What do you think?
Rate this book
Origins of the Hebrews: New Evidence of Israelites in Egypt from Joseph to the Exodus
An enormous amount of research and the synthesization of historical events and archaeological artifacts has led the author to verify Israelite residence in Egypt from 1876–1446 BC. This research is connected to the unexpected discovery of interconnecting archaeological, epigraphical, and iconographical evidence that attests to the presence of Israelites in Egypt over virtually the entire 430 years. By the sheer volume of verifiable evidence of complementary historical data—when comparing the biblical text and the artifactual and epigraphical record—the author attempts to demonstrate convincingly to objective readers that the biblical story of the Egyptian origins of the Israelite ‘nation’ is reliable as a factual account. Never again will students of the Bible have to listen to uninformed university professors denounce the story of Israelites in Egypt without a ready defense for its validity.
- GenresArchaeology
592 pages, Kindle Edition
Published December 7, 2021
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
July 13, 2023
I appreciate how vivid this book is making the lives of Jacob, Joseph, and the rest by comparing the Bible with archaeology and interpreting hieroglyphics. Some of the things in the book I’ve never heard of before. Some of the things in the book I don’t agree with, some I do agree with. Everybody has their own conclusions after they see and compare facts. We’ll each be right on some things and wrong on some things.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” Only God knows what is true.
This book shares some interesting facts to add to our own personal data bases so we can draw our own conclusions, and some day God will show us which ones we guessed right.
If you like to see the points from many sides so you can decide which makes the most sense to you, there are DVDs and books by Lennart Moller, Timothy Mahoney, and Del Tackett.
There seems to be a huge debate about which body of water the Israelites crossed when leaving Egypt, and it seems like everyone has a different, favorite body of water. It’s a good thing this happened in the desert, and not somewhere that had even more bodies of water.
Ecclesiastes 3:11 “He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.” Only God knows what is true.
This book shares some interesting facts to add to our own personal data bases so we can draw our own conclusions, and some day God will show us which ones we guessed right.
If you like to see the points from many sides so you can decide which makes the most sense to you, there are DVDs and books by Lennart Moller, Timothy Mahoney, and Del Tackett.
There seems to be a huge debate about which body of water the Israelites crossed when leaving Egypt, and it seems like everyone has a different, favorite body of water. It’s a good thing this happened in the desert, and not somewhere that had even more bodies of water.
April 2, 2022
This is a controversial topic in relation to conventional egyptology. However, I found that Dr. Petrovich explained his evidence and arguments very well. There are a lot of newer archeological finds in this book that I have not heard of before.
March 25, 2022
My wife, knowing how much I love reading and studying the ancient history of the Levant, and knowing that I'd read the author's previous book, got me a copy of this book as a birthday present this year -- and a very nice gift it is! In this book, the author sets out to demonstrate that there is clear and compelling archaeological and epigraphic evidence supporting what the Old Testament books of Genesis and Exodus say about the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt, their 430-year sojourn there, and the Exodus. Dr. Petrovich builds upon the prior chronological studies of Thiele and Young which have firmly established the correct regnal years of the ancient kings of Judah and Israel (Assyriologists even use Thiele's findings on biblical chronology to define Assyrian chronology), and then uses the chronological datum of I Kings 6:1 to place the date of Israel's founding event in the year 1446 B.C., during the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II of Dynasty XVIII (479+ years before Solomon built his Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem). Petrovich then uses Exodus 12:40-41 to conclude that 1876 B.C., during Dynasty XII, was the year when the Israelites migrated from Canaan to the eastern Nile Delta, which the Book of Genesis calls "the land of Rameses" -- a later name for the city that in 1876 B.C. was called Avaris, but was called Peru-nefer during the 1400s B.C.).
