Ancient Israel in Egypt: Through a Glass, Darkly

By Daniel Tompsett

This book looks back over thousands of years to explore the period in Egyptian history when the Bible identifies that Ancient Israel was resident in Egypt. It asks and answers one very simple question: What new things can we learn about this period of history if we treat the Bible as a valid historical document? Whereas this topic is often approached from either the perspective of the Bible or Egyptology, this work genuinely attempts to occupy the ground between the two. It uses Scripture like a torch carried into the deepest recesses of the established historical facts and theories concerning the late Middle Kingdom period, the Second Intermediate period, and the early New Kingdom period in Egyptian history. Along the way, it considers some of the latest discoveries, innovations, and theories from the world of Egyptology and unearths a trove of tangible points of connection. As such, the narrative forms a two-way perspective, where the biblical account illuminates stubbornly opaque moments in Egyptian history and chronology and where the meticulous work of Egyptologists provides appropriate additional background to the Bible. The result is a sharper perspective of an ancient account that has a surprisingly current application for us all.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Wipf and Stock
• Release date: Feb 7, 2023
• ISBN: 9781666741582

Daniel Tompsett

Daniel Tompsett earned his PhD from Queen Mary, University of London. He is a senior researcher in professional services and author of several books and journal articles on the themes of literature, philosophy, history, Egyptology, and biblical studies.

Book preview

Introduction

In the period surrounding the turn of the last millennium, something notable occurred. Several voices raised objections to the validity of the biblical account of ancient Israel in Egypt, the exodus, and entry into the promised land. Nothing new in that of course, but these voices were distinct amid the usual swirl of interest, which to a greater or lesser extent always follows the account of the exodus. What was notable was that the voices belonged to capable, eminent and respected Israeli archaeologists and Jewish rabbis.

One of those voices was raised by Ze’ev Herzog, professor of archaeology at Tel Aviv University. His subsequently famous article in the Haaretz newspaper was published on October 29, 1999. Dominating the front page, the headline read, The Bible: No evidence on the ground. The cover bore the image of two of the spies sent into Canaan. They were shown straining under a pole bearing the single bunch of grapes brought from the Valley of Eshcol. In the article Herzog declared that:

the Israelites were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the

12

tribes of Israel.¹

Earlier in May of the same year in which Herzog made his comments, Ehud Barak had defeated Benjamin Netanyahu in a national election to take up what would be a short tenure as prime minister. Peace talks with the Palestinians ensued, as did a withdrawal by the Israelis from Southern Lebanon. In Israel, and perhaps beyond, the question of whether ancient Israel departed Egypt via the exodus, or not, can quickly have sociopolitical implications.

Following the Camp David Summit in July 2000, Mr. Barak’s effort for peace evaporated with the second intifada (uprising). New elections were then held in February 2001, following the resignation of Mr. Barak in December 2000. Another voice heard in the year of the elections belonged to prominent Israeli archaeologist Israel Finkelstein. In his book written with Neil Silberman, titled The Bible Unearthed (2001), Finkelstein famously said that the biblical account of Israel in Egypt and the exodus to the promised land is a brilliant product of the human imagination.²

Finkelstein’s views have had a resounding influence. On Passover Sunday in the same year as Finkelstein’s book came out, the senior rabbi at Los Angeles’ Sinai Temple in Westwood, Rabbi David Wolpe famously declared the following to his 2,200 listeners:

The truth is that virtually every modern archaeologist who has investigated the story of the Exodus, with very few exceptions, agrees that the way the Bible describes the Exodus is not the way it happened, if it happened at all.³

Wolpe’s view appears to be that this is just fine for faith. For this kind of perspective, it doesn’t appear to matter if the exodus was a factual occurrence or simply another story; it just matters that we believe that it is true today.

Yet if the teachers, religious authorities and interpreters of history descended from the man Jacob (Israel) do not even believe the account of their own origins, then what hope is there for the aspects of the biblical message concerning faith and practice for everyone? How could it be possible for anyone to come to know God as a reality if what the Bible says he performed cannot be trusted? As faith is the evidence of things not seen, then is it the case that belief needs to exist in a vacuum, absent of all historical and archaeological facts and credibility? Should faith only be abutted to a few stories and myths that have no basis in the historical record? Alternatively, should belief in events occurring to ancient Israel be used as a means of entrenchment in a battle of divided political identity today? It seems that a lot is riding on the accusations leveled against the integrity of the Bible and the account that it provides for everyone.

Over twenty years on and voices of objection can still be heard of course. Skepticism towards the biblical account arises from many quarters and for multiple different reasons. However, not all scholars have followed Herzog, Finkelstein, and Wolpe down the skeptical path when it comes to the evidence for ancient Israel in Egypt. Irrespective of their differences of focus, interpretation, and approach, academics such as Bryant G. Wood, James K. Hoffmeier, John J. Bimson, and David M. Rohl have been prepared to take the biblical record at face value and treat it with equality. They are content to set the biblical text alongside any other historical document that provides precise geographic and historical markers and assess it in context of the archaeological evidence. The scholarly integrity of Hoffmeier’s two seminal works, Israel in Egypt (1996) and Ancient Israel in Sinai (2005), provide a detailed and powerful counterargument for any decrying a lack of evidence.

While this work will divert from several of the conclusions at which these eminent scholars arrive, it will look to revisit the question of ancient Israel in Egypt. In doing so it will reassess the evidence in the archaeological and historical record to weigh it against what the Bible says happened. In many cases, as would be desirable for the integrity of the work, that process has required the author to change perspective along the way. That process is unlikely to cease even now that the book has crystallized.

Not all of the facts that would allow a perfect comparison to be made are still available. Thousands of years have taken their toll on the physical phenomena involved. Some elements have inevitably disappeared forever. In certain cases perhaps as much as 90 percent of the evidence may have vanished. However, with what remains taken together with recent discoveries emerging out of the ground, the available evidence still allows for a compelling journey of discovery. These fragments, properly orbiting to the biblical account, can still form a single historical picture. That image, while obscured by the millennia, can still be perceived. Yet to do so, we may have to first change our perspective of how we look at it.

