This is a very concise and quite convincing summary of arguments for Amenhotep II (Amenophis), son of Tuthmoses III as the pharao during the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt:
Rohl makes an equally compelling case for the identification of Khenophres Sobekhotep IV as Moses' adoptive father-in-law, and Dudimose as the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exodus: Myth or History, pp. 131-149; 375-378). In my humble opinion, however, though there is very strong and convincing evidence for the Israelite Exodus from slavery in Egypt, I don't believe there is enough evidence to link this event to a specific Pharaoh, which is why I'm open to a variety of options.
Moses was probably the adoptive son of 'Pharao's daughter' Hatshepsut, sister of Tuthmosis III. Amenhotep II of 15th cent b.c. (Amenophis, acc. to Berossus as quotes by Flavius Josephus) was most likely the Pharao at the time of Israel's exodus.
In an extant Hittite treaty, the name of Ramesses II is written as "Riamashisha" which make's Rohl's view plausible in my book. Why do you think he's wrong about this identification?
I like your approach. I found Christopher Eames sum.of arguments a lot more convincing than David Rohl's on that specific matter.
Josephus (and others) regarded Amenophis (Amenhotep) as the pharao an the time of the Exodus. And he viewed Israel as the Hyksos. The Egyptian accounts and traditions regarding Israel are assumably distorted.
To say it is too much assumes the current paradigm (i.e., disbelief is rooted in prior trust/belief). I think Rohl has made a reasonable case for questioning the entire Egyptian timeline, which is why his views are plausible to me. At this point, however, I don't go much beyond plausibility to specific identification. I'm not a specialist, so I remain open to different theories.
Less than a decade after Solomon’s death, Osorkon proudly recorded on a granite pillar in the Temple of Bubastis [...] that he had gifted to the many and various temples of Egypt at least 383 tons of silver and gold!
Where could Osorkon obtain such treasure so early into his reign? World renowned Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen says that the most logical source was the treasure his father had looted from Jerusalem. Says Kitchen, “Barely five years earlier, Osorkon’s father Shishak had looted the wealth of Jerusalem. It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence that almost immediately after that event Osorkon could dispose so freely of so much gold and silver. The vast amounts of Solomon’s golden wealth may have ended up, at least in part, as Osorkon’s gift to the gods and goddesses of Egypt.”
But God sent Shishak, king of Egypt, to punish them for their unjust behavior towards him. ...
Now therefore when he fell upon the country of the Hebrews, he took the strongest cities of Rehoboam’s kingdom without fighting; and when he had put garrisons in them, he came last of all to Jerusalem” (Antiquities of the Jews, 8.10.2)
Why would they write Ramesses as Shishaq (not Shisha) when he is written Ramesses in Genesis and Exodus?
Josephus does appear to refer to Shishak and Ramasses as separate individuals, which is worth considering. Rohl would likely respond by saying that he too was confused, due to a spelling error. At one point in paleo Hebrew, the waw was drawn like a lolipop which was nearly identical to the qoph — which confused later scribes. Thus when old copies were read, Shisha looked to them like Shishaq. See pages 64-69 of Exodus: Myth or History.
Ramesses date of accession to the throne is recorded as III Shemu, day 27, which most Egyptologists believe to be 31 May 1279 BC.[13][14]
The Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem which included material from Manetho's Aegyptiaca, assigned Ramesses II ("Armesses Miamun") a reign of 66 years, 2 months.[18] This is essentially confirmed by the calendar of Papyrus Gurob fragment L, where Year 67, I Akhet day 18 of Ramesses II is immediately followed by Year 1, II Akhet day 19 of Merneptah (Ramesses II's son), meaning Ramesses II died about 2 months into his 67th Regnal year.[19]
Excellent episode.
This is a very concise and quite convincing summary of arguments for Amenhotep II (Amenophis), son of Tuthmoses III as the pharao during the time of the exodus of Israel from Egypt:
https://armstronginstitute.org/882-who-was-the-pharaoh-of-the-exodus
Rohl makes an equally compelling case for the identification of Khenophres Sobekhotep IV as Moses' adoptive father-in-law, and Dudimose as the Pharaoh of the Exodus (Exodus: Myth or History, pp. 131-149; 375-378). In my humble opinion, however, though there is very strong and convincing evidence for the Israelite Exodus from slavery in Egypt, I don't believe there is enough evidence to link this event to a specific Pharaoh, which is why I'm open to a variety of options.
Scott Allan Roberts wrote an interesting book about this Senenmut (Mother's Brother) as the Moses of his Egyptian days.
https://armstronginstitute.org/1041-is-this-moses
Moses was probably the adoptive son of 'Pharao's daughter' Hatshepsut, sister of Tuthmosis III. Amenhotep II of 15th cent b.c. (Amenophis, acc. to Berossus as quotes by Flavius Josephus) was most likely the Pharao at the time of Israel's exodus.
Unfortunately, David is wrong with the identification of Pharao Shishak with Ramses II.
That lead him to his chronological salto mortale.
He, however, was so enlightening with the interpretation of the discoveries of Avaris (as lead by Bietak).
In an extant Hittite treaty, the name of Ramesses II is written as "Riamashisha" which make's Rohl's view plausible in my book. Why do you think he's wrong about this identification?
I like David Rohl. To shift Ramses II by 300 years into the 9th century, that is simply too much.
And there was a famine in Abraham's days, which lead him to Egypt, and there was one about 200 years later, when Joseph was in Egypt
I like your approach. I found Christopher Eames sum.of arguments a lot more convincing than David Rohl's on that specific matter.
Josephus (and others) regarded Amenophis (Amenhotep) as the pharao an the time of the Exodus. And he viewed Israel as the Hyksos. The Egyptian accounts and traditions regarding Israel are assumably distorted.
To say it is too much assumes the current paradigm (i.e., disbelief is rooted in prior trust/belief). I think Rohl has made a reasonable case for questioning the entire Egyptian timeline, which is why his views are plausible to me. At this point, however, I don't go much beyond plausibility to specific identification. I'm not a specialist, so I remain open to different theories.
Less than a decade after Solomon’s death, Osorkon proudly recorded on a granite pillar in the Temple of Bubastis [...] that he had gifted to the many and various temples of Egypt at least 383 tons of silver and gold!
Where could Osorkon obtain such treasure so early into his reign? World renowned Egyptologist Kenneth Kitchen says that the most logical source was the treasure his father had looted from Jerusalem. Says Kitchen, “Barely five years earlier, Osorkon’s father Shishak had looted the wealth of Jerusalem. It seems unlikely to be a mere coincidence that almost immediately after that event Osorkon could dispose so freely of so much gold and silver. The vast amounts of Solomon’s golden wealth may have ended up, at least in part, as Osorkon’s gift to the gods and goddesses of Egypt.”
This seems reasonable to me.
Josephus writes:
But God sent Shishak, king of Egypt, to punish them for their unjust behavior towards him. ...
Now therefore when he fell upon the country of the Hebrews, he took the strongest cities of Rehoboam’s kingdom without fighting; and when he had put garrisons in them, he came last of all to Jerusalem” (Antiquities of the Jews, 8.10.2)
Why would they write Ramesses as Shishaq (not Shisha) when he is written Ramesses in Genesis and Exodus?
https://armstronginstitute.org/1149-the-egyptian-empire-strikes-back-evidence-of-shishaks-invasion-of-judah
Josephus does appear to refer to Shishak and Ramasses as separate individuals, which is worth considering. Rohl would likely respond by saying that he too was confused, due to a spelling error. At one point in paleo Hebrew, the waw was drawn like a lolipop which was nearly identical to the qoph — which confused later scribes. Thus when old copies were read, Shisha looked to them like Shishaq. See pages 64-69 of Exodus: Myth or History.
Josephus knows who Ramses II was:
Ramesses date of accession to the throne is recorded as III Shemu, day 27, which most Egyptologists believe to be 31 May 1279 BC.[13][14]
The Jewish historian Josephus, in his book Contra Apionem which included material from Manetho's Aegyptiaca, assigned Ramesses II ("Armesses Miamun") a reign of 66 years, 2 months.[18] This is essentially confirmed by the calendar of Papyrus Gurob fragment L, where Year 67, I Akhet day 18 of Ramesses II is immediately followed by Year 1, II Akhet day 19 of Merneptah (Ramesses II's son), meaning Ramesses II died about 2 months into his 67th Regnal year.[19]
It is really not likely Shishak was Ramses
Since an Isreal trip may be a ways off... thoughts on an Egypt Tour, with David Rohl as a guide?
We're considering a bunch of options at the moment. We may be able to schedule an Israel trip within a year or so, we'll see.