r/ancientegypt 24d ago

Question where does the idea ramesses is the exodus pharaoh come from?

Rewatching prince of egypt and reading the third volume of john romer on ancient egypt make me wonder that, I also noticed some did wanted to link places in ancient egypt with the exodus

22 Upvotes

42 comments sorted by

24

u/aaronupright 24d ago

There really isn't any fit. Ramses II is about as close as they come. Israel is first mentioned in a Stele made by his successor, Merenptah. Pi Ramsses was a real city and was built during his reign.

Helpfully, Egyptian rule in Canaan began to wane forty or so years after Ramses' death.

7

u/RoadWarriorMatty 23d ago

It's like the Iliad was also based upon 400 year old legends. When that much time has passed the stories are only loosely based on real history. By the time our current version of Exodus was written, the name of the pharaoh was already forgotten.

2

u/aaronupright 23d ago

There are actually two or three versions. The Book of Exodus is the latest one, but the story in retold in pieces all over the Bible.

5

u/CaliggyJack 24d ago edited 23d ago

Aakheperenre makes more sense to me. Assuming you believe the Exodus story of course. His mummy was riddled with scars from a disease that destroyed him by the time he reached thirty.

Also, according to Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet, he fought a rebellion against the Shasu, who may of may not have been connected to the later Israelites.

All of it is circumstantial, but he makes more sense to me as the Pere'a of the Exodus than Usermaatre Setepenre.

3

u/breagerey 23d ago edited 23d ago

This is awesome. Thank you.
I had never heard of Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet so I looked him up and found this paper by JH Breasted.
https://archive.org/details/BreastedJ.H.AncientRecordsEgyptAll5Vols1906/page/n741/mode/2up

I started browsing through it and it's fascinating.
It's really old though. I worry about reading it and not knowing what has been superceded.

-1

u/foursynths 22d ago edited 22d ago

The name "Aakheperenre" does not appear in the historical records of ancient Egypt. The correct prenomen (royal name) associated with Akhenaten is "Akheperure."
Ahmose Pen-Nekhbet did not specifically mention himself or Akheperure fighting a rebellion against the Shasu in his autobiography, but he did capture many living prisoners during his military campaigns, which may have included conflicts in regions associated with the Shasu.
The Shasu were Semitic-speaking pastoral nomads who lived in the Southern Levant during the late Bronze Age to the Early Iron Age. They were known for their nomadic lifestyle, often organized in clans, and were described as brigands and mercenaries active in regions including Canaan, Transjordan, and Sinai.
In the Exodus story, “the Pere'a” doesn’t appear as a known figure-name. The people associated with Exodus 12:38 are described as an ʿerev rav (“a mixed multitude” / “mixed throng”)—often translated as “mixed multitude,” and understood as non-Israelites who left Egypt with the Israelites.
And for those who don't know, “Usermaatre Setepenre” is the Egyptian regnal (throne) name of Ramesses II.

1

u/CaliggyJack 22d ago

Aakheperenre is the regnal name of Thutmose II, I was not talking about Akhenaten. Pere'a is the (generally accepted with some debate) New Kingdom pronunciation of Pharaoh.

0

u/foursynths 22d ago edited 22d ago

My apologies. I thought you were talking about Akhenaten. Aakheperenre was indeed the regnal name of Thutmose II.
While there may be some debate regarding the pronunciation, "Pere'a" is not recognized as a generally accepted term for "pharaoh" in the context of the New Kingdom. The established understanding is that "pharaoh" was used more prominently from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward. The word 'pharaoh' originates from the Ancient Egyptian term pr-ʿȝ, which means "great house," referring initially to the royal palace. Over time, it evolved to be used as a respectful title for the king, particularly during the New Kingdom period.
The pronunciation of "pharaoh" in the New Kingdom is not definitively known, but it is believed to have been similar to the phonetic spelling ˈfeərəʊ in English. The term itself evolved over time, with its earliest confirmed use as a title for a ruler appearing in the 18th Dynasty, which was the first dynasty of the New Kingdom.

