Talk:Pharaohs in the Bible

Old discussion on the Pharaoh of the Exodus

Encyclopedical content removed without proper motive
Someone removed this:

"That is a typical "fringe theory". However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. "

But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian cultural, like the preceding personalities.

That removal totally lacks of neutrality.

Removal of Akhenaten
I'm removing the name of Akhenaten from the list of candidates for Pharaoh of the Exodus, since the sole reference for this attribution is Freud's book Moses and Monotheism. This is NOT what Freud suggested at all in this book. He believed that Akhenaten was MOSES, not Pharaoh. Yonderboy (talk) 20:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Add another section
Should the article add another section: Pharaoh of Joseph, since the distinction between the two dynasties (cf. Exodus 1:8) Bennylin (talk) 11:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it should not. In fact the entire section Unnamed Pharaohs contains speculation only. It's not without reason that scholarly opinion does not count either Genesis or Exodus among the historical biblical books. The whole section makes an outdated impression, being based on older biblical scholarship. It seems highly indicative of the non-factual content of Exodus specifically that the supposed pharaoh has no name - even though Moses itself is an Egyptian name included in various pharaoh names. (Cf. Thutmoses e.a.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Ptolemy VI
''Ring of Ptolemy VI Philometor (186-145 BC) as Egyptian pharaoh. Louvre Museum.''

Why was this picture put into this article? It doesn't fit at all.80.141.209.237 (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Reinstate Akhenaton
I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing.

Of all the pharaohs suggested and with advance warning of what may have been malaria moving towards Egypt, Akhenaton builds a quarantine city at what is now Tell el Amarna. The city being built of timber and mudbrick was never intended for long term occupancy, only for the duration of the plague.

The Hebrews being reluctant to stay in a plague ridden Egypt want to do a runner back to Canaan which they thought was already clear of the plague.

A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself.

The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again.AT Kunene (talk) 09:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I object to its reinstatement on the basis of No Original Research. On the other hand, if you can find a reputable source that states what you just stated here, then I support its inclusion (with citation). Fieari (talk) 01:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I second that - much of what you state appears to be original research and it needs to be properly sourced. Ckruschke (talk) 19:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Ckruschke


 * I agree. As for mudbrick and wood, that was standard for houses and palaces, not just Amarna, and there was elaborate and expensive decoration throughout the houses and palaces of the elite (and quite a bit of use of stone). Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I hadn't noticed how old the post was. The editor never edits articles, only posts to article talk pages. Dougweller (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Much revisionist history has caused a fever of assumption that Moses and Akhenaten were connected, some even making them one and the same. However, Biblical chronological data makes it impossible. In fact, the only assumption that can be made is that the Hebrew occupation was scrubbed from their history and was later discovered by Akhenaten, which may have affected his conversion to Atenism. MPR023 (talk) 13:08, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"I suggest that Akhenaton be put back onto the list of possible Pharaohs of Exodus. During the Roman era when plague struck Rome the emperors rapidly moved to their country estates. In later times during the Black Death, Kings, Popes and the rich did the same thing."

That's an highly anachronistic comment, based purely on the mere suggestion that there was a plague during Akhenaten's reign. Which, by the way, isn't mentioned in any written evidence from the period.

"A successor, Tutankhamun eventually moves the court back to Thebes and may well have been one of the final victims of the Malaria plague himself."

Equally suggestive, not based on fact. Tutankhamun was possibly murdered.

"The Hebrews eventually set up a small kingdom at the crossroads of several major trading routes and increasingly prosper over the next couple of generations. Their country and the Temple of Soloman is so thoroughly looted by Ramesses II that by the time of Merneptah there is "no seed", which may mean that the economy was so collapsed that the Hebrews had reverted to herding animals again."

This is both confused and uninformed. The Merneptah stele makes the first ever probable mention of Hebrews as a single tribe in Palestine. Ramesses II never looted a 'temple of Solomon.' Really, this is an old hypothesis not borne out by fact. During his time the area was still under Egyptian control. Ergo, the kingdom of Israel must postdate Ramesses II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 (talk) 06:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Pepi II Neferkare
Pepi II Neferkare should be added to the list of pharaohs associated with the Exodus because he is. James D. Long, member of the High Council of B'nei Noah and author of Riddle of the Exodus (2006), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=R7mUPQAACAAJ Gerald E. Aardsma, PhD., the editor of Biblical Chronologist, associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/answers/exodus_egypt.php Brad Aaronson of the Jewish Orthodox Union associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://www.ou.org/chagim/pesach/whenex.htm Ken Johnson, author of Ancient Post-Flood History (2004), associates Pepi II Neferkare with the Exodus: http://books.google.com/books?id=A5nWddyA_NYC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false The list goes on and on.76.216.196.209 (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC) As I've already said, we shouldn't be using self-published sources such as Ken Johnson's book. James Long's book is also self-published, see. That leaves two sources. Why is Brad Aaronson's opinion so significant it should be in the article? Biblical Chronologist is another self-published site owned by the Creationist Gerald E. Aardsma. Don't get me wrong, entries here are likely to be backed by Creationists, but I'd expect something significant to have better sources. Also, please cite according toWP:CITE, not just bare urls linking to Google Books. Full details including page numbers please in the future. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)::::All irrelevant -- the sad truth is that Pepi II Neferkare is associated with the Exodus for obvious reasons.76.216.196.209 (talk) 08:30, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, Jeff J. Williams & Cindy Parry, authors of Who Was the Pharaoh of the Exodus?, associate Pepi II Neferkare with the pharaoh of the oppression writing, "research strongly suggests Moses and the Israelites went into bondage during the reign of Pharaoh Pepy II, the 'Pharaoh of the Oppression'": http://books.google.com/books?id=rTl1hItzHKAC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false 76.216.196.209 (talk) 08:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A 50 page LDS booklet. Dougweller (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * And your point is? Do you think LDS should be excluded from reality?  I provided at least 4 other sources and you ignored them all to focus on a red herring 76.216.196.209 (talk) 08:25, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No, I'm just saying it's trivial. Well, not just trivial, bad, now that I look a bit more. John Gee is LDS and he reviews this, saying "The year 1994 saw the publication of many important studies in Egyptian chronology, some better than others... a complete absence of a detailed examination of evidence and close reasoning,  The study under review, however, was clearly the worst....demonstrates how not to revise ancient chronology, since the crucial insights it relies on do not stand up to careful scrutiny... the crucial insights it relies on do not stand up to careful scrutiny. Williams has noticed that the number of years of the pharaoh of the oppression, according to the Book of Jasher, matches only that of Pepy II (pp. 30, 96-7). Therefore the pharaoh of the exodus was the following pharaoh, Nemtyemsaf II" If you read on you'll see Gee challenges the 94 years. So no, we shouldn't be using a trivial and bad study here. What bothers me is that I'd think that if this was a significant view among those who believe there was an Exodus, and thus a Pharaoh of the Exodus, there'd be at least one well-known author with something properly published making this suggestion. Dougweller (talk) 09:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