Petrovich notes that the appearance of the placename "Rameses" or "Raamses" in the biblical text has led many to believe that the Exodus could not have happened (if they believe it happened at all) until the 1200s B.C., during Dynasty XIX, when Pharaoh Ramses II engaged in extended building projects at Avaris, which he renamed after himself, Per-Ramesse. However, Petrovich shows that no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the Exodus or the existence of Israelites in Egypt has ever been found for the period of Dynasty XIX. In addition, an Exodus in the 1200s B.C. would contradict the Israelites' own ancient historical records and traditions as attested in I Kings 6:1 (not to mention a passage in Judges in which the Israelite suffete/judge Jephthah speaks of three centuries having elapsed from the Exodus until his own day). For these reasons, Petrovich advocates the correctness of the biblical chronological figure of 479+ years from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple, and argues that the appearance of the toponym "Rameses" in Genesis and Exodus is yet another example of the known practice of ancient scribal/editorial updating of the biblical text to replace an older, obsolete toponym (Peru-nefer) with one that would be known to later readers.
The bulk of Petrovich's book is a series of extended and very detailed presentations of the relevant archaeological and epigraphical data from Egypt and Sinai that would pertain to the time periods and locales indicated by the biblical text. Although it is specialists in the relevant fields of study who would be able properly to examine and criticise Petrovich's evidence and his interpretations of the evidence (this is, of course, a matter of great controversy, and many of Petrovich's peers may reject his conclusions or even dismiss his thesis without giving it a fair hearing or even bothering to read his book, as several of them did to Petrovich's first book), nevertheless one need not be a specialist in Egyptology and the archaeology, epigraphy, and languages of the Ancient Levant in order to follow Petrovich's arguments. However, for the average non-specialist reader much of those chapters will make for rather dry reading. A patient reading will prove rewarding however.
Though not a specialist myself -- in these matters I am merely an "amateur" in the literal sense of that word -- I do find Prof. Petrovich's thesis, generally speaking, to be cogently argued and quite convincing. While certain points or conclusions he reaches along the way could be dubious or wrong (criticism from his peers could discover such weaknesses), the overall weight of the converging lines of evidence he adduces makes for quite a strong case. Among the best supported of his conclusions is the identification of the Dynasty XII vizier Sobekemhat (who evidently was also called Sa-Sobek) as the biblical Joseph. It seems to me that it would strain credulity to argue that it is mere coincidence that there was a vizier with unique authority, bearing titles and doing things that match precisely what Moses wrote of Joseph, at the exact time when biblical chronology says that said vizier lived. Petrovich also proposes identifications of Joseph's two sons and of Joseph's father Jacob in Egyptian and Proto-Hebrew inscriptions. But perhaps one of the most remarkable aspect of Petrovich's thesis is his identification of possible archaeological evidence of the death of the firstborn and of the first Passover -- evidence that appears to date to the time when Peru-nefer (Avaris) was suddenly and mysteriously abandoned during the 1400s B.C. (probably during Amenhotep II's reign).
While my appraisal of this book is quite positive, I did note a few places along the way in which the author slips up, or where I found his argument less than compelling. Most of these are tangential to his point, or could be merely typos or things that slipped by the proofreader. For instance, on page 7 he mentions that Manetho is "the oldest source in which the name Menes appears." Before Manetho, though, Herodotus twice mentions "Men" as the 1st king of Egypt. That's got nothing to do with his thesis, though.
On p.97, he refers to villas that "could have been built during a reign subsequent to that of Thutmose II." From the context, though, I wonder if he meant Sesostris II.
I think there also might be a minor error or typo at the bottom of page 110, where he says, ". . . none of the Egyptians during those reigns were the legal property of the king . . ." I suspect that he meant "most" rather than "none".
On pp.168-9, I disagree with his argument that the biblical testimony requires the pharaoh who preceded the Exodus pharaoh to have reigned at least 40 years. I think the biblical text is unclear how much time elapsed between the death of that pharaoh and God's calling of Moses at Sinai. All we can be sure of is that the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (who must by chronological considerations have been Thutmose III) died during the course of Moses' 40 years of exile. It could have been shortly before the burning bush miracle or several years before, judging only from what Moses wrote and St. Stephen said.
