Conclusive evidence that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Ramses II and the response to all doubts about this subject:
Conclusive evidence that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Ramses II and the response to all doubts about this subject
:
Dr. Rashid Al-Badrawi.
(Professor at Cairo University, Islamic researcher and writer)
(Professor at Cairo University, Islamic researcher and writer)
Who is the Pharaoh of Moses? Opinions differed greatly in determining the name of this Pharaoh. In this article, we will mention the various opinions that were mentioned in this regard, reminding that some of these opinions were not put forth with the intention of stating the truth or searching for it, but rather were put forth for a political purpose, even if they were wrapped up in what may seem to the reader to be historical facts. Also, some of the theories that were put forth relied on a specific incident and built their theory on it and began trying to explain all the events according to their theory and twisted the facts and fabricated events to support their point of view.
The shortcomings of these theories, which may be called (one-sided) theories, are not hidden, as they look at events from one angle and ignore other aspects. Hence, opinions multiplied and did not reach a satisfactory result.
Since our approach is a comprehensive view and linking religious stories to historical events, and from this standpoint we saw that the correct way to reach the truth in this regard is to determine some basic points from the story of Moses, peace be upon him, that the proposed theory must meet, as well as to determine the characteristics of this Pharaoh from what was mentioned about him in the holy books, and at the top of them, of course, the Holy Qur’an. It is true that the Holy Qur’an is a book of guidance and faith, and when narrating stories it focused on the aspect of faith and the lesson that can be drawn from them, but at the same time if it refers to a specific event or a specific incident, then its statement is the true statement that cannot be overlooked or something that contradicts it can be mentioned. And what the Holy Qur’an was silent about, there is no harm in searching for what was mentioned in the Torah regarding it, realizing what has happened to some of its texts of distortion and alteration, since the Torah that we have in our hands is in reality the biography of Moses, peace be upon him, and the writers of the Torah mixed what was revealed to him from God with his personal conversations, adding to them their interpretations of some events. Based on these recent additions, we see no harm in overlooking historical information mentioned in the Torah if we see that it contradicts other facts. Or it stands as a stumbling block in the way of a comprehensive theory.
Finally, there is a note worth mentioning, which is the complete silence of Egyptian antiquities on this serious subject - the subject of the Children of Israel and Moses - despite what is known about the Egyptian writings - on the walls of the temples and the monuments - of their accuracy in recording events. Smith explains the silence of Egyptian antiquities on the story of the Exodus - that is, the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt - by saying that from the Egyptian Pharaonic point of view it is nothing more than the escape of a group of slaves from their Egyptian masters, and this was not an incident that would be recorded on the walls of temples or for which monuments would be erected to record it (J.W. Smith God & Man in Earty Israel. P38). It is also certain that these recordings were not - as we say in the language of our time - a free press that recorded events as they occurred - but rather they must have been under strict supervision by the Pharaohs, so they would only record what the Pharaohs themselves permitted and in which there was glorification of them. Since the Pharaohs claimed that they were descendants of the gods, it is inconceivable that the temples would record Moses’ call to a greater god, the Lord of the Worlds. It is also unreasonable to record the failure of the Pharaoh to prevent the exodus of the Children of Israel, let alone his drowning during Pursuing them, as these are events that require a complete media blackout and everything related to them, and working to erase them from the nation’s memory, which is not surprising.. but rather it is happening in our day and age, and how many facts have censorship and intelligence worked to hide from the people!
In view of the multiplicity of opinions in determining the character of the Pharaoh of Moses, we have found that the best method to follow is to establish the basic points that are proven beyond doubt, then present the different theories - one after the other - on these basic points. If they do not meet them, they are excluded until you reach the theory that meets these basic points - all of them - or the largest number of them, and it is the correct theory.
In our opinion, these basic points are:
1- The subjugation of the Children of Israel is the first of these points - and it is a matter proven in the Holy Quran.
{Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a party of them, slaughtering their sons and keeping their women alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.} [Al-Qasas: 4].
It was also mentioned in the Torah as a prophecy to Abraham, peace be upon him: “And he said to Abram: Know for a certainty that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be removed from them and will afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). It was also mentioned several times in the Book of Exodus: “The Egyptians violently enslaved the children of Israel, and made their lives bitter with harsh slavery in mortar and brick and in all kinds of work in the field; all their work they did was violent” (Exodus 1:14).
The theory that is being put forward must clarify why this forced labor and torture occurred. It is not enough to say that the children of Israel were close to the Hyksos for that to be the reason for this torture, as how many communities remained in a country after the occupier was expelled from it and did not suffer such abuse or some of it.
2- The Pharaoh insisted that the Israelites would not leave Egypt, and it was not a desire to exploit them in buildings and constructions, as the Egyptians built the pyramids - more than a hundred - and built huge temples and hundreds of cities, the most recent of which was the city of Akhetaten, and the construction of the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pithom is just a drop in the ocean!!! A sufficient explanation must be provided for the Pharaoh's insistence that the Israelites would not leave Egypt despite the blows that befell him as a result.
3- Picking up from the river: Moses was from the Israelites and the Israelites lived in the land of Goshen east of the Delta and he threw into the river for the Pharaoh's family to pick him up, so the picking up site must be north of the throwing site because the current runs from south to north whether the picking was from the river itself or from one of the canals branching off from it.
4- When Moses fled from Egypt after killing the Egyptian, why didn't he go to the land of Palestine, which had remnants of the Hyksos as well as the (Ebiru) who were related to the Israelites, and it was natural for him to seek refuge with them, so why did he prefer to go to the land of Midian!
5- Many of the theories that were presented neglected to show the miracles of the staff and the hand in the first meeting between Moses and Pharaoh and then the challenge of the magicians after that, and they also neglected to show the remaining nine verses, although they are established matters in all the holy books.
6- The Pharaoh of Moses is described in the Holy Quran as (Pharaoh of the stakes), and a convincing explanation must be provided for this description.
7- The Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity: {So he gathered and called out, * And said, "I am your Lord, the Most High."} [An-Nazi'at: 23-24], which is an actual claim to divinity, and the theory must provide evidence for this, and it is not enough to say that he attributed himself to the gods, as all the pharaohs starting from the Fifth Dynasty claimed that they were descendants of the gods.
8- The Pharaoh of Moses drowned while chasing the Children of Israel. The lesson would be more eloquent if the Pharaoh who drowned was the Pharaoh of subjugation, than if the Pharaoh of subjugation died a natural death and his successor drowned. If the life of one of the Pharaohs was extended to include both matters, then there would be no need to assume two Pharaohs.
9- It would be nice if the theory explained that the ruins that this Pharaoh erected were more devastated than the ruins of other Pharaohs, so that the words of God Almighty would apply to him: {And We destroyed what Pharaoh and his people had made and what they had erected.} [Al-A’raf: 137].
10- Finally, the theory must include an explanation for the Almighty’s saying: {So this day We will save you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you} [Yunus: 92], since we have many mummies of pharaohs, and the sign, in order to be complete and achieve its purpose, must be clear and specific. Which mummies are those of Moses’ Pharaoh? Is there anything in them that can be considered a sign?
There is no doubt that the reader will agree that these points must be available in any theory that is put forward to explain who Moses’ Pharaoh is. Now we will review the various theories that have been presented and see the extent to which they achieve these points.
1- Ahmose I is the Pharaoh of Moses:
The Jewish historian Josephus (Joseph) Ben Matthew, who lived in the first century AD, claims that Manetho - the Egyptian historian who wrote the history of ancient Egypt around 280 BC - mentioned that the Hapiru (or Khapiru) are the same as the Hebrews, i.e. the children of Israel, and they are also the Hyksos who ruled Egypt, and that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose is the same as the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, and thus Ahmose is the Pharaoh of Moses! Since we cannot refer to Manetho’s book, which was lost in the fire of the Library of Alexandria in 48 BC, we cannot be certain of the truth of this statement, and we doubt its validity, as the political goal behind this determination is clear, as it aims to say that the Hyksos – who are the children of Israel – ruled Egypt for a long period of time (from 1780 BC to 1575 BC, i.e. 205 years), and therefore the Jews have the right to claim that they have historical rights to parts of the land of Egypt. This opinion has been adopted by a number of historians, most of whom are Jews or those who support them.
What is historically proven is that the first arrival of the Children of Israel - as a distinct and independent group in their livelihood from the Egyptians - was when Jacob and his sons came at the invitation of Joseph the Truthful, who was the deputy of the king, who betrayed the king of the Hyksos and settled them in the land of Goshen. This categorically denies that the Israelites are the same as the Hyksos, since they came to them and the Hyksos celebrated them out of respect for the deputy of the king (Joseph) and because they were Bedouin people like them and saw in them a support that would help them if the Egyptians revolted against them. When the Hyksos left Egypt, a small group of the Children of Israel left with them whose interests were linked to them and they were called (the Hapiru). However, the vast majority of the Children of Israel in Egypt later on. This theory also contradicts what is proven about the subjugation of the Children of Israel by the Egyptians. If they were the Hyksos - the rulers of the country - how could such a thing happen to them? It is proven that during the famine they were enjoying themselves while the Egyptians suffered its severity and were forced to sell their lands to the Hyksos king. This theory also contradicts what is known, that the Pharaoh of Moses insisted on keeping the Children of Israel in Egypt despite the miracles brought by Moses. Was Ahmose insisting on keeping the Hyksos who occupied his country? Another reason is that Ahmose ruled from Thebes in the far south of Egypt, while the Children of Israel lived in the land of Goshen, east of the Delta. How could Moses’ mother throw him into the river for the Pharaoh’s family, who lived a thousand kilometers to the south, to pick him up?
For these reasons, we can confidently exclude the opinion that Ahmose is the Pharaoh of Moses.
2- Ahmose is the Pharaoh of forced labor and Thutmose I is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
The author of this opinion is Dr. Muhammad Wasfi in the book (The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 156). He believes that Ahmose is the one who tortured and persecuted the Children of Israel, and he has political, social, military, and national justifications. He says that Ahmose was the liberator of Egypt from the Hyksos occupiers who were invaders from the east, so it was natural for him to work to eliminate the elements loyal to them or at least to strip them of their authority which they had reached through (Joseph) and with the approval of the Hyksos kings, so he used to slaughter their sons so that they would not grow up to become a force that would work to destroy what he had built to liberate his country from foreigners, and he used the Children of Israel to build cities, so it was not political to exterminate them all. He says that the Children of Israel remained in torture since Ahmose assumed power in 1580 BC and that Moses was born in 1571. He says that Moses was a contemporary of three pharaohs, in order:
Ahmose for 14 years;
Amenhotep I for 16 years;
then Thutmose I for 39 years.
And that when Moses killed the Egyptian, he was 61 years old and he was a stranger in the land of Midian for 8 years, then he returned at the age of 69 and called the pharaoh for one year, then the exodus took place. This opinion contradicts several historical facts.
1- How did Ahmose pick up Moses from the river while Ahmose was ruling from Thebes in the south?
2- One year between Moses’ return from the land of Midian and the Exodus is not enough to show the nine signs established in the Holy Books.
3- Thutmose I was the son of a woman of non-royal blood (Queen Senesoneb) and his support for reaching the throne was his marriage to his sister who had royal blood running through her veins from both her father and mother. Perhaps he felt a deficiency in this regard, so he tried to give himself royal titles, calling himself (king from the son of a king), trying to join the line of pharaohs with legitimate rights (Dr. Naguib Mikhail Ibrahim: Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, p. 23). Since this was the case, and he had barely reached the throne, he would not have gone beyond that and claimed divinity, as is proven in the case of Pharaoh and Moses.
4- It was not reported that Thutmose I died a sudden or unnatural death, but rather he died a normal death and was succeeded by his son Thutmose II, relying on his marriage to the legitimate heiress (Hatshepsut).
All these points necessitate rejecting this theory as well.
3- Thutmose II is the Pharaoh of Moses:
This opinion was stated by J. De Micelli (1960), who claims that he has determined the time of the Exodus with an approximate margin of one day, which is April 9, 1495 BC, and this is through calculating the calendars. Accordingly, Thutmose II - who was king at this date - is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Among what he mentioned in support of his theory is that the mummy of Thutmose II has a description of skin tumors written on it, and since one of the plagues of Egypt mentioned in the Torah is a skin rash, this, in his opinion, is material evidence that Thutmose II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus! In our opinion, this is an example of theories (theories of the view) that take one event as the basis for a theory while ignoring the rest of the events and their compatibility with this assumption, so that Maurice Bucaille, who mentioned this opinion (Study of the Holy Books, p. 259), described it as one of the strangest assumptions and said that it does not take into account at all other matters in the Torah narrative, especially the building of the city of Pi-Ramesses, that indication that invalidates every assumption about determining the Exodus before one of the Ramesses ruled Egypt.
As for the skin tumors of Thutmose II, his son - Thutmose III - and his grandson Amenhotep II were also afflicted with skin tumors that can be seen on their mummies in the Cairo Museum. This occurs in multiple neurofibromatosis that affects the skin and is known to appear in more than one generation in a family.
4 - Thutmose III is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
Those who believe in this hypothesis rely on a passage in the Torah that says: “And it was in the 480th year after the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over the Israelites, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that the house of the Lord was built” (1 Kings 1:6). Since Solomon’s reign began in 970 BC, the fourth year is 966 BC. If we add the 480 years to it, this would take us back to 1446 BC, that is, towards the end of the reign of Thutmose III (1468-1436 BC).
The truth is that this 480-year period has caused much controversy and confusion in the calculation of time. It differs in some translations of the Torah from what is stated in other translations, as some make it only 440 years, and some add 580 years! Therefore, many believe that this number was a guess by one of the Torah writers because there were 12 generations between the Exodus and the building of Solomon’s Temple. The author of this number assumed 40 years for each generation, so it would be 12 x 40 = 480. If we assume 25 years for each generation, assuming that the sons would marry at the age of twenty-five, which is a reasonable assumption, then it would be 12 x 25 = 300. This leads us to the date of the Exodus in the year 1270 BC, during the reign of Ramses II.
Those who believe in the hypothesis that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of Moses say that Moses was pulled out of the water by Queen Hatshepsut in 1527 BC, and that he was raised in her entourage and court. When Thutmose III assumed the throne - and because of his known hostility to Hatshepsut - Moses feared his anger and fled from Egypt, then returned and the exodus was in 1447 BC. This opinion contradicts many facts, such as that Moses fled from Egypt because he killed the Egyptian, and also that during the reign of Thutmose III, Egyptian influence was strong in Palestine. Thus, Thutmose III established a vast and well-established empire, and Egyptian influence continued to be strong in the Near East region and in Palestine in particular during the reign of the pharaohs who succeeded him: Amenhotep II for 23 years - Thutmose IV for 8 years - Amenhotep III for 37 years, i.e. for a period of 68 years. The Children of Israel were not able to set foot on the land of Palestine after the period of wandering, and even if Egyptian influence weakened a little during the reign of Akhenaten, it returned again after the end of His religious revolution reached its peak again during the days of Seti and Ramses II.
