The Southern Empire – The Egyptian Eighteenth Dynasty (about 1550-1292 BCE)
Expulsion of the Hyksos. During the Hyksos Period, Egypt was divided between the Asiatic “Hyksos” rulers of Dynasty 15 and the native Egyptian Dynasties 13 and 17. Dynasty 17 ruled most of Upper Egypt, but was generally subject to the Hyksos rulers of Dynasty 15. There was apparently increased conflict between the two groups toward the end of Dynasty 17. An Egyptian tale recounts the Hyksos ruler Apophis’ provocation of the Egyptian prince, Seqenenre Ta’o; the former claiming he was disturbed by loud hippopotami at Thebes, the capital of Dynasty 17. The mummy of Ta’o exhibits fatal spear and axe wounds, perhaps inflicted in ensuing hostilities. Despite this apparent drawback, the last king of Dynasty 17, Kamose, began the process of driving out the Hyksos by wresting Middle Egypt from Apophis and approaching Avaris, the Hyksos capital, itself [1]. It was a brother of Kamose, Ahmose I (Nebpehtyre / ca. 1550 – 1525 BCE)[2] , who finally succeeded in driving the Hyksos from the Nile Delta region. Avaris was destroyed and the Hyksos leadership fled to the city of Sharuhen in southwestern Canaan, which in turn was taken [3]. With his reunification of Egypt, Ahmose is considered the founder of the 18th Dynasty and the period called the New Kingdom (sometimes called the Empire period). A very convincing case can be made that Ahmose was the Pharaoh who “did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8). As a native Egyptian, he did not know Joseph ethnically; and as an opponent to the Hyksos regime, he would not have known or cared about Joseph politically or historically. This is not to suggest that Ahmose should be considered the pharaoh of the Exodus or even the pharaoh of the oppression. A great deal of time is covered in the summary statements at the beginning of Exodus with no mention of the heirs of Ahmose—the Egyptian 18th Dynasty. We can do little better here, merely offering a review of this important period of Egyptian history; concentrating on those aspects which affect Palestine or our understanding of Israel’s origins.
The Early Eighteenth Dynasty.
It was apparently Amenhotep I (Djeserkare / 1525-1504 BCE), despite our lack of contemporary records, who consolidated Egypt’s position with territorial gains. Thutmose I (Akheperkare / 1504-1492 BCE), however, is credited with extended Egyptian domination to the Euphrates River, where he faced the Hurrians of Mitanni. Whatever Thutmose’s intentions, his attack was temporary and Egypt withdrew from campaigns into Syria for the next forty years. Back home, Thutmose I was the first king certainly buried in the famous “Valley of the Kings,” just across the Nile from Thebes. In fact, he seems to have lain in two tombs there. Thutmose I also initiated extensive work on the temple of Amun at Karnak, the first indication of the growing power of the that deity’s priesthood. There is little of interest concerning Thutmose II (1492-1479 BCE), except that he was married to his own half sister (in itself not unusual in royal Egyptian families) Hatshepsut. Thutmose II had a single son, Thutmose III, by another wife. Upon the father’s death, the younger Thutmose—still a child—ascended to the throne, but was soon overshadowed by his step-mother, Hatshepsut.
Thutmose II – ( Akheperenre 1492-1479 BCE) and his sister/wife Hatshepsut (Maatkare / 1473-1458 BCE) took all the trappings of kingship, even having herself represented with the Pharaonic false beard in statues. Her funerary temple at Deir el-Bahari is a masterpiece, frequently pictured in histories of architecture. Militarily, there is no evidence for any active involvement in Syria-Palestine on the part of Hatshepsut. This allowed Mitanni to make gains in Mesopotamia and northern Syria. In the meantime, in central Syria, the city of Kadesh on the Orontes River expanded its control south into Palestine. One attempt has been made to relate an inscription of Hatshepsut to the events of the Exodus, but this has been vigorously refuted. [4] Historians have often suspected that Hatshepsut’s death may have involved her step-son—the legitimate pharaoh in waiting—but there is no evidence of this. Whether as a response to his oppression by Hatshepsut or for some other reason.
