Did the Exodus Really Happen?

Did movie producer Cecille B. DeMille’s blockbuster Hollywood production of the movie “The Ten Commandments” have any historical basis? Did numerous catastrophic events befall Egypt at the time of an exodus of a very large number of people from the ancient land of Egypt? As described in the Bible as well as depicted in DeMille’s production, momentous catastrophic events occurred: a frightful destruction of national wealth from numerous unnatural calamities; loss of 2-3 million people used as slaves to build huge public works projects; the death of all the firstborn of the entire land, of man and beast; the death of its most powerful rulers; the destruction of a powerful army. Can these events not have been recorded in history?

Historians have looked in vain for signs of the Exodus sometime in the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties of Thebes. They have never found any of these signs. Why? Because the evidence from a plethora of sources (some rejected by historians) shows that the Exodus occurred not in the eighteenth and nineteenth dynasties, but at the end of the fifth dynasty, and during the sixth, thirteenth and fourteenth! Every one of these dynasties preserves the record of the calamity, whereas the eighteenth and nineteenth do not.

Why were and are historians looking in the wrong place for these events? Firstly, because attempts past and present have been made to conceal evidence proving the veracity of the biblical record. And secondarily, because assumptions put in place in the eighteenth  century by German literary higher critics caused a domino effect that forced a false interpretation of history to be accepted as fact. Archeological and historical records contrary to this interpretation are labeled myth or erroneous, and rejected.

As shown in a reconstruction of world history by Herman Hoeh in his doctoral dissertation ("Compendium of World History", Herman L. Hoeh, Ambassador College, 1965), in the eighteenth century German literary scholars needed a “new discovery” to maintain absolute educational domination of the world. This “new discovery” necessitated assailing a commonly accepted idea which people believed to be true, but that had not yet been subjected to higher criticism till that time. The Bible!

Hoeh points out that Protestant Germany had since the days of Martin Luther assumed the absolute authenticity of Scripture. So all methodology and reasoning which had been applied to the criticism of classical literature some years earlier, would now be applied to an assault on the authenticity and historicity of Scripture. But if the Bible were removed as the chronological underpining of ancient history, how were the historians to reconstruct it? What framework would they use to date events, as history must have some kind of chronological basis? Numerous problems had to be circumvented to facilitate this major departure from historical reckoning. Hoeh reconstructs world history using extensive historical writings (including Manetho), archaeological evidence, and the Bible. 

The Biblical Record Removed From History

To remove the supernatural (the biblical record) from history, “prehistory” was invented (theorized without factual basis) to bolster the concept of “ancient man” as subhuman and clothe him in the garb of a savage barely beyond the capabilities of the ape. “Prehistory” was invented (with no basis in fact) to explain history without God: “The first step was the realization that non-documented antiquity could in fact exist at all: that the whole creation and the sum of human history was not in fact contained within the Biblical narrative. This was the repudiation of the theological model of the past…” (Stuart Piggott, Approach to Archaeology, page 53).

“…it is no longer accurate or logical to use the term ‘prehistoric,’ unless it is employed to designate that vague and hypothetical period in the beginnings of human development of which there exists no positive or tangible record…” (Encyclopedia Americana, Article “History, its rise and development”).

Without the Biblical record, the chronological means to date specific events was “repudiated” (not disproved). And the required chronological basis to support the manufactured invention of “prehistory” became astronomy and the history of ancient Egypt. All supernaturalism in history had to be dismissed without basis in this furtherance of domination and control of education by ambitious literary critics and the financial interests supporting them. Uniformitarianism (opposing supernaturalism),  became a key supporting concept. Astronomical movements are cyclical events. No date can be determined by astronomical means alone unless the approximate date had already been determined by historical methods. But can astronomy and ancient Egyptian history replace biblical chronology?
 
The history of Egypt was chosen due to the warm, dry climate of Egypt, which was more likely to promote preservation. But archaeology could not always determine which Egyptian artifacts came first. Everything was above ground, there was no stratigraphy (such as in layers of buried cities like Troy) to determine the order of events. Thus the traditional dynastic history of Egypt was adopted. Traditional Egyptian dynastic history was developed by the ancient Egyptian priest, Manetho. He drew up the history of Egypt under thirty dynasties. Linking “prehistory” (an invention) to modern history via Manetho’s history of ancient Egypt places undue credibility on a single historian’s work. This leaves no room for conflicting events to be explained that are not in Manetho’s script.

The influence of Manetho in formulating the basis of all ancient history is confirmed by Sir Alan Gardiner, one of the most famous Egyptologists of the twentieth century. He states: “That I have devoted so much discussion to what survives of Manetho…will need no excuse for those familiar with the evolution of our science; no Egyptologist has yet been able to free himself from the shackles imposed by the native annalist’s thirty Dynasties, and these are likely to remain the essential framework of our modern expositions” (Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, Oxford, 1961, page viii).   

The universal assumption of the accuracy of the dynastic history of Egypt (by Manetho) led to the acceptance of Manetho’s historical constructions. However, Manetho and a  contemporary, Berossos of Babylon, were engaged in a competition to promote the antiquity of their respective lands (Egypt and Babylon). To justify their claims to antiquity, Berossos and Manetho utilized their early records (primarily dynastic lists of reigning kings) and connected the dynasties consecutively rather than placing contemporary dynasties in correct chronological order. This fraudulent placement of the dynasties falsely indicated a greater antiquity, but destroyed the fact of contemporary dynasties ruling or governing in a confederated manner. The facts of history became concealed behind misdated events. Such an obvious fraud places the entire framework of history into confusion and controversy. 

