Adam When?

    We saw the precise agreement that existed between the secular and sacred records when we studied the timetable of the pharaoh, Sesostris III, who ruled during the middle of the 12th Dynasty of Egypt beginning in 1888 B.C. We saw that he was the young pharaoh who made Joseph prime minister or grand vizier.

    Before we look for another point of chronological synchronization, we should spend a few moments with the secular record of the Egyptians during lsrael’s sojourn in Egypt. This is the period 1877 B.C. to 1447 B.C., as established by Biblical reckoning. It covers the period of Egyptian history from the middle of the 12th Dynasty to the middle of the 18th Dynasty. In this chapter, we will not discover any precise synchronization between the secular and sacred records, but we will provide some insight into puzzling archaeological evidence. We shall also provide a background for clearly identifying the pharaoh of the Exodus, who will be presented in the next chapter.


The Hyksos

    Archaeological evidence reveals that during the period between the 12th and 17th Dynasties, there were foreign rulers over Egypt who were called Hyksos. They were apparently of Asiatic, Palestinian, or Hurrite origin as indicated by the names of the rulers, as well as by pottery and other archaeological evidence. Archaeologists have commonly described their entrance into Egypt as an invasion of some kind. They have also suggested that it was their presence that provided the sympathetic warm reception for Jacob and his family when they arrived in Egypt.

    Since many Bible scholars as well as archaeologists believe that Jacob entered Egypt about 1720 B.C.¹ and that the Hyksos were already reigning at that time, it can be seen how most scholars indicate no identification between the Hyksos and the Israelites. Archbishop

Usher’s chronology, which appears in the margins of many Bibles, undoubtedly has done much to foster this idea. He gives the date 1729 B.C. as the date of Joseph’s arrival. This would place Jacob’s arrival about 1720 B.C. which is near the time when the Hyksos began to reign as pharaohs. This has been a very unfortunate calculation by Usher.

    I believe, however, that there is considerable evidence to show that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Let us examine this, because in so doing we will learn something about the conduct of the Israelites in Egypt and the conditions that led to their enslavement.


The Timing of the Hyksos

    Most archaeologists believe that the Hyksos began to reign about 1720 B.C. The noted archaeologist, Raymond Weill, however, indicates that in his judgment the Hyksos were already present in the latter part of the 12th Dynasty. In a carving from the reign of Amenemmes IV, a representation of a god is shown who is like the god Seth or Sutekh. Weill wrote:

The assimilation is extremely remarkable, in view of the fact that in the older period there is no evidence of local cults of Seth in Lower Egypt, where he was first installed, in all likelihood by the “Hyksos” kings in Tanis, Avaris . . . This identification in the time of Amenemmes IV seems to indicate clearly that these Asiatic intruders and all the things that came with them were already present in the Delta during the Twelfth Dynasty; and it thus appears to demonstrate the truth of the view recently put forward that the settlement of these foreigners in Egypt began at least as early as that central part of the Middle Kingdom.2

    He also wrote:

. . . It now appears . . . that the “Asiatic” or “Hyksos” period in Lower Egypt extends chronologically beyond the Dynasty of the Apopis at each end, and thus this Dynasty was but an episode in a much vaster development in time and perhaps in territory. Let me observe further in support of this statement that since 1929 it has been recognized the “Hyksos” period, that is to say, the incursion of Asiatic and Egypto-Asiatic culture in Lower Egypt, will have begun immediately after the end of the Twelfth Dynasty, if not during that Dynasty itself.3

    Therefore, there is good reason to believe the Hyksos were already in Egypt during the 12th Dynasty (that is, prior to 1788 B.C.). This accords with our premise that the Hyksos were the Israelites; they were in Egypt since the middle of the 12th Dynasty. Possibly they did not assert themselves until many years after Joseph’s death in 1806 B.C.


How Did the Hyksos Seize Power?

    Many archaeologists believe that the mysterious people, who came into power between the 12th and 17th Dynasties of Egypt, invaded Egypt and seized power by force. However, within the last couple of decades, closer analysis of the archaeological evidence has begun to reveal that possibly there was no invasion of Egypt by the Hyksos at all. Rather, it appears that these foreign rulers simply represented a change in the ruling class from among those who lived in Egypt. Moreover, as we have stated, there is increasing evidence that the Hyksos were in Egypt as early as the latter part of the 12th Dynasty. While apparently none of these later writers identify the Hyksos with the Hebrews and still express great puzzlement regarding their precise origin, the evidence they have been presenting increasingly points to the Hyksos as being substantially identical with the Hebrews. Let us look at some of the evidence and see how it relates to the Biblical record.

