Amenemhat IV & Sobekneferu of 12th Dynasty Egypt were the Pharaoh & Queen who saw the 10 Plagues & Exodus

 

 

This is the transcript of my Youtube video with the same title.

The Ipuwer Papyrus was originally dated no earlier than the Nineteenth Dynasty, but it is now agreed that the text itself is much older, and dated back to the Middle Kingdom, though no earlier than the late Twelfth Dynasty. Now the Middle Kingdom happens to end with the Twelfth Dynasty, and this means that the Ipuwer Papyrus is effectively dated between the late period of the Twelfth Dynasty and its end. Ipuwer has often been put forward in popular literature as confirmation of the Biblical account of the Exodus, most notably because of its statement that "the river is blood" and its frequent references to servants running away.  

In the poem, Ipuwer – a name typical of the period between 1850 BC to 1450 BC – demands that the Lord of All (a title which can be applied both to the king and to the creator sun-god) should destroy his enemies and remember his religious duties. This period between 1850 BC to 1450 BC is interesting because in my previous video titled “2033 - God's Final Jubilee & the 2nd Coming of Christ! Part 1” I dated the year of the Exodus from Egypt at 1487 BC. This supports the belief that the Ipuwer Papyrus is about the Exodus that occurred during the Twelfth Dynasty. In this video, I will now identify the Twelfth Dynasty Pharaoh and Queen that saw the Ten Plagues and the Exodus.

Exodus 1: 8-11 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we:

Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land.

Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built (Hebrew: baw-naw') for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses.

Because one of the cities built for the Pharaoh mentioned in Exodus 1: 11 was named Raamses, many scholars hastily conclude that the Pharaoh must have been the Nineteenth Dynasty Pharaoh Ramesses II who built Pi-Ramesses (meaning "House of Ramesses) as his new capital, near the old site of Avaris.

Now the Hebrew word baw-naw' (which means “to build”)   that was used in Exodus 1: 11, was also used in 1 Kings 6: 1 and I quote: “in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build (Hebrew: baw-naw') the temple of the Lord” end of quote. Now beginning to build the temple of the Lord implies laying down its foundation first. Therefore, the Hebrew word baw-naw' implies that the builder of a city or any structure for that matter must also be its original founder. 

In contrast, the Hebrew word khaw-dash' which means “to be new, renew, repair” was used in 2 Chronicles 24: 4 and I quote “Some time later Joash decided to restore (Hebrew: khaw-dash') the temple of the Lord.”  In my opinion, Exodus 1: 11 should have used khaw-dash' if its intended meaning was to build something new on a preexisting old site like what Ramesses II did to Avaris.

Now Avaris was originally founded by the first Pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty, Amenemhat I, on the eastern branch of the Nile in the Delta. Its close proximity to Asia made it a popular town for Asiatic immigrants. Many of these immigrants were from Palestine and they were culturally Egyptianized, using Egyptian pottery, but also retained many aspects of their own culture, as can be seen from the various Asiatic burials including weapons of Syro-Palestinian origin. These Asiatic immigrants during the reign of Amenemhat I, in my opinion, must have included the children of Israel.

Thus, I believe, the Pharaoh mentioned in Exodus 1: 8-11 who was alarmed by the great and increasing number and might of Israeli immigrants in Egypt was Amenemhat I who was probably the same as the vizier named Amenemhat under his predecessor Mentuhotep IV, and who possibly overthrew him from power. Note also that Amenemhat I was not of royal lineage, and not related to the Pharaoh who preceded him. And for me, this explains why Exodus 1: 8 described him as “a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph”.  

But you might ask, if the city was named Avaris at the time of the Exodus during the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt, why did the Bible name it Raamses instead which was the name of the new capital of the 19th Dynasty Pharaoh Ramesses II? Keep in mind that the oldest extant Tanakh manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are dated circa 650–587 BC, which is several hundred years after the Exodus. And Bible translators and copyists are known to change the original name of a Biblical location to the name currently known to them during their time. One case in point is Genesis 2:14 which mentioned two rivers named “hiddeqel” and “perat” in its original Hebrew, but which were named “Tigris” and “Euphrates” instead by the 3rd century BC Jewish translators of the Greek Septuagint.

The other city named in Exodus 1:11 was Pithom which literally means "House (or temple) of Atum". Atum is the primordial god in Egyptian mythology from whom all else arose. He created himself and is the father of Shu and Tefnut, the divine couple, who are the ancestors of the other Egyptian deities. Atum is also closely associated with the evening sun. I believe Atum was the “Lord of All” referred to in the Ipuwer papyrus which I mentioned earlier at the start of this video.

