Hex

Okay, we've a few people on the board who adhere to the authority of the Biblical account of the Hebrews captivity in Egypt, and I'm apealing to them on this:

Why is the Pharoh of teh Bible unnamed? We have all the Hebrew players named, and we know the importance of Pharohs having different names. What's the deal?

Likewise, why is there no record of the series of Biblical plagues in Egypt? Now recognize that I come at this as an archaeologist. Lars and I touched on this topic breifly, but not to any satisfactory conclusion. I won't be sated with an 'interpretation' of what might have been from a single document like the Bible. I'd like to know why we don't have references from -anyone- else on this?


What reason is there for us to beleive that this is anything more than just a story?

jess

I'm under the impression that in the original language, 'Pharoh' is treated as the king's name, not as a title...I think it may also be interesting to add that... let me dig it up...

Moses means 'drawn out of the water' in Hebrew. Not in any Egyptian dialect... So unless the princess was fluent in Hebrew...

RED DAVE

The name is Egyptian. The explanation is folk etymology. However, there may be some deeper implications.

"A Structuralist Exercise: The Problem of Moses' Name" by Michael P. Carroll, American Ethnologist, Vol. 12, No. 4 (Nov., 1985), pp. 775-778 (JSTOR)

RED DAVE

jess

Thanks--- but the page doesn't quite clarify it--- it promises to explaint he reason for the folk etymology in the article, and says that the egyptian suffix 'almost certainly' corresponds...

Hex, can you get me the article?

I appreciate being more informed...

Hex

Ooooh ... Nice fodder for revisionists dealing with the concept that much of the time of the Patriarchs was constrcuted -after- the Babylonian captivity, no?

Larsguy47

Whether one likes it or not, where we look for "records" about the Exodus wholly depends upon the specific identification of the pharaoh involved. That's because the records of some pharaohs, such as Akhenaten or Hatshepsut. Further, since it is clear the Egyptians erased and destroyed the records of those that became dispopular later on, if the events of the Jews, if even recorded was considered negative there is a chance that these records would have been a target for erasure. So that would explain why there would be no direct reference, per se.

As to why the Bible itself doesn't specifically name the pharoah involved with the Exodus when it might have, my personal opinion, just considering the Biblical history in general, is that it would have suppressed that information. The Bible seems to go out of it way to introduce a complex history that can "flex" with varying chronologies, such as hiding an easy alignment of the co-rulerships during the divided kingdom period, and writing parallel histories so that certain details of history can be obscured.

But the date of the Exodus has a relative place in Bible chronology, which is another big complication. The Exodus is 931 years prior to the 1st of Cyrus, for instance by some calculation and application.

But having noted that, Manetho, who based his references apparently on original Egyptian documents dates the Exodus of the Jews, generally, during the reign of Amenophis III. If so, then the Amarna letters become an interesting issue for documentation. That's because of a Letter 29, written by Tusratta to Akhenaten right after his father's death. This interesting reference reads thus:

55-60 "When my brother, Nimmureya, went to his fate it was reported. When I heard what was reported, nothing was allowed to be cooked in a pot. On that day I myself wept, and I sat [...]. On that day I took neither food nor water. I grieved, saying, "Let even me be dead, or let 10,000 be dead in my country and in my brother's country 10,000 as well, but let my brother, whom I love and who loves me, be alive as long as heaen and earth."

If Amenhotep as per the Bible died in the Red Sea, this letter should fit or even reflect that context. There is not much here, but two things are consistent with his death in the Red Sea and that is the mention of him "going to his fate", that this apparently was a heard by him by some "report" that did not come directly from Akhenaten or his mother. And while it certainly might be a general reference to wish in exchange for the king that 10,000 of your own people, or yourself would have been preferable or less painful than the king himself having died, to volunteer 10,000 of the Egyptians in exchange for the king, seems a bit awkward, but not if the king died with 1000 of his own charioteers. In that case, this is not a general sentiment any more but a more direct undestanding that the God of the Jews killed the pharoah long with 1000 or so of his army and it was thus his acknowledgment that he would have preferred more of the soliders had died and the king was spared, or he wished 10,000 of his own people had gone into the Red Sea and died rather than the pharaoh himself, and thus he is equating 20,000 soliders of less value than the king. That certainly would have been understood by Akhenaten if his father died in the Red Sea with his army. I think certainly, had we been there and the pharaoh ended up dying in the Red Sea with 1000 of his army that the common and spontaneous sentiment would have been, basically, "It would have been better if more soliders had died and the king himself were spared." In that way, it's not an insult to say to the king that it would have been better if 10,000 Egyptians had died rather than the king.