    To find evidence of the archaeological fact that this was not an invasion of foreign Asiatic, we turn to the testimony of T. Save- Soderbergh and John Van Seters. T. Save-Soderbergh wrote:

The only literary source that describes how the Hyksos came into power is The History of Egypt written by Manetho in the second century B.C., i.e., about 1500 years after the event. Thus, it is a very late source, but derived from earlier documents. It is, however, a typical trait of all the late sources regarding the Hyksos that they are strongly tinged by propaganda against the foreigners. In fact, the later the text, the more hostile it is to the Hyksos.4

    He wrote additionally:

Now who were these Hyksos? The Egyptian term is hk32h3swt, which means “rulers of foreign countries.” This seems to have been a usual designation of the sheikhs in Palestine and Syria as

early as the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. For instance, such a sheikh who came with 37 Asiatic to bring their products to Egypt is depicted in a tomb at Beni Hasan. In the accompanying inscription he is called “the ruler of a foreign country” (hk3h3st) Abishi - …This term gives us the impression that the Hyksos were only a little group of foreign dynasts rather than a numerous people with a special civilization. According to Manetho’s version it also seems as if the Hyksos rule only meant a change of political leaders in Egypt; and not a mass invasion of a numerically important foreign ethnic element. This view is corroborated by contemporary evidence. There are a great many tombs from the Hyksos period in Egypt, but there is no clear indication of an invasion of a foreign people from the north.5

    We thus learn that the archaeological information concerning the Hyksos is from the record penned by Manetho some 1500 years after the time they were in Egypt. This should caution us to use great care in accepting Manetho’s conclusions. T. Save-Soderbergh’s conclusion is that there was no invasion by people called the Hyksos but rather there simply occurred a change in the political rulers. He continues:

To sum up, the analysis of the archaeological evidence gives a somewhat negative result, but rather supports the view, mentioned above, that the Hyksos rule was only a change of political leaders, and not an invasion by a numerically important ethnic element with a superior technique and a social civilization. On the other hand, the Hyksos had close connections with Asia, and seem to have favoured the introducing of innovations from this area more than their Egyptian predecessors. But it is only towards the end of their rule in Egypt that they introduce a number of improvements in military technique in an attempt to uphold their political power against the growing Egyptian opposition. Then, first the horse drawn chariots, new types of daggers and swords, bronze weapons, the strong compound Asiatic bow, etc., are imported from the dates of the actual finals of these innovations in Egypt, since they are unknown until the very end of the Hyksos rule.6

    Although no evidence of chariots as early as the 12th Dynasty (about 2000 B.C. to 1788 B.C.), have as yet been found by archaeologists the Bible says very clearly in Genesis 50:9, “And there went up with him both chariots and horsemen: and items a very great

company.” Thus, we should expect such evidence to be forthcoming from archaeologist. As late as 1960 archaeologists found evidence of horses that relate to the 12th Dynasty.⁷

    Van Seters who calls the Hyksos peoples Amurrites (people of Syria, Palestine), wrote:

The long period of acculturation of coastal Syria and Palestine to Egyptian arts and crafts fully prepared the “foreign rulers” and their supporters for taking control of Egypt. This was achieved, not by a sudden coup d’etat from without, but in cooperation with a fifth column Amurrite group already established in the Delta. The strong Amurrite princes of Syria-Palestine became heir to the Egyptian throne in a time of the latter’s dynastic weakness.8

    He continued:

There was active cooperation between the Asiatic and the Egyptians within Egypt itself in the Amurrite coup d’etat. Disloyalty by important noble families may be understood in light of the strong centralization of administration by the Pharaohs of the late Twelfth Dynasty. In the period of dynastic weakness, these families reasserted themselves. With the breakup of the land into the three departments of the previous Middle Kingdom administration, an Egyptian, Nehesy, had control of the North, probably with Asiatic cooperation. It was merely a step for Amurrite princes themselves to take control of Lower Egypt and, in time, the whole of Egypt. No great military conquest was needed to accomplish this, and it is doubtful that any occurred. All that was required for the land to become an Amurrite dynasty was the recognition, by a sufficient number of the Egyptian nobility, of a strong foreign king in the strategic city of Avaris and submission to him as vassals (to their own economic advantage).9

    The information above indicates that there was in all probability no invasion of Egypt by Asiatic foreigners but rather some kind of internal change in rulers. This accords quite well with the premise that the Hyksos were the Israelite. If we go back for a moment to our earlier contact between the pharaoh of the Bible of Joseph’s day and the pharaoh discovered by the archaeological evidence, we can see what could have happened.

