Exodus Story: Who was Pharaoh?

[kaziglu bey]

As anyone who has seen the Ten Commandments knows, Ramses II was the Pharaoh upon whom the plagues were smitten, right? Well, maybe not. Perhaps there is a similar thread on here, but I found a few resources online and thought it was an interesting topic. It also makes me wonder what made Cecil B. DeMille choose to go with Ramses, since he was pretty much a super bad-ass who obviously didn't have his army crushed by the god of slaves.

What this really leads me to wonder, is why doesn't the Bible mention who the pharaoh was? Didn't God foresee that such knowledge would be useful for future generations in establishing a reasonable timeline of events? Hell, my Lord of the Rings book even includes multiple appendices that clearly establish a historical timeline, give explanation of the cultural contexts of the events as they pertain to the races in the book, important family trees, discussion of the origins of language in the book and their literal and symbolic meanings, additional short stories describing other events surrounding key characters that are not a part of the story proper, all which help the reader to better understand the context, literal and figurative meanings, and overall direction and meaning of the work itself. Why is God (or those to whom he breathed his word) not as good or sensible of an author as Tolkien? Why does Tolkien's masterpiece contain less (though still a few) internal contradictions and inconsistencies than God's masterpiece?  Why then would most Christians not accept The Lord of the Rings as incontrovertible proof of the existence of Gandalf? Or Hobbits? Or magic rings? 

The Christian might argue "well because this is obviously a work of fiction". I would respond that it is no more obviously fiction than the Bible is. It does not assert anything that is more unreasonable to believe than anything in the Bible. If Jesus can come back from the dead to save everyone, why can't Gandalf? I don't see how any argument that supports belief in Jesus but denies belief in Gandalf can be anything but special pleading. 

SO, in conclusion, why would God omit the name of the pharaoh to whom he felt he had something to prove?

On a totally unrelated note: why doesn't the spellcheck recognize the word "Gandalf? or the word "spellcheck"?

[One Above All]

On a totally unrelated note: why doesn't the spellcheck recognize the word "Gandalf? or the word "spellcheck"?

Spell check. Two words. Spellchecker is the script (?) itself.
As for Gandalf, I think that it's because it's a made-up name, although I'm not sure.

[Historicity]

The Bible names many pharoahs!  From this we can crossreference a number of OT events and date them.

But it doesn't name one pharoah.

Yeah, that one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the saying goes.

The extraordinary claims of Exodus don't even have ordinary evidence.

[kaziglu bey]

On a totally unrelated note: why doesn't the spellcheck recognize the word "Gandalf? or the word "spellcheck"?

Spell check. Two words. Spellchecker is the script (?) itself.
As for Gandalf, I think that it's because it's a made-up name, although I'm not sure.

Indeed, it ought to be two words. My bad. But spell check DOES recognize Yoda, so why not Gandalf too?

[kaziglu bey]

The Bible names many pharoahs!  From this we can crossreference a number of OT events and date them.

But it doesn't name one pharoah.

Yeah, that one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the saying goes.

The extraordinary claims of Exodus don't even have ordinary evidence.

True, the Bible does name many pharaohs, but as you said, not the Exodus one. That just seems to be such a terrible oversight, and considering the other pharaohs that are named, it would just seem odd to omit one of such importance, with whom God himself had such a personal beef. I suppose it could be explained by the fact that the Exodus story is itself a myth, so the identity of this pharaoh ultimately does not matter in terms of understanding the real world.

From sources I have read, it doesn't even seem entirely clear who the pharaoh would have been as there is debate as to when the Exodus would have occurred. Of course there is also debate whether it ever occurred at all, since there is not much in the way of evidence to support the idea of potentially millions of Jewish slaves ever having resided in Egypt, or of having left it. Not that I'm saying Egypt didn't have ANY slaves, it just wasn't like the Bible describes.

[velkyn]

IMO, it's because the events never took place but it sure makes a good story wiht the big bad pharoah in it.  Jews and Christians can't give actual dates for the "exodus" just like how they can't give dates for the "flood" or anything else.

[nogodsforme]

On a totally unrelated note: why doesn't the spellcheck recognize the word "Gandalf? or the word "spellcheck"?

Spell check. Two words. Spellchecker is the script (?) itself.
As for Gandalf, I think that it's because it's a made-up name, although I'm not sure.

Indeed, it ought to be two words. My bad. But spell check DOES recognize Yoda, so why not Gandalf too?

Cause Yoda is real, man.

[nogodsforme]

The Bible names many pharoahs!  From this we can crossreference a number of OT events and date them.

But it doesn't name one pharoah.

Yeah, that one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as the saying goes.

The extraordinary claims of Exodus don't even have ordinary evidence.

I am so stealing that last sentence.

[kaziglu bey]

Good point! And I suppose I shouldn't talk shit on a dude who has a laser sword and is the perfect height to cut off my balls

[Nick]

I thought it was Yul Brenner.

[Babdah]

I see a link between the opening chapters of the book of Exodus, and the intro to the Iliad, but I've never really discussed it with anyone before. Is there a connection do you think, or is it just coincidence, that both match up on a number of different points? I can't help but think that either one is based on the other, or they both share a common root.

Pharoah king of Egypt = King Agamemnon
Chryses = Moses (and Aaron)
Chryseis the priests daughter = the Israelites (daughter of Zion)
Apollo = the LORD
Plague = 10 plagues

My be it is just me.

[kaziglu bey]

I see a link between the opening chapters of the book of Exodus, and the intro to the Iliad, but I've never really discussed it with anyone before. Is there a connection do you think, or is it just coincidence, that both match up on a number of different points? I can't help but think that either one is based on the other, or they both share a common root.

Pharoah king of Egypt = King Agamemnon
Chryses = Moses (and Aaron)
Chryseis the priests daughter = the Israelites (daughter of Zion)
Apollo = the LORD
Plague = 10 plagues

My be it is just me.

Hmmm... It's been a LONG time since I have read the Iliad, so I am afraid my memory does not serve me well enough to make any connection. Looks like I might have to head to the library. I think it would indeed be interesting to explore a possible connection here. I suppose also that since many myth stories often share similar elements and themes, it could be entirely coincidental. You know, like prayer.

[Babdah]

I think it would indeed be interesting to explore a possible connection here. I suppose also that since many myth stories often share similar elements and themes, it could be entirely coincidental.

 I dont know, but when I but when I read more and more about I learn that the Israelites colonised Greece in early times. Hercules was a Greek God-hero and of course you can find some one in the bible who of course resembles this hero, which was Samson. I dont think there are many coincidences I think that it is more likely the Israelites idolized the Greeks and stole their story.