Understanding the Record of Ancient Egypt From a Biblical Perspective

1

Understanding the Record of Ancient Egypt from a Biblical Perspective

It is difficult to imagine how Moses could be so audacious as to rewrite world history from and

for the perspective of less than 10% of people living in the world at the time of Torah’s writing. If

the President of Israel were to write world events as they occurred today, it would probably look

like the pages of one or more of Israel’s local daily newspapers. Major events like the present

day crisis in Egypt would occupy a few pages at most, 95% of the paper would be filled with

local news. The Israelites had lived in the great land of Egypt for 210 years, yet Torah almost

ignores the Egyptian record entirely.

Torah and its consistent, orthodox, cultural teachings tells that one fifth of the Israelite

population left Egypt. Targum Yonathan calculates that 2.4 million Egyptians left together with

600,000 Israelite men over the age of 20 and their families which equates to the same number.

In all 2.4 millions Israelites died in the last days before leaving Egypt and a total of 4.8 million

people left Egypt.

The national pandemonium in Egypt at that time would have been serious, chaotic and intense

especially in the region of the eastern Nile delta where, according to Torah, the Israelites were

housed in a place called Goshen. There is good archaeological evidence of climatic upheaval at

precisely the same time the Torah dates Exodus - 1300 BCE. The Egyptian record and most

archaeologists attest the chaos to the arrival of a Sea people. However despite the abundant

literature devoted to the Sea peoples, we still do not know exactly who they were, where they

came from, why they attacked, and, finally, where they disappeared to after their raids.

The Bible’s version of Exodus is arguably history’s most frequently told story, but archaeologists

claim that not one piece of discovered evidence proves the event occurred. According to the

highest professional standards of archaeology they would be correct. How can it be that such a

famous story, from a book more than 2 billion people believe to be credible, has not one iota of

evidence about the mass Exodus from Egypt?

The Egyptian record is replete with stories, letters and statements written on papyrus, carved

into rocks and painted on walls. These have been studied extensively for hundreds of years by

archaeologists the world over. Each entombed pharaoh provides a chronological clue as to the

progression of the record of kings. So surely if we simply use the chronology of Torah, as

understood by orthodox Jews who expect it to be 100% accurate, then within a reasonable shot,

we should enjoy pinpoint accuracy into the Egyptian record. Well its not that simple, not

because believers in Torah want it both ways, but the Egyptian chronology is fraught with

problems.

I wrote an article expressing the archaeological bias that prevents validation of the story of

Israel in Egypt. The general consensus argues absence of evidence, but I argue it exists.

However, I cannot rely on archaeological bias in order to prove deception endemic in the

Egyptian record. Instead l argue that the record itself was written during the lives of numerous

Pharaohs to embellish their reign and spin a political intrigue that would be perceived by future

2

generations to uphold the glory of Egyptian gods and men. In the process Israel’s story would

be deemphasized and marginalized to delay the impending demise of the Egyptian kingdom.

According to Torah, Israel left Egypt on the night of 15 Nissan 2448 years from creation. Since

2013 CE is the year 5773 of the Hebrew Calendar, it took place 3325 years ago in the year

1312 BCE. The Egyptian record is not as specific, there is no reliable dating system so the

chronological opinions of archaeologists vary. In any event using the dates chosen for the

climatic upheaval article we proceed. According to the reference chronology of Jonathan N.

Tubb:

According to the reference chronology of Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al (the first two columns

being archaeologists Shaw and Hornung followed by - carbon dating from:to ascension ranges:

To begin with the term BC or BCE is not as simple as it seems. Although it refers to the date of

Jesus birth, it cannot be attributed accurately other than by stating this year to be 2013 years

from that date. Because there is no proof that Jesus existed or when the world was created,

carbon dating seems to be the only constant that allows us to match the two calendars.

According to Torah and the chart above we are seeking the reign of a leader in the year 1312

BCE. However, the carbon dating report states: “In one case, although the internal consistency

is satisfactory, seven dates from one single 19th Dynasty tomb are ~200 years older than the

3

historical age ascribed to them (see dates ascribed to Ramses I/Seti I in table S1). In this

instance, we have concluded that there must be an archaeological problem and have excluded

the dates from the model.” The following chart describes the significance of the problem in

synchronizing chronologies:

Since we cannot rely on dates to pinpoint a specific period in Egypt’s history, we have to rely on

other science, artwork and representations of the story told from one pharaoh to another. Even

general assumptions of a 50 year range either side of the fixed Hebrew date would be

problematic given other volatility in the dating of the Egyptian record.

