Brooklyn Museum Papyrus lists Exodus midwife name ‘Shiphrah’

by Damien F. Mackey The occurrence of the name “Shiphrah” and other Hebrew (NW Semitic) type names in the late Middle Kingdom’s Brooklyn Papyrus had constituted an integral part of my detailed argument that Egypt’s: Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel https://www.academia.edu/38553314/Twelfth_Dynasty_oppressed_Israel Here is just a part of what I wrote there: The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”. Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt. I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui. “The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.” That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”. Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written: It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear. Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15). “Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled. “... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”. Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II). The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14). …. [End of quotes] Interesting to read, along somewhat similar lines, this piece by Hershel Shanks: http://cojs.org/first_person-_a_name_in_search_of_a_story-_hershel_shanks-_bar_24-01-_jan-feb_1998/ First Person: A Name in Search of a Story, Hershel Shanks, BAR 24:01, Jan-Feb 1998. An Egyptian papyrus reveals an Asiatic slave with a Biblical name—a midwife mentioned in Exodus It would be easy to tell you how a story in BAR develops, but I thought I would instead tell you how a story didn’t develop—at least not yet. The tip came from a lawyer, a faithful reader from Brooklyn named Harvey Herbert- An Egyptian hieroglyphic papyrus now in the Brooklyn Museum mentions an Asiatic slave named Shiphrah. Shiphrah, of course, is the name of one of the Hebrew midwives (the other is Puah) whom Pharaoh summoned to carry out his order that all boys born to the enslaved Israelites be killed (Exodus 1-15). Shiphrah (and Puah) didn’t obey Pharaoh, however; they were devoted to God, so they let the boys live. And here was an Asiatic slave with this same name mentioned in an Egyptian papyrus written in hieroglyphics. Was this for real? It certainly was. The problem was that it had been in the museum for a long time—since 1935. An entire book had been written on this papyrus in the 1950s. So what was new? Sad, but true, journalism seems to require novelty. An interesting fact that has been known for a long time, but of which we are unaware, somehow seems less interesting than a newly revealed fact. At least so it is with editors. So I began looking for a new, novel angle. I called a leading young Egyptologist at Johns Hopkins University, Betsy Bryan, who immediately recognized the papyrus I was speaking of. She was intimately familiar with it, as, she said, were most Egyptologists. But she knew the papyrus only from the Egyptological viewpoint, not from the Biblical viewpoint. She was able to tell me, however, that the publication of the papyrus was by a first-rate scholar, the late William Hayes. I next called the distinguished Biblical historian Abraham Malamat, of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. He told me that the papyrus was a well-known text and that the great William Foxwell Albright had written a paper on it in 1954 (even before Hayes’s book came out), analyzing it from the Biblical viewpoint. Trying to think of a new angle, I asked myself whether the appearance of the name Shiphrah could be used to date the origins of the Biblical narrative. So I called Avi Hurvitz, a leading Hebrew University scholar in the development of the Hebrew language. He told me that my methodology was sound—if the name appeared only at a particular time, that could help date a text. Whether there was sufficient evidence in this case was another question. This would take a lengthy study. And I knew from past experience that we can rarely get scholars to do major studies for us, especially if the outcome is doubtful. We have to find out what scholars are working on and then see if that can be made interesting to our readers. So I have neither an author nor a subject. All I can do is report what to some (surely, to me) are previously unknown facts that have nevertheless been known to scholars for a long time- The papyrus was purchased by an American journalist and Egyptologist named Charles Wilbour on one of his regular winter sailing trips up the Nile, between 1881 and 1896, looking for Egyptian antiquities. On Wilbour’s death the papyrus was placed in a trunk and languished there until it was given to the Brooklyn Museum in 1935. It is reasonably certain that the papyrus originally came from ancient Thebes. It has been dated to about 1740 B.C.1 The back side of the papyrus contains a long list of slaves who are to become the property of the new owner’s wife. Each is identified as Egyptian or Asiatic. The Asiatic slaves, unlike the Egyptian slaves, almost all have Northwest Semitic names—nearly 30 of them. Among them is a female slave named Shiphrah. But she is not the only one. Another, according to Albright, has a name that is the feminine form of Issachar, one of the twelve tribes of Israel. Another is the feminine form of Asher, also one of the twelve tribes. Still other Northwest Semitic names are related to the Hebrew names Menahem and Job. Based on the date of the papyrus, Albright comments that “we should expect significant points of contact with Israelite tradition … Virtually all the tribal names of the House of Jacob go back to early times.”2 If anyone sees an angle for an article for BAR in all this, please let me know. 1. William C. Hayes, A Papyrus of the Late Middle Kingdom in the Brooklyn Museum [Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446] (New York- Brooklyn Museum, 1955). 