Who was the Pharaoh when Moses took his people and left Egypt?
Does anybody know?

Nobody knows; apparently it wasn't important to whomever wrote the Biblical account. Many historians doubt such an event ever took place, since there's no historical record from anyone that it happened. The only version we have is from the Bible, which isn't an historical record. (You'd think someone, somewhere in Egypt might mention "We were attacked by ten mysterious plagues that ended with every oldest son dying, all our slaves ran away and the sea swallowed most of the pharaoh's army".) Furthermore, there's no record of the Hebrews being ever slaves in Egypt.

If you're willing to let faith supersede fact, Josephus reckons it was Ramses II, and other folk reckon it was Akhenaton.

--Jaylemurph

Thanks Jaylemurph!
You may be right, but there were accounts of the firstborn of several pharaohs dying mysteriously and pharaohs who lost most of their armies, at least that's what I've read. I could be wrong. I think the Bible could be a historical record, it does list dates and some of the stuff in there has been proven true by archeology.
I am willing to let fact supercede faith if I could just find the facts.
I doubt it was Ramses I or II because the timelines don't fit, same with Akhenaton. Akehnaton whose other name was AmenhotepIV had an older brother Thutmose who died mysteriously at a young age and left AmenhotepIV to rule after his father died. AmenhotepIV as pharaoh, tried to establish a monotheistic (one god) religion and failed. Where'd he get that idea?
I'll have a look into what you said about there being no record of Hebrews being the slaves of Egyptians. It would be interesting if I've gotten the cart in front of the horse.
Thank you so much for your reply!

You're quite right; while there is nothing that explicitly confirms events in Exodus, there is nothing ever found that makes it absolutely impossible.



There certainly are things -- many things -- in the Bible that have been verified by archaeology. I -- nor anyone else with an appreciation for the past -- can deny that. I would say, however, that the purpose of the current compilation of the Bible is not to serve as an historical record; strictly speaking, it's a piece of propaganda assembled in the 3rd/4th Century CE to further one, specific idea of the Judeo-Christian god, so it would be dangerous to consider every bit of as true (not that I'm suggesting you are).



If you haven't read it, Wikipedia's article on The Exodus is more comprehensive than I could hope to be. And -- to be honest -- I need to correct myself: on reviewing that article, it's Eusebius, not Josephus who first postulates Ramses II. That article is well referenced and cited, so I can recommend it far beyond my tenuous grip on the situation.

Bona Fortuna et Bonum Studium.

--Jaylemurph

I thought it was Ramses.

The only timelines that would fit would mean that there were actually 2 Pharoahs, Thutmose III the pharaoh of the Oppression and Amenhotep II the pharaoh of the Exodus.

And I would agree with you that it is dangerous and ignorant (meaning "not knowing" just had to throw that definition in, before someone gets mad ) to consider every bit of the bible as true. I consider myself a Christian, but I'm not one to believe everything the "preacherman" tells me , so I like to do a bit of research to get my own answers. I'm completely aware that the Bible was written by men, for men, and parts were added and subtracted over the centuries, not only to further that specific Judeo-Christain idea, but also simply for politics.





Thank you so much for that link!!! I can't believe I missed it! Duh....
Thanks for all the info Jaylemurph!

I believe that Ramses was the city that the Hebrews left from, according to the Bible.
In the Hollywood version of this story, Ramses (Yul Brynner, how hot was he!) was the pharaoh, but that was, in my opinion, a mistake. ..... not Yul Brynner, but the name of Ramses.

You may very well be correct and that's about as close as I've gotten so far, but it would depend on what timelines you're looking at. Are you looking at Hebrew or Egyptian timelines? Because they are different.
Amenhotep II didn't lose his firstborn son mysteriously but his father Thutmose III did, however both of their armies were strong and suffered no huge losses that I could find, none that would equal that of the Red Sea drownings. They did serve together as co-regents for more than two years. But if the Exodus happened right after the death of Thutmose III's firstborn's death, than Amenhotep would have been too young to have played a part in it.
I'll have to go back and see how much time Moses spent trying to free his people. Hmmmm.......
Thank you so much for your post! very thought provoking!

Ramses II seems to be the favorite candidate - thanks to Josephus and Cecil B. DeMille.

But another pharaonic candidate is the Pharaoh Menerptah (I know that's probably not quite the right spelling).

Menerptah, you see, suffered from of arteriosclerosis of the heart.

Remember, "God HARDENED Pharaoh's heart."

Hey, don't laugh. That one sort o' grows on ye - like a fungus.

i always thought it was ramses

He only had the one lung, you know. Had the other removed. Think about /that/ next time you see him dancing around in The King And I.

--Jaylemurph

jennie1, I've just noticed that you have created the same thread in two separate sections of the Forum. This is considered to be a form of spam and thus is generally to be avoided.



Since this is the later of the two threads that you started (if only by 2 minutes), I'm going to close this one down. If however you would like this one open and the other thread closed instead, please PM me and I will reopen this thread and close the other one down. Thank you,

~Closed~