Who was Pharaoh? (Moses, Messiah, exodus, beliefs, followers)

[Bennettresearch]

The question is; who was Pharaoh during the Exodus? While the OT mentions names of other Pharaohs it is silent on this one and it brings up a big question, why isn’t this Pharaoh named? The most popular theory is that it was Ramesses II, but this doesn’t quite add up according to the Bible.

There is no absolute dating for Ramesses, but for the sake of argument to try and align his reign with the Exodus let’s say his reign started in 1290 BCE. The Temple of Solomon is also stated by scholars to have been completed between 953 and 957 BCE. If this is true it would put the Exodus at 1440 to 1444BCE. This is a full 150 to 154 years before Ramesses II took his throne.

(1Kings 6:1)

I spent a lot of time doing a timeline that was back dated from the Babylonian captivity which has been generally dated at 598 BCE. There were a few discrepancies but the cross references of the Kings of Israel made in the books of Kings and Chronicles give us a chronology that dates the Temple as being started in 1004 BCE. This places the Exodus at 1484 BCE, which is 194 years before Ramesses took the throne. This would actually put the Exodus as being during the reign of Thutmose III, 1490-1450 or 36 BCE.

One can’t help but see that Moses is a derivative of Thutmose. Is this the reason that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is not named? Did the writers of Kings and Chronicles leave this blank so as to avoid linking Moses directly to the Pharaoh? The Exodus is a decisive defeat of the Pharaoh, so why not name him and declare the victory? What do you think about this?


Craig

[Malus 12:9]

The Moses and Aaron story? I thought Pharoah was his name in Exodus. God helped Moses
and Aaron conspire with stave trickery.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

The question is; who was Pharaoh during the Exodus?

All relevant evidence suggests that the Exodus is folklore. As for date, I have recommended Dennis Bratcher more than once.

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by Deut. 10:19

All relevant evidence suggests that the Exodus is folklore. As for date, I have recommended Dennis Bratcher more than once.

That's all very nice Deut.

If Dennis likes the date of 960 BCE as the start of the Temple, fine. This doesn't address the question here. Why isn't Pharaoh named in the OT? If you want to double check the chronology of the Kings that I stated, go ahead. You will find that the OT dates the start of the Temple at 1004 BCE. So let's not hassle about 40 years or so, or whether there is any evidence that it happened at all, let's discuss why Pharaoh isn't named in the account of Exodus. OK?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

So let's not hassle about 40 years or so, ...

I don't recall hassling at all.

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

..., let's discuss why Pharaoh isn't named in the account of Exodus.

Because the lore was codified centuries after the purported events. Because a name was wholly unnecessary and would, in fact, simply get in the way of 'Pharoah' as symbol.

[Merlin]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

The question is; who was Pharaoh during the Exodus? While the OT mentions names of other Pharaohs it is silent on this one and it brings up a big question, why isn’t this Pharaoh named? The most popular theory is that it was Ramesses II, but this doesn’t quite add up according to the Bible.

There is no absolute dating for Ramesses, but for the sake of argument to try and align his reign with the Exodus let’s say his reign started in 1290 BCE. The Temple of Solomon is also stated by scholars to have been completed between 953 and 957 BCE. If this is true it would put the Exodus at 1440 to 1444BCE. This is a full 150 to 154 years before Ramesses II took his throne.

(1Kings 6:1)

I spent a lot of time doing a timeline that was back dated from the Babylonian captivity which has been generally dated at 598 BCE. There were a few discrepancies but the cross references of the Kings of Israel made in the books of Kings and Chronicles give us a chronology that dates the Temple as being started in 1004 BCE. This places the Exodus at 1484 BCE, which is 194 years before Ramesses took the throne. This would actually put the Exodus as being during the reign of Thutmose III, 1490-1450 or 36 BCE.

One can’t help but see that Moses is a derivative of Thutmose. Is this the reason that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is not named? Did the writers of Kings and Chronicles leave this blank so as to avoid linking Moses directly to the Pharaoh? The Exodus is a decisive defeat of the Pharaoh, so why not name him and declare the victory? What do you think about this?

Craig

There are many who believe that Moses was actually Pharaoh Akhenaten. If not he, then a very close person to him. This belief comes from the fact that his father was the first to believe in one God, and seems to believe that that this one God is the giver of all life.

Yes, he believed that God was part of the sun, but it follows my belief that God has revealed his truth in small steps that we could both understand and accept. This would fit in with earlier Egyptian beliefs.

we know that Amenophis 3rd (his father) had begun a religious transformation (instituting a monotheistic worshipping of the Sun God Aten). It seems that Amenophis.4th (eventually Akhenaten) was announced as a "Messiah" for this new religion, and developed it to the point where he was either killed or exiled.

One of the Psalms is almost a carbon copy of the hymn written by this young pharaoh. So it is possible that the exodus story refers to the exiling of this so called heretic pharaoh and his followers. Israel came into being at about that time.

Ho 11:1 When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called my son.

[Bennettresearch]

Originally Posted by Deut. 10:19

I don't recall hassling at all.

Well Deut, maybe the reason people get this impression is the way that your posts seem to be more argumentative than actual debate.

Originally Posted by Deut. 10:19

Because the lore was codified centuries after the purported events. Because a name was wholly unnecessary and would, in fact, simply get in the way of 'Pharoah' as symbol.

I'll accept this as a possibility. That is the kind of response I am looking for here.

I have a side question for you. Do you subscribe to the minimalist view that the OT is a work of fiction by 2nd century scribes? Or, judging from your statement, that the OT is just a compilation of oral legend?

I would counter your statement with this question, why would these scribes go to all of the trouble to state geneologies and chronologies which name everyone and overlook the opportunity to name the pharaoh defeated in Exodus?

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Well Deut, maybe the reason people get this impression is the way that your posts seem to be more argumentative than actual debate.

That's fair. Thanks for the feedback.

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

I have a side question for you. Do you subscribe to the minimalist view that the OT is a work of fiction by 2nd century scribes?

I do not hold this view. Rather, I agree with Dever when he wrote ...

Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

Dever, as you may or may not know, is a leading opponent of minimalism withing the ranks of serious archaeology.

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

Or, judging from your statement, that the OT is just a compilation of oral legend?

I think that "just a compilation of oral legend" is overly superficial and dismissive when dealing with sthe Tanach.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Bennettresearch

I would counter your statement with this question, why would these scribes go to all of the trouble to state geneologies and chronologies which name everyone and overlook the opportunity to name the pharaoh defeated in Exodus?

Chronologies as genre is well established by such things as the Sumerian King List, hence chronologies to legitimatize ones place in history.

As for why "these scribes" wote what they wrote, you appear to imply that the authors of Genesis, Exodus, and Numbers (for example) were the same people, writing at the same time, and for the same reason. Why did the author of Jonah not identify and chronicle the God-fearing King o