Related articles and links |  1 of 3

This Sunday, the Discovery Channel will show Rameses: Wrath of God or Man?, in which a team of archeologists led by professor Kent Weeks will investigate the tomb of the princes of Rameses II, who is believed to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. One of the findings to be shown on the program is the skull of Amun-her-khepeshef, whom Weeks identifies as the firstborn son of Rameses II. If the identification is correct, could archeology show that the tenth plague killed the Pharaoh's firstborn son?

The tomb in which it was found, KV 5, has already yielded the remains of six sons of Rameses II, and there may be more. In 1995, it was widely heralded as a major discovery when Weeks learned the tomb held much more than was originally thought. Since major archeological discoveries can be tricky, we talked to noted Egyptologist James Hoffmeier, professor of Old Testament and ancient near eastern history and archaeology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. Hoffmeier is author of Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition.

Is Rameses II generally considered the Pharaoh of Exodus? How would we know?

It depends. Within evangelical scholarship there is a divide over a 15th century date for the Exodus. If it occurred around 1450 BC, that's the 18th dynasty, not the 19th dynasty of Rameses. But there are other groups of evangelical scholars who would take the reference in Exodus 1:11 literally. That says [the Israelites] "built the city of Rameses," which indicates the building of the capital city of Rameses II.

So if you're in this camp within the evangelical scholarly community, then Rameses II is a very good candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus.

But there's disagreement?

There are those who want to take I Kings 6:1 literally—that it's 480 years from the fourth year of King Solomon to the Exodus. If you take that literally, you can't take Exodus 1:11 literally. You have to say the [city of] Rameses was not originally there, and Exodus 1:11 refers to another city, and later scribes simply give it that name. My point is you have to decide which text literally because you can't take them both literally.

My preference is [Exodus 1:11.] It's harder to try to explain away the name of a place than it is a number, because sometimes the numbers of the Bible are used in a symbolic way.

Is there archeological evidence that Hebrews were in Egypt?

We don't have any evidence. What we do know is that from the 16th century B.C. down the next couple hundred years, the northeastern delta of Egypt had significant Semitic populations. It would be very easy to have the Hebrews among that group.

Where in Egypt's history do Rameses II, and possibly the Exodus, fit in?

Under Rameses II, Egypt was very powerful, controlling Palestine and Syria up to central Syria. Then there was the big battle with the Hittites at Kadesh, and that led to a treaty with the Hittites. Along with the Hittites, Egypt was the dominant power at that time.

Thousands of years later, it seems that it would be hard to tell how someone in Egypt died, especially whether or not God killed him. What can you tell by archeology?

I personally don't know if the oldest son of Rameses was Amun-her-knepeshef, and I'm not sure that his body has been discovered. But if you have the mummy, you can do all kinds of things in terms CAT scans and various things. Certain things could be done if you have the body, but I'm not sure if his body is available. I haven't heard anything about what was found in tomb 5, where Weeks is working, or if the site was undisturbed. I have a friend who's working there, but I haven't heard anything about mummified remains. But that's the big secret they're keeping.

next page... |  1 of 3

November (Web-only) 2004, Vol. 48