# Amenhotep II - pharoah of the Exodus?



## Pergamum (Dec 29, 2008)

Any archeologists out there? I've been fascinated with ancient cultures and archaeology. 

I have recently concluded, with many others, that Amenhotep II was the pharoah of the Exodus and not Ramses II. 

Any thought? Any links? I am gathering more literature (in PDF) to print as a book to read here.


----------



## Grymir (Dec 29, 2008)

I'm with you on this. Amenhotep II was the Pharaoh. I used many sources, but my biggest was a book called biblical archaeology. It's buried in my stack of books and I can't find it right now. I did an extensive study about 6 years ago when I taught Exodus. Ramses II doesn't even come close to 'fitting'.


----------



## Pergamum (Dec 29, 2008)

Ironically the best and most concise answersis from Yahoo answers: 

Why Amenhotep II should be pharaoh of Exodus? - Yahoo! Answers.

Yes, the Biblical Arhceology book helped convince me too.



They did find the mummy of Amenhotep the II..... so, does the Exodus account say Pharoah drowned or does it leave it open that he escaped?

Also, is Senusret II (sesostris) then Joseph?


And are the Hebrews the Habiru mentioned in the Amarna Tablets?

And who were the Hyksos?

-----Added 12/29/2008 at 02:58:20 EST-----

It appears there is a canal named after Yusuf in the time of Pharoah Sesostric II, whom presumably Joseph may have served under. This canal was to increase grain production.


----------



## Rocketeer (Dec 29, 2008)

This is all very interesting... CMI holds that the Pharaoh of the baby-slaughter was Amenemhet III, proposing a major revision of the records of the Egyptian dynasties. Their reasons include that Amenemhet III had a daughter without any progeny, and a mysterious son, Amenemhet IV, who _disappears mysteriously_, after possibly having coreigned with Amenemhet III. Furthermore, Amenemhet III and his father Sesostris III where rather unpleasant characters, it seems, both inflicting harsh slavery on their subjects. Also, great works were erected during the 12th dynasty, by _Asiatic slaves_, whose origins could not be determined. Furthermore, large boxes were found beneath the houses of the slaves, with two or three little children in them, killed a few months after birth. Evidence supports that the slaves left their homes in a sudden and unpremeditated manner. CMI thinks Amenemhet IV was Moses, and Amenemhet III's daughter Sobekneferu, who ruled for eight years after Amenemhet III's death, was the daughter of the Pharaoh in Genesis.

The Pharaoh Moses demanded Israel's release from, CMI thinks, was Khasekemre-Neferhotep, mainly because he was the last king who ruled Egypt before the Hyksos occupied it _without a battle_; CMI thinks the army was at the bottom of the Red Sea.

More scholars support this revision, CMI's article explains. Link: Searching for Moses - Journal of Creation (TJ)

Interesting, isn't it? One snippet I want to include is a later papyrus in the Museum of Leiden, which scholars recognize as being a copy of an earlier version; the evidence for the ten plagues is striking. I quote:



> Nay, but the heart is violent. Plague stalks through the land and blood is everywhere … . Nay, but the river is blood. Does a man drink from it? As a human he rejects it. He thirsts for water … . Nay, but gates, columns and walls are consumed with fire … . Nay but men are few. He that lays his brother in the ground is everywhere … . Nay but the son of the high-born man is no longer to be recognized … . The stranger people from outside are come into Egypt … . Nay, but corn has perished everywhere. People are stripped of clothing, perfume and oil. Everyone says "there is no more". The storehouse is bare … . It has come to this. The king has been taken away by poor men.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2008)

Thank you much for that article. I am preaching in the early chapters of Exodus, just getting to the plagues. While I have not paid much attention to the archaeological data, I find it very heartening to read articles like the one linked above. The author's conclusions are very close to the ones I have come to simply from the text, only he has done literal spade-work and found data that corroborates the biblical record.

I appreciated his explanation (see his footnotes) that the 430 years last from Abraham to the Exodus, per Gal.3.17 (the oppression of the seed-of-promise starts with Ishmael, Gen.21:9). This is a conclusion I have followed as the background to preaching the Exodus.


