This month's offering isn't poetic. But it's Biblical. And it's about an event that occurred over many years in the wilderness, so it happened out in nature.
This is a timely topic for Lent and for Easter. Lent brings up themes of "40" in the wilderness, such as Jesus' 40 days in the wilderness and the people of Israel wandering 40 years in the wilderness, being strengthened and purified. Also, Easter, at the end of Lent, occurred at Passover. Passover was the Hebrew event that kicked off the Exodus. More theological connections between Passover and the Good Friday/Easter events will be noted towards the end of this post.
This discussion will set the date of the Exodus at about 1446 B.C. Even some people who take seriously the Bible as the inspired Word of God try to set the date in the 13th century B.C., due to the place name of "Raamses" at the start of Exodus. However, this is a place name and not a pharaoh's name. Raamses or Ramses seems like a common enough ancient Egyptian name; the place may not be tied to the pharaoh of that name. The place name was mentioned already in Genesis in connection with Joseph, a few centuries before the Exodus. The timeline presented here will not have the adoptive brother rivalry so prominent in Prince of Egypt nor the Hollywood classic Ten Commandments movie.
The Bible itself says in I Kings 6: 1 that the Exodus happened 480 years before Solomon built the Temple in Jerusalem. Since the date of the Temple building can be identified fairly precisely, the 1446 date for the Exodus aligns with God's Word. There is nothing to suggest that this was a number corrupted by text copyists. (Even people who believe the original manuscripts of the Bible were written by the inspiration of God realize that some copying errors crept in here & there. None of these minor errors changes any major points or teachings.)
Some numbers, such as in Revelation, are symbolic numbers. Revelation itself tells you, especially in the words of the original Greek, that it is showing truths by symbols. I Kings is written as straightforward history. The attempts to turn the 480 years into something symbolic fall flat.
Besides the plain number laid out in the Bible, events in the pharaohs' personal lives line up with this earlier date. There are some cultural objections, but those could also arise out of the later date for the Exodus. In fact, some liberal scholars cast doubt on the idea of there being an Exodus at all, or at least in such large numbers as the Bible suggests. This post will take a look at some of those factors, also.
The era of grand pyramid building was long over before the era of Hebrew enslavement. Even the building of less grand structures waned before the start of the New Kingdom. Besides, workers' tombs near the pyramids show that workmen were treated well. Perhaps it was a religious honor to build these tombs. The pharaohs were considered gods, and the pyramids pointed up to the heavens. The people were seeking all the 'divine' help they could get. So, no, Israelite slaves did not build the pyramids. To be clear, the great pyramid era was actually a relative short era, from ~2575-2465 B.C. in a very early part of Egypt's history. Pyramid building did not go on throughout the time of Egypt's domination. The era of eye-catching pyramids falls within part of The Old Kingdom of Egypt, which lasted ~2613-2182 B.C. overall. Pyramid building may have ended because it was too costly and too time-consuming. A rising tendency towards secrecy in royal burials may have been another factor.
[As an aside: Cleopatra (who was the last pharaoh and was of Greek descent-- you can look that up elsewhere) was definitely not buried in a pyramid. King Tut wasn't even buried in a pyramid. This shows that royal burial embalming continued long after pyramids were no longer built.]
So, the large, grand pyramids were probably already built when Abraham made a sojourn to Egypt in Genesis chapter 12. He went there due to famine in Canaan. This hints at the journey his descendants later made.
The Egyptian Middle Kingdom endured from ~2030-1630 B.C. Some historians say it started closer to 1938 B.C. These divisions into "Old, Middle and New" are slightly artificial in some ways. Each period comprised more than one dynasty.
Perhaps sometime around 1900 B.C., Joseph arrived in Egypt. He was about 17 years old. He was about 30 years old when he was placed second in command in Egypt. Possibly around 1876 B.C., the rest of his family arrived. Exodus 12:40-41 says the Israelites were in Egypt 430 years, marking this time as the beginning of their sojourn.
There are disputed timelines for some Egyptian kings. On one timeline, Amenemhet II ruled from 1878-1860 B.C.; on another, he ruled from 1876-1842 B.C. He built a "White Pyramid" east of Sneferu's pyramids. It was in a relatively lonely place and not in the style of the "classic" pyramids. It no longer looks white, but rubble chips are whitish limestone.
A few viziers are listed under Amenemhet II. One was named Ameni, and he is known only from rock inscriptions in Aswan, Upper (Southern) Egypt. [Because the Nile River flows north, "Upper Egypt" is to the south and "Lower Egypt" is to the north.] There were viziers throughout much of Egypt's history, so Joseph's appointment is entirely in keeping with established practice. "Vizier" is actually a later term from the Islamic world. Genesis speaks of Joseph as being second in the kingdom and "governing" an area.