Under the circumstances, we turn to individual pieces of evidence discovered to date. Egyptian

dynasties are traced back 5200 years using the conventional chronology, in context according

to Torah, Israel was exiled in Egypt for 210 years during the period 3535 - 3325 years ago or

1522 - 1312 BCE. As a reminder, the year zero on the Gregorian calendar in context of

Hebrew’s fixed dating system is arbitrary dependent on when on Hebrew’s fixed timeline the

Gregorian calendar started. Thus Israel should be visible in some portion of 4% of Egypt’s

historical record, which should be concentrated in the approximate periods suggested.

Israel’s impact on Egypt at the beginning of their sojourn would have been limited because only

70 Israelites arrived initially with Jacob. However, after 210 years estimates, based on Torah’s

statements put Israel’s population at ±2.4 million people. Using population regression

techniques this may have been somewhere between 5 and 10% of greater Egypt’s population.

4

According to Torah Jacob’s ancestor Abraham had previously

spent time in Egypt where he established relationships. The event

of Isaac’s birth is preceded by Abrahams marriage to Hagar,

considered to be a daughter of Egypt’s pharaoh and the

circumcision of their son Ishmael at the age of 13. Egyptian boys

were circumcised as depicted in this ~2300 BCE sixth dynasty

relief. The Hebrew calendar dates Abraham and Ishmael’s

circumcisions to 2048 or 3725 years ago making it the year 1712

BCE. Therefore, we must assume

from this the practice of circumcision was already common

amongst the nations before Ishmael or there is a problem with

Egypt’s archaeological dating, a gap of 600 or more years. After

Isaac’s birth Torah and its traditional teaching relays that Hagar

and Ishmael went back to live in Egypt. Sometime later Jacob’s

brother Esau married Ishmael’s daughter (Basemath) Mahalath.

This marriage aligned the future lineage of the Egyptian king

with the lineage of Abraham, Isaac and Esau.

A carved ivory

discovered in the

Megiddo excavation

reveals two

prisoners being

presented as

captives to a leader

who is not

Egyptian. The men

are circumcised.

Megiddo

discoveries are

attributed to two

time periods based

on the stratum analysis up to the earlier 950-1050 BCE and later period to ~550 BCE. Megiddo

also presents chronological difficulties.

The ivory specifically depicts two captives that are circumcised. The harp does not appear to be

an Israelite instrument and the throne is typical and may have followed the design of the

prophetic visions. In any event the King on the throne is bearded as are his soldiers. The two

Semites may be Israelites, bearded and circumcised.

5

Ancient Egyptian carved scene of circumcision, from the

inner northern wall of the Temple of Khonspekhrod at

the Precinct of Mut, Luxor, Egypt. Eighteenth dynasty,

Amenhotep III, c. 1360 BCE.

From the Tomb of Seti I it is

apparent the bearded man

second from the right has fringes

hanging from his skirt (colors

may vary from these modern

renditions). The same fringe adornment appears in the ivory, detached and

floating in the image. A close examination of the image reveals three strand

fringes on the top of his skirt and a four strand fringe on the waist band.

Megiddo was a critical site, a strategic hill and settlement for travellers from the south (Egypt)

along the coastal route of Canaan (Israel) to the north, Assyria and beyond. It marked the

optimal geographical point to turn east to the lower Galilee across flat land to the inner country

of the Hittites and Assyrians. There are several battle sequences discovered in and associated

with Rameses II that relate to his campaigns to suppress occupants of the Galilee, Hittites and

Assyrians. Following the Battle of Kadesh Egyptian artists recorded the campaign as a

significant victory for Egypt and Rameses II, however the record from Hittite King Muwatalli II

renders Rameses depictions a gross over exaggeration of the outcome, which most experts

consider to have been a draw - at best.

Among the many ancient images and reliefs in Egypt, I selected five primary images of

campaigns depicting various battlefronts, each elevates Rameses the victor. Regardless, the

outcomes were pronounced as victories and paraded through Egypt accordingly. A closer

analysis of the images and sequence may signal a few important details. The predominant

feature of image (a) is the water and dead bodies of the apparent and unarmed enemy floating

in it. Empty chariots are plenty and occasionally Egyptian soldiers, appear to be dying or dead.

It’s a very strange depiction of an enemy that did not resist despite their apparent

disproportional representation.