----------



## PresbyDane (Dec 29, 2008)

Thanks for sharing, I find the archaeology references/proof very interesting in biblical studies.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 29, 2008)

Very interesting article.


----------



## LadyFlynt (Dec 29, 2008)

*nm...he misread the text.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 29, 2008)

Yes, I think he is. I got excited after reading an article by Waltke in my OTI class this semester, so I started doing some digging. Ramses is impossible by Biblical dating. Amenhotep II fits everything, including the later mention of the Habiru in the Amarna Letters. Then I stumbled across an Ineni, the chief administrator over all Egypt and head of the building projects, who would also fit neatly as Joseph. Next semester I have a class on Exodus, where I can test my new hypothesis for the crossing right across the Gulf of Aqaba, which since I seem to be going native here, I call the _Deep South Hypothesis._ I sense the presence of the Glory Cloud...


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Dec 29, 2008)

Peter,
I think that is a very sound hypothesis, and feel it has been neglected, in favor of more traditional interpretations.

I am convinced on the strength of the whole Biblical witness, taken as a whole (the Law, the OT stretching into the book of 1 Kings, and Elijah's visit to Horeb, etc.) to the Apostle Paul (..."Mt. Sinai in Arabia..."), that Israel went deep into the "Sinai" peninsula, where Pharaoh was thinking he had them well in his power, and cut off for destruction. When God opened the sea for them, and they ended up in "Midian", the historic land of that people on the east of the Red Sea.


----------



## LawrenceU (Dec 29, 2008)

Add to that the issue that at one time there was a stelle on the Arabian peninsula that some have claimed dates to the time of Solomon marking the spot where they exited, and the fact that there is an underwater 'land bridge' in the southern part of the sea with deep drops on each side, and the fact that several times throughout history the Sinai peninsula was under Egyptian control and it begins to look very likely.


----------



## Stomata leontôn (Dec 29, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Peter,
> I think that is a very sound hypothesis, and feel it has been neglected, in favor of more traditional interpretations.
> 
> I am convinced on the strength of the whole Biblical witness, taken as a whole (the Law, the OT stretching into the book of 1 Kings, and Elijah's visit to Horeb, etc.) to the Apostle Paul (..."Mt. Sinai in Arabia..."), that Israel went deep into the "Sinai" peninsula, where Pharaoh was thinking he had them well in his power, and cut off for destruction. When God opened the sea for them, and they ended up in "Midian", the historic land of that people on the east of the Red Sea.



Thanks. Way back in elementary school, in Bible class, I never found the usual maps of the Israelites crossing a pond very convincing. How could all of Pharaoh's army have drowned there? Besides denying the truthfulness of the Bible, it seemed an awful lot of explanation: wouldn't part of Pharaoh's army just have met them on the other side? If one wanted to find a variant "historical core" inside the Biblical narrative, wouldn't it be easier just to say they had boats waiting?

But the identification of Amenhotep II, by way of the now more established early dating, makes it very difficult to posit Ramses as the Pharaoh, and so there is no longer any need to find a city of Ramses somewhere near the Mediterranean. Thus, the new consensus surrounding the early date (see Waltke of WTS) will make it easier to establish a crossing deep south, and thus reaffirm the perspicuity of Scripture. (I've checked the width and depth of the Gulf of Aqaba, and a dry bed could be crossed on foot in less than a day.)


----------



## Anton Bruckner (Dec 29, 2008)

Sesotris 3 is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Donovan Courville's reconstruction is the best.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donovan_Courville


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Dec 29, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Ironically the best and most concise answersis from Yahoo answers:
> 
> Why Amenhotep II should be pharaoh of Exodus? - Yahoo! Answers.
> 
> ...



Yeah, I've thought for a while Amenhotep II fit perfectly. To me the most convincing argument is Sesotric II as Joseph, who fits the profile perfectly, not to mention the Habiru, etc. Plus, it fits much better with the dating of the Conquest of the Promised Land, especially the destruction of Jericho. Basically, everything falls into place pretty neatly with Amenhotep II as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. 

I've never really read a serious criticism of this theory. Anyone know if it poses any problems with Biblical history/chronology?


----------