In addition, Thutmose III did not claim divinity, unlike the Pharaoh of Moses who said: { I am your supreme lord}. Thutmose III was highly moral and humble. He said about himself: I did not utter an exaggerated word seeking to boast about what I did, so I say that I did something that my majesty did not do, and I did not do a work that was suspected. I did that for my father, the god Amun, because he knows what is in the sky and knows what is on the earth and sees the whole world in the blink of an eye (Saleem Hassan, Ancient Egypt, Vol. 4, p. 511). Thutmose III was a man of war who spent many years of his life on the battlefields, and there is no better evidence of his humility than that he did not attribute the credit for his victories to his skill, but rather attributed them all to the support of his god Amun, as evidenced by the tablet that he ordered to be erected in the Karnak Temple, on which he wrote a poem in the name of the god Amun addressing his son Thutmose III, saying to him (with its abbreviation):
My heart is delighted by your auspicious arrival to my temple, and my hands grant your limbs protection and life. I I give you strength and victory over all the fair lands, and I establish your glory and fear in all lands, and terror of you extends to the four pillars of heaven. I make your respect great in all bodies and the great men of all foreign lands are all in your grasp, and I myself stretch out my hand and catch them for you and bind the prisoners by the tens of thousands. I make the enemies fall under your shoes and you trample the rebels, and I give you the length and breadth of the earth and the people of the West and the people of the East are under your authority. You penetrate all foreign lands with a cheerful heart, and wherever you go there is no attacker, and I am your guide and therefore you reach them, and when they hear the call to declare war they take refuge in the burrows. I have sent the terror of your majesty into their hearts, and the blazing spear on your forehead burns them with its flame and cuts off the heads of the Asiatics and none escapes it but they fall. I make your victories spread abroad in all lands. I have worked to suppress those who make raids and those who approach you. I have come to make you able to trample with the foot. The great men of Phoenicia, and to make you scatter them under your feet, I have come to enable you to trample those in Asia, and to strike down the princes of Ammo, I have come to enable you to trample the eastern land, and to make them see your majesty like a star that spreads its flame like fire, I have come to enable you to trample the western land, and those in the middle of the ocean in the islands, and to trample the Libyans, I have come to enable you to trample the farthest limits of the earth.
O mighty bull who shines in Thebes, the immortal Thutmose, who has done for me all that my soul longs for, you have built me a dwelling place, a work that will last forever, and you have made it longer and wider than it was before, I will establish you on the throne for thousands of thousands of years so that you may shepherd the living forever.
This poem shows the clarity of Thutmose III and his recognition of the favor of the god Amun upon him in his victories, for he is not that arrogant, haughty, claiming divinity, as is the case with the Pharaoh of Moses.
5- Amenhotep II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
This is a slight modification of the previous hypothesis, as it increases the period of Moses’ absence and makes him return during the reign of Amenhotep II. This opinion was stated by Daniel Rops in his book The People of the Bible. We do not need to elaborate on refuting this hypothesis, as it is weak like the previous one.
6- Akhenaten is the same as Moses!:
This is one of the ((one-sided)) hypotheses, since Akhenaten called for monotheism and Moses also called for monotheism, then they are one person!! The author of this strange opinion is Professor Ahmed Othman, an Egyptian who traveled to England in 1964 and studied Egyptology and lived there, and wrote two books: the content of the first is that Yuya the Egyptian is the same as ((Joseph)) peace be upon him, and the second was published in 1989 in which he explained his theory that Akhenaten is the same as Moses peace be upon him and chose an attractive title for it:
Moses, Pharaoh of Egypt. The mystery of Akhenaten resolved.. Despite the obvious corruption of this claim, there is no harm in citing the conception cited by its author to show how imagination leads some people astray and makes them come up with extremely strange concepts and makes us wonder about the motive behind all this fabrication.
The proponent of this hypothesis says that Moses spent his childhood in the eastern Delta, where he was influenced by the beliefs of the Israelites about God and was saturated with them. Then he returned to Thebes, the capital of Egypt and the center of the worship of Amun. His father, Amenhotep III, had deteriorated in health. Moses was the second son of Amenhotep III from Queen Tiye, who he says was half Egyptian and half Israelite! The first son of Amenhotep III had mysteriously disappeared, and from here the mother feared that her second son, Moses, would be hated by the priests of Amun. He believes that the priests of Amun feared the consequences of ascending the throne to a person who was not completely pure of Egyptian blood, both mother and father. Amenhotep III saw the threat to the throne from the anger of the priests of Amun, so he agreed with them in not allowing these sons to take the throne. He even suggested to the midwives to kill the queen’s son if he was a boy. When the second son, Moses, was born, his mother threw him into the river, where the current carried him from Thebes to the land of Goshen until he was picked up by a family of the Children of Israel. He was raised with them and was influenced by the monotheistic ideas of the Israelites. When Amenhotep III’s health weakened, Queen Tiye summoned her son from the Israelite family that had picked him up. In order to gain him the status of successor to the throne, he married him to his half-sister, Nefertiti, who was the daughter of Amenhotep III from an Egyptian wife. Moses took the throne of Egypt under the name of Amenhotep IV, then carried out his religious revolution and declared the idea of monotheism. He forbade the worship of Amun and all other gods, and the priests of Amun conspired against him. The priest Ay told him about the conspiracy and advised him to flee to Sinai. Tutankhamun took the throne, then the priest Ay, then Horemheb. Then the Nineteenth Dynasty began and Ramses I took the throne. Here, Moses returned to demand his right to the throne, and when he did not succeed in that, he asked Ramses I to allow him to leave the Children of Israel from Egypt under his command.
This hypothesis, steeped in fantasy, is based on a confusion of facts and a reversal of the situation. The Egyptian father is the one who suggests killing his son or approves the priests of their action, the Egyptian mother throws her son into the river, and the current carries him about 1000 km from Thebes to the land of Goshen, an Israelite family picks him up and adopts him, and the Pharaoh - who is Akhenaten - flees Egypt and then returns to claim the throne!
The political goal behind all this fabrication is not hidden. As long as Moses is Akhenaten, and Akhenaten ruled Egypt for 17 years, then the Children of Israel have rights in Egypt, not because Moses lived there, but because he ruled it!!
7- Tutankhamun is the Pharaoh of Moses:
The one who said this opinion is the Jewish scholar Sigmund Freud, who also claimed that Moses was Egyptian and not from the Children of Israel and that the Mosaic religion was derived from the belief of Akhenaten (Sigmund Freud - Moses is Egyptian - translated by Muhammad Al-Azab Musa). He says: Moses was one of the Egyptian princes close to Akhenaten, but when the apostasy occurred after Akhenaten, Moses was excluded, and when his hope of ruling his country collapsed, he wanted to find a role for himself as a leader, so he led the Children of Israel and gave them a new religion that he derived from Akhenaten’s monotheistic belief, then he led the Children of Israel to leave Egypt peacefully – without persecution – to the land of Palestine, where Egyptian influence had receded during the days of Akhenaten due to his preoccupation with his religious ideas, and the exit was during the reign of Tutankhamun. John Wilson, who supports this theory, says that Moses took advantage of the weakness that prevailed in the last days of Akhenaten and the reign of his two weak successors: ((Smenkhkare)) and ((Tutankhamun)) and succeeded in getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt by deceiving the Pharaoh and fleeing to the Sinai Desert, and Arthur Weigal agrees with this hypothesis (History of Ancient Egypt, Paris, p. 146, A. Weigal, 1986) and sets the date of the Exodus at 1346 BC and believes that it occurred at the end of the reign of Tutankhamun. Likewise, the historian Weech (Civilization of the Near East, p. 88, EH Weech) believes that Moses, who spent his childhood, youth and youth in Akhenaten's palace, knew this belief and believed in it, and derived from it the religion that he gave to the children of Israel.
This theory also ignores many historical facts, like the previous one:
1- Moses was from the children of Israel and not Egyptian, even though he was raised in the palace of the pharaoh.
2- It ignores the torture that was inflicted on the children of Israel, since Akhenaten's peaceful nature does not agree with that, in addition to the distance of their place of residence in the eastern Delta from the capital where Akhenaten lived, Thebes in his early days and then in his new capital in Tell el-Amarna.
3- It is unreasonable for a people to accept appointing a leader and commander from another race, unless it is imposed on them by force - or they accept it until he takes them out of Egypt, and once they have completed their exodus, it will be natural for them to rebel against him with a leader from their own race.
4- Monotheism was the belief of the Children of Israel, taken from their father Jacob and their grandfather Abraham, and the Akhenatonism, although in the eyes of the Egyptians it was monotheism, in the eyes of the Children of Israel it was an apostasy from monotheism because it embodied God in the sun disk.
5- This theory claims that the exodus took place peacefully and without pursuit, while what is established in the holy books is that the Pharaoh who pursued Moses drowned, and the medical examination of the body of Tutankhamun proved that he was killed by a blow to the head.
6- If the children of Israel had left Egypt during the reign of Tutankhamun and settled in Palestine, it would have been necessary for Horemheb and Seti I or Ramses II to eliminate them in their campaigns to restore Egyptian influence in the Near East, or at least they would have subjected the Jewish states in Palestine to Egyptian influence, which no one talked about, and it did not happen at all since the children of Israel had not yet left Egypt. When Freud saw the strong opposition to his theory, he retracted it and said that it is possible that Moses lived in an era after Akhenaten and Tutankhamun!!
We have the right to ask: How could a scientist like Freud say this opinion? The strangeness disappears if we know his Jewish identity, since as long as Moses was Egyptian, the children of Israel have historical rights in Egypt! This is the political goal he seeks, as his predecessor Joseph Ibn Matta did when he claimed that the Hyksos who ruled Egypt were the same children of Israel.
The shortcomings of these theories, which may be called (one-sided) theories, are not hidden, as they look at events from one angle and ignore other aspects. Hence, opinions multiplied and did not reach a satisfactory result.
Since our approach is a comprehensive view and linking religious stories to historical events, and from this standpoint we saw that the correct way to reach the truth in this regard is to determine some basic points from the story of Moses, peace be upon him, that the proposed theory must meet, as well as to determine the characteristics of this Pharaoh from what was mentioned about him in the holy books, and at the top of them, of course, the Holy Qur’an. It is true that the Holy Qur’an is a book of guidance and faith, and when narrating stories it focused on the aspect of faith and the lesson that can be drawn from them, but at the same time if it refers to a specific event or a specific incident, then its statement is the true statement that cannot be overlooked or something that contradicts it can be mentioned. And what the Holy Qur’an was silent about, there is no harm in searching for what was mentioned in the Torah regarding it, realizing what has happened to some of its texts of distortion and alteration, since the Torah that we have in our hands is in reality the biography of Moses, peace be upon him, and the writers of the Torah mixed what was revealed to him from God with his personal conversations, adding to them their interpretations of some events. Based on these recent additions, we see no harm in overlooking historical information mentioned in the Torah if we see that it contradicts other facts. Or it stands as a stumbling block in the way of a comprehensive theory.
Finally, there is a note worth mentioning, which is the complete silence of Egyptian antiquities on this serious subject - the subject of the Children of Israel and Moses - despite what is known about the Egyptian writings - on the walls of the temples and the monuments - of their accuracy in recording events. Smith explains the silence of Egyptian antiquities on the story of the Exodus - that is, the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt - by saying that from the Egyptian Pharaonic point of view it is nothing more than the escape of a group of slaves from their Egyptian masters, and this was not an incident that would be recorded on the walls of temples or for which monuments would be erected to record it (J.W. Smith God & Man in Earty Israel. P38). It is also certain that these recordings were not - as we say in the language of our time - a free press that recorded events as they occurred - but rather they must have been under strict supervision by the Pharaohs, so they would only record what the Pharaohs themselves permitted and in which there was glorification of them. Since the Pharaohs claimed that they were descendants of the gods, it is inconceivable that the temples would record Moses’ call to a greater god, the Lord of the Worlds. It is also unreasonable to record the failure of the Pharaoh to prevent the exodus of the Children of Israel, let alone his drowning during Pursuing them, as these are events that require a complete media blackout and everything related to them, and working to erase them from the nation’s memory, which is not surprising.. but rather it is happening in our day and age, and how many facts have censorship and intelligence worked to hide from the people!
In view of the multiplicity of opinions in determining the character of the Pharaoh of Moses, we have found that the best method to follow is to establish the basic points that are proven beyond doubt, then present the different theories - one after the other - on these basic points. If they do not meet them, they are excluded until you reach the theory that meets these basic points - all of them - or the largest number of them, and it is the correct theory.
In our opinion, these basic points are:
1- The subjugation of the Children of Israel is the first of these points - and it is a matter proven in the Holy Quran.
{Indeed, Pharaoh exalted himself in the land and made its people into factions, oppressing a party of them, slaughtering their sons and keeping their women alive. Indeed, he was of the corrupters.} [Al-Qasas: 4].
It was also mentioned in the Torah as a prophecy to Abraham, peace be upon him: “And he said to Abram: Know for a certainty that your descendants will be strangers in a land that is not theirs, and they will be removed from them and will afflict them four hundred years” (Genesis 15:13). It was also mentioned several times in the Book of Exodus: “The Egyptians violently enslaved the children of Israel, and made their lives bitter with harsh slavery in mortar and brick and in all kinds of work in the field; all their work they did was violent” (Exodus 1:14).
The theory that is being put forward must clarify why this forced labor and torture occurred. It is not enough to say that the children of Israel were close to the Hyksos for that to be the reason for this torture, as how many communities remained in a country after the occupier was expelled from it and did not suffer such abuse or some of it.
2- The Pharaoh insisted that the Israelites would not leave Egypt, and it was not a desire to exploit them in buildings and constructions, as the Egyptians built the pyramids - more than a hundred - and built huge temples and hundreds of cities, the most recent of which was the city of Akhetaten, and the construction of the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pithom is just a drop in the ocean!!! A sufficient explanation must be provided for the Pharaoh's insistence that the Israelites would not leave Egypt despite the blows that befell him as a result.
3- Picking up from the river: Moses was from the Israelites and the Israelites lived in the land of Goshen east of the Delta and he threw into the river for the Pharaoh's family to pick him up, so the picking up site must be north of the throwing site because the current runs from south to north whether the picking was from the river itself or from one of the canals branching off from it.
