Who was Pharaoh?

[Jayhawker Soule]

History tells us that for several years after 1445 B.C. Amenhotep II was unable to carry out any invasions or extensive military operations. This would seem like very strange behavior for a pharaoh who hoped to equal his father's record of no less than seventeen military campaigns in nineteen years. But this is exactly what one would expect from a pharaoh who had lost almost all his cavalry, chariotry, and army at the Red Sea (Exodus 14:23, 27-30).

From Wikipedia:

Amenhotep II

Aakheperure Amenhotep II (d. 1400 BC) was the seventh Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. He ruled from 1427 BC to 1400 BC.

Amenhotep II was the son of Thutmose III and a minor wife, Hatshepsut-Meryetre. Amenhotep may have been co-regent with his father before he ascended to the throne. Not long after his coronation a portion of Syria rebelled against his rule. He set out and subdued the rebellious city and captured seven princes. The princes were hung upside down on the prow of his ship, a common punishment for rebel leaders in Pharaonic Egypt. Upon reaching Thebes all but one of the princes were mounted on the city walls. The other was taken to the often rebellious territory of Nubia and hung on the city wall of Napata, as an example to any who dare rebel. Amenhotep briefly led another campaign into Syria in 1418 BC.

Amenhotep was not solely a warrior, but also a diplomat, who became the first Pharaoh to sign a peace treaty with the Mitanni. The Pharaoh also established cordial relations with Babylonians and Hittites in exchange for acknowledging Egypt as hegemon of the region. With peace secured, Amenhotep set about various building projects. He commissioned a column to stand in the courtyard between the fourth and fifth pylons in the Temple of Karnak commemorating the agreement between him, Artatama I and other Mitanni leaders. He also built a temple to Horemakhet near the Great Sphinx at Giza and expanded the Temple of Karnak.​

 

[michel]

Thanks deut; 'Well, I read it in the papers, so it must be true"...........

 

[Kowalski]

I can't buy any of that, Amunhotep didn't carry out further miltary campaigns because he had no need to, the fact is all of Egypt's enemies were so cowed by Amunhotep that they did nothing to provoke his wrath. The fact are, that Amunhotep III was able to a enjoy and long and prosperous reigh due to the activities of Thuthmosis III and Amunhotep II. Early death in AE was hardly uncommon, as disease was virtually untreatable. Hence the Egyptians preoccupation with Fertility. Most of the artcile quoted is pure suppostion and not supported by the facts.

And as such , should be dismissed as unfounded speculation. I find nothing to commend the Exodus other than as a pure myth.

Cheers

K

 

[michel]

Kowalski - see post #20

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 Amunhotep , that was the point Deut just made.

 

[Malus 12:9]

Ok instead of posting comments, I will just post some ineteresting link...

http://www.biblewitness.org/pharaoh.htm

You may either read them and find them interesting, or if you choose to, criticise the links. Either way I am not really fussed. Whichever makes you feel good.

 

[Bennettresearch]

I can only assume that you're employing a nonstandard chronology or, perhaps more likely, you've confused the reign of David with the building of the Temple.

Well Deut, you are not reading my posts very carefully. As to a standard chronology, I have seen dates of 950, 960 and 965 BCE stated as the beginning of the Temple. Now I am seeing 969 BCE. I am not in any way arguing against these timelines. When there is true consensus and a total agreement by authoritative scholars as to the absolute correct date, I will accept it as such. I did a timeline to see where the Bible weighs in on this, and it is 1004 BCE as the beginning of the Temple. A time reference of 969 BCE brings it a lot closer to the Bible's reconing of this date. This is all an observation, not something I am professing. I am not confused in the least. I didn't stae that David built the Temple and this is just another false assumption that you have made. I'll remain neutral here, but you can be insulting at times.

One would think that "whether there is any evidence that it happened at all" could be relevant, but apparently you disagree - as is your right.

Once more you have missed the point. Whether true or not, the story of Moses is in the Bible. The question arises from the story and not from our scientific inquiry. Whoever wrote the story is representing it as historical. You yourself identified it as a fable and we know that sometimes fables have some event that they are based on. This is also why I asked you to identify your position on the subject of biblical history. Are you saying it is fiction, facted based fiction, or a little of both? I don't disagree with any of these possibilities, I was posing a question and opening the door to what viewpoints others hold on this subject. So you see, you have really made some bad assumptions here.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Yes, good synopsis, taking point 1, I would have to say that if a King of Egypt supposedly drowned, I would of thought that recording his name would of been important, so again, there was no King of Egypt presiding over the Exodus. After all, the Bible names Shishak of Egypt who sacked Jerusalem, and it is thought that this is the Egyptian Kind, Shoshenk who recorded his campaigns at Karnak.

2) I have seen nothing which in any way provides any substance to this idea, Ifeel it is the fantsasy of writers with an eye on sales.

3) I agree

4) Thuthmosis is a Greek corruption of Egyptian name, ' Dheuty-mes, ie born of the God Thoth. Moses, I'm not sure if this is a true Aramiac name or not, but its resemblence to Mosis (mes), is incorrect, they only sound the same in English.

