Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3
Riaan

Thera and the Exodus

75 posts in this topic

Posted (edited)

As discussed earlier on this forum, I have proposed, along with Graham Phillips, that Moses was Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the firstborn son of Amenhotep III (roughly 1390-1350 BCE) , and that the Exodus was caused by an eruption of Thera which occurred during the Amarna period (see here). Phillips’ identification of Moses and the link to Thera (as also proposed by others like Ian Wilson, etc) has never received any serious consideration by academics, as there is no physical evidence of a volcanic eruption that can be dated to ca. 1360 BCE.

A. The Dating Issue

In my upcoming book, called Thera and the Exodus, which I have mentioned somewhere on this forum, I will argue that two eruptions of Thera had occurred roughly 200 years apart, based on the following information:

1. Dating of the eruption of Thera.

1.1 Radiocarbon dating of olive tree covered by pumice yields 1613 ±13 BCE

1.2 Archaeological and radiocarbon evidence suggests another eruption ca. 1450 BCE.

2. Two floods that were remembered by the Greeks and must most certainly have been caused by eruptions of Thera.

2.1 The floods were those of Ogygus and Deucalion, and they occurred between 190 and 250 years apart.

2.2 The flood of Ogygus is reported to have occurred during the reign of Ahmose (1550-1525 BCE).

2.3 Various sources link Moses and the Exodus to both of these floods.

3. Evidence from Egyptian records

3.1 The Tempest Stele of Ahmose mentions darkness on the western horizon (an ash cloud) and the land being under water (the result of a flood or tsunami).

3.2 The plagues of the Exodus, specifically the days of darkness, could only have been caused by a volcanic eruption.

For the radiocarbon dates to match Egyptian chronology, the reign of Ahmose must be moved back in time by about 80 years (assuming the eruption occurred say ca. 1533 BCE) to match 1613 BCE. Amenhotep’s reign then moves back in time to 1470-1430 BCE. The 1450 BCE archaeologically dated eruption then falls within his reign. The period between these eruptions is roughly 1613-1450 = 163 years, plus or minus a couple of decades. This more or less agrees with the period of 190 years between the floods of Ogygus and Deucalion.

Two ‘Exodus’ events occurred as a result of these eruptions. During the first a large portion of the Hyksos population escaped to Jerusalem. During the second, the Hyksos taken captive by Ahmose as well as later by Tuthmosis III finally left Egypt during the reign of Akhenaten. In oral tradition these two events were combined to become the single Exodus event as recorded in the Bible. Regarding the dating of the eruptions of Thera, it is clear that either radiocarbon dating or Egyptian chronology, or both, are in error by a couple of decades, resulting in a time discrepancy of between 60 and 100 years.

Some other issues about my theory:

B. The identity of Sesostris

Academics usually identify Sesostris with the phonetically similar Senwosret (Senesret) I. However, this identification is incorrect as Sesostris was the name given to the most famous of ancient Egyptian rulers, Tuthmosis III. Some scholars refer to him as the Napoleon of Egypt, who was known for his conquest of foreign lands. The name Sesostris means You-and-what’s-yours-the-third, from the Greek words sē (SG#4571, thee, thou, you), sōs (SG#4674, thine, yours) and trís (SG#5151, three times). The Tuthmosid family, beginning with Tuthmosis I, succeeded in subjecting all the nations surrounding them and were known for moving entire peoples, i.e. families with their possessions, to Egypt as a work force. In other words, he took “You and what’s yours” to Egypt, and Tuthmosis III was the third member of this family.

SG= Strong’s Greek Lexicon

Almost as famous was Amenhotep III, also known as Egypt’s Golden Pharaoh. It is easily understood that some legends about Amenhotep III may mistakenly have been associated with the legendary Sesostris. Both were the third member of a famous family, which would have made confusion of the names even more probable. One legend in particular is Herodotus’ account in which Sesostris left his brother in charge of Egypt while he was on a mission abroad. This legend matches Amenhotep III who retreated to Ethiopia during the Amarna period, leaving his brother-in-law Ay as the behind-the-scenes ruler of Egypt (Josephus recorded that Sesostris forbade him to wear the crown). The legend of Sesostris who was invited to a treacherous banquet also pertains to Amenhotep III and not Tuthmosis III.

