The narrations contained in the Bible and the Quran
on the time spent by the sons of Israel in Egypt, and the
way they left, give rise to data which may constitute
matter for a confrontation with modern knowledge. In
fact, the balance is very uneven because some data pose
many problems while others hardly provide subject for
discussion.
It is, apparently, quite possible to say (and without
running much risk of being wrong) that the Hebrews
remained in Egypt for 400 or 430 years, according to the
Bible (Genesis 15, 13 and Exodus 12, 40). In spite of
this discrepancy between Genesis and Exodus, which is of
minor importance, the period may be said to have begun
long after Abraham, when Joseph, son of Jacob, moved with
his brothers to Egypt. With the exception of the Bible,
which gives the data just quoted, and the Quran which
refers to the move to Egypt, but does not give any
indication as to the dates involved, we do not possess
any other document which is able to illuminate us on this
point.
Present-day commentators, ranging from P. Montet to
Daniel Rops, think that, in all probability, the arrival
of Joseph and his brothers coincided with the movement of
the Hyksos towards Egypt in the Seventeenth century B.C.
and that a Hyksos sovereign probably received them
hospitably at Avaris in the Nile Delta.
There can be no doubt that this guess is in obvious
contradiction to what is contained in the Bible (Kings I,
6, 1) which puts the Exodus from Egypt at 480 years
before the construction of Solomon's Temple (circa 971
B.C.). This estimation would therefore put the Exodus at
roughly 1450 B.C. and would consequently situate the
entry into Egypt at circa 1880-1850 B.C. This is
precisely the time, however, that Abraham is supposed to
have lived, and other data contained in the Bible tell us
that there were 250 years separating him from Joseph.
This passage from Kings I in the Bible is therefore
unacceptable from a chronological point of view. [ We shall return to this subject later, when we
call upon Father de Vaux's help in
examining this reference in Kings I.] We
shall see how the theory put forward here has only this
objection, taken from Kings I, to be levelled against it.
The very obvious inaccuracy of these chronological data
effectively deprives this objection of any value.
Aside from the Holy Scriptures, the traces left by the
Hebrews of their stay in Egypt are very faint. There are
however several hieroglyphic documents which refer to the
existence in Egypt of a category of workers called the 'Apiru,
Hapiru or Habiru, who have been identified (rightly
or wrongly) with the Hebrews. In this category were
construction workers, agricultural labourers, harvesters,
etc. But where did they come from? It is very difficult
to find an answer to this. Father de Vaux has written the
following about them:
"They are not members of the local population, they
do not identify themselves with a class in society, they
do not all share the same occupation or status."
Under Tuthmosis III, they are referred to in a papyrus
as 'workers in the stables'. It is known how Amenophis
II, in the Fifteenth century B.C., brought in 3,600 of
these people as prisoners from Canaan, because, as
Father. de Vaux notes, they constituted a considerable
percentage of the Syrio-Palestinian population. Under
Sethos I, in circa 1300 B.C., the 'Apiru created
considerable disturbances in the Beth-Shean region of
Canaan, and under Ramesses II some of them were employed
in the quarries or for transporting piles used in the
works of the Pharaoh (e.g. the Great Pylon of Ramesses Miamon). We know from the Bible that the Hebrews, under
Ramesses II, were to build the northern capital, the City
of Ramesses. In Egyptian writings the 'Apiru are
mentioned once again in the Twelfth century B.C. and for
the last time under Ramesses III.
The 'Apiru are not just mentioned in Egypt
however, so did the term therefore apply solely to the
Hebrews? It is perhaps wise to recall that the word could
initially have been used to signify 'forced labourers',
without regard to their origins, and that it subsequently
became an adjective indicating a person's profession. We
might perhaps draw an analogy with the word 'suisse'
(Swiss) which has several different meanings in French.
It can mean an inhabitant of Switzerland, a mercenary
soldier of the old French monarchy who was of Swiss
extraction, a Vatican guard, or an employee of a
Christian church . . . However, this may be, under
Ramesses II, the Hebrews (according to the Bible) or the 'Apiru
(according to the hieroglyphic texts) took part in the
great works ordered by the Pharaoh, which were indeed
'forced labour'. There can be no doubt that Ramesses II
was the Jews' oppressor: the cities of Ramesses and Pithom, mentioned in Exodus, are situated at the eastern
part of the Nile Delta. Today's Tanis and Qantir, which
are roughly 15 miles apart, are in the same region as
these two cities. The northern capital constructed by
Ramesses II was situated there. Ramesses II is the
Pharaoh of the oppression.