I also don't think his argument regarding Manetho's authority on p.169 is particularly strong. Manetho may be broadly correct about Egyptian history and still be wrong on certain points or details. Mind you, it is surely significant that Manetho and Cheremon say the Exodus pharaoh was named Amenophis (the Grecianised form of Amenhotep), but some could argue that Manetho's lateness, the length of time between him and the Exodus, would allow for error to creep into the Egyptian historical tradition (though personally I doubt the Egyptians could *ever* have forgotten the Exodus pharaoh's identity, any more than the Israelites could ever have forgotten how long it had been since their founding event). Anyway, in the rest of that chapter he convincingly makes his case for Amenhotep II as Exodus pharaoh. His peer-reviewed paper on this subject, from which this chapter is derived and which I'd previously read, is beyond all doubt the best study that has ever been undertaken and published on this question.
On p.173, he says in passing that the Yam Suph that Israel crossed was not the Red Sea, but I Kings 9:26 and Jer. 49:21 indicate that Yam Suph was not merely in the general area of northeast Egypt/Goshen as the Book of Exodus shows, but also touched on Ezion-Geber and was near Edom. Evidently the body of water called Yam Suph not only includes the Gulf of Aqaba but also the Gulf of Suez, i.e. the Red Sea. The identification of Yam Suph as the Red Sea is very ancient and dates to no later than the third century B.C. -- and it's not the sort of thing the ancient Jewish people could ever have forgotten.
A final point of criticism regards how he reads Hatshepsut's inscription at Speos Artemidos in his Appendix 5. On p.226 toward the top, he says "she wrote that these foreign invaders demolished what the Egyptians previously had made . . ." But further on, toward the bottom of the page, he refers to foreigners who "had demolished what the non-Hyksos Asiatics (in the Delta) before them had made," and that Hatshepsut "attributed these Asiatics as being the workforce that reconstructed that which was inside Avaris . . ." However, judging from the translation he provides for that inscription, I am not sure it is clear that she attributed those Asiatics as being the workforce, though that interpretation is possible. Be that as it may, he is clearly correct that this inscription does prove the existence of non-Hyksos Asiatics at Avaris who were distinct from the Hyksos and continued to live in Avaris after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt. (And those Asiatics would be, Petrovich argues compellingly, Israelites rather than the Hyksos/Amorite pharaohs of Dynasty XV).
I look forward to hearing what other specialists in the relevant fields of study will have to say about Prof. Petrovich's interpretations, arguments, and conclusions.
Petrovich notes that the appearance of the placename "Rameses" or "Raamses" in the biblical text has led many to believe that the Exodus could not have happened (if they believe it happened at all) until the 1200s B.C., during Dynasty XIX, when Pharaoh Ramses II engaged in extended building projects at Avaris, which he renamed after himself, Per-Ramesse. However, Petrovich shows that no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the Exodus or the existence of Israelites in Egypt has ever been found for the period of Dynasty XIX. In addition, an Exodus in the 1200s B.C. would contradict the Israelites' own ancient historical records and traditions as attested in I Kings 6:1 (not to mention a passage in Judges in which the Israelite suffete/judge Jephthah speaks of three centuries having elapsed from the Exodus until his own day). For these reasons, Petrovich advocates the correctness of the biblical chronological figure of 479+ years from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple, and argues that the appearance of the toponym "Rameses" in Genesis and Exodus is yet another example of the known practice of ancient scribal/editorial updating of the biblical text to replace an older, obsolete toponym (Peru-nefer) with one that would be known to later readers.
The bulk of Petrovich's book is a series of extended and very detailed presentations of the relevant archaeological and epigraphical data from Egypt and Sinai that would pertain to the time periods and locales indicated by the biblical text. Although it is specialists in the relevant fields of study who would be able properly to examine and criticise Petrovich's evidence and his interpretations of the evidence (this is, of course, a matter of great controversy, and many of Petrovich's peers may reject his conclusions or even dismiss his thesis without giving it a fair hearing or even bothering to read his book, as several of them did to Petrovich's first book), nevertheless one need not be a specialist in Egyptology and the archaeology, epigraphy, and languages of the Ancient Levant in order to follow Petrovich's arguments. However, for the average non-specialist reader much of those chapters will make for rather dry reading. A patient reading will prove rewarding however.