5) This is the correct view in my opinion.

Cheers

K

Hi K,

Yes, the mention of other Pharaohs in the Bible is why I posed the question about the story of Exodus.

I'll have to study more of your statement about number 4. I admit that I am comparing english translations. I think semantics is very important to any biblical research.

Of course you like number 5, it is your statement.


Craig

 

[Bennettresearch]

My guess is, is that the story was constructed at a later time, some scholars, (Thompson) think as late as the Macabees, so perhaps with out much knowledge of Egyptian Kings, they used a generic term. Sorry, was I hostile, been a difficult week.

K

I like this post K.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Hey gang,

A little clarification. My original idea here was based on the story of exodus, not whether it is actually true or not. I am not saying that its veracity is not relevant, I am wondering about the author or authors of the story and why they would leave out such an important fact as the name of the Pharaoh. There have been some good answers to this question, thanx.

 

[Malus 12:9]

My original idea here was based on the story of exodus

Tis why I kept bringing it up BR, here's another source I have found; mind you it
is a Christian source.

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/pharaoh.html

[font=Arial, Helvetica, Swiss, Geneva, Sans Serif]

Seti I. (his throne name Merenptah), the father of Rameses II., was a great and successful warrior, also a great builder. The mummy of this Pharaoh, when unrolled, brought to view "the most beautiful mummy head ever seen within the walls of the museum. The sculptors of Thebes and Abydos did not flatter this Pharaoh when they gave him that delicate, sweet, and smiling profile which is the admiration of travellers. After a lapse of thirty-two centuries, the mummy retains the same expression which characterized the features of the living man. Most remarkable of all, when compared with the mummy of Rameses II., is the striking resemblance between the father and the son. Seti I. is, as it were, the idealized type of Rameses II. He must have died at an advanced age. The head is shaven, the eyebrows are white, the condition of the body points to considerably more than threescore years of life, thus confirming the opinions of the learned, who have attributed a long reign to this king."

[/font]

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well Deut, you are not reading my posts very carefully.

Perhaps.

As to a standard chronology, I have seen dates of 950, 960 and 965 BCE stated as the beginning of the Temple. ... I did a timeline to see where the Bible weighs in on this, and it is 1004 BCE as the beginning of the Temple.

I was not aware that you were counterposing a timeline of your own creation.

I am not confused in the least.

I do not know whether your timeline is the result of confusion or insight. At the very least, I would check your math.

Once more you have missed the point. Whether true or not, the story of Moses is in the Bible. The question arises from the story and not from our scientific inquiry.

To which I answered in post #9:

"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."​

I do not recall you addressing post #9.

So you see, you have really made some bad assumptions here.

You seem comforted by that belief - which is fine.

I will, however, admit to and apologize for one bad assumption: it never occurred to me that when you arrogantly dismissed Bratcher (or 'Dennis' as you referred to him) that you were relying on your own atypical chronology, knowing full well that it was atypical. You might wish to counterpose:

• You will find that the OT dates the start of the Temple at 1004 BCE.
• As to a standard chronology, I have seen dates of 950, 960 and 965 BCE stated as the beginning of the Temple.

You are the one who introduced a nonstandard chronology. Don't whine if it's challenged.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Perhaps.
I was not aware that you were counterposing a timeline of your own creation.
I do not know whether your timeline is the result of confusion or insight. At the very least, I would check your math.

I spent a lont time checking the math and even accounted for some years having 13 months. It was long and tedious but the crossreferencing produces the date that I came up with. Yes this is non standard, but I have yet to see an absolute standard to reference. If your read the OP I gave the general date that scholars identify as the beginning of the Temple. I don't recall counterposing anything.

To which I answered in post #9:
I do not recall you addressing post #9.

I did address it and even said I saw your point. You are almost unconscious in your attacks.

You seem comforted by that belief - which is fine.

Dismissively argumentative with no substance

I will, however, admit to and apologize for one bad assumption: it never occurred to me that when you arrogantly dismissed Bratcher (or 'Dennis' as you referred to him) that you were relying on your own atypical chronology, knowing full well that it was atypical. You might wish to counterpose:
You are the one who introduced a nonstandard chronology. Don't whine if it's challenged.

I didn't dismiss him at all. I said if he likes that date fine, I wouldn't argue about it. You have quoted more than one date for the beginning of the Temple and now you want to reverse it and say that I am the one who is confused. This is a rather specious debating tactic to say the least. You will never see in this thread where I argued against scholarly timelines with the date that I arrived at with my own timeline. Once again, if you actually read what someone else says, I did it to see where the Bible weighs in on this. Scientifically, one has to examine extarabiblical sources to compare to the history stated in the Bible. And so, with the difference between what the Bible states and what scholars state, one can see where the chronology in the bible may be incorrect. Of course, you are so busy making accusations and unconsciously arguing about things you don't seem to actually examine what someone is talking about.

I was right at the beginning when I said all you want to do is argue. You didn't even read the OP you just jumped on an imaginary fault. You are arrogantly dismissive and even though you might impress me with your knowledge base, I have yet to see anything really intelligent come from one of your posts. I think that you really misunderstand people on purpose so that you have something to beat them up with.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Whine less; your childish ad hominems are underwhelming.

