Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Dave Washburn <dwashbur AT nyx.net>]

On Thursday 22 July 2004 10:06, MarianneLuban AT aol.com wrote:
> The mention of the toponyms "Pithom" and "Raamses" in the Book of Exodus
> are useless as historical markers for any exodus.  While it is true that
> the city in the eastern Delta, Per Ramesses Meryamun, was built by Ramesses
> II, it is already mentioned in the Book of Genesis as the Land of Raamses
> which was given to the family of Joseph in which to reside.  However, since
> 215 years are supposed to separate Joseph's arrival in Egypt and the
> exodus, (as written by Josephus, who believed in only one exodus, having
> taken place at the time of the routing of the Hyksos by king Ahmose I, ca.
> 1570 ) there was no king called Ramesses then.  Therefore, if the toponym
> "Raamses" is an anachronism in Genesis, it can just as well be in Exodus.
[snip]

Why does it have to be an anachronism?  Not all cities were named after 
Pharaohs, and I see no reason why it couldn't have been a place name before a 
Pharaoh adopted it.  This is another example of how certain assumptions slip 
subtly into our research...

-- 
Dave Washburn
http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
Insert clever epigram here...or not