Exodus- the biblical kings

[Frater0082]

I know have this understanding that the story of Exodus is likely the tale of how Seti I captured the wondering band known as the Shasu of Yahweh (the Hebrews) on one of his campaigns. But get this this was long before he was king it occurred at the beginning of his father's reign, Ramses I.

In the bible it says that the Hebrews had to build Pithom and Ramses but that was already there. It was a summer place for Seti and his father. The Ramses that they are referring to in the bible may actually be Ramses I not his grandson which is Ramses II.

Another argument one would hold is that Ramses II had over 100 children. He was too busy chasing women to be involved with the Hebrews. I think it was a young Teenage Seti that went after them

Another point, is that Seti did indeed lost his first born son at the very beginning of his reign. By that time he could've released the Hebrews from really their three or five years in bondage

In the case of Moses, it could be that Seti's sister Tanedjemet was the "king's daughter" who drew him out of the water. Moses may have not been a baby but a child when she found him. All this could've likely happened before the Ramessides legitimized thier ascension to the throne. There is more to this story I just know it.

[Horus]

There have always been lots of theories around regarding the Hebrews and the Exodus, many fall down when trying to match the two time lines with various Pharaohs.

Exodus 1.11
“Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses”

Many theories are possible and I suppose we may see many put forward in this thread, each one will have some merit, but none will be a proven fact, so we have to judge each theory on its merit, hopefully we will see a few set out in this thread, I have one of my own which I will post later.

[Frater0082]

There have always been lots of theories around regarding the Hebrews and the Exodus, many fall down when trying to match the two time lines with various Pharaohs.

Exodus 1.11
“Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses”

Many theories are possible and I suppose we may see many put forward in this thread, each one will have some merit, but none will be a proven fact, so we have to judge each theory on its merit, hopefully we will see a few set out in this thread, I have one of my own which I will post later.

I would love to here it.

[newcastle]

There have always been lots of theories around regarding the Hebrews and the Exodus, many fall down when trying to match the two time lines with various Pharaohs.

Exodus 1.11
“Therefore they did set over them taskmasters to afflict them with their burdens. And they built for Pharaoh treasure cities, Pithom and Raamses”

Many theories are possible and I suppose we may see many put forward in this thread, each one will have some merit, but none will be a proven fact, so we have to judge each theory on its merit, hopefully we will see a few set out in this thread, I have one of my own which I will post later.

The vast preponderance of archaeological opinion, and the opinion of biblical scholars, is that the Exodus story is a myth.

Personally, and in the absence of any credible evidence, I wouldn't bother to speculate.

[Horus]

I tend to agree that the whole story is probably a myth or more likely a compilation of many unrelated events that get handed down as being a fact in the Biblical account. I am not so sure that there is not some truth in there somewhere, maybe not quite what we are led to believe, but rather some events that took place around that time, afterall the existance of Israel at that time was doubted until the few inscriptions (only 4 to my knowledge) citing the name Israel were found, the most famous one being the Merneptah Stele, also known as the Israel Stele now in the Cairo museum. Although it is extoling his victories over the Libyans, the last section reads:

The princes are prostrate, saying, "Peace!"
Not one is raising his head among the Nine Bows.
Now that Tehenu (Libya) has come to ruin,
Hatti is pacified;
The Canaan has been plundered into every sort of woe:
Ashkelon has been overcome;
Gezer has been captured;
Yano'am is made non-existent.
Israel is laid waste and his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow because of Egypt.

So as some speculation would put Seti I or possibly Rammeses II ( maybe co ruling with his aged father?) as a contender for being the Pharoah of the Exodus, then Merneptah who suceeded Ramesses II was not so distant from the supposed Biblical event and he mentions the name of Israel, so it must have existed as a nation during that time.
So I reckon the jury is still out on this one, the scholars are often proved to be wrong.

[newcastle]

Scholars are sometimes proved wrong. Much more often, particularly as science and knowledge advances, they are increasingly shown to be right.

There might be indications of the existence of the Hebrews, a nation called Israel etc. Pharaohs no doubt laid waste to them....as they did to so many others in the Palestinian area.

There isn't a shred of evidence (unless you want to describe the Bible as evidence!) that these people were ever IN Egypt...let alone escaped therefrom and wandered in the desert for 40 years

[Horus]

Lack of evidence is not necessarily proof that something did not occur, only that the proof for a particular theory cannot be produced at the time.

As to wandering the desert for 40 years, again this may not quite be as it appears if indeed it ever happened at all. Just suppose that you were some undetermined nomadic group of sizeable proportions, but not large enough to take on the indigenous people in the land you wanted to conquer. Then you may wish to wait for several generations to build up your own population and to become a strong fighting force in order to do so, in that scenario you may wish to “wander in the desert for 40 years”, in other words to avoid conflict until you were strong enough.

[newcastle]

Lack of evidence is not necessarily proof that something did not occur, only that the proof for a particular theory cannot be produced at the time.
.

Very true .......and indeed the basis of my thesis that planet Earth was actually formed by the flying spaghetti monster out of cosmic dust some 5 billion years ago.

If I publish it widely, it may be accepted ( as many 'myths' turn out to have some basis in fact) ...and as there's no evidence to disprove it, who can say I'm not right!

I'm just waiting for the proof to turn up

[Horus]

Ah, but no one is saying that all theories turn out to be true, or indeed that all theories are credible to start with, so by your definition would you have dismissed Einsteins 'Theory' of Relativity?
Quantum mechanics is a good example, technically only a theory even though everyone acts like it's an indisputable fact.

[newcastle]

Ah, but no one is saying that all theories turn out to be true, or indeed that all theories are credible to start with, so by your definition would you have dismissed Einsteins 'Theory' of Relativity?
Quantum mechanics is a good example, technically only a theory even though everyone acts like it's an indisputable fact.

You're into my field of expertise here....but I won't bore you with science or pull rank.

I certainly would not have dismissed the Theory of Relativity....it stood up well from the outset, was not derided in any significant way at the time, and was verified within a few years. It was a remarkable piece of insight based on previously known and accepted observations - such as the FACT that light travels at an unchangeable and finite speed in a vacuum. There is no evidence or observation (you might say...as yet!) which contradicts the theory.

Quantum Theory also explains everything we currently know about the behaviour of small particles.

At what point a theory turns into a fact is a matter for philosophical debate. And possibly semantics. There are some fascinating examples in the field of mathematics.....but I risk straying too far from Exodus

Evolution is accepted as fact by most people, but a few insist it remains a theory and spend (waste?) their lives trying to find an example which contradicts it. 150 years on....and they're still searching

Returning to the Exodus....the absence (despite centuries of search) of any supporting evidence places it firmly in the realm of theory....and a pretty feeble one at that as it is based on a highly disputed piece of literature concocted centuries after the events it purports to record.

Most people have long rejected the biblical description of the origin of the earth, of mankind etc. as , at best, allegorical. Why some hang on to the idea that the Exodus has any basis in reality is a mystery to me.

[Horus]

Why some hang on to the idea that the Exodus has any basis in reality is a mystery to me.

Maybe because some of us actually believe that most stories however ludicrous they may seem usually have some grain of truth attached to them back in the mists (or should that be midst?) of time. And ........................ it makes life a bit more interesting to speculate and ponder.
I should add that I have no religious axe to grind as I ascribe to none, although I have read and understand most of the Bible stories.

[newcastle]

Yes.....myths sometimes turn out to have a grain of truth in them....expanded and transformed over the eons .

I leave ascribing dates, kings, drownings of armies etc to that hypothetical grain to those with greater imaginations (not to say time) than me