G
George_Waters
Guest
A discussion began in another thread about the fate of the pharaoh during the exodus. What do you think happened to Pharaoh?
- Status
P
puzzleannie
Guest
he had to go back and face the wrath of his people and the consequences of his actions which devastated his country and decimated a whole generation.
M
mommyof4
Guest
I am just speculating that he was not among his troops, and he died years later. Just a guess, though.
C
colliric
Guest
If it was Ramses the second as is traditionally thought, it’s most defiantly the 2nd option because he died when he was more than 90 years old, unless he had a firstborn child in his late 70s or early 80s, which is highly unlikely to me. Sounds to me like the Exodus occured when he was in his middle ages and it effected his millitary mind.
I’ll go with tradition and say it probably was him and therefore it is the second option which is right sounding to me, and is twice how it was portrayed on film. He was there giving the orders but survived the closing in of the sea.
I think part of the wider reason historians traditionally think it was him is because he was a steadfast general as was shown by the Battle of Kadesh, the kind of man who did not like giving in. In other words he had a stubborness about him. He did not like to retreat, thats for sure.
G
George_Waters
Guest
For those of you who believe Pharaoh was killed would you care to elaborate? I am not asking anyone to defend themselves, simply to share your thoughts as the only ones who have do so to this point believe he lived and died later.
Thank you!
Thank you!
V
Valke2
Guest
I believe he was killed with his troops.
V
Valke2
Guest
One reason might be that we don’t hear anything from him again. Or that God does anything with him after the crossing. Not all the Jews left. I think that if Pharoah lived the Torah might say a word or two about what he did to them afterwards.
On the other hand, as I’ve said in the other thread, Exodus does not directly state that Pharoah was killed, as opposed to references in the Psalms. And the song that the Israelites sing in Exodus 15, which is believed to be one of the oldest portions of the Bible, talks about Pharoah’s officers and chariots being drowned but not Pharoah himself.
C
colliric
Guest
Thing is he finally decided to leave them alone, having lost the majority of his army, that is why he doesn’t try to do anything to them after they got away. In fact he had thought of just letting them go after his son died, but then his thirst for revenge grew after his sorrow left him, and he chased after them. God taught him a powerful and scary lesson in humility. that is why it is not necessary to expand on what happened to Pharaoh in the Torah, because he was no longer narratively important. He didn’t do anything to the Jews, he had learned his lesson and had payed too high a price for it.
This is why I tend to go with the traditional interpretation of it being Ramses 2. Because he was, from historical narratives, rather stubborn like that.
R
Rebecca_New
Guest
Since this is just my opinion, I am in no way saying that I am right. But, I put Moses and the Exodus 1272BC. The only pharoah that taught monotheism was Akhenaton. I think the pharaoh changed his name and became a believer. But, it did not take, and the images of his face were dug out. 1352-1336 BCE.
V
Valke2
Guest
But the Torah, generally, will dicuss the deaths of leaders that opposed Israel. And I don’t know if modern scholars side on the belief that Ramses II was the pharoah in question. However, if pharoah was no longer narratively important, then his fate is not important to us. Except that to allow him to live would allow him to escape Divine Justice in the biblical midnd.
M
mommyof4
Guest
Yes, but even if he didn’t die at that particular time, he would eventually face death, and God’s justice at that time.
C
colliric
Guest
To me it seems like losing his entire army and son to his own stubbornness was the Devine Justice. He didn’t escape it at all. After all that had happened to him already, perhaps God left him alone after destroying his army and killing his son. We don’t know, the torah is silent on it.
C
colliric
Guest
I agree with you, and this of cause is the traditional belief. The Pharaoh of this time period(1272 BC) of cause was Ramesses 2.Since this is just my opinion, I am in no way saying that I am right. But, I put Moses and the Exodus 1272BC. The only pharoah that taught monotheism was Akhenaton. I think the pharaoh changed his name and became a believer. But, it did not take, and the images of his face were dug out. 1352-1336 BCE.
S
Sixtus
Guest
Terrible though it sounds, I do not really care what happened to him.
I am content to know that Almighty God delivered His People Israel from slavery
I am content to know that Almighty God delivered His People Israel from slavery
S
sandmountainsli
Guest
It is theorized that Ramses II is the ancestor of everyone alive in the Western World today.
If so let us be glad he did not drown on that day
WP
If so let us be glad he did not drown on that day
WP
G
George_Waters
Guest
The thread Islamic Prophecy really got me interested in the exodus and was the reason I started this thread. I have also been reading a lot on the subject lately. In the book “The Bible Is History” by Ian Wilson it is noted that the only extra-biblical documentation of all the “plagues” occurred during the reign of the founder of the 18th dynasty Ahmose I (1550-1525 BC). I also found at touregypt.net/featurestories/ahmose1.htm that Ahmose’s eldest children all died at a young age and his third son Amenhotep became the pharaoh after him.
In Mr. Wilson’s book the siege of the Hykos city of Avaris by the Egyptians is also discussed and that this city was later re-named Ramesses after the then current pharaoh Ramesses II. This has led to confusion about the time of the exodus. This would place the exodus much earlier than conventionally believed.
Germane to this thread the tomb of Amhose was found and it seems he died about 10 years after the retaking of Avris and the plagues so he would not have died in the sea at the time of the exodus.
Thoughts?
In Mr. Wilson’s book the siege of the Hykos city of Avaris by the Egyptians is also discussed and that this city was later re-named Ramesses after the then current pharaoh Ramesses II. This has led to confusion about the time of the exodus. This would place the exodus much earlier than conventionally believed.
