Moses in Egypt

[stillsearching]

Hi-
I am new to this forum.

I thought I would throw out a interesting subject I stumbled upon and see if any of you would have any thoughts on it.

I read a book that took place during the Egyptian time of Ramesses and Nefatari which would correlate to the timing of Moses in Egypt. I was surprised at the difference in the books depiction and what I thought I knew of the story of Moses (based mostly on the movie The Ten Commandments that we all see at Easter).

With those differences I checked out some information on line and Moses doesn't exist in Egypt's history at all. I believe in the bible so I am not looking to debunk anything there. I was just wondering if someone else has any thoughts on this.

 

[DeitySlayer]

I believe in the bible so I am not looking to debunk anything there. I was just wondering if someone else has any thoughts on this.

That nullifies the whole point of discussion, then. If you are willing to maintain a belief regardless of the lack of supporting evidence, then discussion is wholly superfluous. A belief must be formed from the present evidence; the evidence should not be judged based on a preconceived belief.

 

[stillsearching]

I just find it curious and was wondering what the thoughts were on it. Maybe I should have phrased it "I still have faith in the bible".
I think that there is so much out there to learn that I don't disregard any of it right away. So if you would like to explain your point of view, I would love to hear it.

 

[futurezambian]

Another way that you could look at this lack of evidence is the fact that Moses is a Hebrew name. The Egyptians would not have recorded a Hebrew name in their history.
Still another possible solution to this lack is that Moses as part of the royal family would have been looked on as a disgrace when he led the Israelites out of captivity and turned his back on his Egyptian family.
But, I have not researched Egyptian history so I am just throwing out ideas.

 

[stillsearching]

That is an interesting thought, futurezambian. I wonder how they would have recorded his name.
I know that Egyptians were not fond of being wrong and they would wipe out anything that showed them up, but I found it strange that there wasn't anything recorded with all of the plagues and such that Moses inflicted on them.

 

[futurezambian]

Hey, one of my professors at college is an expert on that time period. I aksed him the same question and he is supposed to be getting me an explanation within the next week or so.

 

[stillsearching]

Hey, one of my professors at college is an expert on that time period. I aksed him the same question and he is supposed to be getting me an explanation within the next week or so.

Excellent! I will look forward to your reply.

 

[EtuMalku]

There are a lot of IF's with Moses and the Exodus. First there is no proof that a Moses existed and many scholars agree that the Exodus didn't ocurr as a historical event but rather a Canaanite folk story.

As to when Moses lived in Egypt and who was Pharaoh at the time is still not certain.
My guess if indeed there existed a Moses and his burning bush monotheistic religion, would be that He got it from the Pharaoh Akhenaten who first developed this One God idea.

Interesting also is that legendary Egyptologist Dr. Zahi Hawass has concluded from a current excavation that Egypt had no slaves (many scholars have said this before, but Hawass found the proof), but rather indebted civilians and those with criminal charges or other debts worked the debt off my Pyramid labor. It was also seen as a great honor and civilian duty to lend a hand.

That said, Moses' story of seeing a Hebrew slave mistreated and murdering the Egyptian that mistreated him, is more than likely false and part of the many Hero archetypal myths and folk-tales throughout history.

 

[MaybeSpartacus]

The Egyptians would not have recorded a Hebrew name in their history.

Maybe, but they probably would have recorded what the Hebrews did to them when they left. If you translate the Hebrew bible without gussying it up the Egyptians didn't give the Semitics supplies and the Pharaoh didn't mobilize his entire damned army just because he regretted letting some slaves go. If the story is true it is more likely the Hebrew peoples were in paid employ to the crown of Egypt. (There's actually a lot of debate about the pyramids and the like being constructed by paid masons rather than slaves as previously thought, but, anyway, ramble mode off.) The original Hebrew words for what happened in Egypt basically states they took what they wanted / needed at sword-point when they were leaving. I don't blame them, mind you, the world was a tough place back then, but you'd think pillaging that was significant enough to mobilize the army to get some old-time justice would be mentioned at least in passing.

 

[dmgdnooc]

Hi-
I am new to this forum.

I thought I would throw out a interesting subject I stumbled upon and see if any of you would have any thoughts on it.

I read a book that took place during the Egyptian time of Ramesses and Nefatari which would correlate to the timing of Moses in Egypt. I was surprised at the difference in the books depiction and what I thought I knew of the story of Moses (based mostly on the movie The Ten Commandments that we all see at Easter).

With those differences I checked out some information on line and Moses doesn't exist in Egypt's history at all. I believe in the bible so I am not looking to debunk anything there. I was just wondering if someone else has any thoughts on this.

For historical references try looking for Joseph in the Hyksos period and Moses after the Hyksos but prior to Ahkenaten.
The correlations between the Bible and the 'on-the-ground' political situation are much firmer there.
　
IMO Ramesses is too late (regrdless of the traditional arguments) the Biblical chronology and the politics of Egypt just don't mesh at this time.
　
Good luck with that.
　

