Debunking a Video About the Pharaoh of the Exodus
Is Ramesses II only the most popular candidate because of Hollywood?
One thing that annoys me to no end is the amount of false information regarding the exodus that spreads like crazy. Many people are misled into believing things that do not align with the evidence because of certain ideological narratives at play. I find this to be most unfortunate, and, as a result, I have decided to go through a video arguing for a position on the biblical exodus that I believe to be false and offer a critique of the views presented therein.
Please keep in mind that I am by no means an expert on this subject and I encourage people to do their own research by reading what credible scholars have written. With that said, let us get into the video and I will provide my thoughts on why what the speaker says is not accurate. Also, since this post turned out longer than expected, I have added headings so you can easily find specific parts of my response.
What is this video?
The video itself is titled “Who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus? Evidence of the Exodus [1/4]” and is found on a YouTube channel called Evidence 4 Faith. Though the channel has just under 10K subscribers, this video has almost 90K views in the 8 months since it was posted, making it the channel’s second-most-viewed video. It is 1:01:34 long and is a presentation by the channel’s host, a man named Michael Lane who is a biologist and not an Old Testament or ancient Near Eastern expert.
Obviously, I do not believe that non-experts should not be able to speak publicly about the historicity and background of biblical events, as I would not be writing this post if that were the case. However, I do always recommend proceeding with caution when consuming materials from someone who is not an expert in the field, especially on topics such as the exodus where some people seem to think they can pick and choose whichever “evidence” they like best instead of looking at the whole picture.
Does 1 Kings 6:1 prove an early exodus?
My first issue with the video is at 2:41, where the speaker goes to the main Bible prooftext for an early date (15th century BCE) exodus, 1 Kings 6:1. One would think that the first place to look to establish a date for the historical context of the exodus would be in the book of Exodus itself, not in a book written at a much later date. Yet this one verse is often given much more significance and priority than the entire book of Exodus in determining its date, something I find particularly problematic.
The verse of course states that construction of Solomon’s temple was started in the 480th year after the exodus, placing it in the year 1446 BCE if one adds up the numbers. Because of this, 1446 BCE is often termed “the biblical date of the exodus” as if it is the only date compatible with the biblical text. In some Christian circles, the date of the exodus even serves as a sort of litmus test to distinguish the “true believers” (AKA the early daters) from anyone who dares hold another position.
As I have written elsewhere, this verse does not have to be interpreted literally.1 In fact, there is evidence to show that it belongs to a genre of ancient Near Eastern tests known as temple dedication inscriptions, in which numbers are exaggerated and idealized instead of presenting an exact chronology of historical events.2 Put simply, 1 Kings 6:1 should not be used for dating the exodus, as that was never the purpose of the text.
Do all Egyptologists disagree on chronology?
Later, at 6:09, he says, “almost all Egyptologists, not all, but many Egyptologists cannot agree on the chronological order of the different Pharaohs; they all have different times for them.” This is an extremely misleading and frankly untrue remark, though it is essential to the position he argues for. The truth is that Egyptian chronology is much more firmly established and agreed upon than most early-date advocates would have you believe.
To test his claim, I looked through the chronology lists in a few ancient Egyptian history books to see if “they all have different times.” Spoiler alert: they do not. All of them place 1446 BCE during the reign of Thutmose III, which is not the Pharoah that this video’s presenter would say reigned during the exodus.3 Additionally, the dates between the various books are quite similar and do not differ by a significant amount, and any chronology that places 1446 BCE in the reign of some Pharaoh that is not Thutmose III is seriously flawed by current Egyptological standards.
What do historians say about the exodus Pharaoh?
Then, at around 8:04, he brings up the first-century CE Jewish historian Josephus, saying he wrote that the exodus happened under a Pharaoh named Thutmose. This is accurate, as Josephus did indeed write this in Against Apion I. 88-90. The passage in question reads as follows:
Thoummosis, the son of Misphragmouthosis, attempted to capture them, by force, by means of a siege, investing the walls with an army of 480,000 men. When he abandoned the siege, he made a treaty that they could leave Egypt and go, all of them unharmed, wherever they wished. On these terms, they left Egypt with their whole households and their possessions—numbering no less than 240,000 people—and crossed the desert into Syria. Fearing the dominance of the Assyrians—for at that time these ruled Asia—they built in the region now called Judea a city sufficient for so many thousands of people, and called it Hierosolyma.4
At 8:34, he mentions the third-century BCE Egyptian historian Manetho. A small issue I have here is that the way he pronounces the name (MATH-an-ay-oh) is incorrect and should instead be pronounced as MAN-eh-tho with a short e sound.
