A Reason Against Egyptian Records

Creation vs. Evolution: 480 Years From Exodus to Temple? · Φιλολoγικά / Philologica: Against a Late Date of the Exodus · A Reason Against Egyptian Records

Armstrong Institute speak about ...

On the surface, there appear to be plenty of options for identifying the Exodus pharaoh. Digging down into the details, however, it becomes evident that no other Egyptian period, dynasty and pharaoh gets nearly as close to matching the biblical text as the New Kingdom period’s Thutmosid dynasty pharaoh, Amenhotep II!

Their case in part is about this being the date:

Amenhotep II = 1453–1426 B.C.E.

Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology : Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?
By Christopher Eames
https://armstronginstitute.org/882-who-was-the-pharaoh-of-the-exodus

Now, on another discussion, recently, not published, someone spoke of verification of Egyptian records being possible because of coordination with known celestial phenomena.

Here* is a little remark on that principle in this connexion:

Amenhotep's coronation can be dated without much difficulty because of a number of lunar dates in the reign of his father, Thutmose III. These sightings limit the date of Thutmose's accession to either 1504 or 1479 BC.[16] Thutmose died after 54 years of reign,[17] at which time Amenhotep would have acceded to the throne. Amenhotep's short coregency with his father would then move his accession two years and four months earlier,[7] dating his accession to either 1427 BC in the low chronology,[18] or in 1454 BC in the high chronology.

[7]

Charles C. Van Siclen. "Amenhotep II," The Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt. Ed. Donald Redford. Vol. 1, p.71. Oxford University Press, 2001.

[16]

Edward F. Wente, Thutmose III's Accession and the Beginning of the New Kingdom, p.267. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Chicago Press, 1975.

[17]

Breasted, James Henry. Ancient Records of Egypt, Vol. II p. 234. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1906.

[18]

Shaw, Ian; and Nicholson, Paul. The Dictionary of Ancient Egypt. p.28. The British Museum Press, 1995.

So, the Biblical Archaeologists at Armstrong Institute are wagering on the "high chronology" ... check this, not footnoted:

His reign is usually dated from 1427 to 1401 BC. His consort was Tiaa, who was barred from any prestige until Amenhotep's son, Thutmose IV, came into power.

So, archaeologists and Egyptologists prefer the "low chronology." This makes Amenhotep II too late for the Exodus.

This means, Hatshepsut is not the female ruler who was pharao's daughter, but an earlier one is. I think the one earlier that's available, without going back even further, is Sobekneferu or Neferusobek, which obviously means, I am casting Amenemhat IV (who got a cenotaph, not a proper grave) for the role of Moses, so to speak mourned after he fled (Exodus 2). No originality claimed here, my choice is that of an Egyptologist who wrote in 2001:

Searching for Moses
by David Down | This article is from
Journal of Creation 15(1):53–57, April 2001
https://creation.com/searching-for-moses

Amenemhet III may have had one son, known as Amenemhet IV, who was an enigmatic character who may have followed his father or may have been a co-regent with him. If the latter, Amenemhet IV could well have been Moses. Amenemhet IV mysteriously disappeared off the scene before the death of Amenemhet III.

Amenemhet III had a daughter whose name was Sobekneferu. It is known that she had no children.6 If she was the daughter of Pharaoh who came down to the river to bathe, it is easy to understand why she was there. It was not because she had no bathroom in her palace. She would have been down there taking a ceremonial ablution and praying to the river god Hapi, who was also the god of fertility. Having no children she would have needed such a god, and when she found the beautiful baby Moses there she would have considered it an answer to her prayers (Exodus 2:5–6).

[6]

Edwards, I.E.S. et al., The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. II, part I, Cambridge University Press, p. 43, 1975; David, R., Ancient Egypt, Harper Collins, p. 20, 1988.

Let's cite Christopher Eames again, doublechecking in David Down:

David Down opined Neferhotep I. Alfred Edersheim believed it was Thutmose II. Herman Hoeh, originally following a form of Velikovskian chronology, initially believed it was Merenre Nemtyemsaf II; later, following more conventional chronology, Amenhotep II. Isaac Asimov believed it to be Merneptah. According to Sigmund Freud—yes, even the famous psychologist studied the question—it was Akhenaten.

I identify Khasekemre-Neferhotep I as the pharaoh from whom Moses demanded Israel’s release. I do so because Petrie found scarabs21 of former kings at Kahun. But the latest scarab he found there was of Neferhotep, who was apparently the pharaoh ruling when the Israelite slaves suddenly left Kahun and fled from Egypt in the Exodus. According to Manetho, he was the last king to rule before the Hyksos occupied Egypt ‘without a battle’. Without a battle? Where was the Egyptian army? It was at the bottom of the Red Sea Exodus 14:28). Khasekemre-Neferhotep I was probably the pharaoh of the Exodus. His mummy has never been found.

