THE CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT.
“I have considered the days of old, the years of ancient times."—PSALM 77:5.
NOTWITHSTANDING that chronology is a difficult and, to many, a "dry" subject, we feel constrained to give it our careful consideration, especially as the chronology of Egypt has been used as an occasion of attack upon scripture, the first king of Egypt—Menes—being placed, by some, many centuries earlier than the chronology of scripture allows.
Happily, the writers on Egypt are not agreed in these conclusions, differing, not by mere trifles, but by centuries; while some of them, and even those acknowledged to have been the most successful in deciphering the inscriptions, do not hesitate to say that there is nothing whatever they can produce that in any way touches the veracity of the word of God.
Thus Champollion wrote of his labors, against those who attacked the scriptures:—They will find in this work an absolute reply to their calumnies, since I have demonstrated that no Egyptian monument is really older than the year 2200 before our era. This certainly is a very high antiquity, but it presents nothing contradictory to the sacred histories, and I venture to affirm that it establishes them on all points; for it is, in fact, by adopting the chronology and the succession of kings given by the Egyptian monuments, that the Egyptian history wonderfully accords with the sacred writings.”
This is no mean authority on such a question. The flood—from whence our present world took its rise—is dated, in the common chronology B.C. 2348; so that this allows about one hundred and fifty years for Egypt to have become a kingdom. And thus all the rest can well fall in subsequent times.
A great landmark in the history of Egypt is thought to be found in the sentence, "Every shepherd is an abomination unto the Egyptians." (Gen. 46:34.) Why were shepherds an abomination to the Egyptians? The answer generally given to this question is, that some shepherd-kings once ruled over Egypt, and, being usurpers, they were hated by the Egyptians.
The account of this is given by Manetho, as quoted by Josephus. “We had a king, whose name was Timmus; and in his reign we fell, beyond all imagination, under God's heavy displeasure. There came flowing in upon us a rugged, robust people out of the east, that made an inroad into the provinces, and, there encamping, took it by force, and carried all before them without so much as a stroke, putting our princes in chains, cruelly laying our cities in ashes, demolishing our temples, and miserably oppressing our inhabitants; some were cut to pieces, and others, with their wives and children, sent into bondage. After this, they set up a king from among themselves, whose name was Salatis.
“This new king advanced to Memphis, and, having subjected both the upper and lower provinces, and put garrisons into all tenable places, he fortified to the eastward in a more especial manner, for fear of an invasion from the Assyrians, whom he looked upon as the stronger of the two. He found in the country of Saites a city, formerly called Avaris (Gr. Αβαρις), which was situated very conveniently for his purpose, to the east of the river (or channel) Bubastis. This city he improved and repaired, and fortified it with strong works and walls, and a body of two hundred and forty thousand men to cover it. He made the choice of harvest-time for the execution of his design, with a regard both to the plenty of the season for provisions, and to the means also of paying his soldiers, and to the securing of himself likewise against all assaults or invasions, by his excellent discipline and conduct.”
Then follows a list of these usurpers:—
Salatis reigned ... ... ... 19 years.
Beon ... ... ... 44 “
Apachnas ... ... ... 36 “
Apophis ... ... ... 61 “
Janias ... ... ... 50”
Assis ... ... ... 49 “
“These six were the first kings, and were perpetually at war, to exterminate the Egyptians root and branch. The people were called HYCSOS; that is to say, king-shepherds; for Hyc, in the holy tongue, denotes king; and SOS, according to the vulgar tongue, is a shepherd. So that Hycsos is taken as a compound. Some will have it that these people were Arabians. According to other copies, Hycsos does not signify king-shepherd, but shepherd-captive; for Hyc and Hac, with an aspiration, sounds in Egyptian like captive; and it seems to me the more reasonable interpretation of the two, as it suits better with the ancient history.
“These—call them what you will—kings or shepherds, and their train, had kept the government of Egypt in their own hands for the space of five hundred and eleven years. The king of Thebes, and the remainder of Egypt that was not as yet subjected, made a violent and an obstinate war upon the shepherds, and routed them, under the command of king Alisphragmuthosis. And when the greater part of them were driven out of Egypt, the rest withdrew into a place called Avaris, of ten thousand acres in extent; and this the shepherds enclosed with a strong, substantial wall, that secured them all they needed within its boundary.