There is another source from a published author. Donovan Courville, in 1971 published "The Exodus Problem and Its Ramifications: A Critical Examination of the Chronological Relationships Between Israel and the Contemporary Peoples of Antiquity". The main reason that the 6th dynasty exodus is usually discounted, is because it is far too early to align the Biblical timeline to the accepted history of Egypt. Courville provided possible evidence that the 6th dynasty and the 13th dynasty were contemporary, which might explain why the first intermediate period and the second intermediate period were both very similar in the way Egypt collapsed. Peter James in his book "Centuries of Darkness" and David Rohl in "Pharaohs and Kings: A Biblical Quest", both demonstrated in different ways that the timeline close to the third intermediate period is likely a few centuries too long. Combine this with Courville's work, and you have a basis for associating the end of the 6th dynasty as a possible contender for the exodus. In addition, there is a controversial Jewish midrash named "Sefer haYashar". (English:"The Book of Jasher", or "The Book of the Upright" Most scholars believe it was authored around 1225 A.D., but it was possibly sourced or derived from the "Jasher" mentioned in Joshua 10:13. ) This refers to the Pharaoh named Melol being the Pharaoh of the oppression. In this Midrash, his reign length was 94 years. (according to the English translation here ) This can only apply to one Pharaoh; that of Pepi II Neferkhare. That would leave only one Pharaoh to be that of the Exodus according to this Midrash which would be his son, Merenre II Nemtyemsaf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere (talk • contribs) 21:26, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Donovan Courville wasn't an Egyptologist and fails our criteria for sources at WP:RS. His article is very bad, we need sources about his views, not a precis of them. Nor could we use Sefer haYashar (midrash). But in a sense that's irrelevant. It's original research to draw conclusions from other sources, we'd need reliable sources directly making the statement you want to make.

Reinstate Akhenaton
Dr Cyril Aldred spent some 17 years theorising about the life and times of Akhenaton and concluded that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family.

Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only.

Other authors speculate that there was a plague caused by the eruption of Santorini during the reign of Akhenaton, also with a vast outfall of dust blocking off the sunshine, which may be the simple explanation why Akhenaton suddenly orders the worship of the sun god Aton to restore normal sunshine/daylight conditions.

Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague but in the end, trying to decipher the fragments left over from the lifetime of a man who has been dead for some 3,000 years can only lead to plenty of speculation.AT Kunene (talk) 12:57, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * WHere does Aldred call Akhenaton the Pharaoh of the Exodus? If he doesn't, we can't use him (see WP:OR. We need reliable sources (see WP:RS suggesting that Akhenaton was the Pharaoh of the Exodus if we are to include him. Dougweller (talk) 13:15, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

This whole section makes little sense. Having one authority make a suggestion "that there was a plague during his reign, which may account for the disappearance of various members of the Amarna family" does not warrant mention. Note the "may" in that sentence, by the way. Other explanations are possible.

"Various visitors to see the remains of Akhetaton, including Cottrell, remark on the amount of painted plaster and mud brick used rather than stonework. The whole impression seems to be as a temporary (quarantine?) city only."

Again, highly suggestive, but the fact is that during Akhenaten a different type of construction was used, which was abandoned immediately after.

"Akhenaton seems to be the only pharaoh who had to deal with a plague" is equally suggestive, but ignores the fact that 'plagues' or epidemics would have been common in the ancient world - as well as long after. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Aldred
Dr Cyril Aldred never specifically calls Akhenaton the Pharaoh of Exodus but gives considerable detail about a plague raging in Egypt that probably carried off several members of the Amarna Family.

As a senior employee at the British museum Aldred was constantly updating his work on the Amarna Period and but for his death may well have identified Akhenaton as the Pharaoh of Exodus.

Amongst other speculations as Akhenaton seems to have been the only known pharaoh who had to deal with a plague (Malaria?) which also seems to have killed Tutankhamun, he still seems to be a good candidate for the Pharaoh of Exodus and worth reinstating in this category.

I think it was Prof W. Wratton Bragg who used to regularly refer to an Okhenaton or Ikhenaton. AT Kunene212.138.68.113 (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

The Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was likely Thutmose I
The following chart is supported by the reference material