The framework of all history, which now derived from Egypt, was distorted: “In the arrangement of …Egyptian materials within a framework of consecutive dynasties, all modern historians are dependant upon an ancient predecessor. This was an Egyptian priest and writer Manetho who lived under Ptolemy II Philadelphius (285-246 B.C.). Manetho was born at Sebennytus (now Samannud) in the Delta. He rose to be high priest in the temple at Heliopolis. Berossos of Babylon was practically a contemporary, and the two priests became rivals in the proclamation of the antiquity and greatness of their respective lands.” (Jack Finegan, Light for the Ancient Past, pages 65-66)

Manetho summarized the history of Egypt under the rule of 30 dynasties, or ruling houses, from the royal cities of Thinis, Thebes, Memphis, Tanis, Elephantine, Heracleopolis, Abydos, Xois, Bubastis, and Sais. It was made to appear that each city and family dominated all Egypt, and each ruler governed a unified Egypt at any given time. This fiction falsely established the antiquity of Egypt, but distorted the dating of historical events, and implied a unity in Egyptian political affairs that did not in reality exist. Just as throughout the history of man in other nations, Egypt was a confederation of several dynastic families from different cities. In any given time, only one being the supreme Pharaoh or several engaged in struggles for balances of power.  In biblical accounts, many lands and empires had not one king, but several:
- “Lo the king of Israel hath hired against us the kings of the Hittites and the kings of the Egyptians.” (II Kings 7:6).
- “At that time did king Ahaz send unto the kings of Assyria to help him.” (II Chronicles 28:16).

All the great empires had federations of rulers, governing contemporaneously in a hierarchical structure. One may add, is it any different today? Thus the fraud perpetrated by Manetho, implying greater antiquity for Egypt, also conveniently casts aspersions on the accuracy of the biblical record. In order to get at the truth of history, the king lists, records, archeological data, and the Bible must be carefully examined, compared, and analyzed to understand the true chronology of historical events. Below in Figure 1 is the modern conception of the chronology of ancient Egypt based on Manetho’s dynasties and assumed chronological dates of origins, which disregard any archeological or historical evidence supporting “supernaturalism” or the biblical record.

 

 

Figure 1
Chronology of ancient Egypt (Minus the Ptolemaic and Roman periods) based on Manetho’s dynasties and assumptions on origins which discard evidence supporting the biblical record (labeled “supernaturalism”)

Babel, the Beginning of All Human Civilization and Governance

The King Lists and historical records of Babylonia, Assyria, Egypt, China, Rome, Greece, and other nations begin at an event described as the building of a tower and the beginning of imperial governance. The Akkadian Creation Epic is reproduced in The Ancient Near East, Volume I, An Anthology of Texts and Pictures, by James B. Pritchard, pages 31-39. The epic contains basic historical evidence attended by myth. Elements of myth are contained in most ancient accounts. What we consider myth today may have greater meaning if we had the full understanding of the context in which it was written. Myth may have been the ancients’ way to express their closeness to the origins of creation. The reign of a father and a son are associated with this tower. The biblical account reveals who these two individuals were. Cush, the father, and Nimrod, the son: “And Cush begot Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth.” (Genesis 10:8). The Bible describes a situation in very few words which secular history fills out and confirms.

The Assyrian king Ninus is Nimrod, who is known historically by many other names. Cush and Nimrod decided to overthrow the patriarchal system established after the flood. A rebellion against Noah and the patriarchal system was initiated by Cush and Nimrod. The Akkadian Creation Epic describes a rebellion. Marduk (Nimrod, great grandson of Noah) violently establishes a dictatorship against the “gods” (probably the grandsons of Noah who were loyal to the original order). Greek mythology celebrates the re-establishment of the “way of Kain” (Cain) after the flood by Nimrod (Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr., The Parthenon Code: Man’s History in Marble, Solving Light Books, 2004).

After the building of this tower, there is a dispersion. Roman records support the account  of the creation epic. According to Julius Africanus (Roman historian) the father and son governed jointly. Then after 62 years, the son’s sole reign begins. The exact date of this event (beginning of sole reign) was preserved in Roman accounts. The historian Velleius Paterculus cites in his Roman history: “Between this time (when Rome conquered Philip, king of Macedonia) and the beginning of the reign of Ninus (Nimrod) king of the Assyrians, who was the first to hold world power, lies an interval of 1995 years.” (Velleius Paterculus, Roman History, Book I, Section VI)

Philip (not the father of Alexander the Great) was conquered in 197 B.C. Therefore, Ninus (Nimrod), began his sole reign in 2192 B.C. According to Julius Africanus, the sole reign of Nimrod followed a joint reign of 62 years with his father (Cush). Thus going back 62 years places one at the beginning of imperial government at Babel (2254 B.C.). The Creation Epic proclaims that the building of the tower of Babel took 2 years (2256-2254 B.C.), and the biblical record reveals that the dispersion took place after the tower was built. The dispersion is not dated in the Bible, but the general period is established by Eber, great grandson of Shem: “And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided…” (Genesis 10:25).