Genesis 15:13 and Acts 7:6 discuss the Israelites being oppressed 400 years. Some interpreters take this as meaning that 30 years after their arrival, the Israelites were enslaved. If so, the Pharaoh would have been Senusret III. However, this does not seem likely. Due to Joseph's long life, it does not seem as if the enslavement began until later. The Israelites may have felt 'oppressed' in some way before they were fully enslaved. Joseph himself, when posing as an Egyptian, would not eat with his brothers, because such a thing would be 'detestable' to the Egyptians. As noted below, some people living in their midst felt like second class citizens, generations after living among the Egyptians.
Amenemhet III's rule is set from ~1842-1797 B.C. Part of his reign overlapped with his father, Senusret III, so he was co-regent. Amenemhet completed an artificial canal called the Mer-Wer, or Great Canal. It allowed for an alternate flow when one branch of the Nile River silted up. He also drained some marshes. Since Joseph lived to be 110, he may have lived up into this rein.
The Second Intermediate Period lasted from ~1782-1570 B.C. During this time, a people called the "Hyksos" ruled. It was once thought that these people had invaded from the areas around Canaan (Palestine). The term Hyksos comes from a Greek word attempting to transliterate Egyptian words meaning "rulers from [of] foreign lands." Now it is thought that they were immigrants from those areas who had been living in Egypt as resident aliens, possibly for generations. Some modern scholarship suggests they had been gradually and peacefully arriving in Egypt since ~1800 B.C. They became frustrated with their "second class" position and rose up against the system. The Hyksos ruled the northern part, Lower Egypt, while Nubians ruled the southern Upper Kingdom. Thebes, a city in the middle, continued under the rule of native Egyptian dynasties, representing traditional Egypt. The old story of the Hyksos as invaders came from an Egyptian writer in the time of the Ptolemies, the later Greek rulers of Egypt. This was ~1200 years after Hyksos rule. The Jewish historian Josephus, who lived around the time of Christ, tried to equate Joseph's people with the Hyksos to elevate Joseph's position. However, studies of mineral deposits in skeletons' teeth suggest strongly that the Hyksos already lived in Egypt. In fact, excavations from this area, including the Hyksos capital of Aravis (Raamses?) demonstrate that, starting from the late Middle Kingdom and on into the Second Intermediate Period, the Egyptian delta was occupied by people from the areas now known as Israel and Palestine, primarily Canaanite peoples. On the other hand, evidence shows some of the Hyksos' wives may have come directly from the Canaanite/Palestine/Levant region.
At one time, it was thought that Joseph served under a Hyksos pharaoh. It was assumed that a pharaoh after this Hyksos ruler was the one who didn't know Joseph and enslaved his people. It was assumed that a Hyksos ruler would be more favorable to a Semite. When a 'real Egyptian' ruled again, according to this idea, he was not friendly towards the Hebrews or other Semites. This is another reason some scholars look for a later date for the exile. However, if the Hyksos felt somewhat insecure in their rule, they could just as easily have been suspicious of Joseph's people. It could be that it was a Hyksos ruler that did not know Joseph and began to oppress the Israelites. The practice would have continued after the Hyksos were expelled.
These Hyksos kings tended to have short reigns. They seemed to rely on viziers even more than previous dynasties had. The kings abandoned the term "rulers of a foreign land" and adopted names suggesting rule by means of Egyptian gods. Despite short reigns, the Hyksos brought many developments. Aravis grew into a sizeable metropolis.
They Hyksos continued with some different customs. The Hyksos typically worshiped Canaanite gods. They sometimes renamed them with the names of Egyptian gods. They typically wore brighter clothes than 'native' Egyptians. They also had a distinctive 'bowl cut' hairstyle, or 'mushroom hair'. They also had distinctive burial customs. The Hyksos have been credited with introducing the horse and chariot as well as the sickle to Egypt, though some scholars discredit this notion. The idea had gained traction because Hyksos were frequently buried with their horses. But other evidence has not been found. In fact, the Theban rulers conquered the Hyksos with horses and chariots.
Authors from much later indicated that the Hyksos were cruel and enslaved many people. It is hard to find evidence of this from that time.
Egyptian writings indicate that many natural disasters erupted as the Hyksos Kingdom was drawing to a close. The native Egyptians blamed these on Canaanite gods.
The New Kingdom, ~1550-1070 B.C., started with the expulsion of the Hyksos. A period partially corresponding to this era is the Egyptian Empire, from ~1570-1069 B.C. During the so-called empire phase, the country reached the height of its wealth, international prestige, and military might. The idea of this empire has been challenged by some, however, as will be noted below.
Ahmose I, the founder of the18th Dynasty, rose up to fight the Hyksos and expelled them. He reigned from about 1550-1525 B.C., according to one chronology. Moses would have been born around 1526 B.C., about 80 years before the Exodus. If this is the case, one of Ahmose's daughters adopted Moses. Whoever it was that adopted Moses, she was always referred to as "Pharaoh's daughter."