Scope and Aims of the Work

This work undertakes a review of the period in Egyptian history when the Bible says ancient Israel were resident there. It asks one very simple question: what happens if we take the Bible at face value and believe what it tells us of this period in history? It is not an original question, but it is one that many have asked and not fully followed through. As such the approach takes the biblical chronology and analyzes and compares the detail in the Bible, predominantly from the sojourn up to the exodus, with what is known of Egyptian history of the corresponding period. The full scope of the work runs from the life of Jacob and Joseph through to the death of Moses on Mount Nebo. However, while we will revisit Moses at the end of his life on Nebo, this work does not deal with the forty-year period of ancient Israel wandering in the wilderness prior to entering the promised land.

Biblical scholarship and Egyptology have been viewed as uncomfortable bedfellows by some over the centuries.⁴ Undoubtedly at times they have been, perhaps with a degree of myopia on both sides. Some biblical scholars in history have been guilty of jumping the gun out of an express desire to find what the Bible specifies, but without due attention to the facts extant in the disciplines of Egyptology and history.

The prevailing norm has also been for a majority of Egyptologists to somewhat skeptically approach the Bible from the perspective of what was perceived to have been happening in Egypt. While that may be understandable for a discipline that is in essence a logos on Egypt, it has at times been hampered by a lack of serious engagement with the depth of detail available in Scripture.⁵ Widely recognized are the sensible reasons for acknowledging the connections between Egyptian archaeology and that of the neighboring Levant. A fulcrum for that sensible connection is the eastern Nile Delta. The irony however is that the good sense of this approach mirrors the sequentially inhabited geography of the people of ancient Israel in the period under review. It applies from their entering Egypt from Canaan, to settling in the Delta, to departing Egypt for Canaan again after the exodus.

The objective of this study is to apply the detail in Scripture and see how far the integrity of the Bible, both historically and chronologically, can actually help to provide additional insight into what was happening in Egypt and why. By the same token, the opposite direction of travel will allow the historical facts to potentially flesh out more of the background detail concerning the periods that Scripture points to. The aim is to positively engage with some of the latest facts distilled within Egyptology. What becomes clear is that the Bible does point to periods in Egyptian history that harmoniously chime with the events written down as part of the Pentateuch.

However, one of the challenges with viewing those events is that no matter the precision of the biblical telling, they have to be projected onto the fractured screen of Egyptian chronology. The chronology of ancient Egypt is itself an impure science due to gaps in the evidence and disputes among academics. While the biblical chronology remains fixed and retains its integrity, the issues with which Egyptologists have long struggled mean that this work is chiefly concerned with pointing to the confluence in events within certain key periods. As such, while we will deal with particulars of potential circumstance, chronology, and personalities, no definitive assertions are possible, here or elsewhere, all the while questions of chronology at the Egyptian end of the equation remain unresolved. Therefore no assertion made here is beyond further question or new evidence that shows it to be an incorrect observation. That said, this work uses the biblical chronology like a magnet to see where the greatest number of iron filings that constitute Egyptian chronology gather to the strength of the biblical chronology.

In the end then, this approach will allow the facts available in the Bible to offer small hypothetical repairs to some disputed areas of Egyptian history. Any such repairs will not be flawless. They may necessarily resemble something more like the beauty of kintsugi. As such the scenarios can still potentially contribute to the collective effort to mend some of the shattered aspects found in the disparate and disputed chronologies constructed by Egyptologists to date. It is to the broken nature of those chronological fractures that we now turn.

Chronic Chronologies for Ancient Egypt

Most attempts to date the exodus that take the Bible into consideration place it within the New Kingdom period that began with the Eighteenth Dynasty. However, dates within Egyptology are often approximate and scholars differ on when precisely to pin down important periods in Egyptian history. While a broad confluence exists, several problems still remain.

Egyptian chronology is reliant upon a combination of astrological events, king lists, various papyri, inscriptions, and ancient writers to arrive at approximate dates. In terms of ancient histories, much of the structure of Egyptian chronology leans upon the fragmentary writings of the third-century-BCE Ptolemaic-era priest named Manetho. Manetho was commissioned by his Greek rulers to write a history of Egypt, aptly named the Aegyptiaca. Manetho’s own writings are lost to time. However, other ancient writers such as Flavius Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea and Sextus Julius Africanus recorded significant extracts from his writings that are available to us today.

As well as Manetho, two fixed astrological events also underpin much of the conventional chronology of the Middle and New Kingdoms of Egypt. These take the form of textual records of the rising of Sothis (Sirius). The first is a Twelfth Dynasty letter from the site of Illahun (El Lahun) that suggests that a rising of Sothis was predicted for Day 16, Month 4, of Season 2 in Year 7 of the reign of Senusret III.⁶ The second comes from an Eighteenth Dynasty medical papyrus known as the Ebers Papyrus. Found at the Theban Necropolis, it recorded an observation of a rising of Sothis dated to Year 9, Month 3, Season 3, Day 9 (c. May 15) of the reign of Amenhotep I.⁷ Both records have allowed dates for these two reigns to be pinpointed with greater precision.⁸ It is upon these two linchpins that much Middle and New Kingdom chronology depends.⁹

However, while it is known where the records of these events originate from, the location within Egypt where these risings were observed is not known. The difference of hundreds of miles between a sighting at Memphis in the north or at Thebes to the south amounts to a difference of several years in the chronology. Equally, a sighting could have also been recorded elsewhere, such as at Elephantine (Aswan), as Detlef Franke and Rolf Krauss have argued.¹⁰ Alternatively, the American Egyptologist William Ward has suggested that they are likely to have been separate local observations.¹¹ This he proposed could even have led to a time lag as to when various Egypt-wide festivals were actually celebrated, dependent on where you were.¹²

One result of these moving targets is to end up with both a high (Memphis or other observation location in the north) or low (Thebes or other observation location made in the south) dating model for the beginning of the crucial period of the New Kingdom with the Eighteenth Dynasty.¹³ Yet as well as different interpretations of where to fix the early New Kingdom chronology according to the known Sothic rising from the reign of Amenhotep I, further divergence exists amongst scholars. This includes a difference in opinion on important factors such as the lengths of the reigns of individual Egyptian kings, questions as to the extent Manetho can be relied upon, the existence and length of coregencies, the value of radiocarbon dating, as well as interpretations of the full range of astronomical evidence. In view of these kinds of difficulties and variations in approach to solving the problems across the Egyptian chronology, the situation may seem hopeless. Reflecting on these kinds of issues, Ward famously observed in 1992 that a precise Egyptian chronology is therefore not possible.¹⁴

