Qur’anic and Biblical Narrations

General Outlines

A large number of subjects dealt with in the Bible arealso found in the Qur’an. Firstly, there are narrationsreferring to the Prophets; Noah, Abraham, Joseph, Elias,Jonah, Job and Moses; the Kings of Israel; Saul, David,Solomon-to name just some of the main narrations theyshare in common. There then follow more specific accountsof great events in the course of which the supernaturalhas intervened, e.g. the Creation of the Earth andHeavens, the Creation of Man, the Flood, the Exodus.Finally, there is all that has to do with Jesus and Hismother Mary as far as it concerns the New Testament.

What reflections do the subjects dealt with in the twoScriptures provoke when viewed in the light of our modernknowledge of them from extra-Scriptural sources?

Parallel: Qur’an/Gospel and Modem Knowledge.

With regard to the parallel of Qur’an/Gospels, onemust first note that none of the subjects referred to inthe Gospels, which were criticized from a scientificpoint of view (see Part Two of this book), is quoted inthe Qur’an.

Jesus is referred to many times in the Qur’ an, e.g.Mary’s annunciation of the nativity to his father, theannunciation of the miraculous nativity to Mary, Jesus’sstature as a Prophet of the highest order, His role as aMessiah, the Revelation He directs to Man which confirmsand modifies the Torah, His preachings, His disciples andapostles, the miracles, His Ascension to God, His role inthe Last Judgment, etc.

Suras 3 and 19 of the Qur’an (the second of whichbears Mary’s name) devote long passages to Jesus’sfamily. They describe His mother Mary’s nativity, heryouth and the annunciation of her miraculous motherhood.Jesus is always called ‘Son of Mary’. His ancestry isexclusively given with regard to His mother’s side, whichis quite logical since Jesus had no biological father.Here the Qur’an differs from Matthew’s and Luke’sGospels: as we have already seen, they give the paternalgenealogies of Jesus which are, moreover, different fromeach other.

In the Qur’an, Jesus is placed according to Hismaternal genealogy in the line of Noah, Abraham, andMary’s father (Imran in the Qur’an):

–sura 3, verses 33 and 34:”God chose Adam, Noah, the family of Abraham and thefamily of Imran above all His creatures, as descendantsone from another.”

So Jesus is descended from Noah and Abraham on Hismother Mary’s side, and from her father Imran. The errorsmade in the naming of the ‘ancestors of Jesus’ found inthe Gospels are not present in the Qur’an, nor are theimpossibilities in the genealogies contained in the OldTestament of Abraham’s ancestry, both of which wereexamined in the first and second parts of this book.

Once again, this fact must be noted if one is to beobjective, and yet again its great importance appearsvery clearly in the face of the unfounded statementswhich are made claiming that Muhammad, the author of theQur’an, largely copied the Bible. One wonders in thatcase who or what reason compelled him to avoid copyingthe passages the Bible contains on Jesus’s ancestry, andto insert at this point in the Qur’an the correctionsthat put his text above any criticism from modernknowledge. The Gospels and Old Testament texts are quitethe opposite; from this point of view they are totallyunacceptable.

Parallel: Qur’an/ Old Testament and Modem Knowledge.

In the case of the Old Testament, certain aspects ofthis parallel have already been dealt with. The Creationof the world, for example, was the subject of a criticalstudy made in the Old Testament section of this book. Thesame subject was examined with regard to the Qur’anicRevelation. Comparisons were made and there is no need tocover this ground again.

It seems that historical knowledge is too vague andarchaeological data too scarce for parallels to beestablished in the light of modern knowledge on problemsconcerning the Kings of Israel, who form the subject ofnarrations in both the Qur’an and the Bible.

Whether or not one can tackle the problem of theProphets in the light of modern data depends on theextent to which the events described have left traceswhich may or may not have come down to us.

There are however two subjects dealt with in both theQur’an and the Bible which should command our attentionand which need to be examined in the light of modernknowledge. They are as follows:–the Flood, –the Exodus.

–The first because it has not left traces in thehistory of civilization which support the Biblicalnarration, whereas modern data do not permit us tocriticize the narration contained in the Qur’an.–The second because the Biblical and Qur’anic narrationsevidently complement each other in their broad outlines,and modern data seem to provide both of them withremarkable historical support.

The Flood

The Biblical Narration of the Flood and the CriticismLeveled at It- A Reminder.

The examination of the Old Testament description ofthe Flood in the first part of this book led to thefollowing observations:There is not just one description of the Flood, but two,written at different times;

–the Yahvist version which dates from the Ninthcentury B.C.

–the Sacerdotal version dating from the Sixth centuryB.C., so called because it was the work of priests of thetime.

These two narrations are not juxtaposed, butinterwoven so that part of one is fitted in-between partsof the other, i.e. paragraphs from one source alternatewith passage from the other.

The commentary to the translation of Genesis by Fatherde Vaux, a professor at the Biblical School of Jerusalem,shows very clearly how the paragraphs are distributedbetween the two sources. The narration begins and endswith a Yahvist passage. There are ten Yahvist paragraphsaltogether and between each one a Sacerdotal passage hasbeen inserted (there are a total of nine Sacerdotalparagraphs). This mosaic of texts is only coherent whenread from a point of view which takes the succession ofepisodes into account, since there are blatantcontradictions between the two sources. Father de Vauxdescribes them as “two accounts of the Flood, inwhich the cataclysm is caused by different agents andlasts different lengths of time, and where Noah receivesinto the Ark a different number of animals.”

When seen in the light of modern knowledge, theBiblical description of the Flood as a whole isunacceptable for the following reasons:

a) The Old Testament ascribes to it the character of auniversal cataclysm.

b) Whereas the paragraphs from the Yahvist text do notdate the Flood, the Sacerdotal text situates it at apoint in time where a cataclysm of this kind could nothave occurred.

The following are arguments supporting this opinion:The Sacerdotal narration states quite precisely that theFlood took place when Noah was 600 years old. Accordingto the genealogies in chapter 5 of Genesis (also takenfrom the Sacerdotal text and quoted in the first part ofthis book), we know that Noah is said to have been born1,056 years after Adam. Consequently, the Flood wouldhave taken place 1,655 years after the creation of Adam.The genealogical table of Abraham moreover, taken fromthe same text and given in Genesis (11, 10-32), allows usto estimate that Abraham was born 292 years after theFlood. As we know that (according to the Bible) Abrahamwas alive in roughly 1850 B.C., the Flood would thereforebe situated in the Twenty-first or Twenty-second centuryB.C. This calculation is in strict keeping with theinformation in old editions of the Bible which figuresprominently at the head of the Biblical text.