After they were defeated, the Hyksos were scattered across Egypt. The Old Testament indicates that the Hebrews were still somewhat intact in the delta, however. [This brings to mind some unresolved questions how interactions between Moses' family and pharaoh's family (see below) occurred, if, in fact, a native Theban dynasty had taken over again.]
Is it possible that Ahmose I worsened the Hebrew's status from generally 'oppressed' to specifically 'enslaved'? The pharaoh of Exodus 1:10 is worried about the Israelites joining up with "our enemies" if war breaks out, fighting against the Egyptians and leaving the country. This sounds like the concern of a pharaoh who had just overthrown a group like the Hyksos.
Scholars who scoff at the Bible feel it's unrealistic for the pharaoh to be concerned about how numerous the Hebrews had become. However, if many of the Hebrews, like Jacob himself, had had large families, the numbers would have grown exponentially. Genesis 46:27 speaks of there being 70 Hebrews in Egypt when the migration first happened in ~1876 B.C. There are split generations among that 70, and some may have intermarried, while others got wives outside their people group. Plus, Jacob had 12 sons and 1 daughter (that we know of), while Joseph had only 2 sons. To average things, start by cutting the 70 in half to ~35 couples (though there could have been multiple wives in that group); if, on average, each of those couples had 5 surviving children, there would have been 175 Hebrews in the next iteration. Take those 175 x 5, and you have 875, plus add 175 for spouses, and you have 1050 Hebrews already. (This averages out to add a spouse for each because, even if there was some intermarriage, some men likely had multiple wives, and wives may have come from elsewhere. Maybe for a time, they went back and sought wives from their old ancestral lands, as Isaac and Jacob had done. It's likely they did marry other peoples, as by the time the Exodus came, they had forgotten about their God, Yahweh. Maybe some Hyksos women were available for marriage; it seems native Egyptian women would not deign to marry outsiders. In addition, the Israelites were up in the delta.) Do this math again, and you have 6300 Hebrews. Do this again, and you now have 37,800 Hebrews. Do this again and you have 226,800 Hebrews. This is 5 generations in. So as not to overestimate, if a person calculates 10 generations overall, this is halfway in, though generations are often calculated at 30 years, so there would have been closer to 14 generations in Egypt. Still, going with a longer 40-year generation and estimating at 400 years, this would put us into the Hyksos period already. (St. Paul in the New Testament in one place rounds it to around 450 years.) From here, let's assume that the spouses came more from within the Hebrews (as seen by Moses' time), so the multiplications are less. The next generation, the 6th, already puts the count at over 1 million. Though some genealogies list fewer generations, it is known that Biblical genealogies do not always include every generation in every place. Some of this appears to be stylistic. Even with the longer lifespans of the time, two generations are hardly sufficient to cover 430 years. Even if the years were shortened (by saying some of the time of oppression happened in Canaan, as some Jewish scholars have done), two generations is not enough time for the hostility to grow the way it did. This does not mean the genealogies are in error, insofar as what they contain; just that they were not meant to be exhaustive. We know this to be the case by comparing other Biblical genealogies to each other.
In addition, others who were not biologically Hebrews seem to have been adopted into the nation. Exodus 12:38 indicates that other people left with the Israelites. Exodus 12:48 seems to make this provision, at least regarding the Passover, as long as the males in the household are circumcised. Moses' second wife (Numbers 12:1-6) was from Cush, or Ethiopia. (His first wife was a Midianite, whom he married during his time in the wilderness.) As it appears that Moses was not able to return to Africa for a wife, she seems to be someone who left Egypt with them. Judges 1:6 speaks of Kenites (Midianites) who went up from the City of Palms (Jericho) to live among Judah in the desert. This also answers the scoffers' objections that not all Jews appear to be descended from the same male line, or a Y chromosome descent all the way back to one ancestor, Jacob. (In more recent times, we know many others, including Sammy Davis, Jr., were able to count themselves as Jews. Current reckonings require the mother to be Jewish. This, however, is the line of the X chromosome.) So, again, there are reasonable answers for those who seek them. So, even if my calculation methods are in error, it is still quite possible with lesser calculations for a large number of people to identify as Hebrews and leave Egypt ~1446 B.C.
Some time in the New Kingdom, incestuous marriages among Egyptian royalty were allowed and encouraged. Because information about earlier pharaohs is so sparse, it is not known how far back this practice went. Possibly this occurred before the New Kingdom. When the Greek Ptolemies later ruled, they also followed this practice, with Cleopatra marrying two of her brothers. This was said to parallel the gods Osiris and Isis, as well as keeping bloodlines "pure." Early Hebrews did not have prohibitions on marrying close relatives. Abraham had married his half-sister. Isaac married a cousin. Jacob married a "double cousin." Moses's mother and father were aunt and nephew. However, in Moses' time, God's laws Moses began to forbid Hebrews from marrying close relatives.
