Content uploaded by Anne Habermehl
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Anne Habermehl on Oct 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
e Proceedings of the International
Conference on Creationism
,)1*" .0& )"
e Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus
%8-/!,&,.$'-&
Anne Habermehl
Independent scholar
,)),30%&/+!!!&0&,+)3,.(/0 %8-!&$&0) ,**,+/ "!.2&))""!1& -., ""!&+$/
.0,#0%" &)& )01!&"/,**,+/
.,3/"0%" ,+0"+0/,# 0%&/2,)1*" ,# e Proceedings of the International Conference on
Creationism
" ,**"+!"!&00&,+
".*"%)7"-13".-5.1/+!0%"4,!1/+., ""!&+$/,#0%"&$%0%+0".+0&,+),+#"."+ ",+."0&,+&/*"!
%&0*,."--6&8/1.$%"++/5)2+&."0&,+ &"+ "")),3/%&-
Habermehl, A. 2018. The Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus. In Proceedings of the Eighth
International Conference on Creationism, ed. J.H. Whitmore, pp. 1–6. Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
THE IPUWER PAPYRUS AND THE EXODUS
Anne Habermehl, B.Sc., Independent Scholar, 25 Madison St., Cortland, NY 13045 USA, anneh@twcny.rr.com
ABSTRACT
Controversy surrounds the Ipuwer Papyrus, an Egyptian manuscript residing in the Dutch National Museum of
Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands. On the one side are those who claim that this manuscript describes chaotic
conditions in Egypt at the time of the biblical Exodus. On the other side are those who deny this on the basis of
disbelief that the Exodus ever took place, or who claim that the date of the events described in the manuscript are
wrong for the Exodus. In this paper we show that this ancient document most likely describes Exodus conditions; and
that the Ipuwer Papyrus therefore oers strong extra-biblical evidence for a historical Exodus. With respect to dating
the events in this papyrus, it needs to be understood that the secular historical timeline diverges from the biblical
timeline, and furthermore, that the Old Kingdom and the Middle Kingdom of Egypt ended at the same time (contrary
to the standard history). This puts the manuscript’s original date (as determined by scholars) exactly where it should
be. The question of divergence of the secular and biblical timelines is a matter of enormous importance for biblical
apologetics. Often secular scholars declare that biblical events like the Exodus cannot have taken place because there
are no evidences of these at the time in history where the Bible places them. The Ipuwer papyrus therefore supports a
divergence of several hundred years between the biblical and secular timelines at the time of the Exodus.
KEY WORDS
Ipuwer Papyrus, Exodus, plagues, biblical timeline, secular timeline, Egyptian history
Copyright 2018 Creation Science Fellowship, Inc., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA www.creationicc.org 1
INTRODUCTION
Controversy surrounds the Ipuwer Papyrus, an ancient Egyptian
manuscript that describes chaotic conditions in Egypt at some time
in the distant past. The disagreements focus on whether or not this
manuscript describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, whether
it describes events at some other time in history, or whether it
describes real events at all (but is merely a literary genre called
a lament). Because many secular scholars do not believe there
actually was an Exodus, naturally they do not believe that this
papyrus describes Exodus events. Sorting this all out is not simple,
because it involves dating the manuscript, dating the Exodus,
accepting or not accepting divergence between the biblical and
secular timelines, and belief versus disbelief in a literal biblical
Exodus.
We will quote the Lichtheim English translation of 1973 in this
paper. It is widely used and comes with notes as well as references
to and discussion of prior translations (Gardiner 1909; Erman 1966;
Faulkner 1965; Wilson 1969). We recognize that there are more
recent translations (e.g., Dollinger 2000; Enmarch 2008). However,
from the point of view of this paper, the various translations do
not vary greatly beyond nuances of certain expressions and some
dierences in guesses at what missing words in the manuscript
might be (there are quite a number of those). Any of these
translations could be used. A translation of the entire Ipuwer text
by Dollinger (2000) appears online.