This was at a time when the lack of human knowledge onthe subject was such that the chronological datacontained in the Bible were accepted without question byits readers-for want of any arguments to the contrary. [ Now that certain notions concerning the chronologyof ancient times have been established, and the imaginarydates given by the authors of the Sacerdotal text of theOld Testament are no longer credible, those dates havequickly been suppressed in Bibles. In the case of thosegenealogies that have been preserved, modern commentatorsof books intended for mass publication fail to draw thereaders’ attention to the errors they contain.]

How is it possible to conceive today of a universalcataclysm in the Twenty-first or Twenty-second centuryB.C. which destroyed life on all the earth’s surface(except for the people and animals in the Ark)? By thistime, civilizations had flourished in several parts ofthe globe, and their vestiges have now come down toposterity. In Egypt at this time, for example, theIntermediate Period followed the end of the Old Kingdomand preceded the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. In viewof our knowledge of the history of this period, it wouldbe absurd to maintain that the Flood had destroyed allcivilization at this time.

Thus It may be affirmed from a historical point ofview that the narration of the Flood as it is presentedin the Bible is in evident contradiction with modernknowledge. The formal proof of man’s manipulation of theScriptures is the existence of the two texts.

The Narration of the Flood Contained in the Qur’an.

The Qur’an gives a general version which is differentfrom that contained in the Bible and does not give riseto any criticisms from a historical point of view.

It does not provide a continuous narration of theFlood. Numerous suras talk of the punishment inflictedupon Noah’s people. The most complete account of this isin sura 11, verses 25 to 49. Sura 71, which bears Noah’sname, describes above all Noah’s preachings, as do verses105 to 115, sura 26. Before going into the actual coursetaken by events, we must consider the Flood as describedin the Qur’ an by relating it to the general context ofthe punishment God inflicted on communities guilty ofgravely infringing His Commandments.

Whereas the Bible describes a universal Flood intendedto punish ungodly humanity as a whole, the Qur’an, incontrast, mentions several punishments inflicted oncertain specifically defined communities.

This may be seen in verses 35 to 39, sura 25:”We gave Moses the Scripture and appointed hisbrother Aaron with him as vizier. We said: Go to thepeople who have denied Our signs. We destroyed themcompletely. When the people of Noah denied theMessengers, We drowned them and We made of them a signfor mankind. (We destroyed the tribes) of Âd and Tamud,the companions of Rass and many generations between them.We warned each of them by examples and We annihilatedthem completely.”

Sura 7, verses 59 to 93 contains a reminder of thepunishments brought upon Noah’s people, the Âd, theTamud, Lot (Sodom) and Madian respectively.

Thus the Qur’an presents the cataclysm of the Flood asa punishment specifically intended for Noah’s people:this is the first basic difference between the twonarrations.

The second fundamental difference is that the Qur’an,in contrast to the Bible, does not date the Flood in timeand gives no indication as to the duration of thecataclysm itself.

The causes of the flooding are roughly the same inboth narrations. The Sacerdotal description in the Bible(Genesis 7, 11) cites two causes which occurredsimultaneously. “On that day all the fountains ofthe great deep burst forth, and the windows of theheavens were opened.” The Qur’an records thefollowing in verses 11 and 12, sura 54:

“We opened the Gates of Heaven with pouringwater. And We caused the ground to gush forth springs, sothe waters met according to the decree which has beenordained.”

The Qur’an is very precise about the contents of theArk. The order God gave to Noah was faithfully executedand it was to do the following:

–sura 11, verse 40:”(In the Ark) load a pair of every kind, thy family,save this one against whom the word has already goneforth, and those who believe. But only a few had believedwith him.”

The person excluded from the family is an outcast sonof Noah. We learn (sura 11, verses 45 and 46) how Noah’ssupplications on this person’s behalf to God were unableto make Him alter His decision. Apart from Noah’s family(minus the outcast son), the Qur’an refers to the fewother passengers on board the Ark who had believed inGod.

The Bible does not mention the latter among theoccupants of the Ark. In fact, it provides us with threedifferent versions of the Ark’s contents:–according to the Yahvist version, a distinction is madebetween ‘pure’ animals and birds, and ‘impure’ animals(seven [ Surely ‘seven’ here indicates ‘many’, as it oftendoes in the Semitic languages of the time.] pairs, i.e. seven malesand seven females, of each ‘pure’ species, was taken intothe Ark and only one pair of each ‘impure’ species).

-according to a modified Yahvist verse (Genesis 7, 8)there was only one pair of each species, whether ‘pure’or ‘impure’. -according to the Sacerdotal version, therewas Noah, his family (with no exceptions) and a pairtaken from each species.

The narration in the Qur’an of the flooding itself iscontained in sura 11, verses 25 to 49 and in sura 23,verses 23 to 30. The Biblical narrative does not presentany important differences.

In the Bible, the place where the Ark comes to rest isin the Ararat Mountains (Genesis 8, 4) and for the Qur’anit is the Judi (sura 11, verse 44.) This mountainis said to be the highest of the Ararat range in Armenia,but nothing proves that the names were not changed by manto tally with the two narratives. This is confirmed by R.Blachère: according to him there is a peak in Arabianamed Judi. The agreement of names may well beartificial.

In conclusion, it is possible to state categoricallywhat major differences exist here between the Biblicaland Qur’anic narrations. Some of them escape criticalexamination because objective data are lacking. When,however, it is possible to check the statements in theScriptures in the light of the established data, theincompatibility between the Biblical narration-i.e. theinformation given on its place in time and geographicalextent-and the discoveries that have contributed tomodern knowledge is all too clear. In contrast to this,the narration contained in the Qur’an is free fromanything which might give rise to objective criticism.One might ask if it is possible that, between the time ofthe Biblical narration and the one contained in theQur’an, man could have acquired knowledge that shed lighton this event. The answer is no, because from the time ofthe Old Testament to the Qur’an, the only document manpossessed on this ancient story was the Bible itself. Ifhuman factors are unable to account for the changes inthe narrations which affected their meaning with regardto modern knowledge, another explanation has to beaccepted, i.e. a Revelation which came after the onecontained in the Bible.

The Exodus

With the Exodus from Egypt of Moses and hisfollowers, (the first stage of their move to Canaan), we come to anevent of great importance. It is an established historical event whichappears in a known context, in spite of occasional allegations onefinds which tend to attribute to it a largely legendary character.

In the Old Testament, the Exodus forms the secondbook of the Pentateuch or Torah, along with a narration of the journeythrough the wilderness and the alliance (covenant) concluded with Godon Mount Sinai. It is natural for the Qur’an to devote a great deal ofspace to it too: an account of the dealings Moses and his brother Aaronhad with the Pharaoh and of the exit from Egypt is found in more thanten suras containing long descriptions, e.g. suras, 7, 10, 20 and 26,along with more abridged versions and even simple reminders. The nameof Pharaoh, the main character on the Egyptian side, is repeated (tothe best of my knowledge) seventy-four times in the Qur’an in 27 suras.