The Pharaoh at the time of the exodus was likely Thutmose I, the reign of which some Egyptologists date to the years 1526 BCE to 1513 BCE. Interestingly, Thutmose I had an eldest son (Amenmose) who died of unknown causes shortly before his own death in 1513 BCE. Amenmose was the brother of Hatshepsut from Thutmoses primary wife, Ahmose. Hatshepsut ruled as regent then married and ruled with her half-brother Thutmose II. Also interesting is that the mummy of Thutmose I, when it was examined with an MRI, was found to have what appears to be an arrow in the skull, indicating a violent death. This violent death in apparent battle is relevant because Amenmose, who died shortly before Thutmose I was the general of Thutmoses armies and without his presence, Thutmose would likely have lead those armies in pursuit of the Israelite's personally. Though it cannot be said with absolute certainty that Thutmose was the pharaoh at the time of the exodus, the evidence certainly seems to lend support the to idea. BCE denotes "Before our Common Era" - CE denotes "Common Era". In the calculation of these dates, bear in mind that there is no year zero in the transition between BCE year 1 and CE year 1.Willietell (talk) 03:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Are you clear that this isn't a forum to debate the topic? We can add material that is well sourced and specifically discusses the topic, but if that isn't what you have, it isn't appropriate here. Nor are we likely to be saying who was probably the Pharaoh of the Exodus given all the disputes over anyh such claims (and ignoring the unlikelihood that there was such an Exodus.). Dougweller (talk) 07:03, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The editor's source is Insight on the Scriptures, which presents the rather novel chronology of Jehovah's Witnesses. Their chronology does not have support from any other sources, and is therefore fringe.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 22:38, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just stumbled on this article through a circuitous route and tagged the Insight on the Scriptures references which were added earlier today with 'Full citation needed'. Is it fair to say that most references to this book would generally be considered fringe? Longwayround (talk) 20:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it may be a bit inappropriate to discuss which pharaoh might have been in power when "the exodus" happened, since scholarly opinion AFAIK is that no "exodus" ever did happen. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 21:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * That's an interesting point. Wikipedia, as we're forever being told, is not about truth, but about verifiability, and verifiability simply means that a reliable source lies behind whatever we write. So if the Watchtower says that a certain pharaoh was it, then the question isn't whether Watchtower is right, but whether Watchtower is a reliable source. And if belief in the reality of the exodus is a fringe belief, and Watchtower is a fringe publication, then it probably is. PiCo (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Pico's conclusion about the Watchtower source 'probably' being a reliable source for the exodus constitutes a logical fallacy (hasty generalisation). The degree to which the Watch Tower Society's views are fringe is disproportionate to the degree in which the exodus is considered fringe. Relative periods of time are given in the Bible that can be counted backward from known historical events (e.g. the Neo-Babylonian period), such that years can be assigned for earlier hypothetical biblical events (e.g. the exodus) regardless of whether they actually happened; the main problem here is that the fixed dates assigned by the Watch Tower Society's during the Neo-Babylonian period are at odds with all other sources, affecting all their earlier dates. As a result, Watch Tower Society literature cannot be considered a reliable source for dating biblical events unless specifically discussing JW teachings. Additionally, and probably more importantly, the JW publication states that in their view the identity of the Pharaoh during the hypothetical time of Moses is unknown&mdash;specifically, it states (as quoted by Willietell in the section below): "it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty." The identity being assigned by the editor is his original research only, and not even supported by the fringe source.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 14:47, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought my argument was pretty acute: fringe sources for fringe subjects. Then it just becomes a matter of sorting out degrees of fringe: mainstream fringe, fringe-fringe, and beyond the fridge. If we want to be serious, no serious mainstream scholar these days will bother to discuss the historicity of the exodus, or the pharaoh thereof. That means that just about every source will be fringe to some degree (the most respectable might be someone like Hoffmeier), with JW out there on the edge of the icebox. PiCo (talk) 06:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It's apparent that a certain person's position here it basically only because of their anti-Jehovah's Witness view. This theory is logical for many reasons. First regardless of the anti-Jehovah's Witnesses commentary the chronology is well-researched. In addition other sources have suggested Thutmose I as candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus.

Not only do these two chronologies match for Thutmose I (using the Memphis dating, "were taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes") whose reign would ended conveniently at the 1513 B.C.E. But also the fact his firstborn Amenmose conveniently predeceased him. And his successor (his son) Thutmose II's mummy bear evidence of scaring from boils. It is definitely an interesting theory. And should be seriously considered in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.46.202.248 (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There are all kinds of competing schools of thought regarding the question of whom the Pharaoh of the Exodus (or his predecessor, the Pharaoh of the Oppression) might correspond to, if any. And the minimum requirement for considering any of these competing theories (on the appropriate articles, of course) is a source that can be used to verify what the theory is and whose it is.  Pasting up big charts with your own original research arguments to try and "prove" your favorite theory is the only possibly correct one, is therefore kind of a waste of  time, and would be better suited to a private blog on some other website. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 22:18, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

It's probably of interest to note that neither Genesis nor Exodus are considered among the Bible's historical books, which start with the Book of Kings. None of the stories in Genesis or Exodus can or have been verified from other sources than the Bible itself. In short, any discussion of 'who was the pharaoh of the exodus' is moot. And it would not only be correct to consider the Watchtower publication 'fringe.' but simply non-scientific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.225.91 (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Certain beliefs within the Watchtower publications are indeed fringe beliefs; however, for dating purposes their fringe position is solely in regard to the destruction and desolation of the Jewish temple. The Watchtower organization cites 607 B.C.E, whereas historical records and most mainstream Christians cite 587 (or 586) BCE as the timeline. There is no significant objection within orthodox Christian circles for their dates later than this point. If twenty years is removed from every preceding date to reflect that fringe discrepancy, then their earlier timeline also fits with most other Christian scholars. Therefore the mainstream Christian date for the Exodus using a literal calculation based on 1 Kings 6:1 (480 years between the Exodus and beginning of the construction of Solomon's temple) would be 1493 B.C.E. This conflicts with a literal reading of the timeline of the Judges, which would be 572 years, if all the judges lead Israel with no overlapping judgeships. (Most mainstream Christians believe they did overlap, and follow the 480 years) Allowing for rounding of partial years, one possible solution would be that 1 Kings was copied or translated incorrectly and should have been 580 years, which would place the exodus at 1593 B.C.E. All other calculations based on the Bible make assumptions beyond the literal text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere (talk • contribs) 20:45, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Proposed Genesis to Exodus Timeline
I've made some edits, and I've studied the Bible carefully and here is a timeline based on Biblical accounts that I think should go in the article somewhere.

