In Search of Bithiah Bat Pharaoh and the Meaning of I Chronicles 4:18

Chronicles records the marriage of an Egyptian princess named Bithiah to Mered, from the tribe of Judah. And his wife from the tribe of Judah gave birth to Jered the father of Gedor, Heber the father of Soko, and Jekuthiel the father of Zanoah. And these were the children of Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah, whom Mered had married (I Chron. 4:18).

The Sages identify Mered with Caleb, on account of his rebellion against the counsel of the spies, and Bithiah with the daughter of Pharaoh who saved Moshe, raising him as her own son.¹ The Sages further associate each of the names listed in the first half of the verse with Moshe.² The obscure referents in this opaque verse confound the reader intent on accessing the plain sense of the text. Like much of the genealogical material featured in Chronicles, I Chronicles 4:18 charts the relationship between mysterious figures mentioned nowhere else in the Bible. Indeed, the book of Chronicles is well known for its vexingly irreconcilable inconsistencies with earlier biblical material.³

In his quest for a broad methodology for interpreting the book of Chronicles, Yaakov Kurtzweil reflects on the rabbinic statement, “The book of Chronicles is meant to be interpreted homiletically.”⁴ Kurtzweil suggests that despite Chronicles’ deceptive similarity to the books of Samuel and Kings, it should nonetheless be approached fundamentally differently.⁵ Kurtzweil argues that the Book of Chronicles is best understood as a theological history. As one of the latter books of the Tanakh, Kurtzweil explains Chronicles to be a bridge between the ebbing era of prophecy and the emerging genre of midrash. Studying the Book of Chronicles, therefore, necessitates a fundamental paradigm shift. The plain sense of the text, or its pshat, may only be arrived at by harmonizing its explicit content with its implicit intent.

In our quest to comprehend I Chronicles 4:18 and its reference to Pharaoh’s daughter we will temporarily veer into the annals of ancient Egypt. Our pursuit of the plain sense of the text will be informed both by the historical material as well as the theological message of the chronicler.

Is Bithiah a Real Historical Figure?

Richard Steiner makes a strong case for Bithiah as a real historical figure.⁶ “Skeptics may object that Bithiah does not merit attention, that she is a fabrication of the Chronicler. This objection carries little weight, for the Chronicler is one of the last people that one should suspect of inventing a foreign wife for one of the ancestors of the Jewish community. Even if we adopt the view that the Chronicler was not the author of Ezra-Nehemiah, he was undoubtedly a pious Jew who shared the abhorrence of foreign wives, including those of Solomon, expressed in Ezra 9-10 and Nehemiah 13:23-27. This attitude is probably the reason for his decision to skip the discussion of Solomon’s foreign wives (including the “daughter of Pharaoh”) found in I Kings (11:1-10) and to omit three of the four other references to the “daughter of Pharaoh.” It is hardly reasonable to suppose that the Chronicler would omit four references to Solomon’s “daughter of Pharaoh” and then turn around and invent a new “daughter of Pharaoh” for the obscure Mered.“

Steiner’s argument that the chronicler’s agenda of eschewing intermarriage supports the historicity of Bithiah’s marriage into the family of Caleb,⁷ is bolstered by the report in I Chronicles 2:34-5 of Yarha, an Egyptian slave, who married the Judean daughter of Sheshan. The 14th generation descendant of that union, Elishama, appears in the text. Elishama’s grandson Yishmael is infamous for his assassination of Gedaliah ben Ahikam (II Kgs. 25:25). Yehuda Kiel suggests that it is likely that the chronicler’s entire motivation for including the story of Yarha was to promote the idea that intermarriage was ultimately to blame for the dissolution of Judean autonomy (Jer. 41-42), and the completion of the Babylonian exile.⁸ This lends further support to Steiner’s approach to the authenticity of the Bithiah material. The chronicler’s unusually positive approach to the Bithiah account, which is lacking in even a smack of criticism, is commented upon by Neriyah Klein. He states: “It is difficult to detect any criticism at all, explicit or implicit. If we judge the matter based on what her very name indicates, it appears that she is favorably perceived.”⁹

In Steiner’s assessment of the Bithiah material, he clarifies that whereas he is not setting out to prove the identity of Bithiah, he is setting out to prove the plausibility of his suggestion. While I respectfully disagree with Steiner’s suggested identification of Bithiah, I agree that Bithiah’s historicity is attested to by the chronicler. Arguments in defense of the plausibility of my suggestion will follow my arguments against Steiner’s hypothesis.