2. William F. Albright, “Northwest Semitic Names in a List of Egyptian Slaves from the Eighteenth Century B.C.,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 74 (1954), pp. 222–233. Brooklyn Papyrus lists Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to Exodus “The king of Egypt said to the Hebrew midwives, whose names were Shiphrah and Puah, ‘When you are helping the Hebrew women during childbirth on the delivery stool, if you see that the baby is a boy, kill him; but if it is a girl, let her live’. The midwives, however, feared God and did not do what the king of Egypt had told them to do; they let the boys live”. Exodus 1:15-17 “Titus” has written at: https://apxaioc.com/?p=21#:~:text=Evidence%20from%20Papyrus%20Brooklyn,-%2F%20Uncategorized%20%2F%20By%20Archae27&text=The%20presence%20of%20Hebrews%20in,the%20subsequent%20settlement%20of%20Canaan. Hebrews in Egypt before the Exodus? Evidence from Papyrus Brooklyn / Uncategorized / By Archae27 The presence of Hebrews in Egypt prior to their departure is a key component in the Exodus story, leading to the eventual formation of the Israelite nation and the subsequent settlement of Canaan. However, skepticism about the historical validity of the Exodus story has spread through both academia and the general public over the last century. One of the key problems for asserting the Exodus narrative as historical has to do with the supposed lack of archaeological confirmation for Hebrews living in Egypt. Current academic consensus views the events described in the book of Exodus as myth, without any indication of an historical core, and now a topic which the vast majority of scholars decline to investigate due to their certainty that the story is fictional. Scholars have made claims that according to archaeological investigations, “Israelites were never in Egypt …. The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of the Israelites’ presence in Egypt” (Zeev Herzog). Another archaeologist concluded that investigation of the Exodus story is pointless because of the alleged absence of evidence, stating that “not only is there no archaeological evidence for such an exodus, there is no need to posit such an event …. I regard the historicity of the Exodus as a dead issue” (William Dever). Are claims that there is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that Hebrew people were in Egypt prior to the time of the Exodus consistent with current archaeological and historical data? Any possible evidence of Hebrews living in Egypt must be prior to the time of the Exodus in order to maintain that the story recorded in the Bible is an accurate historical narrative. Approximately when might have the Exodus occurred? According to a reading of specific chronological information in the books of Kings, Judges, and Numbers, combined with chronological information from Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, Hellenistic, and Roman documents, the Hebrew Exodus from Egypt occurred around the 1440s BC (1 Kings 6:1; Judges 11:26; Numbers 32:13; Ptolemy’s Canon; Neo-Assyrian Eponym List; Manetho’s King List; Uruk King List; Roman Consul Lists). This approximate date in the 1440s BC is a crucial chronological marker which restricts investigation of archaeological and historical material to a particular window of time. Prior to this date, one would expect evidence for Hebrews in Egypt and an Egyptian policy of slavery towards Asiatics or Semites, the larger ethnic groups to which the Hebrews belonged, if the Exodus account is historical. According to the narrative in the Bible, near the end of the Patriarchal period calculated at approximately 1680 BC, Jacob and his family had settled into the northeastern Nile Delta region known as Goshen with their livestock and various possessions (Genesis 46:6, 47:1). Earlier, Abraham had resided temporarily in Egypt but he moved back to Canaan for the remainder of his life (Genesis 12:10-13:1). Around the time of these patriarchs, during the periods called the Middle Kingdom and Second Intermediate Period in Egypt and the Middle Bronze Age in Canaan, many people from western Asia or Canaan immigrated into Egypt. Damien Mackey’s comment: The early patriarchs pre-existed the Middle Bronze Age. See e.g. my article: Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham (3) Narmer a contemporary of Patriarch Abraham “Titus” continues: A famous contemporary depiction and description of this immigration was found painted on one of the walls of the tomb of Khnumhotep II in Beni Hasan, Egypt. The scene, paired with a text, depicts a group of 37 Semites from Canaan—men, women, and children, along with their livestock and supplies—immigrating into middle Egypt during the early 19th century BC. …. While this would be slightly earlier than when Joseph and subsequently his father Jacob arrive in Egypt, Damien Mackey’s comment: It’s actually later than the time of the early Patriarchs. … the events occur in the same general historical period. According to archaeological excavations and information derived from various ancient documents and art work, during this time large numbers of people from western Asia immigrated into Egypt and settled primarily in the Nile Delta region, just as Jacob and his family also did. …. …. The making of mudbricks by Hebrew slaves and the difficulties in this task are detailed in the Exodus account (Exodus 5). A remark on the scene in the tomb of Rekmire about an Egyptian master reminding slaves to not be idle lest they receive a beating with the rod brings to mind the episode in which Moses saw an Egyptian taskmaster beating a Hebrew slave (Exodus 2:11). Although many of these connections are circumstantial, the lack of contemporary texts or inscriptions directly attesting to Joseph, Moses, or a large scale enslavement of the Hebrews specifically may be due to the fact that no sites of the period have been excavated in either the central or western Nile Delta region and that few records from the Nile Delta region in this period have survived. Damien Mackey’s comment: For a clearer account of Hebrew involvement in large scale building works, see e.g. my article: Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them (3) Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them