All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
 

Exodus Pharaoh Theories
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jan 27, 2004 3:17 am 
Currently there are 2 theories as to who the Pharaoh of Exodus was.
1. Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty
2. Tuthmosis III of the 18th Dynasty

Ramesses became the Pharaoh of Oppression and the Exodus shortly after the deciphment of hieroplyphics by Campollion c 1825. This was because of the many surviving monuments to Ramesses II still evident in Egypt and viewed by the early European visitors. They thought here was the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus. That the Bible names the town Pi Ramesses and the Land of Ramesse clinched it. Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of Exodus, and Oppression. Science had little to do with it.

In 1826, Champollion discovered and translated the name Jerusalem from a text describing the campainge of Shoshenq I. On this basis Shoshenq I became the Biblical Pharaoh Shishak who sacked Jerusalem and Solomon's Temple (2nd Chronoicles 12:1-4) With this new information scholars (not the common folk to whom even in this day Ramesses II is the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus) where able to date backwards 521 years ( obtained from the 41 years from the sacking in year 5 of Rehoboam to year 4 of his father Solomon. 1st Kings 6:1 tells us that from this date yr. 4 it was 480 years from Exodus. So you add 480 to 41 and get 521) from Shoshenq's assult to the Exodus. Shoshenq I as Shishak destruction of the Temple takes place about 930 BCE. Add the 521 years and you 1451BCE which is in the period of Pharaoh Tuthmosis III. Now he is the Pharaoh of Oppression and the Exodus.

Back to Ramesses II as the Pharaoh, this belief was blostered in 1896 when Merenptah's Victory Stele was discovered. It contains the first non-Biblical mention of Israel. The scholars read it came to the conclusion that the children of Israel must have been in Canaan by the time of Mernptah, Ramesses II successor. Because of the way Israel is mentioned in the text. The scholars decided that it was shortly after they had escaped Egypt and still wandering folks. So back they went making Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus.

Of course this put counting backwards off by some hundreds of years. So the scholars began to wonder if maybe the Bible was wrong in how long the Hebrews lived in Egypt, how long they wandered and lead to the miminualist views of today. That the Bible isn't much more than a collection of myths.


Now here are some additional facts. Taken from Pharaohs and Kings A Biblical Quest by David Rohl, Crown Publishing 1995.

Champollion was wrong in his reading of the Shoshenq I's campainge. It wasn't Jerusalem but the place of the Kings Hand. pg. 122

Shoshenq does not easily translate into Shishak. pg 128.

Based on this new information one can doubt the Tuthmosis III identification as the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus. Let us not even consider how the great empire building Pharaoh could survive the Exodus to become the empire builder.

Does this leave Ramesses II as the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus? Here are some more facts for consideration all but the last are taken from David Rohl's book Pharaohs and Kings A Biblical Quest.

Ramesses II does assult, and take the Canaanite town Shalem, the historical name of Jerusalem. pg 149.

Ramesses II name can be translated into Shishak. pgs 157-162.

The Merenptah Victory Stele read by the scholars omits one very important passage when they discuss how Israel is written in it. Those poor non city state wandering Hebrews. The first line of the stanza that includes Israel. This line states that the "Princes are prostrate saying Shalom."
Now when was Israel ever a city state? Never (if you read the Bible you would know this).
When did Israel have a Prince? At and after the sacking of Jerusalem by Shishak. Israel had became a nation state not a city state unlike all the other place names. That were indicated on the Stele.

To make Ramesses II Shishak, not the Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus, and Merenptah's mention of Israel as a nation state. Pushes those events further back in time than most scholars are willing to do.

Considering the reign of Ramesses II it is far more easier to see him as Shishak than the divinely beaten Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus.

So if we eliminate Tuthmosis III, and Ramesse II as Pharaoh of Oppression and Exodus. Who is left?
Quite a few Pharaohs remain actually.
Is David Rohl right in his New Chronology? I don't think so. Egyptian chronology as it exists continues to solidfy without much change. Although i found it interesting that Dr. Zahi Harwass' chronology of Egypt pushes back alittle the dates from his book Silent Images to his web page chronology.
Is the Bible just a collection of myths stories? This isn't a Biblical message board. :lol:


Top
  
 

Re: Exodus Pharaoh Theories
PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 9:44 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Those of you interested in the Pharaoh of the Exodus might want to read this.