A study of both the Qur’anic and Biblical narrations is especiallyinteresting here because, in contrast to what has been noted in thecase of the Flood (for example), in the main, the two narrations havemany points in common. There are certainly divergences, but theBiblical narration has considerable historical value, as we shall see.This is because it helps to identify the Pharaoh, or rather the twopharaohs in question. This hypothesis, which starts with the Bible, iscomplemented by the information contained in the Qur’an. Modern dataare added to these two Scriptural sources and it is thus possible,through a confrontation between the Bible, the Qur’an and today’sknowledge, to situate this episode from the Holy Scriptures in ahistorical context.

THE EXODUS ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE

The Biblical narration begins with a reminder of theJews’ entry into Egypt with Jacob, who joined Joseph there. Later on,according to Exodus 1, 8:”Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”

The period of oppression followed; the Pharaohordered the Jews to build the cities of Pithom and Ramesses (to use thenames given to them in the Bible) (Exodus I, 11). To avoid a populationexplosion among the Hebrews, Pharaoh ordered each new-born son to bethrown into the river. Moses was nevertheless preserved by his motherfor the first three months of his life before she finally decided toput him in a rush basket on the river’s edge. The Pharaoh’s daughterdiscovered him, rescued him and gave him to a nurse, none other thanhis own mother. This was because Moses’s sister had watched to see whowould find the baby, had pretended not to recognize him and thenrecommended to the Princess a nurse who was really the child’s mother.He was treated as one of the Pharaoh’s sons and given the name ‘Moses’.

As a young man, Moses left for a country calledMidian where he married and lived for a long time. We read an importantdetail in Exodus 2, 23:”In the course of those many days the king of Egypt died.”

God ordered Moses to go and find the Pharaoh andlead his brothers out of Egypt (the description of this order is givenin the episode of the Burning Bush). Aaron, Moses’s brother, helped himin this task. This is why Moses, once he had returned to Egypt, wentwith his brother to visit the Pharaoh who was the successor of the kingunder whose reign he had long ago been born.

The Pharaoh refused to allow the Jews in Moses’sgroup to leave Egypt. God revealed Himself to Moses once again andordered him to repeat his request to Pharaoh. According to the Bible,Moses was eighty years old at this time. Through magic, Moses showedthe Pharaoh that he had supernatural powers. This was not enoughhowever. God sent the famous plagues down upon Egypt. The rivers werechanged into blood, there were invasions of frogs, gnats and swarms offlies, the cattle died, boils appeared on men and animals, there washail and plagues of locusts, darkness and the death of the first-born.Nevertheless, the Pharaoh still did not allow the Hebrews to leave.

They therefore broke out of the city of Rameses,600,000 of them [ We shall later seethat the figure has been grossly exaggerated.] “besides womenand children” (Exodus 12, 37). At this point Pharaoh “made ready hischariot and took his army .With him, and took six hundred pickedcharioteers and all the other chariots of Egypt with officers over allof them . . . Pharaoh, king of Egypt, pursued the people of Israel asthey went forth defiantly.” (Exodus 14, 6 and 8). The Egyptians caughtup with Moses’s party beside the sea. Moses raised his staff, the seaparted before him and his followers walked across it without wettingtheir feet. “The Egyptians pursued and went in after them into themidst of the sea, all Pharaoh’s horses, his chariots, and hishorsemen.” (Exodus 14, 23) “The waters returned and covered thechariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followedthem into the sea; not so much as one of them remained. But the peopleof Israel walked on dry ground through the sea, the waters being a wallto them on their right hand and on their left.” (Exodus 14, 28-29).

The text of Exodus is quite clear: Pharaoh was atthe head of the pursuers. He perished because the text of Exodus notesthat “not so much as one of them remained.” The Bible repeats thisdetail moreover in the Psalms: Psalm 106, verse 11 and Psalm 136 verses13 and 15 which are an act of thanks to God “Who divided the sea ofRushes [ In Hebrew ‘yam souf’.]in sunder . . . and made Israel pass through the midst of it . . . butoverthrew Pharaoh and his host in the sea of Rushes.” There can be nodoubt therefore, that according to the Bible, the Pharaoh of the Exodusperished in the sea. The Bible does not record what became of his body.

THE EXODUS ACCORDING TO THE QUR’AN

In its broad outlines, the narration of the Exoduscontained in the Qur’an is similar to that of the Bible. It has to bereconstituted, however, because it is made up of passages dispersedthroughout the Book.

The Qur’an does not provide a name which enables usto identify who the reigning Pharaoh was at the time of Exodus, anymore than the Bible does. All that is known is that one of hiscounsellors was called Haman. He is referred to six times inthe Qur’an (sura 28, verses 6, 8 and 38, sura 29, verse 39 and sura 40,verses 24 and 36).

The Pharaoh is the Jews’ oppressor:

–sura 14, verse 6:”When Moses said to his people: Remember the favor of God to you whenHe delivered you from Pharaoh’s folk who imposed upon you a dreadfultorment, slaughtered your sons and spared your women.”

The oppression is recalled in the same terms inverse 141, sura 7. The Qur’an does not however mention the names of thecities built by the Jews in subjection, as does the Bible.

The episode where Moses is left by the riverside isrecorded in sura 20 verses 39-40 and sura 28, verses 7 to 13. In theversion contained in the Qur’an, Moses is taken in by Pharaoh’s family.We find this in verses 8 and 9, sura 28:”The family of Pharaoh took him up. (It was intended) that (Moses)should be to them an adversary and a cause of sorrow. Pharaoh, Hamanand their hosts were sinners. Pharaoh’s wife said: (He will be) a joyto the eye for me and you. Don’t kill him. He may be of use to us or wemay take him as a son. They did not sense (what was to come).”

Muslim tradition has it that it was Pharaoh’s wifeAsiya who took care of Moses. In the Qur’an, it was not the Pharaoh’swife who found him, but members of his household.

Moses’s youth, his stay in Midian and marriage aredescribed in sura 28, verses 13 to 28.

In particular, the episode of the Burning Bush isfound in the first part of sura 20, and in sura 28, verses 30 to 35.

The Qur’an does not describe the ten plagues sentdown upon Egypt as a divine chastisement (unlike the long descriptionin the Bible), but simply mentions five plagues very briefly (sura 7,verse 133): flooding, locusts, lice, frogs, and blood.

The flight from Egypt is described in the Qur’an,but without any of the geographical data given in the Bible, nor theincredible numbers of people mentioned in the latter. It is difficultto imagine how 600,000 men plus their families could have stayed in thedesert for a long time, as the Bible would have us believe.

