Exodus 1:8-22 CRF – The Pharaohs of Exodus

Buckle up, folks, because this is a long one. Today I’m going to tackle two issues that didn’t make the sermon: Who are the pharaohs of the exodus? and What did Pharaoh mean by the phrase, “see them on the birthstool”?

The Pharaohs of Exodus

There are two pharaohs in the book of Exodus: the pharaoh of the oppression (chs 1-2), and the pharaoh of the exodus (chs 3-14). For those who believe Exodus is a book that accurately reflects history (and I believe there is good reason to believe this), the question of the identity of these pharaohs naturally arise.

There are two main positions that are generally taken: the Early Date and the Late Date. Those who hold to the Early Date see the exodus taking place in c. 1446 BC, with either Thutmose II/Thutmose III or Thutmose III/Amenhotep II as the pharaohs of the oppression and exodus. Those who hold to the Late Date set the exodus somewhere around 1250 BC, which would make Seti I and Ramesses II the two pharaohs.

Before we examine the evidence, a word or two about Egyptian chronology may be helpful (I am indebted to Garrett, Exodus, 28-43 for much of this helpful information). Egyptian pharaohs are organized according to their dynasties. Dynasties start with “Dynasty 0” (c. 3000 BC) and go all the way to the 33rd Dynasty (30 BC). These dynasties are grouped into eras (Old Kingdom, Middle Kingdom, New Kingdom, etc.). The New Kingdom era spans the 18th-20th dynasties, covering a period of c. 1550-1069 BC. Whether we hold to the Early or Late Date theory, the pharaohs of Exodus fall into the New Kingdom era.

Using Garrett’s dating (which mainly follows Kenneth Kitchen’s dates, a famous Egyptologist who specializes in the New Kingdom era), the following are the reigning years of the relevant pharaohs of the New Kingdom:

Thutmose II (1492-1479)

Hatshepsut (1479-1457) (female pharaoh)

Thutmose III (1479-1425) (partly co-regent with Hatshepsut)

Amenhotep II (1427-1400)

Thutmose IV (1400-1390)

- - - - - - -

Seti I (1294-1279)

Ramesses II (1279-1213)

Merenptah (1213-1203)

These dates do have considerable variation depending on which Egyptologist you are studying. Though there are a multitude of other views that are variations of and reactions against the Early and Late Dates, we will focus on those two since they are by far the most popular in scholarship today (and yesterday!).

Now on to the evidence. There are a few pieces of biblical evidence that scholars have interpreted in the favor of either view. Let’s examine them verse by verse.

1) 1 Kings 6:1 – In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD (all passages are in ESV).

This passage dates Solomon’s fourth year as 480 years after the exodus from Egypt. This at first seems quite definitive, for we know with a great deal of certainty that Solomon’s fourth year was 966 BC. Working backwards, that would place the exodus at 1446 BC. A straightforward reading of the biblical text seems to favor the Early Date.

But others argue that it’s not so straightforward. 480 = 12 x 40. This number is symbolic of twelve generations, a generation being approximately 40 years. Scholars (e.g. Cole, Exodus, 42) point to texts like Psalm 95:10 (For forty years I loathed that generation…) to demonstrate that 40 was a symbolic number not to be taken literally, representative of a generation. If we assume 12 generations is correct, and a generation was approximately 23 years back then (Garrett 49), then Solomon’s temple was only around 276 years after the exodus. This would settle the exodus somewhere around 1250 BC, depending on how long each generation actually was.

2) Exodus 1:11b – They built for Pharaoh store cities, Pithom and Raamses.

Most scholars agree that the store city of Ramesses (the spelling varies depending on who you read) was named after Ramesses II (1279-1213 BC), who made the city his capital during his reign. The city itself was likely built long before that, but named for Ramesses later on when he rebuilt it (Garrett 68). All of this favors a Late Date at first glance.

But proponents of an Early Date have suggested that either A) Ramesses could’ve been a common name, used for the city even before the king, or, more commonly argued, B) the name Ramesses itself could be an “editorial upgrade.” What’s that mean?

