We are going to do a great deal of talking about the 18th dynasty kings. To make it easier for you to follow, we will state now that we believe Thutmoses 1 became Amenhotep 1 when he went from co-regent to emperor. Therefore, these 2 names are the same person.
Problem 1. Amenhotep I was the son of Pharaoh Ahmose and Queen Ahmose-Nefertiti. He succeeded his father, and was in turn succeeded by the non-royal Thutmose I, the son of King's Mother Seniseneb. The uncredited author has the succession of the 2nd and 3rd Pharaohs of the 18th Dynasty mixed up. (not a good beginning in my humble opinion.)
This list will tell you who we believe were the names of each royal person we will be discussing. You can reference this list if you get confused.
Pharaoh at Moses' birth THUTMOSES 1/AMENHOTEP 1
"Pharaoh's daughter" NEFURE/HATSHEPSUT
HATSHEPSUT XNEM AMEN
Pharaoh when he fled THUTMOSES 3/AMENHOTEP 2
Pharaoh of the Exodus THUTMOSES 4/AMENHOTEP 3
1st-born son of Pharaoh TUTANKHAMEN
Again, Thutmose I succeeded Amenhotep I not the other way around.
Problem 2 Nefure is seen in temple reliefs as the God's Wife trailing behind Pharaoh Hatshepsut who claims that Nefure is her daughter by Thutmose II, the son of Thutmose I and the King's Mother Mutnefert.
Problem 3 Thutmose III the son of Thutmose II and King's Mother Aset is aknowledged as the father of Amenhotep II and his mother is the King's Mother Meritra.
Problem 4 Thutmose IV is the son of Amenhotep II and the King's Mother Tiaa. His son Amenhotep III succeeded him, his mother was the King's Mother Mutemwia.
Problem 5a Tutankhamun is the first born son of AmenhotepIII. No he wasn't. Even if we accept that Amenhotep III was the father of Tutankhamun (this is widely disagreed upon by many different scholars) He certainly wasn't the first born son of a King that ruled for nearly 38 years and fathered the sons Thutmose, Chief Priest of Ptah in Memphis and Amenhotep ( Akhenaten) sons of Amenhotep III by his wife Tiy. Source Nicolas Grimal in A History of Ancient Egypt pg 221.
Problem 5b Tutankhamun had no first born son... he was succeeded by an old man by the name of Ay.
Problem 6 The uncredited author doesn't even place Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten in his line of 18th Dynasty Pharaohs.
Problem 7 If the Exodus had happened in the reign of Amenhotep III when we have Egypt spent, in ruins, depopulated, and broke... Why do we have the Amarna Letters asking Amenhotep III for gold reference letter number 19 from Tusratta of Mittani, or letter 16 from the Assuruballit of Assyria... "Gold in your country is dirt: one simply gathers it up." This is to the Pharaoh Amenhotep III that this uncredited author wants to peg as the Pharaoh of Exodus? Source The Amarna Letters, translated and edited by Wm. Moran pgs 38-43.
And what of the latest opinion on the partical treasures of Tutankhamun... Minerva The International REview of Ancient Art and Archaeology, Volume 15 Number 3 pg 12. " Compared to the ear's canons of taste, Tutankhamun's tomb could be described as being more luxuriously equipped than those of his predecessors: it could even be described as opulent or over-loaded. Especially the rich gold-plating of the shrines and the wooden statuettes..."
In no way does this sound like the Biblical description of Egypt after the Exodus! Not to me no!
(my source for the names of the King's mothers is from Women in Ancient Egypt by Gay Robins pages 42-52, 150 and from the website http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tuthmosis2.htm
) The information about Nefure is from Women in Ancient Egypt, by Gay Robins pg 151.
THE KINGS OF THE 18TH DYNASTY
The kings of the 18th Dynasty are stated by historians as being named either Amenhotep and Thutmoses. But, there is a big problem with this fluctuation between names. The pharaoh was considered the earthly embodiment of the main god and his name reflected the supreme god of his royal family. Does it make sense to anyone that one king would consider Thoth (Thutmoses) the supreme god while the next considered Amen (Amenhotep) the supreme god, and continue to alternate gods through a succession of several kings? Of course not. As we read earlier, the list of dynasties and kings that the Egyptologists base their information on is quite inaccurate. The inscriptions found in temples and tombs indicate that the "Thutmoses" name is indicative of one of the offices of the pharaoh, just as was the "Amenhotep" name-and that each pharaoh was both a "Thutmoses" as well as an "Amenhotep" as he advanced in the royal line from co-regent to emperor. From our research, it appears that the crown prince received his "Thutmoses" title upon being appointed co-regent, and then became "Amenhotep" in addition to his earlier names, when he became emperor. Let me stress that it appears that this is the order he received each name; however, it may possibly have been reversed. But we have no doubts that each ruler possessed both names. And each ruler left inscriptions relating to his reign in both names-sometimes he referred to himself as Thutmoses, while at other times Amenhotep. Each individual king left inscriptions in both names, dating his regnal years sometimes from the date of his co-regency and sometimes from the date of his emperorship. We don't fully understand the "rules" governing these practices yet. "
i guess the best argument to this is that Thutmose I wasn't of the royal house but was chosen by Amenhotep I as his successor in part due to his military ability. It is generally believed that Thutmose I was a member of some relation to the royal family but not a son of Pharaoh. Therefore the addition of the name of Thutmose (in honor of Thoth the son in law of Amun-Re married to the goddess Maat) into the royal house is to me understandable.
Not only did as the uncredited author state "Each individual king left inscriptions in both names," but apparently 2 tombs in the same Valley of the Kings. Okay i don't buy it. The practice of double tombs died out in the Early Dynastic period, and even then as it was practiced the two tombs where vast differences from each other. Like Abybos and Saqquara! Not in the same valley