Ramesses is either the Pharoah of Opression or the Pharoah of Exodus.

How
ever a number of persone are
trying to regect Ramesses as a Pharoah Of Moses, i.e He is neither the
Pharoah of Exodus nor the Pharoah of
Oppression. The have made their arguments in favour of Earier modes of
Exodus etc. !n this page we sha
discuss the arguments against the atter mode of Exodus ,according to which
Ramesses is either a Pharoah of
Opression or a Pharoah Of Exodus.
!t is often tried to shew that "ibica arguments goes against Ramesses and
the atter modes of Exodus.
First Biblical Argument.
#udge !!,$$%$& says%
'hie !srae dwet in Heshbon and her towns, and in (roer and her towns and
in a the cities that be aong
by coast of (rnon,THREE H)*+RE+ years,'hythere fore -e not recovered
them with in that time.
(rgument from the verses is as foow%
.rom Exodus to +weing in Heshon.......................... /0 years.
.rom dweing inHeshon to !epthah .........................100 years.
!f Exodus iccured in $230 ".4.E then !epthah is in $23051/067/0 ".4.E
This is the time of 8oomon and not of #udge !ephthah which ended in $$00
".4.E .
(naysis%
This is an exampe of Extreme 9iteraism.
This argument is based on the foowing pressumptions%
a:Extreme 9iteraism.
b:(dding a atter mode date of Exodus and a date estimmated from eariar
mode Exodus.
c:4onsidering approximation as Exact dates.
(*8'ER8%5
$: !f a atter mode is choosen then a the datings M)8T be re5cacuated
according to the atter mode.
!t is a .(99(4- to use one date from the atter mode and other date from the
earier mode. !t is approximatey
i;e to add centimetre and inches with out conversion.
2: !f a Posterior Mode of Exodus is considered then it wi not ony e<ect the
datings before the Posterior Mode
of Exodus , but aso the datings before it.
1: !t is not =ust the matter of =ust adding a natura number near to 200 or ess
to cacuated dates but to adhest it
propery with in di<erent periods as we as a possibe addition of a number .
One must not commit the faacy of over simpi>cation.
/:Prehistoric dates i;e 4reation of (dam, the ?ood, the tower of "abe are
un;nown and dating them is not
ony improbabe but con=ectures based on very ow and very wea; opinions.
@: !oshuaAs death may have occure with in 20 or 10 years of his conBuest.
8imiary a number of arti>cioay
cacuated years do have such posative or negative errors , and a suitabe
ad=ustment may absorb 200 years
from the con=ectured pre5historic date of (dam to the estimated date of
death of Cind 8oomon.
One May 8ee +ate +i<erences from Eary Modes.
!brahamAs birth...... 2$&D ".4.E or $77& ".4.E.
4a of !braham ..... 207$".4.E or $37& ".4.E
"irth of !saac 20&&".4.E or $37&".4.E
!oseph As death $30@ ".4.E or $303 or $&1& ".4.E
MosesA birth $@2&".4.E or $@D$".4.E
Exodus $//&".4.E or $/7$".4.E
Rue of #udge begens $103,".4.E or$/2D".4.E
Cingship of 8au $07@".4.E or $0/1".4.E
This is a brief account of di<erences ta;ing eary modes as origin.
8o if a ate mode is chosen one must recacuate a the things again , and
200 years can be ad=usted.
( thorough study of ate mode dating may be presented atter. "ut it is
suEcient to ;now the probem,
when datings in eary mosdes di<er, it is impied that the di<wer more
sharpy between an eary mode and a
atter modeA
&:The probems of errors and approximations in caenders
i:The basis of 4hristian cacuation is birth of !esousF!esus, the centra
character of 4hristianity.
!esus !8 O..!4!(99- born in $ (4. "ut he was actuay born in & "4E
approximatey.
(n error of approximatey six years .
ii: (n error of 200 or 2@0 years or any number of years between them is
aways possibe and probabe G both posative or
negative from $ (nno Mundi H(.MI, i.e !n the year of the word.J On may ca
it (nno (dam, !n the year of (dam 6J(.(K, which is more convinientK.