6

(a)

(b)

(b)

(c)

(d)

7

(e)

Image (b) the Battle of Dapur clearly depicts a battle scene with resistance as Rameses army

attempts to conquer a fortified construction on an elevated hill. The adjacent image depicts an

archaeological reconstruction of the Palace at Megiddo by the Oriental Institute at the University

of Chicago. Image (c) is more subdued in that there is little fighting, it depicts a continuity

sequence where Rameses has conquered enemies, tramples them, takes a few prisoners of

war and appears to progressing toward the objective in the center of the image. Image (d)

appears as the primary battlefront and may relate to the structure depicted in image (c), the

central fortress with restricted access remains intact during the battle which appears to take

place in Rameses advance toward it. Finally image (e) depicts the armies return to Egypt and a

victorious Rameses.

I propose the building surrounded by water in the top left of image (a) (see original relief,

negative partial image below)

represents a destination to which

the artist depicts the enemy of the

Egyptian army is headed despite

their apparent defeat. The

ultimate objective of the enemy

becomes that of Egypt’s and to

which a later image depicts it

eventually arrived; image (d). The

palace in image (b) is stipulated

as the Siege of Dapur in the

Ramesseum in Thebes. I suggest

it occurred in the process of

Egypt’s armies arriving at image

(d), the Battle of Kadesh. Specifically I consider these images a sequence of campaigns that

took place in progress during a period in the order shown.

Further, I postulate the first image depicts the exodus event of Israelites from Egypt and that

Rameses lost soldiers in the sea during the chase. When Israel crossed over he lost the ability

to cross the water to give full chase to the unarmed enemy. He returned to Egypt and geared up

8

to chase the Israelites. Expecting them to eventually head for the coastal route into Israel he

eventually gave chase, but did not expect them to remain outside of Israel wandering the desert

for 40 years. In pursuit Rameses made his way through Ashkelon and possibly other cities in

the south of Israel, to Megiddo where he attacked the Hittite, Canaanite or Jewish/Israelite

occupants. Either they continued on the campaign hunting Israelites, making their way to

Kadesh or they returned to Egypt, but they arrived at Kadesh (wherever that is) at some point.

Rameses II never located all the Israelites he was chasing depicted in formation in image (a).

In a final twist of archaeological fate, the work of Frank J. Yurco declares Rameses as depicted

in several of these later campaigns to be none other than Merenptah his successor and at least

one who appears to have erased Rameses image. Whilst Yurco postulates a different theory

regarding the images above, he introduces the prospect that Merenptah was the one

responsible for chasing Israel in the battles that ensued. Regardless, a pattern of action is

depicted in campaigns to southern, northern Israel, Lebanon and Syria. These were clearly

depicted in the various artworks that were commissioned at that period of time. As suggested by

Yurco, if Rameses name is not present at the massive and very important national sites that

declare battle victories and peace agreements, we must ask why?

Torah tells us the Israelites under Jacob were settled in Goshen and that Hebron, in Israel was

established seven years before Zoan in Egypt. It also tells that Abraham came to the land of

Canaan (Israel) which was

drought stricken before he

travelled beyond to Egypt. It

is likely Abraham was

associated with the

establishment of Hebron and

Zoan became a town of

Egyptian officialdom

established by Abraham

shortly after he arrived. In a

recent discovery using

infrared technology, archaeologists discovered a massive and ancient city buried call Tanis,

which is buried beneath the earth. Tanis was known by many names. Ancient Egyptians called it

Djanet, and Torah refers to the site as Zoan. Today it's called Sân el-Hagar. There is no Hebrew

letter for “J” or “Dj” it would have been substituted over time with “G” making Dhanet - Ganet.

The letter “t” in Hebrew is also used for the sound “sh”. Therefore its possible that Ganet

became Ganesh which Torah referred to as Goshen and that this took place in the 210 years of

Israel’s occupation in this area of the eastern Nile delta. Remarkably the modern name of the

town Sân el-Hagar relates to the Egyptian princes Hagar, the daughter of Pharaoh, given as a

handmaid to Abraham’s first wife Sarah, that Abraham later married and who bore him Ishmael.

If 2.4 million Egyptians of mixed race in Goshen converged with 2.4 millions Israelites, a total of

4.8 million people would have departed. Somewhere around 10-15% of the population who

previously secured the eastern approach to inner Egypt would have left it wide open to future

9

infiltrators and raiders. The huge departing group would have stretched 100 Kilometers through

the desert as they left the region, refugees of an afflicted land and nation. With such vast

numbers it’s no wonder we can see into their existence in the Egyptian record, however there is

little record of such a mass population nomadically living in the desert over 40 years as they

made their way to Canaan (Israel).

