We're diving into the writings of Manetho, an Egyptian priest and historian, and specifically, his account of the Exodus. Now, Josephus, the first-century Jewish historian, wasn’t buying it, and he took Manetho to task in his work Against Apion. Let's see why.
Manetho claims that a group of "leprous people" and others, after being mistreated, were given a city and land by the Egyptian king. You'd think they'd be grateful, right? But no, Manetho says they rebelled, even against the Egyptian gods themselves! They supposedly overturned the very laws they grew up with.
Josephus’s response is just dripping with incredulity. He asks, wouldn't these former outcasts, now given land and a fresh start, be a little less angry? Even if they hated the king, wouldn't they just plot against him privately? Why declare war on all of Egypt, especially considering how many of them must have had Egyptian relatives? It just doesn't ring true, does it?
And here's where it gets even more bizarre. Manetho accuses the Egyptian priests themselves of orchestrating this rebellion! According to him, they made the common people swear oaths to this effect. Josephus pounces on this: wouldn't at least some Egyptians – friends, family – have refused to join such a revolt? Why would these "polluted people" need to call for help from Jerusalem? What possible alliance could they have had?
Manetho insists that the people from Jerusalem came running, lured by promises of conquering Egypt. But, as Josephus points out, these weren't naive fools. They knew Egypt! They’d been driven out of it. Why would they risk everything to help a bunch of outcasts, especially since they themselves lived in a "happy city" with a "large country," one that Manetho even admits was better than Egypt? It makes absolutely no sense. Were they driven by poverty? No, Manetho says they lived well. Were they acting out of some ancient friendship? Manetho himself admits they were enemies!
He then claims that Amenophis's son (likely referring to a pharaoh, although the exact identity is debated), marched against them with a massive army. Surely, the invaders knew about this force, right? How could they possibly have anticipated the king's sudden change of heart and his flight?
According to Manetho, the invaders from Jerusalem seized Egypt's granaries and committed unspeakable atrocities. But Josephus throws Manetho's own words back at him. If the Egyptians themselves were the ones who initially invited the invaders and swore oaths to that effect, how can Manetho blame the outsiders for doing exactly what the Egyptians themselves were already doing?
The story continues that Amenophis eventually returned, defeated the invaders, and chased them all the way to Syria. But Josephus scoffs. Are we really to believe that Egypt, a powerful nation, could be so easily conquered? And after conquering it, why wouldn't these invaders, knowing Amenophis was alive and coming, have fortified the routes out of Ethiopia? Why wouldn't they have prepared their defenses? Instead, Manetho would have us believe they were easily chased across a difficult, sandy desert all the way to Syria.
As we find in Against Apion, Josephus just can't swallow Manetho's version of events. It's riddled with inconsistencies and absurdities. It paints a picture that defies logic and human nature. It leaves you wondering, what was Manetho's real agenda in crafting such a far-fetched narrative? Was it simply to slander the Jewish people, or was there something more to it? Whatever the reason, Josephus certainly wasn't buying it, and after taking a closer look, neither are we.