However, despite the challenges within the New Kingdom chronology, there is still a good level of information to work from within a range of credible dates. By the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty the divergence in dating narrows to a mere three or four years.¹⁵ Even within the late Seventeenth and early Eighteenth Dynasties (which are a central concern for this study) approximate epochs still exist for assessing the evidence. This work broadly concurs with Ward’s conclusion that, given the local administrative nature of the documentation recording the Sothic risings,¹⁶ these observations were likely made where they were recorded.¹⁷ Further, in consideration of Ward, Kenneth Kitchen and Richard Parker, the findings of this study suggest that a northern sighting may render a higher date of c. 1872 BCE¹⁸ for Year 7 of Senusret III more accurate.¹⁹ It also finds greater accuracy in a low date for the beginning of the New Kingdom (where the issue is less acute) as aligned with the reign of Ahmose I, at the earliest from c. 1550 BCE and very likely no later than the very low date of c. 1539.²⁰

One scholar of ancient Egyptian chronology who has been advocating the Bible as a credible historical source is Rohl. Rohl has written several insightful books dealing with Israel in Egypt and several other themes from the Hebrew scriptures. These include works such as A Test of Time (1995), The Lords of Avaris (2007), Legend: The Genesis of Civilisation (1998), The Lost Testament (2002) and Exodus: Myth or History? (2014). Rohl has advocated the accuracy of the biblical timeline in contrast to views put forward by a range of authors such as Herzog, Finkelstein, Silberman, Matthew Sturgis and John McCarthy, to name a few.

However, concluding that the extant Egyptian chronologies were wrong, Rohl has proposed his radical New Chronology. His views have at times clashed with Kitchen, an expert on biblical history, the Ramesside Period, and the Third Intermediate Period of Egyptian history. While Rohl’s intriguing New Chronology is not adopted here, his respect for the Bible as a historically accurate document, infectious enthusiasm and lack of religious agenda make his knowledge and approach to Israel in Egypt always both fascinating and insightful.

The thesis presented in this book follows the biblical chronology first and foremost. It will aim to approach the Bible as providing the only fixed point for the period of Jacob and his descendants in Egypt. The opportunity that presents itself from that approach, believing the Bible, is to be able to make an assessment as to which interpretation of the New Kingdom chronology of Egypt provides the greatest confluence with the biblical detail, knowing that any conclusions are unlikely to be definitively proven.

While ultimately leaning towards Ward’s general principle of a local observation of Sothic risings, this work begins by entertaining both the high and low chronologies based on a northern or southern observation location of the Sothic rising in the reign of Amenhotep I. Even where we point to specifics, the approach taken here allows for the fact that important pieces of information may still be missing that would alter the picture. Equally, we will always allow for the scenario that some important pieces of the extant puzzle may later prove to have been added in error.

In the end, having worked through the period from its beginning to the moment of the exodus, we will point to an extant Egyptian chronology that the distilled analysis appears to suggest best matches the biblical timeframe and detail. However, given the challenges of Egyptian chronology, that is done knowing that it remains more on the side of open conjecture than of closed irrefutable fact.

Structure of the Work

This work will analyze Israel’s time in Egypt beginning with the pharaoh of the exodus. From here it will work through a detailed analysis of the biblical and historical accounts that align with the period of the sojourn and the period of the enslavement. The final two chapters concerning aspects of the life of Moses will ostensibly bring the work full circle.

Chapter 1 begins by asking the perennial question as to who the pharaoh of the exodus was. Chapter 2 then asks and answers the similarly deceptively simple question of from where the exodus began. To do that in both cases the analysis peels back through layers of time and supposition using the biblical chronology and the recent discoveries and theories of archaeologists and historians. This allows us to arrive at a more credible foundation than the prevailing assumptions, if one still subject to the instabilities of Egyptian chronology.

Chapter 3 asks who the rulers and people were who lived where the Bible tells us the Israelites lived and in the same period of time. It analyzes the confluences between the people historians tell us lived there and what the Bible says of those who did. Chapter 4 then analyzes the changing political situation in Egypt during the first part of the Second Intermediate Period, which approximately aligns with much of the period of the sojourn following the death of Jacob and Joseph. This analysis looks at the available evidence for the nature of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Dynasties of Egypt. From this it assesses what the ramifications of change may have been for Israel during the sojourn. Chapter 5 investigates whether a Fifteenth Dynasty comprised of foreigners oppressed Egypt from the Nile Delta towards the end of the Second Intermediate Period and towards the end of the sojourn.

Chapter 6 then pauses to delve into the pagan practices evident during the Second Intermediate Period in the midst of the land of Goshen. It questions to what extent the evidence implicates the descendants of Jacob in those practices. It also assesses the geographic origins of the practices known to have been undertaken in the eastern Nile Delta, and compares them with the ancestral heritage of Israel. In this context, it also analyzes the practices of Jacob’s family before entering Egypt, while they were there and after the exodus.

Chapter 7 asks the question of who the pharaoh was who did not know Joseph, in context of the rulers at Thebes towards the end of the Seventeenth Dynasty. Chapter 8 then carries the same question forward into the rise of the New Kingdom to apply it to the main actors at the inception of the Eighteenth Dynasty. The question addressed in these two chapters is another perennial one. However, the analysis takes a deep reading of the sources within the period to identify the personalities and known actions that best align with the biblical chronology.

Chapter 9 analyzes scenarios for the beginning of the period of the enslavement. It reviews the biblical account in context of the known history and traces key moments of potential alignment. The analysis conducted in chapters 7, 8 and 9 should provide the necessary vantage to see more evidence gathering around one approximate Egyptian chronology, assuming that in itself is correct. It should then retroactively provide additional chronological clarity for the preceding chapters. This evidence is sufficient to propose the identified chronology as more credible, but is not sufficient to put the matter beyond all doubt.

Chapter 10 then attempts to peer some decades further on into the period of the enslavement, but prior to the buildup to the exodus. It compares the detail of the arrival and settling of Jacob in Egypt, as given in the Bible, with the evidence from Egyptian history that likely constitutes this later time in the period of enslavement. The conclusions of this analysis are then picked up in chapter 11 in order to identify and theorize upon additional areas of continuity where the narratives may overlap and intertwine.