Amenhotep I reigned from 1526-1506 B.C., according to one chronology. It appears that one year of his reign overlapped with his father's reign.
Thutmose I received the throne after the death of Amenhotep I. It appears he was not in the direct royal line. Perhaps he was from a minor branch of the royal family or married into the royal family. It seems he was a military man. One chronology has him ruling from 1506-1493 B.C. Another has him ruling from 1526-1513 B.C., which opens up some interesting possibilities. This timeline would have made him the pharaoh when Moses was born. If going by the assumption it was the daughter of the actively reigning pharaoh who adopted Moses, it would have been Thutmose's daughter who adopted Moses under this timeline.
Thutmose II was Thutmose I's son and ruled after him. He married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. Hatshepsut, who was declared Queen, had no sons but had one daughter. Thutmose had a son with a lesser wife. His rule is said to have occurred from 1493-1479 B.C. on one timeline. Another has him ruling from 1517-1504. In 1486, Moses would have fled to the desert, at age 40. If using the timeline with later years, this is pharaoh died while Moses was in the wilderness, as in Exodus 2:23. This Biblical timeline and the Egyptian timeline line up.
Thutmose II suppressed a revolt in Nubia. He took a king's son to Egypt to be Egyptianized. He also sent forces against some Bedouins in southern Palestine. These campaigns were carried out by his generals and not by Thutmose himself. Other than this, little is known about his reign. There is even doubt about the length of his reign, with some scholars setting it as short as 3-4 years, due to the scarcity of scarabs and monuments in his reign. The standard reign is set at 13 years, while a few set it at 18 years. Those arguing for a longer reign note that he seems to have been very young when taking the throne yet fathered two children. To fit the Biblical timeline of the pharaoh who died while Moses was in the desert, using the more common timeline, he would have need to reign at least seven years. If not, the next pharaoh fits the timeline, under several scenarios.
Alfred Eldersheim, a late 19th century Jewish-Christian Bible scholar, proposed Thutmose II as the pharaoh of the Exodus. He sets a date of the Exodus for 1497 B.C., but this seems longer than the 480 years in I Kings. It is unclear why he would say this was an absolute timeline. Thutmose II was recorded as having this one son to survive him, but there are no records of him losing a son older than the one who succeeded him. Thutmose's mummy does display evidence of cysts, which some take as evidence of a plague, the boils of Exodus chapter 9. However, Exodus does not imply that the boils were permanent. As noted below, there is another candidate that more clearly fits the bill to be the pharaoh of the Exodus.
The next pharaoh was... wait for it... Hatshepsut. Since she was queen, both the wife and the daughter of a pharaoh, she was regent for her stepson, Thutmose III, who was about two years old, rather than the boy's mother. By the seventh year of the regency, it seems she abandoned the title of regent and styled herself as pharaoh. It does not seem that she was attempting to grab the throne in a way that was meant to sideline him. When he was older, he was allowed to get military training. He was put into responsible positions, so she did not seem to fear him. She did, however, declare herself pharaoh, rather than simply regent. But Thutmose III did not attempt to destroy and bury her legacy until well into his reign, when his own son was a co-regent. It may have been that they wanted to ensure male dominance from that point. It may have been that, since Thutmose III's mother was more obscure than Hatshepsut, he did not want his genealogy questioned. Stepson and stepmother seemed to have worked out a system where the stepson won military glory while the stepmother stayed at home and ran things.
Hatshepsut, herself, was the sole surviving child of her father, Thutmose I, and his queen, Ahmose. As noted above, since she married her half-brother, her father did have sons by other wives. This gave her husband more legitimacy in the royal line, as his mother was not the queen, was a minor player in the harem, and may not have been fully royal. It is not clear exactly when she was born. The common timeline has her reign set from 1479-1458 B.C. Another has her reign set from 1504-1483. Either way, she died during Moses' sojourn in the desert, before the Exodus. If the earlier times are set, she would have been the only pharaoh to meet the criterion of Exodus 2:23, still lining up the Bible with Egyptian records.
Hatshepsut was probably no older than 15 when married off to her brother. If going by the older timeline, she was probably about 6 or 7 when Moses was born in 1526, a real stretch to say she was the one who adopted Moses, though this assumption is popular with some amateur Biblical scholars. If she showed a strong will at this early age (the sort of personality who would make herself a female pharaoh) and she saw baby Moses as a sweet toy, perhaps she was the foster mother, the reasoning goes. If Moses was nursed 2-4 years, Hatshepsut would have been 8-11 years old when assuming care of him in the palace. While not impossible, this seems rather unlikely.