Though not a specialist myself -- in these matters I am merely an "amateur" in the literal sense of that word -- I do find Prof. Petrovich's thesis, generally speaking, to be cogently argued and quite convincing. While certain points or conclusions he reaches along the way could be dubious or wrong (criticism from his peers could discover such weaknesses), the overall weight of the converging lines of evidence he adduces makes for quite a strong case. Among the best supported of his conclusions is the identification of the Dynasty XII vizier Sobekemhat (who evidently was also called Sa-Sobek) as the biblical Joseph. It seems to me that it would strain credulity to argue that it is mere coincidence that there was a vizier with unique authority, bearing titles and doing things that match precisely what Moses wrote of Joseph, at the exact time when biblical chronology says that said vizier lived. Petrovich also proposes identifications of Joseph's two sons and of Joseph's father Jacob in Egyptian and Proto-Hebrew inscriptions. But perhaps one of the most remarkable aspect of Petrovich's thesis is his identification of possible archaeological evidence of the death of the firstborn and of the first Passover -- evidence that appears to date to the time when Peru-nefer (Avaris) was suddenly and mysteriously abandoned during the 1400s B.C. (probably during Amenhotep II's reign).
While my appraisal of this book is quite positive, I did note a few places along the way in which the author slips up, or where I found his argument less than compelling. Most of these are tangential to his point, or could be merely typos or things that slipped by the proofreader. For instance, on page 7 he mentions that Manetho is "the oldest source in which the name Menes appears." Before Manetho, though, Herodotus twice mentions "Men" as the 1st king of Egypt. That's got nothing to do with his thesis, though.
On p.97, he refers to villas that "could have been built during a reign subsequent to that of Thutmose II." From the context, though, I wonder if he meant Sesostris II.
I think there also might be a minor error or typo at the bottom of page 110, where he says, ". . . none of the Egyptians during those reigns were the legal property of the king . . ." I suspect that he meant "most" rather than "none".
On pp.168-9, I disagree with his argument that the biblical testimony requires the pharaoh who preceded the Exodus pharaoh to have reigned at least 40 years. I think the biblical text is unclear how much time elapsed between the death of that pharaoh and God's calling of Moses at Sinai. All we can be sure of is that the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (who must by chronological considerations have been Thutmose III) died during the course of Moses' 40 years of exile. It could have been shortly before the burning bush miracle or several years before, judging only from what Moses wrote and St. Stephen said.
I also don't think his argument regarding Manetho's authority on p.169 is particularly strong. Manetho may be broadly correct about Egyptian history and still be wrong on certain points or details. Mind you, it is surely significant that Manetho and Cheremon say the Exodus pharaoh was named Amenophis (the Grecianised form of Amenhotep), but some could argue that Manetho's lateness, the length of time between him and the Exodus, would allow for error to creep into the Egyptian historical tradition (though personally I doubt the Egyptians could *ever* have forgotten the Exodus pharaoh's identity, any more than the Israelites could ever have forgotten how long it had been since their founding event). Anyway, in the rest of that chapter he convincingly makes his case for Amenhotep II as Exodus pharaoh. His peer-reviewed paper on this subject, from which this chapter is derived and which I'd previously read, is beyond all doubt the best study that has ever been undertaken and published on this question.
On p.173, he says in passing that the Yam Suph that Israel crossed was not the Red Sea, but I Kings 9:26 and Jer. 49:21 indicate that Yam Suph was not merely in the general area of northeast Egypt/Goshen as the Book of Exodus shows, but also touched on Ezion-Geber and was near Edom. Evidently the body of water called Yam Suph not only includes the Gulf of Aqaba but also the Gulf of Suez, i.e. the Red Sea. The identification of Yam Suph as the Red Sea is very ancient and dates to no later than the third century B.C. -- and it's not the sort of thing the ancient Jewish people could ever have forgotten.
