Rameses II And The Exodus: A Case Of Mistaken Identity
Abstract
This chapter focuses on reading a narrative familar with identity of the various pharaohs of the early chapters of Exodus, the date of the Exodus, or even the historical factuality of the recorded events. It locates the canonical setting and the Bible's own historical background of the three major parts of the larger narrative (namely, the oppression, the Moses birth narrative, and the Exodus). The chapter addresses traditional understandings based on the interpretation of extra-biblical sources. It demonstrates that the biblical portrayal is at odds with the consensus model. The pharaoh of the original oppression would therefore have been someone other then Rameses, perhaps Amosis, the founder of Dynasty 18, or one of the Thutmosides. The king of Egypt of verse 15 (Rameses II by the consensus view) carried the program of oppression further by commanding the extermination of newborn male children. Keywords: Exodus narrative; Moses birth narrative; pharaoh; Rameses II
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
- Authors
- Merrill, E. H.
- Corresponding author
- Merrill, Eugene H.
- Venue
- Homeland and Exile
- Publisher
- BRILL
- Published
- 2010-01-01
- Pages
- 533-545
- OpenAlex
- W915434187
- Semantic Scholar
- 41fd3e041548ceffa09525ceacfe54664869a834
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- BRILL eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Biblical Studies and Interpretation
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology › Ancient Egypt and Archaeology
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Classical Antiquity Studies
- Keywords
- Ramesses II, Exodus narrative, biblical historiography, consensus model, biblical chronology
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review