Thutmose III (Menkheperre 1479-1425 BCE practically from 1458 BCE) became the most active military pharaoh of the dynasty. Most significant of his exploits is the famous Battle of Megiddo on his first campaign to Canaan, known from texts carved into the walls of the Temple of Amun at Karnak. Thutmose’s account illustrates the strategic importance of Megiddo, guarding the narrow Aruna pass of the main coastal road through the Carmel mountain range. Forces loyal to Kadesh, Egypt’s enemy, had been marshaled at Megiddo where they anticipated stopping the Egyptian force. The Karnak inscription is sufficiently detailed to allow a detailed reconstruction of the battle, and important for students of the ancient Near East and the Bible alike[5] . The pharaoh—ignoring the pleas of his advisors, according to the text—decided on a bold thrust through the dangerous Aruna pass and caught the Canaanite forces by surprise. The enemy was routed and Megiddo besieged until it fell some seven months later. Thus, the back of resistance to Egypt in Palestine was broken. In subsequent years, Thutmose III pushed into Syria, enjoying continued success against Kadesh and Mitanni itself [6]. In all, the pharaoh made at least 16 campaigns to Canaan. Topographical “city lists” on monuments of Thutmose III at the Karnak Temple of Amun preserve the names of cities conquered in these campaigns. One list contains some 119 Canaanite city names, inscribed in ovals surmounted by the torsos of bound Asiatic captives so as to indicate the city’s subjection to the Pharaoh. This list contains the names of many Canaanite cities known from the Bible and is invaluable for the study of Palestine and Syria in this period [7] . It should be noted that the “early date” for the Exodus would put the event in the time of Thutmose III. The constant campaigns of Thutmose and his successors in and through Palestine, however, are very difficult to reconcile with such a reconstruction.
Amenhotep II (Akheperure / 1427-1401 BCE) continued occasional campaigns in the Levant, primarily in a struggle with Mitanni. The latter, facing an impending struggle with a resurgent Hittite nation, began to make peace overtures with Egypt. The pharaoh Thutmose IV (Menkheperure 1400-1390 BCE) concluded the peace by receiving a Mitannian princess in marriage [8].
The Amarna Period. Amenhotep III (Nebmaatre / 1391-1353 BCE) thus inherited an empire at peace and enjoyed unparalleled prosperity at home. Instead of military campaigns, Amenhotep III concentrated on building projects, adding to the Temple of Amun at Karnak and building a new temple to the same god at Luxor, also in the Thebes area. He married a commoner, Queen Tiy, who became very popular with the masses. From this union came a son, Amenhotep IV, undoubtedly one of the most curious personalities of the ancient Near East.
A few years into his reign, Amenhotep IV (1353-1334 BCE) embarked on a radical course, changing the focus of official Egyptian religion from Amun, the chief deity of Thebes, to the worship of the Aton, a combination of sun gods personified by the sun disc. To accompany the change in worship, the king changed his name to Akhenaten, by which he is better known. Late in his reign, temples of other gods were closed and the name Amun was systematically erased from public monuments. Akhenaten is often referred to as the “Heretic Pharaoh,” as the majority of Egyptians apparently were resistant to his reforms. Sometimes he is called “the first monotheist,” and it has been suggested that the reforms of Akhenaten provided the basis for the monotheism of Moses. It is also true that the Egyptian Hymn to the Aton from this period has remarkable similarities to Psalm 104. [9] Akhenten’s religion, however, was more of a henotheism or monolatry—the worshipping of one god to the exclusion of others. In fact, only the royal house worshipped the Aton, while other Egyptians were supposed to worship Akhenaten—probably a device to bolster the pharaoh’s divine status.