The cause of the dispersion is also noted in the Bible: “…and they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. …So the Lord scattered them abroad upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.” (Genesis 11:3-8) As recorded in the Bible, God caused the family groups to speak different languages (Genesis 11:7). Thus, this first attempt to build a world empire (Genesis 11:4) ceased for a time, and the divided family groups began migrating to different parts of the world.

The Chinese begin their history at 2254 B.C. This corroborates the date extrapolated from Roman historical sources. Chinese history did not begin in China, it began in the Middle East at Babel. Their first king is called “Shun”. He is black, and his eyes shine with a “double brightness” (indicative of demon possession). His father’s name is spelled Chusou or Khusou (Cush). And in his days lived a famous woman whose name may be translated “the mother of the king of the west” or “the queen mother of the west” (James Legge, The Chinese Classics, “The Annals of the Bamboo Books”, vol III, part I, pages 114-115). Chinese history is preserved without alteration from this date to modern times.

Early history in the west is preserved in the records of Babylonia and Egypt. Egyptian history begins with Dynasty I (capital at Thinis) which includes four kings: Menes, Athothis, Kenkenes, and Uenephes. The spellings of the names are in Greek from Manetho. The second king is identified as Osiris, who is deified after death and worshipped as a god (Arthur Wiegall, A History of the Pharaohs, vol I, page 111). The Egyptian god Osiris is also the Baal of the Phoenicians, the Marduk of the Babylonians, the Tammuz of the Semites, and the Nimrod of the Bible. 

The father of Athothis (Osiris) is Meni or Mena (Menes in Greek), Egypt’s first king. His name means “the establisher” (George Rawlinson, History of Ancient Egypt, vol II, page 26), or “the everlasting” (W.G. Wadell, Manetho, page 215). Menes was the first to establish himself as king in place of the Everlasting God (thus the reason for his title as “the everlasting”). Menes is the father of Athothis, therefore the Cush of the Bible.

Recontruction of Dynasty I through Dynasty XV

Beginning at Babel, the reconstruction of early Egyptian history shows the definite imprint on the early past of biblical figures such as Asshur, Shem, Cush, Nimrod, Joseph, Job, Moses, and many others. Of Manetho’s 30 dynasties, 15 are reproduced below in very condensed form from the historical reconstruction in Hoeh’s Compendium Volume one. Only vital events, rulers that directly relate to this paper, some particulars about them, and their dates of reign are included. As is shown below, the dynasties did not rule Egypt sequentially and in the numbered order of Manetho. Elements of dynasties I (Thinis), XI (Thebes), XII (Thebes), and VI (Memphis) successively united and ruled Egypt, respectively, in the order pictured below (Figure 2). 

Clearly, the biblical figures of Cush, Nimrod, and Shem dominate the early history of Egypt. Semiramis or Ishtar (Easter is derived from her name), the mother of Nimrod, and wife of Cush, who is the source of all the historical and mythical accounts of a “Queen Mother”, is found in the history and mythology of many nations. 

Figure 2
Early Dynastic History of Egypt Re-constructed (From Hoeh)

The III, IV, V, VI, and XIII Dynasties of Egypt

The proper dating of Dynasty V of Egypt reveals kings ruling that are subsidiary to the pharaoh. The last king in this dynasty, Onnos or Unis (1516-1486, from the Turin Cannon and Palermo Stone) is the ninth king to reign in Dynasty V (From Elephantine, though the government was centered in Memphis). Unis was a cannibal who indulged in  the practice of eating the firstborn of his enemies. Unis was a firstborn: “Behold, Unas hath arrived at the height of heaven…Unas hath weighed his word with the hidden god who hath no name, on the day of hacking in pieces the firstborn…Unas devoureth men…Unas is the great Form, the Form of forms, and Unas is the chief of the gods in visible form. Unas is the firstborn of the firstborn…the period of his life is eternity, and the duration of his existence is everlastingness…and the offerings made unto him are more than those made unto the gods… ” (E.A. Wallis Budge, A History of Egypt, vol II, pages 83-88). Unas makes blasphemous claims including eternal divinity. A highly sanitized version of his life is given in internet accounts of pharaonic history (“Egyptian Journey 2003: History” Website: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn13/12-imira.html)   

Dynasty VI, although it numerically follows dynasty V, has contemporaneous kings. Unis was recorded in the Bible as Jannes (II Timothy 3:8), magician and priest of Egypt who resisted Moses and Aaron. He was a contemporary of both Pepi II (4th in dynasty VI) and his son, Merenre II (5th in the list of dynasty VI, 1487-1486, length of reign – 1 year). Both Merenre II of dynasty VI of Memphis and Unis of dynasty V of Elephantine, die in 1486 (The year of the Exodus). Merenre II of dynasty VI followed the longest lived pharaoh of dynasty VI, Neferkare (1581-1487), who reigned 94 years. This long lived pharaoh is also called Pepi II.