[21]

The term scarab in archaeological reports refers to seals used for sealing documents though they were often used as ornaments. In either case, they were made of stone, metal or even pottery, with the shape of the scarab beetle on top and the name and title of the king engraved underneath, so when it was pressed down on the soft clay it left his seal impression.

Yes, David Down did say Neferhotep I. Now, since some have claimed me as a Velikovskian, I am glad for Christopher Eames clarification:

Herman Hoeh, originally following a form of Velikovskian chronology, initially believed it was Merenre Nemtyemsaf II; later, following more conventional chronology, Amenhotep II.

So "what would Velikovsky say" seems to be Merenre Nemtyemsaf II.** That's 6th dynasty. That's conventional chronology (from above it should be clear it's not carbon dates) ...

Reign

1 year and 1 month, 2194 BC,[1] 2184 BC,[2][3][4] 2180 BC,[5] 2152 BC,[6]

[1]

Jürgen von Beckerath: Chronologie des pharaonischen Ägypten (Chronology of the Egyptian Pharaohs), Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern (1997), p. 152.

[2]

Michael Rice: Who is who in Ancient Egypt, Routledge London & New York 1999, ISBN 0-203-44328-4, see p. 111

[3]

Jaromir Malek: The Old Kingdom in Ian Shaw (editor): The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt, Oxford University Press, new edition (2003), ISBN 978-0192804587

[4]

Peter A. Clayton: Chronicle of the Pharaohs: The Reign-by-Reign Record of the Rulers and Dynasties of Ancient Egypt, Thames & Hudson (2006), ISBN 0-500-28628-0, see p. 64.

[5]

Thomas Schneider: Lexikon der Pharaonen, Düsseldorf 2002.

[6]

Erik Hornung (editor), Rolf Krauss (editor), David A. Warburton (editor): Ancient Egyptian Chronology, Handbook of Oriental Studies, Brill 2012, ISBN 978-90-04-11385-5, available online copyright-free, see p. 491.

By contrast, what David Down says is Khasekemre-Neferhotep I***. I will not go through all the options given for his regnal years. I'll just go with the two extremes, and you can check the footnotes yourself. It's 1736 to 1694. Again, I hope none of this involves a carbon date. Because, my carbon date for the Exodus would be from the tephra of Santorini or Thera eruption, carbon dated from tephra to 1609 BC. I put the Exodus, based on the Roman Martyrology for Christmas Day, in 1511 BC. For carbon dates, the reduction is 98 years. For presumably a date combining later carbon dates and chronicles back, it's 225 to 183 years.

The distance to Amenhotep II's accession, for which I chose the later date, would be:

Conventionally:

1736 - 1427 = 309 years (or less)

With my Biblical calibration:

1511 - 1427 = 84 years.

The reduction would mainly involve remainders of the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediary Period. If each pharao had dated the accession to his throne by reference to a very much earlier epoch, comparable to ab urbe condita or Anno Domini, this would mean positing a confusion that's totally absurd and unrealistic. But in fact, they didn't. Each pharao was dated according to his throne accession and regnal years from then. Sometimes in the case of co-regents, from the father's regnal years, prior to taking over.

Parallel dynasties being serialised in records to give a false impression of unity (and Second Intermediary Period has a parallel dynasty anyway) would be impossible if each ruler in each of them dated his regnal years starting by so and so many years after Christ or after Rome, but as they didn't, it's a pretty elementary sleight of hand.

For Velikovskian chronology to work, taking Merenre's death as an example, the distance would instead be:

Conventionally:

2194 - 1427 = 767 years

With Herman Hoeh's first Biblical calibration:

1511 - 1427 = 84 years.

While I get a reduction by four, Herman Hoeh's first attempt involves one by 9. I am not saying his is totally implausible given the condition of Egyptian records, but I am saying mine is after all less radical.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St. John's Day
27.XII.2023

See also Problems with ‘Searching for Moses’ article
+ David Down replies:
https://dl0.creation.com/articles/p046/c04618/j20_2_52-pro.pdf

From the reply:

He simply endorsed what Peter James wrote, which is a reduction of 250 years at the time of the Third Intermediate Period (dynasties 21–24). The importance of this conclusion is not the length of time but that it strikes at the traditional chronology, in particular it destroys the so-called ‘Sothic Cycle’ which is the only ‘secure’ dating of Egyptian history that archaeologists can rely on.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amenhotep_II

** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merenre_Nemtyemsaf_II

*** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferhotep_I