However, an important Egyptian document from Upper Egypt has survived the millennia. While the current scholarly consensus asserts that there is no definitive evidence for Hebrews living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, an Egyptian list of domestic servants written in the Second Intermediate Period, perhaps in the 17th century BC, contains not only Semitic names, but several specifically Hebrew names. This document was designated Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446. Rediscovered on the antiquities market, this papyrus was examined by William Albright and Kenneth Kitchen, and published in a book by Egyptologist William Hayes of the Brooklyn Museum. Several references to Thebes on the papyrus indicate that it was originally composed in or around that city, the capital of Upper Egypt, although it is not certain exactly where in that region it came from, as information about its original place of discovery was lost. The section of the papyrus dealing with the servants is thought to date from the 13th Dynasty of Egypt, or at least from some time in the era known as the Second Intermediate Period. The end of this period preceded the Exodus by approximately 120 years, while the period began around 300 years prior to the Exodus—encompassing the time that the Hebrews were in Egypt as settlers and perhaps even slaves. The dates for Pharaohs and even the existence of the Pharaohs themselves from this period are often tentative and highly disputed, so it is difficult to date anything with absolute certainty. However, the papyrus does contain the name of a Pharaoh called “Sobekhotep” who may have reigned around either the late 18th or the 17th century BC. Damien Mackey’s comment: For clarification about Sobekhotep, see e.g. my article: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (5) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu While various publications have suggested rather definite and specific date ranges for the servant list section of the papyrus, it is difficult to establish the precise date due to the fragmentary history of the Second Intermediate Period. Pharaohs Sobekhotep III and VIII, who shared almost identical throne names, could possibly have been the same ruler. All of the monuments of Sobekhotep III are located in the south, and the only monument of Sobekhotep VIII is also located in the south at Karnak, indicating both were Theban kings during the 16th or 17th Theban Dynasties. With the 18th Dynasty beginning ca. 1570 BC according to the latest chronological studies based on high precision radiocarbon samples, this could place the Pharaoh “sekem re sewadjtowy” Sobekhotep (?) in the approximate range of 1700-1620 BC. Further, studies of the phrases and handwriting of the servant list on the papyrus also suggest a date in the Second Intermediate Period. Therefore, the list of servants probably comes from a time during or just after the life of Joseph. A section of Papyrus Brooklyn 35.1446 contains a list of 95 servants, many of whom are specified as “Asiatic” or coming from western Asia (i.e. Canaan). The servants with foreign names are given Egyptian names, just as Joseph was when he was a household servant under Potiphar (Genesis 41:45). The majority of the names are feminine because domestic servants were typically female, while the male servants often worked in construction or agricultural tasks. Approximately 30 of the servants have names identified as from the Semitic language family (Hebrew is a Semitic language), but even more relevant to the Exodus story is that several of these servants, up to ten, actually have specifically Hebrew names. The Hebrew names found on the list include: Menahema, a feminine form of Menahem (2 Kings 15:14); Ashera, a feminine form of Asher, the name of one of the sons of Jacob (Genesis 30:13); Shiphrah, the name of one of the Hebrew midwives prior to the Exodus (Exodus 1:15); ‘Aqoba, a name appearing to be a feminine form of Jacob or Yaqob, the name of the patriarch (Genesis 25:26); ‘Ayyabum, the name of the patriarch Job or Ayob (Job 1:1); Sekera, which is a feminine name either similar to Issakar, a name of one of the sons of Jacob, or the feminine form of it (Genesis 30:18); Dawidi-huat a compound name utilizing the name David and meaning “my beloved is he” (1 Samuel 16:13); Esebtw, a name derived from the Hebrew word eseb meaning “herb” (Deuteronomy 32:2); Hayah-wr another compound name composed of Hayah or Eve and meaning “bright life” (Genesis 3:20); and finally the name Hy’b’rw, which appears to be an Egyptian transcription of Hebrew (Genesis 39:14). Thus, this list is a clear attestation of Hebrew people living in Egypt prior to the Exodus, and it is an essential piece of evidence in the argument for an historical Exodus. Although it appears that the Israelites were centered around the northeast Nile Delta area—the regions of Goshen and Rameses and the cities of Rameses, Pithom, and On—this document is from the area of Thebes to the south and includes household servants like Joseph in his early years rather than building and agricultural slaves of the period of Moses. Thus, the list appears to be an attestation of Hebrews in Egypt in their earlier period of residence in the country, prior to their total enslavement, and perhaps shows that a group may have migrated south or was taken south for work. While remains of material culture such as pottery, architecture, or artifacts may be ethnically ambiguous, Hebrew names and possibly even the word or name Hebrew clearly indicates that there were Hebrews living in Egypt. Although rather obscure, the list includes the earliest attestation of Hebrew names that has ever been recovered in Egypt, and it demonstrates that Hebrews were in Egypt prior to the 1440s BC just as the story in the book of Exodus records. ~Titus~

Foreign influences permeating Egypt’s famed Twelfth Dynasty