Moses was to be born in this environment. The
circumstances pertaining to his rescue from the waters of
the river have al- ready been outlined above. He has an
Egyptian name: P. Montet has clearly shown in his book Egypt
and the Bible (L'Egypte et la Bible) [ Pub. Delachaux and
Niestlé, Neufchatel, 1959.] that the
names Mesw or Mesy are on the list of personal names in
the dictionary of the hieroglyphic language by Ranke. Musa
is the transliteration used in the Quran.
Under this title the Bible refers to ten punishments
inflicted by God, and provides many details concerning
each of these 'plagues'. Many have supernatural
dimensions or characteristics. The Quran only lists five
plagues, which, for the most part, are merely an
exaggeration of natural phenomena: flooding, locusts,
lice, frogs and blood.
The rapid multiplication of locusts and frogs is
described in the Bible. It speaks of river water changed
to blood which floods all the land (sic); the Quran
refers to blood, but without giving any complementary
details. It is possible to invent all kinds of hypotheses
on the subject of this reference to blood.
The other plagues described in the Bible (gnats,
swarms of flies, boils, hail, darkness, death of the
first-born and of cattle) have various origins, as was
the case of the Flood, and are constituted by the
juxtaposition of passages from many different sources.
No indication of this is given in the
Quran, whereas
the Bible refers to it in great detail. Father de Vaux
and P. Montet have both reopened studies into it. The
starting-point was probably the Tanis-Qantir region, but
no traces have been found of the rest of the route taken
which could confirm the Biblical narration; nor is it
possible to say at exactly what point the waters parted
to allow the passage of Moses and his followers.
Some commentators have imagined a tide-race, due
perhaps to astronomic causes or seismic conditions
connected to the distant eruption of a volcano. The
Hebrews could have taken advantage of the receding sea,
and the Egyptians, following in hot pursuit, could have
been wiped out by the returning tide. All this is pure
hypothesis however.
It is possible to arrive at much more positive
evidence in the case of the point the Exodus occupies in
time.
For a very long time Merneptah, the successor to
Ramesses II, was held to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Maspero, the famous Egyptologist of the beginning of this
century did, after all, write in his Visitor's Guide
to the Cairo Museum (Guide du visiteur du Musée du Caire), 1900, that Merneptah "was probably,
according to the Alexandrian tradition, the Pharaoh of
the Exodus who is said to have perished in the Red
Sea." I have been unable to find the documents on
which Maspero based this assertion, but the eminence of
this commentator requires us to attach the greatest
importance to what he claims.
Apart from P. Montet, there are very few Egyptologists
or specialists in Biblical exegesis who have researched
into the arguments for or against this hypothesis. In the
last few decades however, there has been a spate of
different hypotheses which seem to have as their sole
purpose the justification of an agreement with one single
detail in the Scriptural narrations, although the
inventors of these hypotheses do not bother with the
other aspects of the Scriptures. Thus it is possible for
a hypothesis to suddenly appear which seems to agree with
one aspect of a narration, although its inventor has not
taken the trouble to compare it with all the other data
contained in the Scriptures (and consequently not just
with the Bible), plus all the data provided by history,
archaeology, etc.
One of the strangest hypotheses yet to come to light
is by J. de Miceli (1960) who claims to have pinpointed
the date of the Exodus to within one day, i.e. the 9th of
April, 1495 B.C. He relies for his information entirely
on calculations made from calendars and claims that
Tuthmosis II was reigning in Egypt at that time, and was
therefore the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The confirmation of
the hypothesis is supposed to reside in the fact that
lesions of the skin are to be observed on the mummy of
Tuthmosis II. This commentator informs us (without
explaining why) that they are due to leprosy, and that
one of the plagues of Egypt described in the Bible
consisted in skin boils. This staggering construction
takes no account of the other facts contained in the
Biblical narration, especially the Bible's mention of the
City of Ramesses which rules out any hypothesis dating
the Exodus before a 'Ramesses' had reigned.
