• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Who was Pharaoh?

Merlin

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
Because Exodus is folklore and monotheism (as opposed to henotheism) looks very much like a late development and the result of conflating the West Semitic El of the North with the YHWH cult introduced from the land of the Shasu (Biblical Edom).

As for some relationship between Pharoah and Moses, one can speculate along with Redford, editor in chief of the Oxford Encyclopedia of Ancient Egypt and leading authority on Akhenaten, that Exodus is a carefully crafted revisionist lore inverting Egypt's expulsion of the Hyksos - where Egypt's ka-Mose becomes Moses and the defeated Asiatics (Hyksos, Apiru, Shasu) are reframed as the victorious Israelites.
Yes, I agree Redford has written quite a lot on the subject. Obviously, I have this book 'The Heretic King'. Actually, I think he has written the whole thing from a very biased standpoint. He says some very unpleasant things about the way Akhenaten looks. It is almost as though he was a priest in the old Egyptian religions.

Akhenaten was a heretic as much as Jesus was. He was simply challenging the status quo, and telling people to move on. However, Redford does confirm that it was the father Amenosis lll who has the dream where he claims God says he has been chosen to be His son. That seems to be what has kicked it off. He does also give quite a lot of evidence about people who could possibly have been Moses, but does not rate any of it. Of course, he could be right, but anybody who is so biased against the individual (I never understood that) has got to be read with a degree of scepticism.

If I hypothesised a completely invented conversation between God and Akhenaten, it could be; "well Son you have tried your best, but they will not listen. It is time to cut your losses and get out of there with our disciples. Go across the red Sea and settle there. It is a bit bleak, and a bit barren and uninviting, but there are few people there (LDS should recognise that dilemma). Here you can establish a new religion and a new community."

Obviously, I made that up just to illustrate the way things might have been. But certainly even Redford admits that there were people within the Royal circle that are very high-ranking foreigners who do look similar in background to Moses. It is highly unlikely they would have achieved any elevated rank unless they were hundred percent behind the new religion.

I just set it out as a possibility.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Merlin said:
Yes, I agree Redford has written quite a lot on the subject. Obviously, I have this book ...
It is not at all obvious to me. I have repeatedly asked you for your sources and you have repeatedly evaded the request. To be completely honest, you have zero credibility with me.

Now, yet again: please reference your sources.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Malus 12:9 said:
Instead of basing your debate solely on Psalm, or home-brewed websites from a google search, why not try reading the Book of Exodus, if you have not done so..:jiggy:

I would guess that everybody on this forum has read and studied every book in the Bible, and have probably read many academic studies on each one. Some of us have done that with other books as well, like the Qur'an.

Clearly, I agree with Deut (now there's a first) about Exodus (and Genesis) being folklore. But most folklore is based on something, and I am suggesting it might be the Exodus of Akhenaten and his entourage. But I accept it might not be.

I recommend you look at the Hymn to the Aten and Psalm 104. There has been a huge amount of study on these texts and most agree that they could related in some way. (a simple site for you to start is www.seanet.com/~realistic/psalm104.html)

Obviously, it might not be because the Pharaoh brought his hymn out of Egypt, it might just be that somebody else brought it and people liked it. Although it isn't a surprise if there are parallels between Egyptian religion and ritual and Canaanite religion and ritual. Egypt occupied Palestine for about 400 years right up to the formation of Israel.

As far as any web site is being 'homebrewed', I wanted you to have links to academic studies and archaeological papers. There is a lot that's the problem.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
It is not at all obvious to me. I have repeatedly asked you for your sources and you have repeatedly evaded the request. To be completely honest, you have zero credibility with me.

Now, yet again: please reference your sources.
When you answer some of my questions, I will give you some references.

Why you keep getting so excited I have no idea, but to put your mind at rest, your opinion of me isn't particularly important to anybody. I would like to know why you only ask questions and never answer them?
 