If the more common, later timeline is taken, it seems she was not even born when Moses was. She would likely have been born ~1509 BC. Some timelines date her husband/half-brother's birth ~1510, also making him younger than Moses.
How did a woman make herself pharaoh in such a society? First of all, there may have been some other female regents or even pharaohs before her. As noted above, very early Egyptian history has a lot of gaps. Some archaeologists believe that she was the real power already behind her husband's throne. They believe this because her husband's policies were the same ones she followed. She suggested that she was her father's intended heir. When she took on the full role of pharaoh, she took on the five title roles, the royal robes and the false beard. (Even males used the false golden beard.)
It seems Hatshepsut was the first to circulate negative propaganda about the Hyksos, 80 years after their expulsion. She boasted that she had reclaimed their temples. She reestablished trade routes interrupted by the Hyksos.
Hatshepsut set up obelisks, commemorating her rule. Like most Egyptian rulers, she used hyperbole. (Conversely, Egyptian rulers were known to ignore or erase history from records that didn't suit them.)
She was a prolific builder. This would reinforce the idea of the enslavement of the Israelites for building projects. She would not have been the first to enslave people, as this was going on before Moses' birth and was started by a male pharaoh. But if the later timeline is used, she would have been the pharaoh when Moses struck an Egyptian and ran off to the desert ~1486 B.C. However, the Bible here also uses the pronoun "he." This likely means that her husband was still ruling and the earlier timeline holds. There is the slim possibility, though, that since she styled herself as a male in many ways, she is referred to as "he" in the Bible.
Hatshepsut followed Thutmose II in not going far afield in fighting wars. Egyptian influence in Syria and Canaan (Palestine) waned. Syrian princes no longer sent tribute, and the king of the Mitanni, northwest of the Holy Land, exerted more control in Mesopotamia.
Taking it as more likely that Thutmose II was ruling when Moses fled, he was only alive another 7 years or so. If she was the power behind the throne all along, she would have been amping up the misery of the Hebrews, anyway, regardless of what her relationship to Moses had been. When Thutmose II was gone, she expanded the building projects and likely created more misery for the Hebrews. Exodus 2:23-25 discusses the pharaoh dying. It goes on to say that during that long period, that 40 years in the wilderness (33 of which would remain using this timeline), the Israelites groaned in their slavery and God heard them. Hatshepsut reigned ~20 years, so some of this groaning was continued under the full rule of her stepson & nephew, Thutmose III, who was an even greater building fanatic.
According to the more common timeline, the date of her death is marked precisely as 16 January 1458 B.C. It seems she was well into a 21st regnal year when she died. There is no contemporary record of the cause of her death. It seems she was first buried with her father, Thutmose I, in the tomb she had been improving for him in the Valley of the Kings. During the reign of Thutmose III, a new tomb was provided for Thutmose I, and he was moved. Hatshepsut's mummy may have been reburied with her nurse. This may have been done at the direction of Amenhotep II, Thutmose III's son, during the attempts to "demote" her after death in order to strengthen his own lineage. There is one possible candidate for the mummy of Hatshepsut, found buried with a wet nurse in 1903. The remains indicate that the female pharaoh may have accidentally poisoned herself, triggering a bone cancer, using a cream intended to quell her intense skin irritation. Relatives were thought to have genetic skin inflammations. The same logic used to identify Thutmose II as the Pharaoh of the Exile may just have been evidence of this family affliction. By our timeline here, both of these pharaohs were dead before the plague of boils.
Thutmose III's entire reign is generally set at 28 April 1479-11 March,1425 B.C., with him assuming full rule in 1458 B.C., at about age 24. Thutmose III has often been referred to as "the Napoleon of Ancient Egypt." He was the head of the armies during the co-regency with his stepmother. Surviving monuments assign both royal names, and neither is shown obvious superiority, though his names are listed before Hatshepsut's.
When Hatshepsut died, Thutmose began campaigns almost yearly into Nubia and the Levant. One of his great successes was at Megiddo, where King Solomon would later see success in the Megiddo region, when Israel was reaching ascendancy in the region, nearly 500 years later. (Some 300 years after this, the last of Judah's "good kings" and the last with any real power, King Josiah, died at Megiddo, involving himself in a battle he should have stayed out of. "Armageddon" is the Graecized version of "Har Megiddo", the "Hill of [the plains of] Megiddo." It seems the loss of Josiah before the Babylonian Captivity is the reason for this becoming a powerful symbol in Revelation.)