I guess I can't expect you to admit when you are wrong.

 

[Ryan2065]

I spent a lont time checking the math and even accounted for some years having 13 months. It was long and tedious but the crossreferencing produces the date that I came up with. Yes this is non standard, but I have yet to see an absolute standard to reference. If your read the OP I gave the general date that scholars identify as the beginning of the Temple. I don't recall counterposing anything.

And to prove that what you say is not calculated wrong please link where it was published and the reviews of that published article.

You have quoted more than one date for the beginning of the Temple and now you want to reverse it and say that I am the one who is confused. This is a rather specious debating tactic to say the least.

If you actually read what Deut posted, and what it was in reference to... The second date that Deut posted I believe was to counter your "claim" not to further his own. You stated...

You will find that the OT dates the start of the Temple at 1004 BCE.

Deut then found what the Catholic Encyclopedia said...

We conclude then that the Temple was built about 969. The secession of the Ten Tribes took place about 937. The fall of Samaria in 722 or 721, and the destruction of Jerusalem 536 B. C.

If you want to submit your own date as a valid claim, you must both show where the current scholars went wrong with their dates and then also show why your date is the right one to follow.

Deut's answer to your original question is a question in itself... "Did the Exodus really happen?" You shrug this question aside as if it was nothing at all but it really should be thought out and answered first. One plausible answer is that the author knew the Exodus did not happen so he did not include any names so it could not be traced back exactly and disproven. You seem to only want answers that agree the Exodus did happen, and this is the debate section... So sorry, everything in your OP can be debated =)

I am not in any way arguing against these timelines. When there is true consensus and a total agreement by authoritative scholars as to the absolute correct date, I will accept it as such. I did a timeline to see where the Bible weighs in on this, and it is 1004 BCE as the beginning of the Temple. A time reference of 969 BCE brings it a lot closer to the Bible's reconing of this date. This is all an observation, not something I am professing. I am not confused in the least. I didn't stae that David built the Temple and this is just another false assumption that you have made. I'll remain neutral here, but you can be insulting at times.

You find it insulting that we do not trust your dates when they go against people well established in their fields and after you have offered no evidence for your dates at all? I find it insulting that you expect us to blindly accept your dates as "well researched" when for all we know you used a kiddie picture bible and a magic 8 ball to arrive at your conclusion.

A little clarification. My original idea here was based on the story of exodus, not whether it is actually true or not. I am not saying that its veracity is not relevant, I am wondering about the author or authors of the story and why they would leave out such an important fact as the name of the Pharaoh

Sorry, but the question of wether the story is true or not is central to the answer to your question. If the story is true there is the possibility that the author was trying to document historical fact and that entails a few answers to the question. If the story was just a myth, then the writer did not try to document historical fact and the answer to your question changes drastically.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Ryan,

I suggest you actually read the OP. I never stated the date of 1004 BCE as a counter position. I acknowledged the generally accepted date, but even this is not absolute. So your comments are unfounded. Yes, I spent a lot of time doing a project and gave the results. To get obssessive about attacking it is ridiculous because you are actually claiming I said something I didn't say. If you read farther you would note that I said the Bible could be wrong on this. Are you two jealous that I would do a project like that instead of mindlessly quoting some website? Anyone can quote a website and Deut actually gave me more than one date for the building of the Temple so it pretty much lays his argument to rest. You will also note that I responded to his posts, and even agreed with him on one, and he still claims I didn't answer. So give it a rest, you have no point here. To top it off, nothing Deut said or quoted refuted the fact that the reference the Bible gives to the Temple puts it in the reign of Thutmose III. Either date puts it there. This is where I am right about this; Deut did nothing more than pick hairs about nothing and continually harped about his purposful misunderstanding so that he could beat me up in an argument. That is not becoming of someone who is supposedly so intelligent.

 

[Bennettresearch]

Sorry, but the question of wether the story is true or not is central to the answer to your question. If the story is true there is the possibility that the author was trying to document historical fact and that entails a few answers to the question. If the story was just a myth, then the writer did not try to document historical fact and the answer to your question changes drastically.

Fine, then state your case in an answer and quit posting attacks an supposed rebuttals to your own imagination. The story can be totally fiction, and the question can still remain, why didn't they name Paharaoh? Do you see now how ridiculous your obssession with this is? Kowalski And I had a nice debate and he says that it is fiction. No friction. I see it as being no matter how many times you answer a question that the attack still is coming and I have no respect for that. State your case here if you want, but you have not refutted anything that I have said.

 

[Solon]

Yes, K, has done quite some research on this topic, and there can be no doubting his position. And in my view, this is the correct conlcusion. The Exodus, in keeping with large sections of the Bible, is pure Fiction.

Solon

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, K, has done quite some research on this topic, and there can be no doubting his position. And in my view, this is the correct conlcusion. The Exodus, in keeping with large sections of the Bible, is pure Fiction.

Actually, folklore is rarely pure fiction, but the Exodus/Conquest comes close.

 

[Solon]

Certainly, I must agree with you on that point. Close to pure is good enough.

S