Sekhmet formerly known as Guest 2.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sun May 02, 2004 5:52 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Mon Aug 25, 2003 5:22 am
Posts:1028
Location: Pennsylvania
Thanks for posting that, Sekh!


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Sat May 08, 2004 12:44 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Your welcome Pharaoh Kel :)

It is sometimes important to know how certain beliefs come about. I hope this helped some to know why certain Pharaohs are considered the Pharaoh of the Exodus and or Oppression.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 7:25 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:32 am
Posts:18
The only problem with those theories is that there is not one scrap of evidence to support them. We have to distinguish between 'religious' literature and 'history.' Check out the new Filkensiein book, 'The Bible Unearth.' Isreali archeologists have pretty much put all that myth and conjecture in its proper context.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 8:21 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Horemheb wrote:
The only problem with those theories is that there is not one scrap of evidence to support them. We have to distinguish between 'religious' literature and 'history.' Check out the new Filkensiein book, 'The Bible Unearth.' Isreali archeologists have pretty much put all that myth and conjecture in its proper context.


The only problem with The Bible Unearthed, Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Siblerman is that it uses the Shoshenq I as Shishak page 18. Therefore it introduces nothing new only another elaboration of the German concept that the Bible is nothing. Which is based upon other works just as wrong.
Horemheb the book isn't new either it was published in 1995.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Mon May 10, 2004 8:30 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:32 am
Posts:18
Sekhmet...I don't think the Bible is 'nothing' by any means. That said, I think we need to be open minded when we deal with ancient literature. The value of the Moses story is not diminished even if it were complete myth. I think we will have most of the answers we seek in 15 or 20 years .


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Tue May 11, 2004 4:52 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
Horemheb wrote:
Sekhmet...I don't think the Bible is 'nothing' by any means. That said, I think we need to be open minded when we deal with ancient literature. The value of the Moses story is not diminished even if it were complete myth. I think we will have most of the answers we seek in 15 or 20 years .


Dear Horemheb, i didn't mean to infer that you didn't consider the Bible. Early in the 19th century, there was a movement in Germany to minimalize the importance of the Bible. This movement has lead to many books such as The Bible Unearthed.... It has also lead to the movement in Archaeology that locks Biblical history into its historical christian chronology and no other possible one. Thus lending increased support for the German movement of minimalizing the Bible.
What the scholars are actually doing Hormenheb is this.
1. The Bible says this...prior to the Assyrian Chronicles.
2. The Christian Church says this... prior to the Assyrian Chronicles.
3. But Archaeology says this...prior to the Assyrian Chronicles.
4. There is no agreement, prior to the Assyrian Chronciles, therefore the Bible and the Christian Church are wrong. What is built on false or wrong data is faliable.
5. The Bible and the Christian Church claim infalibility, but Archaeology proves them both wrong.

It is always the Biblical history prior to the Assyrian Chronciles that is suspect and held up to doubt. Why? Because the Assyrian Chronciles name Israeli and Judean Kings therefore proving the reliability of the Bible when it comes to its history with Assyria.

What isn't discussed, is the very falible origins of Christian Chronology. What isn't discussed is that the only date given in the Bible is 2nd Kings 6:1.
What isn't discussed is that 2nd Kings 6:1 does not agree with Judges 2:18.
What isn't discussed is that the Book of Judges, and Samuel gives well over 500 years not 2nd Kings 6:1 480 years.
What isn't discussed is that Shoshenq I makes no claim of warring in Judea or of sacking Jerusalem.
What isn't discussed is that Ramesses II does make that claim.
What isn't discussed is that Merenptah in his Victory Stela mentions the Prince of Israel as begging peace from Egypt.