A final point of criticism regards how he reads Hatshepsut's inscription at Speos Artemidos in his Appendix 5. On p.226 toward the top, he says "she wrote that these foreign invaders demolished what the Egyptians previously had made . . ." But further on, toward the bottom of the page, he refers to foreigners who "had demolished what the non-Hyksos Asiatics (in the Delta) before them had made," and that Hatshepsut "attributed these Asiatics as being the workforce that reconstructed that which was inside Avaris . . ." However, judging from the translation he provides for that inscription, I am not sure it is clear that she attributed those Asiatics as being the workforce, though that interpretation is possible. Be that as it may, he is clearly correct that this inscription does prove the existence of non-Hyksos Asiatics at Avaris who were distinct from the Hyksos and continued to live in Avaris after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt. (And those Asiatics would be, Petrovich argues compellingly, Israelites rather than the Hyksos/Amorite pharaohs of Dynasty XV).
I look forward to hearing what other specialists in the relevant fields of study will have to say about Prof. Petrovich's interpretations, arguments, and conclusions.
March 25, 2022
My wife, knowing how much I love reading and studying the ancient history of the Levant, and knowing that I'd read the author's previous book, got me a copy of this book as a birthday present this year -- and a very nice gift it is! In this book, the author sets out to demonstrate that there is clear and compelling archaeological and epigraphic evidence supporting what the Old Testament books of Genesis and Exodus say about the settlement of the Israelites in Egypt, their 430-year sojourn there, and the Exodus. Dr. Petrovich builds upon the prior chronological studies of Thiele and Young which have firmly established the correct regnal years of the ancient kings of Judah and Israel (Assyriologists even use Thiele's findings on biblical chronology to define Assyrian chronology), and then uses the chronological datum of I Kings 6:1 to place the date of Israel's founding event in the year 1446 B.C., during the reign of Pharaoh Amenhotep II of Dynasty XVIII (479+ years before Solomon built his Temple of the Lord in Jerusalem). Petrovich then uses Exodus 12:40-41 to conclude that 1876 B.C., during Dynasty XII, was the year when the Israelites migrated from Canaan to the eastern Nile Delta, which the Book of Genesis calls "the land of Rameses" -- a later name for the city that in 1876 B.C. was called Avaris, but was called Peru-nefer during the 1400s B.C.).
Petrovich notes that the appearance of the placename "Rameses" or "Raamses" in the biblical text has led many to believe that the Exodus could not have happened (if they believe it happened at all) until the 1200s B.C., during Dynasty XIX, when Pharaoh Ramses II engaged in extended building projects at Avaris, which he renamed after himself, Per-Ramesse. However, Petrovich shows that no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the Exodus or the existence of Israelites in Egypt has ever been found for the period of Dynasty XIX. In addition, an Exodus in the 1200s B.C. would contradict the Israelites' own ancient historical records and traditions as attested in I Kings 6:1 (not to mention a passage in Judges in which the Israelite suffete/judge Jephthah speaks of three centuries having elapsed from the perod of the Exodus until his own day). For these reasons, Petrovich advocates the correctness of the biblical chronological figure of 479+ years from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple, and argues that the appearance of the toponym "Rameses" in Genesis and Exodus is yet another example of the known practice of ancient scribal/editorial updating of the biblical text to replace an older, obsolete toponym (Peru-nefer) with one that would be known to later readers.
The bulk of Petrovich's book is a series of extended and very detailed presentations of the relevant archaeological and epigraphical data from Egypt and Sinai that would pertain to the time periods and locales indicated by the biblical text. Although it is specialists in the relevant fields of study who would be able properly to examine and criticise Petrovich's evidence and his interpretations of the evidence (this is, of course, a matter of great controversy, and many of Petrovich's peers may reject his conclusions or even dismiss his thesis without giving it a fair hearing or even bothering to read his book, as several of them did to Petrovich's first book), nevertheless one need not be a specialist in Egyptology and the archaeology, epigraphy, and languages of the Ancient Levant in order to follow Petrovich's arguments. However, for the average non-specialist reader much of those chapters will make for rather dry reading. A patient reading will prove rewarding however.
