The matter of which pharaoh Moses was dealing with when he (through God's power) brought the ten plagues upon Egypt has been debated among Bible scholars and archeologists for centuries. However, due to a general lack of trust in the accuracy of the Bible accounts, most have assumed that it was a king who lived much later than the Bible account suggests, Ramses 1. But as our Bible-based calculations will show, the exodus from Egypt really happened sometime between 1480 and 1567-BCE, so whoever the pharaoh was, he lived and ruled during that time.
What Egyptian hieroglyphics tell us is that there was a people known as the Hyksos (from the land of CanaAn) who entered Egypt sometime in the Eighteenth Century BCE, and that they ruled a portion of Egypt between 1640 and 1550-BCE, until Pharaoh Kamose finally conquered them, and this was followed by a later 'victory' by his brother, Ahmose I.
Now, if such people (the Hyksos) did in fact live and rule in Egypt, we would expect to read about them in the detailed Bible accounts of the book of Exodus, for that was the same period during which the Israelites were living there… and we don't, which is very unusual. However, if you consider what happened through the eyes of the Egyptians, you can see that the Hyksos were unquestionably the IsraElites. After all, they lived in the land during that exact period, and according to the Bible, Joseph did become the effective ruler of all Egypt.
But later on, the Egyptians became frightened of them (the IsraElites, Hebrews, or Hyksos); for we read at Exodus 1:9, 10: 'Look! The children of IsraEl have [grown tremendously] and they are now more powerful than we are! So, let's be smooth in the way we deal with them, because if they continue to grow and then we find ourselves at war, they could side with our enemies. And after they beat us in war, they will leave our land!'
So it's easy to see why the Egyptians told the story that the Egyptians were being dominated by the Hyksos, so they had to fight a war to free themselves (aren't all wars fought for 'freedom?').
Notice that the Egyptian history of where these people came from, what part of Egypt they lived in, and many more details prove that the Hyksos Kings were those who ruled over the land where their people lived while they were in Egypt. And actually, the Jewish historian Flavius Josephus identified them as such.
As further proof that this is true, historians tell us that they wore signet rings bearing the name Jacob (IsraEl); and that one of the Hyksos kings (of the 14th or 15th Dynasty) was even named Jacob-Baal (Lord Jacob)! This is particularly interesting, because the name Jacob is Hebrew for 'snatcher of the heel.' And what it derives from is the fact that Jacob was holding onto the heel of his twin brother Esau when he was born (an unusual occurrence and an unusual name). So, prior to the birth of Jacob (who was renamed IsraEl by an angel), there was likely no other person in the world who had that same name. Therefore, any king of Egypt named Jacob had to be an IsraElite, since the name was unique to the Hebrew language.
Then, why do archeologists claim that the Hyksos weren't the IsraElites? Because such a conclusion would take the Bible story of the Exodus and its chronology from the realm of myth or a minor event and elevate it to something major that is well documented in history. So archeologists prefer to accept the Egyptian description that spins a tale of how they had to fight a war to free themselves from their oppression.
Recognize that Hyksos kings appeared to have ruled over just their own people (not the whole land of Egypt) in the area that they were given by the pharaoh of JoSeph's time, which was actually considered to be part of Arabia, on the eastern side of the Nile Delta, principally in Avaris; for the most recent interpretation of the name (Hyksos) is ‘Rulers of the Foreigners.’ And although later Egyptian kings accused them of trying to rule over all Egypt in the mid-1500s BCE, that is likely what was said to explain the reason for making them slaves and to cover over the terrible events that happened prior to the Exodus. And unfortunately, the Bible doesn't tell us what happened from the death of JoSeph to the birth of Moses (c. 1879-BCE to c. 1630-BCE).
Understand that all history should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is written to explain the actions of the winners and losers. However, historians seem willing to believe anything that appears to disagree with Bible accounts.
The Wikipedia description tells us this: 'The Hyksos or Hycsos (shepherd kings) were an Asiatic people who took over the eastern Nile Delta, ending the Thirteenth Dynasty, and initiating the Second Intermediate Period of ancient Egypt. The Hyksos first appeared in Egypt c.1800 BC, during the eleventh dynasty, began their climb to power in the thirteenth dynasty, and came out of the second intermediate period in control of Avaris and the Delta. By the fifteenth dynasty, they ruled Lower Egypt, and at the end of the seventeenth dynasty, they were expelled (c.1560 BC).' Note that this isn't talking about the Exodus, it's referring to the start of the IsraElite captivity.