Patricia Blosser-Lotfinia doesn't think it is going to take 15-20 years before the truth comes out. I agree, she has already hit the nail on the head it isn't Biblical Chronology or Egyptian Chronology that is wrong. It is Christian Chronology that is wrong. It might take 100 years or more for the truth to be readily accepted over the falsehoods so long taught but the truth is out there today, Horemheb. One only has to check it out.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2004 7:14 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Posts:51
Location: Malaysia
I'm very interested in this topic... from my reading... i found that there are two pharaohs... This is also an Alexandaria Tradition that says,

Pharaoh of Oppression (at time Moses was born): Ramses II

Pharaoh of Exodus: Merneptah


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2004 7:30 am 
Servant
Offline

Joined:Thu Mar 25, 2004 9:32 am
Posts:18
What reading shows that Ramses II and mereneptah hold those positions?
The mummies of both of those Kings are on display in Cairo, not at the bottom of the 'Sea of Reeds.'


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Wed May 12, 2004 12:14 pm 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
zampeada wrote:
I'm very interested in this topic... from my reading... i found that there are two pharaohs... This is also an Alexandaria Tradition that says,

Pharaoh of Oppression (at time Moses was born): Ramses II

Pharaoh of Exodus: Merneptah


The Alexandria Tradition, a Christian tradition found its basics of support in using the pagan histories of Manetho(Egypt) and Berossus (Babylon). Dating back into the 5th century AD. It sought to verify the ancientness of Biblical Scripture by using the pagan histories of Manetho and Berossus. By the 6th century AD it was being argued that comprise with pagan histories was beneath the Christian Church. While the Eastern Christian Churches including the Greek Orthodox Chruch continued to use the Alexandria calendar until late into modern history. The Western Chruches discontinued using it not long after the 6th century AD.

Manetho the 3rd century BCE, Egyptian priest was the first to claim that the Hyksos was the time of Joseph, and that Ramesses II was the time of Moses. Archaeology today, can find little support of Ramesses II having anything to do with Moses. While archaeology provides ample proof that Manetho was wrong with his identification of the Hyksos with the influx of the children of Israel under the rule of Joseph.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 7:38 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Posts:51
Location: Malaysia
Horemheb wrote:
What reading shows that Ramses II and mereneptah hold those positions?
The mummies of both of those Kings are on display in Cairo, not at the bottom of the 'Sea of Reeds.'


obviously none other theories too found their pharaoh at the bottom of the sea.

the identification of ramses II is based on bible source, Exodus... the building name. then in another line... the king of egypt died while Moses in exile.... the successor is of course Merneptah.

Koran and Bible agreed that Pharaoh was drown, but only Koran said that the body of Pharaoh was recovered.

The mummies tell the story too

Ramses II: was died very old... how could he pursue Moses? he was almost 100 at the time.

Merneptah: strangely they found hardened artery... wawa...


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Thu May 13, 2004 9:37 pm 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Posts:51
Location: Malaysia
Sekhmet wrote:
zampeada wrote:
I'm very interested in this topic... from my reading... i found that there are two pharaohs... This is also an Alexandaria Tradition that says,

Pharaoh of Oppression (at time Moses was born): Ramses II

Pharaoh of Exodus: Merneptah


The Alexandria Tradition, a Christian tradition found its basics of support in using the pagan histories of Manetho(Egypt) and Berossus (Babylon). Dating back into the 5th century AD. It sought to verify the ancientness of Biblical Scripture by using the pagan histories of Manetho and Berossus. By the 6th century AD it was being argued that comprise with pagan histories was beneath the Christian Church. While the Eastern Christian Churches including the Greek Orthodox Chruch continued to use the Alexandria calendar until late into modern history. The Western Chruches discontinued using it not long after the 6th century AD.

Manetho the 3rd century BCE, Egyptian priest was the first to claim that the Hyksos was the time of Joseph, and that Ramesses II was the time of Moses. Archaeology today, can find little support of Ramesses II having anything to do with Moses. While archaeology provides ample proof that Manetho was wrong with his identification of the Hyksos with the influx of the children of Israel under the rule of Joseph.


