Talk:Merneptah

Untitled
in Ramesses II article it says that Merneptah died from drowning (suggesting Exodus and so forth). But here in this article it says he died from natural causes. Which is it? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 22:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Drowning
To my knowledge, Dr Maurice Bucaille is known to have shown that Merneptah died from drowning. If a specialist would mention this in the article, along with the proper sources. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.129.241 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Drowning
This may be simple confusion.

When Merneptahs remains were first unwrapped they were encrusted with (salt)crystals and the immediate popular reaction was that he had drowned and was identified as the Pharaoh of Exodus and had drowned in the Red Sea.

More careful examination then revealed that that the crystals were in fact the AT Kunene (talk) 10:00, 19 December 2010 (UTC)natron (salts)used in the embalming process.

Does anybody have any details of a more recent examination of Merneptahs remains, which may finally clear this confusion?

Exodus
I can't believe this article doesn't even mention that Merneptah was pharaoh when the Jewish Exodus took place. Isn't that an important fact? Or is it because this information is controversial? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimitri Weil (talk • contribs) 13:46, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First, Wikipedia would never state that the Exodus was a historical fact as that is clearly disputed. Secondly, he isn't even mentioned at Pharaohs in the Bible which is where he should be mentioned if appropriate. Dougweller (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't believe that it isn't mentioned either. Whether accurate or not there are plenty of people who believe it and there are scholars who have written on it. The theory needs to be at least mentioned, whether accurate or not. Regrettably I am unaware of the modern scholarship on the issue so I can't update it, but I encourage anyone with a little more knowledge on the theory and some sources at hand to update it.

How come Manetho as quoted in Against Apion seems to call Merneptah Amenophis?
From the same source on the 18th Dynasty, Amenophois is how Amenhotep tends to be Transliterated into Greek. Rameses II did have a son named Amenhotep, but he's not among that even served as Crown Prince much less Pharoh?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 07:18, 27 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure of having understand your question. Ramesses II did have a children named Amenhotep, and several of Ramesses' sons were appointed crown princes because they died before their father. Merenptah was the last appointed crown prince before Ramesses' death thus he became then pharaoh. Amenhotep, being even younger than Merenptah, never became crown prince. Khruner (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The last eight rows contain the cartouches giving the names and titles.
 * Https://www.dailykos.com/stories/1951521/edit --2604:6000:1513:44A5:DCE9:3914:89A7:1DCC (talk) 19:06, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Portrait of Pharaoh Merneptah.jpg

Task forces (periods and conflicts)
Would this article fall under the Classical period? Adamdaley (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I lean toward yes, but its a soft yes since his campaign isn't exactly a keystone of the article. TomStar81 (Talk) 13:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Dating the reign of Merenptah based on a miracle in the Book of Joshua
After this discussion on the Ancient Egypt wikiproject page, I'm removing this passage again:


 * "Alternatively, astronomical calculation of a potentially reported annular eclipse (Joshua 10:10-14) that precedes Merneptah's Canaanite campaign against the Israelites places the beginning of his reign in 1209 or 1210 BC. "

I first removed it in February, but an IP editor restored it recently, saying, "Astr&Geophysics is the leading journal in its field, please do not classify as dubious without published counterevidence." But the study of ancient history is paramount here, and I know of no evidence that this argument has gained traction in that field. Most obviously, the argument hangs on a lot of assumptions: that the Exodus story and the Book of Joshua are chronologically accurate, that Ramesses II was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and that the miracle in Joshua can be explained as a solar eclipse rather than the way it is most commonly translated. Moreover, people have often attempted to explain ancient miracle stories as literal events with naturalistic causes, but the track record for such efforts is very poor. For example, people have often attempted to explain the Plagues of Egypt as the results of the Thera eruption, but such efforts have been poorly received by archaeologists (and, incidentally, would contradict the timeframe for the Exodus that Humphreys and Waddington favor).

Unless there is evidence that Humphreys and Waddington's claims have found wider support, I think they should be kept out of the article. A. Parrot (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Can you provide an up-to-date reference for your research? You should then add such a reference to the chronology section as a counter-view to the eclipse interpretation, which has evidently become mainstream after the media blitz. Then the reader can decide for himself whether your "miracle" explanation, or a "scientific" explanation is more plausible.37.5.240.213 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * This issue was discussed at Fringe theories/Noticeboard, and I brought up the Vainstub/Yizhaq/Avner paper there as well. The general consensus seems to be that, even if it's not quite a "fringe theory", it's not yet mainstream enough to definitively warrant mention in WP articles. The discussion is still open, so you can participate there if you care to. I don't recommend re-adding these claims unless you can convince more editors that they have significant scholarly support. A. Parrot (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect your beliefs, but you need a reference for the miracle theory. Then you can add that reference to the chronology section. alongside the scientific view.77.20.252.84 (talk) 07:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. I am not arguing that the event described in Joshua was produced by an actual miracle. I am saying that the majority of scholars in the field of biblical archaeology are skeptical that Joshua is an accurate account of events in the time period in which it is set. In other words, they treat the events in the story as legend and not history, which, if true, would mean there is no point in searching for a scientific explanation for the stopping of the sun and moon. User:Doug Weller has removed your text again. If you want to argue that it should be re-added, I strongly recommend participating in this discussion, where more editors are likely to see your arguments. A. Parrot (talk) 02:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for engaging. I now understand your position on miracles better. However you are still not providing a reference for your personal view on the published, peer-reviewed, widely publicised and 15x cited astronomical dating claim for Merneptah, which should be discussed here in the context of Merneptah, not on some other discussion page. I therefore maintain that your/Weller's deletion of the scientific claim is unscientific and in violation of Wikipedia principles. (As an aside) I fundamentally reject your notion that