According to Torah, the people that left were forged into a nation after crossing the Yam Suf

(Red/Reed Sea) and receiving Torah at Mount Sinai. This nation lived nomadically, eating from

a substance known as Mann (Manna) and other meat of birds and kosher foods gathered along

the way. The nation is said to have lived in an elevated spiritual state throughout their period in

the desert. Many did not want to leave their comfortable state when they were confronted with

the prospect of fighting for their land in Canaan.

Archaeological deposits could be scattered anywhere in an

areas spanning more than 40,000 kilometers squared

because the precise route the Israelites followed in the

desert during this time is unknown. Further, given their

lightweight mode, the only real hope for evidentiary proof of

this journey, may be the remaining bones of the deceased

that were buried and remain scattered along the route. Soft

and hard implements were unlikely to be willingly discarded

as is the frugal pattern of bedouins.

Although Torah allegorically speaks of 42 journeys in the desert, most scholars translate its

meaning to 9 physical journeys to sites where the nation camped for extended periods before

arriving in Israel. Along their probable route, there are two identified sites that offer enormous

potential. One in Israel has been well

excavated and carefully preserved, the

other in Saudi Arabia, which is fenced off,

restricted and where little excavation has

taken place or been published. Given the

limited information from the Saudi site, it

may be reasonable to assume the it would

offer similar findings to the site in Israel

were full access to be provided.

Among the many findings are rock

paintings which at each site share a

remarkable resemblance and appear to be from the same time period, other findings include,

altars, rock formations, flints, carvings, tombstones, monuments, markers and a myriad of

information not yet explained. These pictures represent the many excavated examples found at

Mount Karkom in Israel’s Sinai and the limited images obtained without permission in Saudi

Arabia at Jebel El Lawz.

10

According to Torah, Israel, which is the assumed name of the patriarch Jacob, comprised 70

people when they arrived in Egypt. Joseph was Egypt’s Vizier at the time which would have

enabled his family to quickly become integrated to the upper echelon of Egyptian society within

a relatively short period. Therefore, one would expect to this group referred to by its recently

acquired national identifier in the name of its patriarch - ‘Israel’, somewhere in the Egyptian

record.

The Merenptah Stele in the Egyptian museum specifically boasts victory in a campaign in

Canaan against Israel. Most of the text glorifies Merenptah's victories over enemies from Libya

and their Sea People allies, but the final two lines mention a campaign in Canaan, where

Merenptah says he defeated and destroyed Ashkalon, Gezer, Yanoam and Israel.

Ashkelon appears to be the first

victory in Canaan, and the image

(b) states in its hieroglyphic that

it is a depiction of that battle.

However, no archaeology in

Ashkelon has ever revealed

such an elaborate palatial

structure as the one depicted in

the illustration of the relief. The

palace in Image (b) is built on a

specific mound while

construction in Ashkelon is

primarily built on a fortified sand

dune. In the last lines of the

hieroglyphic text are written the

words “Israel is laid waste and

his seed is not”.

In the period immediately

following Israel’s re-entry to the

land under Joshua, there was no

king appointed by the tribes. The

tribe of Dan were allocated the smallest portion of land by Joshua. Despite their relatively large

numbers, they failed to conquer their land from the occupants along the Mediterranean in the

approximate area of Gaza to Ashdod and Ashkelon. They borrowed from Yehuda’s adjacent

land, but they remained restless in this high traffic region along the coastal route. Rather than

aggressively pursue the occupants and transients of their land and in order to accommodate the

growth of their tribe, they discovered land in the North of Israel. Beyond the Biblical boundaries

they conquered the city known to them as Laish where some of the tribe of Dan immigrated.

This is the source location of the Jordan River’s water, which became known as Banias where

later the Hittites/Greeks built a temple. The tribe of Dan continued to live a nomadic life and

unlike other tribes they were led by one primary family, the Shuamites. The Shuamites were

11

without a state since they had not conquered and occupied their land like the other tribes. They

frequently travelled the road trail from Gaza/Ashkelon/Ashdod through Beit El and up to Laish in

the north visiting family who had immigrated or remained behind.