Though not a specialist myself -- in these matters I am merely an "amateur" in the literal sense of that word -- I do find Prof. Petrovich's thesis, generally speaking, to be cogently argued and quite convincing. While certain points or conclusions he reaches along the way could be dubious or wrong (criticism from his peers could discover such weaknesses), the overall weight of the converging lines of evidence he adduces makes for quite a strong case. Among the best supported of his conclusions is the identification of the Dynasty XII vizier Sobekemhat (who evidently was also called Sa-Sobek) as the biblical Joseph. It seems to me that it would strain credulity to argue that it is mere coincidence that there was a vizier with unique authority, bearing titles and doing things that match precisely what Moses wrote of Joseph, at the exact time when biblical chronology says that said vizier lived. Petrovich also proposes identifications of Joseph's two sons and of Joseph's father Jacob in Egyptian and Proto-Hebrew inscriptions. But perhaps one of the most remarkable aspect of Petrovich's thesis is his identification of possible archaeological evidence of the death of the firstborn and of the first Passover -- evidence that appears to date to the time when Peru-nefer (Avaris) was suddenly and mysteriously abandoned during the 1400s B.C. (probably during Amenhotep II's reign).
While my appraisal of this book is quite positive, I did note a few places along the way in which the author slips up, or where I found his argument less than compelling. Most of these are tangential to his point, or could be merely typos or things that slipped by the proofreader. For instance, on page 7 he mentions that Manetho is "the oldest source in which the name Menes appears." Before Manetho, though, Herodotus twice mentions "Men" as the 1st king of Egypt. That's got nothing to do with his thesis, though.
On p.97, he refers to villas that "could have been built during a reign subsequent to that of Thutmose II." From the context, though, I wonder if he meant Sesostris II.
I think there also might be a minor error or typo at the bottom of page 110, where he says, ". . . none of the Egyptians during those reigns were the legal property of the king . . ." I suspect that he meant "most" rather than "none".
On pp.168-9, I disagree with his argument that the biblical testimony requires the pharaoh who preceded the Exodus pharaoh to have reigned at least 40 years. I think the biblical text is unclear how much time elapsed between the death of that pharaoh and God's calling of Moses at Sinai. All we can be sure of is that the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (who must by chronological considerations have been Thutmose III) died during the course of Moses' 40 years of exile. It could have been shortly before the burning bush miracle or several years before, judging only from what Moses wrote and St. Stephen said.
I also don't think his argument regarding Manetho's authority on p.169 is particularly strong. Manetho may be broadly correct about Egyptian history and still be wrong on certain points or details. Mind you, it is surely significant that Manetho and Cheremon say the Exodus pharaoh was named Amenophis (the Grecianised form of Amenhotep), but some could argue that Manetho's lateness, the length of time between him and the Exodus, would allow for error to creep into the Egyptian historical tradition (though personally I doubt the Egyptians could *ever* have forgotten the Exodus pharaoh's identity, any more than the Israelites could ever have forgotten how long it had been since their founding event). Anyway, in the rest of that chapter he convincingly makes his case for Amenhotep II as Exodus pharaoh. His peer-reviewed paper on this subject, from which this chapter is derived and which I'd previously read, is beyond all doubt the best study that has ever been undertaken and published on this question.
On p.173, he says in passing that the Yam Suph that Israel crossed was not the Red Sea, but I Kings 9:26 and Jer. 49:21 indicate that Yam Suph was not merely in the general area of northeast Egypt/Goshen as the Book of Exodus shows, but also touched on Ezion-Geber and was near Edom. Evidently the body of water called Yam Suph not only includes the Gulf of Aqaba but also the Gulf of Suez, i.e. the Red Sea. The identification of Yam Suph as the Red Sea is very ancient and dates to no later than the third century B.C. -- and it's not the sort of thing the ancient Jewish people could ever have forgotten.
