Rameses: Wrath of God or Man?

[ChrisChillin]

So last night was the 2-hour Discovery Channel special on Rameses II's firstborn son. It was a typical example of what modern "documentaries" are like. The makers developed a fascinating premise but then just ran all over town with it - I don't think I've ever seen such rampant speculation and fictional storytelling stuffed into a theoretically educational program. "Rameses" had a lot of promise but I think it's the Discovery Channel's equivalent to the movie "Alexander" in that despite all the hype it comes out only as a so-so production.

The show was narrated by Morgan Freeman and it followed the work of Egyptologist Kent Weeks, who has been excavating a massive tomb complex in the Valley of the Kings called KV5 that he discovered in 1995. Weeks believes he has found the skull belonging to RII's firstborn son Amun-her-knepeshef. The skull shows an indentation indicating it received a severe blow to the back of the head that would have killed the person. Forensic analysis indicates a male in his thirties, while facial reconstruction shows distinct similarities to the reconstruction of RII's face.

The documentary also follows in tandem the progress of an investigative journalist looking for evidence of the Exodus. Along the way he visits the temples of Karnak and Abu Simbel and examines the reliefs depicting the Battle of Kadesh. The point is made on the program that pharaohs did not report defeats, or covered them up. Kadesh is a case in point, in which a battle that historians would say was a draw is reported in one relief as a great Egyptian victory, while another relief details the peace treaty signed between the Hittites and Egyptians. The journalist also travels to the Cairo Museum where he examines the Merneptah Stele, which is the only Egyptian reference to the people of Israel, and the statuary of the heretical Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Through it all the program pieces together an unsubstantiated hypothetical story. Moses was a member of the royal household who practiced the vilified monotheistic worship of Aten. Meanwhile, Amun-her-knepeshef was promoted to general of Pharaoh's armies when his father was elevated to godhood on the thirtieth anniversary of his reign. When Moses returned from the exile, he took advantage of a series of natural disasters occurring in Egypt (the "plagues") to persuade the aging Rameses to free the Hebrews and let them leave under his leadership. Amun-her-knepeshef, however, was incensed, and pursued the Hebrew forces to the reed marshes (the "Red Sea") at the border between Egypt and Sinai. However, the marshes provided the perfect opportunity for an ambush, for chariots would have become bogged down. Moses led his slave army to rout the chariot corps, and in battle Amun-her-knepeshef received his blow and was killed.

Of course, there are so many holes or problems with this construction. First of all, there is no certain evidence that the skull that has been discovered belongs to Amun-her-knepeshef. Second, the whole plot line of the program is complete speculation. I don't mind it if one wants to look for a naturalistic explanation of the Exodus story, but at least one should look for controlling data so one isn't spinning a tale of one's own imagination. Sure, the premise is theoretically possible, but where is the positive evidence that Moses was a worshiper of Aten, or that Amun-her-knepeshef was killed in a battle on Egypt's borders, etc etc? I hope that future documentaries will do better than this.

[elysian]

I agree, it was most speculative. My two major questions were:

If "skull #2" was Amun-her-knepeshef, (and we're not really sure of that, even though the facial reconstruction does bear resemblance to Rameses' face- if that's really Rameses, even) then who's to say the skull fracture didn't occur after death or during the embalming process? He could have rolled off a cart or table after he was dead and landed on something.

Who's to say Rameses didn't have a son before Amun-her-knepeshef who died very young? Infant mortality was extremely high in those days- is it possible that a child would need to reach a certain age before any mention was made of him/her? Exodus does not give exact dates. What's thirty or forty years when you're dealing with 5,000 year old remains? Do we even know the Pharoah in question during the Exodus was Rameses?

I wasn't particularly impressed by this documentary either.

[yxboom]

So last night was the 2-hour Discovery Channel special on Rameses II's firstborn son. It was a typical example of what modern "documentaries" are like. The makers developed a fascinating premise but then just ran all over town with it - I don't think I've ever seen such rampant speculation and fictional storytelling stuffed into a theoretically educational program. "Rameses" had a lot of promise but I think it's the Discovery Channel's equivalent to the movie "Alexander" in that despite all the hype it comes out only as a so-so production.

The show was narrated by Morgan Freeman and it followed the work of Egyptologist Kent Weeks, who has been excavating a massive tomb complex in the Valley of the Kings called KV5 that he discovered in 1995. Weeks believes he has found the skull belonging to RII's firstborn son Amun-her-knepeshef. The skull shows an indentation indicating it received a severe blow to the back of the head that would have killed the person. Forensic analysis indicates a male in his thirties, while facial reconstruction shows distinct similarities to the reconstruction of RII's face.

The documentary also follows in tandem the progress of an investigative journalist looking for evidence of the Exodus. Along the way he visits the temples of Karnak and Abu Simbel and examines the reliefs depicting the Battle of Kadesh. The point is made on the program that pharaohs did not report defeats, or covered them up. Kadesh is a case in point, in which a battle that historians would say was a draw is reported in one relief as a great Egyptian victory, while another relief details the peace treaty signed between the Hittites and Egyptians. The journalist also travels to the Cairo Museum where he examines the Merneptah Stele, which is the only Egyptian reference to the people of Israel, and the statuary of the heretical Pharaoh Akhenaten.