(ccording to some $ (.M Jor (.(K is eBua to /00/ ".4.E (*+ according to
some others it is /02& ".4.E.
'ith such probems (nno+iviution dates are impossibe to cacuate with
certainity. Particuary when human civiiLation
may be oder then these arti>ciay cacuated dates and years. 8o errors
ateast may mount up to severa centuries, not
to mention what they may atmost.
(ny how an error of 200 -E(R8 OR MORE is 4ERT(!*9- is possibe from (dam
to Herode J/00/ ".4.E to @ ".4.EK.
'e have refrain the interva going more cose to (.4 or (.+ of 4hristian Era
then @ ".4.E JOR ".4K for certain cacuative
reasons.
iii: The year of the word which supposingy begens from $(.M 4(**OT "E
EM)(TE+ '!TH any numerica year of any
caender system with certainity as evdent from the earier modes that /00/
".4.E and /02& ".4.E none of them is certain.
see above.There is no historica certainity .There is no (naytica formua
which can convert (.M into ".4.E or (.4 with
with historica certainity, not to mension mathematica certainity.
'ith out any coorrespondence to 4aender 8ystem (.M to 4aender system
(.4 and ".4.E no 4hristoogica date can be
caimed to coorespond to ENO+)8. !. Exodus occured in 2@$1 (.M THE* there
are the foowing probems.
iii,a: !t reBuires a "ibica support but Hebrew "ibe does not support it with
certainity.
iii,b:The corresponding 4hristoogica year in ".4.E is aso not certain. 8o any
date suggested coorresponding to the year
of Exodus is =ust an approximation , with possibe errors may mount to
centuries .
)nder these two uncertainities it is a faacy to caim with cirtitude that
Rammesses was neither the Pharoah of Exodus not
the Pharoah of Oppession.
The cacuations reativey in future to Ramesses is aso not certain . There
uncertainities are based on severa
factors and bases. One of them is the probem of converting 2@$1 (.M into
".4.E with certainity and accuracy.
TH)8%
(ny ob=ection on Ramesses as being the Pharoah of
Exodus or Opression from the arti>ciay cacuated future dates are =ust
approximations, which may be bad or not,
but never certain.!f some what good even then neither certain nor exact and
aso not with out errors.
To caim some thing with certainity based on Probabiities is a 9ogica faacy.(
caim based on probabe arguments cannot
be certain.!t is then the matter of preferring one probabiity over the other.
How ever the most probabe candidate
is Ramesses then the rest of his riva candidates . Those who choose
Thatmose etc must note that these are aso probabe
candidates. To prefer one probabe candidate over other probabe candidates
is one thing and to caim that one of the
probabe candidate as certain is an other thing and this second thing is a
faacy.However some one accept that whome he
chooses is =ust probabe but not certain, then he is correct ateast in
principe.
D: The di<erences in dating Pharoahs may mount up to centuries.Egyptoogy
cannot eiminate these errors .
i:Egyptian did not record events uncompimentary to Egypt.
They often intervine the records of a prior Pharoah if it dispeased the ruing
Pharoah.Their records neither shew
!sreitesA settement nor Exodus as if these events never occured in Egypt.
8o if Ramesses was the Pharoah of Exodus or the Pharoah of Oppression , the
cooresponding years in (.M system
or in ".4.E. system is impossibe to be found with certainity. (n error of
severa years may be found in the coorresponding ".4.E
system or in (.M 8ystem.
3: 9unar 4aender and its probems.
i: ( "ibica year is not of 1&@ or 1&& days. 8o the di<erence may mount of to
few years from (dam to 8oomon.
ii:( "ibica year is a unar year which has 1@/ days in a year. Probem of
unation from (dam to 8oomon is certain,
which do cause uncertainities. These impies errors in conversion from unar
to soar caenders. They may mount up to
a signi>cant number in a ong period of time.
iii: !n every cyce of $7 years an extra eap month caed ,,,,,,,,is added
seven times. "ut it is not certain when
this practice began. There might be some probems and errors before the
addition of a eap month.
iv:There is no standerdiLed form of #ewish caender before /th century of
4OMMO* ER( J4.(K.