This is how the death of Pharaoh pursuing theHebrews is described:

–sura 20, verse 78:”Pharaoh pursued them with his hosts and the sea covered them.”

The Jews escaped. Pharaoh perished, but his body wasfound: a very important detail not mentioned in the Biblical narration.

–sura 10, verses 90 to 92. God is speaking:”We took the Children of Israel across the sea. Pharaoh with his hostspursued them in rebellion and hostility till, when the fact of hisdrowning overtook him, he said: I believe there is no God except theGod in whom the Children of Israel believe. I am of those who submitthemselves to Him.

“God said: ‘What? Now !. Thou has rebelled andcaused depravity. This day We save thee in thy body so that thou mayestbe a sign for those who come after thee.’ But verily, many amongmankind are heedless of Our signs.”

This passage requires two points to be explained:a) The spirit of rebellion and hostility referred to is to beunderstood in terms of Moses’s attempt to persuade the Pharaoh.

b) The rescue of the Pharaoh refers to his corpsebecause it is stated quite clearly in verse 98, sura 11, that Pharaohand his followers have been condemned to damnation:

–sura 11, verse 98 “Pharaoh will go before hispeople on the Day of Resurrection and will lead them to the fire.” Forthose facts which can be checked with historical, geographical andarchaeological data therefore, it should be noted that the Qur’anic andBiblical narrations differ on the following points:

–the absence in the Qur’an of place names, both ofthe cities built by the Hebrews in Moses’s group, and on the routetaken by the Exodus.

–the absence of any reference to the death of aPharaoh during Moses’s stay in Midian.

–the absence in the Qur’an of details concerningMoses’s age when he addressed his request to the Pharaoh.

–the absence in the Qur’an of the numbering ofMoses’s followers. These figures are openly exaggerated in the Bible toincredible proportions (said to have been 600,000 men plus theirfamilies forming a community of more than two million inhabitants.)

–the absence of any mention in the Bible of therescue of the Pharaoh’s body after his death.

For our present purposes, the points to be notedbecause they are shared by both narrations are as follows:–the confirmation contained in the Qur’an of Pharaoh’s oppression ofthe Jews in Moses’s group.

–the absence from both narrations of any mention ofthe King of Egypt’s name.

–the confirmation contained in the Qur’an of thePharaoh’s death during the Exodus.

CONFRONTATION BETWEEN SCRIPTURAL DATA AND MODERNKNOWLEDGE

The narrations contained in the Bible and the Qur’anon the time spent by the sons of Israel in Egypt, and the way theyleft, give rise to data which may constitute matter for a confrontationwith modern knowledge. In fact, the balance is very uneven because somedata pose many problems while others hardly provide subject fordiscussion.

1.Examination of Certain Details Contained in the Narrations The Hebrewsin Egypt

It is, apparently, quite possible to say (andwithout running much risk of being wrong) that the Hebrews remained inEgypt for 400 or 430 years, according to the Bible (Genesis 15, 13 andExodus 12, 40). In spite of this discrepancy between Genesis andExodus, which is of minor importance, the period may be said to havebegun long after Abraham, when Joseph, son of Jacob, moved with hisbrothers to Egypt. With the exception of the Bible, which gives thedata just quoted, and the Qur’an which refers to the move to Egypt, butdoes not give any indication as to the dates involved, we do notpossess any other document which is able to illuminate us on this point.

Present-day commentators, ranging from P. Montet toDaniel Rops, think that, in all probability, the arrival of Joseph andhis brothers coincided with the movement of the Hyksos towards Egypt inthe Seventeenth century B.C. and that a Hyksos sovereign probablyreceived them hospitably at Avaris in the Nile Delta.

There can be no doubt that this guess is in obviouscontradiction to what is contained in the Bible (Kings I, 6, 1) whichputs the Exodus from Egypt at 480 years before the construction ofSolomon’s Temple (circa 971 B.C.). This estimation would therefore putthe Exodus at roughly 1450 B.C. and would consequently situate theentry into Egypt at circa 1880-1850 B.C. This is precisely the time,however, that Abraham is supposed to have lived, and other datacontained in the Bible tell us that there were 250 years separating himfrom Joseph. This passage from Kings I in the Bible is thereforeunacceptable from a chronological point of view. [ We shall return to this subject later, when we call uponFather de Vaux’s help in examining this reference in Kings I.] We shall see how thetheory put forward here has only this objection, taken from Kings I, tobe levelled against it. The very obvious inaccuracy of thesechronological data effectively deprives this objection of any value.

Aside from the Holy Scriptures, the traces left bythe Hebrews of their stay in Egypt are very faint. There are howeverseveral hieroglyphic documents which refer to the existence in Egypt ofa category of workers called the ‘Apiru, Hapiru or Habiru, whohave been identified (rightly or wrongly) with the Hebrews. In thiscategory were construction workers, agricultural labourers, harvesters,etc. But where did they come from? It is very difficult to find ananswer to this. Father de Vaux has written the following about them:”They are not members of the local population, they do not identifythemselves with a class in society, they do not all share the sameoccupation or status.”

Under Tuthmosis III, they are referred to in apapyrus as ‘workers in the stables’. It is known how Amenophis II, inthe Fifteenth century B.C., brought in 3,600 of these people asprisoners from Canaan, because, as Father. de Vaux notes, theyconstituted a considerable percentage of the Syrio-Palestinianpopulation. Under Sethos I, in circa 1300 B.C., the ‘Apirucreated considerable disturbances in the Beth-Shean region of Canaan,and under Ramesses II some of them were employed in the quarries or fortransporting piles used in the works of the Pharaoh (e.g. the GreatPylon of Ramesses Miamon). We know from the Bible that the Hebrews,under Ramesses II, were to build the northern capital, the City ofRamesses. In Egyptian writings the ‘Apiru are mentioned onceagain in the Twelfth century B.C. and for the last time under RamessesIII.

The ‘Apiru are not just mentioned in Egypthowever, so did the term therefore apply solely to the Hebrews? It isperhaps wise to recall that the word could initially have been used tosignify ‘forced labourers’, without regard to their origins, and thatit subsequently became an adjective indicating a person’s profession.We might perhaps draw an analogy with the word ‘suisse’ (Swiss) whichhas several different meanings in French. It can mean an inhabitant ofSwitzerland, a mercenary soldier of the old French monarchy who was ofSwiss extraction, a Vatican guard, or an employee of a Christian church. . . However, this may be, under Ramesses II, the Hebrews (accordingto the Bible) or the ‘Apiru (according to the hieroglyphictexts) took part in the great works ordered by the Pharaoh, which wereindeed ‘forced labour’. There can be no doubt that Ramesses II was theJews’ oppressor: the cities of Ramesses and Pithom, mentioned inExodus, are situated at the eastern part of the Nile Delta. Today’sTanis and Qantir, which are roughly 15 miles apart, are in the sameregion as these two cities. The northern capital constructed byRamesses II was situated there. Ramesses II is the Pharaoh of theoppression.