    We saw that in the middle of the 12th Dynasty, the year 1888 B.C. to be exact, Sesostris III began to reign. In 1886 B.C., he made

Joseph prime minister, and the central government took on increased strength, especially as a result of the seven years of famine when so much of the land came under the ownership of the central government. It was for those reasons that, in all probability, the hereditary monarchs ceased to have rule over the provinces as they had before. These conditions prevailed when, in 1877 B.C., Jacob and his family came to Egypt and began to grow into a nation.

    During the life of Joseph, who died in 1806 B.C., the two greatest pharaohs of the 12th Dynasty reigned (Sesostris III and Amenemhet III) and the kingdom prospered. With the death of Amenemhet III in 1802 B.C., the reigns of two more rulers brought the 12th Dynasty to a close. These latter two reigned a few years (Amenemhet IV, nine years and Sebeknefrure, four years). The next period of some 208 years was the period of the 13th to the 17th Dynasties during a part of which the rulers were Semitic or Asiatic.

    Following the end of the 12th Dynasty, a new house took control, seemingly in a very tranquil fashion.¹⁰ However, the reigns of succeeding pharaohs were short and the empire began to dissolve. Breasted wrote:

Rapid dissolution followed, as the provincial lords rose against each other and strove for the throne. Pretender after pretender struggled for supremacy.11

    In this kind of atmosphere, the kings with Semitic names began to reign. The were the so-called “Hyksos.” We must remember that the Israelites under Joseph had become an important part of Egyptian government. If Joseph continued in office until his death (a period of 80 years), he probably was the most outstanding government employee in the land. Because of his wisdom he was probably highly respected. He also would have had much opportunity for training and introducing many of his fellow Israelites into government service. Consequently, following Joseph’s death and the end of the 12th Dynasty several years later, jockeying for political power by the Egyptians, with no strong ruler asserting himself from their number, would have given the Israelites with any governmental ambition at all, the opportunity to gain the rulership. Their aspirations and achievements would amply fulfill the speculative suggestions of T. Save-Soderbergh, Van Seters, and others that this was an internal coup d’etat. Because of Joseph’s superb relationship with the Egyptians, as well as his dynamic leadership as prime minister for

years, many of the later Egyptians would probably have been equally happy to side with the aspiring Hebrews during these troubled times.


The Land of Goshen and the Hyksos

    The Bible states that the Israelites were given the land of Goshen to live in by Sesostris III (Genesis 46:34). Does this help identify them in any way with the Hyksos? It does indeed, for Goshen was in the north part of Egypt. The city of Avaris which was later called either Tanis or Qantir was the capital of the Hyksos and was located in the land of Goshen. It probably was made a seat of government during Joseph’s term as prime minister. Van Seters’ conclusion is very pertinent to this question:

Taking the archaeological evidence together with this, it seems safe to assert that Senwosret III created an important center of government in the North, a balance and perhaps even a rival to Thebes.12

    Thus, the identification of the land of Goshen with the capital of the Hyksos both as to location and as to time gives added proof that the Hyksos were indeed the Israelites.

    One additional fact might be offered concerning Avaris. It is also commonly identified with the Biblical Zoan. Thus, we can find a reason for the Biblical statement of Numbers 13:22:

And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron; where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were. (Now Hebron was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt.)

    The statement that Hebron was built seven years before Zoan provides circumstantial evidence regarding the premise that the Hyksos were the Israelites. Hebron is the city where Abram purchased land to bury Sarah (Genesis 23:19). Since it is the only land purchased by Abraham, Hebron becomes a type or figure of a down payment or first fruits of the promise that God’s people would inherit that land. Zoan, therefore, regardless of its important in the minds of the Israelites as a place that gave evidence of the Hebrews’ triumph in Egypt, was inferior to God’s city Hebron (although Hebron was not occupied by Israelites at that time). Sp. as we consider that in everything God has preeminence, we realize why the Bible ties the founding of Zoan to Hebron. God would not let Israel, who founded Zoan, or Avaris, forget that He had already decided on their inheritance.