(ny thing before it is certainy not certain. Errors cannot be eiminated even
after the 4OMMO* ER( .
They may mount up to ma;e probems.
There are two common era 4aenders but even based upon them
approximations cannot be converted into exactness and
errors may mount to a century .
7: .or a sa;e of an argument et the $st year of the word is eBua to /000
"4E. 9et in 2@00 years there is an error of 200
years ony . 8o error per year is cacuated as foow%
!n 2@00 years the error is of 200 years
!n $ year the error is of 200F2@00 years.
!t may be seen how sma errors mount up to centuries. This is not pecuar to
pre Exodus period, but is aso for
Post Exodus periods.
$0:)pti now we were discussing the dating probem considering 100 as a
natura number . there are two possibiities%
a: !t may itsef "E an appoximation. There might remain some years from
the reign of 8ou TO the victory of
!efthah.
b: 100 years may be an arti>cia cacuation whic may be eBua to @
generations each of &0 years.
&0O@6100
+r. "urney has pointed out in !sraeAs settement in 4annon , that the period
from Exodus to the "uiding of tempe,
in Cing 8oomonAs time is based on an arti>cia cacuation, tweve
Penerations each of /0 years.
$2O/06/30. !;ing%&%$
8imiary !n #udges , the cacuation is aso arti>cia and but >ve generation
each of &0 years, a more natura approach by
the author of #udges then the author of !Cing.
*ote% Extremists in iteraist groups consider an interpretation incorrect =ust
because it is not the itera meaning.
To deney a itera meaning is beieved to be the dinia of the verse of "ibe
itsef. This is incorrect.
a: To deny the itera meaning of a verse of a Hebraic "ibe is not to deny the
verse of the "ibe.
b:!t may be the case that to ta;e a itera meaning of a Qerse is incorrect and
to interpret it is correct.
"ut Extreme iteraism beieves that to discard a itera meaning is incorrect
with certainity , even if an interpretation is
based on powerfu reasoning.To them any reasoning whosoever strong is
incorrect =ust because it is not iteraism.
8uch an extremism is deady fata to "ibica studies."ut it may attract a ay
man who does not have any idea of
!nterpretation, and consider every verse in Hebraic "ibe is =ust in its itera
meaning or an Extremist who thin;s
any interpretation which is other than the itera meaning is incorrect =ust
because it is not the itera meaning.
$$: The number 100 is either exact or aproximate. !f aproximate then it is a
proof that it cannot be ta;en iteray even
if there is a number which to which it is very cose and which may be
considered perfect by these iteraists.
!f exact then one have to substract number one to ma;e it 277 years or to
add some days or months to ma;e it perfect.
!n either case the argument from iteraism is destroyed.
$2: ( number of answers wi be discussed with !Cing%&
4O*49)8!O*
The argument based on that Remesses !! is neither the Pharoah of Opression
nor the Pharoah of
Exodus is not correct. Even on the groundsof pure iteraism. "ut not from the
point of view of (ngican researchers
etc. !t may be said that !f Opression or Exodus are shifted from THE PER!O+
O. Tatmosis !!! to Ramesses!!, then a the dates
afterwords must be re5cacuated, not by =ust adding a >x number but by >ne
ad=estments.
8ome probems of the above argument are discussed as foow%5
!f !ephtah reigned as a #udge for & years then the period is cacuated
arti>ciay as from $$$& ".4.E tp $$$0 ".4.E.
!f $/7@ ".4.E is ta;en as the year of Exodus then $/7@51/06$$@@ ".4.E.
This means !ephtah rued 17 years before $$$& ".4.E
!t is =ust i;e to say that second word war between Preat "ritain and
Permany began in $700 (.4 17 -E(R8 "E.ORE
$717 (.4 , $/ years before the .irst Preat 'ar between Preat "ritain and
Permany.