His center of worship centered on the city of Heliopolis which was one of the oldest cities of ancient Egypt, occupied since the Predynastic Period. In other words, Heliopolis was founded much earlier than the Twelfth Dynasty of Amenemhat I. It is now located in Ayn Shams, a northeastern district of Cairo. 

El Matareya is a district in the Eastern Area of Cairo, and located nearby Ayn Shams (or the former Heliopolis), about 11.8 km away. The El Masalla area of the El Matareya district contains the ancient Masalla Obelisk, one of the Pharaonic era obelisks that still remain in Egypt. This obelisk is standing in its original position, and part of the great Temple of Ra-Atum constructed by the second Pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty Senusret I, who succeeded Amenemhat I. Now while Senusret I constructed the great Temple of Atum (or “Pithom”) and its obelisk, I believe Amenemhat I may have been the original founder and the first one who built a city in El Matareya, which I believe was named Pithom in Exodus 1: 11.

In 2004 a domed tomb made for a priest during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty (circa 685 BC - 525 BC), was discovered under a construction site in El Masalla area where Senusret I’s obelisk is standing. Now remember that the oldest extant Tanakh manuscripts of the Hebrew Bible are dated circa 650–587 BC, which was during the Twenty-sixth Dynasty period. This proves that the “House (or Temple) of Atum'' called Pithom by Exodus 1: 11 was still being used and known by this name at the time the earliest copy of the Exodus was made. 

I mentioned earlier that I dated the year of the Exodus from Egypt at 1487 BC. However, the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt is dated by historians between 1991 BC – 1802 BC which is at least 315 years earlier than when I believe the Exodus took place. So how do I justify this big discrepancy? 

In my previous video titled “Solomon's Gold Mines in Ophir & Ancient Egypt's Land of Punt were in the Indus Valley Civilization!” I argued that Egyptologists dated the reign of the Tenth Pharaoh of the Eighteenth Dynasty Akhenaten, 364 years too early. And by subtracting 364 years from the dates given by Egyptologists to the Twelfth Dynasty, we get a corrected period of 1627 BC - 1438 BC, which now includes the 1487 BC date I gave for the time of the Exodus. 

Towards the end of this video, I will post an excerpt of my astronomical proof for this claim. But for now, allow me to discuss several reasons why the Pharaohs and the events of the Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt best suit the narrative in the Book of Exodus. 

In Exodus 2: 5-10 we are introduced to a certain Pharaoh’s daughter and her discovery of the Hebrew child, Moses in the Nile River and her willful defiance of her father's orders that all male Hebrew children should be drowned in the Nile. Instead she took the child, whom she knows to be a Hebrew, and raised him as her own son. 

The historian Josephus, in his work “Antiquities of the Jews - Book II, Chapter 9 verses 5- 7”,  tells us that the Pharaoh’s daughter, whom Josephus named Thermuthis, was the Pharaoh’s successor, so much so that by adopting Moses as her own son, Thermuthis claimed that Moses will become an heir of the Pharaoh's throne.

Neferuptah was a daughter of the sixth Pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty, Amenemhat III. Her younger sister was Sobekneferu who would eventually become the eighth and last Pharaoh of that dynasty. Neferuptah is one of the first royal women whose name was written inside a cartouche. Although she never had the title 'king's wife', she must have had a special status; and it is possible that she was regarded as a future ruler and successor of her father Amenemhat III. In my opinion, Neferuptah fits the description of the Pharaoh’s daughter as written both in the book of Exodus, as well as in Josephus’ historical account.

Amenemhat IV was the seventh Pharaoh of the Twelfth Dynasty, who succeeded Amenemhat III. This means Neferuptah, who was originally the presumptive successor of her father Amenemhat III, must have died before Amenemhat III and Amenemhat IV. The historian Manetho states that Amenemhat IV married his “sister” Sobekneferu, who I mentioned earlier was the younger sister of Neferuptah, and who would eventually become the successor of Amenemhat IV. 

However, Egyptologist Kim Ryholt has proposed that Amenemhat IV was just adopted by Amenemhat III and not Amenemhat III’s natural son, thus becoming Sobekneferu's step brother. This could explain the Manethonian tradition of Amenemhat IV marrying his “sister” Sobekneferu. It also explains why Sobekneferu, the younger sister of Neferuptah, became an heir presumptive of Amenemhat III upon Neferuptah’s early death and before she married Amenemhat IV and before Amenemhat IV became Amenemhat III’s adopted son. More plausibly, Amenemhat IV may have died without a male heir, which could explain why he was succeeded by his wife Sobekneferu. Finally, the tomb of Amenemhat IV has not been identified. 