A final point of criticism regards how he reads Hatshepsut's inscription at Speos Artemidos in his Appendix 5. On p.226 toward the top, he says "she wrote that these foreign invaders demolished what the Egyptians previously had made . . ." But further on, toward the bottom of the page, he refers to foreigners who "had demolished what the non-Hyksos Asiatics (in the Delta) before them had made," and that Hatshepsut "attributed these Asiatics as being the workforce that reconstructed that which was inside Avaris . . ." However, judging from the translation he provides for that inscription, I am not sure it is clear that she attributed those Asiatics as being the workforce, though that interpretation is possible. Be that as it may, he is clearly correct that this inscription does prove the existence of non-Hyksos Asiatics at Avaris who were distinct from the Hyksos and continued to live in Avaris after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt. (And those Asiatics would be, Petrovich argues compellingly, Israelites rather than the Hyksos/Amorite pharaohs of Dynasty XV).
I look forward to hearing what other specialists in the relevant fields of study will have to say about Prof. Petrovich's interpretations, arguments, and conclusions.
Petrovich notes that the appearance of the placename "Rameses" or "Raamses" in the biblical text has led many to believe that the Exodus could not have happened (if they believe it happened at all) until the 1200s B.C., during Dynasty XIX, when Pharaoh Ramses II engaged in extended building projects at Avaris, which he renamed after himself, Per-Ramesse. However, Petrovich shows that no archaeological or epigraphic evidence for the Exodus or the existence of Israelites in Egypt has ever been found for the period of Dynasty XIX. In addition, an Exodus in the 1200s B.C. would contradict the Israelites' own ancient historical records and traditions as attested in I Kings 6:1 (not to mention a passage in Judges in which the Israelite suffete/judge Jephthah speaks of three centuries having elapsed from the perod of the Exodus until his own day). For these reasons, Petrovich advocates the correctness of the biblical chronological figure of 479+ years from the Exodus to Solomon's Temple, and argues that the appearance of the toponym "Rameses" in Genesis and Exodus is yet another example of the known practice of ancient scribal/editorial updating of the biblical text to replace an older, obsolete toponym (Peru-nefer) with one that would be known to later readers.
The bulk of Petrovich's book is a series of extended and very detailed presentations of the relevant archaeological and epigraphical data from Egypt and Sinai that would pertain to the time periods and locales indicated by the biblical text. Although it is specialists in the relevant fields of study who would be able properly to examine and criticise Petrovich's evidence and his interpretations of the evidence (this is, of course, a matter of great controversy, and many of Petrovich's peers may reject his conclusions or even dismiss his thesis without giving it a fair hearing or even bothering to read his book, as several of them did to Petrovich's first book), nevertheless one need not be a specialist in Egyptology and the archaeology, epigraphy, and languages of the Ancient Levant in order to follow Petrovich's arguments. However, for the average non-specialist reader much of those chapters will make for rather dry reading. A patient reading will prove rewarding however.
Though not a specialist myself -- in these matters I am merely an "amateur" in the literal sense of that word -- I do find Prof. Petrovich's thesis, generally speaking, to be cogently argued and quite convincing. While certain points or conclusions he reaches along the way could be dubious or wrong (criticism from his peers could discover such weaknesses), the overall weight of the converging lines of evidence he adduces makes for quite a strong case. Among the best supported of his conclusions is the identification of the Dynasty XII vizier Sobekemhat (who evidently was also called Sa-Sobek) as the biblical Joseph. It seems to me that it would strain credulity to argue that it is mere coincidence that there was a vizier with unique authority, bearing titles and doing things that match precisely what Moses wrote of Joseph, at the exact time when biblical chronology says that said vizier lived. Petrovich also proposes identifications of Joseph's two sons and of Joseph's father Jacob in Egyptian and Proto-Hebrew inscriptions. But perhaps one of the most remarkable aspect of Petrovich's thesis is his identification of possible archaeological evidence of the death of the firstborn and of the first Passover -- evidence that appears to date to the time when Peru-nefer (Avaris) was suddenly and mysteriously abandoned during the 1400s B.C. (probably during Amenhotep II's reign).