The possible identity of the pharaoh whom Joseph aided during the famine is explored in chapter 12. This was also the pharaoh who settled Jacob and his family in the land of Goshen. The chapter undertakes to follow the biblical chronology and then weigh the evidence available within Egyptian history and archaeology, as well as assessing changes in attitude and practice within the national political climate. Chapter 13 then pursues a possible cause of the famine in Egypt during which Joseph was supreme vizier of Egypt and Jacob arrived in the land.

The final two chapters will leverage the preceding historical analysis to locate possible scenarios for the circumstances in Egypt operating in the background of the life of Moses. Given that the first eighty years of the life of Moses overlap with the period of Israel’s enslavement, it is that time in Egyptian history that will be analyzed for potential points of connection. Therefore chapter 14 analyzes the historical background to Moses’ birth in a consideration of his life up to the age of forty. Chapter 15 then initially provides a reading of his next forty years up to the age of eighty. As such the chapters run chronologically from the period of Moses’ birth during the oppression through to the exodus. Passing over the wilderness wandering of the last forty years of Moses’ 120-year lifespan, chapter 15 then closes with some thoughts upon the historical backdrop to the death of Moses upon Mount Nebo. As such the chapter provides a sketch of the last eighty years of the life of Moses in context of the evidence procured from the preceding chapters.

The conclusion to the work touches on the bigger-picture implications for Israel’s deliverance from Egypt as they apply to all of us living in the world of today. Thereafter the final focus is found in three appendices reserved for elaboration on the most convincing or interesting alternative theories not adopted in the first tier of the main work here. Some of these theories cannot be entirely dismissed by what has preceded. The chronological approach not ultimately adopted here means that they retain potential credibility until more facts come to light. Some of these may turn out to be pure fiction, but others remain distinct possibilities until definitively proven otherwise. This in itself is one reason why the majority of chapter titles in this book are posed as questions rather than statements of fact. While the biblical account provides dependable knowledge, the known history is distinctly fragmentary. Ultimately the range of missing historical information means that nothing is off the table even after pointing to what this work has distilled and interpreted to be the firmest route through the marshes of the unknown.

1

. Herzog, The Bible: No Evidence on the Ground,

6–8

.

2

. Finkelstein and Silberman, The Bible Unearthed,

1

.

3

. Greenspahn, The Hebrew Bible, xi. See also: Watanabe, Doubting the Story of Exodus.

4

. Hoffmeier’s voice of reason provides a helpful history of the balance of the scales of opposing interests. Advocating a civil debate, Hoffmeier also points to a reheating of the debate in more recent times. See: Hoffmeier, Ancient Israel in Sinai,

52–53

.

5

. A major stumbling block appears to be the origin of the constituents of a future nation in Egypt from a single man, Jacob/Israel. Certainly all identifiable, non-native nationalities and cultures clearly discernible within ancient Egypt are studied in great detail. However, greater detail of peoples entering Egypt, particularly from Canaan, would be of great benefit. As Burke has advocated, a closer analysis of subgroups in the eastern Nile Delta would be useful. See: Burke, Amorites in the Eastern Nile Delta,

71

. The term Proto-Israelites is often utilized, sometimes in a fairly skeptical manner. One difficulty of identification is that any serious treatment of the Israelites themselves is often perpetually precluded by having already been subsumed behind generic ancient Egyptian terms predominantly denoting broad geographic origin, such as Aamu (Asiatics), meaning anyone living to the east of Egypt. Therefore the direction of investigation here will be to identify a large, cohesive Canaanite population that grew in number in Egypt from a much smaller number of pastoralists. These Canaanite pastoralists will also have to have been settled with royal approval in the Middle Kingdom and their descendants will need to have remained in Egypt until the New Kingdom. The detail of the historical facts concerning this period will also need to align with the detail of the biblical narrative. This process of identification will also need to perfectly synchronize with the correct points in the chronology that the Bible points to, as far as the Egyptian chronology holds water.

6

. Papyrus Berlin

10012

A VS, from Illahun (El Lahun).

7

. This would likely date the Sothic rising in Year

9

of Amenhotep I to a range of approximately

1523–1517

BCE if observed at Thebes and potentially lower dates if observed further south. See: Ward, The Present Status,

59

; and Helck et al., Lexikon der Ägyptologie,

969

. The evidence considered by this study would argue for the greater accuracy of the lower end of that range and possibly even a year or two later, at c.

1516

/

15

BCE. Relatively few records were left by Amenhotep I, or by his father, Ahmose I. See: Clayton, Chronicle of the Pharaohs.

8

. Despite that fact, these dates are still not definitive.

9

. See also: Shaw, Introduction,

9–10

.

10

. See: Franke, Zur Chronologie des Mittleren Reiches Teil I,

113–38

; and Krauss, Sothis und Monddaten,

63–72

.

11

. Ward, The Present Status,

53–66

.

12

. Ward, The Present Status,

53–66

.

13

. Significant differences of opinion exist concerning these dates. With regard to the New Kingdom, high, middle and low dates have been utilized. See, for example, with regard to the accession of Thutmose III: Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel,

104

n

23

. For more on the chronology of Egypt in general, see: Ward, The Present Status,

53–66

; Kitchen, The Chronology of Ancient Egypt,

201–8

; Kitchen, Basics of Egyptian Chronology,

37–55

; Redford, Pharaonic King-Lists; and Parker, The Calendars of Ancient Egypt.

14

. Ward, The Present Status,

53–66

.

15

. Ward, The Present Status,

56

.

16

. The Theban document concerned the timing of the application of medicine and the Illahun letter the timing of a local festival.

17

. The breadth of concurrence with Ward here allows for an observation in the wider vicinity of where the sighting was recorded. That said, the possibility also remains that the Illahun record could have been observed at Memphis. Whereas the Sothic rising recorded on the medical papyrus in the reign of Amenhotep I was located at the capital, Thebes, Memphis, as the other major center would only have been c. seventy-six miles north of Illahun. That kind of range between the point of observation and the point of recording seem plausible, such that it could have been observed further to the north.

18

. The year

1872

BCE is not the only date posited for the Sothic rising. The years

1866

BCE and

1831–1830

BCE have also been proposed. See: Manning et al., "The Course of

14

C Dating Does Not Run Smooth,"

70–81

; and Kitchen, The Strengths and Weaknesses of Egyptian Chronology,

293–308

; and Schneider, Das Ende der kurzen Chronologie,

275–313

.