In ~1457 B.C. (or ~1445 B.C.?) Thutmose made his most audacious move, an attack on the Kingdom of the Mitanni. [Interestingly, the Mitanni are not mentioned by name in the Bible. The Hittites, though further away, are occasionally mentioned. The Bible more often mentions nearby vassal states than overlord distant emperor. This helps explain why the Bible doesn't mention the Egyptians during the years they were allegedly overlords of the Holy Land, in the years the Israelites were first trying to conquer it.] On this campaign, Thutmose III crossed the Euphrates, the greatest extent of his military advances. On his return to Egypt, he celebrated his conquest in the Temple at Thebes.
If this campaign occurred around 1445 B.C., it is interesting to correlate this with the losses in the Red Sea. The Exodus occurred early in 1446 B.C. If Thutmose made this advance after those losses, was he wanting to flex his might after smarting from such losses? This writer would venture that this last big push came before the Exodus because there is a year or two "wiggle room" in some of this dating. People did not have worldwide time synchronization back then. Thutmose did bring captives to Egypt. Among these were royal relatives that he raised there so that they would have closer ties to Egypt and be more loyal.
In later campaigns, Thutmose was content to consolidate what he had already achieved. In fact, later in his reign, he was much more active in African areas close to home. There may have been a reason for this. 
Thutmose III is, then, the pharaoh in 1446 B.C., the year of the Exodus as given in the clear Biblical timeline. Interestingly, his eldest son, another Amenemhat, predeceased him. This eldest son is last mentioned as appointed as "Overseer of Cattle" in ~1455 B.C., about three years after Hatshepsut's death. Between his 24th (~1455) and 35th years (~1444), Thutmose III lost both his eldest son and his queen, prompting him to marry a non-royal, who would provide a new heir.
It was Thutmose's second son, Amenhotep II, who later became co-regent with him and then the next pharaoh. This, too, fits the Exodus narrative of the final plague being the death of the firstborn son of all the Egyptians (Exodus 11).
The drowning of Pharaoh's army, his horses and chariots, in Exodus 14 does not indicate that the pharaoh himself died. Indeed, Thutmose lived on until 1425 B.C., about 21 years after the Exodus. His military activities seem to have been curtailed, though, possibly because he had lost a lot of resources in the Red Sea. Maybe he was also a little "spooked" by all that had happened at the hands of Yahweh, Israel's God. Extra Biblical Jewish sources indicate that the pharaoh of the Exodus did live and went on to become the King of Nineveh, Assyria, or else that his spirit went on to Nineveh. There he heard Jonah preach. Though this is extra-Biblical, and the timeline is too long, it does show that the ancient Jews did not necessarily believe Pharaoh died in the Red Sea. Psalm 136:15 in some translations seem to indicate that Pharaoh was swept away in the Reed [Red] Sea. However, the Hebrew word sometimes translated as "swept away" is "overthrew." Even if Pharaoh wasn't swept away or drowned in the waters himself, this event overthrew his power, at least over the Israelites. They were now free to leave. (It would be hard to find any pharaoh that fit a narrative of drowning in the Reed [Red] Sea in his chariot.)
As Thutmose was limiting his campaigns after this point, he had little inclination to chase after the Israelites in the Sinai Peninsula. Those rarer times he still headed up into the Levant, he would have taken a shorter, more direct route. And though the Israelite's own cowardice kept them from entering the Holy Land in 1446 B.C., putting it off for 40 years (Numbers 13-14), this kept them out of the way of Thutmose until he died. His successors were less bent on conquest. [It is said by some religious teachers, though, "Don't let your stubbornness turn an 11-day journey into a 40-year journey."]
Though Egypt had nominal control over this area, Austrian archaeologist & Egyptologist Felix Höflmayer is not convinced that the term "empire" applies to Egypt's rule. Though Egyptian motifs show up in Canaanite wares of this time and there are other influences from Egypt, the oversight may have been looser than an "empire" would suggest.
Some naysayers claim that the Exodus didn't really happen, or at least not in as large of numbers as the Bible says, because no archaeological evidence has been found. First, many people have sought various archaeological sites for years or even decades, only to stumble on them by accident. Secondly, these were roaming people. They may have used baskets, which decay, more than pottery or other goods, as noted in gathering manna. Many of their metallic goods may have stayed in the Tabernacle, which they kept intact. They may not have needed many cooking items, since they were fed on manna, which they gathered, and quail, which they could roast openly on pits with skewers. It was a desert environment, where sand blew over things quickly. They moved a lot. There are assumptions that, after being condemned to 40 years in the desert, they largely encamped at Kadesh Barnea. The Bible does not say this; it just happens that there is an oasis there. That is a human assumption. Someday we may find the skeletons of humans and herd animals in the Sinai Peninsula from that era. But there have been a lot of Bedouin people through that area whose remains have not been found.