4- When Moses fled from Egypt after killing the Egyptian, why didn't he go to the land of Palestine, which had remnants of the Hyksos as well as the (Ebiru) who were related to the Israelites, and it was natural for him to seek refuge with them, so why did he prefer to go to the land of Midian!
5- Many of the theories that were presented neglected to show the miracles of the staff and the hand in the first meeting between Moses and Pharaoh and then the challenge of the magicians after that, and they also neglected to show the remaining nine verses, although they are established matters in all the holy books.
6- The Pharaoh of Moses is described in the Holy Quran as (Pharaoh of the stakes), and a convincing explanation must be provided for this description.
7- The Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity: {So he gathered and called out, * And said, "I am your Lord, the Most High."} [An-Nazi'at: 23-24], which is an actual claim to divinity, and the theory must provide evidence for this, and it is not enough to say that he attributed himself to the gods, as all the pharaohs starting from the Fifth Dynasty claimed that they were descendants of the gods.
8- The Pharaoh of Moses drowned while chasing the Children of Israel. The lesson would be more eloquent if the Pharaoh who drowned was the Pharaoh of subjugation, than if the Pharaoh of subjugation died a natural death and his successor drowned. If the life of one of the Pharaohs was extended to include both matters, then there would be no need to assume two Pharaohs.
9- It would be nice if the theory explained that the ruins that this Pharaoh erected were more devastated than the ruins of other Pharaohs, so that the words of God Almighty would apply to him: {And We destroyed what Pharaoh and his people had made and what they had erected.} [Al-A’raf: 137].
10- Finally, the theory must include an explanation for the Almighty’s saying: {So this day We will save you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you} [Yunus: 92], since we have many mummies of pharaohs, and the sign, in order to be complete and achieve its purpose, must be clear and specific. Which mummies are those of Moses’ Pharaoh? Is there anything in them that can be considered a sign?
There is no doubt that the reader will agree that these points must be available in any theory that is put forward to explain who Moses’ Pharaoh is. Now we will review the various theories that have been presented and see the extent to which they achieve these points.
1- Ahmose I is the Pharaoh of Moses:
The Jewish historian Josephus (Joseph) Ben Matthew, who lived in the first century AD, claims that Manetho - the Egyptian historian who wrote the history of ancient Egypt around 280 BC - mentioned that the Hapiru (or Khapiru) are the same as the Hebrews, i.e. the children of Israel, and they are also the Hyksos who ruled Egypt, and that the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt by Ahmose is the same as the exodus of the children of Israel from Egypt, and thus Ahmose is the Pharaoh of Moses! Since we cannot refer to Manetho’s book, which was lost in the fire of the Library of Alexandria in 48 BC, we cannot be certain of the truth of this statement, and we doubt its validity, as the political goal behind this determination is clear, as it aims to say that the Hyksos – who are the children of Israel – ruled Egypt for a long period of time (from 1780 BC to 1575 BC, i.e. 205 years), and therefore the Jews have the right to claim that they have historical rights to parts of the land of Egypt. This opinion has been adopted by a number of historians, most of whom are Jews or those who support them.
What is historically proven is that the first arrival of the Children of Israel - as a distinct and independent group in their livelihood from the Egyptians - was when Jacob and his sons came at the invitation of Joseph the Truthful, who was the deputy of the king, who betrayed the king of the Hyksos and settled them in the land of Goshen. This categorically denies that the Israelites are the same as the Hyksos, since they came to them and the Hyksos celebrated them out of respect for the deputy of the king (Joseph) and because they were Bedouin people like them and saw in them a support that would help them if the Egyptians revolted against them. When the Hyksos left Egypt, a small group of the Children of Israel left with them whose interests were linked to them and they were called (the Hapiru). However, the vast majority of the Children of Israel in Egypt later on. This theory also contradicts what is proven about the subjugation of the Children of Israel by the Egyptians. If they were the Hyksos - the rulers of the country - how could such a thing happen to them? It is proven that during the famine they were enjoying themselves while the Egyptians suffered its severity and were forced to sell their lands to the Hyksos king. This theory also contradicts what is known, that the Pharaoh of Moses insisted on keeping the Children of Israel in Egypt despite the miracles brought by Moses. Was Ahmose insisting on keeping the Hyksos who occupied his country? Another reason is that Ahmose ruled from Thebes in the far south of Egypt, while the Children of Israel lived in the land of Goshen, east of the Delta. How could Moses’ mother throw him into the river for the Pharaoh’s family, who lived a thousand kilometers to the south, to pick him up?
For these reasons, we can confidently exclude the opinion that Ahmose is the Pharaoh of Moses.
2- Ahmose is the Pharaoh of forced labor and Thutmose I is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
The author of this opinion is Dr. Muhammad Wasfi in the book (The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 156). He believes that Ahmose is the one who tortured and persecuted the Children of Israel, and he has political, social, military, and national justifications. He says that Ahmose was the liberator of Egypt from the Hyksos occupiers who were invaders from the east, so it was natural for him to work to eliminate the elements loyal to them or at least to strip them of their authority which they had reached through (Joseph) and with the approval of the Hyksos kings, so he used to slaughter their sons so that they would not grow up to become a force that would work to destroy what he had built to liberate his country from foreigners, and he used the Children of Israel to build cities, so it was not political to exterminate them all. He says that the Children of Israel remained in torture since Ahmose assumed power in 1580 BC and that Moses was born in 1571. He says that Moses was a contemporary of three pharaohs, in order:
Ahmose for 14 years;
Amenhotep I for 16 years;
then Thutmose I for 39 years.
And that when Moses killed the Egyptian, he was 61 years old and he was a stranger in the land of Midian for 8 years, then he returned at the age of 69 and called the pharaoh for one year, then the exodus took place. This opinion contradicts several historical facts.
1- How did Ahmose pick up Moses from the river while Ahmose was ruling from Thebes in the south?
2- One year between Moses’ return from the land of Midian and the Exodus is not enough to show the nine signs established in the Holy Books.
3- Thutmose I was the son of a woman of non-royal blood (Queen Senesoneb) and his support for reaching the throne was his marriage to his sister who had royal blood running through her veins from both her father and mother. Perhaps he felt a deficiency in this regard, so he tried to give himself royal titles, calling himself (king from the son of a king), trying to join the line of pharaohs with legitimate rights (Dr. Naguib Mikhail Ibrahim: Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, p. 23). Since this was the case, and he had barely reached the throne, he would not have gone beyond that and claimed divinity, as is proven in the case of Pharaoh and Moses.
4- It was not reported that Thutmose I died a sudden or unnatural death, but rather he died a normal death and was succeeded by his son Thutmose II, relying on his marriage to the legitimate heiress (Hatshepsut).
All these points necessitate rejecting this theory as well.
3- Thutmose II is the Pharaoh of Moses:
This opinion was stated by J. De Micelli (1960), who claims that he has determined the time of the Exodus with an approximate margin of one day, which is April 9, 1495 BC, and this is through calculating the calendars. Accordingly, Thutmose II - who was king at this date - is the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Among what he mentioned in support of his theory is that the mummy of Thutmose II has a description of skin tumors written on it, and since one of the plagues of Egypt mentioned in the Torah is a skin rash, this, in his opinion, is material evidence that Thutmose II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus! In our opinion, this is an example of theories (theories of the view) that take one event as the basis for a theory while ignoring the rest of the events and their compatibility with this assumption, so that Maurice Bucaille, who mentioned this opinion (Study of the Holy Books, p. 259), described it as one of the strangest assumptions and said that it does not take into account at all other matters in the Torah narrative, especially the building of the city of Pi-Ramesses, that indication that invalidates every assumption about determining the Exodus before one of the Ramesses ruled Egypt.
As for the skin tumors of Thutmose II, his son - Thutmose III - and his grandson Amenhotep II were also afflicted with skin tumors that can be seen on their mummies in the Cairo Museum. This occurs in multiple neurofibromatosis that affects the skin and is known to appear in more than one generation in a family.
4 - Thutmose III is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
Those who believe in this hypothesis rely on a passage in the Torah that says: “And it was in the 480th year after the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over the Israelites, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, that the house of the Lord was built” (1 Kings 1:6). Since Solomon’s reign began in 970 BC, the fourth year is 966 BC. If we add the 480 years to it, this would take us back to 1446 BC, that is, towards the end of the reign of Thutmose III (1468-1436 BC).
The truth is that this 480-year period has caused much controversy and confusion in the calculation of time. It differs in some translations of the Torah from what is stated in other translations, as some make it only 440 years, and some add 580 years! Therefore, many believe that this number was a guess by one of the Torah writers because there were 12 generations between the Exodus and the building of Solomon’s Temple. The author of this number assumed 40 years for each generation, so it would be 12 x 40 = 480. If we assume 25 years for each generation, assuming that the sons would marry at the age of twenty-five, which is a reasonable assumption, then it would be 12 x 25 = 300. This leads us to the date of the Exodus in the year 1270 BC, during the reign of Ramses II.
Those who believe in the hypothesis that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of Moses say that Moses was pulled out of the water by Queen Hatshepsut in 1527 BC, and that he was raised in her entourage and court. When Thutmose III assumed the throne - and because of his known hostility to Hatshepsut - Moses feared his anger and fled from Egypt, then returned and the exodus was in 1447 BC. This opinion contradicts many facts, such as that Moses fled from Egypt because he killed the Egyptian, and also that during the reign of Thutmose III, Egyptian influence was strong in Palestine. Thus, Thutmose III established a vast and well-established empire, and Egyptian influence continued to be strong in the Near East region and in Palestine in particular during the reign of the pharaohs who succeeded him: Amenhotep II for 23 years - Thutmose IV for 8 years - Amenhotep III for 37 years, i.e. for a period of 68 years. The Children of Israel were not able to set foot on the land of Palestine after the period of wandering, and even if Egyptian influence weakened a little during the reign of Akhenaten, it returned again after the end of His religious revolution reached its peak again during the days of Seti and Ramses II.
In addition, Thutmose III did not claim divinity, unlike the Pharaoh of Moses who said: { I am your supreme lord}. Thutmose III was highly moral and humble. He said about himself: I did not utter an exaggerated word seeking to boast about what I did, so I say that I did something that my majesty did not do, and I did not do a work that was suspected. I did that for my father, the god Amun, because he knows what is in the sky and knows what is on the earth and sees the whole world in the blink of an eye (Saleem Hassan, Ancient Egypt, Vol. 4, p. 511). Thutmose III was a man of war who spent many years of his life on the battlefields, and there is no better evidence of his humility than that he did not attribute the credit for his victories to his skill, but rather attributed them all to the support of his god Amun, as evidenced by the tablet that he ordered to be erected in the Karnak Temple, on which he wrote a poem in the name of the god Amun addressing his son Thutmose III, saying to him (with its abbreviation):
My heart is delighted by your auspicious arrival to my temple, and my hands grant your limbs protection and life. I I give you strength and victory over all the fair lands, and I establish your glory and fear in all lands, and terror of you extends to the four pillars of heaven. I make your respect great in all bodies and the great men of all foreign lands are all in your grasp, and I myself stretch out my hand and catch them for you and bind the prisoners by the tens of thousands. I make the enemies fall under your shoes and you trample the rebels, and I give you the length and breadth of the earth and the people of the West and the people of the East are under your authority. You penetrate all foreign lands with a cheerful heart, and wherever you go there is no attacker, and I am your guide and therefore you reach them, and when they hear the call to declare war they take refuge in the burrows. I have sent the terror of your majesty into their hearts, and the blazing spear on your forehead burns them with its flame and cuts off the heads of the Asiatics and none escapes it but they fall. I make your victories spread abroad in all lands. I have worked to suppress those who make raids and those who approach you. I have come to make you able to trample with the foot. The great men of Phoenicia, and to make you scatter them under your feet, I have come to enable you to trample those in Asia, and to strike down the princes of Ammo, I have come to enable you to trample the eastern land, and to make them see your majesty like a star that spreads its flame like fire, I have come to enable you to trample the western land, and those in the middle of the ocean in the islands, and to trample the Libyans, I have come to enable you to trample the farthest limits of the earth.
O mighty bull who shines in Thebes, the immortal Thutmose, who has done for me all that my soul longs for, you have built me a dwelling place, a work that will last forever, and you have made it longer and wider than it was before, I will establish you on the throne for thousands of thousands of years so that you may shepherd the living forever.
This poem shows the clarity of Thutmose III and his recognition of the favor of the god Amun upon him in his victories, for he is not that arrogant, haughty, claiming divinity, as is the case with the Pharaoh of Moses.
5- Amenhotep II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
This is a slight modification of the previous hypothesis, as it increases the period of Moses’ absence and makes him return during the reign of Amenhotep II. This opinion was stated by Daniel Rops in his book The People of the Bible. We do not need to elaborate on refuting this hypothesis, as it is weak like the previous one.
6- Akhenaten is the same as Moses!:
This is one of the ((one-sided)) hypotheses, since Akhenaten called for monotheism and Moses also called for monotheism, then they are one person!! The author of this strange opinion is Professor Ahmed Othman, an Egyptian who traveled to England in 1964 and studied Egyptology and lived there, and wrote two books: the content of the first is that Yuya the Egyptian is the same as ((Joseph)) peace be upon him, and the second was published in 1989 in which he explained his theory that Akhenaten is the same as Moses peace be upon him and chose an attractive title for it:
Moses, Pharaoh of Egypt. The mystery of Akhenaten resolved.. Despite the obvious corruption of this claim, there is no harm in citing the conception cited by its author to show how imagination leads some people astray and makes them come up with extremely strange concepts and makes us wonder about the motive behind all this fabrication.
The proponent of this hypothesis says that Moses spent his childhood in the eastern Delta, where he was influenced by the beliefs of the Israelites about God and was saturated with them. Then he returned to Thebes, the capital of Egypt and the center of the worship of Amun. His father, Amenhotep III, had deteriorated in health. Moses was the second son of Amenhotep III from Queen Tiye, who he says was half Egyptian and half Israelite! The first son of Amenhotep III had mysteriously disappeared, and from here the mother feared that her second son, Moses, would be hated by the priests of Amun. He believes that the priests of Amun feared the consequences of ascending the throne to a person who was not completely pure of Egyptian blood, both mother and father. Amenhotep III saw the threat to the throne from the anger of the priests of Amun, so he agreed with them in not allowing these sons to take the throne. He even suggested to the midwives to kill the queen’s son if he was a boy. When the second son, Moses, was born, his mother threw him into the river, where the current carried him from Thebes to the land of Goshen until he was picked up by a family of the Children of Israel. He was raised with them and was influenced by the monotheistic ideas of the Israelites. When Amenhotep III’s health weakened, Queen Tiye summoned her son from the Israelite family that had picked him up. In order to gain him the status of successor to the throne, he married him to his half-sister, Nefertiti, who was the daughter of Amenhotep III from an Egyptian wife. Moses took the throne of Egypt under the name of Amenhotep IV, then carried out his religious revolution and declared the idea of monotheism. He forbade the worship of Amun and all other gods, and the priests of Amun conspired against him. The priest Ay told him about the conspiracy and advised him to flee to Sinai. Tutankhamun took the throne, then the priest Ay, then Horemheb. Then the Nineteenth Dynasty began and Ramses I took the throne. Here, Moses returned to demand his right to the throne, and when he did not succeed in that, he asked Ramses I to allow him to leave the Children of Israel from Egypt under his command.