“Thummosis, the son of Alisphragmuthosis, laid siege to it with four hundred and eighty thousand men; but when he found that the place was not to be carried by assault, they came to agreement: the strangers were to depart from Egypt, and be safe to go whither they would.
Upon these terms they marched out with their goods and families, to the number of two hundred and forty thousand souls, by the way of the wilderness, into Syria; and, for fear of the Syrians, who were the masters of Asia, they retired into a country that is now known by the name of Judaea, where they erected a city large enough to receive this vast multitude, and called it Jerusalem.”
This is the account given by Manetho as to the Hycsos, or shepherds, who conquered a great part of Egypt, and which might well cause "shepherds" to be an abomination, or a thing hated, by the Egyptians. Josephus takes this story of the shepherd-kings to be the Egyptian account of the sojourn of Israel in Egypt, and their Exodus. But this does not agree with scripture. If there were no shepherds who had held sway over the Egyptians before Joseph brought his brethren there, how is it to be accounted for that the Egyptians hated shepherds? The Israelites did not attempt to rule over the Egyptians.
But Josephus again quotes Manetho. He says that the historian represented that the king Amenophis "had a mind to see the gods, whereon a priest of the same name told him that his desire should be granted, if he would clear the kingdom of all lepers and other unclean persons. This Amenophis," says Manetho, "was a person of such a reputation as a holy man and a prophet, that the king was overjoyed at the promise, and presently gathered together a multitude of loathsome and diseased people, to the number of fourscore thousand, and sent them away into quarries to the eastward of the Nile. There were leprous priests also and learned men intermingled with the rest.
“This priest was afterwards in a horror of conscience for what he had done, and in fear of judicial vengeance from heaven upon himself, for giving that violent counsel, and upon the king for taking it, having been warned by revelation that Divine Justice, on account of their tyrannical oppression, had in providence appointed to the lepers the government of Egypt for thirteen years. The priest feared to speak one word of this to the king, but committed the inspiration to writing, and then slew himself. This frightened the king.”
The king allowed the outcasts to resort to waris, where they, with an Egyptian priest, broke out into rebellion, and invited the shepherds from Jerusalem to come and join them. They came, with two hundred thousand men. Amenophis thought it best to retire with his army to Ethiopia. Those from Jerusalem ravaged the country, slew the sacred animals, and destroyed the gods. The leader of the polity was one Osarsiph, a priest of Heliopolis, who afterwards called himself Moses. Amenophis, with his son, Rhampses, raised a large army, and drove out the shepherds and lepers, and continued his dynasty.
Josephus treats this as a calumny against the Jews, and it is reasonable that the Egyptians should give some account of the departure of such a multitude as the Israelites were at the time of the Exodus. Our question is, when would the Exodus take place in relation to these shepherd-kings; was it while they were there, or after they had been expelled?
Again, we read in scripture that "there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph." How is it to be accounted for that a king came to the throne of Egypt who did not know Joseph, a man who— for many years at least—had been next to the king, and had saved Egypt from inevitable ruin?
In answer to this, the first thought would naturally be, that this new king must have been the first of another dynasty, who would thus be either unacquainted with the history of Egypt, or indifferent to those who had benefited the country, or one who associated the shepherd-Israelites with the shepherd-kings.
Now the grand problem has been to find a period in Egyptian history, the details of which answer to all the circumstances of Israel's sojourn. What Pharaoh was it who promoted Joseph? What Pharaoh commenced to oppress the Israelites? And what Pharaoh suffered under the plagues, and perished in the Red Sea?
But these are not the only questions at issue. Some of the kings of Egypt and Ethiopia are mentioned in scripture by name, as So, Shishak, Necho, Hophra, Tirhakah and Zerah; how does the mention of these kings agree with the lists of the kings of Egypt? And do all the events and the names of the kings fall into their places with the proper dates?
It will thus be seen that the question involves the chronology of several centuries, and indeed the chronology of Egypt generally has to be considered.
The materials from which the chronology of Egypt has to be gathered, are mainly the various data as given by Manetho; the list of kings as given in tablets; and the mention of them on the monuments.