    Another interesting sidelight which possibly links the Hyksos to the Israelites is afforded by noting the gods the Hyksos served. Archaeological evidence clearly indicates that their dominate god was Seth or Seth-Baal who was of Canaanish origin. This particular god had become so highly integrated into the Egyptian religious idea that Rameses II, who reigned more than 150 years after the Exodus, identified himself with the god Seth. The god Seth is shown on a stela of Rameses II to be a god represented in foreign attire, wearing a high conical cap with gazelle horns protruding from the front.¹³ However, Seth is also represented as a bull. He is called the “bull of Retjenu” (Syria).¹⁴ In the Egyptian pantheon, Seth is augmented by two Asiatic goddesses as consorts, Anat and Astarte.¹⁵ Anat seems to be represented on scarabs of the Hyksos period as a nude deity with cow ears, horns, and Hathor curls.¹⁶ However, even as Seth is also represented as a bull, so Anat, the female god, is represented as the “milch cow of Seth.”¹⁷ Thus, the Egyptians actually worshipped a god named Seth which was represented by a bull. They also worshipped a god related to Seth which was represented by a cow.

    When Moses was on Mount Sinai, the Israelites sinfully asked Aaron to make a calf. When the golden calf was made, the Israelites said very strangely, as we read in Exodus 32:4:

And he received them at their hand, and fashioned it with a graving tool, after he had made it a molten calf: and they said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.

    Why would he use the plural "gods" when there was only one calf to worship? The difficulty ceases if we see in this calf Seth, the bull of Retjenu as well as Anat, the milch cow of Seth. These were the gods the Israelites served in Egypt. One calf could equally represent both gods.¹⁸


Joseph Identifies the Hyksos with the Hebrews

    While archaeologists have indicated generally their belief that the Hyksos could not have been the Israelites, the reputable archaeologist, Breasted, at least suggests that some kind of relationship existed between the Hyksos and the Israelites. He wrote:

That it was a Semitic empire we cannot doubt, in view of the Manethonian tradition and the subsequent conditions in Syria- Palestine. Moreover, the scarabs of a Pharaoh who evidently

belonged to the Hyksos time, give his name as Jacob-her or perhaps, Jacob-El, and it is not impossible that some chief of the Jacob-tribes of Israel for a time gained the leadership in this obscure age. Such an incident would account surprisingly well for the entrance of these tribes into Egypt, which on any hypothesis must have taken place at about this age; and in that case the Hebrews in Egypt will have been but a part of the Beduin allies of the Kadesh or Hyksos empire. . . . Likewise, the naive assumption of Josephus, who identifies the Hyksos with the Hebrews, may thus contain a kernel of truth, however accidental.19

    Breasted, therefore, concludes that the Hyksos were Semitic in origin and that the Israelites could somehow have been involved in the Hyksos movement. He suggests that the presence of the Hyksos provided a satisfactory environment for the entrance of Jacob and his family. Other archaeologists have echoed these ideas, but hardly anyone has seriously suggested that the Hyksos are one and the same as the Israelites, that is, no one except Josephus, as we have seen from Breasted’s writings.


The End of the Hyksos

    What does the secular record indicate regarding the end of the Hyksos in Egypt? The secular record indicates that as the years passed, the Hyksos were more and more coming into disrepute with the Egyptians. Finally, about 1600 B.C., their removal from political leadership began to take place. Avaris, the capital in the north, fell after a siege of some years and the power of the Hyksos was broken. This was near 1580-1560 B.C. during Ahmose I’s reign. He was the first king of the 18th Dynasty, the Dynasty during which, in later years, the Israelites departed from Egypt.

    The conclusions of Van Seters regarding the end of the Hyksos must be identified with the Israelites. He wrote:

The defeat of the foreign dynasty was the result of a civil war, and the foreign population which was probably not very numerous simply continued to live in the Eastern Delta.20

    Can this secular solution offered by Van Seters and others regarding the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt be correlated with the Israelites? It probably can be.

