Actually in Biblical Hebrew the anarthrous loanword pr`h ("Pharaoh") generally functions as the name of the Egyptian ruler, whereas his title is usually given as "king of Egypt" (mlk-mçrym). Only two Pharaohs are further named, Neko (2 Kings 23:39ff//) and Hophra (Jeremiah 44:30), both from the 26th dynasty (i.e. late 7th and early 6th century BC), that is, close to the actual time of writing. "Earlier" references, especially in the Patriarchal or Exodus stories, belong to the realm of legend (with only possible vague historical reminiscences here and there).
Why is Pharaoh's name not given in the book of Genesis?
by VM44 21 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
PrimateDave
Consider the original audience for the Biblical stories and you may get a better idea why they were written the way they were. We are not the intended audience. The Bible was not written as a history book. Few, if any, ancient documents were ever written to the level of discipline required by modern historians.
The first Pharaoh mentioned by name in the Bible was Shishaq (Sheshonk I), apparently a contemporary of Rehoboam and Jeroboam. Why else wouldn't the Biblical stories of the time of the alleged Exodus include the name of the then current Pharaoh except that a. it wasn't known, and b. the stories themselves were fabrications written, copied, and edited long after the alleged events took place?
Given the documentary evidence of heavy editing between multiple sources (J, E, P and R in Genesis and Exodus) often with contradictory results, it is possible to assume that the Bible no longer can be trusted as an objective historical document. Indeed, it was never intended to be one. Scholarly analysis has shown how different priestly families competed for dominance within the socio-political framework of the Kingdom's of Israel. Each group had stories favorable to their own tradition.
After the Babylonian exile these documents from competing sources were combined into their present form. Some of the editing displayed remarkable skill while other passages are barely comprehensible cut and paste jobs. I would place the Flood account in the former category, while the rebellion of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram definitely goes in the latter.
There is no archeological evidence of a massive emigration of slaves from Egypt. The logistics of the Biblical account are purely fantastical with even the slightest application of logic.
Dave
-
betterdaze
"Insight on the Scriptures" lists *eight* anonymous pharaohs in the Hebrew Scriptures.
"The pharaohs named in the Bible are Shishak, So, Tirhaka, Nechoh, and Hophra, each of these being considered under separate articles in this work. There is some question whether Zerah the Ethiopian was a ruler of Egypt or not. Other pharaohs are left anonymous. Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology, ... it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty."
~Sue -
Narkissos
I didn't mention Shishaq = Sheshonq (which is definitely a historical reminiscence as his campaign in Canaan is described in the temple of Amon in Karnak) because, incidentally, neither 1 Kings nor 2 Chronicles calls him "Pharaoh". Same for Tirhaqa "king of Kush" (= Ethiopia / Nubia), or So "king of Egypt" (possibly a mistake for an Egyptian general or the city of Sais). Otoh the name "Pharaoh" is combined with both Neko and Hophra.
-
truthsetsonefree
You would think if you were going to right a historic book inspired by God and going to be read by future generations you would want to get all the facts straight. It leaves you with more questions than answers. I don't get that book at all. Then for someone to say all you need is faith is a crock.
I know what you mean. The fact is it probably wasn't written with future generations in mind as already mentione Of course this just makes this comment seem even more outrageous:
(Romans
Isaac Carmignani
15:4)4 For all the things that were written aforetime were written for our instruction, that through our endurance and through the comfort from the Scriptures we might have hope. -
jaguarbass
A person has maybe 75 years to live here.
Your raised in the religion of your parents.
You rebell from that beilef in your 20's
And you have to spend the next 10 years finding that the bible is one big curve ball house of cards to put you on a wild goose chase to whats going on.
Then your spend 20 years trying to make enough money to retire.
And then your on your way out and you never had time to realize that earth is a slave planet run by beings from space.
Who according to the sumerian text and the holy bible looked very much like us and created us in their image.
All the while you have been voting republican and supporting Christians who keep us enslaved to war and corporate well fare.
All the money we spend on war we could extend our lifes and improve the quality of our life.