Steiner’s Identification of Bithiah with a Surmised Ramessid Princess

Steiner adopts the 13th cent. BCE approach to the Exodus.¹⁰ The 13th century approach is essentially grounded in the assumed correlation between the topographic name Raamses in Exodus 1:11, and Ramesses II, the celebrated pharaoh of Egypt’s 19th dynasty, ca. the 13th cent. BCE.¹¹ Steiner points to the Ramessid princess, Bint(i)-’Anat, ’daughter of ‘Anat’, the eldest daughter of Ramesses II, who eventually became his wife, as well. Steiner surmises the existence of another similarly named Ramessid princess. He further conjectures that this surmised princess subsequently underwent a name change that incorporated the Israelite theophoric element “Yâ.” There is, however, no compelling reason to theorize the existence of an otherwise unattested historical figure, especially when a known historical figure is available who fits the requisite criteria. My alternative suggestion will be presented below, following a brief presentation in support of the 15th cent. BCE Exodus approach.

The 15th Century BCE Exodus Approach

The biblical chronology places the Exodus in the mid-15th cent. BCE. This is primarily based on I Kings 6:1, which dates the beginning of the construction of the Temple of Solomon to the 480th year from the Exodus (coinciding with Solomon’s 4th regnal year,¹² in the mid-10th cent. BCE).¹³ The 15th cent. Exodus approach is further indicated by Jephthah’s statement that 300 years had elapsed since the Israelite occupation of Moabite lands (Judg. 11:26). Late-date Exodus supporters, however, are at a loss to account for the length of the judges period.¹⁴ Furthermore, if Ramesses II were indeed the pharaoh of the Exodus, Moses would have fled from his father, Seti,¹⁵ which would necessitate the building of the city of Raamses of Exodus fame well before the rise of Ramesses II! However, the 13th cent. Exodus theory only works if the Israelite conquest of Canaan can be placed sometime during the reign of Ramesses II, and before Merneptah and his famous stela.¹⁶

The archaeological record indeed aligns well with a 15th cent. Exodus.¹⁷ Meitlis’ examination of the chronology of the Israeli highlands and the concurrence of different pottery types led him to the conclusion that the beginning of the Iron Age, and the Israelite conquest, should be dated to the 14th cent. BCE.¹⁸ Hänsler’s and Billington’s identification of Cushan Rishathaim’s Aram Naharim (Judg. 3:8-11), with the Mittani,¹⁹ a nation referred to in ancient Egyptian texts as Nahrima/Naharin,²⁰ and known to have disappeared from the world stage shortly after the 13th century BCE,²¹ poses a serious challenge to the late-date Exodus approach.²² The recent re-evaluation of the Israelite altar site on Mount Eval, dating the scarabs found there to the mid-18th Dynasty, adds further to the evidence favoring a 15th cent. Exodus.²³ Adam Zertal’s identification of Khirbet el-Ahwat with Haroseth Haggoyim, a single occupation site, which was populated only briefly between the 13th and 12th centuries, and which closely resembles unique late Bronze Age sites in Sardinia, correlates with a contemporary timeframe for the Deborah-Barak battle at Hazor.²⁴ The early 12th cent. BCE dating of the ancient cities of Tel Ta’annek (Taanach),²⁵ and el-Khirbeh/Mahrun (Meroz),²⁶ which play a prominent role in Devorah’s valedictory song (Judg. 5:19, 23), further supports a contemporary timeframe for the Deborah-Barak battle at Hazor.²⁷