1. Hebrews enter Egypt and stay for 430 years (Exo. 13:40). 2. 30 years later, a Pharaoh who did not know Joseph enslaves the Hebrews (based on a statement in Gen. 15:13 that the Hebrews would be slaves for 400 years). 3. After 320 of slavery, Moses is born, a Pharaoh orders the killing of all Hebrew baby boys. 4. 80 years later, the Exodus (Exo. 7:7) and the end of the Hebrews' 430 year sojourn in Egypt. Emperor001 (talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Above you will see where I have already posted a chart with an accurate timeline starting with the birth of Adam through to the baptism of Jesus, I feel that it marks most of the significant biblical occurrences, however, I am not sure it would be considered in context to this discussion of who the ruler of Egypt was at the time of the exodus.Willietell (talk) 04:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've reverted both sets of edits. Please take a look at WP:NOR. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia reflecting what reliable sources say about a subject, and the criteria for sources is discussed at WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. We can't add our own understanding/interpretation of sources. A lot of new editors and some not so new make this mistake, so you aren't alone. Took me a while to understand this also. Dougweller (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am confused as to how you say that I provided no source, when I provided scriptural evidence that clearly marks the bible as being the source material. Instead you have reverted in favor of an edit that provides no source material at all and is simply WP:OR, please explain your reasoning. Willietell (talk) 18:47, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Did you read NOR? You are simply taking biblical material and using it to make an argument. If the Bible said X was the Pharaoh of the whatever, you could quote that (but not say it was correct), but as I said, you need reliable sources which directly discuss 'X is the Pharoah of the Y'. Dougweller (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I am somewhat confused by your continued revert on the page Pharaohs in the Hebrew Bible. You have reverted to an edit that has NO CITED SOURCE MATERIAL, and yet, you state that you are reverting my material because you view it as OR....I'm at a loss for what basis you are using in 1. Preferring one edit over the other 2. Declaring that the edit I posted required any additional source material than the bible, which is what the overall article is based on to begin with and therefore the best source for the material under consideration.  Please explain, I do not wish to, nor will I continue to engage in an edit war with you over this material, but I would like a reasonable explanation of you actions and your line of thinking on this edit as so far something seems amiss. Thanks.Willietell (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

DougWeller, I'm going to make another attempt at it and provide a non-biblical source, hopefully it will meet your criteria, if not, since I am a new editor, maybe you can guide me through it, because the information I have put in the edit is factually correct. Hopefully this time I get it right, please don't report me for edit Waring, because that isn't what I'm trying to do here, it's just that I'm new and haven't caught on yet.ThanksWillietell (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Willietell (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Willietell. I'll try to explain what Dougweller is saying. The article is about Pharaohs in the bible. The exodus story mentions 3 pharaohs - pharaoh 1 who knew Joseph, pharaoh 2 who didn't (and who may or may not have been the immediate successor of pharaoh 1), and pharaoh 3, of the exodus, who certainly was the immediate successor of number 2. Who these three m,ight have been has been the subject of many, many theories. Ok, now for the important bit: WE ARE NOT TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM! We're just trying to list (this article is essentially a list) the theories thart have been put forward over the years. So: DON'T ADD YOUR OWN IDEAS on this topic: just gather together what various authorities have said. That's what Wikipedia is about: other people's theories, not ours. PiCo (talk) 10:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * PiCo, one of the problems I have with the article before my edit is the statement that

"and pharaoh 3, of the exodus, who certainly was the immediate successor of number 2." as I feel that this at a minimum is incorrect and represents WP:OR as well, due to the reasoning's laid out by my edit, Which I thing DougWeller is simply saying I need to better support with cited sourcesWillietell (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not at all convinced that adding citations to "Insight on the Scriptures" by the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society is acceptable either. There are two issues here. Does it actually say, for instance, "The third pharaoh is clearly not the immediate successor the second," - and if it does, does this meet our criteria as a reliable source as described at WP:RS? I doubt it. Dougweller (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No, it doesn't, the Insight on the scriptures and the citation of it refers to Moses being 40 years of age before fleeing to Midian, and residing there for an additional 40 years before returning to confront Pharaoh, the statement that ""The third pharaoh is clearly not the immediate successor the second," is simple deductive reasoning due to the time frame involved and is not intended to be interpreted as being supported by the source material"Insight on the Scriptures",Also this is not WP:syn because it is the same source and not a combining of two different sources. Perhaps it will be necessary to clarify what is sourced by use of quotation marks? What do you think?Willietell (talk) 16:34, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * The Insight on the Scriptures says this in regards to who the particular Pharaoh was

Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624Willietell (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't be using deductive reasoning. Our policy says "all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed." and "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." Thank you very much for the quote from Insight on the Scriptures, but of course it's simply reporting the various mentions of Pharaohs in the Bible. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My feeling is that it would be alright to add whichever pharaoh your source says is the pharaoh of the exodus, with of course a very short explanation of who says it (like the other entries have), but all the explanation about why this is the right one is unnecessary (everyone thinks they've got the right man) - any reader who wants to follow it up can read the book (I mean the Watchtower book). PiCo (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Hey, Willie, are you one of the authors of Insight on the Scriptures? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:43, 18 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Lisa, in answer to your question, no, I am not one of the writers of Insight on the Scriptures, however, it is a very well researched and referenced biblical encyclopedia. I would recommend reading it if you ever get the chance.Willietell (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If you seek to raise WP:COI concerns, then do so. And be prepared to offer reasons for that concern. Don't just hey-willie somebody. This is not a forum. Merry Hitchmas! &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 00:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * &#9798; CUSH &#9798; What, about anything I have stated on this page, gives you indication that I am seeking to raise an WP:COI concern about others on this page? Are you thinking of bringing a WP:COI here?  Also, who are you? I haven't seen you post on this page until this very moment, and this is your most valuable contribution?Willietell (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't responding to you, now was I ?
 * Who I am? I am the one who keeps a close watch on religious editors who may want to present biblical stories as factual history. And really, I don't answer to you about which talks I participate in. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 18:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize, I misunderstood, I did in fact think that your statement was directed to me, now I realize that it was not and I am in the wrong. Please accept my most sincere apologizes for sticking my nose in where it did not belong.Willietell (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It is considerably unlikely that Willietell is one of the authors of Insight on the Scriptures (or that he would tell us if he were)&mdash;the actual authors are anonymous employees of the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society, the publishing arm of Jehovah's Witnesses. However, as a member of the religion, it is unsurprising that he would want to promote their views. The main problem with Willietell's preferred wording is that a) his chosen source doesn't support his deductions and b) the use of the source presents JW chronology in a manner that implies it is more broadly accepted than is actually the case. Insight can only really be used here if unambiguously discussing the JW chronology in particular.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Jeffro77, I see you have found me again, I would like to respectfully request that you please refrain from following me from page to page, as I am beginning to feel harassed by you, whether that is the case or not, that is the impression I am getting, and no one likes to have their own personal "stalker".  So please don't follow me anymore.Willietell (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually I came across this page because of your inappropriate references to me at your User Talk page (all pages I've edited are automatically added to my Watch List), where you made irrelevant accusations about me when you requested that you be unblocked for your edit warring on an article I'd previously never edited. Additionally, you also mentioned me (also irrelevantly) at the ANI you raised against another user without informing me at my Talk page. That aside, I edit on pages that relate to the JW WikiProject as they come to my attention, and will continue to do so.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:32, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Would that be anything like when you accused me of being a WP:Sockpuppet and getting me blocked indefinitely without letting me know about it on my talk page, and that AFTER I advised you of the real situation in an attempt to make sure you were well informed so that no deception would be taking place.   And being tried and convicted of edit waring after one edit was surprising, especially considering that no one editing on the page I was accused of edit waring on, complained that I was edit waring, and one of those is an administrator. We were in fact in discussions about the edit and what needed to be done to have it conform to everyone's expectations. I am still considering filing a complaint about abuse of administrator authority over the block. But that aside, I guess you have friends in high places. Also, you followed me to this page well before I made reference to you on my talk page. Again, I will respectfully request that you cease and desist from following me from page to page as I feel "STALKED". Willietell (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a little tired of your irrelevant accusations. The sock-puppet report I filed was entirely reasonable and stands on its merits; if you dispute the outcome of that report, you'll need to take that up with the admins who responded. It was not possible to advise you at your Talk page (as Willietell) when I filed the report because you had not yet created that user account; User:Spudpicker 01, who you have since acknowledged to be another user of your computer, was advised at the time the report was filed. In any case, your IPs were blocked at the time "on behavioral grounds". I had absolutely no involvement in the report of your edit warring on this article that lead to you being blocked, despite the fact that you tried blaming me several times in your requests to be unblocked. Your childish retort about 'friends in high places' is entirely meaningless, as I had no interaction with the editor who blocked you or those who declined to unblock you. I will continue to edit articles that relate to the JW WikiProject, so you may need to check your paranoia at the door.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 07:52, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Because the word 'stalked' has implications of criminal activity, we use 'hounded' - see WP:HOUNDING, defined as "Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." That isn't what is happening here. Your edits are being tracked (probably by several editors) because there is concern about your editing. " Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases." This isn't unusual and nothing to worry about if you edit well. Dougweller (talk) 08:44, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dougweller Nice. In that case I feel 'hounded' by religious editors who still think the Bible were a history book... :-)
 * Back to business: this article also serves as the redirection target for "Pharaoh of the Exodus", which raises the issue of accurate dating of the Exodus (although today the Exodus is considered a-historical). This would need some expansion in the article to include the respective archaeological and historical evidence that has been used to indicate any of the pharaohs in the list. Of course the fact that the pharaohs brought forward as the possible opponent of Moses span 500 years make it clear that the matching criteria are not met, and further that the biblical tale strains credibility, to say it mildly. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 15:08, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Dougweller Thanks Doug, I didn't know the proper Wikipedia term for how I feel, but it is nonetheless, how I feel. Still, I am hoping we can get past that and onto some productive activity without all the bickering, as it is childish.  The false WP:sock accusation is in the past, as I have been exonerated of the charges and my account has been restored.  I am in agreement with &#9798; CUSH &#9798;  in that I feel that it's time to get down to business, however I do not see how any of the Pharaoh "nominees" on the list can be includes without considerable speculation as there is no evidence in the  Egyptian historical record to indicate that the Israelite's were ever inhabitants in the land of Egypt.  However, I do view the bible has being part of the Jewish historical record, which clearly indicates that they were, and since the Egyptians were notorious for not recording in their history anything that could be perceived as negative and the Israelite's were not, I submit that the bible MUST ALSO be relied on as carrying at a minimum, equal weight to any archaeological Egyptian record.Willietell (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * @Willietell There really isn't any point in rehashing this argument here. Sorry, Willietell, but it shouldn't be a surprise that this has been argued before, and it's just a fact that we don't treat the Bible as a historical source in the way you'd like us to. And as I've said, we don't use any source to help make an argument not explicitly contained in that source. This is often hard for new editors to understand (it confused me at first) especially if they are used to the kind of arguments that you can make in an essay, article or book. We do have a forum where you can argue that something is a reliable source if you have a particular passage you want to argue is a reliable source for something, and that's WP:RSN.
 * As for the list, I've tried to clean it up before. Every entry needs to have at least one reference from a reliable source saying that Pharaoh is a 'candidate'. In this case we are looking for notable authors and not judging whether they are right or not (obviously if there was no Exodus there are no candidates, but we are simply looking for those which have been put forward hopefully by a number of people but certainly by 'notable' authors. It may be that some should be removed. I'm not sure myself if Osman is notable enough to be in the article. Ahmose I needs citing - there are some reliable sources and some very poor ones we shouldn't use (eg Ralph Ellis, anything self-published, etc). To avoid unnecessary conflict, why not start a new section for each one you wish to discuss and we can discuss them and hopefully come to some agreement? I don't think there was an Exodus myself, but am happy to have Pharaohs named as candidates so long as we can find good sources putting them forward. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A job for Willietell
Willietell, since you seem very interested in this subject, you might like to do this to improve it. Go to the book labelled "Shea" in the bibliography - it's an entry by Shea in an encyclopedia, and the book is definitely a Reliable Source. Shea discusses just about everyone who could possibly be involved in the exodus. Using that, update our little list of names - put the name of each king Shea lists as a possibility, their dates (you can get them from articles in Wikipedia), and maybe a very brief summary of what Shea says about each. That'll keep you gainfully occupied for a while and also be a practical exercise in how to write a Wikipedia article. PiCo (talk) 23:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I examined the publication, it seems to give relatively little information as to a list of possibilities, and seems more inclined to rebut those who would assert that Ramesses was the Pharaoh of the exodus. Which is in fact a position to which I agree, but that is beside the point.  It does, however, provide me with a secondary source material that states that Moses was 80 years old at the time he returned from Midian to confront Pharaoh and demand that the Israelite slaves be released.  It does so on page 233.  Can we insert this reference and restore my edit now that I have discovered an additional independent source?  I am not at all confident that doing so myself would not result in another block for edit warring, therefore, is it possibly something DougWeller could do for me?.Willietell (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I haven't read the background to the passage you want to put in, but I nthink the real problem might be that you were trying to argue a case. We don't really need to do that, we just need to say that Pharaoh X (insert pharaoh's name here) has been identified as the pharaoh of the exodus by Y (insert scholar's name here). Then you have your footnote pointing the reader to a source (preferably a book, available online, that you've found through Google Books, because Wikipedia is aimed at the casual reader who will never in a month of rainy Sundays go to a library), where he can find out just what arguments Y used to support his case. Doesn't Shea suggest any candidates at all? If you want to do some searching, go to the search bar at the top of the page on that book and type in "pharaoh of the exodus" and see what happens. PiCo (talk) 02:14, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually PiCo, I didn't try to identify the pharaoh of the exodus my edit, shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pharaohs_in_the_Bible&action=historysubmit&diff=466114890&oldid=466063912

