The Old Testament in the Light of the Historical Records and Legends of Assyria and Babylonia

by Theophilus G. Pinches

The successor of Rameses, Meneptah II., is hardly the son which one would expect to follow such a father. According to Brugsch, he does not rank with those Pharaohs who transmitted their remembrance to posterity by grand buildings and the construction of new temples. And the monolith found by Petrie in 1896 seems to imply that his lists of conquests were not always so trustworthy as could be wished. Nevertheless, the reign of Meneptah is one of the greatest importance, for it was he, to all appearance, who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, as seems also to be proved by the same document. As this is a [pg 306] text of the very first importance, a translation of the concluding lines is given here—

“Kheta (the land of the Hittites) is in peace, captive is Canaan and full of misery, Askelon is carried away, Gezer is taken, Yennuamma is non-existent, Israel is lost, his seed is not,[75] Syria is like the widows of Egypt. The totality of all the lands is at peace, for whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah.”

Now the statement concerning Israel has given rise to a considerable amount of discussion. Naville regards the reference to the condition in which the Israelites were as indicating that they had left Egypt, and were wandering, “lost” in the desert. There is also some probability that the expression, “his seed is not,” may be a reference to the decree of the king, who commanded the destruction of the male children of the Hebrews, which command, he may have imagined, had been finally carried out. The question also naturally arises, whether the last phrase, “whoever rebelled was chastised by king Meneptah,” may not have a reference to the Israelites, who, from their own showing, were sufficiently peremptory in their demands to be allowed to proceed into the wilderness to sacrifice to their god, to bring down upon themselves any amount of resentment.

Exceedingly noteworthy, and in many respects startling, however, are the researches and statements of Dr. Edouard Mahler. Following Spiegelberg as to the meaning of the phrase containing the name of the Israelites, “Jenoam has been brought to naught; Israel, the horde, destroyed his crops”—a statement which hardly seems worthy of the honour of being inscribed on the memorial stele of a king of Egypt—is the rendering he suggests. The translation of the word feket (which is rendered by other Egyptologists as “annihilated, lost,” or in some similar way) by [pg 307] “horde,” allows the learned chronologist to suggest, that the ideographs accompanying the word Israelites indicate that they had already entered the Holy Land, and were trying to obtain a foothold there.

Having made these statements, he proceeds to examine the whole question. He asserts the correctness of the view, that Amosis, the founder of the eighteenth dynasty, was the prince who knew not Joseph. The first king of this new dynasty, he calculates, came to the throne two years after Joseph's death. With regard to the reign of Rameses II., he refers to the festival of the Sothis period which was celebrated in the thirtieth year of his reign. Starting from this period,[76] which, according to Oppolzer, was renewed in the year 1318 b.c., he calculates that the first year of Rameses II. was 1347 b.c., and that the Exodus took place in his thirteenth year, i.e. 1335 b.c.

According to the Pirke di Rabbi Elieser, Dr. Mahler says, the departure of the Israelites is said to have taken place on a Thursday. “This view is also held in the Talmud (cf. Sabbath 87B), and the Shulchan-Aroch also maintains that the 15th Nisan, the day of the Exodus, was a Thursday. This all agrees with the year b.c. 1335, for in that year the 15th Nisan fell on a Thursday, and indeed on Thursday the 27th of March (Julian calendar).”

If we accept the theory that Rameses II. was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the Exodus took place in 1335 b.c., then Moses, who was eighty years old at the time of the Exodus, must have been born in the year 1415 b.c., i.e. the fifteenth year of Amenophis III. Now the chief wife of this ruler was queen Teie (see p. [275]), a woman who was certainly [pg 308] of foreign, probably Asiatic, race. In all probability, therefore, Teie, being an alien and of a different religion from the Egyptians, was not by any means in favour with the Egyptian priesthood, however much the Pharaoh may have delighted in her. The daughter of such a woman, as will easily be understood, would find little or no opposition to the adoption by her of a child of one of the Hebrews, an Asiatic like her mother. This, of course, would explain excellently how it was that Moses came to be adopted and educated by an Egyptian princess at her father's court, and that he had no real sympathy with the people among whom he lived, though it raises somewhat of a difficulty, for it is hard to understand how the Egyptian king, sympathizing, as we may expect him to have done, with Asiatics, should have ordered the destruction of their children. Nevertheless, circumstances may easily have arisen to cause such a decree to be issued. Another difficulty is, to explain who the people hostile to Moses were, who in the thirteenth year of Rameses II. died (Exod. iv. 19). This has generally been understood to be the king and one or more of his advisers, though this objection, like the other, really presents no difficulty worthy of the name, as there was no indication that the king was included.

Of course there is no statement to the effect that Pharaoh was killed with his army by the returning flood after the Israelites crossed the Red Sea (in Ps. cxxxvi. 15 he must be regarded as having been overwhelmed therein in the persons of his warriors, who suffered the fate which ought to have stricken also the king), so that little or no difficulty exists in this portion of the narrative.[77] On the other hand, a difficulty is got rid of if we suppose that the Exodus [pg 309] took place in the time of Rameses II. Dr. Mahler points out, that Meneptah was succeeded by his son and heir, User-kheperu-Ra', who did not die, but reigned thirty-three years. The eldest sons of Rameses II., on the other hand, all died during their father's lifetime, and it was the fourteenth of his numerous progeny who ultimately came to the throne.

Dr. Mahler clinches the matter by making the plague of darkness to have been a solar eclipse.

Whatever may be the defects of Dr. Mahler's seductive theory, it must be admitted that it presents fewer difficulties than any other that has yet been put forward, and on that account deserves special attention.