It is admitted on all hands that the tablets and monuments alone would not furnish anything like a chronology: the utmost that can be gathered from them is the order of the succession of the kings, together with an occasional year of reign.
On the other hand, it is pretty equally agreed that the copies handed down from. Manetho form the basis of any chronology capable of being compiled; and Mr. Wilkinson tells us that a tablet has been discovered (the tablet of Sakkarah), on which are the names of fifty-eight kings, exactly corresponding to those in the list of Manetho.
Manetho was an Egyptian priest, who lived in the reign of Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, and perhaps in that of his successor, Ptolemy Philadelphus. He wrote a history of Egypt, and gave a list of the kings, and the length of their reigns, "obtained from sacred records." The original work is lost, and is only known to us in extracts preserved by Syncellus (born A.D. 800), giving two versions: one copied from the "Chronographia" of Julius Africanus (A.D. 220), and the other from the "Chronicon" of Eusebius (A.D. 325), of which latter we have also an Armenian version. Josephus also quotes a portion of Manetho. Syncellus also quotes an Old Chronicle, and has handed down a list of kings from the philosopher Eratosthenes (B.C. 267).
Now these lists differ materially from one another, probably from having passed through the hands of chronologists, each with his own theory, and who must have altered Manetho's lists to suit their own schemes. In charity we may hope that they honestly supposed he was wrong, and that they thought to do a good service by setting him right; but this mistaken zeal has imposed almost a hopeless task upon present chronologists; for, though many have based their chronologies upon Manetho, scarcely two have arrived at the same conclusions.
What makes the matter more difficult is, that the events recorded in scripture have to be taken in connection with these disarranged lists. Some chronologists give scripture the first place, and alter Manetho to it; others accommodate both, or rather think that with the differences of the long scripture chronology by Hales, and the short chronology by Usher, a certain latitude is allowable, provided they keep within what they deem proper limits. Others give scripture the last place. They arrange the Egyptian chronology, and then alter the scripture to agree with their particular systems. This will be evident when we say that Lepsius gives the duration of the Israelites in Egypt as ninety years; Dr. Brugsch as four hundred and thirty; and Baron Bunsen, fourteen hundred and thirty-four years!
The history of Egypt generally has also to be studied. In the life of a particular king, the chronologist has, perhaps, to come to the conclusion that the Exodus could not have been in his reign; another could not have been the king who knew not Joseph, and who oppressed the Israelites; and thus moral questions had to be considered also.
Before considering these questions we may take a glance at the list of early kings. If the years of reign of these kings are simply added up, they certainly make an enormous total; but chronologists are now pretty well agreed on these three points:—
1. That dynasties i. to xvii. were more or less contemporaneous. 2. That dynasties xv., xvi., xvii. were the Hycsos, or shepherd-kings. 3. From xviii. onwards the dynasties run consecutively.
Before dynasty i., the old chronologists record thousands of years of gods and demi-gods, which need not trouble us. Menes is taken as the first king of dynasty i.
The dynasties i. to xviii. have been arranged thus:—[illustration]
The dates, of course, are only approximate, both for the long and the short chronology. The lists for this period are all in much confusion. Some chronologists claim more than three thousand years for it, while others are content with less than half that duration. It will be seen that, if the foregoing is correct, often two kings, and sometimes three, were reigning at the same time in different parts of the country; and it is believed by some that the monuments themselves show that some of the kings were contemporaneous.
All this part may indeed be said to be treated as elastic by the chronologists. Some of the names in these dynasties may be sons or daughters, or brothers or sisters, who reigned with the reigning monarch, as is supposed to be illustrated in the eighteenth dynasty. If the short chronology of scripture be taken, it requires more compressing than if the long chronology be chosen.
In some respects the long chronology may be thought preferable here to make room for so many kings, but in other places it creates difficulties avoided by the short chronology. There is a passage in Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 2), which says, the first king, Menes, was before Solomon more than thirteen hundred years. Now Solomon began to reign B.C. 1015, and this brings Menes to B.C. 2315, which comes very near to the date of the short chronology. We suppose Josephus had some data for his calculation.