From Figure 2 (above) we see that the ruling dynasty changed from Joseph’s time to the time of Moses. Pharaoh Lachares or Amenemhe III of dynasty XII of Thebes would have had the authority to give Joseph the area of the Egyptian Delta, called Goshen (Figure 7) or the land of Rameses (Genesis 41:42-46), for services rendered. This Pharaoh also later requested that Joseph tell him of any men of ability in Joseph’s family (Genesis 47:6). We find that among the kings of dynasty IV is Cheops, whose reign overlapped with Joseph (Suphis). Cheops was the biblical Job. He was also a son of Joseph’s half-brother Issachar (Genesis 46:13). Dynasties III and IV have pharaohs that have overlapping reigns. The fact that the name of “Rameses” appears on many public buildings of the III and IV dynasties puzzles historians. Is it possible that Rameses assisted in the erection of these monuments? The ruling pharaoh of Egypt at this time was not Rameses. It was Lachares (Amenemhe III) of dynasty XII of Thebes (Figure 2). So Souphis (dynasty IV) or Zozer I (dynasty III) was given the “land of Rameses” (Figure 7 below) prior to the time of Moses and in the time of Rameses. Rameses was a lesser king under the pharaoh of the seven years famine, Lachares or Amenemhe III (dynasty XII of Thebes).

Dynasty IV (Souphis – 1734-1668) and III (Zozer I, 1737-1718) together tell the full story of Joseph’s public service. These years overlap the years of Rameses (1744-1715) in the Book of Sothis. The end of a seven year famine occurs at the close of year 18 of Zozer I (end of winter of 1719). No other seven years famine is reported during the entire history of the pharaohs. Joseph began his reign in 1734, one year before the 7 good years begin. Joseph’s nephew, Cheops (Job) begins his reign at the beginning of the seven years famine. The great pyramid of Cheops was also begun during the years of famine (from Herodotus) and took 20 years to build. An account of the 7 year famine is found on the rocks of the island of Sehel, at the First Cataract (G. Earnest Wright, Biblical Archeology, page 56). This is consistent with the migration of Jacob and his family to Egypt at the beginning of the 7 years of famine (Genesis 45:11).

After the time of Joseph, another pharaoh arose that “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). This was dynasty VI of Memphis. The pharaohs in this dynasty became concerned about the strength and size of the population of the progeny of Jacob (Exodus 1:9-11). They were also concerned about other national threats. They  “re-organized” Israel in the Delta (Land of Goshen) by setting “taskmasters” over them, and utilized them in public works projects as slaves. 

Who Was Rameses?

There actually was no king by the name of Rameses at the time of Moses. But the “land of Rameses” referred to in Genesis 47:11 was the area of the Delta where Israel dwelt (Figure 7). This area has a history prior to the Exodus apart from the history of dynasty I of Menes (Cush). It was referred to as the “land of Rameses” in Moses’ time because of the royal predecessor who lived before the time of Moses.

Long before Rameses the Great (a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon) was born, there where a number of kings with some form of the name  “Rameses”. The record of these kings is preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis (W.G. Waddell, Manetho, page 235). The line of kings begin with “Mestraim” (this is Mizraim of the biblical record, who is the brother of Cush – Genesis 10:6). Historians reject the Book of Sothis and mis-identify “Mestraim” as “Meni” (Cush). Mestraim founded a dynasty at Zoan in the Delta apart from the dynasty of Cush and Mimrod. Among those rulers was a Rameses (18th  Rameses, 29 years, 1744-1715) who lived in the time of Joseph and dynasty III and IV (Manetho).

In the DeMille production of the Ten Commandments, the pharaoh who takes Moses to greatness (whose sister becomes Moses adopted mother) is called “Seti”. This pharaoh has a biological son called “Rameses”, played by the now deceased movie star Yul Brynner. Conventional dating (based on Manetho) places Rameses the Great 7-9 centuries too early and confounds him with another Rameses (Hoeh, Compendium vol I, page 165-167). To Seti I of dynasty XIX (19) was conceded the restoration of Egypt’s position abroad. And Rameses II, Seti I’s successor, was connected to war with the Hittites at Kadesh (7-9 centuries too early). Actually, Rameses II (Rameses the Great) collided with Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon at Carchemish (Kadesh) as reconstructed by Hoeh. The DeMille story line assumes that the Exodus occurred under Rameses II (dynasty XIX), Rameses the Great. Thus the evidence in the Bible and Josephus had to be altered to fit DeMille’s story line. And the biblical daughter of pharaoh, in the Hollywood script, became the sister of pharaoh.

According to the Jewish historian Josephus, the pharaoh who had a daughter had no male heirs. If Josephus is correct, the Hollywood film the Ten Commandments produces a historical corruption of the real pharaoh Rameses II. This corruption combines the historical and personal attributes of two contemporary ruling kings of Egypt from dynasties VI and XIII, and ascribes their combined historical and personal attributes to the father of Rameses II of dynasty XIX of Thebes (who is dated 700 years too early). Rameses II of dynasty XIX of Thebes is preceded by Seti I in the king lists. Seti I (dynasty XIX) is mis-identified as Userkare Khendjer of dynasty XIII of Thebes (Moses step-grandfather) and also given historical characteristics of Pepi II of  dynasty VI of Memphis, the father of the pharaoh of the Exodus (Merenre II of dynasty VI of Memphis).  

Josephus writes about the life of Moses before he fled Egypt at age 40 (1526). The Egyptians had just been overrun by Ethiopians from the south (the national threat confronting dynasty VI from page 9). Josephus records Moses participation in the Ethiopian wars: “The Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves to their oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this council, to make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the King commanded his daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Book II, chapter X, part 2).