Next, the speaker says that Manetho records the name of the exodus Pharaoh as Amenhotep. This is only somewhat true. Unfortunately, none of Manetho’s works survive in full, only in quotations found in the writings of various other ancient historians. One of those who recorded passages of Manetho in his writing is none other than Josephus and in Josephus’s version of Manetho, the exodus Pharaoh is stated to be Amenophis/Amenhotep (Against Apion I. 230).
However, that is not the whole story. Three other ancient writers preserve the names of different Pharaohs for the exodus in this section of Manetho, making it impossible to know which one was original to his text. Even if we knew definitively which Pharaoh Manetho was referring to, it would not mean that he was the actual Pharaoh of the exodus, as Manetho was writing many centuries after these events took place and is not all that reliable as a source.
After this, the speaker goes through more theories presented by various ancient and modern historians about the exodus Pharaoh. One of them is an Old Kingdom Pharaoh, Pepi I, about which he says at 10:57, “actually, that’s closer to the time of Abraham.” I am sure I disagree with his dating of Abraham, but I do agree that this theory places the exodus much too early to have any validity.
At 11:27, while talking about Israel Finkelstein, the graphics on the screen label him as an “Italian archaeologist.” This was probably just a typo by the person doing the editing, as Israel Finkelstein is an Israeli archaeologist, though I am not terribly inclined to give this video the benefit of the doubt.
Did Hollywood make Ramesses II the popular candidate?
Finally, he talks about Ramesses II as a possible exodus Pharaoh. Beginning at 12:45, the speaker says this:
But’cha know, we can’t, we can’t leave this without talking about one of the strongest influencers of all time dealing with anything like this when it’s coming to any type of story, and that’s Hollywood. Hollywood has made numerous films, oh I’m sure you’ve seen Ten Commandments, Prince of Egypt, and others, and they’ve made so many of these, and if you’ve ever noticed, their Pharaoh, their answer to the question of who was the Pharaoh, they depict Ramesses II; he’s also known as Ramesses the Great who lived around 1280 to about 1210 BC. The thing is, again, according to the biblical timeline, this is taking book, taking place in the book if Judges; it does not fit the biblical timeframe. So it was not, I seriously doubt it was Ramesses.
As you can probably predict, I have a *massive* problem with the way this theory is presented. Instead of saying that this is the dominant historical and scholarly view (both of which are true), he simply dismisses it by labelling it “the Hollywood view” because that obviously makes it wrong, or something. Not only is Ramesses II the most popular candidate among archaeologists and Egyptologists who believe in a historical exodus, but this view has much biblical support as well.5
After this, the speaker goes on and on about “getting truth from the word of God” and other such phrases that seem fine on the surface. However, he is making a huge assumption here about what it means to get truth from the word of God. This man has the sort of worldview which says that each and every number in the Bible has to be interpreted exactly literally and can be used to obtain accurate and truthful historical information regarding when certain occurrences took place. Such a view is actually quite recent in the grand scope of Christianity and is mainly held by North American fundamentalist-leaning evangelicals, whose knowledge tends to be lacking in the church history department. Although I used to hold this type of worldview as well, I have changed my mind as a result of seeing how vastly different the cultural context of the Bible is from our modern Western understanding.
When was Joseph in Egypt?
The presenter’s next topic regards matching up the story of Joseph in Genesis with Egyptian history. At 14:29, he says, “the Bible records that Jacob, towards the end of the book of Genesis, Jacob entered the land of Egypt during what most scholars would state was right around the 17th century BC.” I will give credit where credit is due, and this statement is correct, at least in terms in scholars who believe this to be historical. It is also the time that I think matches the best with the story of Joseph’s time in Egypt, so I agree with this section of the video.