DESCRIPTION OF THE IPUWER PAPYRUS
The Ipuwer Papyrus is an ancient Egyptian manuscript written in
hieratic script, 378 cm x 18 cm, residing in the Dutch National
Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands. Its ocial
designation is Papyrus Leiden I 344 recto. The papyrus is also
called The Admonitions of Ipuwer and The Dialogue of Ipuwer and
The Lord of All. It was acquired in Egypt by a wealthy merchant
and antiquarian, Jean (Giovanni) d’Anastasi, consul for Norway
and Sweden, who sold it to the Dutch government in 1828. The
“recto” designation indicates that the text written by Ipuwer is
the primary material, because the recto of a papyrus was the best-
quality side to write on. The back side, called the “verso,” has
unrelated text, a long hymn to the god Amun. For a description and
origins of this papyrus see e.g., Gardiner (1909, p. 1); Lichtheim
(1973, p. 150); and Jerey (2002, p. 59). For a photo of part of the
papyrus, see Fig. 1.
The Ipuwer content on the recto side of the papyrus is in the form
of a long poem. It is largely a conversation of an Egyptian called
Ipuwer, who is talking to someone called The Lord of All. Because
the composition is in the form of a poem, the ideas are not presented
in a straightforward manner as they might be in a narrative (poetry
has not changed greatly in this regard over the millennia).
Because of damage to the manuscript, there are some lines missing
both at the beginning and the end; and there are lacunae (missing
words) here and there throughout. These latter present problems in
determining the exact meaning in some places in the manuscript,
and scholars vary in their suggested translations.
Papyrus writing surface is produced by laying down layers of
the inner pith of papyrus plant stalks and drying the sheets under
pressure (we get our word “paper” from papyrus). The earliest
known surviving papyrus with text dates to the 4th Dynasty (about
2500 BC secular), considerably older than the Ipuwer Papyrus;
this shows that this medium of writing survives time well. For
information on the history and making of papyrus paper, see
Gaudet (2014, pp. 44─56).
The hieratic script of the Ipuwer manuscript is the form of writing
used by the ancient Egyptian scribes on papyrus. It is not to be
confused with hieroglyphics, which are symbols engraved on stone
monuments. Hieratic has been described as a sort of cursive form
of hieroglyphics. Both forms of writing were used concurrently
over many years (Te Velde 1988).
WHO WAS IPUWER?
The name “Ipuwer” is known in the Old, Middle and New
Kingdoms; Ipu-wer means “Ipu the venerable” (Enmarch 2008,
p. 29; Mathieu 2012). Scholars believe that Ipuwer, author of this
ancient poem, was probably a real historical gure because of the
mention of an Ipuwer on a Dynasty XIX tomb relief decoration
from Saqqara called the “Daressy fragment” (unprovenanced and
now lost, although photographs survive) (Mathieu 2012). There
is a band of hieroglyphics on this stone relief that lists a group
called “royal scribes,” that names Ipuwer among the others. The
specic title given to Ipuwer is “Overseer of Singers,” a title that
was known in the Middle Kingdom (see Stefanovic and Satzinger
2014, pp. 28─33). This group of sages and notables of the past
includes the famous vizier Imhotep of the 3rd Dynasty as well as
other well-known gures of Egyptian history. We see therefore
that these gures were not people who necessarily lived at the time
of Dynasty XIX (1292─1189 BC secular). The Ipuwer Papyrus
itself does not include a title for its author, although this could
have appeared in the lost opening to the poem. We know only that
the writer is important enough to be boldly addressing someone
called “The Lord of All.” This evidence of Ipuwer as a real person
disproves Rice (1999), who states that there is no evidence of
Ipuwer apart from the “Admonitions” manuscript.
We see therefore that Ipuwer was most likely a real person who
could have written this manuscript. And considering the far-
reaching consequences of the plagues that preceded the Exodus,
we should not be surprised that someone might have written some
kind of contemporary description of those perilous times.
WHO WAS THE LORD OF ALL?
At the end of the poem, we learn that Ipuwer addresses a personage
called “The Lord of All” (Erman 1966, p. 107). We do not know
who this is because the manuscript does not say, at least in the
part that we have. This leaves scholars to give their preferred
interpretations, and they do not have inhibitions about doing this.
The two main choices are that The Lord of All was either the
pharaoh of Egypt, or that he was a chief deity, perhaps even the
Egyptian creator god. Because the pharaoh of Egypt was regarded
as a kind of god throughout its ancient history, or at least touched
by the divine, it could be argued that Ipuwer was addressing the
pharaoh. After a discussion of the choices, Enmarch (2008, p. 30)
decides that Ipuwer must be addressing the pharaoh— even though
he admits that this title is most often used to refer to a deity in the
Middle Kingdom. This rather weakens his argument.