This does prove that these cacuations are =ust approximations and
probabities, some time bad, some time not bad
some time cose to good. "ut never certain and never exact.
8ome have tried to shift the goa post and caimed that !ephtah reigned from
$$/1".4.E to$$1D".4.E.
"ut even this is not correct.$$@@ is at east $2 years before $$/1.
!f $//@".4.E is ta;en as a new date for Eary mode of Exodus then $//@5
1/06$$0@, after the death of !ephtah whether
the #udge !ephtah died in $$$0".4.E or $$1D ".4.E. 'ith these probems the
advocates of the Eary Mode Theory may try
to re5cacuate an other date for the death of !ephtah. "ut if Eary Modeists of
Exodus have this right, a simiar right
is possessed by 9ate Modeists of Exodus. To caim that such rights are ony
possesed by Eary Modeists is unacceptabe,
is iogica,and cannever be accepted as a true schoarship.
(n ob=ection%
!t is argued that !ephtahF!ephthah is internationay ta;ing and in such a ta;
he cannot ta; in words which reBuires
interpretation.
( direct responce to this type of argument is that is a type of begging the
argument. !t is presupposed that !ephthahF
!ephtah cannot ta; as such. !s there a vese in the entire Text of Hbrew "ibe
that !t is a rue that such ta;s is strongy
prohabitted by Pod Of !srae in internationa ta;s. !t must be noted that such
the word !nternationa must not be ta;en in
present context. !esphah new the best how to ta;, and peope of our time
have to authority over the #udge !ephthah
to suggest how to ta; and how not to ta;. !s this type of reasoning "ibica in
any sense of "ibica reasonings.,,
Second Biblical Argument.
!Cings%&%$
(nd it come to pass in the .O)R H)*+RE+ (*+ E!PHT!ETH year after
chidren of !srae were comeout of the and of
Egypt in the .O)RTH year of 8oomonAs reign over !srae in the month of Rif
which is the 8E4O*+ month, that he began to
buid the House Of 9ord.
(rgument from the Qerse is as foow%
!f one add /D7 to any one of the dates of Exodus as according to atter
modes, one goes after the death of 8oomon.
(naysis%
/30 years are directy added to the aeged dates of Exodus as according to
any suitabe eary mode of Exodus
to ma;e a number for the -ear of the buiding of Tempe mensioned above.
8ome ta;e it as /D7 years and consider the /30th year as incompete. 8ome
may ta;e it as /30 compete years
and ta;e /3$st year as incompete.
4riticism% Once again it is the addition of two di<erent types of unsumabe
units.One cacuated from the eary mode of
Exodus and other the date of 9ate mode of Exodus.This is based on Extreme
iteraism.However even extreme iteraism
does not aow such a faacy. This deiberatey negects that the years of
reign of Cing 8oomon are cacuated from the
eary modes of Exodus and are added to the date of Exodus of ate modes.
!t is some what i;e to add !nches and
centimetres with out any conversion .
(*8'ER8%5
$: The verse of #udges cannot be ta;en iteray.The ength of time from
Exodus to the buiding of tempe cannot be
correct in itera meaning.
8ee % ( *ew 4ommentary On Hoy 8criptures Jby a number of (ngican
8choars.K
a: !t seems cear that the +euteronomic editer has not arranged the od triba
traditions which he based his narratives
in any chronoogica order, and we cannot therefore,date thesuccession of
events with any certainity.
(s +r. "erney has pointed out J!sraeitAs 8ettement !n 4annonKthe period of
.O)R H)*+RE+ (*+ E!PHT- years from
Exodus to the buiding of Tempe in 8oomonsAs .O)TH year J!Cings%&5$K is
based on the (RT!.!4!(9 device of re;coning
by T'E9QE generation of eaders from Moses to +avid, aowing .ORT- years
to a generation.
Page%$77G#udges by 9.E.P Erith. ( *ew 4ommentary on Hoy 8criptures.
J9ondonG 8O4!ET- .OR PROMOT!*P 4HR!8T!(*
8T)+!E8G K.
