Rediscovered Tomb of Thutmose II Sharpens the Historical Backdrop of Moses’ Oppression in Egypt
Rediscovered Tomb of Thutmose II Sharpens the Historical Backdrop of Moses’ Oppression in Egypt
LUXOR, Egypt — Archaeologists working in the stark cliffs west of Luxor have identified the original tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II, a rare discovery that refines the historical setting of Israel’s oppression as described in the book of Exodus.1 Announced in early 2025, the identification marks the first newly verified royal tomb from Egypt’s Eighteenth Dynasty in more than a century.2 Though the body of Thutmose II has been known since its 19th-century recovery from the DB320 royal cache, his original burial site remained lost. Its rediscovery now anchors, with greater archaeological clarity, the very dynasty that governed Egypt during the formative years of Moses’ life according to the High Chronology.3
The tomb was confirmed through fragments of inscribed alabaster vessels bearing Thutmose II’s cartouche, along with star-decorated ceiling plaster characteristic of early New Kingdom royal burials.4 Portions of the Amduat, a funerary text reserved exclusively for kings, were also identified within the chamber.5 Although largely empty, the absence of grave goods does not represent looting but deliberate relocation. Ancient flooding compromised the burial soon after interment, prompting priests to transfer the king’s mummy and treasures to a safer location—eventually DB320—centuries before modern intrusion.6 Excavation director Piers Litherland noted that “the burial was taken out in its entirety,” providing a rare example of ancient preservation rather than destruction.
The significance of this rediscovery lies not merely in identifying a missing royal tomb but in clarifying the political and chronological framework of the Thutmosid family. When the Eighteenth Dynasty is understood through the High Chronology, a striking synchronism emerges between the biblical narrative and Egyptian history. Moses’ birth at approximately 1526 BC (Exodus 7:7) corresponds approximately to the accession year of Thutmose I, a king whose demographic concerns and state-directed expansion fit the text’s description of increasing Hebrew population pressure. Thutmose I therefore stands as the most historically plausible candidate for the pharaoh who ordered the killing of Hebrew male infants (Exodus 1:15-22), a decree arising from the same anxieties reflected in early New Kingdom administration.
However, the pharaoh “who did not know Joseph” (Exodus 1:8) is best correlated with Ahmose I, founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose expulsion of the Hyksos and national reforms reset Egypt’s cultural memory regarding Semitic populations.7 The transition from Hyksos to Ahmosid rule introduced new attitudes toward Asiatic groups, providing a natural historical fit for the biblical assertion that a king arose with no regard for Joseph’s prior contributions. Under Amenhotep I, this shift deepened as the state’s reliance on conscripted Asiatic labor increased—mirroring the intensification of Hebrew servitude described in Exodus 1:11-14.8 Against this backdrop, the episode of Shiphrah and Puah, the Hebrew midwives summoned by the crown, aligns organically with the early years of Thutmose I, whose policies reflect a decisive move toward state intervention in population control.
The rediscovery of Thutmose II’s tomb also enriches our understanding of the broader royal household connected to Moses’ upbringing. Hatshepsut, daughter of Thutmose I and wife of Thutmose II, emerges as the most compelling historical counterpart to the unnamed “daughter of Pharaoh” who rescued Moses from the Nile (Exodus 2:5-10). Her later rise to kingship, administrative skill, and well-attested independence align closely with the biblical portrayal of a royal woman acting beyond conventional expectation. Her involvement in Thutmose II’s burial is archaeologically verified through fragments inscribed with her name found within the tomb itself,9 reinforcing the family continuity that frames Moses’ childhood.
The linguistic dimension further strengthens the synchronism. Royal Egyptian names of this period frequently incorporate the element ms / mss, meaning “born of,” as in Ahmose (“born of Iah”) and Thutmose (“born of Thoth”). Moses’ name, Mosheh, preserves this Egyptian root even as Exodus 2:10 offers a Hebrew wordplay (“drawn out”), reflecting a bilingual adaptation consistent with a Hebrew child raised in an Egyptian court. Unlike the later Ramesside name Ra-ms-sw (“Ra bore him”), which belongs to a distinct grammatical evolution,10 Moses’ name aligns precisely with the naming conventions of the early Thutmosid era—the very context reflected in the rediscovered tomb.
The excavation of Thutmose II’s burial site thus contributes significantly to the historical scaffolding surrounding the opening chapters of Exodus. It reinforces the chronological sequence Ahmose I → Amenhotep I → Thutmose I → Thutmose II → Hatshepsut → Thutmose III as a tangible, datable framework in which the biblical narrative is set. These rulers are not literary abstractions but historical figures whose construction projects, demographic policies, and burial traditions remain accessible to archaeology. Their anxieties over foreign laborers, reflected both in Egyptian administrative patterns and in Exodus 1, emerge from the same political tensions now better understood through material evidence.
Far from challenging the biblical account, the rediscovery of this tomb strengthens its historical plausibility. The dynasty that oppressed the Hebrews was real, its members identifiable, its tombs discoverable, and its policies consonant with the pressures described in Scripture. This discovery therefore provides additional archaeological context for reconstructing the historical environment of early Exodus traditions, situating the narrative within a clearly definable dynastic sequence in the Eighteenth Dynasty.
[Dr. Jonathan Moore—Field Archaeologist with the Shiloh Excavation, Israel; Adjunct Faculty at Freed-Hardeman University; and Founder of Seeing His World, a missions-based educational nonprofit dedicated to providing academically grounded yet spiritually transformative guided experiences throughout the Bible lands (www.seeinghisworld.com).]
Endnotes
1 Sarah C. Roff (2025), “Last Missing Tomb from Egypt’s 18th Dynasty Found in Remote Desert Cliffs,” National Geographic, February 12, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/egypt-tomb-ancient-king-thutmose-ii-discovered.
2 Adam Taylor (2025), “Pharaoh’s Tomb Unearthed Near Luxor, First Major Find Since Tutankhamun,” The Washington Post, February 20.
3 That is, the early date for the Exodus—15th century B.C. For a thorough discussion of this topic, see my other articles apologeticspress.org, including https://apologeticspress.org/date-of-the-exodus-does-it-matter-part-1/, https://apologeticspress.org/date-of-the-exodus-does-it-matter-part-2/, https://apologeticspress.org/when-and-where-was-israels-sojourn-in-egypt-part-1/, https://apologeticspress.org/when-and-where-was-israels-sojourn-in-egypt-the-long-and-short-of-it-part-2/, etc.
4 Laura Geggel (2025), “Archaeologists Discover Tomb of Thutmose II, First Pharaoh’s Burial Found in Egypt in 100 Years,” LiveScience, February 26, https://www.livescience.com/archaeology/ancient-egyptians/archaeologists-discover-tomb-of-thutmose-ii-1st-ancient-egyptian-burial-of-a-pharaoh-to-be-found-in-100-years
5 Nikhil Swaminathan (2025), “Long-Lost Tomb of Pharaoh Thutmose II Identified in Western Wadis,” Archaeology Magazine, February, https://archaeology.org/news/2025/02/20/tomb-of-thutmose-ii-discovered-in-egypt/
6 Laura Geggel.
7 James K. Hoffmeier (1997), Israel in Egypt: The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition (Oxford: Oxford University).
8 Kenneth A. Kitchen (2003), On the Reliability of the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans).
9 Laura Geggel.
10 Donald B. Redford (1985), “The Name of Moses,” Journal of Egyptian History, 72:101-115.
REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.
posted by Believer | 1:00 AM
|
0 comments