Because we are saying in this paper that Ipuwer is writing about
the period immediately after the Exodus, there may have been
no pharaoh ruling in either Lower or Upper Egypt at this time of
catastrophe. It would have taken the Egyptians of Lower (north)
Egypt a certain amount of time to look for the pharaoh’s body and
to establish a new pharaoh in his place; in Upper (south) Egypt
we do not know when the pharaoh was deposed. This makes it
more likely that Ipuwer was addressing a high deity rather than a
pharaoh.
There is one other factor to be considered. The pharaohs of Egypt
had absolute power, and were ruthless in exercising it. Would
Ipuwer have dared to say such things to the pharaoh as are written
in this manuscript? This seems unlikely, because the pharaoh could
Habermehl ◀Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus ▶ 2018 ICC
2
Figure 1. Photo of a section of the Ipuwer papyrus that is located in the Dutch National Museum of Antiquities in Leiden, Netherlands. (Public Domain)
have had his head in a moment. This would make it more likely
that Ipuwer is addressing the chief deity in the land to bemoan the
total disaster that had befallen the country.
INDICATIONS OF THE PLAGUES AND THEIR
AFTERMATH IN THE IPUWER PAPYRUS
If we look at the poem as a whole, we see that it describes an Egypt
that is in total chaos and ruin. People are thirsty and desperate for
something to drink because the river is blood. The rich are poor
and the poor are rich. There is famine, with even the high-born
and ocials lacking food to eat. There is barrenness of elds, no
trees, no crops. The dead are being buried everywhere. Servants
have rebelled against their masters. Maidservants wear valuable
necklaces. The wealthy have been turned out of their mansions.
There appears to be no central authority in power. Travelers on
the roads are robbed and killed. Farmers are carrying shields to
defend themselves. Enmarch (2008) aptly titles his book, A World
Upturned… (ironically he does not believe that the Ipuwer Papyrus
refers to the Exodus). Ipuwer’s description of this total collapse of
Egypt is the kind of situation that we might expect to nd if the ten
plagues described in the Exodus had taken place.
In Table 1 we list some details in the Ipuwer Papyrus that parallel
the biblical narrative.
DISCUSSION
1. The question of dating the Ipuwer Papyrus events
Ultimately, we need to be able to place the events described in
this papyrus at the time of the Exodus. The sole extant copy of
the manuscript dates to the 13th century BC (secular); however,
scholars are quite sure that it is a copy of a much earlier original.
Although most agree that the text was written at the end of the
12th Dynasty, they are divided on the question of when the events
described in it occurred (if they believe these events really did
occur). Gardiner (1972, pp. 109─110) says that it is “indisputable”
that the papyrus describes events during the First Intermediate
Period, immediately after the 6th Dynasty: “…the condition of the
country which it discloses is one which cannot be ascribed to the
imagination of a romancer, nor does it t into any place of Egyptian
history except that following the end of the Old Kingdom.” Erman
(1966 p. 93) concurs, saying that it is as if Egypt was suddenly
blotted from our sight at that time. Hassan (2007) also takes the
rm view that Ipuwer is describing real historical events at the end
of the Old Kingdom. On the other hand, Velikovsky (1952, pp.
66─67) argues that the events must have happened at the end of
the Middle Kingdom, at the time of the Exodus, just before the
entrance of the Hyksos into Egypt. Stewart (2003, pp. 255─256)
agrees, because Ipuwer writes as if the events have just happened,
and the end of the Middle Kingdom is when Stewart believes that
the Exodus took place. See also Van Seters (1964, pp. 13–23), who
argues for the later date.
The conventional Egyptian chronology shows a total collapse
of Egypt twice: at the end of the 6th Dynasty (end of the Old
Kingdom) and then again at the end of the 12th Dynasty (end of the
Middle Kingdom). In the standard view, the same series of unusual
events in the same order took place at the end of both of these two
dynasties. Secular scholars have noticed this peculiarity, but do not
seem to realize how unlikely this is. For instance, see Gardiner
(1972, p. 147):
…it will be well to note that the general pattern of these
two dark periods is roughly the same. Both begin with
a chaotic series of insignicant native rulers; in both,
intruders from Palestine cast their shadow over the delta,
and even into the Valley; and in both relief comes at last
from a hardy race of Theban princes, who after quelling
internal dissention expel the foreigner and usher in a new
epoch of immense power and prosperity.