It may be that Akhenten’s reforms were politically motivated; designed, as it were, to reduce the influence of the powerful priesthood of Amun in Thebes. Along those lines, Akhenaten built a new capital north of Thebes at Akhetaton, the modern el-Amarna. The collective reigns of Amenhotep III and IV are thus known as the Amarna period, an era with distinctives of interest to political and art historians. Akhenaten’s main wife was Nefertiti, made famous by the striking bust of her found at Amarna and now in a Berlin museum. Other art of the period began to take on a bizarre character. The king was depicted with a distended belly, slight shoulders, and an elongated head. Whether such pieces are accurate portrayals of a deformed Akhenaten or some kind of idealized representation is the matter of much debate. Whatever the case, Amarna Period art evolved to depict all the members of the royal family with the same characteristics. In general, Amarna Period art represents a break from the rather stiff, stereotyping Egyptian art of earlier periods.
Egyptian foreign relations are particularly well documented by the Amarna Tablets, some 350 clay tablets found at the site of the capital. The tablets, written in Akkadian cuneiform, consist mainly of correspondence to the Pharaoh from petty kings of Canaan, North Syria, and Mesopotamia. A few tablets contain copies of responses from the Pharaoh[10] . The letters from Canaan may reflect a weakening of Egyptian power there, perhaps due to preoccupation with internal affairs—especially during the reign of Akhenaten. On the other hand, they may be reflections of an Egyptian policy of indifference to certain levels of activity in the Empire. In any case, the Amarna Letters are quite interesting for biblical studies, as they throw considerable light on the political situation in Canaan just prior to the emergence of Israel.
They reveal a picture of city states ruling over small areas, each in conflict with its neighbors, but still ostensibly under Egyptian control. Mutual accusations fill the letters, with each king defending whatever actions he has taken [11].
The Habiru/Apiru. In many of the Amarna Letters, the kings of Canaan complain of a lawless, seminomadic people encroaching on the pharaoh’s domain in Palestine. In the letters from Abdi-Kheba, the king of Jerusalem, the cuneiform spelling Habiru (more correctly, Hapiru) appears in reference to this group. Other Amarna tablets employ the ideographically written SA.GAZ, which contains the ideogram for “marauder”, “robber”, or “bandit.” It is clear, however, that SA.GAZ is identical in meaning with Habiru and the Egyptian form, cpr·w, usually written Apiru[12]. In many of the letters, they appear as mercenaries and confederates of Labayu, King of Shechem.
The similarity of Habiru to the biblical designation “Hebrews,” and their association with Shechem, makes it tempting to equate the terms and view the Amarna letters as evidence for Israelite activity in Canaan following the Exodus[13] . While there are philological difficulties in identifying the Habiru with the Hebrews, such an equation is theoretically possible. More difficult are questions regarding the nature of the two terms and the overall activities of the Habiru/ Apiru.
The Habiru/Apiru /SA.GAZ are mentioned in documents throughout the Near East from the twentieth to the twelfth centuries BCE, usually in the context of foreigners without a settled home [14]. Indeed, the biblical usage of “Hebrews” are chiefly by non-Israelites speaking of Israelites or by the latter describing themselves to the former. But it has been demonstrated that the term Habiru was probably not used as a designation for an ethnic group (that is, a gentilic), as is the case of “Hebrews.” Rather, Habiru seems to have been used (as an appellation) of a social class of diverse origins, but having the common status of being property-less aliens. There may still be a connection between the groups if the biblical Hebrews are regarded as part of the larger social designation Habiru. In other words, Hebrews could be classified generically as Habiru, but not all Habiru were Hebrews.
It may not be unreasonable to suppose that some of the Habiru/Apiru mentioned in the Amarna letters were ethnically related to the contemporary Hebrews in Egypt, possibly including some who were actually escaped slaves seeking to establish themselves in Palestine. That Egyptian slaves escaped to Palestine during this period cannot be doubted. A model letter set for the instruction of school boys from the end of the thirteenth century preserves the report of an official in pursuit of two slaves escaping from Egypt into Asia[15] . Additionally, one of the Amarna letters specifically mentions slaves who had become Apiru[16].
