Significant Find by the Israel Antiquities Authority

[Confused Ape]

The the last ten lines make no sense in a historical sense. Canaan WAS Egyptian. There was no need to conquer it and there is nothing to suggest that he was quashing a rebellion. Why would the Egyptians attack their own vassals? Further, all this strong hand of Ra shit is missing.

It almost reads like an after action report. "Yes, his majesty defeated the Libyans but losses were taken in Canaan where vassal towns were defeated" (by the Sea People? Attacking from the Mediterranean on the Egyptian flank?). It is not so glorious a victory in Canaan but the Egyptians are left holding the field...burned though it was.

I've been doing a bit of googling. First of all, nobody is really sure about who the Israelites are. One bit of confusion struck me as rather interesting, though.

Merneptah Stele Significance

While alternatives to the reading "Israel" have been put forward since the stele's discovery – the two primary candidates being "Jezreel",[8][9] a city and valley in northern Canaan, and a continuation of the description of Libya referring to "wearers of the sidelock"[a] – most scholars accept that Merneptah refers to "Israel". It is not clear, however, just who this Israel was or where they were located.[c] [b]For the "who", if the battle reliefs of Karnak show the Israelites, then they are depicted in Canaanite costume and Merneptah's Israelites are therefore Canaanites; if, on the other hand, the Karnak reliefs do not show Merneptah's campaigns, then the stele's Israelites may be "Shasu", a term used by the Egyptians to refer to nomads and marauders.[13]

I then went to the list of Pharaohs.

List Of Pharaohs

Akhenaten, who introduced a monotheistic religion, reigned 1352–1334 BC. Merneptah (listed by his alternate name - Banenre Merenptah) reigned 1213–1203 BC.

I then found an article on a Christian website which turned out to be useful because it lists different theories about the so-called conquest of Canaan by the Israelites.

Apologetics Press -The Conquest of Canaan: How and When?

Second, the combined efforts of George Mendenhall and Norman Gottwald introduced and popularized the “peasant revolt” theory that actually redefines the ethnic origin of the Israelite nation. This model suggests that there was no external conquest of Canaan; it was an indigenous liberation movement among depressed Canaanite peasants living in the countryside. These peasants, who formed the lowest level of their culture’s highly stratified social order, engaged in an egalitarian rebellion, overthrew their urban overlords, and became “Israelites.”

This would explain why Merneptah's Israelites are depicted wearing Canaanite costume.

Second, there are reputable archaeologists who feel that these theories are inconsistent with the evidence. Abraham Malamat, for example, argued that the archaeological evidence demonstrates that a number of Canaanite cities were destroyed, and subsequently settled, by the Israelites (1982, 8[2]:24-35). Additionally, Yigael Yadin, the late distinguished archaeologist, suggested that the picture painted by archaeological finds is consistent with the biblical portrait: fortified Canaanite cities were destroyed and replaced by a new culture (1982, 8[2]:19). Though these archaeologists were/are committed to a late date of the conquest, and allowed for some errors in biblical details, their interpretations of the physical evidence support the general outline of the biblical presentation of the conquest.

I then did some speculating.

We know that a number of tribes in Canaan eventually got together, called themselves Israelites, adopted a monotheistic religion and eliminated rival religions. What if these tribes decided to make a move when Merneptah was involved in a big campaign in Libya?

Back to the stele theories.

Similarly, if Merneptah's claim to have destroyed Israel's "seed" means that he destroyed its grain supply, then Israel can be taken to be a settled, crop-growing people; if, however, it means he killed Israel's progeny, then Israel can be taken to be pastoralists, i.e., Shasu.[14] The normative Egyptian use of "wasted, bare of seed" was as a repeated, formulaic phrase to declare victory over a defeated nation or people group whom the Egyptian army conquered and had literally destroyed their grain supply in the specific geographic region that they inhabited.

Merneptah, after dealing with the Libyans, dealt with the uppity Canaanite tribes. If the word "seed" could mean grain or progeny, the formulaic phrase could be used for any conquered people no matter what their lifestyle was.

The Israelites were inventing an epic history of their origins. They didn't mention this setback so it didn't get into the Bible. From the Egyptian point of view this rebellion was just a minor annoyance so it was mentioned as an afterthought on the stele.