A total collapse of Egypt would have resulted from the 10 plagues
that preceded the Exodus, described in Exodus 7–12. As argued by
Habermehl (2013), the likelihood that the 6th and 12th Dynasties
ran concurrently and ended at the same time because of the Exodus
plagues is very high. We will take the view here that all the scholars
are right about the dating of the Ipuwer Papyrus events with respect
to the Egyptian historical timeline, because the Exodus took place
at the end of both the 6th and 12th (concurrent) Dynasties.
If two dynasties were running concurrently, how could two
pharaohs be ruling Egypt at the same time? The answer to this
would appear to lie with the concept of two Egypts, Upper and
Lower, that goes back to the very earliest times. As Habermehl
says (2013):
It is possible that the two divisions of Egypt may have been
far more important historically than has been realized,
and Egypt may have often been divided into two parts
under two pharaohs. It is likely a myth that Egypt unied
Habermehl ◀Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus ▶ 2018 ICC
3
Statement from Ipuwer
Papyrus
Inferred Biblical Reference and
Text
1. There’s blood everywhere…
Lo the river is blood (p. 151).
1. …all the waters that were in
the river were turned to blood
(Exodus 7:20).
2. …one…thirsts for water (p.
151).
2. And the Egyptians digged round
about the river for water to drink;
for they could not drink of the
water of the river (Exodus 7:24).
3. Lo, trees are felled, branches
stripped (p. 153).
3. …and the hail brake every tree
of the eld (Exodus 9:25).
4. Lo, grain is lacking on all sides
(p. 155).
4. …and the ax and the barley
was smitten (Exodus 9:31).
5. Birds nd neither fruit nor
herbs (p. 154).
5. Ex 10:15 …they (locusts) did
eat every herb of the land, and all
the fruit of the trees which the hail
had left (Exodus 10:15).
6. Groaning is throughout the
land, mingled with laments (p.
152)
6. …and there was a great cry in
Egypt (Exodus 12:30).
7. Lo, many dead are buried in
the river, the stream is the grave,
the tomb became stream (p. 151),
and He who puts his brother in the
ground is everywhere (p. 152).
7. For the Egyptians buried all
their rstborn (Numbers 33:4).
8. All is ruin! (p. 152) 8. Egypt is destroyed (Exodus
10:7).
Table 1. Comparison of statements from the Ipuwer Papyrus and
statements in the Bible. Quotes and page numbers in the left column are
from the Lichtheim (1973) translation.
at the beginning of the 1st Dynasty and was ruled by only
one pharaoh at a time after that. Two pharaohs may have
reigned concurrently for a lot of Egypt’s history, and
more than two pharaohs during some periods, especially
in times of disorder.
It would be most likely that one of the ruling pharaohs would be
the more powerful one, and would have authority over the lesser
pharaoh. Neither pharaoh would be willing to admit in their
inscriptions that the other pharaoh was ruling at the same time.
The belief in one pharaoh ruling over all of Egypt is, however,
the paradigm to which all secular information on ancient Egypt
has to bow. Therefore, the argument among these scholars about
dating the Ipuwer Papyrus to the end of the Old Kingdom versus
the end of the Middle Kingdom presents a real discrepancy in time
to them (about 400 years). For a statement about standard Egyptian
chronology, and a typical secular listing of the kings of Egypt, see
Shaw (2003, pp. 480–489).
According to arguments by Habermehl (2013), at the time of the
Exodus the two ruling pharaohs would have been Amenemhat IV,
who reigned from 1786–1777 BC at the end of the 12th Dynasty in
Lower Egypt; and Pepi II, who reigned from 2278–2184 BC at the
end of the 6th Dynasty in Upper Egypt (these dates are from Shaw
(2003, p. 483)). The reigns of these two pharaohs would have ended
abruptly at about the same time because of the plagues. The plagues
would have come on both Upper and Lower Egypt, as is shown in
the Bible’s description of the plagues; for instance, Exodus 11:5–6
says that the last plague was to be on all the rstborn in the land of
Egypt, and that there would be a great cry throughout all the land
of Egypt (italics are the author’s).