This hypothesis, steeped in fantasy, is based on a confusion of facts and a reversal of the situation. The Egyptian father is the one who suggests killing his son or approves the priests of their action, the Egyptian mother throws her son into the river, and the current carries him about 1000 km from Thebes to the land of Goshen, an Israelite family picks him up and adopts him, and the Pharaoh - who is Akhenaten - flees Egypt and then returns to claim the throne!
The political goal behind all this fabrication is not hidden. As long as Moses is Akhenaten, and Akhenaten ruled Egypt for 17 years, then the Children of Israel have rights in Egypt, not because Moses lived there, but because he ruled it!!
7- Tutankhamun is the Pharaoh of Moses:
The one who said this opinion is the Jewish scholar Sigmund Freud, who also claimed that Moses was Egyptian and not from the Children of Israel and that the Mosaic religion was derived from the belief of Akhenaten (Sigmund Freud - Moses is Egyptian - translated by Muhammad Al-Azab Musa). He says: Moses was one of the Egyptian princes close to Akhenaten, but when the apostasy occurred after Akhenaten, Moses was excluded, and when his hope of ruling his country collapsed, he wanted to find a role for himself as a leader, so he led the Children of Israel and gave them a new religion that he derived from Akhenaten’s monotheistic belief, then he led the Children of Israel to leave Egypt peacefully – without persecution – to the land of Palestine, where Egyptian influence had receded during the days of Akhenaten due to his preoccupation with his religious ideas, and the exit was during the reign of Tutankhamun. John Wilson, who supports this theory, says that Moses took advantage of the weakness that prevailed in the last days of Akhenaten and the reign of his two weak successors: ((Smenkhkare)) and ((Tutankhamun)) and succeeded in getting the Children of Israel out of Egypt by deceiving the Pharaoh and fleeing to the Sinai Desert, and Arthur Weigal agrees with this hypothesis (History of Ancient Egypt, Paris, p. 146, A. Weigal, 1986) and sets the date of the Exodus at 1346 BC and believes that it occurred at the end of the reign of Tutankhamun. Likewise, the historian Weech (Civilization of the Near East, p. 88, EH Weech) believes that Moses, who spent his childhood, youth and youth in Akhenaten's palace, knew this belief and believed in it, and derived from it the religion that he gave to the children of Israel.
This theory also ignores many historical facts, like the previous one:
1- Moses was from the children of Israel and not Egyptian, even though he was raised in the palace of the pharaoh.
2- It ignores the torture that was inflicted on the children of Israel, since Akhenaten's peaceful nature does not agree with that, in addition to the distance of their place of residence in the eastern Delta from the capital where Akhenaten lived, Thebes in his early days and then in his new capital in Tell el-Amarna.
3- It is unreasonable for a people to accept appointing a leader and commander from another race, unless it is imposed on them by force - or they accept it until he takes them out of Egypt, and once they have completed their exodus, it will be natural for them to rebel against him with a leader from their own race.
4- Monotheism was the belief of the Children of Israel, taken from their father Jacob and their grandfather Abraham, and the Akhenatonism, although in the eyes of the Egyptians it was monotheism, in the eyes of the Children of Israel it was an apostasy from monotheism because it embodied God in the sun disk.
5- This theory claims that the exodus took place peacefully and without pursuit, while what is established in the holy books is that the Pharaoh who pursued Moses drowned, and the medical examination of the body of Tutankhamun proved that he was killed by a blow to the head.
6- If the children of Israel had left Egypt during the reign of Tutankhamun and settled in Palestine, it would have been necessary for Horemheb and Seti I or Ramses II to eliminate them in their campaigns to restore Egyptian influence in the Near East, or at least they would have subjected the Jewish states in Palestine to Egyptian influence, which no one talked about, and it did not happen at all since the children of Israel had not yet left Egypt. When Freud saw the strong opposition to his theory, he retracted it and said that it is possible that Moses lived in an era after Akhenaten and Tutankhamun!!
We have the right to ask: How could a scientist like Freud say this opinion? The strangeness disappears if we know his Jewish identity, since as long as Moses was Egyptian, the children of Israel have historical rights in Egypt! This is the political goal he seeks, as his predecessor Joseph Ibn Matta did when he claimed that the Hyksos who ruled Egypt were the same children of Israel.
8- Horemheb and four other pharaohs. That is five!!
Nicolos Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt 1997. Blackwell, p. 259) says that Moses received his education in his early years in the palace of Pharaoh Horemheb and Ramesses I, then he learned that he was from the children of Israel and joined them during the reign of Seti I, then he fled from Egypt to Midian after the Egyptian was killed, then he received the revelation, the message and the order to return to Egypt in the early years of the reign of Ramesses II, then he agrees with what many historians say that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Merneptah.
If we assume that Horemheb adopted Moses in the middle of his reign and raised him for 13 years, to which is added the two years of the reign of Ramses I + 20 years of Seti I + 67 years of the reign of Ramses II + 10 years of the reign of Merneptah, then Moses’ age at the time of the exodus with the Children of Israel would be 112 years. If we add to that the years of Sinai, then the 40 years of wandering, then the journey around the land of Edom, then Moses’ age at his death would be about 170 years, while Moses’ age did not exceed 120 years.
9- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses:
There are many who hold this opinion, including: Albright - Isvelt - Roxy - Unger - Father RP de Vaux. This opinion is consistent with the fact that the children of Israel lived in the land of Goshen and the new capital of Ramses II in the north, which allowed Moses to be captured from the river. It also achieved the subjugation of the children of Israel in building the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pithom mentioned in the Torah. What is most surprising is that Father Defoe - who is the director of the Bible School and believes that the Pharaoh drowned while chasing the fugitives, then returns and says that the Exodus occurred in the first half of the reign of Ramses II, although the drowning of the Pharaoh means the end of his reign, not the middle of it. The truth is that this theory - that the Pharaoh of Moses is Ramses II - is consistent with many points that must be present in that Pharaoh, but several obstacles prevented the complete acceptance of this theory:
1- The first obstacle from the Torah: which is what came in Exodus 23:2 ((And it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died )) It means that the Pharaoh (Ramses II) had died and his son ((Merneptah)) had taken over the throne. In our opinion, they were forced to say this for two reasons.
· That it is consistent with the age of Moses, which they decided in Exodus 7:7. Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. Since Moses had fled Egypt at the age of 45, this means that he had spent 35 years in Midian, which is a very long period in which it is not right for Moses to think of returning to Egypt after that. During this period, the Children of Israel would have forgotten their hero and would no longer have the enthusiasm for his leadership after he had been absent from them for this long period.
They also said that the king had died in order to be consistent with what came in Exodus 19:4: “And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life are dead. ’” The fact is that the phrase “all the people who sought your life” does not mean Pharaoh as much as it means the people of the slain Egyptian. They were the ones who sought Moses’ life, and Pharaoh was carrying out their request by avenging them and taking their blood. When they died, Pharaoh no longer had a strong motive. In our opinion, paragraph 23 of Exodus 2 was “And it came to pass in those days that the people who sought Moses’ life died,” not “The king of Egypt died.”
2- The second obstacle of the Egyptian antiquities is the tablet known as ((The Tablet of Israel)) or ((The Tablet of Merneptah)) which was probably written in the year 1220 BC, in which Merneptah says that he had exterminated the seed of Israel from Palestine, and since the Exodus occurred in the year 1225 BC, this does not leave a period between the Exodus from Egypt and the entry into the land of Palestine except for 5 years, and this is what made many historians - especially Islamists - reject the opinion that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus because the Holy Quran explicitly and clearly states that the period of wandering is forty years, and no one has attempted to interpret what was stated in the Tablet of Merneptah with an interpretation that allows for the period of wandering to be forty years, nor did they realize what might be in this tablet of exaggeration, which is something familiar to the Pharaohs when they recorded the actions they did, especially the results of their wars, but they clung to the literal meaning of what was stated in this tablet, and we will discuss that in more detail later.
3- Another objection raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Moses was that the Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity, while Ramses II believed in four gods: Amun, Ra, Ptah, and Sethakh. He named the four divisions of his army in the Battle of Kadesh after these gods (Dr. Muhammad Wasfi, The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 154). This point can be answered by saying that the Battle of Kadesh was in the fifth year of Ramses II’s reign, while Moses’ return to Egypt was in the 62nd year of his reign, 57 years after the Battle of Kadesh. This was a long period of absolute rule and continuous praise from his ministers, courtiers, and the people, and glorification of his actions. All of this must have had an effect, especially since he had a tendency toward arrogance since his youth, which resulted in a feeling of perfection and he thought himself immortal like the gods, and he ended up claiming divinity.
4- The last objection raised against this theory was what is known, that Ramses II had no less than a hundred children, male and female, as they could not reconcile this with what is stated in the Holy Qur’an, that the Pharaoh of Moses did not have a son, so he was forced to adopt Moses: “Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son” [Al-Qasas: 9]. They understood from this verse that the Pharaoh of Moses was sterile, and we will explain later (p. 702) that the adoption was not due to the sterility of the Pharaoh or the sterility of his wives, but rather it was a temporary deprivation of a child by the death of the sons while they were young until God’s will was carried out in the Pharaoh adopting Moses, then after that this “curse” was removed and his sons lived until they reached more than a hundred, and it has been proven that Ramses II - in the first ten years after his marriage - his sons died while they were infants, and this is the reason for his acceptance of adopting Moses.
The important thing is that the proponents of the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses could not defend their opinion, so they submitted to another assumption, which is:
10- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of subjugation and Merneptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
The proponents of this opinion believe that the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt was a peaceful exodus, without pursuit, and that Merneptah pursued them after they actually reached Palestine. This opinion is expressed by what Jean Yoyot sees (Pharaonic Egypt, translated, Cairo 1966, p. 40), that the Children of Israel seized the opportunity of the Egyptian army being busy repelling the Libyan invasion of Egypt’s western borders in the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign, so they fled Egypt. Then, after Merneptah finished his war with the Libyans, he sent a campaign to Palestine and exterminated the Children of Israel there.
The proponents of this theory rely on several points:
1- What is mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 23:2) that the king of Egypt died, meaning that Ramses II died and his son Merneptah took over the rule after him. We mentioned on the previous page that the other concept mentioned in chapter 9:4 is closer to the truth and that those who actually died were relatives of the Egyptian whom Moses killed, not the Pharaoh.
2- They also said that Merneptah is the one who said: “He said, ‘Did we not raise you among us as a child?’” [Al-Shu’ara: 18], referring thereby to his father Ramses II who raised Moses. However, the question to be answered is: Why wouldn’t Ramses II himself have said it? And he is the one who bestowed the right of guardianship upon Moses, and what is most painful to the soul and most deserving of sorrow is to see the one who was raising him and hoping for benefit from him ﴿Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son﴾ [Al-Qasas: 9] is the same one who was the cause of his destruction, as if he picked him up to be an enemy and a cause of grief, as the Holy Qur’an states: ﴿So the family of Pharaoh picked him up that he might be to them an enemy and a cause of grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were sinners﴾ [Al-Qasas: 8]. Despite all the reasons for caution and care that Ramses II took to repel the prophecy, the prophecy was fulfilled and the destruction of Pharaoh and his soldiers occurred ﴿And We showed Pharaoh, Haman, and their soldiers - from them that which they feared. (Al-Qasas: 6) This is more eloquent in the lesson than the one who mocked, was arrogant, and was haughty dying in his bed a natural death while his son drowned, especially since the reign of Ramses II was long enough to allow all the events to occur during his reign, and the verse with the sea referring to his corpse is a metaphor for his actions. (So today We will save you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you.) (Yunus: 92)
3- However, the main support for this theory is the tablet called “The Tablet of Merneptah” or “The Tablet of Israel.” We mentioned it briefly in the context of the objections raised against the theory of Ramses II as a Pharaoh of both subjugation and exodus. It is appropriate to expand a little in mentioning something about this tablet since it is the main support for the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
This tablet is a memorial plaque engraved on black granite with a poem written on it recording Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans. The tablet is kept in the Egyptian Museum. Anyone who wants the complete poem can refer to the book Ancient Egypt (Saleem Hassan) Vol. 7, p. 96. The poem as a whole is a source of pride for the great victory that the king achieved over the Libyans in the fifth year of his reign, through which Egypt was saved from a great danger. The poem is full of selected metaphors and similes, which gave it a literary image more than a purely historical document. The poet skillfully described the defeat of the enemies and the great deeds that Merneptah performed to defend his country and free it from the raids of the Libyans and break their power. He did not fail to describe the pharaoh as just and upright, saying: He gives everyone his due, for wealth flows to the righteous man, while the criminal will not enjoy any spoils. Then the poet moves on to describe the peace, tranquility and prosperity that prevailed in the country after this victory, saying: Even the animal was left wandering without a shepherd. While its owners come and go singing, and there is no crying of a people in pain, and at the end of the poem the poet lists the tribes and regions that Merneptah subjugated, and this is its text - because this part is the crux of the matter:
And the chiefs who are cast down to the ground say: Peace! And not one of the tribes of the nine-bowed Bedouins lifts up his head any more (an ancient name for Egypt's hostile neighbors). The Tehanu
is laid waste (one of the tribes that inhabited Libya).
The land of the Hatti is at peace.
Ashkelon is removed.
Gezer is captured.
Penom is nothing.
Israel is laid waste and has no seed.
Kharu is a widow to Egypt. And
all the lands have found peace.
And all who have gone astray have been subdued by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the son of Ra, beloved of Amun, the son of the sun, Merenptah, joyful in truth.
Life-giving like Ra every day.
The importance of this poem in the view of historians is its mention of the people of the Children of Israel, especially since it is the first and only time that they are mentioned by name in Egyptian antiquities. Since the Children of Israel began their residence in Egypt during the days of Joseph and nothing is mentioned about that in Egyptian antiquities, then mentioning their name here must be related to their exodus from Egypt. Scholars have differed about what is understood from this phrase.