19

. See: Bronk Ramsey et al., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology,

1554–57

; Gautschy, Lunar and Sothic Data,

53–61

; and Manning et al., "High-Precision Dendro-

14

C Dating,"

401–16

.

20

. See: Ward, The Present Status,

53–66

; Kitchen, Basics of Egyptian Chronology,

37–55

; and Parker, The Sothic Dating,

177–89

. In one sense, the official start of the New Kingdom had likely occurred by

1530

BCE. See: Bryan, "The

18

th Dynasty before the Amarna Period,"

207

.

1

Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?

It is a simple enough question. Yet over the centuries the identity of the pharaoh of the biblical exodus has been a subject of ongoing debate.¹ Theories and suppositions have abounded and yet no one has been able to definitively identify the precise pharaoh to the satisfaction of all. A long list of names have been considered over the years, ranging from the renegade heretic Akhenaten to the iconic Tutankhamun.

Given the readily available biblical narrative and the ever-expanding archaeological insights of Egyptologists, it is perhaps surprising that this mystery has not yet been solved. In this chapter we revisit some of the evidence and opinions for three of the most hotly debated candidates from a long list.

Are the Names of Pharaohs a Taboo Subject in the Bible?

Before we look at prospective candidates, the first question to address is why the pharaoh of the exodus is simply not named by Moses himself in the book of Exodus. Moses notably omits the throne-name, or praenomen, of the protagonist Egyptian kings who appear in that book.² Is it because God doesn’t want us to know the name?

Certainly, in terms of belief, practice and faith, the name does not matter at all. In the account, God makes it clear that his purpose through the events of the exodus is to make himself known as the Lord to both to the Israelites and to the Egyptians. At the same time he says he will exercise judgment against the false gods of Egypt. As such he is not involving himself in the deliverance of Israel to uphold the name of pharaoh of course. However, given that elsewhere the Bible does provide the names of several pharaohs, clearly merely naming them in Scripture is not a taboo.

This implies that not naming them in the book of Exodus is less about censorship and more about the convention at the time of writing. One explanation could well be that, in context of the biblical chronology, during the period that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, the word pharaoh still more commonly just meant Great House (per ‘aa).³ In the Old Kingdom, well before the exodus, pharaoh was the word for a literal palace, not a person. In fact it was a term ascribed by foreigners. It referred to a royal house or dynasty and not to an individual. English translations of the Hebrew Bible use that term. However, it is also the Hebrew Bible that is the original source for the idea of calling all Egyptian kings pharaohs. As such the term was transferred metonymically—meaning one thing has been named by its close association with another thing. Yet we should understand that the title of pharaoh was not originally one of the king’s formal titles from the perspective of the Egyptians themselves. It only later became a term denoting respect.

Today, English translations of Exodus 1 initially refer to a king of Egypt, shifting to the word pharaoh in the account of the Hebrew midwives. The change in the usage of the word pharaoh as a metonym of respect, rather than a designation of a Great House, is thought to have occurred during the New Kingdom, at some point in the middle of the Eighteenth Dynasty. A development in perspective based on where Moses stood in time also seems to account for the absence of a specific name in the books of the Bible that Moses wrote down. Hoffmeier, an American Old Testament and Near Eastern history and archaeology scholar, has observed that, From its inception until the tenth century [BC], the term ‘Pharaoh’ stood alone, without juxtaposed personal name. In subsequent periods, the name of the monarch was generally added on.⁴

The pharaoh Abraham met is not specifically named. Nor is the pharaoh who established Joseph as supreme vizier and settled Jacob in the land of Rameses. Neither are any pharaohs that Joseph may have continued to serve and certainly lived under. The pharaoh who did not know Joseph is not named, nor the pharaoh who died while Moses was in Midian, nor the pharaoh of the exodus. However, for pharaohs who reigned after about 950 BCE, specific names do appear in the Hebrew scriptures together with the honorary title of pharaoh.⁵ This fact would certainly at least point to a cultural change in convention in modes of address, rather than a need for secret identities.

The Hollywood Angle

The result of such convention is that the Bible itself does not record the name of the pharaoh of the exodus. Despite that fact, many believe that the most likely candidate was Ramesses II (1279–1213 BCE), also known as Ramesses the Great. Certainly Hollywood, known for its artistic license when it comes to biblical topics, has promoted the case for this prominent pharaoh. Some of these movies also propose Ramesses II’s father, Seti I, as the harsh pharaoh who did not remember their ancestor Joseph and who first enslaved Israel. It is also Seti I who is often depicted as the pharaoh who ordered the genocide of the newborn male Hebrews, leaving his son Ramesses II to continue the oppression and refuse to release them during the ten plagues.

For example, Ridley Scott’s 2014 epic, Exodus: God’s and Kings, depicted Ramesses II as nemesis to Moses. In the 1998 DreamWorks Animation film, The Prince of Egypt, Moses was pitted against his purported adoptive brother, Ramesses II. A famous precursor to these screen adaptations was Cecil B. DeMille’s 1956 epic, The Ten Commandments, starring Charlton Heston as Moses and Yul Brynner as Ramesses II. In this movie we perhaps find the perennial archetype for the shadow that Ramesses II has cast on the role of the pharaoh of the exodus.

A remake of DeMille’s 1923 silent version, The Ten Commandments was the most successful movie in its year of release. It was also the second highest grossing movie in the whole of the decade of its release. In terms of theatrical exhibition it has been judged by Guinness World Records to have been the eighth most successful movie of all time. Regularly aired on network television around the time of the Passover and the Easter season, the iconic status of this movie means that it still attracted in excess of five million viewers over the age of two in the US when it aired in 2020.⁶ On the eve of Palm Sunday in April 2022 it secured 3.49 million viewers, a 30 percent drop from 2021 (4.07 million), but still the top billing show on that evening. Not bad for a movie that turned sixty-six years old in that year.

The fact that all of these movies have been watched by millions of people, often repeatedly, means that the idea that Ramesses II was the pharaoh of the exodus must be regarded as the one given unprecedented levels of persistent and widespread publicity. But is it accurate?

Is There a Good Case for Ramesses II?