As to the skin lesions of Tuthmosis II, these do not
swing the argument in favour of the theory which
designates this King of Egypt as the Pharaoh of the
Exodus. This is because his son, Tuthmosis III, and his
grandson Amenophis II also show signs of skin tumors [ The skin lesions are clearly visible on the
mummies of these Pharaohs preserved in the Egyptian
Museum, Cairo.],
so that some commentators have suggested the hypothesis
of a disease which ran in the family. The Tuthmosis II
theory is not therefore tenable.
The same is true for Daniel-Rops's theory in his book.
The People of the Bible (Le Peuple de la Bible) [ Pub. Desclée de
Brouwer, 1970, Paris.]. He ascribes the role of the Pharaoh of the
Exodus to Amenophis II. It does not seem to be any
better-founded than the preceding hypothesis. Using the
pretext that Amenophis II's father (Tuthmosis III) was
very nationalistic, Daniel-Rops proclaims Amenophis II
the persecutor of the Hebrews, while his step-mother, the
famous Queen Hatshepsut, is cast in the role of the
person who took Moses in (although we never discover
why).
Father de Vaux's theory, that it was Ramesses II,
rests on slightly more solid foundations. He expands on
them in his book, The Ancient History of Israel
(Histoire ancienne d'Israël) [ Pub. J. Gabalda and Co., 1971, Paris.]. Even if his theory
does not agree with the Biblical narration on every
point, at least it has the advantage of putting forward
one very important piece of evidence: the construction of
the cities of Ramesses and Pithom built under Ramesses II
referred to in the Biblical text. It is not possible
therefore to maintain that the Exodus took place before
the accession of Ramesses II. This is situated in the
year 1301 B.C., according to Drioton and Vandier's
chronology, and in 1290 B.C. according to Rowton's. The
two other hypotheses outlined above are untenable because
of the following imperative fact: Ramesses II is the
Pharaoh of the oppression referred to in the Bible.
Father de Vaux considers the Exodus to have taken
place during the first half or towards the middle of
Ramesses II's reign.
Thus his dating of this event is imprecise: he
suggests this period to allow Moses and his followers
time, as it were, to settle in Canaan, and Ramesses II's
successor, Pharaoh Mernaptah who is said to have pacified
the frontiers after his father's death, to bring the
Children of Israel into line, as depicted on a stele of
the Fifth year of his reign.
Two arguments may be levelled at this theory:
a) The Bible shows (Exodus 2, 23) that the King of Egypt
died during the period when Moses was in Midian. This
King of Egypt is described in the Book of Exodus as the
King who made the Hebrews build the cities of Ramesses
and Pithom by forced labour. This King was Ramesses II.
The Exodus could only have taken place under the latter's
successor. Father de Vaux claims however to doubt the
Biblical sources of verse 23, chapter 2 of Exodus.
b) What is more astounding is that Father de
Vaux, as
director of the Biblical School of Jerusalem, does not
refer in his theory of the Exodus to two essential
passages in the Bible, both of which bear witness to the
fact that the King died during the pursuit of the fleeing
Hebrews. This detail makes it impossible for the Exodus
to have taken place at any other time than at the end of
a reign.
It must be repeated that there can be little doubt
that the Pharaoh lost his life as a result of it.
Chapters 13 and 14 of Exodus are quite specific on this
point: "So he made ready his chariot and took his
army with him . . ." (Exodus 14,6). (Pharaoh king of
Egypt) "pursued the people of Israel as they went
forth defiantly" (Exodus 14,8) . . . "The
waters returned and covered the chariots and the horsemen
and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them into
the sea; not so much as one of them remained."
(Exodus 14,28 and 29). In addition to these verses, Psalm
136 confirms Pharaoh's death and refers to Yahweh who
"overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Sea of
Rushes" (Psalms 136,15).
Thus, during Moses's lifetime, one Pharaoh died
when Moses was in Midian and another during the Exodus.
There were not one, but two Pharaohs at the time of
Moses: one during the oppression and the other during the
Exodus from Egypt. The theory of a single Pharaoh (Ramesses II) put forward by Father de Vaux is
unsatisfactory because it does not account for
everything. The following observations are further
arguments against his theory.