Moses was to be born in this environment. Thecircumstances pertaining to his rescue from the waters of the riverhave al- ready been outlined above. He has an Egyptian name: P. Montethas clearly shown in his book Egypt and the Bible (L’Egypte etla Bible) [ Pub. Delachaux andNiestlé, Neufchatel, 1959.] that the names Mesw or Mesyare on the list of personal names in the dictionary of the hieroglyphiclanguage by Ranke. Musa is the transliteration used in theQur’an.

The Plagues of Egypt

Under this title the Bible refers to ten punishmentsinflicted by God, and provides many details concerning each of these’plagues’. Many have supernatural dimensions or characteristics. TheQur’an only lists five plagues, which, for the most part, are merely anexaggeration of natural phenomena: flooding, locusts, lice, frogs andblood.

The rapid multiplication of locusts and frogs isdescribed in the Bible. It speaks of river water changed to blood whichfloods all the land (sic); the Qur’an refers to blood, but withoutgiving any complementary details. It is possible to invent all kinds ofhypotheses 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 ofcattle) have various origins, as was the case of the Flood, and areconstituted by the juxtaposition of passages from many differentsources.

The Route Taken by the Exodus

No indication of this is given in the Qur’an,whereas the Bible refers to it in great detail. Father de Vaux and P.Montet have both reopened studies into it. The starting-point wasprobably the Tanis-Qantir region, but no traces have been found of therest of the route taken which could confirm the Biblical narration; noris it possible to say at exactly what point the waters parted to allowthe passage of Moses and his followers.

The Miraculous Partingof the Waters

Some commentators have imagined a tide-race, dueperhaps to astronomic causes or seismic conditions connected to thedistant eruption of a volcano. The Hebrews could have taken advantageof the receding sea, and the Egyptians, following in hot pursuit, couldhave been wiped out by the returning tide. All this is pure hypothesishowever.

2.The Point Occupied by the Exodus in the History of the Pharaohs

It is possible to arrive at much more positiveevidence in the case of the point the Exodus occupies in time.

For a very long time Merneptah, the successor toRamesses II, was held to be the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Maspero, thefamous Egyptologist of the beginning of this century did, after all,write in his Visitor’s Guide to the Cairo Museum (Guide duvisiteur du Musée du Caire), 1900, that Merneptah “was probably,according to the Alexandrian tradition, the Pharaoh of the Exodus whois said to have perished in the Red Sea.” I have been unable to findthe documents on which Maspero based this assertion, but the eminenceof this commentator requires us to attach the greatest importance towhat he claims.

Apart from P. Montet, there are very fewEgyptologists or specialists in Biblical exegesis who have researchedinto the arguments for or against this hypothesis. In the last fewdecades however, there has been a spate of different hypotheses whichseem to have as their sole purpose the justification of an agreementwith one single detail in the Scriptural narrations, although theinventors of these hypotheses do not bother with the other aspects ofthe Scriptures. Thus it is possible for a hypothesis to suddenly appearwhich seems to agree with one aspect of a narration, although itsinventor has not taken the trouble to compare it with all the otherdata contained in the Scriptures (and consequently not just with theBible), plus all the data provided by history, archaeology, etc.

One of the strangest hypotheses yet to come to lightis by J. de Miceli (1960) who claims to have pinpointed the date of theExodus to within one day, i.e. the 9th of April, 1495 B.C. He reliesfor his information entirely on calculations made from calendars andclaims that Tuthmosis II was reigning in Egypt at that time, and wastherefore the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The confirmation of the hypothesisis supposed to reside in the fact that lesions of the skin are to beobserved on the mummy of Tuthmosis II. This commentator informs us(without explaining why) that they are due to leprosy, and that one ofthe plagues of Egypt described in the Bible consisted in skin boils.This staggering construction takes no account of the other factscontained in the Biblical narration, especially the Bible’s mention ofthe City of Ramesses which rules out any hypothesis dating the Exodusbefore a ‘Ramesses’ had reigned.

As to the skin lesions of Tuthmosis II, these do notswing the argument in favour of the theory which designates this Kingof Egypt as the Pharaoh of the Exodus. This is because his son,Tuthmosis III, and his grandson Amenophis II also show signs of skintumors [ The skin lesions are clearlyvisible on the mummies of these Pharaohs preserved in the EgyptianMuseum, Cairo.], so that some commentators have suggested thehypothesis of a disease which ran in the family. The Tuthmosis IItheory is not therefore tenable.

The same is true for Daniel-Rops’s theory in hisbook. 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 toAmenophis II. It does not seem to be any better-founded than thepreceding hypothesis. Using the pretext that Amenophis II’s father(Tuthmosis III) was very nationalistic, Daniel-Rops proclaims AmenophisII the persecutor of the Hebrews, while his step-mother, the famousQueen 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 hisbook, The Ancient History of Israel (Histoire ancienned’Israël) [ Pub. J. Gabalda andCo., 1971, Paris.]. Even if his theory does not agree with theBiblical narration on every point, at least it has the advantage ofputting forward one very important piece of evidence: the constructionof the cities of Ramesses and Pithom built under Ramesses II referredto in the Biblical text. It is not possible therefore to maintain thatthe Exodus took place before the accession of Ramesses II. Thisis situated in the year 1301 B.C., according to Drioton and Vandier’schronology, and in 1290 B.C. according to Rowton’s. The two otherhypotheses outlined above are untenable because of the followingimperative fact: Ramesses II is the Pharaoh of the oppression referredto in the Bible.

Father de Vaux considers the Exodus to have takenplace during the first half or towards the middle of Ramesses II’sreign.

Thus his dating of this event is imprecise: hesuggests this period to allow Moses and his followers time, as it were,to settle in Canaan, and Ramesses II’s successor, Pharaoh Mernaptah whois said to have pacified the frontiers after his father’s death, tobring the Children of Israel into line, as depicted on a stele of theFifth 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 duringthe period when Moses was in Midian. This King of Egypt is described inthe Book of Exodus as the King who made the Hebrews build the cities ofRamesses and Pithom by forced labour. This King was Ramesses II. TheExodus could only have taken place under the latter’s successor. Fatherde 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 histheory of the Exodus to two essential passages in the Bible, both ofwhich bear witness to the fact that the King died during the pursuit ofthe fleeing Hebrews. This detail makes it impossible for the Exodus tohave taken place at any other time than at the end of a reign.