The End of the Eighteenth Dynasty. Following the death of Akhenaten and the short reign of his brother, Smenkhare (Ankhkheperure / 1334 BCE), the throne passed to the nine year old Tutankhaten. The young king, apparently under guidance, moved his residence to the old civil capital of Memphis, reversed the reforms of Akhenaten, revived the cult of Amun at Thebes, and changed his name accordingly.
This Tutankhamen (Nebkheperure / 1334 – 1325 BCE) died after a reign of only nine years. He would be a little known figure of Egyptian history but for the discovery of his tomb in the Valley of the Kings by Howard Carter in 1922. Though it had been robbed in antiquity (contrary to popular belief), the tomb of “king Tut” was largely intact. The solid gold mask of Tutankhamen—one of the most recognizable objects from ancient Egypt—was placed over the head of his mummy inside a solid gold coffin, nestled inside two concentric wood coffins, laid in a stone sarcophagus, within three concentric shrines. The magnificence of this burial only hints at the treasures that must have been contained inside the tombs of more powerful and long ruling pharaohs. The tomb of Tutankhamen was so relatively small, that its entrance was eventually concealed by the debris from the hewing of a later tomb and forgotten. Though the “heresies” of Akhenaten had been reversed, Dynasty 18 was doomed. Tutankhamen was succeeded by Ay (Kheperkheperure / 1325 – 1321 BCE) and Horemheb (Djeserkheperure /1321 – 1292 BCE), who had served Akhenaten as chief minister and general, respectively. Horemheb lacked an heir, and with his death the Dynasty came to an end.
Notes:
[1] ANET, 231-33; 554-55.
[2] 18th Dynasty dates vary with certain dates locked to one of three possible schemes, ours e based on Ian Shaw - (Editor) The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt., Oxford University Press, 2000.
[3] ANET, 233-34
[4] The theory of Hans Goedicke is presented in Hershel Shanks, “The Exodus and the Crossing of the Red Sea, According to Hans Goedicke,” BAR 7 (Sept./Oct. 1981): 42-50; and its refutation by Charles Richard Krahmalkov, “A Critique of Professor Goedicke’s Exodus Theories,” BAR 7 (Sept./Oct. 1981): 51-54; and Eliezer Oren, “How Not to Create a History of the Exodus: A Critique of Professor Goedicke’s Theories,” BAR 7 (Nov./Dec. 1981): 46-53.
[5] ANET, 234-38.
[6] Donald B. Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (Princeton, NJ: Princeton, 1992), 156-60.
[7] See Yohanan Aharoni, The Land of the Bible: A Historical Geography, rev. and enlarged ed., trans. and ed., Anson F. Rainey (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1979), 154-66; MBA, map 30.
[8]Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel, 160-69; contemporary details are found in el Amarna tablet(EA) 29; see the text in William L. Moran, The Amarna Letters (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1992), 92-99.
[9]ANET, 369-71.
[10] A recent and accessible translation of the tablets is Moran, Amarna Tablets; selections of interest are found in ANET, 483-90.
[11] For a complete discussion of the situation in Canaan, see W. F. Albright, “The Amarna Letters from Palestine,” in CAH, Vol. 2, Part 2, 98-116.
[12] Albright, “Amarna Letters,” 110-111.
[13] This view was especially furthered by J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1925), 142-68; 237-41.
[14] see Moshe Greenburg, The Hab/piru , American Oriental Series 39 (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1955), 15-58; for a comprehensive review of the texts.
[15]ANET, 259; the route taken by the slaves and their pursuers recalls that aken by the Israelites on the first stages of the Exodus.
[16] EA 288, 43-44; translated in ANET, 489.