The stature of Ramesses II was considered significant by his descendant pharaohs who referred to him as the great ancestor. Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792–1822) further entrenched his legend in the modern era in his famous sonnet about Ramesses II that used a derivation from his Greek name, Ozymandias. Ramesses the Great was certainly mighty in military campaigns and was regularly depicted shooting with a bow and arrow from a chariot. Over his sixty-six-year reign he provided stability and significantly built Egypt’s wealth and status.

Ramesses II is not just the exodus pharaoh of choice for the Hollywood fraternity. He is also considered to be the most likely candidate by many academics, even though only a few believe the exodus of Israel from Egypt was a historical event. In this case the theory often begins that the Bible cannot be taken literally when it points to the exodus. So when does the Bible indicate that the exodus occurred? Does it imply that the exodus took place within the reign of Ramesses II?

While the Bible does not state that the exodus occurred in year X, it does provide very clear markers and sufficient units of time, so that with a little simple math, it can confirm the period in question. However, for that to work, we ourselves first have to allow the Bible to tell us when the exodus occurred and not the other way around. We have to do that before we analyze any of the archeology coming out of the ground if we want to arrive at the truth. Even then, once we have the period the Bible points to, we have to remain wary of the broken Egyptian chronology that is then used to overlay that same period with historical facts.

The biblical account relates that Solomon began to build the temple at Jerusalem, in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt (1 Kings 6:1). That’s a pretty clear line in the sand. However, the argument some apply to this statement is that the number of years is symbolic of twelve generations between Moses and Solomon. Because a distinct generation is reckoned to be about twenty-five years, so the argument runs, then the Bible really means 300 years. The building of the temple occurred in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, which was in the decade of the 960s BCE, most likely between 967–963 BCE. This calculation would place the exodus in the 1260s BCE during the reign of Ramesses II according to one dating convention. However, knowing that the date of the building of the temple is secure within a narrow range, why would we not date the exodus to the very clear 480 years that the Bible states? If we just take the Bible at face value on this point, this would date the exodus to approximately the 1440s BCE.⁷ This places the date of the exodus within a likely range of 1447–1443 BCE, with 1446 BCE constituting a popular convention and some scholarship pointing to 1443 BCE.

For various reasons, those who advocate Ramesses II as the most likely candidate suggest that dating to the 1440s BCE cannot be right.⁸ As such one of the main points of debate is the split between an early exodus in the fifteenth century BCE or a late exodus in the thirteenth century BCE.⁹ Very credible scholars and sources of information have taken the latter view. The Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, suggests that the twelve generations are probably just an editorial comment, suggesting forty years for a generation that infers an actual figure of twenty-five years for each generation counted.¹⁰ On that basis it pegs the most likely date for the exodus as approximately 1290 BCE, corresponding to the reign of Ramesses II in the high chronology calculated to c. 1304–1237 BCE.¹¹ The year 1250 BCE has also become a popular line in the sand. On these interpretations it is Seti I and Ramesses II who are held up as the likely pharaohs of the exodus account.¹²

A secondary debate that has an impact on who the pharaoh of the exodus was concerns how long the Hebrews were actually in Egypt. Here the debate is predominantly split between a long sojourn and enslavement of 430 years (Exodus 12:40) or a short sojourn and enslavement of 215 years. The case for the latter is that this shorter time period is stated in Exodus 12:40 in the Septuagint. As well as the Septuagint, the argument for a short sojourn is sometimes also based upon Galatians 3:17 and a corroborative comment made by Josephus.¹³ However, 215 years is not supported by the Masoretic text, the Dead Sea Scrolls or the terms of Egyptian culture discernible in the biblical account.¹⁴

An earlier reference to the time period in Genesis 15:13 states 400 years, a figure which is repeated by Stephen in Acts 7:6. In both cases it may be indicative of a rounding to the nearest century, though Stephen’s repetition does confirm the longer period for Israel in Egypt. Exodus 12:41 had said that Israel departed Egypt 430 years after arriving, on that very same day. Given the pinpoint accuracy of that statement, then we can more safely assume that the earlier statement to Abram in Genesis 15:13 was a general statement rounding to 400 years and echoed by Stephen. The evidence compiled by this study suggests that the Hebrews were in Egypt for 430 years as stated in Exodus 12:40–41.

To some extent, the known chronology of Egypt has been informed for good or ill by the writings of the early third century BCE priest Manetho. Copies of his Aegyptiaca (History of Egypt) are lost. However, sections of his writings have been preserved and recorded by later writers. As a priest, Manetho would have likely had access to the best historical sources of his day. He therefore provides a unique window onto the past. However, not one ancient writer who documented Manetho’s account ever said that the pharaoh of the exodus was Ramesses II. In fact Manetho specifically says that Ramesses II definitely came after the events of the exodus.

Manetho’s account is undoubtedly an imperfect history. It is in possession of a great deal of the facts, but on occasion the record appears to conflate pieces of information from different time periods into a single homogonous record. That said, it is the best written account available and does appear to contain the key facts if correctly deciphered. In Josephus’ telling, the pharaoh that Manetho names as presiding when Israel gathered at Rameses for the exodus is Misphragmuthosis.¹⁵ This pharaoh is Thutmose III. Manetho also says that it was the son of this pharaoh who was involved in releasing Israel.¹⁶ Most of the ancient authors who quote Manetho give a variant of the name Thutmose, such as Tethmôsis or Thummôsis, as the pharaoh who presided at the time of the exodus.¹⁷ Concerning the departure of Israel from Egypt, Josephus renders from Manetho the fact that Tethmosis was king when they set out.¹⁸

Despite the inherent problems of Egyptian chronology, what happens if we take the Bible at its word? What happens if we believe 1 Kings 6:1 that it had been 480 years since the exodus when Solomon built the temple? Where does it lead us in time approximately? Well, it leads to earlier in the history of the Eighteenth Dynasty, long before the time of Ramesses II. In fact, via the low chronology of Egypt it leads to the period of Thutmose III, and via the high chronology to his son Amenhotep II.

Supporting Evidence for a 1440s Date for the Exodus

Line 27 of the Merneptah Stela (also known as the Israel Stela or the Victory Stela of Merneptah) has been interpreted as making mention of the nation of Israel. The stela belongs to the late thirteenth century BCE, which denotes a point well beyond forty years from the start of the exodus in the 1440s. It dates from well after Israel’s long conquest of Canaan and settlement in the promised land.¹⁹ It was written in the time of the son of Ramesses II, Merneptah, and recorded various victories.