It must be repeated that there can be little doubtthat the Pharaoh lost his life as a result of it. Chapters 13 and 14 ofExodus are quite specific on this point: “So he made ready his chariotand took his army with him . . .” (Exodus 14,6). (Pharaoh king ofEgypt) “pursued the people of Israel as they went forth defiantly”(Exodus 14,8) . . . “The waters returned and covered the chariots andthe horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followed them intothe 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 andrefers to Yahweh who “overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Sea ofRushes” (Psalms 136,15).

Thus, during Moses’s lifetime, one Pharaoh diedwhen Moses was in Midian and another during the Exodus. There werenot one, but two Pharaohs at the time of Moses: one during theoppression and the other during the Exodus from Egypt. The theory of asingle Pharaoh (Ramesses II) put forward by Father de Vaux isunsatisfactory because it does not account for everything. Thefollowing observations are further arguments against his theory.

3.Rameses II, Pharaoh of the OppressionMerneptah, Pharaoh of the Exodus

P. Montet has very discerningly resumed the originalAlexandrian [ There can be no doubtthat in the Golden Age of the ptolemies, historical documents onAntiquity were preserved at Alexandria, only to be destroyed at thetime of the Roman conquest; a loss which is keenly felt today.]tradition mentioned by Maspero. It is found much later in the Islamictradition as well as in the classic Christian tradition. [ In the Holy Histories of the early 20thcentury, as in the History by Abbe H. Lesetre, intended for religiousinstruction, the Exodus is mentioned as having taken place duringMerneptah’s reign in Egypt.] This theory is set out in Montet’sbook 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 Qur’an, to whichthe 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 labourof the Hebrews. Today we know that these cities form part of theTanis-Qantir region, in the eastern Nile Delta. In the area whereRamesses II built his northern capital, there were other constructionsprior to his, but it was Ramesses II who made it into an importantsite, as the archeological excavations undertaken in the last fewdecades have amply shown. To build it, he used the labour of theenslaved Hebrews.

When one reads the word ‘Ramesses’ in the Bibletoday, one is not particularly struck by it: the word has become verycommon to us since Champollion discovered the key to hieroglyphics 150years ago, by examining the characters that expressed this very word.We are therefore used to reading and pronouncing it today and know whatit means. One has to remember however that the meaning of hieroglyphicshad been lost in circa the Third century B.C. and that Ramesses’ namehad hardly been preserved anywhere except in the Bible and a few bookswritten in Greek and Latin which had deformed it to a lesser or greaterextent. It is for this reason that Tacitus in his Annals talksof ‘Rhamsis’. The Bible had however preserved the name intact: it isreferred 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 twoways in the Bible: ‘Râ(e) mss’ or ‘Râeâmss’ [ The letter ‘e’ figures as the ayinin Hebrew.]. In the Greek version of the Bible, called theSeptuagint, it is ‘Râmessê’. In the Latin version (Vulgate)it is written ‘Ramesses’. In the Clementine version of the Bible inFrench (1st edition, 1621) the word is the same, ‘Ramesses’. The Frenchedition was in circulation at the time of Champollion’s work in thisfield. In his Summary of the Hièroglyphic System of theAncient Egyptians (Precis du systeme hiéroglyphique desanciens Egyptiens) (2nd edition, 1828, page 276), Champollion alludesto the Biblical spelling of the word.

Thus the Bible had miraculously preserved Ramesses’sname in its Hebrew, Greek and Latin versions. [ It is strange to note moreover, that in old editions of theBible, commentators did not understand the meaning of the word at all.In the French edition of the Clementine Bible, 1621, for example, aninterpretation of the word ‘Ramesses’ is given which makes totalnonsense: ‘Thunder of Vermin’ (sic).]

The preceding data alone are enough to establish thefollowing:a) There can be no question of the Exodus before a ‘Ramesses’ had cometo the throne in Egypt (11 Kings of Egypt had this name).

b) Moses was born during the reign of the Pharaohwho 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 placeduring the reign of Ramesses II’s successor, Merneptah.

What is more, the Bible adds other highly importantdata 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’sorders, he tried to persuade Pharaoh to free his brothers: “Now Moseswas eighty years old, and Aaron eighty-three years years old, when theyspoke to Pharaoh.” (Exodus 7,7). Elsewhere however, the Bible tells us(Exodus 2,23) that the Pharaoh reigning at the time of the birth ofMoses died when the latter was in Midian, although the Biblicalnarration continues without mentioning any change in the sovereign’sname. These two passages in the Bible imply that the total number ofyears spanning the reigns of the two Pharaohs ruling at the time whenMoses 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, theEgyptologists are unable, however, to provide the exact dates of hisreign. Nevertheless, it lasted for at least ten years because, asFather de Vaux points out, documents bear witness to the tenth year ofhis reign. Drioton and Vandier give two possibilities for Merneptah:either a ten-year reign, 1234-1224 B.C., or a twenty-year reign1224-1204 B.C. Egyptologists have no precise indications whatsoever onhow Merneptah’s reign came to an end: all that can be said is thatafter his death, Egypt went through a period of serious internalupheavals lasting nearly 25 years.

Even though the chronological data on these reignsare not very precise, there was no other period during the New Kingdomconcordant with the Biblical narration when two successive reigns(apart from Ramesses II-Merneptah) amounted to or surpassed eightyyears. The Biblical data concerning Moses’s age when he undertook theliberation of his brothers can only come from a time during thesuccessive 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 thequestion: Sethos I’s reign-which was too short for this-does not squarewith the very long stay in Midian which Moses made as an adult andwhich took place during the reign of the first of the two Pharaohs hewas to know.]. All the evidence points towards the fact thatMoses was born at the beginning of Ramesses II’s reign, was living inMidian when Ramesses II died after a sixty-seven year reign, andsubsequently became the spokesman for the cause of the Hebrews livingin Egypt to Merneptah, Ramesses II’s son and successor. This episodemay have happened in the second half of Merneptah’s reign, assuming hereigned twenty years or nearly twenty years. Rowton believes thesupposition to be quite feasible. Moses would then have led the Exodusat the end of Merneptah’s reign. It could hardly have been otherwisebecause both the Bible and the Qur’an tell us that Pharaoh perishedduring the pursuit of the Hebrews leaving the country.

This plan agrees perfectly with the accountcontained in the Scriptures of Moses’s infancy and of the way he wastaken into the Pharaoh’s family. It is a known fact that Ramesses IIwas very old when he died: it is said that he was ninety to a hundredyears old. According to this theory, he would have been twentythree tothirty-three years old at the beginning of his reign which lastedsixty-seven years. He could have been married at that age and there isnothing to contradict the discovery of Moses by ‘a member of Pharaoh’shousehold’ (according to the Qur’an), or the fact that Pharaoh’s wifeasked him if he would keep the newly-born child she had found on thebank of the Nile. The Bible claims that the child was found byPharaoh’s daughter. In view of Ramesses II’s age at the beginning ofhis reign it would have been perfectly possible for him to have had adaughter old enough to discover the abandoned child. The Qur’anic andBiblical narrations do not contradict each other in any way on thispoint.