This also seems to have the context that the king was killed and did not die of old age. Likewise, this sentiment doesn't seem to be appropriate if the king was at war and died in some battle. In that case you don't make a sentiment that you wished more soilders were lost in the battle and the king himself was saved. More soldiers dying isn't a clear and automatic exchange for the pharaoh. But if it was an EXECUTION, then that makes perfect sense. When it is clear that the army along with the pharoah met their "fate" in an execution, then offering 20,000 people in exchange for the king to satisfy that ransom makes sense. It's like saying: "Geez, it's unfortunate the king had to die in this inevitable event. But if possible, it would have been better if the king himself were spared even if up to 20,000 more soliders were killed in this fiasco."

So this letter, which is an Egyptian archived reference, could be considered to indirectly support the idea that pharoah died with others in some fateful event that was reported to him before an official letter from the pharoah.

One other thing. By telling Akhenaten he heard "what happened" suggests that it was an embarrassing event, and awkward situation, and the king is letting him know "I know what happened, you don't have to tell me." Likewise by simply referring to the "report" of this event, it would be understood that the details of this event was well known and wel published. This is a BIG EVENT. Everybody would have heard about this. So the king is being consoling about this, and Akhenaten would have known precisely what he meant when he says he "heard the report" of what happened, because it was a HUGE and strange event.

So it's not that there is absolutely NOTHING coming out of Egypt that is compatible with the Ten Plagues or in this case the death of Amenhotep III in the Red Sea. But it is very indirect and subject to interpretation. So what is critical about this letter is that it doesn't contradict that Amenhotep III died in the Red Sea. It doesn't say, "I'm sorry about your father, I heard one of his wives killed him" or it doesn't talk about him being a "great warrier dying bravely" or anything.

So while there may be nothing directly in the records about the Ten Plagues, there is nothing circumstantially that would contradict it.

Other circumstantial things about the rule of Akhenaten that might be consistent with the Exodus at the beginning of his reign would be:

1) Reduction in military support of the city-states under Egyptian protection, a result of the primary military force dying in the Red Sea.

2) The sudden rationing of gold, which is complained about by at least one of the kings, which might reflect that the Jews "stripped" the Egyptians of much of their gold.

3) Obviously, the impact on the national religion where Akhenaten moves toward monotheism and suppression of the other god's of Egypt which he now considered to be "worthless." The religious concept of who Aten is compared with who the Jews through Yhwh is is so similar, that some believe the Psalms of David and the Hyms of Akhenaten to Aten must be connected. Both express their love and admiration of this loving Creator God that provides life to the smallest of things, etc.

LG47

Larsguy47

This is interesting. Manetho/Josephus says that he was named something else and then called himself "Moses." If he was born during the reign of ThuthMOSIS III then it seems that he was named "Mosis" like the Egyptian pharoah and some Egyptians go by the name of just "Moses" as well. Per Josephus, he claims the Egyptian word for water is "Moil" and that's the foundation for "Moses." So there is an actual historical reference to deal with here:

Joseph, Against Apion 1:31 "Nor indeed is that other notion of Manetho at all probable, wherein he relates the change of his name, and says that "he was formerly called Osarsiph;" and this a name no way agreeable to the other, while his true name was Mosses, and signifies a person who is preserved out of the water, for the Egyptians call water Moil."

Thus it is more an association with "water" generally than the actual act of "drawing out of the water" that the name was given. Moses is, of course, an Egyptian name not a Jewish one and not a single Jew is called "Moses" besides Moses.

Further, "moses", or "meses" is considered "son of" which might have some association with water since the birth process involves water. The general symbolism of water is considered a birth sometimes, as when someone is baptized they are thought of being reborn out of the water anew as a different person, etc.

LG47

Larsguy47

Just looking at this historically, what would convince me that the Exodus actually happened and especially the ten plagues is the radical religious focus of Akhenaten. I think generally most would say he had to have had some kind of a traumatic or inspirational kind of experience or both. He was totally focussed and basically intolerant of other gods.