P. Montet has very discerningly resumed the original
Alexandrian [ There can be no doubt that in the Golden Age of
the ptolemies, historical documents on Antiquity were
preserved at Alexandria, only to be destroyed at the time
of the Roman conquest; a loss which is keenly felt today.] tradition mentioned by
Maspero. It is
found much later in the Islamic tradition as well as in
the classic Christian tradition. [ In the Holy Histories of the early 20th century,
as in the History by Abbe H. Lesetre, intended for
religious instruction, the Exodus is mentioned as having
taken place during Merneptah's reign in Egypt.] This theory is set
out in Montet's book Egypt and the Bible (L'Egypte
et le Bible) [ Pub. Delachaux and
Niestlé, Neuchatel, 1959.] and is supported by additional
arguments, based in particular on the narrative contained
in the Quran, to which the famous archaeologist did not
refer. Before examining them however, we shall first
return to the Bible.
The Book of Exodus contains a reference to the word
'Ramesses' although the Pharaoh's name is not mentioned.
In the Bible 'Ramesses' is the name of one of the cities
built by the forced labour of the Hebrews. Today we know
that these cities form part of the Tanis-Qantir region,
in the eastern Nile Delta. In the area where Ramesses II
built his northern capital, there were other
constructions prior to his, but it was Ramesses II who
made it into an important site, as the archeological
excavations undertaken in the last few decades have amply
shown. To build it, he used the labour of the enslaved
Hebrews.
When one reads the word 'Ramesses' in the Bible today,
one is not particularly struck by it: the word has become
very common to us since Champollion discovered the key to
hieroglyphics 150 years ago, by examining the characters
that expressed this very word. We are therefore used to
reading and pronouncing it today and know what it means.
One has to remember however that the meaning of
hieroglyphics had been lost in circa the Third century
B.C. and that Ramesses' name had hardly been preserved
anywhere except in the Bible and a few books written in
Greek and Latin which had deformed it to a lesser or
greater extent. It is for this reason that Tacitus in his
Annals talks of 'Rhamsis'. The Bible had however
preserved the name intact: it is referred to four times
in the Pentateuch or Torah (Genesis 47,11; Exodus 1,11
and 12,37. Numbers 33,3 and 33,5).
The Hebrew word for 'Ramesses' is written in two ways
in the Bible: 'Râ(e) mss' or 'Râeâmss' [ The letter 'e' figures as the ayin in
Hebrew.]. In the
Greek version of the Bible, called the Septuagint, it is 'Râmessê'. In the Latin version (Vulgate) it is written
'Ramesses'. In the Clementine version of the Bible in
French (1st edition, 1621) the word is the same, 'Ramesses'. The French edition was in circulation at the
time of Champollion's work in this field. In his
Summary of the Hièroglyphic System of the Ancient
Egyptians (Precis du systeme hiéroglyphique des
anciens Egyptiens) (2nd edition, 1828, page 276),
Champollion alludes to the Biblical spelling of the word.
Thus the Bible had miraculously preserved Ramesses's
name in its Hebrew, Greek and Latin versions. [ It is strange to note moreover, that in old
editions of the Bible, commentators did not understand
the meaning of the word at all. In the French edition of
the Clementine Bible, 1621, for example, an
interpretation of the word 'Ramesses' is given which
makes total nonsense: 'Thunder of Vermin' (sic).]
The preceding data alone are enough to establish the
following:
a) There can be no question of the Exodus before a 'Ramesses' had come to the throne in Egypt (11 Kings of
Egypt had this name).
b) Moses was born during the reign of the Pharaoh who
built the cities of Ramesses and Pithom, i.e. Ramesses
II.
c) When Moses was in Midian, the reigning Pharaoh
(i.e. Ramesses II) died. The continuation of Moses's
story took place during the reign of Ramesses II's
successor, Merneptah.