Some of them, such as Petrie (Israel in Egypt, p. 35), believe that the Israelites were in Palestine at the time this tablet was written.
Professor Naville (Archeology of the Old Testament) believes that the tablet indicates that the Israelites left Egypt before Merneptah or at the beginning of his reign. However, this latter assumption contradicts the confirmed fact that the Pharaoh of the Exodus drowned while pursuing the prophet of Israel. The Exodus could not have occurred at the beginning of Merneptah’s reign, but rather at the end of Ramses II’s reign, who drowned while pursuing them. Thus, we see that the Merneptah tablet, which they used as evidence to oppose the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, is in fact evidence of its validity. Naville makes a second point, which is that he does not believe that the reference to Syria in the tablet refers to a real war that took place in Syria. The truth is that there is no evidence that Merneptah led or directed a campaign to Syria, and what was mentioned that “the land of Khati” became peaceful is – as they say: a foregone conclusion because it had been peaceful since the treaty that his father Ramses II signed with its king, and mentioning that as one of Merneptah’s deeds is an exaggeration of the exaggerations that the pharaohs were famous for when recording their record of deeds, and perhaps he wanted to indicate that he did not neglect the eastern front and that he had victories there as he had achieved victories in the west over the Libyans.
Egyptologist Salim Hassan (Ancient Egypt, vol. 7, p. 111) mentions that archaeologists and linguists have translated the sentence about Israel “and it has no seed” in two ways. Some of them said that their crops were gone or that they had no yield. The other way is more correct, as Breasted said: “Israel has been destitute, its seed has been cut off.” Or as Naville said: “Israel has been wiped out and its seed does not exist.” The fact is that the word “seed” indicates “successor.” In Arab countries, we still find that they use the word “seed” to mean “offspring” or “children.” A common question among them is: “How are the seeds?” And it is said of someone who has no offspring, “his seed has been cut off.”
The scholar Salim Hassan also mentioned that all the countries mentioned: Khati - Gezer - Ashkelon and others, each had a specific drawing attached to it indicating that they were foreign countries. As for the name Israel, it was the only name that was excluded from this drawing, which means that the Children of Israel did not have a ((specific land)) at that time. The drawing attached to the name Israel was the image of a man and a woman, indicating that they were just a group of people and not a ((state)), which indicates that the poet who sang about the victory of ((Merenptah)) and composed this anthem meant that the Children of Israel at that time did not have a specific place in the land of Palestine. There is no way to doubt the way the poem was written, as is said about the possibility of the ancient Egyptian writer’s error and oversight, as he was aware of what he was writing and mentioned the names of foreign peoples and countries in that text 19 (nineteen) times. He did not neglect to draw the symbol of the foreign land in any of them, whether before the name Israel or after it. He concludes from this that this victory anthem refers to a group of ((the Children of Israel)) who were in some parts of Palestine or its borders when Merneptah went out to suppress a revolution there, and this means that they They had left Egypt before his reign, as Dr. Abdul Aziz Saleh (Ancient Near East, Part 1, p. 255) sees that the Merneptah Tablet considered ((Israel)) among the ((residents)) of Palestine and did not mention that he followed them from Egypt, which means that they entered Palestine before his reign, i.e. they left Egypt before his reign, i.e. in the late era of Ramses II.
Here the problem of the years of wandering arises, as it is religiously proven that the children of Israel, after their exodus from Egypt, did not head directly to Palestine, but rather spent forty years in the wandering in Sinai, and then after that they headed to the land of Palestine. If we assume a year before the wandering and a year after it to prepare for entering the land, the total would be 42 years, during which six of the pharaohs had died:
Nicolos Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt 1997. Blackwell, p. 259) says that Moses received his education in his early years in the palace of Pharaoh Horemheb and Ramesses I, then he learned that he was from the children of Israel and joined them during the reign of Seti I, then he fled from Egypt to Midian after the Egyptian was killed, then he received the revelation, the message and the order to return to Egypt in the early years of the reign of Ramesses II, then he agrees with what many historians say that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Merneptah.
If we assume that Horemheb adopted Moses in the middle of his reign and raised him for 13 years, to which is added the two years of the reign of Ramses I + 20 years of Seti I + 67 years of the reign of Ramses II + 10 years of the reign of Merneptah, then Moses’ age at the time of the exodus with the Children of Israel would be 112 years. If we add to that the years of Sinai, then the 40 years of wandering, then the journey around the land of Edom, then Moses’ age at his death would be about 170 years, while Moses’ age did not exceed 120 years.
9- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses:
There are many who hold this opinion, including: Albright - Isvelt - Roxy - Unger - Father RP de Vaux. This opinion is consistent with the fact that the children of Israel lived in the land of Goshen and the new capital of Ramses II in the north, which allowed Moses to be captured from the river. It also achieved the subjugation of the children of Israel in building the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pithom mentioned in the Torah. What is most surprising is that Father Defoe - who is the director of the Bible School and believes that the Pharaoh drowned while chasing the fugitives, then returns and says that the Exodus occurred in the first half of the reign of Ramses II, although the drowning of the Pharaoh means the end of his reign, not the middle of it. The truth is that this theory - that the Pharaoh of Moses is Ramses II - is consistent with many points that must be present in that Pharaoh, but several obstacles prevented the complete acceptance of this theory:
1- The first obstacle from the Torah: which is what came in Exodus 23:2 ((And it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died )) It means that the Pharaoh (Ramses II) had died and his son ((Merneptah)) had taken over the throne. In our opinion, they were forced to say this for two reasons.
· That it is consistent with the age of Moses, which they decided in Exodus 7:7. Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. Since Moses had fled Egypt at the age of 45, this means that he had spent 35 years in Midian, which is a very long period in which it is not right for Moses to think of returning to Egypt after that. During this period, the Children of Israel would have forgotten their hero and would no longer have the enthusiasm for his leadership after he had been absent from them for this long period.
They also said that the king had died in order to be consistent with what came in Exodus 19:4: “And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life are dead. ’” The fact is that the phrase “all the people who sought your life” does not mean Pharaoh as much as it means the people of the slain Egyptian. They were the ones who sought Moses’ life, and Pharaoh was carrying out their request by avenging them and taking their blood. When they died, Pharaoh no longer had a strong motive. In our opinion, paragraph 23 of Exodus 2 was “And it came to pass in those days that the people who sought Moses’ life died,” not “The king of Egypt died.”
2- The second obstacle of the Egyptian antiquities is the tablet known as ((The Tablet of Israel)) or ((The Tablet of Merneptah)) which was probably written in the year 1220 BC, in which Merneptah says that he had exterminated the seed of Israel from Palestine, and since the Exodus occurred in the year 1225 BC, this does not leave a period between the Exodus from Egypt and the entry into the land of Palestine except for 5 years, and this is what made many historians - especially Islamists - reject the opinion that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus because the Holy Quran explicitly and clearly states that the period of wandering is forty years, and no one has attempted to interpret what was stated in the Tablet of Merneptah with an interpretation that allows for the period of wandering to be forty years, nor did they realize what might be in this tablet of exaggeration, which is something familiar to the Pharaohs when they recorded the actions they did, especially the results of their wars, but they clung to the literal meaning of what was stated in this tablet, and we will discuss that in more detail later.
3- Another objection raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Moses was that the Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity, while Ramses II believed in four gods: Amun, Ra, Ptah, and Sethakh. He named the four divisions of his army in the Battle of Kadesh after these gods (Dr. Muhammad Wasfi, The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 154). This point can be answered by saying that the Battle of Kadesh was in the fifth year of Ramses II’s reign, while Moses’ return to Egypt was in the 62nd year of his reign, 57 years after the Battle of Kadesh. This was a long period of absolute rule and continuous praise from his ministers, courtiers, and the people, and glorification of his actions. All of this must have had an effect, especially since he had a tendency toward arrogance since his youth, which resulted in a feeling of perfection and he thought himself immortal like the gods, and he ended up claiming divinity.
4- The last objection raised against this theory was what is known, that Ramses II had no less than a hundred children, male and female, as they could not reconcile this with what is stated in the Holy Qur’an, that the Pharaoh of Moses did not have a son, so he was forced to adopt Moses: “Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son” [Al-Qasas: 9]. They understood from this verse that the Pharaoh of Moses was sterile, and we will explain later (p. 702) that the adoption was not due to the sterility of the Pharaoh or the sterility of his wives, but rather it was a temporary deprivation of a child by the death of the sons while they were young until God’s will was carried out in the Pharaoh adopting Moses, then after that this “curse” was removed and his sons lived until they reached more than a hundred, and it has been proven that Ramses II - in the first ten years after his marriage - his sons died while they were infants, and this is the reason for his acceptance of adopting Moses.
The important thing is that the proponents of the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses could not defend their opinion, so they submitted to another assumption, which is:
10- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of subjugation and Merneptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
The proponents of this opinion believe that the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt was a peaceful exodus, without pursuit, and that Merneptah pursued them after they actually reached Palestine. This opinion is expressed by what Jean Yoyot sees (Pharaonic Egypt, translated, Cairo 1966, p. 40), that the Children of Israel seized the opportunity of the Egyptian army being busy repelling the Libyan invasion of Egypt’s western borders in the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign, so they fled Egypt. Then, after Merneptah finished his war with the Libyans, he sent a campaign to Palestine and exterminated the Children of Israel there.
The proponents of this theory rely on several points:
1- What is mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 23:2) that the king of Egypt died, meaning that Ramses II died and his son Merneptah took over the rule after him. We mentioned on the previous page that the other concept mentioned in chapter 9:4 is closer to the truth and that those who actually died were relatives of the Egyptian whom Moses killed, not the Pharaoh.
2- They also said that Merneptah is the one who said: “He said, ‘Did we not raise you among us as a child?’” [Al-Shu’ara: 18], referring thereby to his father Ramses II who raised Moses. However, the question to be answered is: Why wouldn’t Ramses II himself have said it? And he is the one who bestowed the right of guardianship upon Moses, and what is most painful to the soul and most deserving of sorrow is to see the one who was raising him and hoping for benefit from him ﴿Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son﴾ [Al-Qasas: 9] is the same one who was the cause of his destruction, as if he picked him up to be an enemy and a cause of grief, as the Holy Qur’an states: ﴿So the family of Pharaoh picked him up that he might be to them an enemy and a cause of grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were sinners﴾ [Al-Qasas: 8]. Despite all the reasons for caution and care that Ramses II took to repel the prophecy, the prophecy was fulfilled and the destruction of Pharaoh and his soldiers occurred ﴿And We showed Pharaoh, Haman, and their soldiers - from them that which they feared. (Al-Qasas: 6) This is more eloquent in the lesson than the one who mocked, was arrogant, and was haughty dying in his bed a natural death while his son drowned, especially since the reign of Ramses II was long enough to allow all the events to occur during his reign, and the verse with the sea referring to his corpse is a metaphor for his actions. (So today We will save you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you.) (Yunus: 92)
3- However, the main support for this theory is the tablet called “The Tablet of Merneptah” or “The Tablet of Israel.” We mentioned it briefly in the context of the objections raised against the theory of Ramses II as a Pharaoh of both subjugation and exodus. It is appropriate to expand a little in mentioning something about this tablet since it is the main support for the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
This tablet is a memorial plaque engraved on black granite with a poem written on it recording Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans. The tablet is kept in the Egyptian Museum. Anyone who wants the complete poem can refer to the book Ancient Egypt (Saleem Hassan) Vol. 7, p. 96. The poem as a whole is a source of pride for the great victory that the king achieved over the Libyans in the fifth year of his reign, through which Egypt was saved from a great danger. The poem is full of selected metaphors and similes, which gave it a literary image more than a purely historical document. The poet skillfully described the defeat of the enemies and the great deeds that Merneptah performed to defend his country and free it from the raids of the Libyans and break their power. He did not fail to describe the pharaoh as just and upright, saying: He gives everyone his due, for wealth flows to the righteous man, while the criminal will not enjoy any spoils. Then the poet moves on to describe the peace, tranquility and prosperity that prevailed in the country after this victory, saying: Even the animal was left wandering without a shepherd. While its owners come and go singing, and there is no crying of a people in pain, and at the end of the poem the poet lists the tribes and regions that Merneptah subjugated, and this is its text - because this part is the crux of the matter:
And the chiefs who are cast down to the ground say: Peace! And not one of the tribes of the nine-bowed Bedouins lifts up his head any more (an ancient name for Egypt's hostile neighbors). The Tehanu
is laid waste (one of the tribes that inhabited Libya).
The land of the Hatti is at peace.
Ashkelon is removed.
Gezer is captured.
Penom is nothing.
Israel is laid waste and has no seed.
Kharu is a widow to Egypt. And
all the lands have found peace.
And all who have gone astray have been subdued by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the son of Ra, beloved of Amun, the son of the sun, Merenptah, joyful in truth.
Life-giving like Ra every day.
The importance of this poem in the view of historians is its mention of the people of the Children of Israel, especially since it is the first and only time that they are mentioned by name in Egyptian antiquities. Since the Children of Israel began their residence in Egypt during the days of Joseph and nothing is mentioned about that in Egyptian antiquities, then mentioning their name here must be related to their exodus from Egypt. Scholars have differed about what is understood from this phrase.
Some of them, such as Petrie (Israel in Egypt, p. 35), believe that the Israelites were in Palestine at the time this tablet was written.
Professor Naville (Archeology of the Old Testament) believes that the tablet indicates that the Israelites left Egypt before Merneptah or at the beginning of his reign. However, this latter assumption contradicts the confirmed fact that the Pharaoh of the Exodus drowned while pursuing the prophet of Israel. The Exodus could not have occurred at the beginning of Merneptah’s reign, but rather at the end of Ramses II’s reign, who drowned while pursuing them. Thus, we see that the Merneptah tablet, which they used as evidence to oppose the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, is in fact evidence of its validity. Naville makes a second point, which is that he does not believe that the reference to Syria in the tablet refers to a real war that took place in Syria. The truth is that there is no evidence that Merneptah led or directed a campaign to Syria, and what was mentioned that “the land of Khati” became peaceful is – as they say: a foregone conclusion because it had been peaceful since the treaty that his father Ramses II signed with its king, and mentioning that as one of Merneptah’s deeds is an exaggeration of the exaggerations that the pharaohs were famous for when recording their record of deeds, and perhaps he wanted to indicate that he did not neglect the eastern front and that he had victories there as he had achieved victories in the west over the Libyans.
Egyptologist Salim Hassan (Ancient Egypt, vol. 7, p. 111) mentions that archaeologists and linguists have translated the sentence about Israel “and it has no seed” in two ways. Some of them said that their crops were gone or that they had no yield. The other way is more correct, as Breasted said: “Israel has been destitute, its seed has been cut off.” Or as Naville said: “Israel has been wiped out and its seed does not exist.” The fact is that the word “seed” indicates “successor.” In Arab countries, we still find that they use the word “seed” to mean “offspring” or “children.” A common question among them is: “How are the seeds?” And it is said of someone who has no offspring, “his seed has been cut off.”