Through it all the program pieces together an unsubstantiated hypothetical story. Moses was a member of the royal household who practiced the vilified monotheistic worship of Aten. Meanwhile, Amun-her-knepeshef was promoted to general of Pharaoh's armies when his father was elevated to godhood on the thirtieth anniversary of his reign. When Moses returned from the exile, he took advantage of a series of natural disasters occurring in Egypt (the "plagues") to persuade the aging Rameses to free the Hebrews and let them leave under his leadership. Amun-her-knepeshef, however, was incensed, and pursued the Hebrew forces to the reed marshes (the "Red Sea") at the border between Egypt and Sinai. However, the marshes provided the perfect opportunity for an ambush, for chariots would have become bogged down. Moses led his slave army to rout the chariot corps, and in battle Amun-her-knepeshef received his blow and was killed.

Of course, there are so many holes or problems with this construction. First of all, there is no certain evidence that the skull that has been discovered belongs to Amun-her-knepeshef. Second, the whole plot line of the program is complete speculation. I don't mind it if one wants to look for a naturalistic explanation of the Exodus story, but at least one should look for controlling data so one isn't spinning a tale of one's own imagination. Sure, the premise is theoretically possible, but where is the positive evidence that Moses was a worshiper of Aten, or that Amun-her-knepeshef was killed in a battle on Egypt's borders, etc etc? I hope that future documentaries will do better than this.

Great special effects. Too bad that about sums up all that was worthwhile watching. I was looking forward to the speculations so my expectations were for, not against the program.
There were so many things critique worthy I will only address those that stood out. A major fault I found early on was (one that Dreamworks interestingly didn't make with Prince Of Egypt), it assumed that Ramses II (the Pharaoh that "raised" Moses) was the reigning Pharaoh at the time of the Israelite exodus. Exodus 2:15 states that Pharaoh sought to kill Moses when he fled to Midian and then in Exodus 3:19 God tells Moses that the ones who sought to kill Moses in Egypt have died. So the reigning Pharaoh would not have been Moses' adopted father but a descendant. Had the evidence actually been true that Amun-her-knepeshef was murdered fits wonderfully with the Biblical account since the Pharaoh that reigned was not slain by the 10th plague that took the lives of all the firstborn sons, indictating that the reigning Pharaoh was not a firstborn. So the Pharaoh that let the Israelites go and lost his firstborn could not have been Ramses II or Amun-her-knepeshef as they were both firstborn sons themselves and would not have been spared by the final plague.
Two things that were noteworthy in their speculation list of how an Ethiopian drought led to the plagues were the plagues affected all of Egypt except Goshen (which Exodus 9:7 states that Pharaoh also found out for himself) and the complete omission of the plague of gnats.
The speculation regarding the death of Amun-her-knepeshef due to a battle with the Israelites was that the death of the firstborn was the cause of the Israelite's leaving not a result. They really messed that one up. At that point I had to seriously consider if these "biblical experts" had even read the Bible.

[furay]

The 'trailer' for this program looked like pure cheese. Glad to see I didn't miss much.

[shunyadragon]

Great special effects. Too bad that about sums up all that was worthwhile watching. I was looking forward to the speculations so my expectations were for, not against the program.

The speculation regarding the death of Amun-her-knepeshef due to a battle with the Israelites was that the death of the firstborn was the cause of the Israelite's leaving not a result. They really messed that one up. At that point I had to seriously consider if these "biblical experts" had even read the Bible.

I agree that the program was highly speculative, but so is the Bible account. The program leaps over weak turf and treads in swampy ground to try and link weak Biblical evidence to weak archeological evidence.

In reality there is not any significant. if any at all, evidence for Moses and absolutely no evidence for Exodus and the invasion of Cannan. The Bible books lacks any documented writen evidence before ~100 BC to ~100 CE, and the best extrapulated evidence only goes back maybe three to six hundred years earlier.

In contrast Babylonian writings and Gilgamesh are far older and better documented with tablets in stone and clay.

[ChrisChillin]

[Sacrificial Ram]

I agree that the program was highly speculative, but so is the Bible account. The program leaps over weak turf and treads in swampy ground to try and link weak Biblical evidence to weak archeological evidence.

In reality there is not any significant. if any at all, evidence for Moses and absolutely no evidence for Exodus and the invasion of Cannan. The Bible books lacks any documented writen evidence before ~100 BC to ~100 CE, and the best extrapulated evidence only goes back maybe three to six hundred years earlier.

In contrast Babylonian writings and Gilgamesh are far older and better documented with tablets in stone and clay.

They did have 'explainations' on why the exodus was not recorded. I found those "explainations" strained at the very best, and totally unsatisfactory.

[ChrisChillin]

Those pesky Amorites must not have existed either.