Kowalski

Active Member
Bennettresearch said:
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
That's ridiculous, Thuthmosis III was Egypt's greatest warrior king, extending the Egyptian iEmpire nto Northern Syria. He was also a great builder, extending the Temple of Amun by some 50% and raising at least Six Obelisks there as well, He had a long and prosperous reign, his mummy being found amongst the those in the Deir El Bahri cache.

K
 

Kowalski

Active Member
It is also worth pointing out, that the word Pharoah, was not used in the titulary of the Egyptian Kings, it is a word derived from the Egyptian words per-aa, meaning Great House, a term for Egypt, and in anycase when it was used on rare occasions, it is not earlier than dynasty 19.
Exodus is a myth, if they can't even name the King of Egypt, and resort to a word linked to the Kingship, you can be sure there was no King who allowed any such exodus, and besides the use of slaves in Egypt was fairly rare.

K
 

Merlin

Active Member
Bennettresearch said:
Hi Merlin,

Let me start with the last sentence. I have always considered this as a direct reference to Moses.
Yes, you might be right. I have always been troubled by God calling Moses His 'Son'. In the world where a single words seem to be argued over for generations, we cannot ignore this. As far as I'm aware, nobody has ever said Moses was the son of God.


As far as any link to Akhenaten, the history I have read does not support it. Amenhotep IV, changed to Akhenaten, is credited by scholars as founding a monotheistic religion. His death is also recorded, no record of exile, and Tutankhamen was his successor. King Tut restored the old religion.
I agree with that completely. I think Akhenaten did die (or was killed), and Tutankhamen did restore the old religions (or the people who ruled with him as a puppet did).

But there is this theory that one of the Akhenaten disciples gathered together the rest of them and cleared off to somewhere safer. Let's face it, it would not be safe to hang about in Egypt once the old pharaoh was dead. So it is certain that they either waited to be killed, all got the blazes out of there.

I seem to be being put on the spot as somebody who has to defend this theory. I was simply responding to your interesting opening thread, by throwing this on the table as a well-established theory, albeit with a huge amount of problem. If it isn't helpful to this thread, forget it.
 

Kowalski

Active Member
Akhenaten was a depot, who forced his views on Egypt by the use of force, there is little doubt that Egypt at this time was a police state. The people bitterly resented the prohibition of the Old Gods, especially Amun of Karnak. It is little wonder that Egypt returned to the Old Gods as soon as Akhenaten was dead. In the late New Kingdom. Akhenaten was only ever referred to as ' that crimmal of Akhetaten ( his city). Generally, he was despised.

K
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Deut. 10:19 said:
That's fair.
Dever, as you may or may not know, is a leading opponent of minimalism withing the ranks of serious archaeology.
I think that "just a compilation of oral legend" is overly superficial and dismissive when dealing with sthe Tanach.
On the contrary,

I have the book .......and When did they know it" by Dever. It is actually Davies who is the minimalist. He dismisses everything as fiction. Dever on the other hand is somewhere in between the minimalist view and those trying to prove the Bible true through archaeology. I like his work a lot. His conclusion that the Jews were actually Canaanites, and that the Moses story came from other Jews who arrived later, is most interesting.

I wasn't being dismissive, I was trying to discern what your viewpoint is. I am still not sure about it.

Craig.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Deut. 10:19 said:
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 of Nineveh who "rose from his throne, took off his royal robe, put on sackcloth, and sat on ashes"? Answer: it was not germain to the story.
The books of the OT are rather complex as to which was written by whom and when. I do not hold the viewpoint of minimalists who think that it was all written in the 2nd century. There are many different authors and it would take a long post to outline what I have read about. I do have an example of compilation that no one seems to talk about.