At the end of the seventeenth dynasty there is a break; the eighteenth begins by the driving out of the shepherd-kings, and a more settled state of affairs ensues. From this period, too, we have more evidence as to the length of the dynasties; but, alas! not to lessen our perplexity. In the sums total, from dynasty xviii. to xxvi., we have the three following documents:—[Illustration]
It will be seen that, though the totals are not very far different for a thousand years, the details vary considerably.
We must endeavor to unravel the tangled thread. The only way, apparently, is to look for some point in Egyptian history to which a date can be fixed, and from which others can be reckoned, not forgetting that our object is to see how far the chronology of Egypt agrees with scripture. The most convenient date, as a starting-point, is the commencement of the twenty-seventh dynasty, when Egypt passed into the hands of the Persians, under Cambyses. He is set down as succeeding to the Persian throne in B.C. 529, and to have conquered Egypt in his fifth year. This would make the twenty-sixth dynasty to end at B.C. 525.
By reckoning from this date backward, the first concurrent events are when Pharaoh-Hophra came to the relief of Jerusalem, in the days of Hezekiah. (Jer. 37:5-11; 44:30.) This would be about B.C. 590.
Along with this we may consider Josiah ending his life under Pharaoh-Necho. (2 Kings 23:29.) The Bible date for this is B.C. 610. There are two kings named Necho in the twenty-sixth dynasty, but it must be Necho II., and as this king reigned but six (or sixteen) years only a small margin is left.
It will be seen in the tables that there are serious differences in the length of the reigns of some of the kings. But there are some stelæ that come to our assistance here. Those discovered by M. Mariette give the death, and sometimes the birth and age, of certain Apis gods, or sacred bulls.
Thus an Apis was "born in the fifty-third year of Psammetichus I., and died in the sixteenth of Necho, aged sixteen years." This fixes the reign of Psammetichus as fifty-four years, with Africanus, and not forty-four, as Eusebius gives.
Again, an Apis was "born in the sixteenth year of Necho, and died in the twelfth of Ouaphris, aged seventeen years." This gives the reign of Psammouthis as five years (the six nominal years of Africanus), against the seventeen years of Eusebius.
The Florence Tablet records that a certain person was “born in the third year of Necho, and died in the thirty-fifth of Amosis, aged seventy-one years.”
The Leyden Tablet records that another person was "born in the first year of Necho, and was buried the twenty-seventh of Amosis, aged sixty-five years.”
The effect of the readings on these tablets is that there were forty years from the first year of Necho II., to the first of Amosis; consequently the reign of Necho II. must have been sixteen years, instead of six: the twenty-sixth dynasty would stand thus, with approximate dates:—
B.C. YEARS
696 Ammeris, reigned ... ... 12
684 Stephinates ... ... 7
677 Nechepsos ... ... 6
671 Necho ... ... 8
663 Psammetichus ... ... 54
609 Necho II. ... ... 16
593 Psammouthis ... ... 5
588 Ouaphris ... ... 19
569 Amosis ... ... 41
525 Psammecherites (6 months)
[Cambyses succeeds.] 171
We are aware that there is another Apis named on a stele as being born in the twenty-sixth year of Tarakos (last king of the twenty-fifth dynasty), and died on the twentieth of Psammetichus I; but its age is not given. There is something respecting twenty-one years, which has been thought to mean the age of the Apis. If this were so, it would sweep away the above first four kings, and make Psammetichus begin the dynasty by succeeding Tarakos.
But this is very unlikely. Lepsius interprets the twenty-one years to refer to the execution of the tablet in the twenty-first year of Psammetichus, and not to the age of the Apis; and M. Mariette, who at first applied the twenty-one years to the age of the Apis, afterwards gave it as his judgment that the grammatical construction of the passage required its application to the stele being executed in the twenty-first year of the king.
It is better to suppose this than to cut out four kings with a stroke of the pen. If we reckon the duration of the dynasty as a hundred and seventy-one years, we are still below the Old Chronicle, which gives it as a hundred and seventy-seven years.
It will be seen by the above that the date of the death of Josiah (610) falls within one year of the accession of Necho II., and the relief of Jerusalem by Hophra (the Ouaphris of the lists), is within two years; and this is as near as we can hope to arrive with such discordant elements.