What is more, the Bible adds other highly important
data which help to situate the Exodus in the history of
the Pharaohs. It is the statement that Moses was eighty
years old when, under God's orders, he tried to persuade
Pharaoh to free his brothers: "Now Moses was eighty
years old, and Aaron eighty-three years years old, when
they spoke to Pharaoh." (Exodus 7,7). Elsewhere
however, the Bible tells us (Exodus 2,23) that the
Pharaoh reigning at the time of the birth of Moses died
when the latter was in Midian, although the Biblical
narration continues without mentioning any change in the
sovereign's name. These two passages in the Bible imply
that the total number of years spanning the reigns of the
two Pharaohs ruling at the time when Moses was living in
Egypt must have been eighty years at least.
It is known that Ramesses II reigned for 67 years
(1301-1235 B.C. according to Drioton and Vandier's
chronology, 1290-1224 B.C. according to Rowton). For Merneptah, his successor, the Egyptologists are unable,
however, to provide the exact dates of his reign.
Nevertheless, it lasted for at least ten years because,
as Father de Vaux points out, documents bear witness to
the tenth year of his reign. Drioton and Vandier give two
possibilities for Merneptah: either a ten-year reign,
1234-1224 B.C., or a twenty-year reign 1224-1204 B.C.
Egyptologists have no precise indications whatsoever on
how Merneptah's reign came to an end: all that can be
said is that after his death, Egypt went through a period
of serious internal upheavals lasting nearly 25 years.
Even though the chronological data on these reigns are
not very precise, there was no other period during the
New Kingdom concordant with the Biblical narration when
two successive reigns (apart from Ramesses II-Merneptah)
amounted to or surpassed eighty years. The Biblical data
concerning Moses's age when he undertook the liberation
of his brothers can only come from a time during the
successive reigns of Ramesses II and Merneptah [ The period spanning the two reigns Sethos
I-Ramesses II, which is said to have lasted roughly
eighty years, is out of the question: Sethos I's
reign-which was too short for this-does not square with
the very long stay in Midian which Moses made as an adult
and which took place during the reign of the first of the
two Pharaohs he was to know.]. All
the evidence points towards the fact that Moses was born
at the beginning of Ramesses II's reign, was living in
Midian when Ramesses II died after a sixty-seven year
reign, and subsequently became the spokesman for the
cause of the Hebrews living in Egypt to Merneptah,
Ramesses II's son and successor. This episode may have
happened in the second half of Merneptah's reign,
assuming he reigned twenty years or nearly twenty years.
Rowton believes the supposition to be quite feasible.
Moses would then have led the Exodus at the end of
Merneptah's reign. It could hardly have been otherwise
because both the Bible and the Quran tell us that
Pharaoh perished during the pursuit of the Hebrews
leaving the country.
This plan agrees perfectly with the account contained
in the Scriptures of Moses's infancy and of the way he
was taken into the Pharaoh's family. It is a known fact
that Ramesses II was very old when he died: it is said
that he was ninety to a hundred years old. According to
this theory, he would have been twentythree to
thirty-three years old at the beginning of his reign
which lasted sixty-seven years. He could have been
married at that age and there is nothing to contradict
the discovery of Moses by 'a member of Pharaoh's
household' (according to the Quran), or the fact that
Pharaoh's wife asked him if he would keep the newly-born
child she had found on the bank of the Nile. The Bible
claims that the child was found by Pharaoh's daughter. In
view of Ramesses II's age at the beginning of his reign
it would have been perfectly possible for him to have had
a daughter old enough to discover the abandoned child.
The Quranic and Biblical narrations do not contradict
each other in any way on this point.
The theory given here is in absolute agreement with
the Quran and is moreover at odds with only one single
statement in the Bible which occurs (as we have seen) in
Kings I 6,1 (N.B. this book is not included in the
Torah). This passage is the subject of much debate and
Father de Vaux rejects the historical data contained in
this part of the Old Testament, which dates the Exodus in
relation to the construction of Solomon's temple. The
fact that it is subject to doubt makes it impossible to
retain it as a conclusive argument against the theory
outlined here.
In the text of the famous stele dating from the fifth
year of Merneptah's reign critics think they have found
an objection to the theory set out here, in which the
pursuit of the Jews constituted the last act of his
reign.