While my appraisal of this book is quite positive, I did note a few places along the way in which the author slips up, or where I found his argument less than compelling. Most of these are tangential to his point, or could be merely typos or things that slipped by the proofreader. For instance, on page 7 he mentions that Manetho is "the oldest source in which the name Menes appears." Before Manetho, though, Herodotus twice mentions "Men" as the 1st king of Egypt. That's got nothing to do with his thesis, though.
On p.97, he refers to villas that "could have been built during a reign subsequent to that of Thutmose II." From the context, though, I wonder if he meant Sesostris II.
I think there also might be a minor error or typo at the bottom of page 110, where he says, ". . . none of the Egyptians during those reigns were the legal property of the king . . ." I suspect that he meant "most" rather than "none".
On pp.168-9, I disagree with his argument that the biblical testimony requires the pharaoh who preceded the Exodus pharaoh to have reigned at least 40 years. I think the biblical text is unclear how much time elapsed between the death of that pharaoh and God's calling of Moses at Sinai. All we can be sure of is that the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (who must by chronological considerations have been Thutmose III) died during the course of Moses' 40 years of exile. It could have been shortly before the burning bush miracle or several years before, judging only from what Moses wrote and St. Stephen said.
I also don't think his argument regarding Manetho's authority on p.169 is particularly strong. Manetho may be broadly correct about Egyptian history and still be wrong on certain points or details. Mind you, it is surely significant that Manetho and Cheremon say the Exodus pharaoh was named Amenophis (the Grecianised form of Amenhotep), but some could argue that Manetho's lateness, the length of time between him and the Exodus, would allow for error to creep into the Egyptian historical tradition (though personally I doubt the Egyptians could *ever* have forgotten the Exodus pharaoh's identity, any more than the Israelites could ever have forgotten how long it had been since their founding event). Anyway, in the rest of that chapter he convincingly makes his case for Amenhotep II as Exodus pharaoh. His peer-reviewed paper on this subject, from which this chapter is derived and which I'd previously read, is beyond all doubt the best study that has ever been undertaken and published on this question.
On p.173, he says in passing that the Yam Suph that Israel crossed was not the Red Sea, but I Kings 9:26 and Jer. 49:21 indicate that Yam Suph was not merely in the general area of northeast Egypt/Goshen as the Book of Exodus shows, but also touched on Ezion-Geber and was near Edom. Evidently the body of water called Yam Suph not only includes the Gulf of Aqaba but also the Gulf of Suez, i.e. the Red Sea. The identification of Yam Suph as the Red Sea is very ancient and dates to no later than the third century B.C. -- and it's not the sort of thing the ancient Jewish people could ever have forgotten.
A final point of criticism regards how he reads Hatshepsut's inscription at Speos Artemidos in his Appendix 5. On p.226 toward the top, he says "she wrote that these foreign invaders demolished what the Egyptians previously had made . . ." But further on, toward the bottom of the page, he refers to foreigners who "had demolished what the non-Hyksos Asiatics (in the Delta) before them had made," and that Hatshepsut "attributed these Asiatics as being the workforce that reconstructed that which was inside Avaris . . ." However, judging from the translation he provides for that inscription, I am not sure it is clear that she attributed those Asiatics as being the workforce, though that interpretation is possible. Be that as it may, he is clearly correct that this inscription does prove the existence of non-Hyksos Asiatics at Avaris who were distinct from the Hyksos and continued to live in Avaris after the Hyksos were expelled from Egypt. (And those Asiatics would be, Petrovich argues compellingly, Israelites rather than the Hyksos/Amorite pharaohs of Dynasty XV).
I look forward to hearing what other specialists in the relevant fields of study will have to say about Prof. Petrovich's interpretations, arguments, and conclusions.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews