![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Old discussion on the Pharaoh of the Exodus
Someone removed this:
"That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [1] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [2]"
But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian cultural, like the preceding personalities.
That removal totally lacks of neutrality.
I'm removing the name of Akhenaten from the list of candidates for Pharaoh of the Exodus, since the sole reference for this attribution is Freud's book Moses and Monotheism. This is NOT what Freud suggested at all in this book. He believed that Akhenaten was MOSES, not Pharaoh. Yonderboy ( talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the article add another section: Pharaoh of Joseph, since the distinction between the two dynasties (cf. Exodus 1:8) Bennylin ( talk) 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it should not. In fact the entire section Unnamed Pharaohs contains speculation only. It's not without reason that scholarly opinion does not count either Genesis or Exodus among the historical biblical books. The whole section makes an outdated impression, being based on older biblical scholarship. It seems highly indicative of the non-factual content of Exodus specifically that the supposed pharaoh has no name - even though Moses itself is an Egyptian name included in various pharaoh names. (Cf. Thutmoses e.a.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ring of Ptolemy VI Philometor (186-145 BC) as Egyptian pharaoh. Louvre Museum.
Why was this picture put into this article? It doesn't fit at all. 80.141.209.237 ( talk) 09:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing.
Of all the pharaohs suggested and with advance warning of what may have been malaria moving towards Egypt, Akhenaton builds a quarantine city at what is now Tell el Amarna. The city being built of timber and mudbrick was never intended for long term occupancy, only for the duration of the plague.
The Hebrews being reluctant to stay in a plague ridden Egypt want to do a runner back to Canaan which they thought was already clear of the plague.
A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself.
The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing."
That's an highly anachronistic comment, based purely on the mere suggestion that there was a plague during Akhenaten's reign. Which, by the way, isn't mentioned in any written evidence from the period.
"A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself."
Equally suggestive, not based on fact. Tutankhamun was possibly murdered.
"The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again."
This is both confused and uninformed. The Merneptah stele makes the first ever probable mention of Hebrews as a single tribe in Palestine. Ramesses II never looted a 'temple of Solomon.' Really, this is an old hypothesis not borne out by fact. During his time the area was still under Egyptian control. Ergo, the kingdom of Israel must postdate Ramesses II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Pepi II Neferkare should be added to the list of pharaohs associated with the Exodus because he is. James D. Long, member of the High Council of B'nei Noah and author of Riddle of the Exodus (2006), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=R7mUPQAACAAJ Gerald E. Aardsma, PhD., the editor of Biblical Chronologist, associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php Brad Aaronson of the Jewish Orthodox Union associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm Ken Johnson, author of Ancient Post-Flood History (2004), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=A5nWddyA_NYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false The list goes on and on. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) ( edit conflict)As I've already said, we shouldn't be using self-published sources such as Ken Johnson's book. James Long's book is also self-published, see [1]. That leaves two sources. Why is Brad Aaronson's opinion so significant it should be in the article? Biblical Chronologist is another self-published site owned by the Creationist Gerald E. Aardsma. Don't get me wrong, entries here are likely to be backed by Creationists, but I'd expect something significant to have better sources. Also, please cite according to WP:CITE, not just bare urls linking to Google Books. Full details including page numbers please in the future. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)::::All irrelevant -- the sad truth is that Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the Exodus for obvious reasons. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is another source from a published author. Donovan Courville [3], in 1971 published "The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications: A Critical Examination of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of Antiquity". The main reason that the 6th dynasty exodus is usually discounted, is because it is far too early to align the Biblical timeline to the accepted history of Egypt. Courville provided possible evidence that the 6th dynasty and the 13th dynasty were contemporary, which might explain why the first intermediate period and the second intermediate period were both very similar in the way Egypt collapsed. Peter James [4] in his book "Centuries of Darkness" and David Rohl [5] in "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest", both demonstrated in different ways that the timeline close to the third intermediate period is likely a few centuries too long. Combine this with Courville's work, and you have a basis for associating the end of the 6th dynasty as a possible contender for the exodus. In addition, there is a controversial Jewish midrash named "Sefer haYashar". [6] (English:"The Book of Jasher", or "The Book of the Upright" Most scholars believe it was authored around 1225 A.D., but it was possibly sourced or derived from the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua 10:13. [7]) This refers to the Pharaoh named Melol being the Pharaoh of the oppression. In this Midrash, his reign length was 94 years. (according to the English translation here [8]) This can only apply to one Pharaoh; that of Pepi II Neferkhare. That would leave only one Pharaoh to be that of the Exodus according to this Midrash which would be his son, Merenre II Nemtyemsaf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Dr Cyril Aldred spent some 17 years theorising about the life and times of Akhenaton and concluded that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family.
Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only.
Other authors speculate that there was a plague caused by the eruption of Santorini during the reign of Akhenaton, also with a vast outfall of dust blocking off the sunshine, which may be the simple explanation why Akhenaton suddenly orders the worship of the sun god Aton to restore normal sunshine/daylight conditions.
Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague but in the end, trying to decipher the fragments left over from the lifetime of a man who has been dead for some 3,000 years can only lead to plenty of speculation. AT Kunene ( talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This whole section makes little sense. Having one authority make a suggestion "that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family" does not warrant mention. Note the "may" in that sentence, by the way. Other explanations are possible.
"Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only."
Again, highly suggestive, but the fact is that during Akhenaten a different type of construction was used, which was abandoned immediately after.
"Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague" is equally suggestive, but ignores the fact that 'plagues' or epidemics would have been common in the ancient world - as well as long after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Dr Cyril Aldred never specifically calls Akhenaton the Pharaoh of Exodus but gives considerable detail about a plague raging in Egypt that probably carried off several members of the Amarna Family.
As a senior employee at the British museum Aldred was constantly updating his work on the Amarna Period and but for his death may well have identified Akhenaton as the Pharaoh of Exodus.
Amongst other speculations as Akhenaton seems to have been the only known pharaoh who had to deal with a plague (Malaria?) which also seems to have killed Tutankhamun, he still seems to be a good candidate for the Pharaoh of Exodus and worth reinstating in this category.
I think it was Prof W. Wratton Bragg who used to regularly refer to an Okhenaton or Ikhenaton. AT Kunene 212.138.68.113 ( talk) 15:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The following chart is supported by the reference material [1]
Event | Year AM | Year BCE (non-biblical) | Span |
---|---|---|---|
Creation of Adam | 0 | 4026 BCE | 0 |
To the start of the Flood | 1656 | 2370 BCE | 1656 |
To the validation of the Abrahamic covenant | 2083 | 1943 BCE | 427 |
To the Exodus from Egypt | 2513 | 1513 BCE | 430 |
To the entry of Israel into Canaan | 2553 | 1473 BCE | 40 |
To the close of the period of the Judges and the beginning of Saul's reign | 2909 | 1117 BCE | 356 |
To the beginning of David's reign | 2949 | 1077 BCE | 40 |
To the beginning of Solomon's reign | 2989 | 1037 BCE | 40 |
To the start of temple construction During the 4th year of Solomon's reign | 2992 | 1034 BCE | 3 |
To the division of the Kingdom | 3029 | 997 BCE | 37 |
To the desolation of Judah and Israel being lead into captivity in Babylon | 3419 | 607 BCE | 390 |
Return from exile (Ezra 1:2-4) | 3489 | 537 BCE | 70 |
To the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls | 3571 | 455 BCE | 82 |
To the baptism of Jesus | 4054 | 29 CE | 483 |
The Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was likely Thutmose I, the reign of which some Egyptologists date to the years 1526 BCE to 1513 BCE. Interestingly, Thutmose I had an eldest son (Amenmose) who died of unknown causes shortly before his own death in 1513 BCE. Amenmose was the brother of Hatshepsut from Thutmoses primary wife, Ahmose. Hatshepsut ruled as regent then married and ruled with her half-brother Thutmose II. Also interesting is that the mummy of Thutmose I, when it was examined with an MRI, was found to have what appears to be an arrow in the skull, indicating a violent death. This violent death in apparent battle is relevant because Amenmose, who died shortly before Thutmose I was the general of Thutmoses armies and without his presence, Thutmose would likely have lead those armies in pursuit of the Israelite's personally. Though it cannot be said with absolute certainty that Thutmose was the pharaoh at the time of the exodus, the evidence certainly seems to lend support the to idea. BCE denotes "Before our Common Era" - CE denotes "Common Era". In the calculation of these dates, bear in mind that there is no year zero in the transition between BCE year 1 and CE year 1. Willietell ( talk) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's apparent that a certain person's position here it basically only because of their anti-Jehovah's Witness view. This theory is logical for many reasons. First regardless of the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses commentary the chronology is well-researched. In addition other sources have suggested Thutmose I as candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Not only do these two chronologies match for Thutmose I (using the Memphis dating, "were taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes") whose reign would ended conveniently at the 1513 B.C.E. But also the fact his firstborn Amenmose conveniently predeceased him. And his successor (his son) Thutmose II's mummy bear evidence of scaring from boils. It is definitely an interesting theory. And should be seriously considered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.202.248 ( talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It's probably of interest to note that neither Genesis nor Exodus are considered among the Bible's historical books, which start with the Book of Kings. None of the stories in Genesis or Exodus can or have been verified from other sources than the Bible itself. In short, any discussion of 'who was the pharaoh of the exodus' is moot. And it would not only be correct to consider the Watchtower publication 'fringe.' but simply non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Certain beliefs within the Watchtower publications are indeed fringe beliefs; however, for dating purposes their fringe position is solely in regard to the destruction and desolation of the Jewish temple. The Watchtower organization cites 607 B.C.E, whereas historical records and most mainstream Christians cite 587 (or 586) BCE as the timeline. There is no significant objection within orthodox Christian circles for their dates later than this point. If twenty years is removed from every preceding date to reflect that fringe discrepancy, then their earlier timeline also fits with most other Christian scholars. Therefore the mainstream Christian date for the Exodus using a literal calculation based on 1 Kings 6:1 [2] (480 years between the Exodus and beginning of the construction of Solomon's temple) would be 1493 B.C.E. This conflicts with a literal reading of the timeline of the Judges, which would be 572 years, if all the judges lead Israel with no overlapping judgeships. (Most mainstream Christians believe they did overlap, and follow the 480 years) Allowing for rounding of partial years, one possible solution would be that 1 Kings was copied or translated incorrectly and should have been 580 years, which would place the exodus at 1593 B.C.E. All other calculations based on the Bible make assumptions beyond the literal text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made some edits, and I've studied the Bible carefully and here is a timeline based on Biblical accounts that I think should go in the article somewhere.
1. Hebrews enter Egypt and stay for 430 years (Exo. 13:40). 2. 30 years later, a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph enslaves the Hebrews (based on a statement in Gen. 15:13 that the Hebrews would be slaves for 400 years). 3. After 320 of slavery, Moses is born, a Pharaoh orders the killing of all Hebrew baby boys. 4. 80 years later, the Exodus (Exo. 7:7) and the end of the Hebrews' 430 year sojourn in Egypt. Emperor001 ( talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Above you will see where I have already posted a chart with an accurate timeline starting with the birth of Adam through to the baptism of Jesus, I feel that it marks most of the significant biblical occurrences, however, I am not sure it would be considered in context to this discussion of who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. Willietell ( talk) 04:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell ( talk • contribs)
"and pharaoh 3, of the exodus, who certainly was the immediate successor of number 2." as I feel that this at a minimum is incorrect and represents WP:OR as well, due to the reasoning's laid out by my edit, Which I thing DougWeller is simply saying I need to better support with cited sources Willietell ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624 Willietell ( talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Willie, are you one of the authors of Insight on the Scriptures? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Willietell, since you seem very interested in this subject, you might like to do this to improve it. Go to the book labelled "Shea" in the bibliography - it's an entry by Shea in an encyclopedia, and the book is definitely a Reliable Source. Shea discusses just about everyone who could possibly be involved in the exodus. Using that, update our little list of names - put the name of each king Shea lists as a possibility, their dates (you can get them from articles in Wikipedia), and maybe a very brief summary of what Shea says about each. That'll keep you gainfully occupied for a while and also be a practical exercise in how to write a Wikipedia article. PiCo ( talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I only did that in talk, to which some objected, I don't really know why someone would object to that, but they seem to have found something wrong with me presenting the case, which is really only relevant if you consider Conventional Chronology(revised) to be correct, which it likely isn't because David Rohl is likely closer to correct (though this statement shouldn't be interpreted as support), because the conventional chronology expands for too long of a period.
My edit as shown, only really had to do with the how old Moses was at the time he left Egypt (40) and how old he was when he returned (80) and the relationship between the two pharaoh's considering the time frame involved. Willietell ( talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to place a few comments on the possible pharaoh of the Exodus simply for open minded thought.
I propose that the following information cited from the Insight on the Scriptures be included under the heading of UnNamed Pharaoh"s. I also think that this heading would be better named Anonymous Pharaoh's as this seems more appropriate for use in an encyclopedia than does UnNamed. Of course the material will need to be rephrased in wording, but the content needs to be kept intact. The information is:
Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624
I know of course that there will be those, who I'll try not to mention by name, who will oppose the inclusion of this valuable information because they do not like the source, however, the material presented is not in dispute as far as I know, unless someone would care to challenge the validity of that information, I feel it should be edited into the article as a necessary improvement to the subheading. Willietell ( talk) 05:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I mistaken, or do the original language texts of the Bible always use the word Pharaoh as if it was not a title but rather a proper name? It seems to be used always without an article, sometimes combined with the title "the king of Egypt". And when a real proper name is given, it is not said "Pharaoh so-and-so", but rather simply "so-and-so, the king of Egypt". Note also how at the beginning of Exodus it say that there arose "a new king" in Egypt, not "a new Pharaoh". Older English translations such as the KJV seem to preserve this, while some newer do not. (Note: I'm not a KJV-onlyist or anything like that, and this is not supposed to be any kind of religious or ideological point - just an interesting tidbit). -- 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.89.16 ( talk)
The controversial Jewish midrash "Sefer haYashar" [3] (referred to as Jasher in English) indicates that in the early days of the Egyptian monarchs, it became customary to change the given name of the new king to Pharaoh. References to the English translation of the Midrash show this clearly. Jasher 14:27-33 [4] gives a story of the first king being given this name. The impact and popularity of this king apparently gave rise to this custom. Later kings changed their pre-dynastic name to Pharaoh in this Midrash as is clearly described at Jasher 58:4,9 [5], Jasher 63:9 [6] and Jasher 77:4 [7]. A more modern similarity exists in the Roman empire where Julius Caesar [8] made a similar impact. All subsequent Roman emperors, beginning with nephew Augustus Caesar [9] (originally Gaius Octavius Thurinus) used the name Caesar as both a name and a title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The Sabbah brothers seem to have no relevant credentials other than to be "the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis", at least that's all Amazon says. Some of the edit I removed was also unsourced. Whoever they are, this is both fringe and doesn't have enough significance in terms of discussion in reliable sources to be in the article - see WP:UNDUE. As I've taken this to FTN any discussion should probably be there. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Here we are, Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
== Sabbah brothers and Desroches-Noblecourt back here where it belongs
"That is a typical "fringe theory" (Freud's about Akhenaten). However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [10] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [11]"
But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian culture, like the preceding personalities.
That removal totally lacks of neutrality."
Now remove the above from the talk page is simply outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
References
@ PiCo:, @ Dougweller:: I agree with changing the heading of this section, because "unidentified" does misleadingly imply that these pharaohs were real and could, in theory, be identified if we had more evidence. But "Biblical pharaohs" feels like an awkward choice, because it's virtually redundant with the title of the article. Taharqa et al. are also "biblical" in the sense that the Bible mentions them. "Fictional pharaohs" is, I think, more subtly misleading. The parts of the Bible that mention these pharaohs are really legend, or myth-in-the-academic-sense, which isn't exactly the same as fiction. (The Joseph story has the traits of a work of fiction similar to Egyptian short stories, as Donald B. Redford argues in his analysis of it, but those very traits set it apart from most of the rest of the Bible. And if the Exodus story isn't a myth-in-the-scholarly-sense, nothing in the Bible is.)
My suggestion is to title the section "unnamed pharaohs", as they certainly are unnamed in the text, and I don't think that word carries the same misleading implications as "unidentified". Do either of you disagree? A. Parrot ( talk) 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not mythological pharaohs or legendary pharaohs? The main article is mythological king. Dimadick ( talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the article, and no one even mentioned it in the talk page. Haven't Christian scholars proposed Amenhotep as the Pharaoh of the Exodus? WorldQuestioneer ( talk) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Most scholars do not recognize the biblical portrayal of the Exodus as an actual historical event, Most modern scholars believe that some elements in the story of the Exodus might have some historical basis, but that any such basis has little resemblance to the story told in the Pentateuch.
There isnt much information here other than just listing the source. Can someone include more rationale for why they dont consider the exodus narrative historical? I want to know more information on this. 2600:100F:A110:32BD:57B8:2AA7:821A:6120 ( talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Old discussion on the Pharaoh of the Exodus
Someone removed this:
"That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [1] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [2]"
But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian cultural, like the preceding personalities.
That removal totally lacks of neutrality.
I'm removing the name of Akhenaten from the list of candidates for Pharaoh of the Exodus, since the sole reference for this attribution is Freud's book Moses and Monotheism. This is NOT what Freud suggested at all in this book. He believed that Akhenaten was MOSES, not Pharaoh. Yonderboy ( talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Should the article add another section: Pharaoh of Joseph, since the distinction between the two dynasties (cf. Exodus 1:8) Bennylin ( talk) 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
No, it should not. In fact the entire section Unnamed Pharaohs contains speculation only. It's not without reason that scholarly opinion does not count either Genesis or Exodus among the historical biblical books. The whole section makes an outdated impression, being based on older biblical scholarship. It seems highly indicative of the non-factual content of Exodus specifically that the supposed pharaoh has no name - even though Moses itself is an Egyptian name included in various pharaoh names. (Cf. Thutmoses e.a.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Ring of Ptolemy VI Philometor (186-145 BC) as Egyptian pharaoh. Louvre Museum.
Why was this picture put into this article? It doesn't fit at all. 80.141.209.237 ( talk) 09:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing.
Of all the pharaohs suggested and with advance warning of what may have been malaria moving towards Egypt, Akhenaton builds a quarantine city at what is now Tell el Amarna. The city being built of timber and mudbrick was never intended for long term occupancy, only for the duration of the plague.
The Hebrews being reluctant to stay in a plague ridden Egypt want to do a runner back to Canaan which they thought was already clear of the plague.
A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself.
The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again. AT Kunene ( talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
"I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing."
That's an highly anachronistic comment, based purely on the mere suggestion that there was a plague during Akhenaten's reign. Which, by the way, isn't mentioned in any written evidence from the period.
"A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself."
Equally suggestive, not based on fact. Tutankhamun was possibly murdered.
"The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again."
This is both confused and uninformed. The Merneptah stele makes the first ever probable mention of Hebrews as a single tribe in Palestine. Ramesses II never looted a 'temple of Solomon.' Really, this is an old hypothesis not borne out by fact. During his time the area was still under Egyptian control. Ergo, the kingdom of Israel must postdate Ramesses II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Pepi II Neferkare should be added to the list of pharaohs associated with the Exodus because he is. James D. Long, member of the High Council of B'nei Noah and author of Riddle of the Exodus (2006), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=R7mUPQAACAAJ Gerald E. Aardsma, PhD., the editor of Biblical Chronologist, associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php Brad Aaronson of the Jewish Orthodox Union associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm Ken Johnson, author of Ancient Post-Flood History (2004), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=A5nWddyA_NYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false The list goes on and on. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) ( edit conflict)As I've already said, we shouldn't be using self-published sources such as Ken Johnson's book. James Long's book is also self-published, see [1]. That leaves two sources. Why is Brad Aaronson's opinion so significant it should be in the article? Biblical Chronologist is another self-published site owned by the Creationist Gerald E. Aardsma. Don't get me wrong, entries here are likely to be backed by Creationists, but I'd expect something significant to have better sources. Also, please cite according to WP:CITE, not just bare urls linking to Google Books. Full details including page numbers please in the future. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)::::All irrelevant -- the sad truth is that Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the Exodus for obvious reasons. 76.216.196.209 ( talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
There is another source from a published author. Donovan Courville [3], in 1971 published "The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications: A Critical Examination of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of Antiquity". The main reason that the 6th dynasty exodus is usually discounted, is because it is far too early to align the Biblical timeline to the accepted history of Egypt. Courville provided possible evidence that the 6th dynasty and the 13th dynasty were contemporary, which might explain why the first intermediate period and the second intermediate period were both very similar in the way Egypt collapsed. Peter James [4] in his book "Centuries of Darkness" and David Rohl [5] in "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest", both demonstrated in different ways that the timeline close to the third intermediate period is likely a few centuries too long. Combine this with Courville's work, and you have a basis for associating the end of the 6th dynasty as a possible contender for the exodus. In addition, there is a controversial Jewish midrash named "Sefer haYashar". [6] (English:"The Book of Jasher", or "The Book of the Upright" Most scholars believe it was authored around 1225 A.D., but it was possibly sourced or derived from the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua 10:13. [7]) This refers to the Pharaoh named Melol being the Pharaoh of the oppression. In this Midrash, his reign length was 94 years. (according to the English translation here [8]) This can only apply to one Pharaoh; that of Pepi II Neferkhare. That would leave only one Pharaoh to be that of the Exodus according to this Midrash which would be his son, Merenre II Nemtyemsaf.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
References
Dr Cyril Aldred spent some 17 years theorising about the life and times of Akhenaton and concluded that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family.
Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only.
Other authors speculate that there was a plague caused by the eruption of Santorini during the reign of Akhenaton, also with a vast outfall of dust blocking off the sunshine, which may be the simple explanation why Akhenaton suddenly orders the worship of the sun god Aton to restore normal sunshine/daylight conditions.
Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague but in the end, trying to decipher the fragments left over from the lifetime of a man who has been dead for some 3,000 years can only lead to plenty of speculation. AT Kunene ( talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
This whole section makes little sense. Having one authority make a suggestion "that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family" does not warrant mention. Note the "may" in that sentence, by the way. Other explanations are possible.
"Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only."
Again, highly suggestive, but the fact is that during Akhenaten a different type of construction was used, which was abandoned immediately after.
"Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague" is equally suggestive, but ignores the fact that 'plagues' or epidemics would have been common in the ancient world - as well as long after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
Dr Cyril Aldred never specifically calls Akhenaton the Pharaoh of Exodus but gives considerable detail about a plague raging in Egypt that probably carried off several members of the Amarna Family.
As a senior employee at the British museum Aldred was constantly updating his work on the Amarna Period and but for his death may well have identified Akhenaton as the Pharaoh of Exodus.
Amongst other speculations as Akhenaton seems to have been the only known pharaoh who had to deal with a plague (Malaria?) which also seems to have killed Tutankhamun, he still seems to be a good candidate for the Pharaoh of Exodus and worth reinstating in this category.
I think it was Prof W. Wratton Bragg who used to regularly refer to an Okhenaton or Ikhenaton. AT Kunene 212.138.68.113 ( talk) 15:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The following chart is supported by the reference material [1]
Event | Year AM | Year BCE (non-biblical) | Span |
---|---|---|---|
Creation of Adam | 0 | 4026 BCE | 0 |
To the start of the Flood | 1656 | 2370 BCE | 1656 |
To the validation of the Abrahamic covenant | 2083 | 1943 BCE | 427 |
To the Exodus from Egypt | 2513 | 1513 BCE | 430 |
To the entry of Israel into Canaan | 2553 | 1473 BCE | 40 |
To the close of the period of the Judges and the beginning of Saul's reign | 2909 | 1117 BCE | 356 |
To the beginning of David's reign | 2949 | 1077 BCE | 40 |
To the beginning of Solomon's reign | 2989 | 1037 BCE | 40 |
To the start of temple construction During the 4th year of Solomon's reign | 2992 | 1034 BCE | 3 |
To the division of the Kingdom | 3029 | 997 BCE | 37 |
To the desolation of Judah and Israel being lead into captivity in Babylon | 3419 | 607 BCE | 390 |
Return from exile (Ezra 1:2-4) | 3489 | 537 BCE | 70 |
To the rebuilding of Jerusalem's walls | 3571 | 455 BCE | 82 |
To the baptism of Jesus | 4054 | 29 CE | 483 |
The Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was likely Thutmose I, the reign of which some Egyptologists date to the years 1526 BCE to 1513 BCE. Interestingly, Thutmose I had an eldest son (Amenmose) who died of unknown causes shortly before his own death in 1513 BCE. Amenmose was the brother of Hatshepsut from Thutmoses primary wife, Ahmose. Hatshepsut ruled as regent then married and ruled with her half-brother Thutmose II. Also interesting is that the mummy of Thutmose I, when it was examined with an MRI, was found to have what appears to be an arrow in the skull, indicating a violent death. This violent death in apparent battle is relevant because Amenmose, who died shortly before Thutmose I was the general of Thutmoses armies and without his presence, Thutmose would likely have lead those armies in pursuit of the Israelite's personally. Though it cannot be said with absolute certainty that Thutmose was the pharaoh at the time of the exodus, the evidence certainly seems to lend support the to idea. BCE denotes "Before our Common Era" - CE denotes "Common Era". In the calculation of these dates, bear in mind that there is no year zero in the transition between BCE year 1 and CE year 1. Willietell ( talk) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
It's apparent that a certain person's position here it basically only because of their anti-Jehovah's Witness view. This theory is logical for many reasons. First regardless of the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses commentary the chronology is well-researched. In addition other sources have suggested Thutmose I as candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus.
Not only do these two chronologies match for Thutmose I (using the Memphis dating, "were taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes") whose reign would ended conveniently at the 1513 B.C.E. But also the fact his firstborn Amenmose conveniently predeceased him. And his successor (his son) Thutmose II's mummy bear evidence of scaring from boils. It is definitely an interesting theory. And should be seriously considered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.202.248 ( talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
It's probably of interest to note that neither Genesis nor Exodus are considered among the Bible's historical books, which start with the Book of Kings. None of the stories in Genesis or Exodus can or have been verified from other sources than the Bible itself. In short, any discussion of 'who was the pharaoh of the exodus' is moot. And it would not only be correct to consider the Watchtower publication 'fringe.' but simply non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 ( talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Certain beliefs within the Watchtower publications are indeed fringe beliefs; however, for dating purposes their fringe position is solely in regard to the destruction and desolation of the Jewish temple. The Watchtower organization cites 607 B.C.E, whereas historical records and most mainstream Christians cite 587 (or 586) BCE as the timeline. There is no significant objection within orthodox Christian circles for their dates later than this point. If twenty years is removed from every preceding date to reflect that fringe discrepancy, then their earlier timeline also fits with most other Christian scholars. Therefore the mainstream Christian date for the Exodus using a literal calculation based on 1 Kings 6:1 [2] (480 years between the Exodus and beginning of the construction of Solomon's temple) would be 1493 B.C.E. This conflicts with a literal reading of the timeline of the Judges, which would be 572 years, if all the judges lead Israel with no overlapping judgeships. (Most mainstream Christians believe they did overlap, and follow the 480 years) Allowing for rounding of partial years, one possible solution would be that 1 Kings was copied or translated incorrectly and should have been 580 years, which would place the exodus at 1593 B.C.E. All other calculations based on the Bible make assumptions beyond the literal text.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I've made some edits, and I've studied the Bible carefully and here is a timeline based on Biblical accounts that I think should go in the article somewhere.
1. Hebrews enter Egypt and stay for 430 years (Exo. 13:40). 2. 30 years later, a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph enslaves the Hebrews (based on a statement in Gen. 15:13 that the Hebrews would be slaves for 400 years). 3. After 320 of slavery, Moses is born, a Pharaoh orders the killing of all Hebrew baby boys. 4. 80 years later, the Exodus (Exo. 7:7) and the end of the Hebrews' 430 year sojourn in Egypt. Emperor001 ( talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
Above you will see where I have already posted a chart with an accurate timeline starting with the birth of Adam through to the baptism of Jesus, I feel that it marks most of the significant biblical occurrences, however, I am not sure it would be considered in context to this discussion of who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus. Willietell ( talk) 04:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell ( talk • contribs)
"and pharaoh 3, of the exodus, who certainly was the immediate successor of number 2." as I feel that this at a minimum is incorrect and represents WP:OR as well, due to the reasoning's laid out by my edit, Which I thing DougWeller is simply saying I need to better support with cited sources Willietell ( talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624 Willietell ( talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
Hey, Willie, are you one of the authors of Insight on the Scriptures? - Lisa ( talk - contribs) 15:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
Willietell, since you seem very interested in this subject, you might like to do this to improve it. Go to the book labelled "Shea" in the bibliography - it's an entry by Shea in an encyclopedia, and the book is definitely a Reliable Source. Shea discusses just about everyone who could possibly be involved in the exodus. Using that, update our little list of names - put the name of each king Shea lists as a possibility, their dates (you can get them from articles in Wikipedia), and maybe a very brief summary of what Shea says about each. That'll keep you gainfully occupied for a while and also be a practical exercise in how to write a Wikipedia article. PiCo ( talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
I only did that in talk, to which some objected, I don't really know why someone would object to that, but they seem to have found something wrong with me presenting the case, which is really only relevant if you consider Conventional Chronology(revised) to be correct, which it likely isn't because David Rohl is likely closer to correct (though this statement shouldn't be interpreted as support), because the conventional chronology expands for too long of a period.
My edit as shown, only really had to do with the how old Moses was at the time he left Egypt (40) and how old he was when he returned (80) and the relationship between the two pharaoh's considering the time frame involved. Willietell ( talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
I'd like to place a few comments on the possible pharaoh of the Exodus simply for open minded thought.