Moses martial tenure as the General of Egypt is recorded in Josephus. The final victory at the city of Saba occurs after Tharbis, the daughter of the Ethiopians, turns the city over as the price of her marriage to Moses. In Numbers 12:1, the Bible records Aaron and Miriam, Moses siblings, quibbling over Moses marital connection to an Ethiopian or Cushite woman (this was not Moses’ wife Zipporah, daughter of Jethro, priest of Midian - Exodus 18:1-2). This further corroborates the Biblical record, revealing Moses’ past, prior to leading Israel out of Egypt. Moses married Zipporah after fleeing Egypt.

In Exodus 2:23, it says “And in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died”. This was Neferkare (Pepi II). It was then that God calls Moses to go back to Egypt: “Go, return unto Egypt; for all the men are dead that sought thy life.” (Exodus 4:19). Merenre II was now reigning, the pharaoh that dies at the Red Sea. Merenre II did not return to Egypt, as did “Rameses” in the movie “The Ten Commandments”. Egyptian records do not record how Merenre II died. The records indicate that he was murdered, but it is not revealed how or by whom. Merenre II’s wife retaliates against the “murderers” by flooding a basement area and drowning them. She then commits suicide. Is it possible that after the Hyksos invasion, Merenre II’s wife, helpless without the pharaoh and his army, assumes that they (Hyksos) killed her husband? Who would know that Merenre II drowned at the Red Sea, besides Moses and the Israelites? The historical confusion is consistent with the biblical fate of the pharaoh of the Exodus, he just did not return to Egypt. And he reigned only 1 year.

Moses did not deal with a pharaoh called “Ramesses”. Moses dealt with Merenre II, son of Pepi II. Pepi II was a powerful and long reigning monarch that historically had other lesser pharaohs associated with him on the throne of Egypt. The kings of this period often have their names associated with king Neferkare (Pepi II, long reigning pharaoh of Dynasty VI of Memphis) on royal seals. This is proof that rulers of dynasty V and dynasty XIII were contemporary with the last great pharaoh of dynasty VI of Memphis, Pepi II. Hundreds of such seals have been found, but they are ignored in historical accounts. The information found on these seals challenges the status quo of Egyptology based on the order of Manetho’s dynasties.

The names and titles of Pepi II are found on page 129 (William C. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt, Volume I): “A graceful alabaster ointment vase of Pepy II bears on its side a panel of inscription with the king’s names and titles: “The Horus Netery-kha-u, King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Nefer-ku-re, given life, like Re”. On page 342 is described a scarab of glazed steatite with the names of King Nefer-ku-Re (Neferkare or Pepi II of dynasty VI) and Khendjer I (of dynasty XIII) engraved side by side. Khendjer I is listed as 17th (Turin Papyrus) in dynasty XIII. Other scarabs with engravings of kings of dynasty XIII are associated with long lived Neferkare (Pepi II) of dynasty VI. (William C. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt, Volume I, page 342). Below in Figure 3 are royal seals and scarabs found in the tombs of pharaohs of the 13th (XIII) dynasty.

Figure 3
Cylinder Seals and scarabs with the names of kings, queens, princes, and princesses of the Thirteenth Dynasty from The Scepter of Egypt by William C. Hayes, page 343, Figure 226
  

Who Was the Daughter of Pharaoh?

Josephus records that the pharaoh had a daughter, but no other heirs except Moses, the adopted grandson: “If Moses had been slain (after his adoption), there was no one, either akin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for pretending to the crown of Egypt.” (Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, Chapter ix, end of book II). The sister of pharaoh did not adopt Moses, as in the movie “The Ten Commandments”. Moses was the heir to a throne in Egypt. And this pharaoh had a daughter, but no other heirs (Pepe II or Nefer-ku-Re had a son and a daughter). Seti I of dynasty XIX (The Ten Commandments) also had a son. This king whose daughter adopted Moses could not have been Pepi II (dynasty VI) or Seti I (dynasty XIX). How can this seeming contradiction among the historical records be resolved? Hoeh points out that there was a dynasty in which Moses was a general, and one which was broken at the very point in history that Moses fled Egypt! This dynasty exercised jurisdiction (subsidiary to Pepi II) in the northeastern Delta where Israel dwelt and Moses was found. That would be dynasty XIII of Thebes!

The total length of dynasty XIII according to Manetho was 453 years under 60 rulers. But the version of Barbarus provides a detail missing from Manetho: The court was not only at Thebes (far to the south of the Delta), but at Bubastis in the Delta for 153 years (Alfred Schoene, Eusebius, page 214). “The General” is listed in the Turin Canon catalogue of kings of the XIII dynasty as 18th with the throne name of “Semenkhkare” (Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharoahs, page 440) and (Weigall, History of the Pharaohs, pages 136, 151-152). The Egyptian word for “General” was “Mermeshoi”. This title as the personal name of a ruler of Egypt does not appear again in all dynastic history. Two large granite statues of “Mermeshoi” have been found in excellent condition in the Delta at Tanis (Figure 8 below).