Wanted: A Mid-18th Dynasty Royal Foster Mother

Identifying the mid-15th cent. BCE as our target date for the Exodus allows us to search for possible candidates for the role of Moshe’s royal foster mother. Amenhotep II, of Egypt’s 18th Dynasty, who inherited a vast kingdom from his father, Thutmose III, and whose ascension to the throne coincides with the mid-15th cent. BCE,²⁸ emerges as the most likely candidate for pharaoh of the Exodus.²⁹ Given Moshe’s eighty years of age when he stood before Pharaoh (Ex. 7:7), his birth would have coincided with the reign of Thutmose I.³⁰ Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose had only two offspring, both daughters. The more well-known of the two was Hatshepsut, who married her half-brother Thutmose II, and after becoming widowed, went on to rule Egypt as coregent with her stepson and nephew, Thutmose III.³¹ Hatshepsut brazenly went against royal protocol and raised into her innermost circle a steward of common birth named Senemut,³² (translated to mean “mother’s brother”).³³ Hatshepsut’s unorthodox patronage of Senemut is directly relevant to our discussion insofar as it testifies to the plausibility of the seemingly outlandish biblical claim that an Egyptian princess (contemporary with Hatshepsut) raised a commoner into her innermost royal circle.

Neferubity

Two inscriptions from Hatshepsut’s mortuary temple at Deir el-Bahari testify to the existence of a sister, princess Neferubity, daughter of both Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose, who inexplicably vanished from the annals of Ancient Egypt.³⁴ The first inscription appears in a royal relief featuring the princess alongside Thutmose I and Queen Ahmose,³⁵ and the second appears in a cartouche (an oval containing the name of an Egyptian monarch) alongside other hieroglyphs that attest to Neferubity being the daughter of Thutmose I.³⁶

The name Neferubity is composed of two essential elements, nefer (meaning beautiful)³⁷ and bity, which refers to Lower Egypt (North Egypt).³⁸ Nefer was a common component in many feminine names (as in the name Nefertiti). The name Bithiah may be understood to have retained the essential and more unique element, bity, and to have replaced the more standard Egyptian feminine component, Nefer, with the Israelite theophoric Ya. The supposition that the name Bithiah is related to the Egyptian bity is supported by its unusual vocalization, featuring the short ‘i’ sound, as opposed to the short ‘a’ vocalization found in similar names featuring the bat or daughter prefix, as in Bat-Shua (I Chron. 2:3), Bat-Sheva (II Sam. 11:3), and Bat-Nadiv (Song of Songs 7:2). Steiner’s analysis of the name Bithiah, which he explains to exhibit two features that are unknown in other Israelite names, supports this supposition. To begin with, “Names of the form ‘daughter/son of DN’ were not in use among native Israelites, but they were fairly common among Israel’s neighbors, making their first appearance at the end of the third millennium BCE.”³⁹ Furthermore, “Another unique feature of this name is preserved in the biblical reading traditions of the ancient Jewish communities of Babylonia and Alexandria. In contrast to the Tiberian tradition, which gives the name as Bityây, the Babylonian tradition has Bittêyâ with a geminated t, and the Alexandrian tradition (as represented by Codex Alexandrinus) has Βεθθια… Βεθθια preserves the gemination attested in the second-millennium Amorite names Bi-it-ti-Da-gan, Bi-it-ta-ad-di, and Bi-it-ta-ma-al-ki.”⁴⁰ Steiner adds that “The fact that these two traditions are so far apart geographically makes their agreement all the more impressive, leading us to conclude that the name Bithiah had a geminated t in the biblical period.”⁴¹ Steiner concludes that “The name of the princess – Bittë-Yâ – is Semitic rather than Egyptian, but it exhibits non-Israelite features and is unique in the Bible.”⁴²

The existence of a known 18th Dynasty princess (Neferubity) contemporary with Moshe (according to the Tanakh chronology) whose sister (Hatshepsut) is known to have breached royal etiquette by raising a commoner into her innermost circle (Senemut), whose name uncannily resembles the name provided by Chronicles (Bithiah) and whose mysterious disappearance from the historical record was synchronous with the Exodus, is to say the very least highly interesting. The question that remains is, can it be ascertained that the Chronicles account of Bithiah is indeed referencing an Egyptian princess contemporary with the Exodus?