by Damien F. Mackey “The kingdom of Mitanni, located in northern Syria, and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt … were contemporaries who engaged in a limited amount of trade and diplomatic interactions. While the 12th Dynasty primarily focused on the Nile Valley and its immediate surroundings, the Mitanni controlled important trade routes in Mesopotamia and northern Syria”. AI Overview Ancient Egypt becoming cosmopolitan The dynasty that began the cruel Oppression of Israel, the Twelfth Dynasty (including its various Old Kingdom manifestations), faded out while Moses was yet exiled in Midian (Exodus 4:19), its last ruler being a woman who has been triplicated in conventional Egyptian history (as Khentkaus, Nitocris and Sobekneferure). During the course of this great dynasty, Egypt advanced technologically. According to Nicolas Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994, pp. 165-166): “Foreign workers were also flowing into Egypt, bringing with them new techniques and preparing the way for a slow infiltration that would eventually result in ‘Asiatics’ gaining temporary control over the country”. Gavin Menzies identifies some of these newcomers as “Hyksos” (The Lost Empire of Atlantis: History's Greatest Mystery Revealed, 2011, p. 108): The Hyksos probably arrived in the late 12th Dynasty (Middle Kingdom) period. They may have come originally as shipbuilders, sailors, soldiers and craftsmen. It’s not difficult to imagine Avaris as the Dubai of its day, with a vast building workforce drafted in from overseas. The pharaohs settled them here deliberately in the late 12th Dynasty, to create a harbour town and perhaps even build ships. But at a later time of political weakness the workmen established their own small but independent kingdom and had to be swatted back. Hyksos artefacts have been found in the Knossos labyrinth [in Crete]. …. Added to this, the Egyptian rulers had at their disposal a huge slave labour force from the peoples whom they had conquered, Libyans, Nubians, Bedouin, and of course, the Israelites whose own “overseers” were relentlessly pressurised by Egypt’s “slave drivers” (Exodus 5:14). All the ingredients were there for the land of Egypt to undergo its massive building program. For this was the Pyramid Age. A famous relief depicts Semitic types entering Egypt early in the reign of pharaoh Sesostris (so-called II), when Moses would have been officiating in Egypt according to my revision - far too late for it to be a representation of one or other of the early Hebrew patriarchs and family: https://madainproject.com/procession_of_the_aamu “The procession of the Āāmu of Shu, or the procession of "Asiatics" (as commonly referred to by Egyptologists today), at Beni Hasan is an ancient Egyptian painting on the northern wall of Khnumhotep II's tomb in the Beni Hasan necropolis. Dated to the sixth year of Twelfth Dynasty Pharaoh Sesostris II (ca. 1892 BCE), the Āāmu in this scene have been identified as the Asiatic nomadic traders who are sometimes considered Hyksos or at least their forerunners. The group, led by a man called Absha (or Abisha, Abishai), is depicted bringing offerings to the deceased Khnumhotep II”. In the land of Palestine, cities and forts had sprung up during the Early Bronze Age (II-III). Many of these cities will be destroyed, and/or occupied, within half a century, by a new people, the Middle Bronze I (MBI) Israelites of the Exodus. Biblical archaeology has been badly thrown out due to the mis-identification of the MBI people with the nomadic Hebrews at the time of Abram (Abraham), almost five hundred years earlier. “Semitic groups” dwelt in ancient Avaris (modern Tel e-Dab’a), the store city built by the Israelite slaves that is named “Rameses” in Exodus 1:11. That this accords with the biblical account is suggested by various scholars: https://patternsofevidence.com/2016/06/02/new-archeological-discoveries-about-to-hit-overdrive/ The dig site of Tel el-Dab’a is a good example of the effort it takes to uncover just a fraction of a single location. This site is at the location of Rameses, which is mentioned in the Bible as the city the Israelites built during their bondage in Egypt. Avaris lies under (and is therefore older than) the city of Rameses [Ramesses], and the fact that it was populated mainly by Semitic herdsmen who begin the history of the city as free people living by permission of the Egyptian state uniquely fits the Exodus account of the Israelites early history. Egyptologist Charles Aling commented on the history of excavations at this important ancient city of Avaris in one of the bonus features on the Collector’s Edition Box Set of Patterns of Evidence. When asked about how much of ancient Avaris had been uncovered, Aling said, “Avaris itself, this is one of the most massive sites in all of the ancient Near Eastern world. And they have excavated there 60 seasons now. (A season lasts about two or three months, they do two seasons a year usually). And Professor Bietak, the excavator, said that that accounts for about 3% of the total site.” It seems amazing that after digging for more than 30 years, the Austrians have only uncovered about 3% of the city. What other clues will be found as the excavation continues? Dr. Aling also said, “With Egypt, there are huge gaps… We have large gaps in our information.” He stated that most of the surviving material from ancient Egypt remains to be found and guessed that we know about 10-15 % of what there is to be known. Mansour Boraik, the Director General of Antiquities at Luxor also emphasized that new finds are made every day. He estimates that more than 60% of Egypt’s monuments remain buried underneath the surface. When speaking about Avaris, Professor John Bimson from Trinity University in Bristol, England, mentioned that many other Semitic sites from the Middle Bronze Age also exist in the area nearby. Bimson noted that, “If we go back to the 18th-19th centuries BC [sic], we’ve got settlements of Semitic groups, or what the Egyptians called Asiatics. We don’t know exactly when they started arriving or exactly when these settlements stopped, because many of these sites have not been fully excavated yet. You’ve got