I only did that in talk, to which some objected, I don't really know why someone would object to that, but they seem to have found something wrong with me presenting the case, which is really only relevant if you consider Conventional Chronology(revised) to be correct, which it likely isn't because David Rohl is likely closer to correct (though this statement shouldn't be interpreted as support), because the conventional chronology expands for too long of a period.

My edit as shown, only really had to do with the how old Moses was at the time he left Egypt (40) and how old he was when he returned (80) and the relationship between the two pharaoh's considering the time frame involved.Willietell (talk) 19:31, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Further Suggested Food For Thought
I'd like to place a few comments on the possible pharaoh of the Exodus simply for open minded thought.
 * If you take a Biblical chronological timeline and compare it with the list of pharaohs, since Joseph, the Hebrews, Solomon and others are considered, I'd like to just throw in a few ideas for consideration.
 * I don't ever use any extra-Biblical publications, i.e.: LDS publications, Watchtower publications, Vatican approved material, etc. I'm just taking what I've learned from simple, basic information. I'm not a legalist, but I enjoy research. I'm no expert, but I've taken an interest in this. I understand the list of pharaohs may not be accurate, but I'm taking the best of what I can find. I'm not judging if you want to use them. It's just not my flavor. It's too confusing, using the many doctrines in trying to come to a point.
 * The following is what I've come up with. Please bare with me. We know that there was a ~400 year silent period after Malachi, and if we add about 127 years, we come to the post captivity from Babylon. The captivity was 70 years. Previous to that we have the period of the kings which was approx. 344 years. Israel and Judah have a slightly different timeline, but they generally work out the same. Then add 120 years for the reigns of Solomon, David and Saul, 40 years each. Before Saul there was the period of the judges. Taking a statement from Biblical Timeline . org this would be 450 years. Before that we had Joshua who led for 40-45 years. Prior to the judges was the Exodus of 40 years in the desert. Add these together and we get 2001 B.C. Who was the pharaoh in 2001 B.C.? Sankhkare Mentuhotep III.
 * The region in the delta known as "Ramses" is never spelled the same way as the name of the pharaoh who was "Ramesses". It's always "Ramses", "Raamases" or "Raamses", etc. depending on who writes it.
 * The Pharoah Ramesses I reigned from 1292-1290 B.C. Hatshepsut reigned from 1479-1458 B.C. Akhenaten from 1352-1336 B.C. All of the suggestions, whether the Bible is considered or not, though I don't see how we can discard it since we're talking about a Biblical event, are at the very least 500-700 years too late.
 * The martyr Stephen and the Apostle/martyr Paul in the Biblical book of Acts are good resources. They recount the distress of the Nation of Israel from the slavery in Egypt onward. The aforementioned timeline is also a good resource. Thank you for your time. David (talk) 15:55, 16 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi David. Unfortunately, this Talk page cannot serve as a forum for your own considerations and timeline calculations. Also, the issue is significantly more complex due to the complete lack of extrabiblical historical and archaeological sources and the flaws in currently held chronologies for the period from the 12th to 20th Dynasties. Please find reliable published sources for your ideas and then expand the article accordingly. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 08:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

section:Unnamed Pharaohs
I propose that the following information cited from the Insight on the Scriptures be included under the heading of UnNamed Pharaoh"s. I also think that this heading would be better named Anonymous Pharaoh's as this seems more appropriate for use in an encyclopedia than does UnNamed. Of course the material will need to be rephrased in wording, but the content needs to be kept intact.  The information is:

Because of the confused state of Egyptian chronology (see CHRONOLOGY [Egyptian Chronology]; EGYPT, EGYPTIAN [History]), it is not possible to connect these pharaohs to those of secular history with certainty. These anonymous pharaohs include: The one who tried to take Abraham’s wife Sarah (Ge 12:15-20); the pharaoh who promoted Joseph’s rise to authority (Ge 41:39-46); the pharaoh (or pharaohs) of the period of oppression of the Israelites prior to Moses’ return from Midian (Ex chaps 1, 2); the pharaoh ruling during the Ten Plagues and at the time of the Exodus (Ex 5-14); the father of Bithiah, wife of Mered of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18); the pharaoh who gave asylum to Hadad of Edom in David’s time (1Ki 11:18-22); the father of Solomon’s Egyptian wife (1Ki 3:1); and the pharaoh who struck down Gaza during the days of Jeremiah the prophet (Jer 47:1). Insight on the Scriptures, Vol 2 pd. 624

I know of course that there will be those, who I'll try not to mention by name, who will oppose the inclusion of this valuable information because they do not like the source, however, the material presented is not in dispute as far as I know, unless someone would care to challenge the validity of that information, I feel it should be edited into the article as a necessary improvement to the subheading.Willietell (talk) 05:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it's a valuable suggestion in broad outline. I'd suggest a new section, at the head of the article, maybe called "Overview" or "Egyptian chronology". I'd also suggest that, instead of using Insight on Scriptures as a source (as you say, it's bound to be queried), you simply take the existing lead from Egyptian chronology: "The creation of a reliable chronology of Ancient Egypt is a task fraught with problems. While the overwhelming majority of Egyptologists agree on the outline and many of the details of a common chronology, disagreements either individually or in groups have resulted in a variety of dates offered for rulers and events. This variation begins with only a few years in the Late Period, gradually growing to three decades at the beginning of the New Kingdom, and eventually to as much as a three centuries by the start of the Old Kingdom. The "Conventional Egyptian chronology" is the scholarly consensus, placing the beginning of the Middle Kingdom in the 21st century BC. During the 20th century AD, scholarly consensus regarding the beginning of the Old Kingdom has shifted to earlier dates and is now placed in the 27th century BC."


 * Then maybe a second para dealing with the broad dating of the bible chronology - the bible's internal chronology places the kingdoms of Judah and Israel in the period 1000-586 BC (roughly), but the Exodus is highly contested and uncertain (see the article on the Exodus for sources), and the period of Abraham and Joseph even more so (but appears to be set in the 2nd millennium). Not sure where you'll find sources for that. PiCo (talk) 02:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It would be more accurate to say unidentified or unspecified Pharaohs, because anonymous may incorrectly imply a deliberate effort (on the part of the Bible writers, or of the hypothetical pharaohs, or their contemporaries, or subsequent ancient historians) to hide the identity of the pharaohs (which may be true, but would be speculative). Insight could be used for an undisputed list of pharaohs (i.e., the descriptions of the unnamed pharaohs as given in the quote provided by Willietell) mentioned in the Bible (without the years to which JW chronology assigns them), though other suitable sources for the same information probably also exist. We can't use Insights claim about "the confused state of Egyptian chronology" because of the bias of the alternative JW chronology. (Notably, in its discussion of Egyptian chronology Insight [volume 1, page 450] 'coincidentally' claims that by the Neo-Babylonian period, secular Egyptian chronology is at odds with JW chronology by 20 years&mdash;the same discrepancy for which JW chronology is at odds with all other sources).-- Jeffro' 77 (talk) 10:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * My thought is that it would be of benefit to list the Pharaoh's that are not mentioned by name, but described in some form as the citation above shows, whether we use Unidentified or Anonymous doesn't really matter to me. I think UnNamed is a bad choice and I feel that Unspecified is inaccurate, because they are specified, just not by name.  I don't think it's necessary to link them to a time period, but would suggest linking them to where and how they are mentioned in the scriptures, by either a short bio or by scriptural reference or both. I'm not biting on the other one, we can debate chronology after, we need to start making progress on this article somewhere, so lets save debate over chronology for a later timeWillietell (talk) 19:11, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To specify means to indicate something specific. The pharaohs are unspecified.
 * It would only be appropriate to provide 'a short bio' if such is discussed in reliable secondary sources, as otherwise this would be speculation and original research.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to get into a debate on the English language, we can vote on the wording to be used and I will live with the outcome of that vote. By Bio, I meant a statement indicating how the pharaoh is mentioned in the scriptures, not something requiring original research, simply a statement along the lines of "Another unidentified Pharaoh was the Egyptian king who was the father of Bithiah,  who was the wife of Mered, a member of the tribe of Judah (1Ch 4:18)" .  Something along those lines, so that it doesn't become just a bunch of bullet points making a list, as this would make the reading flow better in my opinion.Willietell (talk) 02:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd go with Unidentified - bit of a storm in a teacup IMO.
 * Shea does identify a pharaoh - he plumps for one of the Tuthmoses - you can look for it, at the end of the reasons he gives for it not being Ramses. He also mentions Hatshepsut and at least one other. The usefulness of this is that it lets us fill out the list a little, AND put a definitely Reliable Source next to it (Shea is a respected scholar and that encyclopedia is widely refenced by other scholars).
 * Look at this by John Walton, another respected source: the Survey of the Old Testament. You'll see that Walton gives an overview of the problems with attempts to identify the time of the Exodus, and breaks it down into two possibilities, a "late date" and an "early date". It's a lovely little summary and we could use it to base our article. Willietell, I'd like you to do this (if you agree), as I think it's valuable for you to learn how Wikipedia articles are written - in brief, we don't make our own arguments (which is what you're doing above), we summarise the views of the entire community of scholars. And Walton is a scholar, and it sure looks to me like he's doing some summarising here, not just presenting his own views. PiCo (talk) 03:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Pharaoh used as a proper name?
Am I mistaken, or do the original language texts of the Bible always use the word Pharaoh as if it was not a title but rather a proper name? It seems to be used always without an article, sometimes combined with the title "the king of Egypt". And when a real proper name is given, it is not said "Pharaoh so-and-so", but rather simply "so-and-so, the king of Egypt". Note also how at the beginning of Exodus it say that there arose "a new king" in Egypt, not "a new Pharaoh". Older English translations such as the KJV seem to preserve this, while some newer do not. (Note: I'm not a KJV-onlyist or anything like that, and this is not supposed to be any kind of religious or ideological point - just an interesting tidbit). -- 21:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.226.89.16 (talk)