Since only kings could have supreme command of the army in ancient Egypt, when Moses was made general he inherited royal authority. The 17th king (Figure 5: Turin Papyrus) of Dynasty XIII, Userkare Khendjer (listed as 16th in Figure 4 below), ruled over the Delta and Upper Egypt. No descendant of his is known to have succeeded to the throne. This is the king whose daughter is mentioned in Exodus 2:10. Within a few years the influence of this dynasty (which was contemporary with but subsidiary to dynasty VI) in the eastern Delta ceased. Below in Figure 4 is a dynasty XIII king list (from William C. Hayes, The Sceptre of Egypt, Volume I, pg 340) showing the 18th king (immediately following Semenkh-ku Re, the “General”) as Nefer-ku Re, who is also Nefer-ku Re (Pepi II) from dynasty VI.

Here is evidence that after Moses fled Egypt at 40 years of age (a pharaoh of dynasty XIII), the ruling pharaoh of dynasty VI, Pepi II, took control, as evidenced in the dynasty XIII king list (Figure 4 below). Pepi II, who is also identified as Nefer-ku Re on page 129 (William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt), is listed 5th in the dynasty VI king list (William C. Hayes, The Scepter of Egypt, page 58). Pepi II was the father of the pharaoh of the Exodus, but was not the father of Moses’ step-mother. The pharaoh (Userkare Khendjer) who was the father of the “daughter of pharaoh” (Exodus 2:10) that adopted Moses was a contemporary of and a subsidiary to Pepi II. Note that the pyramids of Pepi II and Userkare Khendjer (Khendjer I) were found in close proximity (Figure 10).

 

Figure 4
Selected king list of the XIII dynasty (Affricanus/Manetho) from The Scepter of Egypt by William C. Hayes, page 340, listing Semenkh-ku-Re (Semenkhere) “The General” as 17th  

During the reign of Pepi II (Nefer-ku Re), Moses is banished or flees Egypt after his tenure as “The General” (when he helps Egypt subdue Ethiopia). Moses is identified in Egyptian history as “The General”.

Historical facts show that about 40 years after the reign of The General, Egypt collapses. With the reign of the 25th king of dynasty XIII, contemporary evidence ceases and foreigners invade Egypt. This period is summarized by the dismal words: “…darkness descends upon the historical scene, leaving discernible in the twilight little beyond royal names…” (Sir Alan Gardiner, Egypt of the Pharaohs, page 155). This is consistent with biblical chronology which records that Moses returns to Egypt at 80 years of age (40 years after his tenure as pharaoh Smonkhkara Mermesha, the “General”, of the XIII dynasty) to lead the children of Israel out of Egypt in the Exodus. The nation of Israel was thus established and first led by this leader of armies and pharaoh from a world empire.

Below in Figure 5 is the partial listing of dynasty XIII from the Turin Papyrus which lists Semenkhkara Mermesha (The General) as 18th in the list and the full name of his predecessor is partially missing.

Figure 5
From “Egypt Under the Pharaohs”, Vol. I, page 214, a partial king list of the XIII Dynasty from the Turin Papyrus, listing “Smonkhkara Mermesha” as 18th. 

Figure 6 below illustrates excerpts from “Egypt Under the Pharaohs” that pertain to Smonkhkara Mermesha and the statues that were left initially set up in the temple of “Patah” at  Tanis. Note that his name, Mermesha, is not a family name but a title: “Leader of Armies” (or, the General).

Figure 6
Above account taken from “Egypt Under the Pharaohs”, Vol. I, page 219, and refers to two statues of “Mermesha”, The General, the 18th (Turin) listed in Dynasty XIII.

 

As the general of the armies of Egypt, Moses would be familiar with the area of Succoth. The Bible records that it was from Succoth that the children of Israel (Exodus 13:20) set off into the wilderness. The fame, notoriety, and experience that Moses acquired as the general of Egypt leading Egyptian armies would be extremely useful in leading 2-3 million people out of the land of Egypt. Succoth had to be a place large enough for this tremendous amount of people and flocks to assemble. A place called "Tharu", or T'aru" or "Takut," fits the description of Succoth well. The following are quotes from "Life in Ancient Egypt" by Adolf Erman:

"The isthmus of Suez was of the greatest consequence also from a military point of view - it was doubtless fortified in very early times. Probably here stood the great fortress of T'aru, often spoken of as the starting-point for the expeditions into Syria,..." (page 28)

“At this time we also meet with a defensive work of another kind, namely a broad canal, which presumably connected the lakes of the isthmus together.  At the point where a bridge crossed this canal were strong fortresses on both sides... The great fortress which defended this bridge was the fortress of T'aru', which is so often mentioned as the starting point of the military expeditions." (Page 537)

Where one would leave Egypt proper and go into the Sinai desert, there was a fortress and a bridge. Inscriptions tell us that this fortress was called Tharu (or one of the various spellings). It is located near the Delta, or "Rameses," where the Israelites were living, and was where the Egyptian army assembled in preparation for their military expeditions to the north. Armies consisted of a great deal of men, horses and chariots; and they required logistics and a large area to assemble properly. Tharu may well have been the biblical "Succoth". They had left Egypt proper once they crossed this line of fortification, just as recorded in the biblical record: "...and the children of Israel went up harnessed out of the land of Egypt." (Exodus 13:18)

 

Figure 7
The Egyptian delta and the “land of Goshen” (Green area)

As a significant contributor to Egypt's success in subduing Ethiopia, it appears that Moses was honored with a permanent memorial. Two twelve foot statues of "the general" that are now 3000 years old and yet in perfect condition testify to the renown and reputation of "the general" (Figure 8 below).
  