During 17:16-17:45, a map of Egypt is shown full-screen. Again, I have to point out a minor issue with this, because the word “eastern” is missing a t. It seems like whoever designed the graphics was doing a pretty sloppy job of it.
What is with these kingdoms and intermediate periods?
During this time is when the presenter explains a bit about Egyptian history and geography, chiefly during the Second Intermediate Period. Some of my audience may be unfamiliar with these terms, so I will provide a brief description of ancient Egyptian history.
Since the time we refer to as “ancient Egypt” spanned literal millennia, there were many changes in the way the country was run over this time. The most famous of these periods in ancient Egyptian history would have to be the Old Kingdom, during which the largest and most famous of the pyramids were built. After this ended, there was the First Intermediate Period, the Middle Kingdom, the Second Intermediate Period, the New Kingdom, the Third Intermediate Period, and the Late Period. Each of the kingdoms were times when Egypt was united under a single ruler, whereas the intermediate periods featured a division of power between two separate entities, Upper and Lower Egypt, which each had their own king.
It was in the Second Intermediate Period when a group of Semitic Asiatics, or people from the Levant, took over Lower Egypt. They were called the Hyksos, meaning something like “foreign rulers” or “rulers of foreign lands.” This is the time in which the speaker places the biblical patriarchs. He seems to think that all of the patriarchs lived during this time, which I do not agree with, as I think that the reference to “Amraphel” in Genesis 14:1 is another name for the famous Old Babylonian king Hammurabi, which would place Abraham toward the end of the Middle Kingdom.6 However, as for the Pharaoh who made Joseph his second-in-command, I definitely think he was one of the Hyksos.
I know I have already called out this guy for incorrect pronunciation of words, but I have to do it again. He pronounces “Hyksos” as “HY-skos” a few times, though, on other occasions, he uses the correct “HIC-sos.”
At 22:52, he mentions the name of an ancient Egyptian city, Avaris, which was the capital of the Hyksos and the place where the Hebrews resided during the sojourn in Egypt. However, unsurprisingly, he pronounces this word wrong too. It should be said as “Av-AR-ris,” not “AV-a-rus!”
Does this scarab mention Jacob from the Bible?
23:13 is when the video gets a close-up shot of a scarab replica that the man is holding. Scarabs are small amulets in the shape of a dung beetle used by the ancient Egyptians that bore the name of a king or other prominent person. They serve as a great tool for dating places when found in archaeological digs. The one he is holding contains the name “Jaqub-Har,” a variation of the name “Jacob,” which he demonstrates by pointing out hieroglyphic symbols on the scarab.
At 14:28, the speaker says,
This could be, it’s possible, we don’t know definitively, this could be the Jacob mentioned in the Bible. It fits the time frame, and it fits many other parts of this story… Many scholars do believe that this could have been, not just the dwelling place of the Hebrews, but that this could have been, possibly, a symbol dealing with Jacob in his elevated position as like a notary stamp, um, a stamp to put on seals and stuff. The time frame, the name, fits the biblical description. We see this!
I commend his efforts to be cautious here and not claim for certain that this scarab can be linked to the patriarch Jacob. One thing to note is that the name Jacob was quite common in the ancient Near East. As Egyptologist Dr. David Falk has said while speaking in a video about these Jacob scarabs,
…the word Jacob means to be protected. And it’s a common name found in Semitic cultures. There are actual, actually, several attestations of Yaqub found in Akkadian; for example, Yaqub-El is attested in Akkadian. So, it’s actually a very common name. It’s a name that’s found throughout the ancient Near East. So just because we find “Jacob” attested here on a signet in Egypt doesn’t mean it’s the same Jacob.7
Another important thing to note is that there was a Hyksos king of the Second Intermediate Period named “Yaqub-Har.” It is likely that these scarabs refer to this man instead of the biblical Jacob, and, as Yaqub-Har was one of the short-lived kings from dynasty 15, he would have lived a while after Jacob. In summary, I do not think this scarab has any connection to the biblical Jacob and would not use it as evidence at all.
Which Pharaoh enslaved the Israelites?