The scholar Salim Hassan also mentioned that all the countries mentioned: Khati - Gezer - Ashkelon and others, each had a specific drawing attached to it indicating that they were foreign countries. As for the name Israel, it was the only name that was excluded from this drawing, which means that the Children of Israel did not have a ((specific land)) at that time. The drawing attached to the name Israel was the image of a man and a woman, indicating that they were just a group of people and not a ((state)), which indicates that the poet who sang about the victory of ((Merenptah)) and composed this anthem meant that the Children of Israel at that time did not have a specific place in the land of Palestine. There is no way to doubt the way the poem was written, as is said about the possibility of the ancient Egyptian writer’s error and oversight, as he was aware of what he was writing and mentioned the names of foreign peoples and countries in that text 19 (nineteen) times. He did not neglect to draw the symbol of the foreign land in any of them, whether before the name Israel or after it. He concludes from this that this victory anthem refers to a group of ((the Children of Israel)) who were in some parts of Palestine or its borders when Merneptah went out to suppress a revolution there, and this means that they They had left Egypt before his reign, as Dr. Abdul Aziz Saleh (Ancient Near East, Part 1, p. 255) sees that the Merneptah Tablet considered ((Israel)) among the ((residents)) of Palestine and did not mention that he followed them from Egypt, which means that they entered Palestine before his reign, i.e. they left Egypt before his reign, i.e. in the late era of Ramses II.
Here the problem of the years of wandering arises, as it is religiously proven that the children of Israel, after their exodus from Egypt, did not head directly to Palestine, but rather spent forty years in the wandering in Sinai, and then after that they headed to the land of Palestine. If we assume a year before the wandering and a year after it to prepare for entering the land, the total would be 42 years, during which six of the pharaohs had died:
That is, when the Children of Israel began to enter the land of Palestine, Ramses III was the Pharaoh of Egypt. Before that, they had no presence in Palestine. So how could Merneptah have the right to mention in the victory hymn: “And Israel is destroyed, and has no seed,” or as it was translated: “And the seed of Israel has been destroyed”?
Some scholars who adhere to the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus” exclude the years of wandering from their calculations and deny it, and say that the Children of Israel headed to Palestine after their exodus from Egypt at the end of the reign of Ramses II, and that Merneptah pursued them there and “actually destroyed their seed.” They cite as evidence the strength of Egyptian influence in Palestine during the reign of Merneptah the archaeologists’ finding of a broken vessel with Egyptian writing on it for one of the Egyptian tax collectors in the town of “Lachish” in Palestine, in which he recorded his receipt of a shipment of wheat in the fourth year of Merneptah’s reign. Some also believe (Dr. Muhammad Bayumi Mahran, Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, p. 500) that Egyptian sovereignty over Palestine at that time was so strong that it did not allow the masses of the Children of Israel – who were not armed with weapons – to enter the land of Palestine at all, so there is no room to say that the Children of Israel had settled in Palestine for some time, then Merneptah went and destroyed their seed and restored Egyptian influence to Palestine again.
All of this is refuted by the fact that the years of wandering are established by their mention in the Holy Quran and in the Torah as well, so there is no room for omitting or denying them. Since this is the case, how was it possible for Merneptah to mention in the tablet that he had destroyed the seed of Israel while they were still in the wilderness in Sinai? The answer lies in one of the following concerns:
1- He went to Palestine and found some of the “Habiru” - who, as we mentioned, are relatives of the Children of Israel and a branch of them - so he destroyed them, and he thought or claimed that he had destroyed the Children of Israel.
2- He went to Palestine and did not find the Children of Israel and searched for them in all parts of Palestine but did not find them, so he believed that they had perished in the desert and attributed their destruction to himself.
3- The third possibility is that Merneptah did not lead or send a campaign to Palestine at all, and that as he attributed the peace with “Khati” to himself, he wanted to confirm that he was no less than his predecessor in his interest in Egypt’s possessions in Asia, so he included his victory over the Libyans as a victory in the East as well, so he added Khati, Gezer, and Ashkelon, and likewise he added the name of Israel, and that was easier since they were not a state but a people without a land, as is clear from the way they were mentioned in “The Tablet of Israel.”
4- Dr. Muhammad Bayumi Mahran says (Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Part 3, p. 506): Some have determined the date of writing of the Merneptah Tablet to be the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign, and Merneptah’s campaign against Syria was in the third year of his reign. Since it is proven that the Pharaoh drowned while pursuing the Children of Israel, this means that this tablet was written after the Pharaoh drowned and was written by his successor to commemorate his victory over the Libyans. He added to them “the seed of Israel has been destroyed” as a kind of false boasting, since how could the Pharaoh, who drowned while pursuing them, claim that he had destroyed them?
Since false boasting has been put into the possibilities, why couldn’t the writer of the tablet be Merneptah himself and not his successor, and that he is the one who made the false boasting and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramses II, who drowned while pursuing the Children of Israel?
From the above, we see that the Tablet of Israel or the Tablet of Merneptah - which is the greatest support for the theory that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus - confirms the falsity of the paragraph contained in it related to the Children of Israel, and this tablet becomes in reality evidence that the Exodus took place before the era of Merneptah. James Beckie - the famous archaeologist - indicated this in a relevant manner by saying - and that the position of Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the Exodus was shaken by the discovery of the Victory Tablet, that is, the Tablet of Israel - (Egyptian Antiquities in the Nile Valley, Vol. 3, p. 171).
Despite all this, this theory - Merneptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus - is widely accepted by Egyptian and foreign archaeologists alike. The fanaticism of some supporters of this theory has reached the point of denying the drowning of the Pharaoh during whose reign the Children of Israel left. We see Dr. Salim Hassan (Ancient Egypt, Vol. 7, p. 135) saying: The reality is that one cannot imagine the drowning of the Pharaoh and his chariot in shallow water no more than two or three feet deep. Rather, it is reasonable that the Pharaoh's horses and chariots sank in the mud and some of their passengers fell. This explains what is stated in Exodus 25:14. And the mount of their chariots was removed until they drove them with his weight. He continues by saying: In addition to that, what is stated in the Holy Qur’an does not give the impression that the Pharaoh who was a contemporary of Moses and pursued him drowned and died. On the contrary, God saved his body to be a sign to the people of the Creator's power. The expression: {So today We will save you with your body} [Yunus: 92] is equivalent to the colloquial expression ((He was saved with his skin))!! This is the height of arbitrariness in interpreting the verses of the Holy Quran, as the verses of the Holy Quran clearly and explicitly confirm that the Pharaoh and his soldiers drowned, and the place of drowning was not two or three feet as they claim, but rather it was: {Each party was like a great mountain} [Ash-Shu’ara’: 63].
There is a final piece of evidence that the proponents of the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus” rely on, which is what the archaeologist Sayce points out, saying that Egyptian antiquities confine the incident of the Exodus to the rule of Pharaoh Merneptah. Among the papyri preserved in the British Museum, we have a document known as the “Anastasi VI” papyrus, which includes a letter from the scribe of King Merneptah, written to his chief, in which he says: Some Bedouins of “Shasu” – Edom – have been allowed, according to the instructions he has, to pass the fortress in the region of Scyth (Tell al-Maskhutah) in the Valley of Tumilat, to be able to graze their cattle near Batum. The text of the letter is as follows: Another matter, my lord, we have finished observing the passage of the tribes of ((Shasu)), who are followers of ((Edom)) from the fortress of ((Merneptahhotep Harmaat)), may he live, prosper and be healthy, in ((Skuth)) towards the pools of ((Ptum)) in order to feed them and feed their flocks in the estates of the pharaoh, may he live, prosper and be healthy, and he is the good sun for all the land of Egypt.. (Ancient Egypt, Salim Hassan, Vol. 6, p. 588).
Other documents indicate that the guard in this valley was extremely tight, and that the main road to Asia was under great surveillance at the fortress of Sila (present-day Tell Abu Sayfa). We have received parts of the diary of an official in one of the cities on the borders of Palestine during the reign of Merneptah, in which he recorded the names of the envoys and the tasks they were charged with performing for those who passed through this fortress on their way to Palestine. Passage through it was forbidden during the reign of Ramses II except for those who had a permit to leave. Professor Sayes says: This letter (Anastasia VI) was written in the eighth year of Merneptah’s reign. Obviously, this could not have happened if the Israelites were still living in the land of Goshen. Accordingly, the exodus must have occurred sometime before this date. This makes the date of the exodus in any case close to the date of the inscription of the tablet. That is, he concludes that this letter supports that the exodus occurred during the reign of Merneptah in the fifth year of his reign, but he concludes his conclusion by saying about the time of the exodus: It may even be earlier than this date.
It is certain that the Exodus - as a conclusion from this speech - precedes this date, since the means of communication at that time were slow. If we assume that the Exodus occurred at a certain time, a year might pass before the neighboring countries outside the Egyptian influence know about the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Another year might pass until it is confirmed that they have left Egypt forever. A third year might pass until the leaders of Edom decide to send a mission to the Pharaoh of Egypt to allow their shepherds to graze in the land inhabited by the Israelites. Another time might pass before the Pharaoh studies the matter with his advisors and verifies that these shepherds are not spies or agents of a foreign country planning to invade Egypt. If we take all these times into consideration, the time of the Exodus takes us back to the first era of Merneptah, that is, the last era of Ramses II.
Thus, it becomes clear to us that this last piece of evidence (Anastasius’s sadistic paper) also indicates that Merneptah is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
From this we conclude that all the objections raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and on the basis of which they assumed that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus - these objections, after being refuted, turned into objections to the Merneptah theory itself and became evidence of the validity of the opinion that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus together, and this supports what we have stated that the proponents of this theory were unable, or rather did not strive to defend it.
This study has attempted to cover the subject from all its aspects and scrutinize the evidence presented on its various aspects, and the balance is now tilted in favor of the theory that says that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus as well. Although some may see in what has been mentioned some prolixity, this is only because we are convinced that identifying the identity of this Pharaoh will help to highlight new aspects in the story of Moses, peace be upon him. Also, during the narration of the story, other evidence will become clear to the reader - derived from the Holy Qur’an - confirming that Ramses II is - without a doubt - the Pharaoh of Moses, and this will be the end of the long debate that has been going on around this subject.
An example of this is the summary of the story of this Pharaoh mentioned in Surat An-Nazi’at:
{Has the story of Moses reached you? (15) When his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa (16) Go to Pharaoh, for he has transgressed (17) And say, “Would you like to be purified?” (18) And I will guide you to your Lord so that you may fear Him. (19) So he showed him the greatest sign. (20) But he denied and disobeyed. (21) Then he turned away, striving. (22) So he was gathered and called out. (23) And he said, “I am your Lord, the Most High.” (24) So God seized him with the punishment of the Hereafter and the first life. (25) Indeed in that is a lesson for whoever fears. [An-Nazi’at 15-26]
The Pharaoh was tyrannical, as he mocked, tortured, and enslaved the Children of Israel and slaughtered their children. So Moses went to him and showed him many miracles, all of which were expressed in the wording of the greatest sign. But the Pharaoh lied and began to claim divinity for himself, so God punished him in this world by drowning him in the sea, and in the Hereafter he will be punished by the Fire. The pronoun in (He took him) refers to (Pharaoh) who was tyrannical, so he was one Pharaoh from the beginning to the end. The same meaning is understood from these verses from Surat Ad-Dukhan:
{And We had certainly tried before them the people of Pharaoh, and there had come to them a noble messenger (17) [saying], “Return to Me the servants of Allah. Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger.” (18) And that you do not exalt yourselves above Allah. Indeed, I will come to you with a clear proof.} With clear authority (19) And indeed, I have sought refuge in my Lord and your Lord, lest you stone me (20) And if you do not believe me, then leave me (21) So he called upon his Lord, “Indeed, these are a criminal people.” (22) So travel by night with My servants, for you will be pursued. (23) And leave the sea at rest. For they are a drowned army. (24) How many gardens and springs have they left behind, (25) And crops and a noble station? (26) And a blessing in which they were enjoying themselves (27) Thus, and We gave it as an inheritance to another people (28) So neither the heaven nor the earth wept over them, nor were they reprieved (29) And We had certainly saved the Children of Israel from the humiliating punishment (30) from Pharaoh. Indeed, he was haughty, among the transgressors.} [Ad-Dukhan: 17-31]
8- Horus Moheb and four other pharaohs. That's five!!
Nicolos Grimal (A History of Ancient Egypt 1997. Blackwell, p. 259) says that Moses was educated in his early years in the palace of Pharaoh Humheb and Ramesses I, then he learned that he was from the Children of Israel and joined them during the reign of Seti I, then he fled from Egypt to Midian after the Egyptian was killed, then he received the revelation and the message and the order to return to Egypt in the early years of the reign of Ramesses II, then he agrees with what many historians say that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is Merneptah.
If we assume that Horemheb adopted Moses in the middle of his reign and raised him for 13 years, to which is added the two years of the reign of Ramses I + 20 years of Seti I + 67 years of the reign of Ramses II + 10 years of the reign of Merneptah, then Moses’ age at the time of the exodus with the Children of Israel would be 112 years. If we add to that the years of Sinai, then the 40 years of wandering, then the journey around the land of Edom, then Moses’ age at his death would be about 170 years, while Moses’ age did not exceed 120 years.
If we assume that Horemheb adopted Moses in the middle of his reign and raised him for 13 years, to which is added the two years of the reign of Ramses I + 20 years of Seti I + 67 years of the reign of Ramses II + 10 years of the reign of Merneptah, then Moses’ age at the time of the exodus with the Children of Israel would be 112 years. If we add to that the years of Sinai, then the 40 years of wandering, then the journey around the land of Edom, then Moses’ age at his death would be about 170 years, while Moses’ age did not exceed 120 years.
9- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses:
There are many who hold this opinion, including: Albright - Isvelt - Roxy - Unger - Father RP de Vaux. This opinion is consistent with the fact that the children of Israel lived in the land of Goshen and the new capital of Ramses II in the north, which allowed Moses to be captured from the river, and also achieved the subjugation of the children of Israel in building the cities of Pi-Ramesses and Pithom mentioned in the Torah. What is most surprising is that Father Defoe - who is the director of the Bible School and believes that the Pharaoh drowned while chasing the fugitives, then returns and says that the Exodus occurred in the first half of the reign of Ramses II, although the drowning of the Pharaoh means the end of his reign, not its middle. The truth is that this theory - that the Pharaoh of Moses is Ramses II - is consistent with many points that must be present in that Pharaoh, but several obstacles prevented the complete acceptance of this theory:
1- The first obstacle from the Torah: which is what came in Exodus 23:2 ((And it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died)), as its meaning is that the Pharaoh (Ramses The second) He died and his son ((Merneptah)) took the throne. In our opinion, they were forced to say this for two reasons.