But since we are slaves that is not what the masters want.
Even the bible tell you. God cursed man to toil in the sweat of his brow all the days of his life.
Republicans and christians fulfil that prophecy. And the muslims and failing to realize their is a sinister shadow government using machavailian techniques.
The masters look like us and created us to do their work. Thats why the corporate wellfare and warfare both make them money and they live high on the hog enjoying the good life.
Check out the Gods of Eden by William Bramley, if your honest with yourself and read it, you will never think the same again and you will have answers to your confusing bible questions.
-
VM44
Insight book says,
Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology
Is that really true?
-
betterdaze
***Is that really true?***
I don't for one moment consider the Insight volumes an objective reference, just sharing what it says about named and anonymous pharaohs.
Where I put the ellipsis it reads, (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]).
To summarize the WT spin: Manetho's work is fraught with errors, modern historians' dates are wrong because Egyptian history *must* have
begun after the global Flood, and Egyptian scribes should be suspicious for their carefulness, truthfulness, and moral integrity.
"The pharaoh ruling at the time of the Exodus is not named in the Bible; hence, efforts to identify him are based on conjecture. This
partly explains why modern historians' calculations of the date of the Exodus vary from 1441 to 1225 B.C.E., a difference of over 200 years."
"Egyptian history from secular sources is very uncertain, especially for the earliest periods." Meanwhile, "The report of the major events
of Joseph's life presents a picture of Egypt that is undeniably accurate." Bible = Good, Secular Sources = Bad.
~Sue -
Leolaia
Other pharaohs are left anonymous. Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology, ... it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty."
There are definitely still some confused aspects to the chronology and lingering problems (particularly in the Middle Kingdom and the Second Intermediate Period), but it is not as confused and hopeless as the Insight book makes it out to be. The chronology is hardly dependent anymore on the garbled versions of Manetho, with such detailed records now recovered via archaeology and the many new tools now available to clarify and sort through the problems (such as correlations with ceramic chronology, synchronisms with Hittite kings, lunar eclipse records, etc.). One new discipline, paleoclimatology (drawing on records of ancient climate in ice cores and tree rings), has developed a powerful new tool for determining absolute dates for the Old Kingdom. The Palermo Stone furnishes detailed records for the kings of the Old Kingdom, containing yearly data on the Nile inundation tied to the reigns of specific kings, and these correlate rather nicely with the pattern of ancient climate furnished by tree rings. So as time goes on, the ability to improve the chronology of ancient Egypt improves considerably.
The real problem of course is that the Bible stories themselves either lack any detailed information that may decisively identify a given pharaoh, or they provide conflicting indicators. This is to be expected, given the late date at which the stories were written down. The first pharaoh encountered in the Bible is the one that confronted Abraham in Genesis 12:10-20, and this story provides zero detail that would help identify this king. In fact, the story is so general that as a folk tale it could be applied to almost any king or country; it might as well refer to Abraham and the "king of Babylon" or the "king of Elam" or what not. And this is indeed what we find in Genesis -- the same story is related again not once but twice (20:1-18, 26:1-11), once again with Abraham and "Abimelech the king of Gerar" and again with Isaac and "Abimelech the king of Gerar". The story of Joseph later on in Genesis has a lot of picturesque Egyptian color, but nothing that could identify the pharoah in question -- let alone the dynasty or era he belonged to.
The best case would be that in Exodus, which attests "Ramesses" as a toponym that corresponds to the known city of Pi-Ramesses, named by pharaoh Ramesses II. This detail, as well as others in Exodus, fit rather well with a time frame inclusive of the 19th and 20th Dynasties (e.g. 13th-12th centuries BC). In no sense however is the evidence enough to specifically identify any historical figure with the "Pharaoh"(s) of Exodus. There are some figures that imho fit the evidence the best (e.g. Ramesses III and IV), but whoever wrote the late narratives of the exodus in J(E) and P certainly didn't have any specific historical pharaoh in mind.
-
betterdaze
Thanks, Leolaia, I was hoping you'd weigh in on this.
~Sue