What exodus?

my bad! the pharoah OF exodus, as in the bible, with the unnamed "Pharoah" and all of that

You guy's,
alway's .... lead me
on the most interesting
adventure's

http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/tempest.htm

bel

I've always thought rameses II. Though now I'm leaning to someone around the amarna period?
there are a few other un-named pharaohs in the bible. For instance in the case of Solomon, his first wife was a egyptian princess. Besides that story I had never heard of a Egyptian Princess being given, I didn't think the pharaohs would even allow that. in the bible that is the first mention of ancient Egypt and israel. I've also heard that the queen of Sheba may have been Hatshepsut? I highly doubt that though.
then who was the pharaoh during Joseph's journey? and then the pharaoh Prophesied against by Isaiah?
I don't understand why they didn't mention the name of the pharaoh of the exodus, unless it was written after the event actually happened?

bob brier (egyptological archaeologist) believes it's ramses II.

his arguments definitely persuaded me.

the big thing is the stela at elephantine island that says the hebrews didn't have a homeland yet during the reign of merenptah--the 40 years of wandering. thus, ramses II, merenptah's father would have to be the pharaoh of the exodus, especially since he reigned for 67 years.

interesting note: moses means "son of", hence moses was the son of blank. ramses (ramoses, rameses, etc...) means "son of ra".

I don't want to disillusion anyone, but all the sources I have read (including the Bible) have led me to believe resolutely that the Exodus did not occur. I accept that there may have been true historical events and occurences on which the Exodus was based, but to me it seems simply ridiculous to assume that such an event, described by only one historical source could possibly have occured without anyone else relating the huge ordeal in massive detail.

The Torah furnishes the chief account of his life, but without alternative authentification I am afraid that as a historian I must dismiss its claims as highly dubious. Even though it may be rooted in fact, it simply cannot be proved and all the tenuous links with contemporary sources seem just that - tenous and dubious.

"interesting note: moses means "son of", hence moses was the son of blank."
I'm not so sure. 'Ms' only means 'son of' and when used as a copulative with some sort of genetive (such as 'Ra'). On its own it either can be etymologically linked with 'Mesh' meaning 'child' or the Coptic 'Mo-uses' meaning 'saved from water.'