a good many settlements, twenty or more, which would fit the land of Goshen where the Bible says the Israelites were settled. There are more than 20 Semitic settlements in Egypt’s Nile Delta waiting to be explored. “The Avaris site of course, no one knew how big that was until excavation began. There’s some hope to investigating with ground penetrating radar like they’re doing with the Rameside section of Avaris. Have you seen the plans they’ve produced of Rameses by ground penetration radar? They’re showing stables and things on a huge scale. …. The pharaohs settled them here deliberately in the late 12th Dynasty, to create a harbour town and perhaps even build ships. But at a later time of political weakness the workmen established their own small but independent kingdom and had to be swatted back. Hyksos artefacts have been found in the Knossos labyrinth [in Crete]. …. Gavin Menzies writes further about the important Avaris (op. cit., p. 109): Whatever this city’s name was – through time it had been Avaris, Piramesse or Peru-nefer – it was certainly a major port, bustling over the summer trading season and humming with the activity of many ships. And … the Minoans, or Keftiu, were here in force. Avaris/Peru-nefer became a crucial military stronghold. The city was the starting point to the overland route to Canaan, the famous ‘Horus Road’ known in the Bible as the ‘Way of the Philistines’ (Exodus 13:17). Previously Gavin Menzies had written: “Tell el Dab’a, a Middle Kingdom palace on a hill in the Nile Delta … a place that was named Avaris during the Egyptian 13th Dynasty, when it was a crucial trading port dominated by the commercial traders known as the Hyksos”. Gavin Menzies had earlier discussed the island of Thera, which will figure prominently in his book (ibid., p. 61): “The island of Thera was, in the Bronze Age, a very important place, the equal of Phaestos [in Crete], Alexandria, Tell el Dab’a, Tyre or Sidon …. many ships”. Another important trading partner with Egypt at the time was Syro-Mitanni: AI Overview “The kingdom of Mitanni, located in northern Syria, and the 12th Dynasty of Egypt, spanning roughly from 1985 to 1780 BC [sic], were contemporaries who engaged in a limited amount of trade and diplomatic interactions. While the 12th Dynasty primarily focused on the Nile Valley and its immediate surroundings, the Mitanni controlled important trade routes in Mesopotamia and northern Syria”. https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Pepi_I_(Pharaonic_Survival) “The contact with Ebla is established by alabaster vessels bearing Pepi’s name found near its royal palace G …”. In my revision, pharaoh Pepi Neferkare of Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty is the same ruler as Sesostris Neferkare (N. Grimal, op. cit., p. 164) of the Twelfth Dynasty. Scrutinising my proposed revision Although I am entirely confident that my placement of the biblical Moses in Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty is correct, and that Moses continued on into the Thirteenth Dynasty, with Khasekhemre Neferhotep (so-called I) as the Pharaoh of the Plagues and Exodus, this scenario does admittedly meet with several seemingly awkward difficulties. Some of these are: 1. Apparent archaeological evidence for pharaoh Neferhotep as being synchronous with Yantinu – Zimri-Lim – Hammurabi (properly revised to the time of King Solomon); 2. Neferhotep reigning in close chronological proximity to the Hyksos king, Khyan (Khayan), supposedly of Egypt’s Fifteenth Dynasty; 3. The total lack of evidence in Egypt during the Twelfth and Thirteenth dynasties for chariots, as necessary for the Pharaoh of the Exodus (14:5-7): “So [Pharaoh] had his chariot made ready and took his army with him. He took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them”. Below, I shall discuss these most important considerations (in reverse order, 3-1, as will be the case). My revision has situated the so-called Thirteenth Dynasty as being partly contemporaneous with the Twelfth. We have seen that some Thirteenth Dynasty personages were officials for the rulers of the Twelfth Dynasty. Now, as the Twelfth Dynasty began to weaken, due to the long reign of Sesostris, followed by the woman ruler, the Thirteenth Dynasty most likely came to the fore. This situation of weakness late in a dynasty, due to the overly long reign of a particular king, is perfectly reflected in the case of Pepi (so-called II) of the Sixth Dynasty, which I believe to be the very same period of weakness as in the Twelfth Dynasty (a woman concluding the dynasty): https://www.britannica.com/biography/Pepi-II “Pepi II, fifth king of the 6th dynasty (c. 2325–c. 2150 [sic] BCE) of ancient Egypt, during whose lengthy reign the government became weakened because of internal and external troubles. Late Egyptian tradition indicates that Pepi II acceded at the age of six and, in accord with king lists of the New Kingdom (1539–1075 BCE), credits him with a 94-year reign”. That excessively long reign needs to be approximately halved. The Problem of horses and chariots (3. above) Despite the fact that: https://pharaoh.se/dynasty-XIII “The true chronology and number of kings of the Thirteenth Dynasty is very difficult to determine as many of the kings' names are only known from fragmentary inscriptions or scarabs. Furthermore, the placement of many kings listed in this dynasty is very uncertain and disputed among Egyptologists”, several of its rulers were not entirely insignificant. And it may have been these who introduced the chariot (so vital to the Exodus account) to Egypt: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/chariots/ It is generally considered that the Hyksos introduced the chariot to Egypt. The names commonly ascribed to the component parts of the chariot were semitic and common design motifs were Syrian in origin. If the story of the exodus is to be taken at face value … and the ancient Egyptians rode chariots when pursuing the fleeing [Israelites], then it would seem that the exodus occurred after the Hyksos incursion. However, the discovery of horse remains dated to the Thirteenth Dynasty … may suggest that horses were introduced into ancient Egypt at least in some limited sense before the Hyksos occupation. A stela depicts Army Commander Khonsuemwaset, son of Dudimose (an obscure Thirteenth Dynasty King) seated with his wife on a chair with a pair of gloves depicted underneath him may indicate that he was a charioteer. …. This Dudimose will actually come to the throne after the Exodus, for it will be in his time that there occurred a major Hyksos invasion of Egypt. Dudimose is, I believe (following others), the “Tutimaeus” of Manetho: Tutimaeus …. In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was Salitis. ….