· That it is consistent with the age of Moses, which they decided in Exodus 7:7. Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. Since Moses had fled Egypt at the age of 45, this means that he spent 35 years in Midian, which is a very long period in which it is not right for Moses to think of returning to Egypt after that. The Children of Israel would have forgotten their hero during this period and would no longer have the enthusiasm for his leadership after he had been absent from them for this long period.
They also said that the king had died in order to be consistent with what came in Exodus 19:4: “And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life are dead. ’” The fact is that the phrase “all the people who sought your life” does not mean Pharaoh as much as it means the people of the slain Egyptian. They were the ones who sought Moses’ life, and Pharaoh was carrying out their request by avenging them and taking their blood. When they died, Pharaoh no longer had a strong motive. In our opinion, paragraph 23 of Exodus 2 was “And it came to pass in those days that the people who sought Moses’ life died,” not “The king of Egypt died.”
2- The second obstacle of the Egyptian antiquities is the tablet known as ((The Tablet of Israel)) or ((The Tablet of Merneptah)) which was probably written in the year 1220 BC, in which Merneptah says that he had exterminated the seed of Israel from Palestine, and since the Exodus occurred in the year 1225 BC, this does not leave a period between the Exodus from Egypt and the entry into the land of Palestine except for 5 years, and this is what made many historians - especially Islamists - reject the opinion that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus because the Holy Quran explicitly and clearly states that the period of wandering is forty years, and no one has attempted to interpret what was stated in the Tablet of Merneptah with an interpretation that allows for the period of wandering to be forty years, nor did they realize what might be in this tablet of exaggeration, which is something familiar to the Pharaohs when they recorded the actions they did, especially the results of their wars, but they clung to the literal meaning of what was stated in this tablet, and we will discuss that in more detail later.
3- Another objection raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Moses was that the Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity, while Ramses II believed in four gods: Amun, Ra, Ptah, and Sethakh. He named the four divisions of his army in the Battle of Kadesh after these gods (Dr. Muhammad Wasfi, The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 154). This point can be answered by saying that the Battle of Kadesh was in the fifth year of Ramses II’s reign, while Moses’ return to Egypt was in the 62nd year of his reign, 57 years after the Battle of Kadesh. This was a long period of absolute rule and continuous praise from his ministers, courtiers, and the people, and glorification of his actions. All of this must have had an effect, especially since he had a tendency toward arrogance since his youth, which resulted in a feeling of perfection and he thought himself immortal like the gods, and he ended up claiming divinity.
4- The last objection raised against this theory was what is known, that Ramses II had no less than a hundred children, male and female, as they were unable to reconcile this with what is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, that the Pharaoh of Moses did not have a son, so he was forced to adopt Moses.
1- The first obstacle from the Torah: which is what came in Exodus 23:2 ((And it came to pass in those many days that the king of Egypt died)), as its meaning is that the Pharaoh (Ramses The second) He died and his son ((Merneptah)) took the throne. In our opinion, they were forced to say this for two reasons.
· That it is consistent with the age of Moses, which they decided in Exodus 7:7. Moses was eighty years old and Aaron was eighty-three years old when they spoke to Pharaoh. Since Moses had fled Egypt at the age of 45, this means that he spent 35 years in Midian, which is a very long period in which it is not right for Moses to think of returning to Egypt after that. The Children of Israel would have forgotten their hero during this period and would no longer have the enthusiasm for his leadership after he had been absent from them for this long period.
They also said that the king had died in order to be consistent with what came in Exodus 19:4: “And the Lord said to Moses in Midian, ‘Go, return to Egypt, for all the people who sought your life are dead. ’” The fact is that the phrase “all the people who sought your life” does not mean Pharaoh as much as it means the people of the slain Egyptian. They were the ones who sought Moses’ life, and Pharaoh was carrying out their request by avenging them and taking their blood. When they died, Pharaoh no longer had a strong motive. In our opinion, paragraph 23 of Exodus 2 was “And it came to pass in those days that the people who sought Moses’ life died,” not “The king of Egypt died.”
2- The second obstacle of the Egyptian antiquities is the tablet known as ((The Tablet of Israel)) or ((The Tablet of Merneptah)) which was probably written in the year 1220 BC, in which Merneptah says that he had exterminated the seed of Israel from Palestine, and since the Exodus occurred in the year 1225 BC, this does not leave a period between the Exodus from Egypt and the entry into the land of Palestine except for 5 years, and this is what made many historians - especially Islamists - reject the opinion that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus because the Holy Quran explicitly and clearly states that the period of wandering is forty years, and no one has attempted to interpret what was stated in the Tablet of Merneptah with an interpretation that allows for the period of wandering to be forty years, nor did they realize what might be in this tablet of exaggeration, which is something familiar to the Pharaohs when they recorded the actions they did, especially the results of their wars, but they clung to the literal meaning of what was stated in this tablet, and we will discuss that in more detail later.
3- Another objection raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of Moses was that the Pharaoh of Moses claimed divinity, while Ramses II believed in four gods: Amun, Ra, Ptah, and Sethakh. He named the four divisions of his army in the Battle of Kadesh after these gods (Dr. Muhammad Wasfi, The Temporal and Doctrinal Connection between the Prophets and Messengers, p. 154). This point can be answered by saying that the Battle of Kadesh was in the fifth year of Ramses II’s reign, while Moses’ return to Egypt was in the 62nd year of his reign, 57 years after the Battle of Kadesh. This was a long period of absolute rule and continuous praise from his ministers, courtiers, and the people, and glorification of his actions. All of this must have had an effect, especially since he had a tendency toward arrogance since his youth, which resulted in a feeling of perfection and he thought himself immortal like the gods, and he ended up claiming divinity.
4- The last objection raised against this theory was what is known, that Ramses II had no less than a hundred children, male and female, as they were unable to reconcile this with what is mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, that the Pharaoh of Moses did not have a son, so he was forced to adopt Moses.
{Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son.} [Al-Qasas: 9] They understood from this verse that the Pharaoh of Moses was sterile. We will explain later (p. 702) that the adoption was not due to the sterility of the Pharaoh or the sterility of his wives, but rather it was a temporary deprivation of a child due to the death of the sons while they were young until God’s will was carried out in the Pharaoh adopting Moses. Then after that, this “curse” was removed and his sons lived until they reached more than a hundred. It has been proven that Ramses II – in the first ten years after his marriage – had sons die while they were infants, and this is the reason for his acceptance of adopting Moses.
The important thing is that the proponents of the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of Moses could not defend their opinion, so they submitted to another assumption, which is:
10- Ramses II is the Pharaoh of subjugation and Merneptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus:
The proponents of this opinion believe that the exodus of the Children of Israel from Egypt was a peaceful exodus, without pursuit, and that Merneptah pursued them after they actually reached Palestine. This opinion is expressed by what Jean Yoyot sees (Pharaonic Egypt, translated, Cairo 1966, p. 40), that the Children of Israel seized the opportunity of the Egyptian army being busy repelling the Libyan invasion of Egypt’s western borders in the fifth year of Merneptah’s rule, so they fled from Egypt. Then, after Merneptah finished his war with the Libyans, he sent a campaign to Palestine and exterminated the Children of Israel there.
The proponents of this theory rely on several points:
1- What is mentioned in the Torah (Exodus 23:2) that the king of Egypt died, meaning that Ramses II died and his son Merneptah took over the rule after him. We mentioned on the previous page that the other concept mentioned in chapter 9:4 is closer to the truth and that those who actually died were relatives of the Egyptian whom Moses killed, not the Pharaoh.
2- They also said that Merneptah is the one who said: “He said, ‘Did we not raise you among us as a child?’” [Al-Shu’ara: 18], referring thereby to his father Ramses II who raised Moses. However, the question to be answered is: Why wouldn’t Ramses II himself have said it? And he is the one who bestowed upon Moses the right of guardianship, and what is most painful to the soul and most deserving of sadness is to see the one who was raising him and hoping for benefit from him ﴿Perhaps he will benefit us, or we will adopt him as a son﴾ [Al-Qasas: 9] is the same one who was the cause of his destruction, as if he picked him up to be an enemy and a cause of grief, as the Holy Qur’an states: ﴿So the family of Pharaoh picked him up that he might be to them an enemy and a cause of grief. Indeed, Pharaoh and Haman and their soldiers were sinners﴾ [Al-Qasas: 8]. Despite all the reasons for caution and care that Ramses II took to ward off the prophecy, the prophecy was fulfilled and the destruction of Pharaoh and his soldiers occurred ﴿And We showed Pharaoh, Haman, and their soldiers - from them that which they feared. (Al-Qasas: 6) This is more eloquent in the lesson than the one who mocked, was arrogant, and was haughty dying in his bed a natural death while his son drowned, especially since the reign of Ramses II was long enough to allow all the events to occur during his reign, and the verse with the sea referring to his body is a metaphor for his actions. (So today We will save you with your body that you may be a sign to those who come after you.) (Yunus: 92)
3- However, the main support for this theory is the tablet called “The Tablet of Merneptah” or “The Tablet of Israel.” We mentioned it briefly in the context of the objections raised against the theory of Ramses II as a Pharaoh of both subjugation and exodus. It is appropriate to expand a little in mentioning something about this tablet since it is the main support for the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
This tablet is a memorial plaque engraved on black granite with a poem written on it recording Merneptah’s victory over the Libyans. The tablet is kept in the Egyptian Museum. Anyone who wants the complete poem can refer to the book Ancient Egypt (Saleem Hassan) Vol. 7, p. 96. The poem as a whole is a source of pride for the great victory that the king achieved over the Libyans in the fifth year of his reign, through which Egypt was saved from a great danger. The poem is full of selected metaphors and similes, which gave it a literary image more than a purely historical document. The poet skillfully described the defeat of the enemies and the great deeds that Merneptah performed to defend his country and free it from the raids of the Libyans and break their power. He did not fail to describe the pharaoh as just and upright, saying: He gives everyone his due, for wealth flows to the righteous man, while the criminal will not enjoy any spoils. Then the poet moves on to describe the peace, tranquility and prosperity that prevailed in the country after this victory, saying: Even the animal was left wandering without a shepherd. While their owners go and come singing, and there is no cry of a people in pain, and at the end of the poem the poet enumerates the tribes and regions that Merneptah has subjugated, and this is its text - for this part is the crux of the matter:
And the chiefs who are cast down to the ground say: Peace! Not one of the tribes of the nine-bowed nomads lifts his head any more (this is an ancient name for Egypt's hostile neighbors).
The Tehenu are ruined (one of the tribes that inhabited Libya). And
the land of Khati has become peaceful.
Ashkelon has been removed .
And Gezer has been captured.
And Penom has become nothing.
And Israel is ruined and has no seed.
And Kharu has become a widow to Egypt.
And all the lands have found peace.
And all who have gone wandering have been subjugated by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt, the son of Ra, beloved of Amun, the son of the sun, Merneptah, cheerful with truth.
Life-giving like Ra every day.
The importance of this poem in the view of historians is its mention of the people of the Children of Israel, especially since it is the first and only time that they are mentioned by name in Egyptian antiquities. Since the Children of Israel began their residence in Egypt during the days of Joseph and nothing is mentioned about that in Egyptian antiquities, then mentioning their name here must be related to their exodus from Egypt. Scholars have differed about what is understood from this phrase.
Some of them, such as Petrie (Israel in Egypt, p. 35), believe that the Israelites were in Palestine at the time this tablet was written.
Professor Naville (Archeology of the Old Testament) believes that the tablet indicates that the Israelites left Egypt before Merneptah or at the beginning of his reign. However, this latter assumption contradicts the confirmed fact that the Pharaoh of the Exodus drowned while pursuing the prophet of Israel. The Exodus could not have occurred at the beginning of Merneptah’s reign, but rather at the end of Ramses II’s reign, who drowned while pursuing them. Thus, we see that the Merneptah tablet, which they used as evidence to oppose the theory that Ramses II is the Pharaoh of the Exodus, is in fact evidence of its validity. Naville makes a second point, which is that he does not believe that the reference to Syria in the tablet refers to a real war that took place in Syria. The truth is that there is no evidence that Merneptah led or directed a campaign to Syria, and what was mentioned that “the land of Khati” became peaceful is – as they say: a foregone conclusion because it had been peaceful since the treaty that his father Ramses II signed with its king, and mentioning that as one of Merneptah’s deeds is an exaggeration of the exaggerations that the pharaohs were famous for when recording their record of deeds, and perhaps he wanted to indicate that he did not neglect the eastern front and that he had victories there as he had achieved victories in the west over the Libyans.
Egyptologist Salim Hassan (Ancient Egypt, vol. 7, p. 111) mentions that archaeologists and linguists have translated the sentence about Israel “and it has no seed” in two ways. Some of them said that their crops were gone or that they had no yield. The other way is more correct, as Breasted said: “Israel has been destitute, its seed has been cut off.” Or as Naville said: “Israel has been wiped out and its seed does not exist.” The fact is that the word “seed” indicates “successor.” In Arab countries, we still find that they use the word “seed” to mean “offspring” or “children.” A common question among them is: “How are the seeds?” And it is said of someone who has no offspring, “his seed has been cut off.”
The scholar Salim Hassan also mentioned that all the countries mentioned: Khati - Gezer - Ashkelon and others, each had a specific drawing attached to it indicating that they were foreign countries. As for the name Israel, it was the only name that was excluded from this drawing, which means that the Children of Israel did not have a ((specific land)) at that time. The drawing attached to the name Israel was the image of a man and a woman, indicating that they were just a group of people and not a ((state)), which indicates that the poet who sang about the victory of ((Merenptah)) and composed this anthem meant that the Children of Israel at that time did not have a specific place in the land of Palestine. There is no way to doubt the way the poem was written, as is said about the possibility of the ancient Egyptian writer’s error and oversight, as he was aware of what he was writing and mentioned the names of foreign peoples and countries in that text 19 (nineteen) times. He did not neglect to draw the symbol of the foreign land in any of them, whether before the name Israel or after it. He concludes from this that this victory anthem refers to a group of ((the Children of Israel)) who were in some parts of Palestine or its borders when Merneptah went out to suppress a revolution there, and this means that they They left Egypt before his reign, as Dr. Abdul Aziz Saleh (The Ancient Near East, Part 1, p. 255) sees, that the Merneptah Tablet considered “Israel” among the “residents” of Palestine and did not mention his pursuit of them from Egypt, which means that they entered Palestine before his reign, that is, they left Egypt before his reign, that is, in the late era of Ramses II.