The next concurrent events are Tirhakab, king of the Ethiopians, being mentioned in 2 Kings 19:9, in connection with the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. This, by our Bible chronology, would be about B.C. 713.
Now, by the above recital of the Apis stelæ, it will be seen that there is the twenty-sixth year of Tarakos named, and another mentions the twenty-fourth year, so that we must give him twenty-six years, and still, as Eusebius and the Old Chronicle give the duration of the twenty-fifth dynasty as forty-four years, we are not far from that period.
B.C. YEARS.
740 Sabakon, reigned 8
732 Sebichos 12
721 Tarakos 26
46 years.
The date of Tarakos will fall right for the fourteenth of Hezekiah.
The next concurrent events are that Hoshea revolted from the Assyrians, relying on So, king of Egypt. (2 Kings 17:4.) This was about the sixth year of Hoshea's reign, and, as he reigned from B.C. 730 to 721, this would fall about 725. In the twenty-fifth dynasty there are two kings so nearly alike—both being SHABAK on the monuments-that either will do for the So of scripture; but if the above dates are correct, the year 725 would fall in the reign of the second. Shabak is not much like So; but in the Hebrew there are three letters, and it might be Sewa, or Seva; the LXX has Segor.
A writer in the "American Messenger" believes that the So of scripture formed an alliance at some time with the king of Assyria, because among the small clay tablets found in the ruins is one of the well-known cartouches of Sabaco, king of Egypt, which he takes to have been the seal to the treaty.
The next concurrent events are, that in the fifth year of Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem. (2 Chron. 12:1-9.) The fifth year of Rehoboam would be B.C. 971.
Shishak is thought to be found in Sesonchis, or Sesogchosis, the first king of the twenty-second dynasty.
With this we may take another scripture reference, given in 2 Chron. 14, where Zerah, the Ethiopian, came up against Israel with a million of foot, and three hundred chariots, but who were smitten by Jehovah. It was in the reign of Asa, and the date about B.C. 941. He ascended the throne B.C. 955, and "in his days the land was quiet ten years." (2 Chron. 14:1.)
We have arrived at the commencement of the twenty-fifth dynasty, and marked it as B.C. 740. The twenty-fourth stands thus:—
Africanus.' Eusebius. Old Chronicle.
Bocchoris, a Saite, 6. Bocchoris, Saite, 44 3 Saites, 44.
Africanus has a note that this twenty-fourth dynasty makes a total of nine hundred and ninety years (probably from the commencement of the new kingdom at dynasty xviii.); but this total cannot be made up with Bocchoris at six years; it needs to be forty-four, as the others; so that here Africanus is not consistent with himself. We therefore adopt the forty-four years, and mark Bocchoris's ascension as B.C. 784.
Dynasty xxiii. stands thus:—
Africanus, 89 years; Eusebius, 44; Old Chronicle, 19.
Here an Apis stele speaks of Sheshonk IV. with his thirty-seventh year, and Petoubates has forty years; so that we must take the longest period, and make the dynasty to commence B.C. 873 (784-89).
The twenty-second dynasty is also conflicting. It stands—
Africanus, 116 years; Eusebius, 49; Old Chronicle, 48.
Here the Apis stelæ and the monuments give kings that make us adopt the longest term. The periods named by the monuments would seem to require longer than a hundred and sixteen years; but they are detached readings from different places, and the possibility of mistaking the reading of a name, or placing it to the wrong dynasty, makes all uncertain. The hundred and sixteen years added to eight hundred and seventy-three, brings us to B.C. 989 for the commencement of the twenty-second dynasty, and the first kings would stand thus:-
B.C. YEARS.
989 Sesonchis, reigned 21
968 Osorthon 15
Her-sha-seb (not stated).
Osorkon II. (23 years, or more).
Now this arrangement brings us to the dates we want. Sesonchis reigned twenty-one years, from B.C. 989 to 968, which includes the date named for the fifth year of Rehoboam, B.C. 971.
Of the king Zerah, in B.C. 941, we find no name exactly answering to this. It has been put to Osorthon (or Osorkon), and though this appears so different from Zerah, it is declared to be as near as some other identifications.
Osorkon I. will not fall within our dates, but an Apis stele gives Osorkon II., who may suit exactly as far as the time is concerned, as will be seen above; or Zerah may be Her-sha-seb, if one is his family name, and the other his throne-name.
The twenty-second dynasty is called in the tables, Bubastic, which refers to a nome of that name in the Delta, so that Zerah, being called an Ethiopian in scripture, creates a difficulty. Of course, if Ethiopia was at that time united to Egypt, an Ethiopian might be on the throne, though the seat of government was in the Delta.
Some consider that this Zerah is none of those named by Manetho, but that he was an Ethiopian king, who had travelled through Egypt into Palestine. This is possible, but seeing that the king had the Lubims (2 Chron. 16:8), who dwelt in the north, for his allies, and was able to collect a million of troops, it is much more probable that it was the united force of Egypt and Ethiopia. In a united Egypt, it is nothing extraordinary that one of the kings should be an Ethiopian by birth, and it will be noticed that Osorkon II. is said to be son-in-law of the previous king, and not his son.
By others it is supposed that this Zerah was an Asiatic Cushite; but, by the allies being Lubims, and Asa having attacked, in the defeat, Gerah, a city of the Philistines, this is not probable.
Thus far, then, all the dates agree between the common scripture chronology and one or more of the lists of Manetho, together with other authorities. The dynasties from thus far would commence on these dates approximately:—
B.C.
989 XXII., continuing 116 years.
873 XXIII. “ 89 “
784 XXIV. “44 “
740 XXV. “ 44 “
696 XXVI. “ 171 “
525 XXVII.
The events we have looked at are, we believe, all that are definitely referred to in scripture, where the name of the king of Egypt is also given. We will now continue our backward reckoning, to see where the events of Israel in Egypt and the Exodus will fall-still keeping to the lists of Manetho, &c., and the common scripture chronology. The first date we want is that of the exodus, B.C. 1491.
For dynasty xxi. let us take a hundred and thirty years, because both Africanus and Eusebius give this total. 'For the twentieth, one hundred and thirty-five years (all differ); for the nineteenth, one hundred and ninety-four (Eusebius and the Old Chronicle here agree); and for the eighteenth, two hundred and eighty-seven (all again differ). This brings the commencement of these dynasties as follows:—
The Exodus (B.C. 1491) would fall in the two hundred and forty-fourth year of dynasty xviii., and forty-three years before the dynasty terminated. By referring to the tables, this would fall, by two authorities, in the reign of Rameses, but not by the other two: all is in confusion. It will be seen also that Africanus says under the first king, Amos, or Amosis, "under whom Moses left Egypt;" but in the same place, both Josephus and Theophilus add, "after the expulsion of the shepherds.”
Again, if the lists of dynasty xviii. are compared with the second tablet of Abydos (also given in the Appendix), it will be seen that, while the lists give about seventeen kings for this dynasty, the tablet gives only nine kings (supposing the names have been identified). This has led to the conclusion that the lists of Manetho must here include brothers, sisters, daughters, &c., who reigned with the monarchs.
Now, to cut down dynasty xviii to nine kings, would, of course, materially reduce its duration, and would bring the date of the Exodus much earlier in the dynasty, if not place it before the eighteenth began, as Mr. Poole and others do by also reducing dynasties xix., xx., and xxi.; but there is nothing but conjecture as to the extent of the reduction.
It will be observed that, if the Exodus was late in dynasty xviii., the sojourn of the Israelites (supposing its duration was two hundred and fifteen years) began also in the same dynasty, after the shepherd-kings had been driven out; whereas, if the Exodus falls in the early part of dynasty xviii., the sojourn would have been in dynasty xvii., before the shepherds were driven out.
We are thus quite at a loss where definitely to place the commencement of the sojourn, and also the Exodus, or to determine as to what king it was that perished in the Red Sea.
We are aware that some contend that scripture does not definitely state that Pharaoh perished in the Red Sea; but we think quite enough is recorded to prove it. When God foretold the pursuit, He said, “I will be honored upon Pharaoh and his host." (Ex. 14:4.) Pharaoh clearly pursued the Israelites in person, and "drew nigh" to them. (Ver. 10.) Moses repeats to the people what God had said: "I will get me honor upon Pharaoh, and upon all his host." (Ver. 17.) "All Pharaoh's horses, his chariots, and his horsemen" went into the sea; "and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea after them: there remained not so much as one of them." (Vers. 23, 28.) It is true it does not actually say that Pharaoh went into the sea here, but God declared that He would be honored upon Pharaoh, as well as on his host; and this could only be by his death: his escape would have been the very reverse. Psa. 136:15 declares that Jehovah "overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea." So that there cannot be a doubt on the question. "Pharaoh," being a generic term, leaves it quite open as to what king it was.
Many have searched the monuments to find some clue to such a disaster as must have occurred in the destruction of Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea, as well as the death of Pharaoh's son in the plagues. Of course, there would not be any direct record on the monuments, as there never is, of any defeat; and the accounts of Manetho, as given by Josephus, as to the lepers, may have been the Egyptian version of the Exodus. Yet search has been made for any indirect notice or coincidence that might in any way throw light upon the subject.
It has been thought that such has been found respecting a king called Thothmes IV. (the only one mentioned by Africanus). We give these supposed references for what they are worth. "That Thothmes. IV was the Pharaoh who perished in the Red Sea, was thought to be confirmed by a very remarkable change in the national religion of Egypt during the reign of his successor, Amenophis III. This might be expected from the failure of the Egyptian gods and their priests to ward off the heavy judgments brought by the God of the Israelites, and which have been known by all Egypt.”
Sir G. Wilkinson considers that, " though Amenophis III calls himself the son of Thothmes IV., there is reason to believe that he was not of pure Egyptian race. His features differ very much from those of other Pharaohs; and the respect paid to him by some of the stranger kings' seems to confirm this, and to argue that he was partly of the same race as those kings who afterwards usurped the throne, and made their name and rule so odious to the Egyptians." If Thothmes IV was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, his eldest son would have perished in the last plague.
“That Thothmes IV was the Pharaoh of the Exode seems to be confirmed by the fact that, after all the careful research of the moderns, no trace has been found of this king's tomb in the royal burial-place near Thebes, where the sovereigns of the eighteenth dynasty are deposited, though the tomb of his successor has been discovered in a valley adjoining the cemetery of the other kings.
This king reigned about the middle of dynasty xviii and if the Exodus fell in his reign, the coming of Joseph into Egypt, and the bringing his father and brethren there, would fall in the reigns of the shepherd-kings.
It may be noticed that Joseph does not say that the shepherds were an abomination to Pharaoh, but to the Egyptians, so that Pharaoh may not have been a native of Egypt. That Joseph should have been raised to the second place in the kingdom, is held by some as strong evidence that the Pharaoh who raised him was not an Egyptian, because of the power and jealousy of the native priests, and the great dislike the Egyptians had to foreigners.
There is also a passage in Isa. 52:4, which has been supposed to declare that the Assyrian oppressed the people of Israel in Egypt; and because we do not know who the shepherds were, nor where they came from, this passage may refer to them. But this is doubtful: a different translation alters the sense, and makes the Assyrian oppression distinct from the land of Egypt. Lowth translates the passage thus: "For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, My people went down to Egypt at the first, to sojourn there; and the Assyrian at the last hath oppressed them.”
Pharaoh said, "The children of Israel are more and mightier than we," which seems to imply that he had not full command over Ethiopia as well as Egypt, and so may have been a shepherd-king. By referring to the papyrus already quoted (p. 234), it will be seen that one called a "king" is reigning in the south, while the "impure" (attributed to the shepherds) reigned in the north.
But another difficulty is, how could the shepherd kings have been driven out without the Israelites being associated with them in some way? Well, the first were lording it over the Egyptians, and the others Here peaceable inhabitants and afterwards useful slaves.
Another point is, that Moses was eighty years old when he stood before Pharaoh (Acts 7:23, 30), and the persecution began before Moses was born; so that, if the Exodus took place in the middle of the eighteenth dynasty, not only the Pharaoh who exalted Joseph must have lived during the shepherd-kings, but the Pharaoh also who knew not Joseph, and began the persecution. According to Africanus, in dynasty xvii., there were forty-three shepherd-kings, and forty-three Thebans. "The shepherds and Thebans reigned altogether one hundred and fifty-one years." This leaves ample time for a king who "knew not Joseph," if the king who exalted him was a shepherd.
In reading the early chapters of the book of Exodus, it will be seen that the Pharaoh who began the persecution was not the same Pharaoh who passed through the plagues. "It came to pass in process of time that the king of Egypt died." (Ex. 2:23.) This indeed we might have expected, for few kings reigned so long as eighty years.
Then, if the events occurred as above, the native Egyptians of the seventeenth or eighteenth dynasty found the Israelites under oppression—a large number of useful slaves—and were only too ready to continue the oppression, and even to increase it, when challenged in the name of Jehovah to release them.
There is still one more difficulty, namely, that the king who knew not Joseph caused them to build the city of Rameses, and this naturally connects itself with the kings named Rameses. Ex. 1 may easily be thought to mean that when Pharaoh began to oppress Israel, he caused them to build a treasure-city, and called it after his own name—Rameses.
But this is more than doubtful; for when Israel went into Egypt—some hundred and thirty years before that —Joseph placed his father "in the best of the land, in the land of Rameses, as Pharaoh had commanded." (Gen. 47:11.) Now there can be little doubt but that the city of Rameses and the land of Rameses were connected; and if one was named after Rameses I., the other was also. In which case the Israelites must have gone into Egypt after Rameses I. of the eighteenth dynasty, and this, we suppose, is held by no one.
Therefore the district of Rameses, and the city of Rameses, may have no connection with the kings of that name in the eighteenth dynasty. If named after a king he may have been much earlier, though, as far as we know, no one of that name appears earlier; or it may have been named after one of the king's sons destined for the throne, but who, through death or a change of dynasties, never came to the throne. The name Rameses signifies, "begotten of the sun." The passage in Ex. 1:11 may mean that they were set to repair the city, Rameses, which had been built long before. Or it may be that when Jacob came into Egypt, the place was not named Rameses, nor the' city, until after the time of Rameses I.; and, as the history was written later, this later name was given by the historian.
It has been thought by some to be a settled point that the Hebrews were still under oppression in the time of Rameses II., because of what appeared to be their name in an inscription. It reads, "Now I have heard the message which my lord made, saying, Give corn to the men and soldiers, and Hebrews, who are drawing the stone for the great fortress of the palace of Rameses Loving Amen, living, loving truth; delivered to the general of the militia (or police), Ameneman. I have given them their corn every month, according to the good instructions which my lord has told me.”
The word translated Hebrews" is APUIRUIU, or, as others put it, APERI-U. Now, it may be at once granted that there is some likeness in the two names, but those learned in the Egyptian language are not agreed as to its being the same; and indeed the question seems set at rest by the same people being still found in Egypt under Rameses IV, of the twentieth dynasty. Now, at the Exodus, none of the Hebrews were left behind, and as Rameses IV is certainly too late for their departure, we must conclude that some other people are alluded to; and the whole question is left just where it was.
This is as far as we can carry this subject. As we have seen, the lists given by Manetho—that is, as they are handed down to us—do not agree, and it is impossible to make out any chronology with certainty; and the lists on the monuments are in no way complete. De Rouge, who has well considered the subject, says truly, "Les textes de Manéthon sont profondément altéres, et la série des dates monumentales est très incomplete.”
Conclusion.
Our task is done. We have sought for monuments that bore in any way on the matters named in scripture, without avoiding any reported difficulty. We are bold to say that scripture is in no instance proved to be at fault, but, on the contrary, it has been confirmed in every particular. It only proves that the Bible, being the inspired word of God-on which we hang our souls' salvation-will bear the closest comparison with everything that bears the name of fact, whether it be in nature, or in the records of by-gone kingdoms or peoples. May that blessed Book be exalted in our eyes as the finger of God, whose promises are as sure and certain respecting revealed future events, as is its teaching with regard to those by-gone nations whose destruction it foretold, and whose crumbled ruins are to be seen, with wonder and with awe, by every passer-by. "For ever, O Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.”