The Thirteenth Dynasty, which succeeded the Twelfth upon the end of Sobekneferu’s reign, is usually described as an era of chaos and disorder. This period was undoubtedly characterized by decline, with a large number of kings with short reigns and only a few attestations. The true chronology of the Thirteenth Dynasty is difficult to determine as there are few monuments dating from the period.

Egyptologists date the end of Amenemhat IV’s reign (who I believe was the Pharaoh who saw the Ten Plagues and the Exodus) at 1806 BC. If I deduct 364 years from this date (to correct the error in dating Akhenaten’s reign that was 364 years too early), we get 1442 BC as the year of his death, and therefore of the Exodus. However, as I mentioned earlier, I dated the Exodus at 1487 BC instead, which is 45 years earlier than 1442 BC. So how do I account for this difference?

The Turin Canon is believed to assign a reign of 19 years to Senusret II and 30 years of reign to Senusret III. However, current Egyptian Chronology gave Senusret III 39 years reign instead, or an excess of 9 years. This traditional view was challenged when the Egyptologist William Kelly Simpson observed that the latest attested regnal year for Senusret II was his 7th, and similarly for Senusret III his 19th. If William Kelly Simpson is correct, and I agree with him, this means Senusret II’s reign (according to current Egyptian chronology) is 12 years too long, while Senusret III’s reign is 20 years too long making the Twelfth Dynasty chronology 32 years too late starting with Senusret II.  

Current Egyptian chronology lists Mentuhotep IV as the last king of the Eleventh Dynasty. It is possible that he was a son of Mentuhotep II, thus a brother or half-brother of Mentuhotep III, his supposed predecessor. The fact that he has been omitted from several king lists indicates that there was a crisis in the order of succession. While he represents the last king of the eleventh dynasty, his reign is poorly documented indicating turmoil. 

In my opinion, Mentuhotep IV was not a legitimate Pharaoh of the Eleventh Dynasty, but a pretender to the throne of Mentuhotep III only. Thus, the seven years assigned to his reign coming after Mentuhotep III’s reign should coincide instead with the last seven years of Mentuhotep III. But because current Egyptian chronology assigned Mentuhotep IV’s seven years reign after Mentuhotep III’s reign, this means the Twelfth Dynasty that followed Mentuhotep IV’s reign is dated seven years too late.

Contemporary records refer to "seven empty years" following the death of Mentuhotep III, which correspond to the reign of Mentuhotep IV. In my opinion, the “seven empty years” of Mentuhotep III were the last seven years of his reign, during which Mentuhotep III was sidelined by the pretender of his throne Mentuhotep IV. 

Intef I is the third Pharaoh of the Eleventh Dynasty whose reign is estimated between 4 to 16 years. This allows a possible maximum error of 12 years late dating of the reigns of Pharaohs starting with Intef I onwards. Adding up all the errors in dating I have discussed so far, I have already accounted for between as low as 39 years to as high as 51 years late dating of Amenemhat IV’s final year (believed to be 1442 BC instead of the 1487 BC which I expected). 

For me, Amenemhat IV is the ideal candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus if ever there is one. His body and tomb were not found, presumably because he drowned in the Red Sea and his corpse was not recovered. His queen Sobekneferu succeeded him, presumably because their firstborn son died earlier leaving him with no male heir. 

The Twelfth Dynasty was in decline by the time of Sobekneferu's accession, probably caused by the plagues that visited Egypt and the overwhelming defeat of the Egyptian army in the hands of the children of Israel. But more importantly, the end of Amenemhat IV’s reign closely matches my dating of the year of the Exodus (that is, after applying the 364 years correction of Akhenaten’s faulty reign dating as well as the other corrections I just discussed). And to add to all these is the Ipuwer Papyrus that is seen as proof of the Exodus by many Bible scholars, and conclusively dated by Egyptologists during the Twelfth Dynasty which was when Amenemhat IV reigned.

Prior to the Exodus, Joseph, son of Jacob and Rachel, became Vizier (the highest official in ancient Egypt to serve the Pharaoh) under the name of Zaphnath-Paaneah and was given Asenath, the daughter of Potipherah, priest of On, to be his wife. In his famous interpretation of the Pharaoh’s dream, Joseph predicted seven years of abundance followed by seven years of famine happening in Egypt during his time. 