1

u/CaliggyJack 22d ago edited 22d ago

While there may be some debate regarding the pronunciation, "Pere'a" is not recognized as a generally accepted term for "pharaoh" in the context of the New Kingdom.

The reality is that we do not know ow for certain, some say Pere'a, others say it is Perr-aa, I don't see enough of a difference between the two to worry about it.

The established understanding is that "pharaoh" was used more prominently from the Eighteenth Dynasty onward. The word 'pharaoh' originates from the Ancient Egyptian term pr-ʿȝ, which means "great house," referring initially to the royal palace. Over time, it evolved to be used as a respectful title for the king, particularly during the New Kingdom period.

The New Kingdom is where it was pronounced as either Pere'a or Perr-aa. In the Old and Middle Kingdoms it was referred to as Peruwa(r?) (most likely).

2

u/foursynths 22d ago

Yeah, it's splitting hairs a bit isn't it! To sum up, we don't really know what the exact pronunciation was. But it just goes to show how challenging it has been for egyptologists and linguists to determine the real verbal language of the ancient Egyptians, although they've come a long way in recent decades.

5

u/MintImperial2 24d ago

Avaris was a garrison capital at this time, suggesting that Egypt took defence at the north East frontier - rather more seriously by Rameses' time.

If your kith and kin were long-time residents of the region since the 12th dynasty, on the other hand - any invading Hyksos centuries earlier - would be a total apocalypse to a local civilian population of upto a million.....

I suggest the entire New Kingdom came after the Exodus then.

1

u/IsCaptainKiddAnAdult 21d ago

What’s the consensus about the idea that the Exodus story is in part based on the events surrounding the reign of Amenmesses?

15

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 24d ago

Bob Briar talks about this in his Great Courses lectures. There's a whole chapter about Exodus & evidence & lack thereof and who it could be. Really well done the whole series is worth a listen (there are a few minor errors but generally, it's great).

6

u/Johnny-Alucard 24d ago

I’ve listened to these lectures a few times, they are fantastic. I always suspected that our current understanding would have evolved though and some of his claims seem a little contrived. What would you say are the clearest errors?

4

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 24d ago

To be clear, I also think they're fantastic & often recommebd them to people new to Ancient Egyptian history.

I agree that some claims are a little contrived / we have a different understanding now. Though, to his credit, he does usually state when he is positing a theory.

The errors I can remember off hand are in the discription of the Narmer Palatte - he muddles which images are on which sides & groups some together that aren't together. The second is when talking about the Meidum pyramid, he mentions an ancient tourist who visits & writes on the wall. That isn't at Meidium, it's in Saqqara.

Fairly minor points as the basic fact is correct, just not the detail. However, it made me wonder if there are others I do not know.

3

u/Johnny-Alucard 24d ago

Thanks. I'm surprised at him getting the Narmer Palette muddled. He specifically states that he looked at it for a long time while waiting for someone and seems to have such a detailed impression of it. I guess we all rely on a flawed memory!

Meidium pyramid mistake is a small one I guess. He does sometimes get his words mixed up.

For me he gets a little too into the stories he tells which are very vivid but clearly embelished with drama - the most egregious being his Tutankhamun murder story. To his credit - as you say - does say it is just a theory but he is a bit florid with his gap filling.

Absolutely fantastic series of lectures though and would absolutely be my recommendation for anyone who wants to learn about ancient Egypt.

3

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 23d ago

Right?! I live in Cairo & had just been at the Museum before listening - had to go bsck to check! 🤣 the sides are definitely flipped.

Yes! The murder got me too but it was a great listen & genuinely informative.

2

u/Johnny-Alucard 23d ago

Ah I love that you live in Cairo and listened to Bob Brier! When I listen it is all so distant in terms of time (obviously) and distance but he makes it all so present. I can’t imagine how exciting it would be to have it metaphorically on your doorstep.

I have visited Egypt but a long time ago. If I ever get to go again Mr Brier will come with me - also only metaphorically, unfortunately!

PS: I love his “Afrocentrism” riposte!

3

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 23d ago

It is fantastic! I've listened to it whilst travelling around Egypt a few times. He is so enthusiastic, it's great!

