Exodus 1:8 mentions a mysterious “new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph.” For centuries, theologians, archaeologists, and historians have attempted to identify which pharaoh initiated the policy of oppression against the Israelites — and what this phrase truly means in the context of ancient Egypt. This article presents an extensive analysis, gathering biblical sources, Egyptian records, archaeology, chronological debates, and the main modern hypotheses (Kamose and Ahmose I), as well as exploring less widespread but academically relevant proposals.

The phrase that changed the history of Israel

The book of Exodus begins with a sharp change in the fate of the Hebrew people in Egypt. After describing the growth of Jacob's descendants — now a numerous community — the biblical text states:

“A new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.”
— Exodus 1:8

This passage is the starting point of the period of oppression that culminates in the Exodus. But the identity of this “new king” remains one of the greatest enigmas of biblical archaeology.

The question is crucial for three reasons:

1. It defines the chronology of the Exodus.

2. It connects the biblical text to real Egypt, its dynasties, and historical events.

3. It determines the sociopolitical context in which the narrative unfolds.

The reference from the Armstrong Institute — “Who Was the Pharaoh Who ‘Knew Not Joseph’?” — argues that the best candidate is Kamose, while other scholars advocate for Ahmose I, founder of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty.

To contextualize this, we need to understand not only Egypt at the time but also the impact of the Hyksos Era and the national reconfiguration that occurred in Egypt before and during the rise of this generation of pharaohs.

Before the “Pharaoh Who Knew Not Joseph”: how Joseph came to power

To understand the rupture mentioned in Exodus 1:8, it is essential to review the scenario in which Joseph was known in Egypt.

According to the account in Genesis:

• Joseph rises to power after interpreting the pharaoh's dreams.

• He becomes governor, “second in authority” of the kingdom.

• He manages the seven years of famine crisis.

• His family settles in the region of Goshen (Eastern Delta).

From a historical perspective, many archaeologists understand that:

• Joseph's arrival coincides with a period of strong Semitic presence in the Delta,

• and that Egypt was undergoing a phase where foreigners had more social mobility (Hyksos period or nearby transitions).

In other words:
Joseph stood out in an Egypt with strong Semitic influence. This explains why he “was known.”

But when the text says that a pharaoh arose “who knew not Joseph,” it suggests:

• an abrupt regime change,

• dynastic rupture,

• and possibly hostility toward Semitic peoples.

These three factors strongly point to a specific moment in Egyptian history:
the end of Hyksos dominance and the rise of the nationalist pharaohs of the 17th and 18th dynasties.

The Egypt of the Hyksos: the background ignored by many interpreters

The Hyksos were rulers of Semitic origin (probably Canaanites) who dominated the Nile Delta for about 100 years. Their capital was Avaris, in northern Egypt.

During this period, Egypt was divided:

• North (Delta) → controlled by the Hyksos.

• South (Thebes) → controlled by native Egyptian pharaohs.

This scenario helps explain why:

• a Semite like Joseph could rise to power,

• and why the Israelite presence was initially well received.

When a pharaoh hostile to the Hyksos comes to power and expels foreigners, he can only look at Semitic groups — like the Israelites — with suspicion.

Exodus 1:8–10 and the Egyptian language of hostility

Let’s observe the complete passage:

“And a new king arose over Egypt, who knew not Joseph.
And he said to his people: Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more numerous and stronger than we.
Come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that when there is a war, they join themselves to our enemies...”
— Exodus 1:8–10

This language is extremely similar to Egyptian military discourses from the late 17th Dynasty and early 18th Dynasty, especially in the speech preserved on Kamose's stelae:

• “the Asiatic enemy in the North”

• “they are numerous”

• “they divide the land with us”

• “we need to expel them”

These expressions appear in Egyptian records about the Hyksos and echo almost directly the language of Exodus.

Therefore, many scholars consider that the pharaoh “who knew not Joseph” belongs exactly to this period.

Hypothesis 1 — Kamose: the pharaoh most consistent with Exodus 1:8–10

Kamose was the last pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty (c. 1555 BC) and led the Egyptian resurgence against the Hyksos. His reign is short but enveloped in nationalism, ethnic purification, and war.

5.1 Why Kamose is a strong candidate

1. He initiates war against the foreigners from the North, seen as an internal threat.

2. His recorded speeches preserve phrases very close to the rhetoric of Exodus.

3. He is the pharaoh of rupture, of transition — the pharaoh who literally “arises.”

4. The phrase “did not know Joseph” fits the context of a ruler who rejects the previous era, marked by foreign influence.

5. The Armstrong Institute indicates that the terms used in the Stela of Kamose echo the mentality described in Exodus 1.

5.2 Language of Kamose compared to Exodus

Kamose:

• “The Asiatic governor is in Avaris.”