After all this, the speaker moves to discussing the “king who did not know Joseph,” and beginning at 26:24, he says, “this would be the beginning of what is called the Thutmose dynasty.” The what now? I have read much about ancient Egypt and have never heard anyone else mention a “Thutmose dynasty.” Regardless, he is obviously referring to the 18th dynasty, the first one in Egypt’s New Kingdom, as it had four kings named Thutmose. I do not have much criticism here, as I do agree that the “king who did not know Joseph” was indeed the founder of the 18th dynasty, Ahmose I.
He then goes to an article at 27:20 from a magazine called Let the Stones Speak. I am not unfamiliar with this publication; in fact, I was formerly subscribed to their email newsletter and read most of the articles they put out. The magazine is published by an organization called the Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, a group that has repeatedly defended the early date of the exodus, most notably in this very problematic article. Upon my “conversion” to the late date, I stopped consuming materials from this organization, as I realized just how flawed their exodus arguments were.
The article referenced by the speaker is entitled “The Hyksos: Evidence of Jacob’s Family in Ancient Egypt?” and makes the argument that the pre-exodus Israelites were literally the Hyksos. Now, I find this troubling for a few reasons, chiefly that it does not allow for a Hyksos Pharaoh with whom Joseph interacted.
At 27:53, he refers to the authors of Let the Stones Speak as “scholars.” Now, as far as I can tell, Christopher Eames, the author of this article, is not a real scholar. His X bio does not mention any degrees or qualifications, his Academia.edu profile contains zero academic papers, he has not written any published books, and the only thing I could find out about his education was in a brief about the author blurb saying that he was “educated in the USA.” Whatever this education entailed, it was certainly not a PhD and may not have even been in the field of archaeology, so I would not label him as an expert on this matter.
The passage from the article that the speaker quotes is as follows:
This statement by the “new king over Egypt” actually reads almost exactly like a text known as the Carnarvon Tablet—a mid-16th-century inscription by the native Egyptian pharaoh Kamose, who feared that the Hyksos were getting too powerful and needed to be overthrown. (For what it’s worth, as the inscription reveals, Kamose’s advisers protested against the nationalistic pharaoh, stating that the Hyksos were doing nothing to threaten Egypt and were instead maintaining trade opportunities. Nonetheless, Kamose dismissed his advisors and went to war against the Hyksos.) It was during the reign of Kamose’s successor Ahmose I that the Hyksos were entirely overthrown and the New Kingdom period began—with all of Egypt united under one powerful, domineering, native Egyptian ruler, starting circa 1550 B.C.E.8
He uses this quote to speak of how the Pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites was Ahmose I, founder of the eighteenth dynasty. On this point, I totally agree. However, he mispronounces another word! At 31:14, the presenter says Ahmose as “Ahm-HOSE” when it obviously should be “Ah-MOSE.” Clearly, he has a problem with getting consonants switched around.
What structures did Hatshepsut build as Pharaoh?
Later, the speaker gives an overview of the family of Thutmose I-III and Hatshepsut. This is generally good, although he is of course going to use all of this information and connect it with the time of the exodus, with which I vehemently disagree.
Things go downhill yet again when the presenter makes an error in talking about Hatshepsut’s building projects. Beginning at 36:52, he says:
Hatshepsut’s tomb is a magnificant structure rivailing many other features that you find in ancient Egypt; it’s a very popular tourist attraction, and it shows, again, how intelligent she was to have all of this done, and, also, the splendor of her kingdom at this time. So she was just something, uh, of a paradox to many other type of Pharaohs that you see.
Well, I think you got the wrong structure there, buddy. Hatshepsut’s tomb is KV20, a rock-cut tomb in the Valley of the Kings, where most of the New Kingdom Pharaohs were buried. What he is describing is actually the mortuary temple of Hatshepsut, not her tomb. The image shown on-screen during this part of the video is clearly a photograph of the temple, as all it takes is a simple internet search to find this out. While Hatshepsut’s tomb and temple are nearby, they are almost 300 meters apart, as shown in the following screenshot, and are not the same location.
Did Hatshepsut adopt a foreign-born son?
This next part gets reeeeeeeaaaally dicey. He continues talking about the Pharaoh Hatshepsut and how she would have greatly desired a son who could have taken the throne after her.