Some critics also assume that the Exodus never really happened, and that Israel grew up gradually out of people already in Canaan. They point to Egyptian writings speaking of followers of Yahweh before the Exodus happened. This is not surprising. There were other descendants of Abraham across the area. When Moses linked up with Jethro (Reuel) the Midianite, who would become his father-in-law, Jethro seems to have already been a worshiper of Yahweh. Moses circumcised the sons he had with this wife, though she was upset about the bloody process. The Midianites were descendants of Abraham by a wife he took after Sarah died. Going back earlier, it seems that Job was a non-Hebrew contemporary of Abraham, who would have been the only Hebrew at that time. Others think that Job, who was certainly around at the time of the patriarchs, was from Edom, the nation that descended from Esau, Jacob's brother. Job worshiped Yahweh. The Hebrews themselves seem to have forgotten somewhat about Yahweh during their enslavement and needed a reintroduction via Moses.
Others say the Exodus never happened because it is not mentioned in Egyptian records. As seen elsewhere, Egyptian rulers and officials frequently tailored their record-keeping to suit their narrative. They would just not record some events. Other times, they would wipe out records and memorials from the past. Additionally, though the Bible says a lot of people left Egypt under Moses, this may not have been a huge blow to Thutmose's overall reign. He was very successful in many ways. It appears he had other means of obtaining captives to get his work done. So, though he may have been quite angry (the type of anger that comes from embarrassment), it overall may not have been a huge part of his focus, nor the focus of his reign.
Thutmose III died of apparently natural causes. He was first buried next to his stepmother. Interestingly, his mummy is one that was repeatedly damaged early on by grave robbers. The mummy's feet were even removed. It may be a fitting outcome that this pharaoh who hardened his heart against God's will faced serious desecration in his burial in ancient times, not just at the hands of later tomb robbers.
 |
| Thutmose III seems oddly happy in death |
Amenhotep II ruled from 1427-1401 B.C. Two years overlapped with his father, Thutmose III. This seems to be the time when Hatshepsut's memory was erased. It seems he was about 18 when he assumed solo power at his father's death. He married a woman of uncertain parentage and had many children.
He did lead a campaign into Asia Minor in his 3rd year. However, after his campaign in his 9th year, hostilities with the Mitanni over Syria died down. The Mitanni then spent more effort focusing on the Hittites and the Assyrians.
His building efforts focused largely on expanding existing structures. His father and great-aunt/step-grandmother had expended a great number of resources on building new things.
The destruction of Hatshepsut's images stopped during his solo reign. However, he also did not record the names of his wives nor give them lofty titles. It appears he was trying to return women to a subordinate place.
During his reign, following our timeline, the Israelites would have begun their conquest of the Holy Land in 1406 B.C. A stele from his later years records hostile attitudes towards non-Egyptians.
Thutmose IV reigned from 1401-1391 B.C. The less common dates are noted as 1397-1388 B.C. It is possible that he ousted his older brother and commissioned the Dream Stele to justify his kingship. He claimed on the stele that his restoration of the Great Sphinx was what justified his rule. He concentrated his efforts around Nubia, perhaps fearful that going to far from home would invite instability if he were a usurper.
There seem to be many destroyed cities in Canaan around this time, even more than the Bible talks about. This would seem to correlate with the Exodus timeline in a straightforward Biblical reading. Some proponents of the later timeline speak of seeing more of a blending and settling into the lowlands in the 13th century. However, the Israelites, and even Yahweh, are characterized in these early days as inhabitants of the hills. The Bible indicates that the Israelites had trouble conquering Canaan, partly due to lack of faith and partly due to wanting the easy life.
Some critics of the Bible say the Exodus wasn't true because Israel never wiped out the Canaanites. Modern DNA tests show Canaanite DNA present in Palestinians and Lebanese people. It even shows some among modern Jews. This is not surprising. Critics seem to take Moses' injunction to wipe out the Canaanites as a Biblical statement that this had happened. However, Joshua and Judges make it clear the people did not do so. God even said that the Israelites' failure to follow through meant that He was going to leave Canaanites in place as a temptation to the Israelites. Some of these small people groups' names come up as harassers throughout Judges.
People are critical of such destruction commanded by and carried out in the name of God. However, God had given the Canaanites many years, included those 480 the Hebrews were in Egypt, to turn around. He apparently found their lifestyles and practices very appalling. There is evidence that some regional religious practices included temple prostitution and child sacrifice. Also, God did not generally command total destruction of other peoples, even in the Old Testament, let alone the New Testament. There are many other peoples the Israelites were not to mingle with, but the Israelites were not commanded to destroy them. Finally, God's own people met exile when they did not follow his ways: the northern tribes, the Kingdom of Israel after the divided kingdom, never returned after the Assyrians took them away. A remnant of Judah, the Jewish people, only returned after 70 years exile in Babylon. They had about 700-800 years in the land, themselves, before these events happened.