    The first king of the 18th Dynasty was Ahmose I. He began to reign about 1580 B.C. One of his first efforts was to remove the

Asiatic or Hyksos from political office. Because some of them had become rulers of the kingdom, this amounted almost to civil war. Since we are suggesting that the Hyksos were the Israelites, let us reconstruct this bit of history with this thought in view. Following Joseph’s death, the Israelites became increasingly prominent in politics; some became rulers in the land. In 1580 B.C., Ahmose I began to change the situation. Under his energetic leadership, the warlike element of the Israelites were driven from the land. He probably stripped the Israelites of all political authority and may have begun to enslave them. Ahmose I was followed by his son Amenhotep I who reigned at least ten years and consolidated the gains of his father.

    No evidence is presently available as to whether Amenhotep’s successor, Thutmose I, was his son, but in 1540 or 1535 B.C., Thutmose I began to reign. One of his major tasks was to bring into subjection the land of Nubia and after that the land of Syria in which the fires of potential rebellion were burning. Biographies of two of his soldiers indicate his conquest was carried into northern Palestine and possibly beyond to the Euphrates River. The battle that followed resulted in a “great slaughter of Asiatic followed by the capture of a large number of prisoners.”²¹ This battle did not solve the problem of potential revolt by Syria (Palestine) for it was not until after twenty years of warfare, under Thutmose III, that Syria was finally completely crushed and placed securely under Egyptian domination.²²

    This probably sets the background for the Biblical statement of Exodus I. Joseph had died in 1806 B.C., about 270 years earlier. The Israelites who followed gradually had come into disrepute because of the desire of some of them to rule the country. Possibly as a result of Ahmose I’s victory over these Israelite leaders, the people of Israel were already in a condition of servitude. Thutmose I undoubtedly realized that the Israelites, who were ever increasing in number, had to be forcibly removed from power. Moreover, they were originally of the land of Palestine which was a part of Syria and which was now giving him so much difficulty. Therefore, he made his decision. Exodus 1:9-11:

And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land, Therefore they did

set over them taskmaster to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

    It could be that Thutmose I concluded that only by making complete slaves of the Israelites would they be prohibited from being able to rise again in power or enabled to join with the Asiatic of Palestine to attempt an overthrow of Egypt. All knowledge of the benevolent leadership of Joseph had cased to exist. The Israelites had become a threat to the kingdom, and he believed they had to be dealt with harshly. But the more they were oppressed the more they multiplied. The Bible records that finally the king decreed that all of the firstborn were to be killed. And so we are introduced to Moses and Princess Hatshepsut.


A Queen Is King

    Thutmose I, the pharaoh who fathered Thutmose III, had two sons and two daughters by his queen, Ahmose. She was the royal descendant of Ahmose I who was the first king of the 18th Dynasty. Both sons and one of the daughters of Thutmose I died in youth or in childbirth. The surviving daughter, Makere-Hatshepsut, was thus the only child of the old line. Because of her direct descent from Ahmose I, she was heir to the throne, even though Thutmose I had two additional sons by other queens. One of these other sons was to become Thutmose II and the other Thutmose III.

    Hatshepsut is of special interest to us because the timetable of her reign coincides with the timing of the Biblical events that involve Moses. She was the daughter of pharaoh. The Bible records that the daughter of pharaoh drew the baby Moses from the water and adopted him as her son. This would have been eighty years before the Exodus, the year 1527 B.C.

    The secular record shows that Hatshepsut began to reign about the same time as Thutmose III, which we will see must have been in 1501 B.C.,²³ and that she reigned either twenty or twenty one years. Thus, she must have died about 1480 B.C. The archaeological record furthermore shows that she was a strong, forceful, and energetic ruler. Unfortunately, no information has been found that gives her life span or age when she became ruler, but her mature actions as a ruler together with the relative short duration of her reign suggests that she was not too young when she began to reign. If she was about 15 when Moses was born, she would have been in her early forties when she

became ruler, and in her early sixties when she died. In any event, only she could have been the pharaoh from whom Moses fled when he killed the Egyptian, as we shall see presently. This kind of action, the attempt to kill Moses, is in agreement with the actions of a ruler who as a young princess made the mistake of sparing one of the hated Hebrews who now threatened the kingdom.