As the pharaoh of the Exodus, Amenemhat IV in the north would
have died by drowning in the Red Sea. But what of Pepi II in the
south? There are some hints from Ipuwer: “… things are done
that never were before/ The king has been robbed by beggars”
(Lichtheim 1973, p. 155). This would have to refer to the king of
Upper Egypt in the south, Pepi II. Ipuwer continues: “…the land
is deprived of kingship/By a few people who ignore custom”
(Lichtheim 1973, p. 156). The word “robbed” is one place where
there are some dierences among translators of this manuscript:
for instance, Simpson (2003, p. 198) says, “the king has been
overthrown by the rabble.” This meaning would be supported
by Ipuwer’s statement that the land is deprived of kingship. It
would appear that Pepi II did not die in the 10th plague, but was
deposed some time afterward, most certainly an unusual event
for a pharaoh. This would perhaps not be surprising, considering
the complete chaos in Egypt at this time, as described by Ipuwer.
The last statement in Table I is signicant because it shows how
widespread the destruction in Egypt was; Ipuwer says “All is ruin!”
The dates that many secular scholars (e.g., Shaw 2003, p. 483)
currently give the end of the reigns of Pepi II (2184 BC) and
Amenemhat IV (1777 BC) are markedly earlier than the Exodus
date of about 1445 BC used by most biblical scholars (e.g., Ashton
and Down 2006, p. 89). This means that there is a wide divergence
between the biblical and secular timelines, with two Exodus dates
(that are 400 years apart) on the secular timeline. See Fig. 2 for
correlation of the biblical and standard timelines, showing the
concurrent double dates for the Exodus at the end of the 6th and
12th Dynasties.
We mention here that some biblical believers deny that the Ipuwer
Papyrus describes the times of the Exodus, because they do not
accept that the two timelines diverge in the second millennium BC;
for them, the Exodus took place at 1445 BC on both the standard and
biblical timelines. They therefore believe that the Ipuwer Papyrus
predates the Exodus (e.g., Smith 2015). This presents a problem
for them, because the Ipuwer manuscript seems to describe clearly
a state of Egypt that was caused by the plagues of the Bible.
2. Did Egypt collapse because of low Nile oods?
As we see from the Bible, it was the 10 plagues that caused the
total collapse of Egypt. However, Hassan (2007), like many others,
ascribes the collapse of the Old Kingdom of Egypt to a period of
very low Nile ooding, even drying up of the Nile at one point.
This would have caused eventual famine over a period of time
because far less grain than usual could be grown; other problems
would have followed. But Butzer, a scientist, cautions that “it is
possible but unproven that Nile failures may have helped trigger
collapse of the Old Kingdom” (2012, p. 3634).
Ipuwer gives us a clue about this when he says, “Lo, Hapy (the
Nile) inundates and none plow for him” (Lichtheim 1973, p. 151).
Although the Nile had risen and deposited the usual sediments,
everything was in such disorder that the farmers were not plowing
as they normally would have done. We see that Ipuwer bemoans
just about everything else going on in Egypt, but the one thing
that he does not suggest is that the Nile had not risen as it should.
This would indicate that a low Nile rising did not cause the famine
that Ipuwer describes. However, a low Nile rising was recorded in
the third year of the reign of the pharaoh Sobekneferu (Callender
2003, p. 159), who reigned immediately after the Exodus pharaoh,
Amenemhat IV (Habermehl 2013). Because this low Nile rising
was only three years after the Exodus, it could be easily mistaken
by historians as causing the collapse of Egypt.
3. The plague of water turned to blood
As we see above in Table 1, there are some specic details that
come out of this manuscript that point to the Exodus plagues, rather
than some other period of diculty that might have taken place in
Habermehl ◀Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus ▶ 2018 ICC
4
Figure 2. In this diagram, the lower straight line is the biblical timeline;
the Exodus is at 1450 BC. The upper line shows how the standard timeline
diverges by dierent amounts from the biblical one at dierent times
(Habermehl 2013; Habermehl 2018). On the upper line, the Exodus shows
up at both 1800 BC and 2200 BC, with the 6th and 12th Dynasties of Egypt
running concurrently and ending at the same time. This causes the unusual
sudden drop in the standard timeline. The original Ipuwer Papyrus would
therefore refer to events at both 1800 BC and 2200 BC on the standard
timeline. These just happen to be the two approximate dates that opposing
scholars claim for the events in the Ipuwer Papyrus.
Egypt. The most obvious one is Ipuwer’s statement that the river
is blood, and the people thirst for water (Lichtheim 1973, p. 151).
In Exodus 7:19─24 we see that there was blood throughout all the
land of Egypt, in the rivers, the streams, pools of water, ponds, and
wood and stone vessels. The water was undrinkable. Both Ipuwer
and the Bible say that the river was blood, not that it looked like
blood.