It was Maspero that presents this theory... at the beginning of 20th centuries... this theory was then supported by Bucaille based on his study of holy scripture and mummies of Ramses II and Merneptah.


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 12:17 am 
Pharaoh
Offline

Joined:Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:24 pm
Posts:579
Location: Rome, Georgia USA
zampeada wrote:
Sekhmet wrote:

Manetho the 3rd century BCE, Egyptian priest was the first to claim that the Hyksos was the time of Joseph, and that Ramesses II was the time of Moses. Archaeology today, can find little support of Ramesses II having anything to do with Moses. While archaeology provides ample proof that Manetho was wrong with his identification of the Hyksos with the influx of the children of Israel under the rule of Joseph.


It was Maspero that presents this theory... at the beginning of 20th centuries... this theory was then supported by Bucaille based on his study of holy scripture and mummies of Ramses II and Merneptah.


I am sorry Zampeada, i was wrong about Manetho being the first it was Josephus the 1st century Jewish historian that copied great amounts of Manetho into his own works. Please see page 35, Time Immemorial Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography From Julius Africanus to George Syncellus by William Adler.
i quote from it here for your own consideration. " One of the most forced of Josephus' interpretations appears in the discussion of his first excerpt from the Aegyptiaca. In that excerpt, Manetho has recounted the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos, the tribe of shepards who had overrun and ravaged Egypt during the rign of Tutimaeus. For Josephus, the Hyksos could have been no other peole than the Jews because Manetho had reported that after their expulsion the Hyksos "built a city in the contry now called Judaea...and gave it the name of Jerusalem. In this way, Manetho was cast for Josephus as a favorable witness to the antiquity of the Jews: "Manetho has thus furnished us with evidence from Egyptian literature for two most important points: first, that we came into Egypt from elsewhere, and secondly, that we left it at a date so remote in the past that it preceded the Trojan War by nearly a thousand years."


Top
 Profile  
 

PostPosted: Fri May 14, 2004 2:30 am 
Scribe
Offline

Joined:Mon Apr 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Posts:51
Location: Malaysia
Sekhmet wrote:
zampeada wrote:
Sekhmet wrote:

Manetho the 3rd century BCE, Egyptian priest was the first to claim that the Hyksos was the time of Joseph, and that Ramesses II was the time of Moses. Archaeology today, can find little support of Ramesses II having anything to do with Moses. While archaeology provides ample proof that Manetho was wrong with his identification of the Hyksos with the influx of the children of Israel under the rule of Joseph.


It was Maspero that presents this theory... at the beginning of 20th centuries... this theory was then supported by Bucaille based on his study of holy scripture and mummies of Ramses II and Merneptah.


I am sorry Zampeada, i was wrong about Manetho being the first it was Josephus the 1st century Jewish historian that copied great amounts of Manetho into his own works. Please see page 35, Time Immemorial Archaic History and Its Sources in Christian Chronography From Julius Africanus to George Syncellus by William Adler.
i quote from it here for your own consideration. " One of the most forced of Josephus' interpretations appears in the discussion of his first excerpt from the Aegyptiaca. In that excerpt, Manetho has recounted the conquest of Egypt by the Hyksos, the tribe of shepards who had overrun and ravaged Egypt during the rign of Tutimaeus. For Josephus, the Hyksos could have been no other peole than the Jews because Manetho had reported that after their expulsion the Hyksos "built a city in the contry now called Judaea...and gave it the name of Jerusalem. In this way, Manetho was cast for Josephus as a favorable witness to the antiquity of the Jews: "Manetho has thus furnished us with evidence from Egyptian literature for two most important points: first, that we came into Egypt from elsewhere, and secondly, that we left it at a date so remote in the past that it preceded the Trojan War by nearly a thousand years."


dun worry i never read that book... i appreciate u making that correction. maybe one day i'll read that book... now, i'm studying egyption religion... their deities and so on...


Top
 Profile  
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 16 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


  Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Style by web designer custom , optymalizacja seo pozycjonowanie stron pozycjonowanie
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group