 * The Bible does normally use 'Pharaoh' in the same way as a proper name would be used, though in a few passages a personal name is added (Pharaoh Necho, Pharaoh Hophra, see e.g. 2 Kings 23:29, Jeremiah 44:30). A similar case is Rabshakeh, a title that is used in the same manner. - Lindert (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

The controversial Jewish midrash "Sefer haYashar" (referred to as Jasher in English) indicates that in the early days of the Egyptian monarchs, it became customary to change the given name of the new king to Pharaoh. References to the English translation of the Midrash show this clearly. Jasher 14:27-33 gives a story of the first king being given this name. The impact and popularity of this king apparently gave rise to this custom. Later kings changed their pre-dynastic name to Pharaoh in this Midrash as is clearly described at Jasher 58:4,9, Jasher 63:9 and Jasher 77:4. A more modern similarity exists in the Roman empire where Julius Caesar made a similar impact. All subsequent Roman emperors, beginning with nephew Augustus Caesar (originally Gaius Octavius Thurinus) used the name Caesar as both a name and a title. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnathan Steere (talk • contribs) 12:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


 * The early Egyptian kings weren't called Pharaoh - and many of them we only know by their Horus name. There was no changing of names to Pharaoh. I can see why that midrash is controversial. There's no analogy to Caesar.  Doug Weller  talk 15:21, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Sabbah brothers text now at WP:FTN
The Sabbah brothers seem to have no relevant credentials other than to be "the descendants of a long line of rabbis and chief rabbis", at least that's all Amazon says. Some of the edit I removed was also unsourced. Whoever they are, this is both fringe and doesn't have enough significance in terms of discussion in reliable sources to be in the article - see WP:UNDUE. As I've taken this to FTN any discussion should probably be there. Doug Weller talk 16:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Here we are, Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

== Sabbah brothers and Desroches-Noblecourt back here where it belongs

"That is a typical "fringe theory" (Freud's about Akhenaten). However, Champolion and Fabre d'églantine also adopted that fringe theory with more guesses than arguments. However, in their best-seller book Secrets of the Exodus, the two French egyptologists Messod and Roger Sabbah based on various intercultural comparisons to affirm, like the three preceding persons, that the Hebrews originated in the faithful of Akhenaten. Desroches-Noblecourt, the curator in the Egyptian department of the Louvre, also underlined several similarities between Egyptian culture and the Bible. "

But why should Freud be less or more fringe than the other three? And how one of the most renowned egyptologist in the world should be considered unencyclopedic only because she is making intercultural comparisons between Judaism and Egyptian culture, like the preceding personalities.

That removal totally lacks of neutrality."

Now remove the above from the talk page is simply outrageous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk • contribs) 08:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The section formerly known as "unidentified pharaohs"
, : I agree with changing the heading of this section, because "unidentified" does misleadingly imply that these pharaohs were real and could, in theory, be identified if we had more evidence. But "Biblical pharaohs" feels like an awkward choice, because it's virtually redundant with the title of the article. Taharqa et al. are also "biblical" in the sense that the Bible mentions them. "Fictional pharaohs" is, I think, more subtly misleading. The parts of the Bible that mention these pharaohs are really legend, or myth-in-the-academic-sense, which isn't exactly the same as fiction. (The Joseph story has the traits of a work of fiction similar to Egyptian short stories, as Donald B. Redford argues in his analysis of it, but those very traits set it apart from most of the rest of the Bible. And if the Exodus story isn't a myth-in-the-scholarly-sense, nothing in the Bible is.)

My suggestion is to title the section "unnamed pharaohs", as they certainly are unnamed in the text, and I don't think that word carries the same misleading implications as "unidentified". Do either of you disagree? A. Parrot (talk) 20:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Why not mythological pharaohs or legendary pharaohs? The main article is mythological king. Dimadick (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I'd be OK with that, although the mythological king link doesn't seem relevant because the archetype isn't all that applicable to the biblical pharaohs. (The legendary good kings for the Israelites/Hebrews/Jews are David and Solomon.) A. Parrot (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Interesting conundrum. I think unnamed has the same problem. How about Pharaohs only named in the Bible? Although I'm not sure if that's accurate. Doug Weller  talk 10:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * But the Bible doesn't name them; that's why I suggested titling the section "unnamed". If you disagree, though, I favor "legendary". A. Parrot (talk) 16:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Doh, of course. But unnamed still suggests they were actual pharaohs. Doug Weller  talk 17:13, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Then I'd go with "legendary". Does anyone disagree? A. Parrot (talk) 17:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and changed it to "legendary". A. Parrot (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Where's Amenhotep II?
It's not mentioned in the article, and no one even mentioned it in the talk page. Haven't Christian scholars proposed Amenhotep as the Pharaoh of the Exodus? WorldQuestioneer (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to find a reliable source and enhance the article. Please mind that Akhenaten is Amenhotep IV. &#9798; CUSH &#9798; 11:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hypotheses on identity
edit Most scholars do not recognize the biblical portrayal of the Exodus as an actual historical event, Most modern scholars believe that some elements in the story of the Exodus might have some historical basis, but that any such basis has little resemblance to the story told in the Pentateuch.

There isnt much information here other than just listing the source. Can someone include more rationale for why they dont consider the exodus narrative historical? I want to know more information on this. 2600:100F:A110:32BD:57B8:2AA7:821A:6120 (talk) 16:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)


 * No offense, but I mean there are 47 references on this page - did you look at any of them or do a 5 sec Google search of "biblical historicity"? Seems like that either would be good places to start Ckruschke (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)