We might wonder how the skeptics get around this. Not surprisingly
they have come up with some explanations for this phenomenon.
One popular rationale is that the Nile waters carried so much red
soil from the south at that time of year that the water looked red
(e.g., Enmarch 2011, p. 174)). Another explanation oered is that
a certain plant suddenly bloomed in the Nile to make it look red
(Humphreys 2003, p. 117). Both of these suggested possibilities
present diculties because the Bible clearly says that not only the
water in the Nile turned red, but the water in all the streams and
ponds and pools and vessels turned to blood when Aaron smote the
waters with his rod (Exodus 7:19, 20). Then the red color suddenly
disappeared seven days later (Exodus 7:25). These details of the
biblical narrative are hard to explain, short of a miracle. This one
statement of the river as blood makes it very likely that the Ipuwer
manuscript refers to the time of the Exodus.
4. Statements that can be interpreted more than one way
In reading the Ipuwer poem, we need to be aware that a statement
that means one thing to one person can mean something else to
another. Indeed, nearly 3500 years after the Exodus, our minds
may not think in the same way as an ancient Egyptian poet. We
show a few examples here.
“Foreigners have become people everywhere” (Lichtheim 1973, p.
150). Who are these foreigners? Mӧller (2002, p. 145) claims that
they are the Israelites. But we might wonder whether after over
200 years in Egypt that the Children of Israel would be considered
foreigners. Because they lived in the Delta in the land of Goshen
(Exodus 8: 22–23), they could not be said to be “everywhere.”
These foreigners could well be people from outside Egypt who,
after the Exodus, with the Egyptian army destroyed, now could
enter the undefended country with ease, as mentioned earlier.
“What the ancestors foretold has happened” (Lichtheim 1973, p.
150). Mӧller claims that this refers to Joseph telling the Children
of Israel that they will leave Egypt (2002, p. 145). But would
Ipuwer not be more likely to refer to his own Egyptian ancestors
who may have foretold some disaster?
“Behold, Egypt is fallen to pouring of water, and he who poured
water on the ground has carried o the strong man in misery”
(Lichtheim 1973, p. 156). This is claimed to refer to the drowned
pharaoh by Stewart (2003, pp. 276–277), who makes a (somewhat)
plausible case for this. Alternatively, there are those who quote
Exodus 4:9 where God told Moses to pour water on the ground
if the Children of Israel would not believe Moses, and this water
would turn to blood on the ground. We suggest that this statement
could even refer to God, who poured a terrible storm of rain and
hail in the seventh plague (Exodus 9:33, 34).
“See now, re has leaped high” (Lichtheim 1973, p.155). This has
been taken to refer to the pillar of re that God used to lead the
Children of Israel by night (Exodus 13:21:22) (e.g., Kolom 2008,
p. 114). Alternatively, some believe that this refers to re that
accompanied the plague of hail (Exodus 9:23, 24) (e.g., Holden
and Geisler 2013, p. 223).
We cannot use lines in the poem that can be interpreted more than
one way to support our argument, even though we might claim that
our preferred interpretation is backed by the Bible.
5. What if the Papyrus does not describe actual events?
Obviously, if scholars can convince us that the events described
by Ipuwer did not really occur, we can dispose at once of the
possibility that it refers to the time of the Exodus. Indeed, some
scholars practically trip over their feet in their eagerness to claim
that this manuscript does not refer to real events at all, biblical or
otherwise. As an example, Mark (2016) displays almost contempt
for those who actually believe. According to him, “One can only
accept The Admonitions of Ipuwer as history if one has little or no
knowledge of Egyptian history and literature.” Lichtheim (1973, p.
150) says that “the Admonitions of
Ipuwer has not only no bearing whatever on the long past First
Intermediate Period, it also does not derive from any other
historical situation.”
According to Egyptian scholars, we are supposed to believe that
it was very popular back in Ipuwer’s day to write lamentation
types of literature that had no connection to real events. For further
information on this subject, see Pessimistic Literature (2005), and
also Shaw (2003, pp. 134–136). We need to consider that these
various known pessimistic texts, that were written over a fairly
short period of time, might all refer to the troubles that resulted
from the plagues and Exodus.