The timeline of many events in Joshua and Judges cannot be pinpointed. This is especially true of Judges. Many of the Judges seem to have had overlapping, regional governorships. The pharaohs of this time were less and less inclined to show strong oversight of the Levant. Egypt was likely not mentioned because the Old Testament focuses more on nearby client kingdoms. The Mitanni were not mentioned, though their client kingdom, the Assyrians, were. The Hittites, who were further away yet were actually mentioned occasionally. (There is some of this in the New Testament. The Herods are more prominent than the Caesars. The Roman Pilate and a few centurions are mentioned because they are integral to the story. Jesus also speaks of paying taxes to Rome. But Jesus does not devote nearly the energy to Rome as He does to regional rulers and overseers. Paul refers to Caesar in Acts when he demands a hearing before him. Otherwise, Acts speaks much more of regional and synagogue rulers.)
Amenhotep III ruled from 1386-1349. The less common timeline suggests from 1388-1351. He devoted himself to diplomacy and building at home and in Nubia. The conflict he did have early on was in Nubia.
Joshua's age cannot be pinpointed exactly. He was described as a young man in the Pentateuch. Since he was not mentioned as Caleb was as a person over 30 who would see the Holy Land and yet did enter the Holy Land, some scholars think he was between 20 and 30 in the year 1446 B.C. He would, then, have died between ~1346 and 1336, living to 110 years old. This event, interestingly, falls into the reign of a pharaoh that stands out to even many casual observers of Egyptian history, Akhenaten.
Akhenaten was born Amenhotep IV. He reigned from ~1353-1336 B.C. It appears, then, that he was a co-regent with his father. Around the time of his accession, it seems he married his queen, Nefertiti.
Something caused him to make radical changes in Egypt's religion, society and architecture. This started within a few years of taking solo reign. He wasn't quite "monotheistic", but he certainly gave the god Aten great preeminence, approaching monotheism. He changed his name to honor this god instead of the god Amen. He portrayed Aten as the Sun disk, rather than trying to picture him in more human form. He created many new temples at Karnak.
Akhenaten received letters of complaint from Palestine, Syria and Asia minor. Vassal kings complained of inattention on the pharaoh's part, leading scholars to wonder if Akhenaten was a pacifist. The Armana letters complain of "Habiru" or "Apiru" people attacking Canaan. This name means "wanderer."
Were Akhenaten's rapid changes in response to what he saw the Israelites beginning to do? Had enough of their exodus story survived, had the fear and annoyance of the Transjordan kings as they passed through before entering the Holy Land, had the ability for this small, wandering group to take over so much territory rattled him? Did he think he needed to try some new things to see if he could appease this group's foreign God or find another god powerful enough to challenge Him?
He moved the capital to Armana. When he died, his people despised his changes and let Armana quickly fall into ruin.
Towards the end of his reign, he is pictured with a co-king. It is possible this is another manifestation of Nefertiti? This personage then also became known as Smenkhkare and ruled three years on his (?) own after Akhenaten died.
Many scholars point out signs that Akhenaten bore many signs of inbreeding. Some scholars wonder if artistic depictions exaggerate certain of Akhenaten's features for unknown reasons. Inbreeding features were even worse in his son, Tutankhamen; these are known more from remains than artistic depictions.
Tutankhamen, Akhenaten's son, ruled from 1332-1323 B.C. He seems to have become Pharaoh at an early age. He attempted to roll back his father's reforms. Many causes of his death have been examined and subsequently rejected. It appears that his health was always poor, due to inbreeding. He probably had trouble walking. It is now thought that maybe he died of disease, such as malaria, or from a fall. He is the King Tut of glorious tomb and treasure fame. He was not buried in a pyramid, as noted above. His tomb was found by accidental dumb luck. It had been somewhat hidden from tomb robbers, making it an excellent find. His beautiful gold sarcophagus is likely not a realistic representation of this teen. Exactly which Judges overlap his reign is hard to say, since Judges doesn't mention Egypt. As mentioned elsewhere, it's not always easy to get a clear timeline on Judges because many of their periods of oversight were regional and overlapped each other.
"Israel" shows up on a hieroglyph on a stele from the time of Pharaoh Merneptah, who reigned from 1213-1203 B.C. It says very little about Israel, except to claim that it is laid waste and is no more. Considering the various cycles of being overrun in the Book of Judges for their disobedience and idolatry, this is not surprising. But the Egyptians would later be surprised. This is one of the earliest extra-Biblical mentions of Israel.
Theologically, this time relates to the Good Friday and Easter events. On the mountain, as He shown bright ("Transfiguration") not long before His death, Jesus predicted the upcoming events. In the Greek version of Luke, He speaks of His upcoming "exodus." As the people of old were led out of slavery to the Egyptians, we are led out of our bondage to sin by this final Passover sacrifice of Christ's suffering and death.
Here are some songs to keep you in the spirit of things this "Paschal" "Passover" "Exodus" season!
Posts
