I, who did not descend from his predecessor, moved the chief residence of the Egyptian court from Thebes to Memphis, where he constructed a royal palace that was used until the reign of Akhenaten (ca. 1369–1352 BC). Memphis also became the headquarters of the pharaonic braintrust, where the great military campaigns were planned, and Egyptian soldiers were “armed before pharaoh.” In fact, all of the Asiatic military campaigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II were launched from Memphis, which had become the residence for pharaonic successors who came into office as coregents (Kuhrt, Ancient Near East, vol. 1, 177). Regarding Amenhotep II’s youth, Grimal notes, “That the young prince should have been active at Memphis is no surprise, for it was there that all young heirs to the throne had been brought up since the time of Thutmose I” (Nicolas Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt, trans. Ian Shaw [Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1992], 220). This makes Thutmose I an excellent candidate for the pharaoh who personally spoke with the chief Hebrew midwives and instructed them to execute the newborn Israelite boys (Exod 1:15). The numerous summonings of these midwives, whose authoritative rank necessitates their having resided among the core of national Israel in Goshen, also implies an extremely close proximity between them and pharaoh. This requirement can be satisfied easily if pharaoh resided in Memphis, but not if he resided in Thebes. “The journey from Memphis to Thebes [alone] would have been a slow one of perhaps two to three weeks” (Joyce Tyldesley, Hatchepsut: The Female Pharaoh [London: Viking, 1996], 36). Even if one traveled at a similarly slow pace from Goshen to Memphis, which did not entail the same grade of ascent as did a trip to Thebes, the journey could be made in a mere 1½ to 2½ days. At a more realistic pace, the trip would be even faster. Pharaoh’s messengers probably traveled to Goshen on horseback, which would shorten the travel time even more.