I propose that the following information cited from the Insight on the Scriptures be included under the heading of UnNamed Pharaoh"s. I also think that this heading would be better named Anonymous Pharaoh's as this seems more appropriate for use in an encyclopedia than does UnNamed. Of course the material will need to be rephrased in wording, but the content needs to be kept intact. The information is:
Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624
I know of course that there will be those, who I'll try not to mention by name, who will oppose the inclusion of this valuable information because they do not like the source, however, the material presented is not in dispute as far as I know, unless someone would care to challenge the validity of that information, I feel it should be edited into the article as a necessary improvement to the subheading. Willietell ( talk) 05:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Am I mistaken, or do the original language texts of the Bible always use the word Pharaoh as if it was not a title but rather a proper name? It seems to be used always without an article, sometimes combined with the title "the king of Egypt". And when a real proper name is given, it is not said "Pharaoh so-and-so", but rather simply "so-and-so, the king of Egypt". Note also how at the beginning of Exodus it say that there arose "a new king" in Egypt, not "a new Pharaoh". Older English translations such as the KJV seem to preserve this, while some newer do not. (Note: I'm not a KJV-onlyist or anything like that, and this is not supposed to be any kind of religious or ideological point - just an interesting tidbit). -- 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.89.16 ( talk)
The controversial Jewish midrash "Sefer haYashar" [3] (referred to as Jasher in English) indicates that in the early days of the Egyptian monarchs, it became customary to change the given name of the new king to Pharaoh. References to the English translation of the Midrash show this clearly. Jasher 14:27-33 [4] gives a story of the first king being given this name. The impact and popularity of this king apparently gave rise to this custom. Later kings changed their pre-dynastic name to Pharaoh in this Midrash as is clearly described at Jasher 58:4,9 [5], Jasher 63:9 [6] and Jasher 77:4 [7]. A more modern similarity exists in the Roman empire where Julius Caesar [8] made a similar impact. All subsequent Roman emperors, beginning with nephew Augustus Caesar [9] (originally Gaius Octavius Thurinus) used the name Caesar as both a name and a title.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere ( talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
The Sabbah brothers seem to have no relevant credentials other than to be "the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis", at least that's all Amazon says. Some of the edit I removed was also unsourced. Whoever they are, this is both fringe and doesn't have enough significance in terms of discussion in reliable sources to be in the article - see WP:UNDUE. As I've taken this to FTN any discussion should probably be there. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
Here we are, Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau ( talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
== Sabbah brothers and Desroches-Noblecourt back here where it belongs
"That is a typical "fringe theory" (Freud's about Akhenaten). However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. [10] Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. [11]"
But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian culture, like the preceding personalities.
That removal totally lacks of neutrality."
Now remove the above from the talk page is simply outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau ( talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
References
@ PiCo:, @ Dougweller:: I agree with changing the heading of this section, because "unidentified" does misleadingly imply that these pharaohs were real and could, in theory, be identified if we had more evidence. But "Biblical pharaohs" feels like an awkward choice, because it's virtually redundant with the title of the article. Taharqa et al. are also "biblical" in the sense that the Bible mentions them. "Fictional pharaohs" is, I think, more subtly misleading. The parts of the Bible that mention these pharaohs are really legend, or myth-in-the-academic-sense, which isn't exactly the same as fiction. (The Joseph story has the traits of a work of fiction similar to Egyptian short stories, as Donald B. Redford argues in his analysis of it, but those very traits set it apart from most of the rest of the Bible. And if the Exodus story isn't a myth-in-the-scholarly-sense, nothing in the Bible is.)
My suggestion is to title the section "unnamed pharaohs", as they certainly are unnamed in the text, and I don't think that word carries the same misleading implications as "unidentified". Do either of you disagree? A. Parrot ( talk) 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not mythological pharaohs or legendary pharaohs? The main article is mythological king. Dimadick ( talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
It's not mentioned in the article, and no one even mentioned it in the talk page. Haven't Christian scholars proposed Amenhotep as the Pharaoh of the Exodus? WorldQuestioneer ( talk) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
Most scholars do not recognize the biblical portrayal of the Exodus as an actual historical event, Most modern scholars believe that some elements in the story of the Exodus might have some historical basis, but that any such basis has little resemblance to the story told in the Pentateuch.
There isnt much information here other than just listing the source. Can someone include more rationale for why they dont consider the exodus narrative historical? I want to know more information on this. 2600:100F:A110:32BD:57B8:2AA7:821A:6120 ( talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)