A Close Reading of I Chronicles 4:18

Radak understands I Chronicles 4:18 as a report about Bithiah’s marriage to Mered, a descendant of Caleb ben Yefuneh.⁴³ Malbim, however, understands Bithiah to have been married to Caleb.⁴⁴ He explains the initial vav in our verse, that introduces the words “And his wife from the tribe of Judah,” to refer to Caleb, the primary forebear of the subsection that began in vs. 15. Accordingly, Bithiah’s introduction with the words And these are the children of Bithiah, indicates that she too (like the Judahite wife mentioned before her) was married to Caleb, and that Mered was one of her children.⁴⁵ Rashi also understands our verse to be a continuation of vs. 15. He adopts the homiletic interpretation equating Mered with Caleb on account of his rebellion against the counsel of the spies.⁴⁶ Chronicles’ penchant for using unidentified aliases may be observed a few verses earlier, with the mysterious figure named Yavez. The text does not offer any explanation as to Yavez’s relationship to the surrounding genealogy: Jabez was more honorable than his brothers. His mother had named him Jabez, saying, “I gave birth to him in pain.” Jabez cried out to the God of Israel, “Oh, that you would bless me and enlarge my territory! Let your hand be with me and keep me from harm so that I will be free from pain.” And God granted his request (I Chron. 4:9-10).

The sudden appearance of Yavetz in the genealogy of Judah suggests that Yavez is another name for a figure listed in the surrounding material.⁴⁷ This assumption is further supported by the brief background story explaining his name, which is reminiscent of the story of Benjamin’s birth (Gen. 35:16-21). Yavez’s mother, like Rachel, gives her son a name commemorating her pain and suffering during childbirth. We may assume that like Benjamin, who was subsequently renamed, Yavez too acquired a different name. This is further indicated by the text itself, which describes Yavez’s plea that he be released from pain, which was the very essence of his name.

A further example of Chronicles altering the name of a known biblical figure may be observed in I Chronicles 2:7, which refers to Achan as Achar,⁴⁸ on account of his having been “ocher Yisrael” (the one who sullied Israel).⁴⁹ Indeed, Nachmanides points out that throughout the Tanakh synonyms for names are commonly interchanged.⁵⁰ He cites the example of the descendant of Simeon who is referred to as Zerah in Numbers, and as Zohar in Exodus (both names referencing the idea of shining).⁵¹

Regarding the final clause of vs. 18 that references Bithiah and Mered, R. Haim Dov Rabinowitz, in his commentary Daat Sofrim, concurs with the general approach of Rashi and Malbim that assumes Bithiah to have been married to Caleb. However, he interprets the first half of the verse that introduces the Judahite wife with a connecting vav, And his wife from the tribe of Judah, to be grammatically connected to the preceding verse. The concluding clause of vs. 18, And these were the children of Pharaoh’s daughter Bithiah whom Mered had married, is explained by Rabinowitz to reference the entire subunit, which was introduced in vs. 15.⁵² In other words, the report of Bithiah’s marriage to Mered emerges as a final summation of the section’s opening statement, The sons of Caleb son of Yefuneh. Bithiah’s marriage to Caleb/Mered around the time of the Exodus is thereby shown to be supported by the plain sense of the text. The suggested identification of Bithiah with Neferubity presented here therefore emerges as entirely plausible. The shared 18th Dynasty, 15th cent. BCE background of these two figures, and their unique onomastic similarities, support such a correlation.

The approach to I Chronicles 4:15-18 presented here demonstrates that the pshat and the drash may be understood to work together, resolving literary ambiguities while imbuing the text with meaning. The marriage of Caleb/Mered to Bithiah infuses the genealogy of Judah with the message of what it means to be a true leader. Bithiah’s rejection of her father’s genocidal edicts facilitated the emergence of the unparalleled leadership of Moshe Rabbeinu, the Exodus from Egypt, and the ultimate establishment of the Nation of Israel. Similarly, Caleb/Mered’s defiant stand against popular opinion paved the way for Israel’s entry into the Land. Indeed, the sobriquet that Chronicles uses for Caleb highlights this very quality. This is eloquently expressed in the Talmud’s concluding statement on our verse: “It is fitting that Caleb, who rebelled against the counsel of the spies, should come and betroth the daughter of Pharaoh, who rebelled against her father’s treachery” (BT Megillah 13a). By harmonizing the implicit with the explicit message of the text we gain better access to both its historical and theological message.