Again, there were other things consistent with the economic change. Lots of Amarna Letters are begging for military support during the reign of Akhenaten. Why wasn't he providing it? These were vassal states that likely paid the Egyptians for this type of police protection. But if a large segment of the Egyptian army died in the Red Sea as the Bible says, then one would expect a crimp in the military support to outlying areas. Likely garrisons posted in the outlying regions were called into Egypt as it's main army leaving the vassal states to defend for themselves.

Also, there might have been an economic impact, particularly when it comes to gold, which apparently was quite abundant in Egypt. Also in the Amarna Letters they commented that gold was like dust in Egypt. Yet when Akhenaten began to rule he apparently was rationing it. In one case, previously casted solid gold statues were exchanged for wood overlaid with gold. The Bible says the Jews "stripped" the Egyptians of their gold, so this is consistent with why gold might have been scarce for a while and why Akhenaten wasn't sending much gold out of the country any more; the Egyptians were refurbishing their own gold.

Also, there's the general archaeology. The Bible says that after Jericho was destroyed by Joshua it was left uninhabited for 400+ years. This is consistent with dating the Exodus at the end of the rule of Amenhotep III since this is the LBIIA Period, the last occupation level for Jericho, after which, indeed, there was a 400+ year abandonment of that city.

So these sort of things, for ME, adds some reality to the idea of what the Bible says when it is applied to this specific time in the Egyptian timeline.

LG47

RED DAVE

From Larsguy:
Bizarre. You attribute it to the Exodus. He never mentions it.

From Larsguy:
But he doesn't mention it.

From Larsguy:
Pure speculation. You're talking about the departture of half the population of Egypt, and no one mentions it at all?

From Larsguy:
No indication Joshua and his horde of 2.5 million were at Jericho or anywhere else.

From Larsguy:
If this is what adds to reality for you, let me know next time you're in New York. We've go this bridge for sale. Its towers look just like Egyptian pylons. Ancient documents that I read as a child, in addition to referring to the love affair between Socrates and Aristotle, confirm that Moses actually had the bridge built so the 2.5 million exslaves could cross from Manhattan to Brooklyn.

This bridge is currently for sale, and I can get it for you wholesale.

RED DAVE

Larsguy47

Hello? All his records and buildings were destroyed! The only way we knew about him was because they used the stones as fill for some other building. Thus you don't know whether he mentioned it or not. Since he had been "converted" to YHWHism and was outlawed, called the "heretic king" certainly any mention of the Jews in a favorable light of what really happened would not survive either. We don't know if he mentioned it or not. Though there is supposed to be somehwhere in the artwork what is believed to be a depiction of a doorway with blood on it. But I haven't been able to find that specific reference. It's allegedly in an old book about Akhenaten I have, but I didn't get the page number.

His records were a target of destruction.

It would have likely only appeared in the records of the king immediately ruling after the event and his records were purposely destroyed, likely with any mention of the Jews. So the circumstances are special, one would not expect to have an open, truthful record of this. Even Manetho's references clearly to the Exodus during the time of "Amenophis" claims they were expelled because of being sickly and unclean, believed to be Egyptian propaganda to hide the truth, so.... Expecting a nice reference to these people leaving is like expecting some gold statues dropped by the Israelites in the wilderness to still be lying around today. Ain't gonna happen.

BUT... when there was more conflict with Israel, the war records definitely confirm their identity and their location and the state of their empire at the time. Notably a passing mention by Mereneptah and, of course, Shishak's inscription of when he invaded Israel. That's right on the money. So while the Egyptian records have their problems right at the time of the Exodus, for clearly understandable reasons, later Egyptian records seem to confirm the Bible's history regarding the Jews and their activities.

Just the army and the "circumstantial" chronology. That is, the Bible claims after Jericho was destroyed it was not rebuilt for 400 years. The archaeology supports that interval. No the walls are no longer there, no graffiti on the sides of the cliffs showing Joshua and his men blowing trumpets and the walls falling down, something you'd likely dismiss anyway. So no biggee. Just because I can't prove I walked across a cement road 20 years ago doesn't mean I didn't.

RED DAVE[/QUOTE]

Thanks, RD.