At 37:56, he says this:
So, according to some Egyptologists and some of the books they’ve written, it appears, this is sort of speculative, but this is what they believe, many believe that Hatshepsut went down to the Nile god Hapi of the Egyptians and prayed for a son through, like, supernatural means because she could not, she was not gonna marry somebody else, and that the Nile god Hapi, um, actually granted her request and gave her a foreign male child that she found in the Nile. She brings this child into the house of Pharaoh and raises him in the house of Pharaoh with all the education and everything that new Pharaoh would need. Now, this unknown, because we do not know the name of the person, who this son was, we do not know the name from Egypt’s history, but, what’s really interesting after a while he just seemed to disappear, and like I say, all signs of his name are removed, but, we have no idea who he was, really. But isn’t it interesting how this really fits the whole story of Moses’s birth and how he came to be into Pharaoh’s house; doesn’t this seem to sort of be similar?
First of all, despite mentioning “some Egyptologists,” the speaker does not cite ANY of the sources from which he obtained this information, leaving me to do the hard work of trying to locate one. Despite having scoured the internet and looking through webpage after webpage, I could find no mentions of this fanciful tale. Who are the “some Egyptologists” the speaker was talking about? If I had to guess, I would say that he did not actually get this from any Egyptologist, but probably heard it from someone else who heard it from another person and so on. It is truly just another example of a “trust me bro” argument that is seen so frequently in various online spaces, much to the chagrin of myself and other reasonable-minded people.
It is also of great annoyance to me that he takes this admittedly speculative story and uses it as evidence for the exodus. I mean come on, the story, according to him, is as follows:
A woman wants a son and requests the help of a deity in procuring one.
Said deity obliges and gives the woman a son.
All traces of the son mysteriously vanish from the historical record.
Although this may seem like a story structure unique to that of the Pharaoh’s daughter in Exodus, it really is not all that uncommon in the ancient world. How many women in the Bible longed for a son and asked God for one, who then provided them with one? Sarah, Rachel, Manoah’s wife (though the Bible never says she desired a son, it is not an unreasonable assumption), Hannah, Elizabeth, heck, even the Hebrew midwives, Puah and Shiphrah, were given families by God (Exodus 1:21)! Having a son was seen as incredibly important and was a thing that almost every woman at that time would have wanted. Therefore, it is only logical that many ancient Near Eastern stories, both historical and mythological, reflect this trope. As for the vanishing part, the infant/child mortality rate in premodern times was much higher than it is now. People died younger due to things like starvation, disease, and battle.
Even if Hatshepsut adopted a foreign-born son who disappeared from the historical record, it would not mean that son was Moses! Many of Hatshepsut’s monuments were defaced toward the end of her stepson’s reign, so this could also explain a “mysterious disappearance.” Although he said that this story is very speculative, the speaker then assumes that it actually happened so that he can use it as “evidence” and continues to invent a story about this “unnamed son of Hatshepsut” who was obviously Moses, because, reasons.
What were the accomplishments of Thutmose III?
At 39:54, the speaker calls Thutmose III “the greatest Pharaoh in Egypt’s history.” Now, exactly which Pharaoh was the greatest is debatable, but it is often said to be Ramesses II given his length of reign and extensive building projects. However, if one is measuring greatness by the amount of military prowess, then Thutmose III would be in the top spot.
After talking a bit more about Thutmose III and his accomplishments, the presenter says that he was the longest-reigning Pharaoh. Well, clearly this man did not do his due diligence in researching for this video, because this statement is flat-out wrong. Now, while Thutmose III’s 54-year reign is certainly longer than most of Egypt’s kings, there are a few that have him beaten in that department. The longest-reigning Pharaoh of the New Kingdom was Ramesses II, who had a reign length of 66 years, and the longest-reigning Pharaoh ever was likely the Old Kingdom Pepi II Neferkhare recorded by Manetho to have a reign of a shocking 94 years, though this is disputed by some experts. Regardless, although the reign of Thutmose III was certainly impressive, it was not the longest one.
Did the Pharaoh before the exodus have to reign 40 years?