[runtmc2jc]

I agree that the program was highly speculative, but so is the Bible account. The program leaps over weak turf and treads in swampy ground to try and link weak Biblical evidence to weak archeological evidence.

In reality there is not any significant. if any at all, evidence for Moses and absolutely no evidence for Exodus and the invasion of Cannan. The Bible books lacks any documented writen evidence before ~100 BC to ~100 CE, and the best extrapulated evidence only goes back maybe three to six hundred years earlier.

In contrast Babylonian writings and Gilgamesh are far older and better documented with tablets in stone and clay.

actually there are at least three ancient egyptian sources/archeological evidences which many think support the biblical narrative of the exodus.

1. the Papyrus Ipuwer (Museum of Leiden - Netherlands)
2. the monolith of el-Arish (Museum of Ismailia)
3. the Ermitage Papyrus (the Ermitage - Leningrad)

[shunyadragon]

actually there are at least three ancient egyptian sources/archeological evidences which many think support the biblical narrative of the exodus.

1. the Papyrus Ipuwer (Museum of Leiden - Netherlands)
2. the monolith of el-Arish (Museum of Ismailia)
3. the Ermitage Papyrus (the Ermitage - Leningrad)

'May think support' is a stretch. These references illude to something, but vagueness takes over from that point.

The question 'God or man', actually misses a third alternative. A catastrophic drought, which perodically devastates Egypt and other civilizations of the world. The plagues attributed to God's wrath are actually symtomatic of what happens when a catastrophic world drought occurs. I have illuded to this in another thread in archeology, and understanding the cycle of these droughts and when they occured may help to date the historical events the stories about Moses and Exodus are based on.

[runtmc2jc]

'May think support' is a stretch. These references illude to something, but vagueness takes over from that point.

The question 'God or man', actually misses a third alternative. A catastrophic drought, which perodically devastates Egypt and other civilizations of the world. The plagues attributed to God's wrath are actually symtomatic of what happens when a catastrophic world drought occurs. I have illuded to this in another thread in archeology, and understanding the cycle of these droughts and when they occured may help to date the historical events the stories about Moses and Exodus are based on.

let's try on your contention of 'vagueness' by comparing the ipuwer payprus with the biblical narrative. (from Alan H. Gardiner translation "The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage from a Hieratic Papyrus in Leiden" as quoted by velikovsky in Ages in Chaos p 26-37.

Payprus 2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere.
Exodus 7:21 ... there was blood throughout all the land of Egypt.

Papyrus 2:10 The river is blood.
Exodus 7:20 ... all the waters that were in the river were turned to blood

Papyrus 2:10 Men shrink from tasting - human beings, and thirst
after water.
Exodus 7:24 And all the Egyptians digged round about the river
for water to drink; for they could not drink of the
water of the river.

Papyrus 4:14 Trees are destroyed
Papyrus 6:1 no fruit nor herbs are found
Exodus 9:25 ... and the hail smote every herb of the field,
and brake every tree of the field. (Ps 105:38)

Papyrus 2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are
consumed by fire.
Exodus 9:23-24 ...the fire ran along upon the ground...
there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail,
very grievous.

Papyrus 10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps...the entire palace is without
its revenues. To it belong (by right) wheat and barley,
geese and fish.
Exodus 9:31-32 ...the flax and the barley were smitten: for the barley
was in the ear, and the flax was boiled. But the wheat
and the rye were not smitten. for they were not grown
up.
Exodus 10:15 ...there remained not any green thing in the trees or
in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt.
Papyrus 6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side.
Papyrus 5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which yesterday was seen.
the land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of
flax.
Papyrus 6:1 No fruit nor herbs are found... hunger.

Papyrus 5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan...
Exodus 9:3 ...the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in
the field... there shall be a very grievous murrain.
Papyrus 9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to
gather them together. Each man fetches for himself
those that are branded with his name.
Exodus 9:19 ... gather tthy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field...
Exodus 9:21 and he that rearded not the word of the Lord left his
servants and his cattle in the field.

Papyrus 9:11 the land is not light...
Exodus 10:22 ... and there was a thick darkness in all the land of
Egypt.

Exodus 12:29 and it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote
all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn
of pharoah that sat on his throne unto the firstborn of
the captive that was in the dungeon.
Papyrus 4:3 Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the
walls (also 5:6)
Papyrus 6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the
streets.
Papyrus 6:3 the prison is ruined

Papyrus 2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere.
Exodus 12:30 ...there was not a house where there was not one dead.

Papyrus 3:14 it is groaning throughout the land, mingled with
lamentations.
Exodus 12:30 ....there was a great cry in Egypt.

Papyrus 7:1 Behold the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes
forth against the enemies of the land.
Exodus 13:21 ....by day in a pillar of a cloud, to lead them the way;
and by night a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by
day and night.

The payprus goes on to describe the ensuing chaos and then the invasion by foreigners (the Hyksos) who velikovsky equates with the Amalakites who warred with the Hebrews on their departure from Egypt. I would have to say with all of this specific correspondence, 'vagueness' would not be an appropriate adjective.