Here’s an example:

Judges 18:29 gives us the history of the city named “Dan.” It used to be called Laish, but in the time that chapter 18 takes place (18:30 sets it in a time when Moses’s grandson was alive), it was renamed Dan. However, Genesis 14:14 refers to the city by the name Dan, not Laish. In other words, the author of Genesis used a name that wasn’t established until much later than the story itself took place. It would be like us saying Columbus stepped foot in the Bahamas (he did, but it wasn’t called the Bahamas when he landed there). Applied to our text in Exodus, what scholars are saying is that Ramesses is named after the king and his city, but is an editorial update or change that came after the fact (to complicate things further, notice that the land of Rameses is also referenced in Gen 47:11!).

3) Judges 11:26 – Here, Jephthah the judge claims that Israel had been in the land for 300 years. Calculating backwards, this at first favors an Early Date. But some (e.g. Garrett 51, Kitchen, Reliability, 209) note that Jephthah is unreliable as a historiographer, as he botches other important facts, such as calling Chemosh the god of the Ammonites (Jdgs 11:24). Chemosh was the god of the Moabites, whereas Milcom was the god of the Ammonites.

So what do we do with all of this information? First, we recognize that the data above only scratches the surface of the issue, and is all over-simplified. I haven’t even brought in the archaeological issues, such as the Merenptah Stele (which describes an Egyptian victory and includes Israel by name), the absence of Israel in the Amarna letters (which describe 14th century Canaan; Propp, Exodus V2, 738-9), or the relationship between the Hebrews, Hyksos and the Habiru.

Second, we recognize that the book of Exodus does not seek to answer such questions. These questions are beyond the text and beyond the need to understand the message and theology of Exodus. One commentator puts it like this: “Providentially, it is not a question that affects the theology of the book, provided that we accept the historic fact that the exodus took place, and the interpretation that makes it the supreme ‘act of God’ leading to Israel’s salvation” (Cole, Exodus, 40).

As I argued in my sermon (find it here), the book of Exodus is in some way slighting the pharaohs by deliberately omitting their names and instead focusing on women like Shiphrah and Puah (1:15). Hoffmeier, an archaeologist, makes the points in his Israel in Egypt that 1) it was normal for New Kingdom pharaohs not to mention their enemy’s name in inscriptions, 2) Israelite history normally mentions names of enemy kings, and 3) therefore this could be a literary way of defacing the name and image of the Egyptian enemy (111-112). This could very well be the case here.

After all is said and done, I can hear it now: “But Pastor Bryan, what do you believe? Which of the two main dates do you prefer?”

You church people. Always seeking answers.

Again, I stress that it does not matter so much that we get the date and pharaoh correct (if God wanted us to know the exact pharaoh, a name would’ve been in the text), so much that we get the fact of the historicity of the exodus correct. It happened. There was a pharaoh (two, actually). For a Jew (and Christian) to disbelieve the historicity of Exodus is, in my view, tantamount to a Christian disbelieving the resurrection (1 Cor 15). If it didn’t actually happen, our faith is in vain. Yes, it is that important in biblical theology and history.

All that being said, I favor an Early Date. I take 480 years literally, since it appears that Deuteronomy 2:14 does the same (it reads the 40 years of the “generation” in the wilderness as exactly that – 40 literal years, not a fuzzy undefined period of time, which then begins to unravel the rest of the “generational” theory of 12 x 40; see Hoffmeier, Exodus V I, 133). Regarding the Ramesses name in Ex 1:11, I think it’s actually an issue for both views. Even if it is referring to Ramesses II, the argument for the Late Date view is that Ramesses II is the pharaoh of the exodus. But this takes place at least 80 years before the exodus. So either way we have to contend for the anachronistic name. It is not a clear argument for either view (see Hannah, “Exodus,” BKC 104). As for Jephthah, I don’t make too big a deal of him. A straightforward reading favors the Early Date, but I tend to agree with Kitchen anyway. A guy like Jephthah’s not exactly reliable when it comes to anything (I certainly wouldn’t let him babysit my daughter).

An Early Date also has a few other things going for it. If the exodus happened in 1446 BC, it would land it in the middle of Thutmose III’s reign. The pharaoh of the oppression would then be Thutmose II. Could Hatshepsut then be the princess who pulled Moses from the “ark” in the Nile (see Garrett 37, Hannah 106)? It’s intriguing, to say the least.It’s also intriguing to note that Thutmose IV wasn’t the oldest son of his father, Amenhotep II (the “Dream Stela” is an archaeological find which records a god telling him he would be king – some have argued this type of proof-of-throne-right wouldn’t be necessary had he been the firstborn; see Hannah 104-6). This would accord with the 10th plague very well, but to hold to Thutmose III/Amenhotep II as the pharaohs of Exodus, we would have to adjust the dates of either Egyptian chronology or the exodus itself (Garrett 38-39).