The stele is of great interest because it represents
the only known document in hieroglyphics which contains
the word 'Israel'. [ The word is followed by a generic determinative
which leaves no doubt as to the fact that this term
signifies a 'human community or group'.] The inscription which dates from
the first part of Merneptah's reign was discovered in
Thebes in the Pharaoh's Funeral Temple. It refers to a
series of victories he won over Egypt's neighbouring
states, in particular a victory mentioned at the end of
the document over a "devastated Israel which has no
more seed . . " From this fact it has been held that
the existence of the word 'Israel' implied that the Jews
must already have settled in Canaan by the fifth year of
Merneptah's reign, and that in consequence, the Exodus of
the Hebrews from Egypt had already taken place.
This objection does not seem tenable because it
implies that there could have been no Jews living in
Canaan all the while there were Jews in Egypt-a
proposition it is impossible to accept. Father de Vaux
however, in spite of the fact that he is a supporter of
the theory which makes Ramesses II the Pharaoh of the
Exodus, notes [ In his book 'The Ancient History of Israel'
(Histoire ancienne d'Israël)] the following about the settling of
the Jews in Canaan: "In the South, the time when
communities related to the Israelites settled in the
Kadesh region is unclear and dates from before the
Exodus." He therefore allows for the possibility
that certain groups may have left Egypt at a time
different from that of Moses and his followers. The 'Apiru
or Habiru who have sometimes been identified with
the Israelites were already in Syria-Palestine long
before Ramesses II and the Exodus: we have documentary
evidence which proves that Amenophis II brought back
8,600 prisoners to work as forced labourers in Egypt.
Others were to be found in Canaan under Sethos I where
they caused unrest in the Beth-Shean region: P. Montet
reminds us of this in his book Egypt and the Bible
(L'Egypte et la Bible). It is quite plausible to suppose
therefore that Merneptah was obliged to deal severely
with these rebellious elements on his borders while
inside them were those who were later to rally around
Moses to flee the country. The existence of the stele
dating from the fifth year of Merneptah's reign does not
in any way detract from the present theory.
Moreover, the fact that the word 'Israel' figures
in the history of the Jewish people is totally
unconnected with the notion that Moses and his followers
settled in Canaan. The origin of the word is as
follows:
According to Genesis (32,29), Israel is the second
name given to Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of
Abraham. The commentators of the Ecumenical
Translation of the Bible-Old Testament (Traduction
oecuménique de la Bible-Ancien Testament), 1975, think
that its meaning is probably that 'God shows Himself in
His Strength'. Since it has been given to a single man,
it is not surprising that it was given to a community or
group of people in memory of a distinguished ancestor.
The name 'Israel', therefore appeared well before
Moses: several hundred years before to be exact. It is
not surprising consequently to see it cited in a stele
from the reign of the Pharaoh Merneptah. The fact that it
is cited does not at all constitute an argument in favour
of a theory which dates the Exodus before the fifth year
of Merneptah's reign.
What it does do is refer to a group which it calls
'Israel', but Merneptah's stele cannot be alluding to a
politically established collectivity because the
inscription dates from the end of the Thirteenth century
B.C. and the Kingdom of Israel was not formed until the
Tenth century B.C. It must therefore refer to a human
community of more modest proportions. [ "The name 'Israel' (in the stele) is
accompanied by the generic determinative 'people' instead
of the determinative 'country', as is the case for the
other proper names in the stele" writes Father B. Couroyer, Professor at the Biblical School of Jerusalem,
in his commentary to the translation of the Book of
Exodus (Pub. Editions du Cerf, Paris, 1968, page 12).]
Nowadays, we know that the entry of 'Israel' into
history was preceded by a long formatory period of eight
or nine centuries. This period was distinguished by the
settling of many semi-Nomadic groups, especially the
Amorites and the Arameans all over the region. In the
same period, Patriarchs began to appear in their
communities among whom were Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob-Israel. The second name of this last Patriarch was
used to designate the original group, the nucleus of a
future political entity which was to appear long after
Merneptah's reign, since the Kingdom of Israel lasted
from 931 or 930 to 721 B.C.
This event marks a very important point in the
narrations contained in the Bible and the Quran. It
stands forth very clearly in the texts. It is referred to
in the Bible, not only in the Pentateuch or Torah, but
also in the Psalms: the references have already been
given.