In the book of Ezekiel we have the scribes adding a statement as to when this chapter was written as opposed to Ezekiel stating that it was the thirtieth year. Indeed, there is no linear chronology to the book of Ezekiel. It appears to have been a compilation of the writings of Ezekiel who never actually wrote a "book". This would indicate the existence of scripture existing before the 2nd century. Scholars generally state that the books of the OT began around the time of the Babylonian exile. So you see, I do not believe they were written at the same time by the same people.

I can see your point about what they might have thought was relevant and what was not. In this case that you noted, it probably wasn't as important as the symbolic acceptance of God by the King. As to the story of Moses, this is a far more important story about the birth of Israel than Jonah. This is why I have a question as to why, in such a monumental event, they didn't think it was necessary to name the Pharaoh. The Pentateuch is represented as the most important books of the OT by many people, not only the Jews. With such an important victory, itwould be dismissive to assume that they didn't think the name of the Pharaoh was important.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Kowalski said:
That's ridiculous, Thuthmosis III was Egypt's greatest warrior king, extending the Egyptian iEmpire nto Northern Syria. He was also a great builder, extending the Temple of Amun by some 50% and raising at least Six Obelisks there as well, He had a long and prosperous reign, his mummy being found amongst the those in the Deir El Bahri cache.

K
Hi Kowalski,

Tsk Tsk. I'll gladly listen to an answer to the question but coming in so hostile is very unbecoming. Thutmoses III comes into the picture by reason of dating and not because of any discredit to him. A truly great king. Since the Temple is dated by scholars at around 960 BCE, and the Bible dates it at 1004 BCE, both of these dates line up with Thutmoses's reign. Actually, the date 960 BCE lines up more to the end of has reign. This is an observation and is given as a possibility. The question is about why the writers of the story of Moses didn't name this Pharaoh for us.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Kowalski said:
It is also worth pointing out, that the word Pharoah, was not used in the titulary of the Egyptian Kings, it is a word derived from the Egyptian words per-aa, meaning Great House, a term for Egypt, and in anycase when it was used on rare occasions, it is not earlier than dynasty 19.
Exodus is a myth, if they can't even name the King of Egypt, and resort to a word linked to the Kingship, you can be sure there was no King who allowed any such exodus, and besides the use of slaves in Egypt was fairly rare.

K
OK K,

Your answer is that because it is purely myth they didn't name the Pharaoh because there never was a real Pharaoh to name. I'll consider this an answer.

This is where we are at so far,

1. The writers of the story didn't consider it to be important.

2. Moses was actually a disciple of Akhenaten.

3. The writers of the story had no idea who the Pharaoh was so they didn't name him.

4. The writers didn't like the similarity of the name Thutmose and Moses so they didn't name the Pharaoh.

5. The writers of the story of Moses didn't name the Pharaoh because there never was an actual Pharaoh to name.
 

Bennettresearch

Politically Incorrect
Merlin said:
But there is this theory that one of the Akhenaten disciples gathered together the rest of them and cleared off to somewhere safer. Let's face it, it would not be safe to hang about in Egypt once the old pharaoh was dead. So it is certain that they either waited to be killed, all got the blazes out of there.

I seem to be being put on the spot as somebody who has to defend this theory. I was simply responding to your interesting opening thread, by throwing this on the table as a well-established theory, albeit with a huge amount of problem. If it isn't helpful to this thread, forget it.
Don't worry Merlin,

As much as what you have brought up puzzles me, I really am glad that you did. I have never heard of this theory and certainly will read about it. I suspect that I will eventually reject it but it is still very interesting. I have to agree with Deut that it would be helpful to have something to reference.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Kowalski said:
Akhenaten was a depot, who forced his views on Egypt by the use of force, there is little doubt that Egypt at this time was a police state. The people bitterly resented the prohibition of the Old Gods, especially Amun of Karnak. It is little wonder that Egypt returned to the Old Gods as soon as Akhenaten was dead. In the late New Kingdom. Akhenaten was only ever referred to as ' that crimmal of Akhetaten ( his city). Generally, he was despised.