So what I’m saying is, I think the majority of biblical evidence is in favor of an Early Date, so I hold to that. As for which pharaohs, I am more in line with not modifying the dates (so Thutmose II & III for the pharaohs). But I’m not an archaeologist, nor am I ignorant of the fact that everything I’ve said here has been vigorously debated and responded to. This is a messy issue, one which people have written entire dissertations on and have still failed to bring scholarship to a consensus. We won’t figure it out on this blog, nor will we figure it out in a sermon.For further study, I’d recommend Bruce Waltke’s article, “Palestinian Artifactual Evidence Supporting the Early Date of the Exodus” in Bibliotheca Sacra 129, Jan-Mar, 1972, as well as the detailed discussions in Garrett & Houtman’s respective commentaries. Kenneth Kitchen and James K. Hoffmeier have also produced notable work on the issue.

See Them on the Birthstool

I’ve got to warn you ahead of time: this second topic is rated PG-13 (at least). There’s a good reason it was cut out of the sermon, and you’ll soon understand why! I hesitated whether to even put it in the PCRF, but ultimately decided that it was a good illustration of some of the struggles a translator has when approaching a text and trying to help it communicate clearly to a reader.In Exodus 1:16, Pharaoh orders the two Hebrew midwives: “When you serve as midwife to the Hebrew women and see them on the birthstool, if it is a son, you shall kill him, but if it is a daughter, she shall live.” What is meant by the phrase (translated in ESV), “see them on the birthstool”?

The Hebrew text can literally be translated, “When you look upon the stones.”

Wait… what? That’s very different than “see them on the birthstool.” What’s going on here?

The phrase itself is used only one other place in Scripture: Jeremiah 18:3, where it clearly refers to a potter’s wheel. Influenced by this passage, scholars have guessed that there was some sort of stone or birthing stool that a woman in labor used to aid her in childbirth. Or, more specifically, since the text is a “dual” noun and reads “stones,” there were two stones or bricks a woman would kneel upon (see Sarna, Exodus, 7; Cole, Exodus, 55). This theory is quite ancient, stretching as far back as the Jewish Targums (Houtman 253). According to one commentator, Duane A. Garrett, there is evidence that Egyptian women squatted with their feet spread apart on two mudbrick blocks during childbirth (153-4). But he ultimately rejects this view (as do I), believing it is implausible in light of the language used in the text (it would be strange to talk about a midwife’s duty as “looking upon a potter’s wheel” or “looking upon the stones” in this way, and mudbricks wouldn’t be referred to as “stones” anyway). On a side note, I would imagine a society as advanced as the ancient Egyptians could’ve come up with a natal care system that is much more comfortable than kneeling on a couple of stones!

So if it doesn’t mean “potter’s wheel” or the like, what does the phrase mean? Here’s where we get PG-13.Most commentators believe the phrase is a euphemism for the genitals. Put frankly, “stones” is a roundabout way of saying “testicles” or “privates.” Pharaoh is basically saying to the women, “When the baby is born, look at the genitals (‘check the stones’) and see what gender it is.” It is unclear whether this might’ve been an acceptable euphemism or more akin to locker-room talk from the lips of a pharaoh who didn’t mind the thought of murdering babies. (I should also note that this view is not obscure; there are many bright men who argue for it: Houtman 253; Propp 139; Durham 12; Stuart 77, etc.).

Let’s not belabor this point any further (sorry for the pun). The aim of Pharaoh’s command is clear: check the baby’s gender and kill it if it’s a boy. The exact meaning of his figure of speech is not quite clear, though I suspect the reason for the common interpretive translation of “birthstool” instead of a more literal translation is simply due to our shyness and reticence in letting the text speak for itself, no matter what the “rating” might be.

Do you see now why Bible translation is so difficult? If a translator were to translate “literally” – when you look upon the stones – it becomes either a) confusing and meaningless or b) borderline too crude for a mainstream translation. And to add to that, the translator has an interpretive decision to make as well. Are we talking about a birthstool or about genitals? A decision has to be made if the translation is to be understandable.