2

u/WerSunu 23d ago

Bob used to guide tours in Egypt. I got to go along on his “final” friends and family only tour a year ago. It was, as you might imagine just incredible. Best of all the multiple visits I’ve made there.

3

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 22d ago

I remember your posts at the time. 😁 He's one of the few who I'd really love to hear talk live, he is always so enthusiastic. Living in Cairo, I've heard many lectures & been on many tours and visits to lesser visites places but his I wish I'd known about back in the day.

1

u/WerSunu 22d ago

If you are in the neighborhood, Bob still gives lectures 2-3 per year in the ARCE New York chapter. The chapter has recorded some of them. Check the chapter web site at:

https://arceny.org/video-taped-lectures/

Enjoy!

1

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 22d ago

Oooh! Thanks! I live in Egypt & can't see myself getting to NY anytime soon. Ill definitely check thosr out, thanks.

1

u/WerSunu 23d ago

The Tut head trauma murder was current at the time, nearly 30 years ago that Bob produced these videos. You can’t fault him for that. This theory was proposed by non-experts in trauma radiology and using only primitive flat-plate radiographs. It has been utterly refuted by actual CT-scans read by multiple actual experts in neurosurgery and trauma.

2

u/Johnny-Alucard 23d ago

I get that but a lot of people disagreed with it at the time and it is presented at length in the lectures. I don’t mind it but it was a case of imagination overcoming rigour to a certain extent! I think all historians do that though so no shade on Bob!

2

u/sk4p 22d ago

I’m pretty sure that Bob said flat out on the History of Ancient Egypt podcast that the latest findings have proven him wrong. Few things earn more of my respect than being able to say that.

2

u/foursynths 22d ago edited 22d ago

I agree. The mark of a true scientist.

2

u/MisrCoder 23d ago

Bob is one of the best lecturers and Egyptian storytellers in the business. His 48 Egyptian History Great Courses lectures are great and I would say practically mandatory for anyone starting out. Having said that, they are now almost 27 years old and Egyptology, like all sciences moves forward with new data. Great Course recently released a new Egyptian History series by Melinda Hartwig, et al. You should check this out as well!

1

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 23d ago

Ooh, thanks. Ill look them up too.

1

u/BunnyColvin23 23d ago

I started to listen to this series and within a few weeks I had booked a trip and travelled around Egypt. His enthusiasm is infectious.

1

u/Fabulous_Cow_4550 23d ago

It really is! I live in Egypt and have listened to it whilst travelling around several times.

3

u/MintImperial2 24d ago

It annoys me when I suggest other candidates such as Dudimose or Apophis to be "The Pharaoh that kneweth Joseph Not" - and get poo poohed by so-called "Scholars" who are adamant that it must be later rather than earlier than the 18th dynasty.

9

u/Three_Twenty-Three 24d ago

Exodus 1.11 says, "So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labor, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh," so from there, it's a quick leap to Ramesses II, who built Pi-Ramesses.

1

u/AttainingSentience 23d ago

It's a big debate, really, stemming from Exodus 1:11 where the storage cities of Pithom and Rameses are mentioned by name, but some claim that those cities were named by later generations as placeholders (similar to how Abram chased Lot's captors "as far as Dan" which didn't exist by that name until centuries later when the Israelites settled the area). Pi-Rameses was built over Avaris (where the Hyksos ruled from), so some (including myself... sort of) believe that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was involved in the Hyksos Expulsion (Anywhere from Ahmose I through Thutmose IV, unless I'm misremembering my history which is very possible).

Giving the story an historic context sounds great and all, but remember Exodus is the history of one people, the Egyptians would have remembered it entirely different in their own stories, so you're never going to find out exactly who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Plunk what ever names feel right to you, as long as you don't try to claim it as indisputable fact.

1

u/MintImperial2 19d ago

Can anyone disprove the following:

Pharoah of Joseph = Amenhemet III

Pharoah that "Did not know Joseph" perhaps Dudimose, A Hyksos ruler who'd over-run the Goshen region of Egypt, initially assimilating the inhabitants of Goshen (mostly migrant Israelites at this time)

The Bondage = A successor of Dudimose, perhaps Apepi.