Here the problem of the years of wandering arises, as it is religiously proven that the Children of Israel, after their exodus from Egypt, did not head directly to Palestine, but rather spent forty years in the wandering in Sinai, and then after that they headed to the land of Palestine. So if we assume a year before the wandering and a year after it to prepare for entering the land, the total would be 42 years, during which time six of the pharaohs had died:
That is, when the Children of Israel began to enter the land of Palestine, Ramses III was the Pharaoh of Egypt. Before that, they had no presence in Palestine. So how could Merneptah have the right to mention in the victory hymn: “And Israel is destroyed, and has no seed,” or as it was translated: “And the seed of Israel has been destroyed”?
Some scholars who adhere to the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus” exclude the years of wandering from their calculations and deny it, and say that the Children of Israel headed to Palestine after their exodus from Egypt at the end of the reign of Ramses II, and that Merneptah pursued them there and “actually destroyed their seed.” They cite as evidence the strength of Egyptian influence in Palestine during the reign of Merneptah the archaeologists’ finding of a broken vessel with Egyptian writing on it for one of the Egyptian tax collectors in the town of “Lachish” in Palestine, in which he recorded his receipt of a shipment of wheat in the fourth year of Merneptah’s reign. Some also believe (Dr. Muhammad Bayumi Mahran, Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Vol. 3, p. 500) that Egyptian sovereignty over Palestine at that time was so strong that it did not allow the masses of the Children of Israel – who were not armed with weapons – to enter the land of Palestine at all, so there is no room to say that the Children of Israel had settled in Palestine for some time, then Merneptah went and destroyed their seed and restored Egyptian influence to Palestine again.
All of this is refuted by the fact that the years of wandering are established by their mention in the Holy Quran and in the Torah as well, so there is no room for omitting or denying them. Since this is the case, how was it possible for Merneptah to mention in the tablet that he had destroyed the seed of Israel while they were still in the wilderness in Sinai? The answer lies in one of the following concerns:
1- He went to Palestine and found some of the “Habiru” - who, as we mentioned, are relatives of the Children of Israel and a branch of them - so he destroyed them, and he thought or claimed that he had destroyed the Children of Israel.
2- He went to Palestine and did not find the Children of Israel and searched for them in all parts of Palestine but did not find them, so he believed that they had perished in the desert and attributed their destruction to himself.
3- The third possibility is that Merneptah did not lead or send a campaign to Palestine at all, and that as he attributed the peace with “Khati” to himself, he wanted to confirm that he was no less than his predecessor in his interest in Egypt’s possessions in Asia, so he included his victory over the Libyans as a victory in the East as well, so he added Khati, Gezer, and Ashkelon, and likewise he added the name of Israel, and that was easier since they were not a state but a people without a land, as is clear from the way they were mentioned in “The Tablet of Israel.”
4- Dr. Muhammad Bayumi Mahran says (Egypt and the Ancient Near East, Part 3, p. 506): Some have determined the date of writing of the Merneptah Tablet to be the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign, and Merneptah’s campaign against Syria was in the third year of his reign. Since it is proven that the Pharaoh drowned while pursuing the Children of Israel, this means that this tablet was written after the Pharaoh drowned and was written by his successor to commemorate his victory over the Libyans. He added to them “the seed of Israel has been destroyed” as a kind of false boasting, since how could the Pharaoh, who drowned while pursuing them, claim that he had destroyed them?
Since false boasting has been put into the possibilities, why couldn’t the writer of the tablet be Merneptah himself and not his successor, and that he is the one who made the false boasting and that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Ramses II, who drowned while pursuing the Children of Israel?
From the above, we see that the Tablet of Israel or the Tablet of Merneptah - which is the greatest support for the theory that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus - confirms the falsity of the paragraph contained in it related to the Children of Israel, and this tablet becomes in reality evidence that the Exodus took place before the era of Merneptah. James Beckie - the famous archaeologist - indicated this in a relevant manner by saying - and that the position of Merneptah as the Pharaoh of the Exodus was shaken by the discovery of the Victory Tablet, that is, the Tablet of Israel - (Egyptian Antiquities in the Nile Valley, Vol. 3, p. 171).
Despite all this, this theory - Merneptah is the Pharaoh of the Exodus - is widely accepted by Egyptian and foreign archaeologists alike. The fanaticism of some supporters of this theory has reached the point of denying the drowning of the Pharaoh during whose reign the Children of Israel left. We see Dr. Salim Hassan (Ancient Egypt, Vol. 7, p. 135) saying: The reality is that one cannot imagine the drowning of the Pharaoh and his chariot in shallow water no more than two or three feet deep. Rather, it is reasonable that the Pharaoh's horses and chariots sank in the mud and some of their passengers fell. This explains what is stated in Exodus 25:14. And the mount of their chariots was removed until they drove them with his weight. He continues by saying: In addition to that, what is stated in the Holy Qur’an does not give the impression that the Pharaoh who was a contemporary of Moses and pursued him drowned and died. On the contrary, God saved his body to be a sign to the people of the Creator's power. The expression: {So today We will save you with your body} [Yunus: 92] is equivalent to the colloquial expression ((He was saved with his skin))!! This is the height of arbitrariness in interpreting the verses of the Holy Quran, as the verses of the Holy Quran clearly and explicitly confirm that the Pharaoh and his soldiers drowned, and the place of drowning was not two or three feet as they claim, but rather it was: {Each party was like a great mountain} [Ash-Shu’ara’: 63].
There is a final piece of evidence that the proponents of the theory of “Merneptah, the Pharaoh of the Exodus” rely on, which is what the archaeologist Sayce points out, saying that Egyptian antiquities confine the incident of the Exodus to the rule of Pharaoh Merneptah. Among the papyri preserved in the British Museum, we have a document known as the “Anastasi VI” papyrus, which includes a letter from the scribe of King Merneptah, written to his chief, in which he says: Some Bedouins of “Shasu” – Edom – have been allowed, according to the instructions he has, to pass the fortress in the region of Scyth (Tell al-Maskhutah) in the Valley of Tumilat, to be able to graze their cattle near Batum. The text of the letter is as follows: Another matter, my lord, we have finished observing the passage of the tribes of ((Shasu)), who are followers of ((Edom)) from the fortress of ((Merneptahhotep Harmaat)), may he live, prosper and be healthy, in ((Skuth)) towards the pools of ((Ptum)) in order to feed them and feed their flocks in the estates of the pharaoh, may he live, prosper and be healthy, and he is the good sun for all the land of Egypt.. (Ancient Egypt, Salim Hassan, Vol. 6, p. 588).
Other documents indicate that the guard in this valley was extremely tight, and that the main road to Asia was under great surveillance at the fortress of Sila (present-day Tell Abu Sayfa). We have received parts of the diary of an official in one of the cities on the borders of Palestine during the reign of Merneptah, in which he recorded the names of the envoys and the tasks they were charged with performing for those who passed through this fortress on their way to Palestine. Passage through it was forbidden during the reign of Ramses II except for those who had a permit to leave. Professor Sayes says: This letter (Anastasia VI) was written in the eighth year of Merneptah’s reign. Obviously, this could not have happened if the Israelites were still living in the land of Goshen. Accordingly, the exodus must have occurred sometime before this date. This makes the date of the exodus in any case close to the date of the inscription of the tablet. That is, he concludes that this letter supports that the exodus occurred during the reign of Merneptah in the fifth year of his reign, but he concludes his conclusion by saying about the time of the exodus: It may even be earlier than this date.
It is certain that the Exodus - as a conclusion from this speech - precedes this date, since the means of communication at that time were slow. If we assume that the Exodus occurred at a certain time, a year might pass before the neighboring countries outside the Egyptian influence know about the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. Another year might pass until it is confirmed that they have left Egypt forever. A third year might pass until the leaders of Edom decide to send a mission to the Pharaoh of Egypt to allow their shepherds to graze in the land inhabited by the Israelites. Another time might pass before the Pharaoh studies the matter with his advisors and verifies that these shepherds are not spies or agents of a foreign country planning to invade Egypt. If we take all these times into consideration, the time of the Exodus takes us back to the first era of Merneptah, that is, the last era of Ramses II.
Thus, it becomes clear to us that this last piece of evidence (Anastasius’s sadistic paper) also indicates that Merneptah is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
From this we conclude that all the objections raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and on the basis of which they assumed that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus - these objections, after being refuted, turned into objections to the Merneptah theory itself and became evidence of the validity of the opinion that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus together, and this supports what we have stated that the proponents of this theory were unable, or rather did not strive to defend it.
This study has attempted to cover the subject from all its aspects and scrutinize the evidence presented on its various aspects, and the balance is now tilted in favor of the theory that says that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus as well. Although some may see in what has been mentioned some prolixity, this is only because we are convinced that identifying the identity of this Pharaoh will help to highlight new aspects in the story of Moses, peace be upon him. Also, during the narration of the story, other evidence will become clear to the reader - derived from the Holy Qur’an - confirming that Ramses II is - without a doubt - the Pharaoh of Moses, and this will be the end of the long debate that has been going on around this subject.
An example of this is the summary of the story of this Pharaoh, which is mentioned in Surat An-Nazi’at:
{Has the story of Moses (15) reached you, when his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa? (16) Go to Pharaoh, for he has transgressed. (17) And say, “Would you like to be purified?” (18) And I will guide you to your Lord so that you may fear Him. (19) So he showed him the greatest sign. (20) But he denied and disobeyed. (21) Then he turned away, striving. (22) So he was gathered and called out. (23) And he said, {I am your Lord, the Most High (24) So Allah seized him with the punishment of the Hereafter and the first (25) Indeed in that is a lesson for whoever fears} [An-Nazi’at 15-26]. So
the Pharaoh transgressed by mocking, torturing, and enslaving the Children of Israel and slaughtering their children. So Moses went to him and showed him many miracles, all of which were expressed in the wording of the greatest sign. But the Pharaoh lied and began to claim divinity for himself, so Allah punished him in this world by drowning him in the sea, and in the Hereafter he will be punished by the Fire. The pronoun in (So Allah seized him) refers to (Pharaoh) who transgressed, so he is one Pharaoh from the beginning to the end. The same meaning is understood from these verses from Surat Ad-Dukhan:
{And We had certainly tried before them the people of Pharaoh, and there came to them a noble messenger (17) [saying], “Deliver to me the servants of Allah. Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger.” (18) And “Do not exalt yourselves against Allah. Indeed, I have come to you with clear authority.” (19) And indeed, I have sought refuge in my Lord and your Lord, lest you stone me. (20) And if you do not believe me, then leave me. (21) So he called upon his Lord, “Indeed, these are a criminal people.” (22) So travel with My servants by night, for you will be pursued. (23) And leave the sea at rest. For they are a drowned army. (24) How many gardens and springs have they left behind, (25) And crops and noble dwellings, (26) And comfort in which they used to rejoice. (27) Thus it was, and We caused another people to inherit it. (28) So neither the heaven nor the earth wept for them, nor were they reprieved. (29) And We had certainly saved the Children of Israel. {Israel from the humiliating punishment (30) from Pharaoh. Indeed, he was haughty and of the transgressors.} [Ad-Dukhan: 17-31].
Thus, it becomes clear to us that this last piece of evidence (Anastasius’s sadistic paper) also indicates that Merneptah is not the Pharaoh of the Exodus.
From this we conclude that all the objections raised against the theory that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and on the basis of which they assumed that Merneptah was the Pharaoh of the Exodus - these objections, after being refuted, turned into objections to the Merneptah theory itself and became evidence of the validity of the opinion that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus together, and this supports what we have stated that the proponents of this theory were unable, or rather did not strive to defend it.
This study has attempted to cover the subject from all its aspects and scrutinize the evidence presented on its various aspects, and the balance is now tilted in favor of the theory that says that Ramses II was the Pharaoh of subjugation and the Pharaoh of the Exodus as well. Although some may see in what has been mentioned some prolixity, this is only because we are convinced that identifying the identity of this Pharaoh will help to highlight new aspects in the story of Moses, peace be upon him. Also, during the narration of the story, other evidence will become clear to the reader - derived from the Holy Qur’an - confirming that Ramses II is - without a doubt - the Pharaoh of Moses, and this will be the end of the long debate that has been going on around this subject.
An example of this is the summary of the story of this Pharaoh, which is mentioned in Surat An-Nazi’at:
{Has the story of Moses (15) reached you, when his Lord called to him in the sacred valley of Tuwa? (16) Go to Pharaoh, for he has transgressed. (17) And say, “Would you like to be purified?” (18) And I will guide you to your Lord so that you may fear Him. (19) So he showed him the greatest sign. (20) But he denied and disobeyed. (21) Then he turned away, striving. (22) So he was gathered and called out. (23) And he said, {I am your Lord, the Most High (24) So Allah seized him with the punishment of the Hereafter and the first (25) Indeed in that is a lesson for whoever fears} [An-Nazi’at 15-26]. So
the Pharaoh transgressed by mocking, torturing, and enslaving the Children of Israel and slaughtering their children. So Moses went to him and showed him many miracles, all of which were expressed in the wording of the greatest sign. But the Pharaoh lied and began to claim divinity for himself, so Allah punished him in this world by drowning him in the sea, and in the Hereafter he will be punished by the Fire. The pronoun in (So Allah seized him) refers to (Pharaoh) who transgressed, so he is one Pharaoh from the beginning to the end. The same meaning is understood from these verses from Surat Ad-Dukhan:
{And We had certainly tried before them the people of Pharaoh, and there came to them a noble messenger (17) [saying], “Deliver to me the servants of Allah. Indeed, I am to you a trustworthy messenger.” (18) And “Do not exalt yourselves against Allah. Indeed, I have come to you with clear authority.” (19) And indeed, I have sought refuge in my Lord and your Lord, lest you stone me. (20) And if you do not believe me, then leave me. (21) So he called upon his Lord, “Indeed, these are a criminal people.” (22) So travel with My servants by night, for you will be pursued. (23) And leave the sea at rest. For they are a drowned army. (24) How many gardens and springs have they left behind, (25) And crops and noble dwellings, (26) And comfort in which they used to rejoice. (27) Thus it was, and We caused another people to inherit it. (28) So neither the heaven nor the earth wept for them, nor were they reprieved. (29) And We had certainly saved the Children of Israel. {Israel from the humiliating punishment (30) from Pharaoh. Indeed, he was haughty and of the transgressors.} [Ad-Dukhan: 17-31].
.png)
Comments
Post a Comment