The theory given here is in absolute agreement withthe Qur’an and is moreover at odds with only one single statement inthe Bible which occurs (as we have seen) in Kings I 6,1 (N.B. this bookis not included in the Torah). This passage is the subject of muchdebate and Father de Vaux rejects the historical data contained in thispart of the Old Testament, which dates the Exodus in relation to theconstruction of Solomon’s temple. The fact that it is subject to doubtmakes it impossible to retain it as a conclusive argument against thetheory outlined here.

TheProblem of the Stele Dating from the Fifth Year of Merneptah’s Reign

In the text of the famous stele dating from thefifth year of Merneptah’s reign critics think they have found anobjection to the theory set out here, in which the pursuit of the Jewsconstituted the last act of his reign.

The stele is of great interest because it representsthe only known document in hieroglyphics which contains the word’Israel’. [ The word is followed by ageneric determinative which leaves no doubt as to the fact that thisterm signifies a ‘human community or group’.] The inscriptionwhich dates from the first part of Merneptah’s reign was discovered inThebes in the Pharaoh’s Funeral Temple. It refers to a series ofvictories he won over Egypt’s neighbouring states, in particular avictory mentioned at the end of the document over a “devastated Israelwhich has no more seed . . ” From this fact it has been held that theexistence of the word ‘Israel’ implied that the Jews must already havesettled in Canaan by the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign, and that inconsequence, the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt had already takenplace.

This objection does not seem tenable because itimplies that there could have been no Jews living in Canaan all thewhile there were Jews in Egypt-a proposition it is impossible toaccept. Father de Vaux however, in spite of the fact that he is asupporter of the theory which makes Ramesses II the Pharaoh of theExodus, notes [ In his book ‘TheAncient 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 theKadesh region is unclear and dates from before the Exodus.” Hetherefore allows for the possibility that certain groups may have leftEgypt at a time different from that of Moses and his followers. The ‘Apiruor Habiru who have sometimes been identified with the Israeliteswere already in Syria-Palestine long before Ramesses II and the Exodus:we have documentary evidence which proves that Amenophis II broughtback 8,600 prisoners to work as forced labourers in Egypt. Others wereto be found in Canaan under Sethos I where they caused unrest in theBeth-Shean region: P. Montet reminds us of this in his book Egyptand the Bible (L’Egypte et la Bible). It is quite plausible tosuppose therefore that Merneptah was obliged to deal severely withthese rebellious elements on his borders while inside them were thosewho were later to rally around Moses to flee the country. The existenceof the stele dating from the fifth year of Merneptah’s reign does notin 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 withthe notion that Moses and his followers settled in Canaan. Theorigin of the word is as follows:

According to Genesis (32,29), Israel is the secondname given to Jacob, son of Isaac and grandson of Abraham. Thecommentators of the Ecumenical Translation of the Bible-OldTestament (Traduction oecuménique de la Bible-AncienTestament), 1975, think that its meaning is probably that ‘God showsHimself in His Strength’. Since it has been given to a single man, itis not surprising that it was given to a community or group of peoplein memory of a distinguished ancestor.

The name ‘Israel’, therefore appeared well beforeMoses: several hundred years before to be exact. It is not surprisingconsequently to see it cited in a stele from the reign of the PharaohMerneptah. The fact that it is cited does not at all constitute anargument in favour of a theory which dates the Exodus before the fifthyear 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 politicallyestablished collectivity because the inscription dates from the end ofthe Thirteenth century B.C. and the Kingdom of Israel was not formeduntil the Tenth century B.C. It must therefore refer to a humancommunity of more modest proportions. [“The name ‘Israel’ (in the stele) is accompanied by the genericdeterminative ‘people’ instead of the determinative ‘country’, as isthe case for the other proper names in the stele” writes Father B.Couroyer, Professor at the Biblical School of Jerusalem, in hiscommentary to the translation of the Book of Exodus (Pub. Editions duCerf, Paris, 1968, page 12).]

Nowadays, we know that the entry of ‘Israel’ intohistory was preceded by a long formatory period of eight or ninecenturies. This period was distinguished by the settling of manysemi-Nomadic groups, especially the Amorites and the Arameans all overthe region. In the same period, Patriarchs began to appear in theircommunities among whom were Abraham, Isaac and Jacob-Israel. The secondname of this last Patriarch was used to designate the original group,the nucleus of a future political entity which was to appear long afterMerneptah’s reign, since the Kingdom of Israel lasted from 931 or 930to 721 B.C.

4.The Description Contained in the Holy Scriptures of the Pharaoh’s DeathDuring the Exodus.

This event marks a very important point in thenarrations contained in the Bible and the Qur’an. It stands forth veryclearly in the texts. It is referred to in the Bible, not only in thePentateuch or Torah, but also in the Psalms: the references havealready been given.

It is very strange to find that Christiancommentators have completely ignored it. Thus, Father de Vaux maintainsthe theory that the Exodus from Egypt took place in the first half orthe middle of Ramesses II’s reign. His theory takes no account of thefact that the Pharaoh perished during the Exodus, a fact which shouldmake all hypotheses place the event at the end of a reign. In his AncientHistory of Israel (Histoire ancienne d’Israël) , the Head ofthe Biblical School of Jerusalem does not seem to be at all troubled bythe contradiction between the theory he maintains and the datacontained in the two Books of the Bible: the Torah and Psalms.

In his book, Egypt and the Bible (L’Egypteet la Bible), P. Montet places the Exodus during Merneptah’s reign, butsays nothing about the death of the Pharaoh who was at the head of thearmy following the fleeing Hebrews.

This highly surprising attitude contrasts with theJews’ outlook: Psalm 136, verse 15 gives thanks to God who “overthrewPharaoh and his host in the Sea of Rushes” and is often recited intheir liturgy. They know of the agreement between this verse and thepassage in Exodus (14,28-29): “The waters returned and covered thechariots and the horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that had followedthem into the sea; not so much as one of them remained.” There is noshadow of a doubt for them that the Pharaoh and his troups were wipedout. These same texts are present in Christian Bibles.

Christian commentators quite deliberately, and incontradiction to all the evidence, brush aside the Pharaoh’s death.What is more however, some of them mention the reference made to it inthe Qur’an and encourage their readers to make very strangecomparisons. In the translation of the Bible directed by the BiblicalSchool of Jerusalem [ L’Exode (Exodus),1968, page 73, Pub. Les Editions du Cerf, Paris.] we find thefollowing commentary on the Pharaoh’s death by Father Couroyer.