Figure 8  FALLEN COLLOSSUS OF MERMASHIU (THIRTEENTH DYNASTY). This magnificent colossal statue is one of a pair which yet lie prostrate in the ruins of the great Temple of Tanis. It represents a king of whom history has preserved no record, and who would be unknown but for these twin memorials. The statutes, if raised from the ground, would sit twelve feet high without counting the plinths. The modeling and anatomy are admirable, and the polished surfaces are as lustrous to this day as when first executed. From “The Buried Cities of Ancient Egypt” , Chapter 2, page 37, found online @  (http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/edwards/pharaohs/pharaohs-2.html)

The General of Egypt (Moses), although his identity has been concealed due to the errors in scholarship based on anti-supernaturalistic bias and false assumptions, does receive a write-up from the king lists of dynasty XIII. Below in Figure 9 is a brief titulary from “Pharaohs Notes” on the 18th pharaoh (Turin papyrus) of dynasty XIII.

Imira-Mesha
Praenomen: Semenekhkare "The one who makes the Ka of Re excellent
Nomen: Imira-mesha "Overseer of troops"
Kinglists: Semenekhkare, imira-mesha
Alternate Names: Imyra-mesha, Imyamehsa, imy-ra-mesha
Dates: franke - 1711, ryholt - 1759-??
History
His name is really just a title, and he is supported by two large statues in Tanis which were later usurped by Apophis.

Figure 9
18th pharaoh of dynasty XIII from “Egyptian Journey 2003: History”,  Pharaohs Notes (Website: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn13/12-imira.html)  Moses the General!

In Figure 10 below is a titulary on the 17th pharaoh (Turin papyrus) of dynasty XIII, father of the "daughter of pharaoh" in Exodus 2:10 (from “Pharaohs Notes” on dynasty XIII). The history portion reveals that this pharaoh and this dynasty were a foreign dynasty that was “Asiatic” in origin. Asiatic does not mean oriental, but indicates a semitic origin.

Praenomen: Userkare "The Soul of Re is Strong", Minaatre
Nomen: Khendjer Called "Pig" or "Boar"
From Manetho:
King Lists: Userkare Khendjer
Dates:
reigned about 4 years, c. 1757 BCE
redford – 1756-1751, franke – 1718-1712,  ryholt – 1764-1759
Succession:
Predecessor: Sobekhotep II
Successor: multiple kings
Associated People: unknown
Burial Place: Pyramid in North Saqqara
Monuments: Mortuary Complex in south Saqqara
History:
Khendjer is one of the few pharaohs of the 13th Dynasty to leave behind any monuments at all. His mortuary complex was discovered in Saqqara in 1929. Of course, his name was known from before, from stela. He may have been Syrian or Palestinian. He was documented as a military leader of foreign troops in Egypt. The complex is enclosed by a mudbrick wall, with an inner wall of niched limestone. The internal wall may have replaced a wavy wall like that surrounding the pyramid at Mazghuna belonging to Amenemhet IV. The pyarmidon of the pyramid was found, with the king's throne name, Userkare, engraved. The pyramid is between the existing pyramids of Pepi II (6th Dynasty) and Sensuret III (12th Dynasty). It is just south of the Mastaba Faroun, and in the southermost point of the necropolis. It is the only 13th Dynasty pyramid to be completed. However, it used mudbrick as core material, and all that is left today is a 1m mound of rubble and the internal structures underground. The pyramid complex was never finished, and does not appear to be used for burials. However, inscriptions on the pyarmid and the subsidiary buildings does hint at his reign, about four years long.

Figure 10
17th pharaoh of dynasty XIII  from “Egyptian Journey 2003: History”,  Pharaohs Notes (Website: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn13/12-imira.html)  Moses step-grandfather!

The Events of the Exodus

After the Exodus, an invasion of the Delta occurred. The story of the Exodus and of the invasion are recounted in the “Admonition of Ipuwer”, a translation by John A. Wilson (Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, pages 441-444). Manetho also wrote an account of this event preserved in Josephus: “…for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow, and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. Finally they appointed a king of one of their number whose name was Salatis. He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and always leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions.” (Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, book I, chapter 14, parts 73-92).

The name “Salatis” comes from a Semitic root meaning “prince”. It is the root word of “Sultan”. These invaders came from the East and must have passed to Egypt from the Sinai. They made Egyptians, slaves. The Bible records a people who suddenly gained prominence in that part of the world – the Edomite Amalekites (Amalek was a son of Edom or Esau). As late as the days of Saul, the Egyptians were still subject to these people: “And they found an Egyptian in the field…And David said unto him, To whom belongest thou? And whence are thou? And he said, I am a young man of Egypt, servant to an Amalekite; and my master left me, because three days ago I fell sick.” (I Samuel 30:11-13).