*ote this 4ommentary is written by (ngican 8choars.
One may add that what so ever is said for +euteromic editers is aso true for
the #udgian EditersFRedactors.
Ji.e EditersFReadactors of #udgesK .
b: The same commentary says%5
i: AA !t is thus cear that "oo; Of #eshua !T 8E9. does not contain a consistent
record.AA
ii: AAThe boo; of #eshua and #udges shoud be studied togather because they
are parae, not consecutive histories of
an importand period....AA.
One may add that "oo; Of #udges in Hebraic "ibe aso does not contain
consistent record as its riva "oo; #eshua aso
does not.
2:The same commentary says%5
AA The date given here is unfortunatey ony reative and as the date of
Exodus is in dispute ,and there are reasons
for beieving that /30 is a rough estimate founded upon a tradition that
T'E9QE generation seperated from Exodus....AA
This means that it is incorrect to argue from the itera meaning of .O)R
H)*+RE+ (*+ E!PHT- -E(R8. !t may be interpreted
otherwise.(so an od tradition eiminates the certainity of itera
commentary ,if it does not eiminates its probabiity.
(t this pace of discussion it is enough to point out that a itera meaning is
not certain, even for sa;e of an argument it
is probabe.
1:The numbers of years in Hebraic "ibe maybe considered as something
reBuiring interpretations as a genera rue.
They does not need any demand from context for their interpretations in
genera.
Exampe% Exodus %$2%/05/$ says that chidren of !srae ived in Egypt for /10
years."ut a number of schoars opine that
they ived in Egypt ony for 2$@ years. They divided the number /10 by 2.
!f so then the simiar things may be done with the number /30. !t may be
ta;en as 2/0.
There are some simiar possibiities. !t may be said that the begining of /30
years may not be considered from the Exact
day of practica Exodus but from the day Pod Of !srae ordered Moses for
Exodus. !t is extreme form of iterism to
ta;e the exact day of practica Exodus.
/: ( very posative and de>nite proof of the necessicity of an !nterpretation of
this itera meaning is that even Extreme
9iteraism is compeed to !nterpret the verse and to excude $ year. They
change the *atura number /30 to another
number /D7. They ta;e one year as the fractiona part.Thus this number
reBuires an interpretation from the popint of
view of pure and extreme iteraism. Once the need of interpretation is proved
and the itera meaning is discarded,
then their is *o such rue to choose an interpretation which is cosest to the
itera meaning. 8uch a rue if caimed
is =ust proo?ess.
@: 4acuation of the years of +avid and 8oomon are arti>cia cacuations
based on any one of the eary mode of
Exodus. !f a ate mode of Exodus is ta;en one must have to cacuate new
dates for each one of them.
&:( the answers may given against the argument incorrecty based on
#udges may pease be considered again.
*OTE8%5
i: 4apataiLation in Buatations may not be in origina contents.
2: The etter # is changed to Pure 9atin 9etter AA!AA !n the above discussion in
genera.
However this is not done in Buatations, where ''J'' is conserved .
To change # be - conserves the - sound yet changes the speing. "ut the
origin of 9etter # is AA!AA .
AA !AA acts i;e a semi vowe in origina 9atin which sounds i;e - when it
begins a syabe, and it is a Qowe when
it does not. !n Perman AA#AA sounds i;e AA-AA.!t has conserved its origina
consonenta sound.
!n !.P.( AA =AA sounds i;e -, and sound of # as in Modren Engish is represented
by
d3 in I.P.A.
To change J by I is far more better then to change J by Y , as done by some scholars. For it is nothing but
back to origin.
3] All the uotations of the mensioned abo!e commentary are co"ied from "ersonal notes. As the books is
not #ith the author
right no# one is reuested to study the !ery book himself$herself. Possibility of some errors #hile making
notes cannot be ruled out.
It #ould ha!e been far better if the auther had the book right no# so a final com"arision #hold ha!e been
made bet#een the co"ied
notes and the book.
%o# e!er It is reuested that the sense is almost conser!ed id some error e&ists.