Of several name rings found on a granite block now housed in a museum in Berlin, one appears to mention the nation of Israel. The rings date from the mid-Eighteenth Dynasty, so well before the reign of Ramesses II. That period is in keeping with a 1440s BCE date for the exodus and forty years of wandering in the wilderness. The Egyptian method of denoting a foreign city or people group was feminine. However, Hoffmeier has observed that Israel is given as a masculine term in Egyptian, which he plausibly suggests might indicate that they uniquely associated the name with a man.²⁰

Also, the book of Judges appears to confirm a 1440s BCE date for the exodus. Jephthah confirms to the king of Ammon that the children of Israel traveled through the king’s territory some 300 years earlier on their way into the promised land.²¹ Jephthah is dated to about 1100 BCE. Adding the 300 years and the forty years of wandering back in gives us a c. 1440s date. This would appear to confirm the major archaeological indicators of the presence of Israel in Egypt, which we will consider in future chapters, as well as Jephthah’s knowledge of his people’s history.

A date approximate to c. 1400 BCE for when Israel entered the promised land would also appear to align with evidence from the Amarna tablets,²² many of which can be dated to the fourteenth century BCE.²³ Some of these clay tablets, or letters, were written from kings and rulers in Canaan to pharaoh. Some beg for his help and express panic concerning a subsequent period of chaos in the land of Canaan from a group of Apiru. This may be indicative of the impact of the Israelites entering the region and undertaking a long conquest of this vast area. The drums of communication between the Near East and Egypt would certainly have been beaten with vigor for many years at such a prolonged and successful conquest. Some of the letters are from vassal kings of Egypt begging for pharaoh’s help, pleas that apparently fell on deaf ears. This deafness may be indicative of an Egyptian royalty who had no difficulty whatsoever remembering to have nothing to do with the children of Israel. The testimony of the Amarna tablets harmonizes with the Bible and demonstrates that the drums were not only in place, but were being banged.

Israel’s departure from Egypt was incredibly well known in the wider world. The Bible says they came out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the nations (Leviticus 26:45). In speaking to the king of Edom after their departure, Moses refers to Israel as the brother of Edom and pre-emptively says to the king, You know all of the hardship that has befallen us (Numbers 20:14). Moses then proceeds to repeat the account of the sojourn, enslavement and exodus to him. When Moses intercedes for the people after they depart Egypt, he wants them to succeed because otherwise "the Egyptians will hear it" (Numbers 14:13). They will hear of it through the kind of constant drums of communication that the Amarna letters are physical evidence of, with some bitterly complaining of the conquest of the Apiru.

As Ronald J. Williams and more recently Hoffmeier have highlighted,²⁴ Balak, king of the Moabites, sends out messengers saying, Look, a people has come from Egypt. See, they cover the face of the earth, and are settling next to me! (Numbers 22:5). His panic is that Now this company will lick up everything around us, as an ox licks up the grass of the field (Numbers 22:4). The panic recorded in the Bible at the conquests of the Hebrews is echoed by the continued destruction caused by the Apiru and recorded in the Amarna letters.

The term Apiru (Habiru/Hapiru) was used for those living outside of the social and political sphere of a society. Apiru has been designated as meaning dusty or dirty.²⁵ The term might be applied to a wide range of perceived peripheral members of society, including, for example, slaves, fugitives, raiders, outlaws, servants, or mercenaries, etc. Prior to settling in the land, the Israelites at this juncture would have appeared as Apiru. Balak refers to the Hebrews as a people and a company (qāhāl), the latter meaning assembly, congregation, community, multitude. He had described them as like an all-consuming herd of oxen.

The term Apiru is not thought by some to have originally denoted a single ethnic group, but rather a social category that may have developed into an ethnic category.²⁶ At times it could certainly have been used to designate the Hebrews as well as other peoples. Nicolas Grimal sees the Apiru as an ethnic group, distinct from the Shosu (Shasu) bedouin, but, who are synonymous with the Hebrews mentioned in the Amarna correspondence.²⁷ The distinction is fine as bedouin is derived from an Arab word meaning desert dweller. As Megan Moore and Brad Kelle have suggested, as well as the Hebrews, Apiru is a term that could be used to describe nomads, Shasu, Midianites, Amalekites, Kenites, or travelling, wandering peasants and pastoralists in general.²⁸ While still evident during the reign of Thutmose III, by the reign of Amenhotep II the Apiru in Egypt seem to have emigrated.²⁹

Precisely dating the Amarna letters within the fourteenth century BCE has been a problematic matter. The length of Israel’s campaigning to conquer the land may partly account for an overlap in the fourteenth century BCE following the short reign of Thutmose IV. After the forty-year period of wandering, the conquest of Canaan took a long time to even partially achieve. The book of Joshua tells us that over the process of time Joshua defeated thirty-one kings in the region to the west of the river Jordan (Joshua 12:24, 7). Prior to the point when the the land rested from war, the Bible says that the conquests of Joshua were lengthy and that Joshua made war a long time with all those kings (Joshua 11:23, 18).

Joshua died at age 110 (Joshua 24:29). He was born in Goshen and was described as a young man at Sinai when he was old enough to be Moses’ assistant (Exodus 33: 11). He was then described as one of Moses’ choice men and one of the leaders who spied out Canaan prior to Israel being consigned to the long period of wandering (Numbers 11:28 and 13:2). The book of Joshua confirms that even when Joshua was old and advanced in years, he was told that there still remains very much land yet to be possessed, for which a long list of outstanding locations is provided that still need to be conquered (Joshua 13:1).³⁰ When Joshua died it had also been a long time since they inhabited the land with peace established all around following the conquest (Joshua 23:1).

If Joshua were as old as his fellow spy Caleb,³¹ then he would have been about eighty when he entered the promised land. The long time of conquest and the long time after the conquest ended would have divided up his remaining thirty years between them. However, the Hebrew term used for Joshua as a young man not long after the exodus began is na’ar. It specifically means from infancy to young adulthood. That means he may have been as young as fifteen to twenty years old when he set out, and only fifty-five to sixty when he arrived in the promised land. This would provide fifty-five or fifty years to divide up, potentially making the impact of the long time of the conquest run further into the approximate known reign of Amenemhat III.³² The battles against those surrounding and left within the region would resurface to be ongoing of course. The conquest of the land was incomplete following the death of Joshua (Judges 1:1–7, 27–36).