It is very strange to find that Christian commentators
have completely ignored it. Thus, Father de Vaux
maintains the theory that the Exodus from Egypt took
place in the first half or the middle of Ramesses II's
reign. His theory takes no account of the fact that the
Pharaoh perished during the Exodus, a fact which should
make all hypotheses place the event at the end of a
reign. In his Ancient History of Israel (Histoire
ancienne d'Israël) , the Head of the Biblical School of
Jerusalem does not seem to be at all troubled by the
contradiction between the theory he maintains and the
data contained in the two Books of the Bible: the Torah
and Psalms.
In his book, Egypt and the Bible
(L'Egypte et
la Bible), P. Montet places the Exodus during Merneptah's
reign, but says nothing about the death of the Pharaoh
who was at the head of the army following the fleeing
Hebrews.
This highly surprising attitude contrasts with the
Jews' outlook: Psalm 136, verse 15 gives thanks to God
who "overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Sea of
Rushes" and is often recited in their liturgy. They
know of the agreement between this verse and the passage
in Exodus (14,28-29): "The waters returned and
covered the chariots and the horsemen and all the host of
Pharaoh that had followed them into the sea; not so much
as one of them remained." There is no shadow of a
doubt for them that the Pharaoh and his troups were wiped
out. These same texts are present in Christian Bibles.
Christian commentators quite deliberately, and in
contradiction to all the evidence, brush aside the
Pharaoh's death. What is more however, some of them
mention the reference made to it in the Quran and
encourage their readers to make very strange comparisons.
In the translation of the Bible directed by the Biblical
School of Jerusalem [ L'Exode (Exodus), 1968, page 73, Pub. Les Editions
du Cerf, Paris.] we find the following commentary
on the Pharaoh's death by Father Couroyer.
"The Koran refers to this (Pharaoh's death)
(sura
10, verses 90-92), and popular tradition has it that the
Pharaoh who was drowned with his army (an event which is
not mentioned in the Holy Text [ There can be no doubt that this commentator is
referring to the Bible.])
lives beneath the ocean where he rules over the men of
the sea, i.e. the seals".
It is obvious that the uninformed reader of the Quran
is bound to establish a connection between a statement in
it which-for the commentator-contradicts the Biblical
text and this absurd legend which comes from a so-called
popular tradition mentioned in the commentary after the
reference to the Quran.
The real meaning of the statement in the Quran on
this has nothing to do with what this commentator
suggests: verses 90 to 92, sura 10 inform us that the
Children of Israel crossed the sea while the Pharaoh and
his troops were pursuing them and that it was only when
the Pharaoh was about to be drowned that he cried:
"I believe there is no God except the God in which
the Chilldren of Israel believe. I am of those who submit
themselves to Him." God replied: "What? Now!
Thou bast rebelled and caused depravity. This day W e
save thee in thy body so that thou mayest be a Sign for
those who will come after thee."
This is all that the sura contains on the Pharaoh's
death. There is no question of the phantasms recorded by
the Biblical commentator either here or anywhere else in
the Quran. The text of the Quran merely states very
clearly that the Pharaoh's body will be saved: that is
the important piece of information.
When the Quran was transmitted to man by the Prophet,
the bodies of all the Pharaohs who are today considered
(rightly or wrongly) to have something to do with the
Exodus were in their tombs of the Necropolis of Thebes,
on the opposite side of the Nile from Luxor. At the time
however, absolutely nothing was known of this fact, and
it was not until the end of the Nineteenth century that
they were discovered there. As the Quran states, the
body of the Pharaoh of the Exodus was in fact rescued:
whichever of the Pharaohs it was, visitors may see him in
the Royal Mummies Room- of the Egyptian Museum, Cairo.
The truth is therefore very different from the ludicrous
legend that Father Couroyer has attached to the Quran.
The mummified body of Merneptah, son of Ramesses II
and Pharaoh of the Exodus-all the evidence points to
this-was discovered by Loret in 1898 at Thebes in the
Kings' Valley whence it was transported to Cairo. Elliot
Smith removed its wrappings on the 8th of July, 1907: he
gives a detailed description of this operation and the
examination of the body in his book The Royal Mummies
(1912). At that time the mummy was in a satisfactory
state of preservation, in spite of deterioration in
several parts. Since then, the mummy has been on show to
visitors at the Cairo Museum, with his head and neck
uncovered and the rest of body concealed under a cloth.