Frank Yurco’s discovered that some scenes which include image (a) at the Karnak temple built

by Rameses II, were usurped by later Pharaohs. Merenptah depicted the battle of

Ashkelon/Megiddo in image (b), Kadesh image (d) and the peace treaty as upheld by Pharaoh’s

Amenese and Setty II also revealed a relationship to the “Israel” mentioned on the Merenptah

stele. As important as this discovery is to the archaeological record, it does not go far enough. A

close study of Israel’s traditional record shows they arrived in Israel 3 years before the battle of

Kadesh in 1275 BCE at precisely the time of Merenptah rule. This period was during the 20

years whilst Samson was a judge of Israel, up till the peace treaty of Kadesh .

The story of Micah from the book of Judges

as told in Me’am Loez, reveals that the tribe

of Dan, the Shuamites must be the Shasu,

with their strange headdress, depicted in the

images displayed in Karnak. The Shasu

snaked through Israel from South to North

and harassed the Egyptian army as it made

its way through Israel to the north and the

battle of Kadesh on the Orentes river.

Although no direct match for Merenptah’s

might, they made life difficult, particularly in

the hill country and won frequent mention on

the scenes of Karnak as a result. The Libyan and Sea people which are the main subject of the

Merenptah stele may constitute the Philistines who occupied southern Israel and against whom

Merenptah fought. This is important because the battle scene known as Ashkelon in image (b)

does not win support from scholars that these were depictions of Shasu being fought. Clearly

they were not Shasu, more likely Philistines, a mixture of Sea People, Libyans and Canaanites.

Now we can finally understand the hieroglyphic translation on Merenptah’s Stele - ‘Israel as

people without a city,state’. The author was referring the term Israel to personify the Shasu, the

tribe of Dan who had not conquered their land like the other tribes had already done. He did this

to bring news to Egypt that Israel had finally been conquered and Rameses II’s name restored.

The erased battle reliefs to the left of the Peace treaty are the story, Rameses II and Merenptah

did not want Egypt to perpetuate. Rameses II did not achieve, therefore could not have

recorded a victory in the same way Merenptah did and he used the Shasu to state how he had

wiped out Israel in the process of his Canaanite campaigns.

When we return to the Ivory discovered at Megiddo, we can now see the strange headdress on

the circumcised prisoners and identify it with the relief at Karnak. We can also confirm that the

short skirts which are depicted as being different to other Canaanite dress in fact contain the

Jewish adornment known as tzit-tzit the holy strings which are attached to the four corners of a

12

garment. The men in the Ivory are Shasu, Shuamites members of the Israelite tribe of Dan and

their holy tzit-tzit were cut from their stripped garments as displayed on the ivory. The Shasu are

spoken of extensively in the various Papyrus Anastasi and described therein. Notwithstanding

the various battle scenes surviving and erased, I maintain the artist and author incorrectly

depicted image (b) as Ashkelon. I believe it to be Megiddo and it relates to the Ivory depiction of

Shashu who were captured for harassing the Egyptian army. I believe the image on the ivory

may be that of Merenptah’s son Prince Kha-em-Wast. The image of the Shashu is immediately

to the right of the Peace Treaty and is depicted as a battle on an open plane in contrast to the

other images and is more likely to be depiction of Ashkelon or Gezer.

The enemies mentioned on the Merenptah Stele apparently simultaneously bothered Egypt.

Sea People, Libyans, Canaanites and Israelites seem to converge at a sensitive time in Egypt’s

history. Vacating the upper eastern Nile delta at Tanis or Goshen left Egypt wide open for an

attack and during the 40 years of Israel’s Exodus, Rameses II and Merenptah were kept very

busy defending. Absent of these converging enemies, Egypt may have found the strength to

chase Israel on their desert sojourn. It was not until the 43rd year after Israel’s departure that

Egypt were able to leave its borders having secured its eastern Nile delta. As Israel penetrated

Canaan from the East moving West, Egypt was moving through Canaan in the south in

preparation for its northerly advance to the battle of Kadesh, which by now should appear to the

reader as being a collection of battles that took place in pursuit of multiple enemies including the

Shashu who had migrated north to Laish (Israel/Lebanon/Syria border town) with their elite

armed forces.

Many questions remain unanswered. However, there is certainly sufficient evidence to call into

question the utility of archaeological based interpretations absent an educated and unbiased

view studied from the accuracy of Torah. Few if any have ever attempted to center the Egyptian

record at or around the time of Israel’s exile and Exodus on the Torah perspective. This paper

hopes to motivate and call for adequate scientific reconsideration.