After making all these errors, the speaker then attempts to convince his gullible audience that Thutmose III’s long reign “fits the biblical account.” Because most of the people who watch this video will not look things up to verify the information, this man can say pretty much whatever he wants to and people will buy it because they have been conditioned to do so. In his interpretation of certain biblical verses, the Pharaoh who reigned just previous to the one during the exodus must have been king for at least 40 years. Why is the case? Do not worry if you are confused here, because I will explain exactly how this myth developed and why so many people believe it.
The main verse used to justify this interpretation is Exodus 4:19, which reads, “Now in Midian the Lord told Moses, ‘Return to Egypt, for all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.’” Many early daters take this to mean that while Moses was in Midian, God had waited for the Pharaoh to die before sending Moses back to Egypt. If you are a careful reader, you may have noticed that there was no mention of this time lasting 40 years. In fact, this mention of 40 years does not come from the Old Testament at all, but from Stephen’s speech in the book of Acts. In Acts 7:29-30, we read, “When he heard this, Moses fled and became an exile in the land of Midian, where he became the father of two sons. After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to him in the wilderness of Mount Sinai, in the flame of a burning bush.”
The interpretation goes as follows: Moses stayed in Midian for exactly 40 years. At the end of these forty years, the Pharaoh who was in power when Moses fled Egypt died. God informed Moses of this development and sent him and his family on their merry way to lead the Israelites out of slavery. Unfortunately for this man and those who agree with him, there are a few problems with that reasoning.
First, the number 40 is almost always used symbolically in the Bible, and 40 years frequently refers to an indeterminate long period of time in various passages. Taking the 40 years literally also causes problems with the exodus story; is one really expected to believe that Zipporah and her two adult sons rode together on the same donkey (Exodus 4:20)? Secondly, Exodus 4:19 does not read “the Pharaoh who wanted to kill you is dead,” rather, it says, “all the men who wanted to kill you are dead.” Take note of the plurals! Some of the other men who wanted Moses killed could have outlived the Pharaoh, making this whole requirement of this Pharaoh reigning for 40 years something that the Bible never even says.
Was Amenhotep II the Pharaoh of the exodus?
Then, the presenter makes another mistake at 44:36 in pronouncing Amenemhat as “AMEN-em-naht.” This name should actually be said as “AMEN-em-haht;” it does not have a second n!
He then goes into a discussion of Thutmose III’s successor, Amenhotep II, pulling in a number of details to set up his audience to believe this man was the Pharaoh of the exodus. As he says at 45:59, he says this:
Amenhotep II also is noted, this is key, to be extremely cruel, especially to slaves. We know this from writings on the walls in different areas and different monuments and stuff; there are many reliefs in Egypt detailing slaves, for instance, making mudbricks for his building projects out of dirt, straw, and water. Does that sound familiar with the biblical story? Because it fits with the Hebrew slaves making bricks.
Ummm… so what exactly does this prove? Egyptian Pharaohs were not known for their kind and benevolent treatment of slaves! I will also dispute his claim about “many reliefs” showing slaves making mudbricks, something which, to no one’s surprise, he did not mention any specific example of. Now, there is a well-known depiction of slaves making mudbricks in ancient Egypt, but it is not a relief. Theban tomb 100 is the tomb of Rehkmire, a vizier during the reigns of Thutmose III and Amenhotep II. The walls of this tomb are covered in depictions of various activities performed in ancient Egypt, one of which is the making of mudbricks.
The thing is, brickmaking was a common occurrence in ancient Egypt, as bricks were used to build palaces.9 We do not and cannot know if the individuals depicted here were Hebrew slaves, and even if they were, this does not mean that Amenhotep II was the exodus Pharaoh. Late-date exodus proponents generally believe that the enslavement of the Israelites began in the time of Ahmose I, so this tomb painting is consistent with that.
What about Heliopolis in the Septuagint?
In this next part of the video, the speaker reads Exodus 1:11 from an English translation of the Greek translation of the Old Testament. For those unaware, Exodus 1:11 is the main go-to text for exodus late daters like myself because of the names of the cities in the Hebrew text. However, the Greek contains the name of a city not found in the Hebrew, “On, which is Heliopolis.” The man then assumes that this is the correct reading of the passage without using the work of any scholars of Old Testement textual criticism. He also pronounces Heliopolis incorrectly, as '“HILL-o-polis” or “HAIR-o-polis” instead of “HEALY-o-polis.” At 48:51, he states, “some translations actually put it [Heliopolis] in there also.” Now, maybe someone else can help me out here, because I have NO IDEA which translations (aside from translations of the Septuagint) he is talking about. None of the 56 English Bible translations on Bible Gateway mention On/Heliopolis in this verse! Any translation that does include this, if such is the case, would be in the tiny minority.