We must also beware of scholars who claim contra statements in
the Papyrus that are not true. For instance, Enmarch (2011) says
that the Ipuwer poem contradicts the Bible because it speaks of an
invasion of Asians, rather than a large-scale emigration. In fact,
immediately after the Exodus, with the Egyptian army destroyed,
there was no longer any manned defense against the Asian hordes
who constantly wanted to get into Egypt from the east. The building
of defense walls along the eastern border of Egypt by Amenemhat
I at the beginning of the 12th Dynasty to keep Asiatics out is well
documented by historians (e.g., see Shaw 2003, pp. 147─148).
But now these people could walk right in. If Enmarch had looked
carefully at the biblical narrative and realized its consequences, he
would have seen this.
6. What we learn if the Ipuwer Papyrus does describe the time
of the Exodus
A large proportion of the text of the Ipuwer Papyrus consists of
details that are not mentioned in the biblical narrative, because they
are describing the chaotic state of Egypt after the Children of Israel
left. We would expect this because the biblical writer is focused
on the movements of the Children of Israel, not on the Egypt that
they left behind. But if this papyrus really does describe Egypt at
the time of the Exodus, we learn some very interesting things about
what went on after the Children of Israel left. We see total chaos,
with the normal roles of society reversed, servants and masters
exchanging positions, rich becoming poor and poor becoming rich,
rebellion against all authorities, and a high rate of crime. There
was famine. Ipuwer goes on and on describing in detail how Egypt
totally fell apart. It is small wonder that the Children of Israel were
not bothered by the Egyptians during the 40 years of wandering in
the wilderness.
7. Final remarks
We might wonder why there are not more directly parallel
statements between the Ipuwer Papyrus and the Bible listed in
Table 1. It is suggested here that this is because Ipuwer could not
have known exactly what the biblical writer was going to say, and
the biblical writer could not have known what Ipuwer was going to
Habermehl ◀Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus ▶ 2018 ICC
5
say! The 8 parallels that are listed are strong points, however, and
they make it very likely that the manuscript is about the plagues
(especially the river being blood).
CONCLUSION
We see that the Ipuwer Papyrus displays strong extra-biblical
evidence for the historicity of the Exodus in its description of
a chaotic Egypt that would have resulted from the biblical 10
plagues. In addition, Table 1 lists some direct parallels between
statements in the manuscript and in the biblical narrative. It is
important to date the events described in the manuscript at the right
time in history, to recognize the divergence of the conventional and
biblical timelines, and to accept the concurrence of the 6th and 12th
Dynasties of Egypt. The Ipuwer Papyrus is therefore a powerful
biblical apologetic.
REFERENCES
Ashton, J., and D. Down. 2006. Unwrapping the pharaohs. Green Forest,
Arkansas: Master Books.
Butzer, K.W. 2012. Collapse, environment, and society. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
(PNAS)109, no. 10:3632–3639.
Callender, G. 2003. The Middle Kingdom renaissance. In The Oxford
history of ancient Egypt, ed. I. Shaw, pp. 137–171. Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press.
Dollinger, A. 2000. The admonitions of Ipuwer. Retrieved June 3, 2018,
from http://www.resham.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/ipuwer.htm.
Enmarch, R. 2008. A World Upturned: Commentary on and Analysis of
‘The Dialogue of Ipuwer and the Lord of All.’ Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press. Published for The British Academy.
Enmarch, R. 2011. The reception of a Middle Egyptian poem: The dialogue
of Ipuwer and The Lord of All in the Ramesside period and beyond. In
Ramesside Studies in Honour of K.A. Kitchen, eds. M. Collier, and S.
Snape, pp. 169–175. Bolton, England: Rutherford Press.
Erman, A. 1966. The Ancient Egyptians: A sourcebook of Their Writings.
New York: Harper Torchbooks. [Originally published by Erman in
German in 1923. Translated into English by A.M. Blackman in 1927.]
Faulkner, R.O. 1965. The admonitions of an Egyptian sage. Journal of
Egyptian Archaeology 51:53–62.
Gardiner, A.H. 1909. The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a
Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden. Leipzig, Germany: J.C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung.
Gardiner, A.H. 1972. Egypt of the Pharaohs. Oxford, England: Oxford
University Press [paperback edition].
Gaudet, J. 2014. Papyrus: The Plant that Changed the World—from
Ancient Egypt to Today’s Water Wars. New York, London: Pegasus
Books.
Habermehl, A. 2013. Revising the Egyptian chronology: Joseph as
Imhotep, and Amenemhat IV as pharaoh of the Exodus. In Proceedings
of the Seventh International Conference on Creationism, ed. M.F.