“The Koran refers to this (Pharaoh’s death) (sura10, verses 90-92), and popular tradition has it that the Pharaoh whowas drowned with his army (an event which is not mentioned in the HolyText [ There can be no doubt that thiscommentator is referring to the Bible.]) lives beneath the oceanwhere he rules over the men of the sea, i.e. the seals”.

It is obvious that the uninformed reader of theQur’an is bound to establish a connection between a statement in itwhich-for the commentator-contradicts the Biblical text and this absurdlegend which comes from a so-called popular tradition mentioned in thecommentary after the reference to the Qur’an.

The real meaning of the statement in the Qur’an onthis has nothing to do with what this commentator suggests: verses 90to 92, sura 10 inform us that the Children of Israel crossed the seawhile the Pharaoh and his troops were pursuing them and that it wasonly when the Pharaoh was about to be drowned that he cried: “I believethere is no God except the God in which the Chilldren of Israelbelieve. I am of those who submit themselves to Him.” God replied:”What? Now! Thou bast rebelled and caused depravity. This day W e savethee in thy body so that thou mayest be a Sign for those who will comeafter thee.”

This is all that the sura contains on the Pharaoh’sdeath. There is no question of the phantasms recorded by the Biblicalcommentator either here or anywhere else in the Qur’an. The text of theQur’an merely states very clearly that the Pharaoh’s body will besaved: that is the important piece of information.

When the Qur’an was transmitted to man by theProphet, the bodies of all the Pharaohs who are today considered(rightly or wrongly) to have something to do with the Exodus were intheir tombs of the Necropolis of Thebes, on the opposite side of theNile from Luxor. At the time however, absolutely nothing was known ofthis fact, and it was not until the end of the Nineteenth century thatthey were discovered there. As the Qur’an states, the body of thePharaoh of the Exodus was in fact rescued: whichever of the Pharaohs itwas, visitors may see him in the Royal Mummies Room- of the EgyptianMuseum, Cairo. The truth is therefore very different from the ludicrouslegend that Father Couroyer has attached to the Qur’an.

5. Pharaoh Merneptah’s Mummy

The mummified body of Merneptah, son of Ramesses IIand Pharaoh of the Exodus-all the evidence points to this-wasdiscovered by Loret in 1898 at Thebes in the Kings’ Valley whence itwas transported to Cairo. Elliot Smith removed its wrappings on the 8thof July, 1907: he gives a detailed description of this operation andthe examination of the body in his book The Royal Mummies(1912). At that time the mummy was in a satisfactory state ofpreservation, in spite of deterioration in several parts. Since then,the mummy has been on show to visitors at the Cairo Museum, with hishead and neck uncovered and the rest of body concealed under a cloth.It is so well hidden indeed, that until very recently, the only generalphotographs of the mummy that the Museum possessed were those taken byE. Smith in 1912.

In June 1975, the Egyptian high authorities verykindly allowed me to examine the parts of the Pharaoh’s body that hadbeen covered until then. They also allowed me to take photographs. Whenthe mummy’s present state was compared to the condition it was in oversixty years ago, it was abundantly clear that it had deteriorated andfragments had disappeared. The mummified tissues had suffered greatly,at the hand of man in some places and through the passage of time inothers.

This natural deterioration is easily explained bythe changes in the conditions of conservation from the time in the lateNineteenth century when it was discovered. Its discovery took place inthe tomb of the Necropolis of Thebes where the mummy had lain for overthree thousand years. Today, the mummy is displayed in a simple glasscase which does not afford hermetic insulation from the outside, nordoes it offer protection from pollution by micro-organisms. The mummyis exposed to fluctuations in temperature and seasonal changes inhumidity: it is very far from the conditions which enabled it to remainprotected from any source of deterioration for approximately threethousand years. It has lost the protection afforded by its wrappingsand the advantage of remaining in the closed environment of the tombwhere the temperature was more constant and the air less humid than itis in Cairo at certain times of the year. Of course, while it was inthe Necropolis itself, the mummy had to withstand the visits of graveplunderers (probably very early on) and rodents: they caused a certainamount of damage, but the conditions were nevertheless (it seems) muchmore favourable for it to stand the test of time than they are today.

At my suggestion, special investigations were madeduring this examination of the mummy in June 1975. An excellentradiographic study was made by Doctors El Meligy and Ramsiys, and theexamination of the interior of the thorax, through a gap in thethoracic wall, was carried out by Doctor Mustapha Manialawiy inaddition to an investigation of the abdomen. This was the first exampleof endoscopy being applied to a mummy. This technique enabled us to seeand photograph some very important details inside the body. ProfessorCeccaldi performed a general medico-legal study which will be completedby an examination under the microscope of some small fragments thatspontaneously fell from the mummy’s body: this examination will becarried out by Professor Mignot and Doctor Durigon. I regret to saythat definitive pronouncements cannot be made by the time this bookgoes to print. [ November, 1975 for theFirst French edition.]

What may already be derived from this examination isthe discovery of multiple lesions of the bones with broad lacunae, someof which may have been mortal-although it is not yet possible toascertain whether some of them occurred before or after the Pharaoh’sdeath. He most probably died either from drowning, according to theScriptural narrations, or from very violent shocks preceding the momentwhen he was drowned-or both at once.

The connection of these lesions with thedeterioration whose sources have been mentioned above renders thecorrect preservation of the mummy of the Pharaoh somewhatproblematical, unless precautionary and restorative measures are nottaken very soon. These measures should ensure that the only concreteevidence which we still possess today concerning the death of thePharaoh of the Exodus and the rescue of his body, willed by God, doesnot disappear with the passage of time.

It is always desirable for man to apply himself tothe preservation of relics of his history, but here we have somethingwhich goes beyond that: it is the material presence of the mummifiedbody of the man who knew Moses, resisted his pleas, pursued him as hetook flight, lost his life in the process. His earthly remains weresaved by the Will of God from destruction to become a sign to man, asit is written in the Qur’an. [ Themummy of Ramesses II, who was another witness to Moses’s story, hasbeen the subject of a study comparable to the one carried out on themummy of Merneptah; the same restoration work is required for it.]

Those who seek among modern data for proof of theveracity of the Holy Scriptures will find a magnificent illustration ofthe verses of the Qur’an dealing with the Pharaoh’s body by visitingthe 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’ (NationalAcademy of Medecine), during the first part of 1976. The knowledge ofthese results led the Egyptian Authorities to take the decision totransport the mummy of Ramesses II to France. Thus it arrived fortreatment in Paris on the 26th September 1976.