In archaeological site KV-5, in Egypt's Valley
of the Kings, archaeologist Kent Weeks found a bashed-in skull which, he
believes, might be that of Amenhirkhepeshef, the first-born son of Rameses II.
The latter is believed by many to be the hard-hearted pharaoh in the Bible's
account of the Exodus from Egypt.
The speculative problem the discovery presents is this: if, indeed, the skull is
that of Amenhirkhepeshef, and if, indeed, Amenhirkhepeshef was the first-born
son of Rameses II, and if, indeed, Rameses II was the pharaoh with whom Moses
contested, then the bashed-in skull conflicts with the story that we Jews tell
at our Passover seders about the "angel of death" passing over the
homes of the Egyptians and killing their first-born sons—the tenth, and final,
plague to convince the Egyptians to "let our people go."
Exodus 12:29-30, as rendered in the Stone Tanach, tells us: "It was at
midnight that Hashem smote every firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the
firstborn of Pharaoh sitting on his throne to the firstborn of the captive in
the dungeon, and every firstborn animal. Pharaoh rose up at midnight, he and all
his servants and all Egypt, and there was a great outcry in Egypt, for there was
not a house where there was no corpse."
In a footnote, the Stone Tanach, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, informs us
that "the Egyptian firstborn died because they had persecuted the Jews;
those of the captives died because they enjoyed Jewish suffering, or so that
they would not be able to claim that their idols had protected them.
Pharaoh, a firstborn, was spared, to tell all the world about God's
greatness."
What we don't know, from either the text or the footnote, is in what manner God
"smote" the firstborn. But, our sense of it, from the writing that the
deaths occurred at midnight, is that they died peacefully in their sleep. The
bashed-in skull, if it is Amenhirkhepeshef's, obviously conflicts with that
notion.
The Discovery Channel showed how the skull was cleaned, measured, and digitally
photographed by forensic anthropologist Caroline Wilkinson and an assistant, and
how the photos were then sent to another anthropologist, Prof. Susan Black, for
an independent evaluation. Black concluded that the person in question was about
30 years old. Based on the distances between nose and mouth, and between
other features of the face, she concluded that the skull belonged to someone who
was related to Rameses II, whose mummy is at the Cairo Museum. DNA testing
is pending, we are informed.
The Discovery Channel speculates that perhaps
it was Amenhirkhepeshef, not Rameses II who chased the Hebrews to the sea. As
the eldest son of the Pharaoh, Amenhirkhepeshef was the general of his armies.
Perhaps, he died in the battle. Perhaps, the Reed Sea was a marsh,
and instead of being swallowed up by waters, the Egyptian charioteers became
stuck in the marsh and were ambushed by the Israelites. Could the skull
found in tomb K-5 in the Valley of the Kings been brought back by his
grieving father for burial?
Despite what Rabbi Scherman said about pharaoh
being spared so that he could glorify God, did pharaoh instead cover up all that
had happened? The Discovery Channel suggests this is what occurred. As
"evidence" that this scenario is at least a possibility, it
reviewed inscriptions about the earlier Battle of Kadesh, in Syria, in
which the defending Hittites bested the invading Egyptian forces. If you were to
base your knowledge of that battle on what is written about it on the tombs,
you'd think that the Egyptians had won.
Rameses, according to the Discovery Channel's presentation, would have been
likely to cover up the "slave revolt" led by Moses. In other
speculation, the Discovery Channel suggested that Moses might have been an
Egyptian-born younger son of pharaoh, who was attracted to a monotheistic
"cult" which the pharaoh had tried unsuccessfully to stamp out.
As for the first nine plagues, it suggested, they could have resulted from the
Nile River being polluted by red earth washed down the Nile River system from
Ethiopia. The pollution would have driven the frogs from the river,
leading to an increase in the number of flies, lice, and so forth.
I can't help but wonder, if the Discovery Channel rejects the central premise of
the Exodus account—that this was the unfolding of God's will—why try to
account for other parts of the story, such as the plagues or the parting of the
sea? Besides the biblical account, there is no other historical record on
which to base the belief that any of these events occurred. Why pick and choose?
—Donald
H. Harrison
|