• “They are numerous and dominate the land.”

• “They are dividing Egypt with us.”

Exodus 1:

• “The people of Israel are more numerous and stronger.”

• “They may join our enemies.”

• “Let us deal wisely with them.”

The similarity is so strong that many archaeologists consider Kamose the most plausible candidate.

5.3 Main objection

Kamose's reign is short. Some argue that it would be more logical for the oppressive pharaoh to be someone with a longer rule.

But this does not eliminate the hypothesis, as the beginning of the oppression may have started with Kamose and been consolidated by his successor.

Hypothesis 2 — Ahmose I: the founder of the 18th Dynasty

Ahmose I, son of Sekenenre and brother or successor of Kamose, completed the expulsion of the Hyksos, unified Egypt, and initiated the powerful 18th Dynasty — the same that would later include kings like Thutmose III, Hatshepsut, and Amenhotep III.

6.1 Why many scholars prefer Ahmose I

1. He is responsible for definitively expelling the foreigners.

2. He initiates a strong nationalist policy.

3. He reconstructs Avaris, turning it into a military base.

4. His reign is longer, allowing systematic policies of oppression.

5. The dynastic transition from the end of the Hyksos to the beginning of the 18th Dynasty well represents the “new king.”

6.2 Construction works associated with forced labor

Ahmose conducts large projects:

• reconstruction of Delta cities,

• granaries,

• warehouses,

• military constructions.

This directly aligns with Exodus 1:11, which mentions the imposition of taskmasters and forced labor.

6.3 Main objection

The strongest criticism is chronological: identifying Ahmose I as “the pharaoh who knew not Joseph” implies that:

• the Exodus would have occurred much earlier than the traditional date,

• or it would have occurred during a different intermediate period than the popular model (13th century BC).

But this does not invalidate the hypothesis; it merely indicates that the traditional timeline could be off.

Hypothesis 3 — Later pharaohs (Hatshepsut, Thutmose III, Ramses II): why they are unlikely

Some traditions and popular films associate:

• the oppression with Seti I,

• the Exodus with Ramses II.

This model is based on the fact that the city of Pithom and Ramses appears in the biblical text. But modern archaeology has shown significant inconsistencies:

1. Israel already existed as an entity in the time of Ramses II, as shown in the Merneptah Stele.

2. There is no evidence of a large Israelite presence in Egypt during the 13th century BC.

3. The pharaohs of the period were extremely documented, and no record alludes to the events of the Exodus.

Therefore, most scholars dismiss Ramses II and Seti I as the pharaoh of Exodus 1:8.

The meaning of “did not know Joseph”: linguistic and historical reading

Biblical Hebrew allows multiple interpretations for “did not know Joseph”:

8.1 Literal reading

The pharaoh truly did not know who Joseph was.
This presupposes:

• breakdown of records,

• dynastic change,

• disinterest in recent history.

8.2 Political reading

8.3 Military and nationalist reading

This reading fits better with Kamose/Ahmose I, as:

• any positive association with foreigners was seen as a threat,

• the Egyptian nationalist narrative sought to erase the era of the Hyksos.

Does archaeology confirm any of these pharaohs?

The honest answer is: not definitively.

But there is evidence that fits well within the scenario described in Exodus:

9.1 Avaris (Tell el-Dab'a)

Excavations show:

• large Semitic presence,

• Canaanite-style houses,

• tombs with Asian characteristics,

• population increase followed by a sharp decline.

This aligns with:

• Israelite growth,

• subsequent oppression and expulsion.

9.2 Stelae of Kamose

Show the discourse of hostility towards the “Asiatics.”

9.3 Records of Ahmose I

Indicate reorganization of the Delta and major works.

9.4 Silence about Israel

Egypt rarely recorded defeats or internal problems.
Silence is not evidence against biblical historicity.

Which pharaoh is the most likely?

After analyzing:

• archaeology,

• Hyksos context,

• nationalist policy,

• chronology,

• biblical text,

• linguistics,

• historical parallels,

the most coherent result is the following:

1st candidate (strongest): Kamose

100% aligned with the discourse of Exodus, the climate of suspicion towards Asiatics, and the immediate context of rupture.

2nd candidate (very strong): Ahmose I

Reorganizes Egypt, expels foreigners, imposes significant forced labor, and inaugurates a new political phase.

3rd candidate (weak): any pharaoh of the 19th dynasty

Including Seti I, Ramses II, and Merneptah — unlikely for historical and archaeological reasons.

What this means for biblical studies and modern readers

1. The Bible coherently fits into real Egypt.
   The discourse of Exodus 1 finds clear parallels in Egyptian inscriptions.

2. The narrative does not depend on knowing the right name.
   The theological message is preserved.

3. But knowing the right name deepens historical understanding.
   And strengthens the academic study of the Bible.