Who was Pharaoh?

[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]

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]

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]

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

I don't recall hassling at all.

..., 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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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]

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 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.

 

[Bennettresearch]

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.

Hi Merlin,

Let me start with the last sentence. I have always considered this as a direct reference to Moses. 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.

Aside from post dating Moses by about 60-100 years, there is no proof either way that either of them was influenced by the other. The possibilities of these kinds of assimilations are an interesting study. Similarities to writings, stories and legends from Egypt and Babylonia in the OT definitely point towards the fact that the OT is not entirely original in content.

I would have to disagree that Moses could have been Akhenaten.

 

[Merlin]

Hi Merlin,

Let me start with the last sentence. I have always considered this as a direct reference to Moses. 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.

Aside from post dating Moses by about 60-100 years, there is no proof either way that either of them was influenced by the other. The possibilities of these kinds of assimilations are an interesting study. Similarities to writings, stories and legends from Egypt and Babylonia in the OT definitely point towards the fact that the OT is not entirely original in content.

I would have to disagree that Moses could have been Akhenaten.

Yes, I agree some elements are problematical. But then what areas of this sort of research are not. The chronology of these days is really not accurate to 60 years.

If you read the history, you will find that it is the father Amenosis III who had a dream that he had been called to be the son of God. But it took his son to implement this with the vigour that was needed. Eventually the priests with a vested interest in the old order killed him. But eventually, they also called Jesus. The people bringing news of the next 'step forward' do not seem to be very popular.

I also believe that Akhenaten died. But I also believe that he had a serious bunch of disciples. Well, he would have after 17 years. It is possible that it is these disciples who left Egypt (the Exodus) and formed Israel and its religion. Hence the reference from the new Testament about a single person leaving Egypt.

ISis
RA
EL

that will make you smile

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, I agree some elements are problematical. But then what areas of this sort of research are not. ... If you read the history, ...

Research? :biglaugh:

Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

 

[Merlin]

Research? :biglaugh:

Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

Do a search for Akhenaten and Moses. You will be submerged in research.

It is not my fanciful history. I wish I could claim it. You will find that people have linked Moses directly with one of the senior officials of the court, and his family did arrive in mysterious circumstances. But look it up. There is tons of material, and some of it very serious.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Do a search for Akhenaten and Moses. You will be submerged in research.

Again ... Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

You see, Merlin, I seriously doubt that you've ever read a single peer reviewed book on Egypt and that your research is a none-too-honest joke. If and when you decide to remedy this defect, I'll be happy to suggest some books on the subject.

 

[Merlin]

Again ... Perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

You see, Merlin, I seriously doubt that you've ever read a single peer reviewed book on Egypt and that your research is a none-too-honest joke. If and when you decide to remedy this defect, I'll be happy to suggest some books on the subject.

You might find that my wife would disagree with you, having spent 40 years on this and related subjects, and with a library full of such books including some that took years to find. You always seem to debate with aggression. That is normally a cover-up for ignorance. I suspect you are still quite a young person.

You tell me what your theory is. After all, the Bible says that Moses was raised in Egypt. Did monotheism spontaneously appear in Israel? Was it seeded from another religion? Was it given directly from God? How did it start?

For the day (4000 or 5000 years ago) monotheism was not common. A nonvisible God was not common. So how do you think it started?

In any case, why are you so aggressive about this theory. It would not in anyway diminish the Bible. It would just suggest that God made an attempt in one nation, and when it failed he created a new nation specially for the purpose. It sound to me like a good project development plan.

There are those who question the dates, and I agree there are problems with that. Sadly, there are a number of theories to prove quite wide range of dates. There are those who think Akhenaten was not monotheistic but henotheistic. I do not subscribe to that, he was very committed to his belief (to the point of being embarrassing with visiting dignitaries).

I am always prepared to believe that it might not be true. But Akhenaten did exist. He was monotheistic. He was one of the first, if not the first person of his rank to be so. He did have an Israeli born high-ranking officer. I just threw out the fact that there are huge number of people including academics who think it is possible that Moses led the disciples of the Pharaoh out of Egypt to save their lives.

Psalm 104 is an interesting subject.

In case you didn't realise, the Isis-Ra-El was meant as a joke.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You might find that my wife would disagree with you, ...

Please convey my regards to your wife.

Again: perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

 

[Merlin]

Please convey my regards to your wife.

Again: perhaps you would be so kind as to quote the sources of your fanciful history.

Try answering a question occasionally. You have all the answers, give some. I have asked you some questions, give me some answers.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Try answering a question occasionally. You have all the answers, give some. I have asked you some questions, give me some answers.

Again: please reference your sources. Why is this so difficult for you?

 

[Malus 12:9]

You tell me what your theory is. After all, the Bible says that Moses was raised in Egypt. Did monotheism spontaneously appear in Israel? Was it seeded from another religion? Was it given directly from God? How did it start?

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:

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

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..

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.