⁠ In the Thirteenth Dynasty king list a Dudimose (Dedumes) comes not long after Neferhotep (Pharaoh of the Plagues and Exodus). Sobekhotep and Senwosret (both as Sesostris) in this Thirteenth Dynasty list would precede Neferhotep in my scheme, the true sequence being (so I think): Sesostris (12th Dynasty) – Neferhotep (13th Dynasty Pharaoh of Plagues and Exodus) – Dedumes (Dudimose/Tutimaeus), time of the Hyksos invasion. Thus (revised): Neferhotep II Sobekhotep VII = Sesostris Neferkare Senwosret IV = Sesostris Neferkare Montuhotep V Neferhotep Mentuemsaf Mentuemsaf? Dedumes = Tutimaeus I myself have found it extremely difficult to identify Egypt’s stubborn ruler at the time of the Plagues and the Exodus. A main reason for this was a preconception, only recently rejected, that the “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]” of 2 Timothy 3:8 were Egyptian rulers, with “Jannes” being Unas (a pretty good name fit at least) – who is appropriately placed in my revised scheme - and that necessitating that “Jambres” or “Mambres” be the stiff-necked king upon whom the Lord rained down the series of Plagues. I had opted for the name version, “Mambres”, and had tentatively settled on pharaoh Sheshi Maibre (Mambres?) of the Fourteenth Dynasty. However, with my more recent realisation that Jannes and Jambres (preferable to Mambres) were actually the troublesome Israelite (Reubenite) pair, Dathan and Abiram, I could free my mind for a different choice for the hard-hearted Pharaoh. At this point in time, my preference would be that the hard-hearted ruler of Egypt at the time of the Plagues and Exodus was the Thirteenth Dynasty’s Khasekhemre-Neferhotep, so-called I, this choice being based on Dr. David Down’s suggestion: https://creation.com/searching-for-moses There are records of slavery during the reigns of the last rulers of the 12th Dynasty—Sesostris III, Amenemhet III and Sobekneferu (some include an obscure figure known as Amenemhet IV before Sobekneferu). With the death of Sobekneferu the 12th dynasty came to an end. …. A period of instability followed the demise of the 12th dynasty. Fourteen kings followed each other in rapid succession, the earlier ones probably ruling in the Delta before the 12th dynasty ended. Kings of the 13th dynasty had already started to rule in the north-east delta and, when the 12th dynasty came to an end, they filled the vacuum and took over as the 13th dynasty. (The idea of dynasties was not an Egyptian idea at the time. It was a later invention of Manetho, the Egyptian priest of the 3rd century BC who left a record of the history of Egypt and divided the kings into dynasties.) The elevation to rulership over all Egypt by these kings resulted in fierce contention among themselves, resulting in a rapid succession of rulers and more or less anarchy in the country. This only settled down when Neferhotep I took the throne and restored some stability, ruling for 11 years. I identify Khasekemre-Neferhotep I as the pharaoh from whom Moses demanded Israel’s release. I do so because Petrie found scarabs … of former kings at Kahun [Illahun]. But the latest scarab he found there was of Neferhotep, who was apparently the pharaoh ruling when the Israelite slaves suddenly left Kahun and fled from Egypt in the Exodus. According to Manetho, he was the last king to rule before the Hyksos occupied Egypt ‘without a battle’. Without a battle? Where was the Egyptian army? It was at the bottom of the Red Sea (Exodus 14:28). Khasekemre-Neferhotep I was probably the pharaoh of the Exodus. His mummy has never been found. …. If Khasekhemre Neferhotep really was the Pharaoh of the Plagues and Exodus, then we are a long chronological distance before Ramses II ‘the Great’ of the Nineteenth Dynasty, who is probably the most popular candidate for the biblical Pharaoh. In conventional terms, Khasekhemre Neferhotep (d. 1730 BC) comes a good 400 years earlier than Ramses II (c. 1300 BC). In my scheme, however, Ramses II (c. 800 BC) is a good half a millennium after his conventional manifestation. On this, see e.g. my article: The Complete Ramses II https://www.academia.edu/108993634/The_Complete_Ramses_II Pharaoh Neferhotep may, appropriately, have been a military-minded ruler: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferhotep_I “Neferhotep I seems to have come from a non-royal family of Thebes with a military background. …. His grandfather, Nehy, held the title "officer of a town regiment".” Likewise Amenemhet (Amenemes), the dynastic founder of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, may have been a non-royal nobleman. Let us recall what I have written previously about this. Expanding on the Twelfth Dynasty Some of this gets complicated. The dynastic founder of Exodus 1:8, the infanticide “new king”, I have traced back to a Sixth Dynasty (non-royal) nobleman from Abydos, named Khui. Khui, whose daughter Ankhesenmerire, pharaoh Pepi married, was none other than the Fourth Dynasty founder, the obscure Khufu (Khnum-khufui = Khui), or Cheops, whose daughter, Meresankh (inversion of Ankhesenmerire), the “Merris” of tradition, married Khafre, or Chephren, the “Chenephres” of tradition. “Merris” was the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses (Eusebius following Artapanus), and “Chenephres” was the pharaoh who persecuted Moses, and who sought his