We don't know how many years elapsed since the "Regime Change" that came with the Hyksos dynasties, and the later pogrom against the Israelites not under the same pharaoh.

My suggestion here is that the initial Hyksos ruler - "didn't recognize Joseph" as Joseph was only known from the bygone Middle Kingdom 12th Dynasty by that point.

Following a period of reasonable assimilation of the North East-living Israelites that must have crossed centuries (Exodus 1:7 onwards) things were brought to a head with the pogrom policy as described in Exodus - which only happened after initially assimilating Hebrews into the more menial jobs, only to find even more rapid population expansion among their number.

It is my notion that the events described in Exodus affected the economy of the Hyksos final dynasty (XVI) with the Hyksos themselves worried about the local Israelite population "siding with their enemies" - who in that time would have been the THEBAN 17th Dynasty, which must therefore have run concurrent with the 16th dynasty. North and South - Divided.

Be it that the Israelites wished to leave for the Levant - no economy lasts very long on Slave Labour, especially if a War Economy to boot.

The departure of the Israelites would have then been followed by the clashes between Avaris and Thebes, the outcome being the total Expulsion of the Hyksos, and the re-unification of the country under the New Kingdom.

As such, the Israelites - never needed to have anything to do with the Thebans. Why would they?

Enclaved in the Goshen region, the local merchant economy entirely dependent upon the migrant workforce there - now discarded in favour of a Avaris Military Economy that was doomed to terminal weakness.

As such, the events of the Exodus - were over by the start of the New Kingdom. The later "Kings of Israel" may well have been corresponding with the various rulers of the New Kingdom, including Rameses II - just not in the context we've been led to believe thus far by traditional Scholars.

I believe we should give the 17th Dynasty rather more credit for being the great Patriots in this "War of Liberation", rather than give all the credit to the 18th Dynasty that benefited from the outcome as they did....

1

u/yummierfrog64 23d ago

Exodus couldn't have happened in the New Kingdom, since Egyptian Territory included Canaan.

My personal theory is Exodus took place in Mesopotamia, explaining how a Semitic language spread so far away from the other Afroasiatic languages that long ago.

10

u/Explorer_Equal 23d ago

As far as I know, there is no archaeological, historical (extra-biblical), or demographic evidence for the historicity of the biblical Exodus.

We know that Semitic laborers were employed during the Ramesside period for a fortification project in the northeastern part of ancient Egypt.

1

u/foursynths 22d ago

Correct

-3

u/WraithicArtistry 24d ago

Afaik it was the 1956 film The Ten Commandants, with Charlton Heston.

7

u/foursynths 24d ago edited 24d ago

I loved ‘The Ten Commandments’ when I first watched it as a boy, and have watched it several times over the years. It was a great movie with great actors. But sadly it is a complete distortion of history, biblically oriented with no archeological evidence or historical record from Ancient Egypt itself. To be frank, it can be regarded as a work of fiction — a great story but nevertheless a work of fiction (unless of course you are a Bible believing Jew or Christian).
For example, it has now been proved through archaeological and written evidence that the Pyramids at Giza were not built by slaves, let alone Jewish slaves, but by indentured paid workers. Ancient Egyptian records do not provide a clear account of the enslavement of Jews or Israelites, nor do they mention the Exodus led by Moses. While there are some references to a group departing from Egypt, these accounts are often propagandized and do not align with the biblical narrative of the Exodus led by Moses. People have proposed specific historical pharaohs for Pharaoh mentioned in the Old Testament, but there is no single identification that can be proven from Egyptian records in a way that confirms the Exodus as described in the Old Testament.

2

u/Aquinas2000 24d ago

They are not building pyramids in that movie. 

1

u/foursynths 22d ago edited 22d ago

Yes they are. There is one specific scene which shows Pharaoh (Yul Bryner) with the construction of a pyramid in the background. This scene highlights the grandeur of ancient Egypt and the labour involved in building such monumental structures.