Things that were introduced into Egyptian culture by the Hyksos (Hebrews) include (see 'The Hyksos People of Ancient Egypt'):
Š Horse-drawn chariots
Š Chain-mail armor
Š Improved swords, daggers, and spear tips
Š Metal helmets
Š Composite and recurve bows
Š Improved shields
Š An alphabet (as opposed to the 'hieroglyphics')
We once liked Kamose as the pharaoh of the Exodus because of his history of attacking the 'Hyksos.' However, current archeological estimates put his death around 1550-BCE, which is several years prior to what we have concluded to be the earliest possible Exodus date (at least 200 years earlier than other estimates). And the history of the kings (pharaohs) that preceded him don't line up at all with Bible or secular chronology.
It was Simcha Jacobovici (The Naked Archaeologist) who, in his TV documentary 'Exodus Decoded,' proposed that Kamose' brother Ahmose I is the more likely candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus… and this could well be true. Note the following:
Š According to the Pharaoh Timeline page of the Ancient History Encyclopedia, the death of Ahmose is given as being 1525 BCE.
Š Then according to 1 Kings 6:1, it was 480 years from the time of the Exodus to the start of the construction of the Temple in JeruSalem, which happened in the 4th year of Solomon's reign. So, 1525-480-4=1041 BCE.
Š According to 1 Kings 11:2, Solomon ruled for 40 years (36 years from the time that the Temple was started). So, 1041-36=1005 BCE (the end of Solomon's reign).
Š Thereafter, from the start of the kings who came after Solomon until JeruSalem's destruction was 390 years. So, 1005-390=615 BCE.
As you can see, although this is just a suggested timeline, the dates do work out fairly close to what is indicated for the destruction of JeruSalem. This may be a bit early, for some Bible scholars set the date at 607-BCE while secular historians prefer 587-BCE. Which date is right? If you have an open mind, any of them could be correct. For more information on the possible dates, see the linked document The Problem with Setting Bible Historical Dates.
Then, could it have been a later king (someone who lines up better with popular dates)? Well, the only other choice in the same timeline would have been Ahmose's son Amenhotep I, whom the same source says ruled from 1525 to 1504-BCE. However, it is noteworthy that history tells us that Amenhotep I succeeded an older brother who died mysteriously… possibly from the last plague (the death of the firstborn) in Egypt. So the circumstances favor Ahmose as the pharaoh of the Exodus.
It is interesting that Jacobovici has chosen Ahmose as the pharaoh of the Exodus because of a stela attributed to him that speaks of a terrible storm in his time, which was so devastating that he commissioned it. And yes, that stela does seem to describe the events that led up to the Exodus. Fragments of it are found on the third pylon of the Karnak temple. Notice how it reads (as translated word-for-word):
So then, is this really a secular reference to the plagues that God brought upon Egypt? It seems to be so, for it does describe the great darkness and rain, as well as the devastated condition of the people that came about before they let IsraEl go.
Note the following explanation that we received from Nicole Austin, Jacobovici's assistant, when explaining why Ahmose was more likely the pharaoh of the Exodus than Kamose (whom we had previously suggested): 'Simcha believes that Kamose leaves the scene too soon. He starts the fight but doesn’t finish it … The storm stele is the smoking gun. Also, Ahmose conducts the siege of Avaris and allows for an orderly retreat by the Amu, the so-called Hyksos. Again, in the film, Simcha makes clear that Amu is Canaanite for Amo, which appears hundreds of times in the Torah as Amo Israel. It is post-Ahmose that the shasu magically appear in the desert and Egyptians sent expeditions to fight them. Ahmose is also the Pharaoh that destroys the Canaanite Amus, as opposed to the Israelite Amos, at the Battle of Sharuhen, creating a vacuum in Canaan, which allows Joshua to exploit and conquer with his shasu Israelite followers. At least, that’s Simcha’s theory and it fits better with Ahmose than Kamose.'
By the way, just a little side point: The Egyptians never really called their kings pharaohs, they just called them kings. Use of the term PharaOh as a title for their kings actually comes from ancient Hebrew and Greek writings. It is in fact an Egyptian term, meaning Great House (Phara Oh). And foreign peoples likely started using the title to refer to Egyptian kings, because they received salutations from The Great House, which they thought to be titles for the kings of Egypt.
To return to the previous document, select the Back arrow on your browser