K
That he was generally disliked is beyond doubt. When he removed his financial support from all of the other temples, they started to fall into decline and they were a major part of the economy. Also, the priests in those days had tremendous influence on people, so taking them on was not a good idea.

Actually, he was himself (as far as we can judge) fairly peaceful. He would not involve himself with any of the army matters, and as a result many of the colonies were attacked or generally left to fend for themselves. He seemed to be very introverted and entirely obsessed with his new religion. It would have been clear to any external observer that he was not long for this world.

Having said that, attacking the religious status quo is never easy - Jesus Christ, Martin Luther, Joseph Smith, to name but three who have struggled with this.

I was interested in your use of the word 'despot'. For some reason I have never understood, Akhenaten generates massive amounts of emotional response even today. Some academics actually write about him as though they hate him. Personally, I just find it interesting.

I neither believe it, nor disbelieve it. I just think it is a possibility. But the more people attack the guy, the more I think people must feel threatened. Why?

Having said all of that, he must have made converts in 17 years, so what happened to his 'Peter' equivalent and his closest disciples?
 

Merlin

Active Member
Bennettresearch said:
Don't worry Merlin,

As much as what you have brought up puzzles me, I really am glad that you did. I have never heard of this theory and certainly will read about it. I suspect that I will eventually reject it but it is still very interesting. I have to agree with Deut that it would be helpful to have something to reference.
It is actually not that big a deal. I only mentioned it because I thought you would be interested. I had no idea I would be attacked as though I was the main defender of this theory.

As far as references are concerned, if you do a search on this subject, you will be submerged in web sites, within which there are lots of references to books. Deut knows this, I just assumed he was trying to be aggressive and unpleasant as usual.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Bennettresearch said:
Don't worry Merlin,

As much as what you have brought up puzzles me, I really am glad that you did. I have never heard of this theory and certainly will read about it. I suspect that I will eventually reject it but it is still very interesting. I have to agree with Deut that it would be helpful to have something to reference.
start with a simple web site which shows you both academic and fanciful theories

It will let you launch on to more serious studies if you wish

www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Merlin said:
start with a simple web site which shows you both academic and fanciful theories

It will let you launch on to more serious studies if you wish

www.greatdreams.com/moses.htm
fantasia.jpg


This is Merlin's source.

:biglaugh:​

Seriously - just go to the parent site www.greatdreams.com. So much for the pretense of serious research or serious discusion. :rolleyes:
 

Merlin

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
So much for the pretense of serious research or serious discusion. :rolleyes:
The purpose of the link was to give you references, not necessary to read the link itself. Although some of it is interesting. There is little point in me giving you a reference list, when they exist all over the Web.

In any case, why are you so aggressive about it. It is not my theory. There are a huge number of academics, including Redford, who have written books about it. You seem to be revelling in making it out to be my theory. Why? Are you threatened in some way by this theory? I cannot see how.

Are you telling me that serious academics have not studied this?

Sorry I forgot, you never answer any questions. Your sole purpose on this site is just to attack people. Do you think anybody cares?
 

Merlin

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
This is Merlin's source.Seriously - just go to the parent site www.greatdreams.com. So much for the pretense of serious research or serious discusion. :rolleyes:
I have now looked at this parent web site, which had not seen before today. It is certainly eclectic.

I still say that the first web site that came under my search on Akhenaten and Moses contains enough references to serious academic study to keep people who are interested busy. What this parent web site is about, I have no idea. But the sub page has good links.
 

Merlin

Active Member
Deut. 10:19 said:
This is Merlin's source. Seriously - just go to the parent site www.greatdreams.com. So much for the pretense of serious research or serious discusion. :rolleyes:
I have now looked at this parent web site, which had not seen before today. It is certainly eclectic.

I still say that the first web site that came under my search on Akhenaten and Moses contains enough references to serious academic study to keep people who are interested busy. What this parent web site is about, I have no idea. But the sub page has good links.
 
Top