The Amalekites seized the Delta after the Exodus. They are mentioned in the Bible around the time of Moses in the words of Balaam: “Amalek the first of the nations; but his latter end shall be that he perish forever.” (Numbers 24:20). “First of the nations” refers to their position and ranking at that time, since they were not great in earlier times (their forbearer was Esau) like the Bablylonians, Assyrians, and Egyptians. Also, the first people to attack the children of Israel in Sinai after the Red Sea crossing were the Amalekites: “Then came Amalek, and fought with Israel in Rephidim” (Exodus 17:8).

Although the sudden influence of the Hyksos in Egyptian history is acknowledged, where they came from or who they were, and most importantly how they accomplished the sudden conquest of a major world empire, remains a mystery to modern historians. Acceptance of the numbered dynasties of Manetho and assumptions based on the exclusion of any evidence of “supernaturalism” and the biblical record is the cause of this mystery. Eye-witness accounts of the Exodus discovered almost a century ago on ancient Egyptian Papyrus are ignored in the annals of modern history textbooks.      

The Ipuwer Papyrus was discovered in 1828 and translated by Alan H. Gardiner in 1909. This is an eye witness account of the events spoken of in the Bible (Exodus). This information has gone largely unrecognized and unacknowledged. The full text of the Ipuwer Papyrus in a 17 page book can be found online (http://nefertini.iwebland.com/tests/ipuwer.htm). The parallels between the events in Exodus and the translations by Alan H. Gardiner were compiled by Roger Waite and Todd Draegger. This is reproduced below in four (4) pages (The Plaques of Egypt).

As pointed out in “Appendix” of the 4 page compilation above, there is also a second recorded eye witness (the Ermitage paprus) to the plaques and supernatural devastation visited upon Egypt during the Exodus. Not until 1227, 259 years after the Exodus (1486), did Egypt recover from the national devastation. The Hyksos (the biblical Amelekites) were forced to accept the rulership of native Egyptian rulers at Thebes. The complete expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt occurred at the beginning of the XVIII (18th) dynasty of Thebes under Ahmose (1076). Archeology and history are replete with data on this period. Although no evidence of an Exodus exists in this period, it was initially assumed (due to the successive ordering of the 30 dynasties of Manetho) that this is when the Exodus occurred. It was subsequently assumed that the Exodus occurred during the XIX (19th) dynasty. Confusion over several different Rameses extant during the XVIII, XIX, and XX dynasties and the lack of evidence for an Exodus made this dynasty problematic as well. 

According to Africanus, dynasty XIX begins with Sethos who is followed by Rapsaces (Rameses the Great). Hoeh’s reconstruction dates Rameses the Great as contemporaneous with Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon, using both Egyptian and Babylonian records and archeological finds. Dating Rameses the Great 700-900 years too early, and relying on the numerical order of Manetho’s dynasties creates conflicts with historical and archeological evidence. DeMille and the Hollywood film epic enlist dynasty XIX (19), Seti I, his sister (?), and Rameses II (Rameses the Great). This conflicts with the biblical record, archeological evidence, harmonized chronology, and Josephus. Rameses the Great was militarily defeated at Carchemish (Kadesh) by Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon after several years of contention and two battles over the city. Subsequently, this dynasty withdrew to Nubia following Nebuchadnezzar’s attack on Egypt. The last documented year of Rameses the Great (Rameses II) recorded on any monument in Egypt is his year 44 – 567-566 (Hoeh, Compendium vol I, page 167).

The deeds of Rameses the Great (Rameses II) are also found on monuments under the name of Tirhakah, a contemporary of Nebuchadnezzar. This Tirhakah of dynasty XXV (the Ethiopian dynasty) claimed vast realms scholars thought were “unhistorical” for Tirhakah (G. Daressy, Medinet Habou, page 9). Later discoveries by Mariette-Bey found this same record at the base of a colossal statue of Rameses II (Mariette-Bey, Karnak, page 67, plate 18). Other evidence of Tirhakah as a great traveler and conqueror are grudgingly admitted by Wallis Budge (Wallis Budge, A History of Egypt, vol VI, page 157). This evidence linking Rameses the Great (Rameses II) with Tirhakah are ignored. The continued use (successive numbering) of Manetho’s dynastic numbering system contributes to the continuing confusion in the chronology of history.  

In conclusion, when the biblical record is considered in its’ proper historical context, archeological and historical records support, verify, and confirm the biblical record. Rejecting the Bible as an accurate historical model has caused irresolvable confusion when attempting to harmonize the totality of the evidence. The 18th century error of German literary scholarship should have been long since corrected. But truth is the last  criteria in the pursuance of political objectives. Scholarship, journalism, politics, religion, and every other major area of human endeavor in the 21st century has been hijacked and dominated through control of higher education by a conspiracy to create a world government ("New World Order"). This is a recurring sequel to world history begun at Babel. This recurring plot seeks to remove Christ and the Bible from education, government, religion, and history. This plot is satanically inspired, carried out by devotees of Luciferian worship through secret societies, and spans multiple generations. Lucifer (Satan) and his followers seek to replace God, Christ, and the Bible in the global religion of the "new world order".

Cecil B. DeMille probably used the most authoritatively available information in his time to produce the movie “The Ten Commandments”. And yet even with all the inaccuracies, historical discrepancies, casting decisions, and emphasis on superficial visual credibility to the detriment of factual historical substance, his depiction may have come dramatically close to providing insight into the original event.  

  

Figure 11
The Nile Valley from the Mediterranean Sea to Thebes