 

[Katzpur]

Uh... DeitySlayer, futurezambian, EtuMalku, MaybeSpartacus and dmdgnooc, did any of you happen to notice that you are posting your answers to a question posed in the LDS DIR?

Stillsearching, I'm not sure why you posed your question in this sub-forum, but you might want to PM someone on the staff and see if they'll move it to the Abrahamic DIR instead. That way, at least futurezambian's and dmdgnooc's answers would be appropriate.

 

[EtuMalku]

Uh... DeitySlayer, futurezambian, EtuMalku, MaybeSpartacus and dmdgnooc, did any of you happen to notice that you are posting your answers to a question posed in the LDS DIR?

Why yes I did actually . . . I'm down with spewing forth my poison anywhere! :angel2:

 

[Valjean]

According to the Quran Moses is Mary's (Jesus' mom's) sister, so Moses lived either 2,000 or 3500 years ago -- take your pick.

 

[Quagmire]

***Mod Post***

Thread re-opened in
Biblical Debates.
​

 

[sunsplash]

Hi-
I am new to this forum.

I thought I would throw out a interesting subject I stumbled upon and see if any of you would have any thoughts on it.

I read a book that took place during the Egyptian time of Ramesses and Nefatari which would correlate to the timing of Moses in Egypt. I was surprised at the difference in the books depiction and what I thought I knew of the story of Moses (based mostly on the movie The Ten Commandments that we all see at Easter).

With those differences I checked out some information on line and Moses doesn't exist in Egypt's history at all. I believe in the bible so I am not looking to debunk anything there. I was just wondering if someone else has any thoughts on this.

Was the book "The Heretic Queen" by any chance? That was an interesting depiction of his character - and I liked the tie to Akhenaten as opposed to just Ramesses the Great. Keep in mind it was historical fiction though and much of what was in that book was the author taking personal liberties...like Nefertari being the daughter of Mutnojme - that simply isn't known.

I personally don't find it important either way, whether or not the Exodus and Moses were literal. It's about freedom, faith, and empowerment - valuable lessons even if taught through fiction. I will admit that I have a soft spot for Moses though, legend or not.

 

[gnostic]

Some believe that the Israelites were the Hyksos, because of the history of Manetho, which Flavius Josephus interpreted the Israelites as being the Hyksos, the "Shepherd Kings". I have a lot of problem with Josephus' interpretation and identification.

In the Genesis, Jacob and his family arrived and stayed in Egypt because of the famine in both Egypt and in Canaan. Shepherds they were indeed, and they came into Egypt in peace.

The Hyksos, on the other hand, were anything but peaceful. They invaded northern Egypt, and ruled much of northern Egypt (15th and 16th dynasties).

And though the Hyksos were most likely to be Semitic people, like the Israelites, the Hyksos bought with them Syrian/Canaanite religion with them, which include Ba'al, Anat, Astarte and other deities. The Hyksos were polytheistic in their religion.

The Theban 17th dynasty, eventually drove the Hyksos out of Egypt, which was completed by the 1st king of the new 18th dynasty, Ahmose I, in the 2nd quarter of 16th century BCE.

And lastly, the Genesis stated quite clearly that the Israelite slaves were involved in the constructions of 2 cities - Pithom (which is actually called Per-Atum (or House of Atum) and Rameses (also called Pi-Rameses). Pithom and Pi-Rameses never exist during the Hyksos dynasties. So neither cities weren't built until Rameses II, of the 19th dynasty, who reign in the 13th century BCE, at least a couple of centuries after the departure of the Hyksos.

So given all these consideration, clearly the Hyksos weren't Israelites or Hebrews.

There were no history in Egypt of Hebrews ever being slaves in their land.

Other factors should be given too. There are no evidences of Joshua's invasion of Canaan. All the cities that were mentioned of being sacked (or destroyed) were never destroyed by warfare in the periods of the supposed invasion. Furthermore, Canaan (including part of Syria) was in Rameses II's after his 1st decade of campaigns against the Hittite, so the exodus couldn't have happened in his reign.

 

[Levite]

I read a book that took place during the Egyptian time of Ramesses and Nefatari which would correlate to the timing of Moses in Egypt. I was surprised at the difference in the books depiction and what I thought I knew of the story of Moses (based mostly on the movie The Ten Commandments that we all see at Easter).

With those differences I checked out some information on line and Moses doesn't exist in Egypt's history at all. I believe in the bible so I am not looking to debunk anything there. I was just wondering if someone else has any thoughts on this.

So, first of all, I would heartily advise against using "The Ten Commandments" as your Cliff's Notes to the first twenty-one chapters of the Book of Exodus. I wouldn't even advise using "Prince of Egypt," which, for my money, was a much better adaptation of the story. There is really no substitute for reading the actual text.

Second of all, there is not any definitive proof as to which Pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, mostly because there is no agreement about precisely when the Exodus might have taken place. So there are those who have proposed Rameses II, but also those who have proposed Rameses I, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV, Kamose, Akhenaten, Seti I, Seti II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Horemheb, and even the queen Pharaoh Hatshepsut. There are, in fact, few Pharaohs from 1600 BCE to 1200 BCE that have not, at one time or another, been proposed as "The Exodus Pharaoh."