they treat the events in the story as legend and not history, which, if true, would mean there is no point in searching for a scientific explanation for the stopping of the sun and moon.
 * No, no and no. Consider the legend of the Iliad. It led to the archaeological discovery of Troy by Heinrich Schliemann in 1868. You do not have to believe in the reality of the Iliad as a whole - historical elements within the fictitious legend are sufficient to unearth an entire lost city. And this despite the gap of several centuries between the historical event and the written version of the legend. I am somewhat exasperated that you have not learnt this important 19th century lesson. No personal offence intended - perhaps the young generation of computer kids simply are not taught these things at school any more. What a tragedy if these kids were to undermine Wikipedia with their deficient schooling. (End of rant. Apologies.).37.5.241.49 (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting aside your condescending reference to a story that practically everyone who knows anything about archaeology is familiar with, one of the authoritative surveys of scholarly opinion in this field is Ancient Israel: What Do We Know and How Do We Know It? (2017) by Lester Grabbe. It is not definitive in itself, but it makes for an excellent starting point for understanding the field. Regarding Joshua, it says (on p. 116), "The 'Albright' or 'conquest' hypothesis is not generally accepted anymore, and the question to be asked is whether any of the book of Joshua can be taken as historical. Many would now answer this in the negative". Elsewhere (p. 92), it indicates that the most important discussions of the historicity of Joshua are a study by Nadav Na'aman, "The 'Conquest of Canaan' in the Book of Joshua and in History", in From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel (1994); a book by E. A. Knauf, Josua (2008); and a study by Knauf, "History in Joshua" in Israel in Transition: From Late Bronze II to Iron IIA (c.1250–850 BCE) (2010).
 * I can't find a way to access the Knauf sources online, but the N'aman study can be read here. Regarding Joshua in general, it says the conquest narrative "has only a tenuous connection with historical reality" (p. 281), and regarding the Merneptah Stele, it says (p. 249), "in spite of the great importance of the mention of a group named 'Israel' in a late thirteenth century Egyptian document, it is best to refrain from building on this isolated reference any hypothesis concerning the location and formation of Israel at this time. After all, the maintenance of a name of a social organization does not necessarily imply any other sort of cultural continuity. Hundreds of years separate this from all other references to Israel, and the Egyptian text is open to various interpretations, none of which can be verified with any degree of certainty."


 * It is conceivable that the eclipse-based argument will overturn this consensus, but if so it needs to be demonstrated. The Humphreys and Waddington study came out five years ago, and Vainstub/Yizhaq/Avner two years ago; do any more recent sources indicate that they have had a wider impact on the scholarly field? A. Parrot (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Independent support for dating the reign of Merneptah based on 1207 BC eclipse in the Book of Joshua
Following the Discussion above, I am adding a new 2020 paper which independently replicates the astronomical eclipse interpretation by Humphreys and Waddington 2017, and furthermore offers a detailed linguistic and archaeological analysis. https://brill.com/view/journals/vt/70/4-5/article-p722_13.xml

It is one of 15 papers which have so far cited Humphreys and Waddington 2017 according to Google Scholar, and is a particular delight to read. The research on the eclipse proposal has been ongoing since 1899, and incredibly this Israeli group and the British physicists have hit upon exactly the same breakthrough conclusions independently of each other. Here, for convenience, I cite the Acknowledgments section:

Acknowledgements We thank Prof. S. Ahituv, Dr. O. Tammuz, and Dr. D. Kahn, who read this manuscript and offered valuable feedback. We should also like to thank Dr. Eve Levavi Feinstein for her editing and improving the English and to Takeji Otsuki Mizra Association, Beit Shalom, Japan, for their generous help. In an article published in October 2017, approximately ten months after our findings were published in Hebrew in the journal Beit Mikra, Humphreys and Waddington (Humphreys and Waddington 2017) arrived, completely independently (see Humphreys and Waddington 2018), at precisely the same conclusion: that the annular eclipse that occurred on October 30, 1207 BCE, was the eclipse described in Joshua 10. Their work was based om Sawyer's (1972) interpretation and on the claim that in antiquity, records did not distinguish between a total solar eclipse and an annular solar eclipse. Therefore a search for solar eclipses that match the biblical account should be broadened to include annular solar eclipses that were visible from the region of Jerusalem between 1500 and 1050 BCE. They made their calculations independently (without using the information on NASA's website) and identified the eclipse of 1207 BCE, which they claimed was the earliest recorded solar eclipse and therefore could be used to calibrate the rate of the earth's rotation.

Fascinating research. 37.5.240.213 (talk) 21:53, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Correct spelling of this Pharaoh's name
Could someone explain which is the correct pronunciation of this Pharaoh's name? Merneptah or Merenptah?

I'm somewhat persuaded to think that Merneptah is favoured because people pronounce the "P" in the name, however the "P" is silent (Ptah).

There are similar names such as Merenre (Nemtyemsaf), which are derived from "Mery", meaning "beloved".

On that basis, it seems to make sense to spell this Pharaoh as Merenptah, unless someone can show otherwise. Lkjdgr (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2023 (UTC)