It is so well hidden indeed, that until very recently,
the only general photographs of the mummy that the Museum
possessed were those taken by E. Smith in 1912.
In June 1975, the Egyptian high authorities very
kindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh's
body that had been covered until then. They also allowed
me to take photographs. When the mummy's present state
was compared to the condition it was in over sixty years
ago, it was abundantly clear that it had deteriorated and
fragments had disappeared. The mummified tissues had
suffered greatly, at the hand of man in some places and
through the passage of time in others.
This natural deterioration is easily explained by the
changes in the conditions of conservation from the time
in the late Nineteenth century when it was discovered.
Its discovery took place in the tomb of the Necropolis of
Thebes where the mummy had lain for over three thousand
years. Today, the mummy is displayed in a simple glass
case which does not afford hermetic insulation from the
outside, nor does it offer protection from pollution by
micro-organisms. The mummy is exposed to fluctuations in
temperature and seasonal changes in humidity: it is very
far from the conditions which enabled it to remain
protected from any source of deterioration for
approximately three thousand years. It has lost the
protection afforded by its wrappings and the advantage of
remaining in the closed environment of the tomb where the
temperature was more constant and the air less humid than
it is in Cairo at certain times of the year. Of course,
while it was in the Necropolis itself, the mummy had to
withstand the visits of grave plunderers (probably very
early on) and rodents: they caused a certain amount of
damage, but the conditions were nevertheless (it seems)
much more favourable for it to stand the test of time
than they are today.
At my suggestion, special investigations were made
during this examination of the mummy in June 1975. An
excellent radiographic study was made by Doctors El
Meligy and Ramsiys, and the examination of the interior
of the thorax, through a gap in the thoracic wall, was
carried out by Doctor Mustapha Manialawiy in addition to
an investigation of the abdomen. This was the first
example of endoscopy being applied to a mummy. This
technique enabled us to see and photograph some very
important details inside the body. Professor Ceccaldi
performed a general medico-legal study which will be
completed by an examination under the microscope of some
small fragments that spontaneously fell from the mummy's
body: this examination will be carried out by Professor
Mignot and Doctor Durigon. I regret to say that
definitive pronouncements cannot be made by the time this
book goes to print. [ November, 1975 for the First French edition.]
What may already be derived from this examination is
the discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad
lacunae, some of which may have been mortal-although it
is not yet possible to ascertain whether some of them
occurred before or after the Pharaoh's death. He most
probably died either from drowning, according to the
Scriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks
preceding the moment when he was drowned-or both at once.
The connection of these lesions with the deterioration
whose sources have been mentioned above renders the
correct preservation of the mummy of the Pharaoh somewhat
problematical, unless precautionary and restorative
measures are not taken very soon. These measures should
ensure that the only concrete evidence which we still
possess today concerning the death of the Pharaoh of the
Exodus and the rescue of his body, willed by God, does
not disappear with the passage of time.
It is always desirable for man to apply himself to the
preservation of relics of his history, but here we have
something which goes beyond that: it is the material
presence of the mummified body of the man who knew Moses,
resisted his pleas, pursued him as he took flight, lost
his life in the process. His earthly remains were saved
by the Will of God from destruction to become a sign to
man, as it is written in the Quran. [ The mummy of Ramesses II, who was another witness
to Moses's story, has been the subject of a study
comparable to the one carried out on the mummy of Merneptah; the same restoration work is required for it.]
Those who seek among modern data for proof of the
veracity of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent
illustration of the verses of the Quran dealing with the
Pharaoh's body by visiting the Royal Mummies Room of the
Egyptian Museum, Cairo!
Translators' Note:
The results of these medical studies carried out in
Cairo, 1976, were read by the author before several
French learned societies, including the 'Académie
Nationale de Médecine' (National Academy of Medecine),
during the first part of 1976. The knowledge of these
results led the Egyptian Authorities to take the decision
to transport the mummy of Ramesses II to France. Thus it
arrived for treatment in Paris on the 26th September
1976.