Germane to this thread the tomb of Amhose was found and it seems he died about 10 years after the retaking of Avris and the plagues so he would not have died in the sea at the time of the exodus.
Thoughts?
C
colliric
Guest
If the book was actually written by Moses, which I believe personally it was, and he mentions the City of Ramesses as having that particular name, there is no other Pharaoh other than Ramesses the Second(who had the city named after him) that can be that pharaoh unless someone has altered the text, which to me was highly unlikely because the other names of places in the Torah are quite consistent now with what they were really called when the events took place. However if it was not written by Moses, then likely it may very well have been someone else. Of cause this is very much debateable, But I personally do think he wrote it so I take the tradition opinion.
Also the Hyksos were rulers, not Slaves. And the earliest evidence of the semetic Iron age is well after their time, Also Pithom was itself discovered, and that city was archelogically dated to having been created in the 19th Dynesty(from Wikipedia):
The discovery of the ruins of Pithom confirms the Biblical statement and points to a pharaoh from Horemheb to Ramses II as the Pharaoh that oppressed Israel (Pi-Tum’s construction was first started during the reign of Horemheb under vizier Pa-Ramses, later Ramses I, and it had a very small addition during the reign of Ramesses II). The name of the city Pi-Tum is first found on Egyptian monuments of the nineteenth dynasty. Important evidence is thus afforded of the date of the Exodus, which must have taken place toward the end of the eighteenth dynasty or in the first hundred years of the nineteenth dynasty.
Avaris likewise had it’s name changed to Ramesses in the 19th dynasty,
Ramesses remains the favorite…
V
Valke2
Guest
The City is spelled differently (Raamses). And (at least Jews believe this) Raamses was already in existence. THat when it says they built store-cities, it means they fortified the existing cities as store-cities. By that reasoning, if we assume Raamses was named after Ramses II, then it could have been any pharoah after Ramses II that was the pharoah of Exodus, couldn’t it?
I found an article you might find interesting. An excerpt:
Protestant Christian Evangelicals set the Exodus at circa 1445 BC using Ussher’s chronology, the Roman Catholics set the Exodus at circa 1512 BC and the Jewish TANAKH’s data which appears in the Jewish work called Seder 'Olam Rabbah calculates the Exodus at 1312 BC
bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
I found an article you might find interesting. An excerpt:
Protestant Christian Evangelicals set the Exodus at circa 1445 BC using Ussher’s chronology, the Roman Catholics set the Exodus at circa 1512 BC and the Jewish TANAKH’s data which appears in the Jewish work called Seder 'Olam Rabbah calculates the Exodus at 1312 BC
bibleorigins.net/ExodusProblems.html
G
George_Waters
Guest
For the sake of discussion let’s assume that Exodus was not written by Moses and we do not no exactly who wrote or when Exodus was actually written.
The Hykos/Canaanites were rulers until they were defeated by the Egyptians. An account inscribed on the walls of the tomb of Amhose (A veteran admiral, NOT the pharaoh of the same name) stated: “There was fighting in the water of the canal… Thereupon I made capture… Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought away spoil thence: one man, three women… and His Majesty [Amhose] gave them to me for slaves.”
The issue with Ramasses II being Pharaoh is that there is no extra-biblical evidence that 1) plagues happened during his time and 2) that there was a mass exodus of peoples from Egypt. These events are chronicled in Egyptian sources from the time (or shortly after) of Ahmose. The plagues are recorded at the Temple of Karnak dated sometime during the reign of Amhose and Tuthmosis II (1524-1479 BC). During the reign of Tutimaeus (probably Dedumose, an obscure 18th dynasty pharaoh) Manetho wrote the history of Egypt in Greek and records a mass migration from Egypt of “no fewer than 240,000 entire households” of Hykos (Asiatic and likely Semitic people) during the reign of Ahmose.
I think arguably that Amhose should be considered as a strong possibility of being Pharaoh from Exodus.
Ahmose I or Ramasses II, both of their tombs have been found and there is no recorded documentation of them dying a violent death so it would seem Pharaoh did not die in the sea.
The Hykos/Canaanites were rulers until they were defeated by the Egyptians. An account inscribed on the walls of the tomb of Amhose (A veteran admiral, NOT the pharaoh of the same name) stated: “There was fighting in the water of the canal… Thereupon I made capture… Then Avaris was despoiled, and I brought away spoil thence: one man, three women… and His Majesty [Amhose] gave them to me for slaves.”
The issue with Ramasses II being Pharaoh is that there is no extra-biblical evidence that 1) plagues happened during his time and 2) that there was a mass exodus of peoples from Egypt. These events are chronicled in Egyptian sources from the time (or shortly after) of Ahmose. The plagues are recorded at the Temple of Karnak dated sometime during the reign of Amhose and Tuthmosis II (1524-1479 BC). During the reign of Tutimaeus (probably Dedumose, an obscure 18th dynasty pharaoh) Manetho wrote the history of Egypt in Greek and records a mass migration from Egypt of “no fewer than 240,000 entire households” of Hykos (Asiatic and likely Semitic people) during the reign of Ahmose.
I think arguably that Amhose should be considered as a strong possibility of being Pharaoh from Exodus.
Ahmose I or Ramasses II, both of their tombs have been found and there is no recorded documentation of them dying a violent death so it would seem Pharaoh did not die in the sea.
G
George_Waters
Guest
Thanks for the link Valke2! I will read it as soon as my boss leaves for the day! Ha!
- Status