I identify Ankhtifi, a nomarch or provincial governor of Nekhen as the historical Joseph during the Ninth Dynasty of Egypt. Ankhtifi and Joseph had a very similar story. I will be discussing this topic in my next video.  

 

And as promised earlier, I will now append an excerpt of my previous video titled  “Solomon's Gold Mines in Ophir & Ancient Egypt's Land of Punt were in the Indus Valley Civilization!” that discusses an astronomical proof for my claim that Akhenaten’s reign was dated 364 years too early:

In my previous video titled “Nefertiti - The Queen of Sheba”, I argued that Akhenaten’s historical reign (circa 1351 to 1334 BC) was dated more than 300 years too early by Egyptologists. This was caused by an erroneous interpretation of the KTU 1.78 astronomical text which Egyptologists used to date Akhenaten’s reign. This tablet mentions a solar eclipse in Ugarit which they dated May 3, 1375 BC. However, a very similar eclipse occurred on April 29, 1011 BC which I believe was the correct one instead. Let me explain and prove to you why. 

Using Stellarium and setting the Algorithm of delta T to JPL Horizons, the location to Ugarit with coordinates 35°  36' 07.2"N, 35° 46' 55.2"E, the date to May 3, 1375 BC (or -1374 in astronomical year numbering) and at 3:51:45 UTC, one can see a solar eclipse in Taurus with maximum solar obscuration of 95.81% occurring 55 minutes after sunrise. 

Now using Stellarium and setting the Algorithm of delta T to JPL Horizons, the location to Ugarit with coordinates 35° 36' 07.2"N, 35° 46' 55.2"E, but the date to April 29, 1011 BC (or -1010 in astronomical year numbering) and at 5:09:30 UTC instead, one can see a solar eclipse also in Taurus with maximum solar obscuration of 73.71% occurring 2 hours 11 minutes after sunrise, or only 1 hour 16 minutes later than the May 3, 1375 BC eclipse. 

Furthermore, May 3, 1375 BC and April 29, 1011 BC were both Nisan 30 of their corresponding years. Except that the April 29, 1011 BC eclipse happened 364 years after the May 3, 1375 BC eclipse. Now why do I think April 29, 1011 BC was the correct date for the eclipse? The english translation of the KTU 1.78 astronomical text is as follows:

SIX.DAY.NEW MOON.HIYYARU

ENTER.SUN.HER GATE.RESHEP

This astro-shorthand is believed to be written by an Egyptian and should be interpreted as hour six, day of the new moon of Hiyyaru when the sun entered into Hathor's (Her) Gate in Taurus (Reshep). Now what is hour six in ancient Egypt? It actually refers to the 6th Decan. The ancient Egyptians conveniently divided the 360 degree ecliptic into 36 parts of 10 degrees each, and the decans each appeared, geocentrically, to rise consecutively on the horizon throughout each daily earth rotation. The rising of each decan marked the beginning of a new decanal "hour". 

On the May 3, 1375 BC eclipse, the last decanal hour to rise above the horizon during the eclipse was the 4th Decan corresponding to 40° Right Ascension as measured from the First Point of Aries. During the April 29, 1011 BC eclipse, the last decanal hour to rise above the horizon during the eclipse was the 6th Decan corresponding to 60° Right Ascension. And the KTU 1.78 astronomical text specifically said that it was during the 6th Decan, not the 4th, that the recorded eclipse was observed. Thus, there can be no doubt about it, the April 29, 1011 BC eclipse was the one described in the KTU 1.78 astronomical text. 

Subtracting 364 years from the current historical dating of Akhenaten’s reign, we get the corrected period of 987 to 970 BC instead. And this makes Akhenaten a contemporary of King David (circa 1010 to 970 BC) as well as King Solomon (circa 970 to 931 BC). Now according to Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews 8:165 to 173), the Queen of Sheba (a believer of the God of Israel) was the queen of Egypt and Ethiopia. I believe Nertiti, the wife of the monotheist Pharaoh Akhenaten, and contemporary of King Solomon, was the legendary Queen of Sheba. 

Note also that Akhenaten’s reign ended in 970 BC just when Solomon’s reign started. This means Nefertiti was no longer Queen of Egypt when she met King Solomon, but was already known as the Queen of Sheba (believed to be Saba, Ethiopia) after presumably marrying the King of Ethiopia soon after Akhenaten died.