Rosetta Stone Japanese

Wood identifies Ezbet Helmi,

located just over one mile southwest of Pi-Ramesses, as the royal residence of the exodus-pharaoh during the Israelites’ stay in Goshen (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 482). Though this site indeed may have possessed two palace structures of the 18th Dynasty (Ibid., 483; Manfred Bietak, Avaris: The Capital of the Hyksos [London: British Museum Press, 1996], 68–72), there is no epigraphical evidence confirming that Amenhotep II ever resided there, even periodically. Moreover, the discovery of a scarab there with his royal cartouche no more proves his personal occupation of the city (Wood, “The Rise and Fall,” 484) than the discovery of a scarab with his cartouche at Gibeon proves he resided on the Central Benjamin Plateau (James B. Pritchard, Gibeon: Where the Sun Stood Still [Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1962], 156). Memphis, a known royal residence of Amenhotep II and the headquarters for all of the Asiatic military campaigns of the era, is currently a better candidate for the site where the exodus-pharaoh resided, though Ezbet Helmi does remain a legitimate candidate. 53. Other New-Kingdom princes who were sm-priests also functioned as chief pontiffs at Memphis, such as “the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose,” who appears with his father, Amenhotep III, at his burial in the Serapeum. This prince is attested on a canopic box, where he is called “the king’s eldest son, his beloved, high priest of Ptah and sm-priest.” He doubtlessly is to be identified with the king’s son and sm-priest, Thutmose, who appears on a statuette in the Louvre (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 111). 54. Ibid., 112, 114. 55. Ibid., 114. 56. Ibid., 110, 114. 57. Ibid., 114. 58. In Tomb 64 of the Theban necropolis is an important wall painting that displays two royal tutors: Hekreshu and his son, Hekerneheh, who are in the company of their princely charges: Thutmose and Amenhotep. Hekreshu is seated, facing right, with the young heir apparent, Thutmose, on his lap. Standing before him is Hekerneheh and a small Prince Amenhotep, who is carrying a bouquet. Hekreshu is specifically stated to be a “tutor of the king’s eldest bodily son, Thutmose,” whose nomen is represented in a cartouche. Hekerneheh’s title is “tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep.” Behind Hekerneheh appear six other princes, originally all named, but the hieroglyphs are now almost completely destroyed. One name alone can be made out, that of a certain Amenemhet. All of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, wear pectorals bearing the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV (Ibid., 114, 115). The presence of the birth name and throne-name of Thutmose IV on each of the princes drove Newberry to conclude that the child on Hekreshu’s knee was undoubtedly the later Thutmose IV, and that the other princes, including Amenhotep, were his sons. The prince named Amenhotep, according to Newberry, eventually ruled as Amenhotep III (Percy Edward Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest Son-in-Law ‘Ankhkhe-prure’,” JEA 14 [1928], 83–84). Redford points out that Newberry’s argument is not compelling, as all of the others in the scene could easily be wearing the cartouche of Thutmose IV out of deference to the son who succeeded to the throne. He further suggests that perhaps the six princes in the background are sons of Thutmose IV, while Amenhotep could be a brother, and for that reason was singled out to be depicted in a position of honor (Redford, “Coregency of Tuthmosis III,” 113). The problem, however, with the suggestion that the six princes are the sons of the seated Thutmose is that Thutmose and Amenhotep themselves, whoever they might be in reality, are depicted in the scene as children, and it would be odd to depict in the same scene both a father and his children as children. A possible rebuttal against Redford’s suggestion that Thutmose and Amenhotep are brothers might take the following form: Hekreshu is specifically stated to be the tutor of the king’s eldest son, Thutmose, while Hekerneheh is the tutor of the king’s son, Amenhotep. Since a father-son relationship existed between the tutors, perhaps a father-son relationship existed between their charges. Redford dismisses this idea by offering a parallel depiction found in graffiti from Konosso. A king’s son, Amenhotep, is mentioned twice at Konosso, once with Hekreshu and a second time with Hekerneheh. The presence of the cartouches of Thutmose IV in the immediate vicinity lends support to the dating of the graffiti to his reign. More importantly, Amenhotep’s name is accompanied by that of another prince, Okheprure, and the parallelism in the graffiti between the two names strongly suggests a fraternal relationship. Okheprure again is shown on the knee of an unidentified scribe in Tomb 226 of the Theban necropolis, along with three of his brothers. If, as his name would indicate, he was a son of Amenhotep II, then most likely Prince Amenhotep was also his son. On the wall painting from Tomb 64, therefore, Prince Amenhotep also should be considered a brother to Thutmose IV, and not a son (Ibid.). If Princes Thutmose and Amenhotep from Tomb 64 are indeed brothers, who are the six princes in the background? Certainly the fact that all of the princes, including the seated Thutmose, are wearing pectorals that bear the nomen and praenomen of Thutmose IV seems to indicate that the princes are all on the same level, and therefore brothers, as was the case with the Konosso graffiti and Tomb 226. The problem that remains, then, is that Thutmose IV is universally accepted as not having been the firstborn child, which is both confirmed by Thutmose IV’s own account on the Great/Sphinx Stele and by the fact that Prince Amenhotep was shown to be the rightful heir to the throne of Amenhotep II before Thutmose IV. Thus one of two options must be true: either (1) the Tomb-64 painting is falsifying the truth by assigning Thutmose IV the status of “the king’s eldest son,” or (2) the Thutmose who sits on the lap of Hekreshu is intended to portray a different Thutmose. The former option hardly seems possible, since the tomb-wall painting is located in a deeply secluded place, not at all prominently displayed whereone would expect to see propagandistic depictions of a king’s grandeur. If Redford is correct that Prince Amenhotep, who never is called “the king’s eldest son,” was not the eldest son of Amenhotep II, and that by custom a king named “Amenhotep” would name his first son “Thutmose,” and thus that Amenhotep II did name his first son “Thutmose,” the Thutmose sitting on the lap of the royal tutor indeed may be “the eldest son” of Amenhotep II, who could have died a premature death during the tenth and most gruesome of the plagues on Egypt. The painting may be depicting the entire entourage of Amenhotep II’s sons during the time when his firstborn son was still alive. The presence of Thutmose IV’s praenomen on the pectorals of all of the princes, even on that of the long-deceased plague-son, may indicate that the painting was made during the reign of Thutmose IV. Newberry, for one, was convinced that Tomb 64 was constructed for Hekerneheh during the reign of Thutmose IV (Newberry, “Akhenaten’s Eldest,” 82). The reason for the cartouche of Thutmose IV next to each of the princes, which could be a later addition to the painting if instead it originally was painted during the reign of Amenhotep II, may simply be that the painter wanted to demonstrate the sovereignty of Thutmose IV over all of his brothers, being that he was the only one from among them who rose to the position of pharaoh. Certainly this interpretation would better explain why Amenhotep, who was in line for the throne before his younger brother Thutmose IV, was being depicted as smaller in stature than the Thutmose who sat on his tutor’s lap. This detail is highly problematic for any view that instead purports Thutmose



Rosetta Stone German