Horstemeyer. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: Creation Science Fellowship.
Habermehl, A. 2018. Chronology and the Gezer connection—Solomon,
Thutmose III, Shishak and Hatshepsut. Journal of Creation 32, no.
2:83–90.
Hassan, F. A. 2007. Droughts, famine and the collapse of the Old Kingdom:
Re-reading Ipuwer. In The Archaeology and Art of Ancient Egypt:
Essays in Honor of David B. O’Connor, vol. 1, eds. Z.A. Hawass and
J. Richards, pp. 357–377. Cairo: Imprimerie du Conseil Supreme des
Antiquites.
Holden, J.M., and N. Geisler. 2013. The Popular Handbook of Archaeology
and the Bible. Eugene, Oregon: Harvest House Publishers.
Humphreys, C.J. 2003. The Miracles of Exodus: A Scientist’s Discovery
of the Extraordinary Natural Causes of the Biblical Stories. New York:
HarperSanFrancisco.
Jerey, G.R. 2002. Unveiling Mysteries of the Bible. Toronto, Ontario,
Canada: Frontier Research Publications, Inc.
Kolom, A.L. 2008. Brainwashed and Miracles. Bloomington, Indiana:
AuthorHouse.
Lichtheim, M. 1973/1975. Ancient Egyptian literature: The Old and
Middle Kingdoms (vol. 1). Berkley, California: University of California
Press.
Mark, J.J. 2016. The admonitions of Ipuwer. Ancient History Encyclopedia.
Retrieved April 25, 2018, from http://www.ancient.eu/article/981/.
Mathieu, B. 2012. Reexion sur le “Daressy fragment” et ses hommes
illustres. In “Parcourir l’éternité”. Hommages à Jean Yoyotte: Tome II,
eds. C. Zivie-Coche and I. Guermeur, pp. 819–852. Turnhout, Belgium:
Brepols Publishers.
Mӧller, L. 2002. The Exodus Case. Copenhagen, Denmark: Scandinavia
Publishing House.
Pessimistic Literature. 2005. Arts and humanities through the eras.
Encyclopedia.com. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from http://www.
encyclopedia.com/humanities/culture-magazines/pessimistic-literature.
Rice, M. 1999. Who’s Who in Ancient Egypt. London and New York:
Routledge.
Shaw, I. 2003. The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Oxford, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Simpson, W.K. 2003. The Literature of Ancient Egypt. New Haven,
Connecticut, and London: Yale University Press.
Smith, H. 2015. A question on Egyptian hieroglyphics. Bible and Spade
28, no. 1:3.
Stefanovic, D. and H. Satzinger. 2014. An early 12th-Dynasty “Appeal to
the living” (Stela Musée Rodin Inv. No Co 1305). Chronique d’Egypte
89, no. 177:28─33. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from https://www.
academia.edu/22540185/An_early_12th_Dynasty_Appeal_to_the_
Living_Stela_Mus%C3%A9e_Rodin_Inv._No._co_1305_ .
Stewart, T.T. 2003. Solving the Exodus Mystery, vol. 1. Lubbock, Texas:
Biblemart.com.
Te Velde, H. 1988. Egyptian hieroglyphs as linguistic signs and
metalinguistic informants. In The Image in Writing: Visible Religion:
Annual for Religious Iconography (vol. VI), eds. H.G. Kippenberg, L.P.
Van den Bosch, L. Leertouwer, and H.A. Witte, pp. 169–179. Leiden,
The Netherlands: Brill.
Van Seters, J. 1964. A date for the ‘Admonitions’ in the Second Intermediate
Period. The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology 50:13–23.
Velikovsky, I. 1952. Ages in Chaos. Vol. I: From the Exodus to King
Akhnaton. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.
Wilson, J.A. 1969. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old
Testament, 3rd ed. James E. Pritchard, editor. Princeton, New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
THE AUTHOR
Anne Habermehl is a creationist researcher, writer, and speaker.
She has published on topics such as the Egyptian timeline, the
search for Noah’s Ark, the location of the Tower of Babel, the
placement of the Ice Age in history, and who the Neanderthals
were. Born in Canada, she has a B.Sc. from the University of
Waterloo (chemistry major), Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Her web
site is www.creationsixdays.net.
Habermehl ◀Ipuwer Papyrus and the Exodus ▶ 2018 ICC
6