Third of all, there is, as yet, no solid historical proof of the Exodus. In part, this would be attributable simply to the fact that the major historical record-keepers in that part of the world were the Egyptians, and they were well-known for erasing things from their history that did not show the Egyptians in a good light, or which they found unpleasant in some way. In part, this would also be attributable to the simple fact that there are simply far fewer records, data, or even artefacts with writing from that long ago than we might hope. What archaeologists can say for certain happened back then is small compared with what is uncertain or yet unfound.

 

[gnostic]

Second of all, there is not any definitive proof as to which Pharaoh was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, mostly because there is no agreement about precisely when the Exodus might have taken place. So there are those who have proposed Rameses II, but also those who have proposed Rameses I, Amenhotep II, Amenhotep III, Amenhotep IV, Kamose, Akhenaten, Seti I, Seti II, Thutmose III, Thutmose IV, Horemheb, and even the queen Pharaoh Hatshepsut. There are, in fact, few Pharaohs from 1600 BCE to 1200 BCE that have not, at one time or another, been proposed as "The Exodus Pharaoh."

Although, I put the time of the constructions of Pithom and Ramesses to the reign of Rameses II, doesn't necessarily mean I believe that the Israelites built it or that the Exodus took place in Rameses II's time.

There are no records of Hebrews or Israelites ever living there, slaves or otherwise in Rameses' reign. Rameses was one of the most famous rulers in Egypt. He was involved in the wars against the Hittites, and the Battle of Kadesh, where he nearly lost his life.

The only reference to the Israelites in the 2nd millennium BCE, comes from a stele of Rameses' successor and son, Merneptah. Most of it commemorate his campaigns against the Libyans, but there is tiny reference that say he wiped out the Israel, during his campaign in Canaan:

Israel has been wiped out...its seed is no more.

If this is true, then the Israelites were already living in Canaan, by Merneptah's time. It is not certain why Merneptah would even campaign in Canaan, because Canaan was part of his father's empire. Rameses had reconquered Canaan. From Akhenaten's time (Akhenaten was not interested in the empire, so it crumbled) to the end of the 18th dynasty, the empire was neglected and foreign kingdoms regained their independence. Seti and Rameses did much to regain much of the territories they lost since Akhenaten's time. So the motive of campaigning in Canaan was most likely to put down the rebellious Israelites. It say nothing about the the Canaanites.

Still, there are no historical or archaeological evidences that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, Moses leading them in an exodus out of Egypt, no signs of large encampment at the foot of Mount Sinai.

There is also no evidence of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. The claims of destroying cities through warfare is nil at this period of Rameses and Merneptah.

The only literary accounts of the Exodus is the Torah or Old Testament Bible.

 

[Smoke]

Another way that you could look at this lack of evidence is the fact that Moses is a Hebrew name. The Egyptians would not have recorded a Hebrew name in their history.

That's debatable. It can be and has been argued that Moses is actually an Egyptian name. And the Egyptians did record foreign names.

 

[Levite]

There are no records of Hebrews or Israelites ever living there, slaves or otherwise in Rameses' reign. ...

Still, there are no historical or archaeological evidences that the Israelites ever lived in Egypt, Moses leading them in an exodus out of Egypt, no signs of large encampment at the foot of Mount Sinai.

There is also no evidence of the Israelite invasion of Canaan. The claims of destroying cities through warfare is nil at this period of Rameses and Merneptah.

The only literary accounts of the Exodus is the Torah or Old Testament Bible.

Yes, I believe I acknowledged previously that there was no archaeological evidence yet for the Exodus, at any time. Which doesn't mean it didn't happen, only that evidence has yet to be found. There are lots of things for which there is later circumstantial evidence that had no archaeological support until someone miraculously stumbled on something. There are such things yet awaiting support to emerge, also. The absence of evidence is not proof it did not occur, any more than it is proof that it did occur.

There is no evidence of an Israelite invasion at the usual predicted period for one. There is some evidence of war or disaster in some sites, either a fair amount earlier, or a bit later. My supposition is that the invasion was actually several relatively small conquests combined with waves of mass migration and settlement that more slowly edged out the native Canaanite tribes and absorbed some portion of their membership into the Israelite people, an hypothesis for which there is some, though admittedly not extensive, support.

In general, I presume that the Biblical story of the Exodus, while based in real events, has been put into literary format by compressing the story, emphasizing the dramatic parts, adding some embellishments, and fusing several historical characters into single mythopoeic icons. Personally, my opinion is that at some point, most Jews were slaves in Egypt. At some later point, most of them settled in Canaan. At some points in between, there were one or more revelatory incidents that bound the people to YHVH as their national supreme god, with an emergent monotheistic agenda that would take the better part of a millennium to come to full dominance among the people.

The actual minute details of the events are less relevant for me.