life (Exodus cf. 2:15; 2:23). The correspondence of my revision with the traditional “Merris” and “Chenephres” (who absolutely permeates my revision for this era), about which latter I have concluded: Conclusion: The vindictive “King of Egypt” of Exodus 2:23 was, all at once, “Chenephres” (tradition) – Chephren (Khafre) of the Fourth Dynasty – Pepi Neferkare of the Sixth Dynasty – Sesostris (Story of Sinuhe) Kheperkare of the Twelfth Dynasty … is a reason why I am convinced that Moses belonged to Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty, and why I believe that this mighty dynasty was one and the same as the Fourth and Sixth. But I must also include here, for “Chenephres”, Unas of the Fifth Dynasty (see below), and Sobekhotep Khaneferre supposedly of the Thirteenth Dynasty. And that will not be the end of it, for there is a further crucial dimension to be added to this already complicated synthesis, as we are now going to learn. The Foreign ‘Hyksos’ aspect (2. above) The so-called "Hyksos Sphinxes" The Twelfth Dynasty, during which time Egypt became more cosmopolitan, with Syro-Mitanni coming into consideration, and apparent Hyksos influence, may have set the trend that was taken up much later by some Eighteenth Dynasty rulers, of intermarriage between Pharaoh and Mitannian princesses. Though I have no clear evidence at this stage that this actually happened, it is possible considering the sharing of trade - and probably treaties - between Egypt and Mitanni. But what makes me particularly suspicious that this may be what really happened, that the dynastic founder, Amenemes (Khui), may have had amongst his wives, one or more Mitannian princesses, is that a supposed Hyksos ruler, a great one, Khyan (Khayan) is now thought to have reigned at the same time as Sobekhotep, whom I have identified as Amenemes’ son-successor, Sesostris. Regarding this intriguing name, Sobekhotep, it is apparent, from the name of the last Twelfth Dynasty ruler, the female Sobekneferure, that this dynasty worshipped the crocodile god, Sobek. Now, Sesostris ruled alongside no one. So, if Khyan ruled when Sesostris did, this would lead me to conclude that Khyan was Sesostris – another of this Pharaoh’s many alter egos. Was not Sesostris indeed a great and legendary king? Read, for instance, what Herodotus has to say about him (obviously exaggerated): https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/herodsesostris/ Herodotus claims the king subdued the Arabian Gulf and defeated every nation in his way in a massive land campaign. He also refers to a number of stelae recording his deeds which the pharaoh placed at the limits of his empire and reports that the inscriptions included depictions of women’s genitalia, as a sign of the pharaoh’s lack of respect for his subdued enemies. The pharaoh allegedly subdued the Scythians (near the black sea) and Thracians (northern Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, eastern Serbia and parts of Macedonia) and left a band of warriors at the river Phasis (now known as the river Rioni, in the republic of Georgia) who settled and formed the people of Colchis (who protected the Golden Fleece, according to Greek mythology). …. Finally, Herodotus advises that the king was worshipped in Ethiopia, and two huge statues of him were established outside the temple of Hepaistos (Ptah). Much later on, when Egypt was under the control of the Persians, the priest of Hephaistos refused to allow the Persian king Daruis to set up his own statue in front of those of Sesostris. He told the invader that he could not match the deeds of the great pharaoh and so he could not usurp his position. Surprisingly, the Persian did not punish the priest, and agreed not to install his own statue in front of the temple. …. Similarly, the ancients wrote wonderful tales about the exploits of Tirhakah (Taharqa), a Pharaoh over Egypt-Ethiopia whom we meet also in the Bible (e.g. 2 Kings 19:9). While Egyptologists scoff at some of the wide-reaching conquests attributed to this biblical Pharaoh, he figures in my Ramses II article (above) as an alter ego for none other than Ramses ‘the Great’ himself. Likewise, there may be far more to Sesostris than we have so far realised, who, if he were also Khyan, then his influence spread far and wide: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyan “Khyan is one of the better attested kings from the Hyksos period, known from many seals and seal impressions. Remarkable are objects with his name found at Knossos and Hattusha indicating diplomatic contacts with Crete and the Hittites. A sphinx with his name was bought on the art market at Baghdad and might demonstrate diplomatic contacts to Babylon, in an example of Egypt-Mesopotamia relations. On this last point, my revised geography does not have Babylon anywhere near Baghdad in Mesopotamia. See e.g. my article: Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos https://www.academia.edu/123163742/Correction_for_Babylon_Babel_Carchemish_preferable_to_Byblos And, regarding the so-called Abbasid Baghdad (just in case anyone is interested): Original Baghdad was Jerusalem https://www.academia.edu/117007478/Original_Baghdad_was_Jerusalem Khyan can apparently take his place amongst those: More ‘camera shy’ ancient potentates (6) More 'camera shy' ancient potentates | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu for, where are all the statues of this great king, whom Egyptologists have trouble dating (anywhere from c. 1700-1580 BC)? He is supposed to have re-appropriated this statue from the Twelfth Dynasty. Khyan Khayan, Khian, Chayan Remains of a statue of the Twelfth Dynasty reappropriated by Hyksos ruler Khyan, with his cartouche inscribed on the sides over an erasure.