At 48:56, he says, “we know that Heliopolis was built during the reign of Amenhotep II.” Okaaaaay… who is this “we” he refers to? Even a simple search on Wikipedia will reveal that “Heliopolis was one of the oldest cities of ancient Egypt, occupied since prehistoric Egypt,” and Amenhotep II was certainly not alive in the prehistoric period! Not only does archaeology disprove his claim, but the BIBLE ITSELF contradicts what he said. Three Bible verses (Genesis 41:45, 50; 46:20) confirm that Potiphera, the father of Asenath and father-in-law of Joseph, was a priest at On (Heliopolis). Obviously, Joseph lived several generations before Amenhotep II, as even this man would acknowledge, so to say it was built during his reign is not only poor history but abysmal biblical interpretation.
Was there a period of silence during Amenhotep II’s reign?
Next, the speaker says a lot of factually incorrect things and commits a pretty big fallacy. Beginning at 49:04, he says:
Now, Amenhotep II reigned for 26 years, and though much, we know much about his early reign, the first part of his reign there’s a lot of history, a lot of details and monuments and stuff like this. But something happens. During the latter half of his reign, hardly anything is mentioned. There’s just no information. There’s nothing. This is extremely puzzling because Egyptians often wrote all sorts of things about their Pharaohs. You study any other Pharaoh—you’re going to find everything, uh, things known about their life through the whole time they’re reigning. Not so with Amenhotep II. Halfway through his reign, everything becomes silent. Really interesting. Even his statutes are found incomplete… since Egyptians often detail victories and conquests yet they don’t often talk about defeats and bad things that happened in their reigns, it’s interesting that the second half of Amenhotep’s reign should be in silence. Thus, we have to speculate. Could it be that the plagues of Egypt occured during this time? Egyptians certainly never would have memorialized what was going on in their kingdom.
If you are so sick of this man spewing absurd nonsense, I can relate. To his credit, he gets a few things right. Amenhotep II’s reign was 26 years, and the Egyptains certainly did not record their defeats and misfortunes, at least, not on stone and other materials that have lasted to the present. Most of Egypt’s ancient records have been lost to history, and as some would say, “Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it.”10
However, he says so many things that are misleading at best and blatantly untrue at worst. I could find no sources that speak of a “mysterious silence” which occurred in Amenhotep II’s later reign, and once again, he does not cite any! There is not “no information” about this time in Egypt’s history, and many other times have a lot less known about them. Contrary to his claim, there are some Pharaohs (especially during intermediate periods) for whom very little is known. The existence of some possible Pharaohs is even disputed, so this lack of information, if there even is one, pales in comparison to many other instances.
What does he do with this mysterious gap in knowledge? He speculates! Yes, that is right; who needs evidence when you can just make up whatever you want?
Just because there is a lack of detailed information for a particular time, it does not mean that some sort of catastrophic event must have occurred. If he wants to advocate for this, the burden of proof is on him to show that. Furthermore, even if there was a series of plagues at this time, it would not have to be the plagues from the book of Exodus.
What about Amenhotep II’s mummy and these magicians?
He then brings in further “proof” of this by appealing to Amenhotep II’s mummy. The mummy has many small bumps on it which are a likely, though not conclusively, a sign of disease. Then again, disease was common in the ancient world, and there is no indication in the Bible that the boils contracted by the Pharaoh remained upon him until his death.