    Princess Hatshepsut, in all probability, named the Hebrew baby Moses because her own family name on one side was Ahmose and her father’s name was Thutmose. Mose in these names actually means son. Ahmose was thus “son of Ah.” Thutmose was “son of Thoth.” “Moses” coincides quite closely with the Hebrew word mashah, which means “to draw out,” but it does not necessarily follow, as many would suggest, that this is the reason he was called Moses.²⁴ Moreover, it would be strange indeed if an Egyptian princess gave her adopted son a name that identified him for life with the hated Hebrews. In Exodus 2:10, “And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water,” the emphasis more probably should be on “I” rather than on the “drew him out of the water.” She had found the baby. He was to be her son. Therefore, “Moses” fit perfectly.

    This suggests a very interesting thought. Jesus identified Himself with Israel by the phrase “Out of Egypt have I called my son” (Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:15). Moses is one of the greatest types of Christ; he, too, was called out of Egypt. Does Moses’ name, which means “son,” further identify him with Christ because Christ, too, was a “son” [Moses] called out of Egypt?

    The next incident in the Biblical passage that relates Hatshepsut to Moses occurred 40 years later. Moses was 40 years old when he killed an Egyptian and fled from Egypt, where the pharaoh sought to kill him (Exodus 2:15). Who was this pharaoh? As we have indicated, it could not have been Thutmose III who began to reign in 1501 B.C. and whom we believe died in the Red Sea. The Bible declares that the pharaoh who sought to kill him died while Moses was in Midian (Exodus 2:23, Exodus 4:19).

    The solution to our problem is simply that a co-regency existed at the time Moses fled from Egypt. Two kings were on the throne. One was Thutmose III, who had begun to reign 14 years earlier in 1501 B.C., and as we have seen, the other was Hatshepsut. Because of Hatshepsut’s royal blood lines, Thutmose III was forced to acknowledge her as co-regent. She, in fact, became the dominant ruler because of her superior royal blood lines, and she was given the title

of “king” even though she was a woman.²⁵ A typical inscription concerning her reign is that of a base inscription found on the Karnak Obelisks from Hatshepsut’s reign. There we read:

Live the female Horus . . . daughter of Amon-Re, his favorite, his only one, who exists by him, the splendid part of the All-Lord, whose beauty the spirits of Heliopolis fashioned; who hath taken the land like Irsu, whom he hath created to wear his diadem, who exists like Khepri (Hpry), who shines with crowns like “Him-of-the-Horizon,” the pure egg, the excellent seed, whom the two sorceresses reared, whom Amon himself caused to appear upon his throne in Hermonthis, whom he chose to protect Egypt, to “defend” the people, the female Horus, avengeress of her father, the oldest (daughter) of the “Bull-of-his-Mother,” whom Re begat to make for himself excellent seed upon earth for the well- being of the people; his living portrait, King of Upper and Lower Egypt. Makere (Hatshepsut), the electrum of kings.26

    Even though he was not a true son of King Hatshepsut, Moses’ position in the palace must have been of the highest stature. When Moses killed the Egyptian, Queen (or King) Hatshepsut no doubt realized the enormous risk she had taken in saving the Hebrew baby from death and raising him as her son. He had manifested superior wisdom and leadership qualities in the Egyptian court (Acts 7:22), but at the age of 40, he showed clearly that his sympathies were with the slaves, the Israelites, his own people. All the fears, which had been expressed by her father concerning a potential uprising by the Israelites, returned to her. What had she done?

    The only solution was to have her adopted son killed. King Hatshepsut, then, was no doubt the king who sought to kill Moses. No wonder he fled to the wilderness of Midian to tend sheep. No wonder he hesitated to return even forty years later.

    King Hatshepsut was preoccupied with the Israelites, which is clearly indicated in one of her inscriptions: “I raised up that which had gone to pieces formerly, since the Asiatics were in the midst of Avaris of the Northland.” “Asiatics” is a reference to the Israelites. Avaris is the same area of Egypt as the land of Goshen.

    According to the archaeological record, Hatshepsut died in about the year 1481.²⁷ which would have been about six years after Moses fled. The Bible records this fact in Exodus 2:23. Thutmose III continued to reign as sole ruler almost until Moses returned to lead

the Israelites from Egypt. Thus, only Hatshepsut could have the pharaoh who sought to kill Moses and who died while he was in Midian.