Multiple details for the lengthy period of conquest found in the Bible appear to be reflected in the letters. For example, Amarna Letter EA 366 is to pharaoh from Šuwardata (also Šuardatu or Shuwardata), whom some scholars view as a king of Gath.³³ The Bible confirms that Canaanites remained at Gath among the Israelites (Joshua 11:22). Šuwardata writes to an unnamed pharaoh that he and Abdi-Heba,³⁴ king of Jerusalem, have stood against the Apiru. Surata of Akka (Acco) has also come to his aid. In Judges 1:31 it says, Nor did Asher drive out the inhabitants of Acco. Finally, he says Enderatu, king of Achshaph, has also come to his aid. Joshua 12:20 lists the king of Achshaph as one of the thirty-one kings ultimately defeated by Joshua.

In Amarna Letter EA 271, Milkilu, thought to be the mayor of Gezer, writes to the pharaoh of the severity of the war the Apiru are waging against Šuwardata and himself. He entreats pharaoh to save his own land from the power of the Apiru (lines 1–27). In EA 287 Abdi-Heba, king of Jerusalem, complains that Milkilu and the sons, or princes, of Lab’ayu have capitulated and given the king’s lands to the Apiru. Milkilu is an official at Gezer where the Bible records that the Canaanites were not driven out but became forced labor of the Ephramites (Joshua 16:10).

It may be that this mayor is writing because Joshua 12:12 informs us that Joshua defeated the king of Gezer. Lab’ayu’s princes are of Shechem, which the letter suggests also capitulated and gave up its lands. These places are also mentioned together as part of the allotment of Ephraim in Joshua 21:21. The letter also mentions Ashkelon as giving up goods to the Apiru. The Ashkelonites are mentioned in Joshua 13:3 as being among those that Joshua in old age has not yet defeated. It is not until Joshua has died that Judah finally conquered Ashkelon, so they too are present late into the prolonged period of conquest (Judges 1:18).

While the Amarna letters provide only a snapshot of the events of this period, the confluence of the cities and regions complaining about the conquest of the Apiru accords with the places listed in the book of Joshua. The shock, alarm, fear, panic and petty infighting audible in the letters also perfectly accords with the detailed biblical account of precisely what Israel under Joshua’s leadership were doing in the same places during the same period. Thus the Amarna letters concerning the petty vassal kings of Canaan correlate with the biblical chronology and events and vice versa.

Finally, if Israel departed Egypt approximate to 1440 BCE, then the question of when Jericho was sacked by Joshua would be resolved as somewhere approximate to 1400 BCE,³⁵ depending on when exactly in the decade of the 1440s BCE Israel departed Egypt.³⁶ Again, a long debate has surrounded the question of the date of the fall of Jericho, but at least one school of thought credibly dates it to approximately 1400 BCE.³⁷

Who Was Thutmose III?

Dating the exodus to the mid to late 1440s BCE in the low chronology leads us to the reign of Thutmose III according to current understanding. The low chronology dates the beginning of the sole reign of Thutmose III to approximately 1458 BCE. Alongside Ramesses II, Thutmose III is upheld as one of the two greatest pharaohs in Egyptian history.

The son of Thutmose II and a lesser wife, Iset, Thutmose III was half brother to Neferure, the daughter of his aunt and stepmother Hatshepsut. Neferure was very likely the first child born to Thutmose II. She predeceased Thutmose III. Possibly she died during the reign of her mother, during which she was gifted great power, possibly with a view to her following a path similar to her mother, Hatshepsut.³⁸ Some surmise that Neferure may have lived on into the reign of Thutmose III, possibly even becoming one of his wives, but this is not certain.³⁹

While Neferure is the only daughter of Hatshepsut and Thutmose II on record, it appears she may have just been the eldest daughter. Inscriptions left by two tutors of Neferure determine her to be the elder and eldest royal daughter.⁴⁰ This would be an odd statement to make if she did not have at least one younger sister. According to Neferure, her sister (likely half sister) was named Meritre and a Meritre-Hatshepsut (Merytre-Hatshepsut or Hatshepsut II Merire) is known from this period.⁴¹ This suggests that there may have been more royal children born than are so far confirmed.

Given that Thutmose II had Thutmose III by a lesser wife, then it may also be possible, as some have considered, that King Thutmose II, no doubt, had had other children by different wives.⁴² The mother of Merytre-Hatshepsut had been surmised as possibly being Hatshepsut, but it seems likely her mother was in fact an adoratrice of Amun and Atum called Huy (Hui).⁴³ Meritre-Hatshepsut later married Thutmose III and some of their six children are depicted on a statue of Huy currently housed in the British Museum.

The prognosis that Thutmose II may have had more male children, irrespective of his relatively short reign, acquired greater credence in 2013. In an article titled A Brother for Thutmose III (Cairo Museum BN 104), Dina Metawi published details of an object located in the Cairo Egyptian Museum that made a strong case for identifying a previously unknown brother of Thutmose III.⁴⁴ The object was a dyad of a man and woman carved from a single sandstone block.⁴⁵

Metawi says that the man featured in the dyad was named Nebnefer and that he was a senior priest of Amun-Ra during the reign of Thutmose III.⁴⁶ He served as priest in one of Thutmose’s mortuary temples, which was likely built and operational from approximately Year 16 of his coregency with Hatshepsut.⁴⁷ An inscription on the dyad declares Nebnefer to be the son of the royal mother.⁴⁸ While not much is known of Iset, the mother of Thutmose III, Metawi says that two attestations to her are known from this mortuary temple belonging to her pharaoh son.⁴⁹ It is entirely plausible from this evidence, therefore, that Iset could have been Nebnefer’s mother as well as the mother of Thutmose III.⁵⁰

While it is not certain that Thutmose II was the father of Nebnefer, Metawi makes it clear that inscriptions from the Ramesside Period refer to a Prince Nebnefer who is directly identified as the king’s son.⁵¹ These inscriptions include a range of royal individuals from earlier dynasties.⁵² While there is no guarantee that it is the same individual, Metawi says that, Nebnefer could have been a hitherto unknown son of Thutmose II who passed out of the direct line of succession.⁵³ Whether another son of Thutmose II, or perhaps a maternal half brother to Thutmose III, the dyad demonstrates that Thutmose III very likely had more