The speaker then talks about there being some records from Amenhotep II’s reign that speak of foreigners performing magic in the second half of his reign. Of course, this conflicts with his earlier statement about there being “no information” and “everything becoming silent” during this period. Once again, I could not find any sources that mention this, so it is either some weird story he made up or just a strange myth repeated in a small group of people. Yet again, even if this was true, it is still too vague to be evidence for the exodus. In his next point, he references a real artifact, the Dream Stela. This inscription, told from the perspective of Amenhotep II’s successor, Thutmose IV, mentions that his older brother had died during their father’s reign, and so, did not succeed the throne. To which I have to say, “Do you not know that the average lifespan in ancient Egypt was much shorter than it is now?” People die now, and they died even more often then. Nothing about this death was “mysterious,” as we do not even know how many of the Pharaohs died.
When was Avaris abandoned?
At about 55:17, the presenter claims that the city of Avaris was completely abandoned during the reign of Amenhotep II, and, well, not really. This is a misconception frequently brought up by exodus early daters to prove their theory, but in reality, things are a bit different from what these people make them seem. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak, who has excavated the site of Avaris/Tell El-Dab’a for decades, has written, “After Amenophis [Amenhotep] II the site seems to have been abandoned.”11 However, when one reads the above quotation in context, it becomes clear that “the site” here does not refer to Avaris in its entirety but only the palatial district where the Egyptian elite (not the Hebrews) resided. In fact, occupation of the city continued throughout this time and was finally abandoned in early dynasty 19.12
Well, we are finally done going through this awful video. Thank you for suffering through this video with me, or just laugh at me ranting about obscure topics that you probably do not care about. If anyone ever says “again, this fits the biblical account” to me ever again, I would be very tempted to smack that person in the face. Speaking of faces, this one is probably going to haunt me in my dreams forever (okay, not really, but still)!
BONUS: If you have not seen it yet, I posted my Substack summer for this year as a web-only post. See it below!
See my Substack post, “Is There Any Evidence for the Historicity of the Exodus.”
Falk, David A. The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context: An Illustrated Journey. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Academic, 2020, 17.
For those curious, I used The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt by Ian Shaw, The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt by Toby Wilkinson, and A History of Ancient Egypt by Marc Van De Mieroop.
Flavius Josephus. Against Apion. Vol. 10, Flavius Josephus Translation and Commentary. Translated by John M. G. Barclay. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2007, 59.
For a great introduction to the exodus date debate and why the 13th century date is better-supported by the evidence than the 15th century one, read the section “The Exodus Date” in Chapter 1 of David A. Falk’s fantastic book, The Ark of the Covenant in its Egyptian Context.
Watch this video to learn about a cool synchronism between the Bible and ANE chronology.
Eames, Christopher. “The Hyksos: Evidence of Jacob’s Family in Ancient Egypt?” Armstrong Institute of Biblical Archaeology, 2023. https://armstronginstitute.org/835-the-hyksos-evidence-of-jacobs-family-in-ancient-egypt. Accessed August 23, 2024.
Falk, David A. "What Kind of Construction Did the Israelites Do in Egypt?" TheTorah.com, 2018. https://thetorah.com/article/what-kind-of-construction-did-the-israelites-do-in-egypt. Accessed August 26, 2024.
Some please had better get this reference. Surely I am not the only one who repeatedly quotes things like this!
Bietak, Manfred. “The Palatial Precinct at the Nile Branch (Area H).” https:// www.auaris.at/html/ez_helmi_en.html#9. Accessed August 27, 2024.
Bietak, Manfred, Nicola Math, and Vera Müller. “Report on the Excavations of a Hyksos Palace at Tell-el Dab’a/Avaris.” Egypt and the Levant 22/23, 2013, 45.
I believe his comment about the Egyptian chronology not being firmly established is meant to leave room for the acceptance of David Rohl's New Chronology which has not been accepted by mainstream scholars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Chronology_(Rohl)
A note on Biblical numbers - there are numbers that are associated with God or Israel, perfection or wholeness. If you read the Bible long enough you notice that the number 7 shows up a lot and the number 12 seems to be important also. 10 is a number that is associated with wholeness. These numbers hold special meaning for the ancient Israelites and so when telling their story it made sense to them to use these numbers (and their multiples) to emphasize their unique relationship to God and their special destiny. This was more important to them than the actual date that things occurred or getting the chronology right. You can think of the Hebrew Bible as the narrative type of history similar to Plutarch's Lives - the story is more important than the precise details. This insistence on precise dating and accuracy is a modern phenomenon.