Summary

    We have seen some of the events that occurred within Egypt as Israel grew into a nation of possibly two million souls. We cannot positively identify them with the Hyksos. However, to find no record of this great nation which grew up in Egypt would seem very strange indeed. When we recall that they began with one of the greatest prime ministers Egypt ever had, Joseph, it would seem even more strange if no record of these people was available. On the other hand, what are we to think of all the archaeological findings about these mysterious Asiatics or “Hyksos” whose arrival and removal is so clouded, and who were present in Egypt when the Israelites were in Egypt? Also, it seems very suspicious that the Hyksos capital was in Avaris or Zoan in the land of Goshen where the Israelites lived. It certainly appears that the two people must be one and the same.

    It could be argued that the Exodus is unrecorded in the ancient secular records. If that is true, why should we expect the Israelites residence in Egypt to be noted in any of the archaeological records? There is a major difference between them, of course, for secular records can be consciously altered to suit the purpose of whoever writes them. The Exodus was a shattering dreadful defeat for Egypt with not even one ray of victory. There would not be any reason or compulsion to keep records of such an overwhelming, shameful defeat by a nation of slaves. There is, however, indirect archaeological testimony of the Exodus as we shall see in greater detail in the next chapter.

    We have introduced a number of pharaohs and dynasties into our discussion. Let us summarize by historical timetable the information thus far presented.

1888 B.C. Sesostris III became pharaoh. He was part of the middle kingdom or 12th Dynasty of Egypt. His father, Sesostris II, probably reigned during the previous 19 years and possibly came to an untimely death. 1886 B.C. Joseph became prime minister or grand vizier of Egypt under Sesostris III.

1877 B.C. The family of Joseph came to Egypt and took up residence in the land of Goshen. The city of Avaris (Zoan in the Bible), which was later called Tanis or Qantir was the capital. 1850 B.C. Sesostris III died after an exceedingly successful reign of 38 years. He was succeeded by another great 12th Dynasty pharaoh named Amenemhet III. Under his reign Joseph continued as prime minister. A canal bearing Joseph’s name was constructed at this time. 1806 B.C. Joseph died. 1802 B.C. Amenemhet III died after a 48-year reign. During his reign, Egypt was prosperous, tranquil, and productive. He was succeeded by Amenemhet IV who reigned for the brief period of nine years. During his reign, there was much internal strife for royal supremacy. 1791 B.C. Amenemhet IV died and was succeeded by the last pharaoh of the 12th Dynasty, Sebeknefrure. 1787 B.C. Sebeknefrure’s brief reign of four years ended and with it ended the 12th Dynasty. The 13th Dynasty began. The reigns of succeeding pharaohs were short and the empire began to dissolve. The Israelites, who no doubt were the Hyksos of archaeological fame, took advantage of the internal struggles to acquire a strong hand in the Egyptian government and in indeed some of them might have reigned as pharaoh during this period. 1580 B.C. (Approx.) Several dynasties ruled over Egypt since 1787 B.C. At this time, Ahmose I began to reign as the first king of the 18th Dynasty. He forcibly began to remove the Israelites (Hyksos) from political power. The most war-like Israelites were driven from the land and the Israelite nation began to be severely oppressed. Either this pharaoh or a closely succeeding pharaoh, such as Thutmose I could have been the king who “did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). 1560 B.C. (Approx.) Ahmose I was followed by his son Amenhotep I. Amenhotep I consolidated the gains of his father. 1540 B.C.- (Approx-) Thutmose I began to reign as king. 1535 B.C. He, too, was a continuation of the 18th Dynasty. He continued and probably intensified the oppressive measures against the Israelites, for he was ruling when Moses was born. His

animosity toward the Israelites was probably heightened by his troubles with Palestine and Syria. His reign was followed by that of his son Thutmose II. 1527 B.C. Moses was born at a time when a royal edict condemned all Hebrew boy babies to be destroyed. Princess Hatshepsut, a daughter of the king found him in the bulrushes and raised him as her son. 1501 B.C. Thutmose III began to reign as the greatest king of the 18th Dynasty. For approximately the first 25 years of his reign he was co-regent with Princess Hatshepsut. She regarded herself as a king and was the dominant ruler during this co-regency. 1487 B.C. Moses fled from Egypt. King Hatshepsut who had raised him to be her son, sought to kill him because of his evident loyalty for the Israelites. 1481 B.C. (Approx.) King Hatshepsut died and Thutmose III continued to reign until the time of the Exodus.