[1] But was Khyan, rather, an actual ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty? Was Khyan, in fact, the great Sesostris Neferkare/Khakheperre under the guise of Sobekhotep Neferkare/Khaneferre (the traditional “Chenephres”)? Khyan Seuserenre as Senuseret (Sesostris)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyan “The early position of Khyan within the 15th dynasty may be confirmed by new archaeological finds at Edfu. On this site were found seal impressions of Khyan in close connection with seal impressions of the 13th Dynasty king Sobekhotep IV, indicating that both kings could have reigned at about the same time”. Hammurabi (1. above) That pharaoh Khyan, a Semitic name, was not a pure Egyptian, but had Syro-Mitannian blood may possibly be attested by evidence for Khyan as being an ancestor of the great Syro-Mitannian ruler, Shamsi-Adad I, son of Urukabkabu (c. 1800 BC) - revised by Dean Hickman to c. 1000 BC as being a foe-contemporary of King David, the Syrian “Hadadezer”, son of Rekhob (= U-Rukab-kabu) (2 Samuel 8:3). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khyan The name Hayanu [Khayan] is recorded in the Assyrian king lists—see "Khorsabad List I, 17 and the SDAS List, I, 16"--"for a remote ancestor of Shamshi-Adad I (c.1800 BC)". But what does all this do to my first point above?: 1. Apparent archaeological evidence for pharaoh Neferhotep as being synchronous with Yantinu – Zimri-Lim – Hammurabi (properly revised to the time of King Solomon). If Khyan (as Sesostris) recently preceded Neferhotep, as the Pharaoh of the Plagues and Exodus, how, then, can this pharaoh Neferhotep be, as is thought, a contemporary of Hammurabi (a younger contemporary of Shamsi-Adad I - potentially a descendant of Khyan (Hayanu) - if Dean Hickman is right that Hammurabi belonged to the much later era of King Solomon (which I accept he did)? If pharaoh Neferhotep were a contemporary of Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim, then much of my revision would be thrown into utter chaos. My counter would be that, as in the case of Khyan’s supposed son, Yanassi, the evidence is very thin, indeed, that Neferhotep was contemporaneous with Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim. Here is what we read about it for “Neferhotep I” at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neferhotep_I Historical synchronism A stela bearing Neferhotep I's name is of great importance to archaeologists and historians alike as it enables a concordance between the Egyptian and Near Eastern chronologies. …. This stela depicts the "Governor of Byblos, Yantinu ... who was begotten by Governor Yakin" seated upon a throne, in front of which are the nomen and prenomen of Neferhotep I. …. This is significant for two reasons: first, Yakin is plausibly identifiable with a Yakin-Ilu of Byblos known from a cylinder seal of Sehetepibre [pharaoh Amenemes], indicating that this king and Neferhotep are separated by a generation. …. Second, a "King of Byblos Yantin-'Ammu" is known from the archives of Mari who is most likely the same person as the Governor of Byblos Yantinu of the stela. …. Indeed, Byblos was a semi-autonomous Egyptian governorate at the time and "the king of Byblos" must be the Semitic king of the city ruling it in the name of the pharaoh. The archives of Mari predominantly date to the reign of the last king of the city, Zimri-Lim, a contemporary of Hammurabi who ultimately sacked Mari. This provides the synchronism Neferhotep I – Yantinu – Zimri-Lim – Hammurabi. …. As with the Canaanite fortress of Hazor, the ruler had the generic name of Yabin (Jabin), which emerges, now at the time of Joshua (Joshua 11:1), but also later, now at the time of Deborah (Judges 4:2). Some very good revisionists have gone badly wrong by presuming an identification of a Jabin (“Ibni-Addad of Hazor”) in the Mari Letters, at the time of Zimri-Lim and Hammurabi, with the Jabin at the time of Joshua, a chronological discrepancy of about half a millennium. And I think that the same sort of mistake has probably been made with Yantin, again confused with a contemporary of Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim. The poorly attested Yanassi (Ianassi): “Nothing is known of his actual reign” (https://1743.slovaronline.com/514-iannas), supposed eldest son of Khyan, would likely, I suggest, be as duplication of Khyan himself, some of whose alternate names were: Yannas, Jannis, Iannes, Joannis. Presumably Yanassi is simply (his presumed father) Khyan Yannas. This strengthens my view that Pharaoh Unas of the Fifth Dynasty was, again, Sesostris. For, Unas’s alternate names were, very like Yanassi: Onnus, Jaumos, Onos, Wenis, Ounas, Wenas, Unis: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn05/09unas.html From all of this, it looks like convention has (yet again) got things completely wrong. Hyksos (Syro-Mitannian?) types had come to infiltrate Egypt peaceably during the Twelfth Dynasty, along with many other peoples. Khyan Sesostris may have been a royal product of Egyptian-Mitannian co-operation. This was not an invasion. That came later, in the Thirteenth Dynasty, during the reign of Dudimose, when a people called the Hyksos – whoever they may have been – invaded Egypt and took control of it. Legend has it that the first of these foreign kings was one Salitis, who, if so, has mistakenly been placed before Khyan in the king lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteenth_Dynasty_of_Egypt Fifteenth Dynasty Name Image Dates and comments Salitis Mentioned by Manetho as first king of the dynasty; currently unidentified with any known archaeologically attested person. Ruled for 19 years according to Manetho, as quoted by Josephus. Semqen Mentioned on the Turin king list. According to Ryholt, he was an early Hyksos ruler, possibly the first king of the dynasty;[22] von Beckerath assigns him to the 16th dynasty.[23] Aperanat Mentioned on the Turin king list. According to Ryholt, he was an early Hyksos ruler, possibly the second king of the dynasty;[22] von Beckerath assigns him to the 16th dynasty.[23] Khyan Ruled 10+ years.[9] Yanassi Khyan's eldest son, possibly at the origin of the mention of a king Iannas in Manetho's Aegyptiaca Sakir-Har Named as an Hyksos king on a doorjamb found at Avaris. Regnal order uncertain. Apophis c. 1590?–1550 BC Ruled 40+ years.[9] Khamudi c. 1550–1540 BC