Amenhotep II And The Historicity Of The Exodus-Pharaoh -- By: Douglas Petrovich

Journal: Masters Seminary Journal
Volume: TMSJ 17:1 (Spring 2006)
Article: Amenhotep II And The Historicity Of The Exodus-Pharaoh
Author: Douglas Petrovich

Amenhotep II And The Historicity Of The Exodus-Pharaoh

Douglas Petrovicha

A belief in biblical inerrancy necessitates an accompanying belief in the Bible’s historical accuracy. Biblical history can be harmonized with Egyptian history, claims to the contrary notwithstanding. Israel’s exodus from Egypt in 1446 B.C. fits with the chronology of the 18th Dynasty pharaohs in Egyptian records. The tenth biblical plague against Egypt fits with what is known about the death of Amenhotep II’s firstborn son. If this Amenhotep was the exodus pharaoh, biblical data about the perishing of his army in the Red Sea should not be understood as an account of his death. His second Asiatic campaign very possibly came as an effort to recoup his reputation as a great warrior and recover Egypt’s slave-base after the loss of two million Israelite slaves through the exodus. The record of 3,600 Apiru on the booty list for his second Asiatic campaign appears to be a small number of the escaped Hebrews whom he recaptured and brought back to Egypt. If Hatshepsut is identified with the biblical Moses’ adoptive mother, attempts to erase her memory from Egyptian records may have come from efforts of Amenhotep II because of her part in rescuing Moses when he was a baby and becoming his adoptive mother. Such scenarios show the plausibility of harmonizing the biblical account of the exodus with secular history and supporting the position of biblical inerrancy.

* * * * *

I. Introduction

Historical accuracy has been and is a major issue in attacks on the inerrancy of the Bible. Ladd’s words reveal his yielding to such an attack: “[T]he authority of the Word of God is not dependent upon infallible certainty in all matters of history and criticism.”1 A recent revisionistic version of Israel’s history has questioned the Bible’s account of that history.2 A prime example is the words of Finkelstein, who speaks of “the rise of the true national state in Judah [in the eighth century BC]. . . . That national state produced a historical saga so powerful that it led biblical historians and archaeologists alike to recreate its mythical past—from stones and

potsherds.”3 Such attacks on biblical inerrancy necessitate a reasoned defense of the Bible’s historical accuracy. Lindsell writes, “When inerrancy is lost, it is palpably easy to drift into a mood in which the historicity of Scripture along with inerrancy is lost.”You must have a subscription and be logged in to read the entire article.
Click here to subscribe

visitor : : uid: ()