C. Moses as Crown Prince Tuthmosis

Indisputable proof of the link between Moses and Crown Prince Tuthmosis is to be found in a record by Artapanus in his Praeparatio Evangelica,

“For this reason, Chenephres (the pharaoh of the Exodus) …having given the name Apis to a bull, commanded the troops to found a temple for him, and bade them bring and bury there the animals which had been consecrated by Moses, because he wished to bury the inventions of Moses in oblivion.”

The burial of the first Apis bull was performed at a cemetery in Saqqara during the reign of Amenhotep III39. Artapanus’ record therefore confirms that Moses, by whom the Apis bull was consecrated, was indeed Prince Tuthmosis, who as high priest of Ptah assisted his father during the burial ceremony.

D. Latest development regarding Thera and the Exodus

I have done a significant amount of research since beginning of 2008, when this website was launched, and some statements in the earlier sections may have to be corrected. Towards the end of 2010 I realised that I needed to write up my theory in the form of a book, and this took me just about a year to complete. I have now initiated the publication process and will let you know as soon as a date for its publication has been determined (still several months away).

Your comments will be most welcome.

Edited by Riaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1.2 Archaeological and radiocarbon evidence suggests another eruption ca. 1450 BCE.

I trust you have a citation to substantiate this claim? Particularly as the extant evidence suggests there were no eruptions between c.1610 BC and 197 BC.

Santorini

2.2 The flood of Ogygus is reported to have occurred during the reign of Ahmose (1550-1525 BCE).

Reported by whom? Citation please.

2.3 Various sources link Moses and the Exodus to both of these floods.

No Judeo-Christian texts link the two.

3.1 The Tempest Stele of Ahmose mentions darkness on the western horizon (an ash cloud) and the land being under water (the result of a flood or tsunami).

You're taking gross liberties here, IMO, as Santorini lies Northwest/North Northwest of the Egyptian Delta and the ashfall travelled in a northeastern direction from Santorini. So there wouldn't have been darkness on the western horizon.

For the radiocarbon dates to match Egyptian chronology, the reign of Ahmose must be moved back in time by about 80 years (assuming the eruption occurred say ca. 1533 BCE) to match 1613 BCE. Amenhoteps reign then moves back in time to 1470-1430 BCE.

Your dates are wrong, per the following:

Ahmose: Dated to between 1570 and 1544 BC (95 percentile accuracy)

Amenhotep I: Dated to between 1545 and 1519 BC (95 percentile accuracy)

Source: DOI: 10.1126/science.1189395

Science 328, 1554 (2010);

Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al.

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt

The 1450 BCE archaeologically dated eruption then falls within his reign.

This date has been known to be wrong for quite some time.

During the second, the Hyksos taken captive by Ahmose as well as later by Tuthmosis III finally left Egypt during the reign of Akhenaten.

The Hyksos weren't taken captive by Ahmose, they were driven to the city of Sharuhen and after a lengthy campaign the city with its inhabitants was razed to the ground.

Academics usually identify Sesostris with the phonetically similar Senwosret (Senesret) I. However, this identification is incorrect as Sesostris was the name given to the most famous of ancient Egyptian rulers, Tuthmosis III.

Uh NO, as the names of Tuthmosis III are well attested:

Prenomen: Menkheperre

Nomen: Thutmose Neferkheperu

Horus name: Kanakht Khaemwaset

Nebty name: Wahnesytmireempet

Golden Horus: Sekhempahtydsejerkhaw

None of these are "Sesostris".

The name Sesostris means You-and-whats-yours-the-third, from the Greek words sē (SG#4571, thee, thou, you), sōs (SG#4674, thine, yours) and trís (SG#5151, three times).

You make Puzzler's lego-linguistics look downright valid in comparison.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're taking gross liberties here, IMO, as Santorini lies Northwest/North Northwest of the Egyptian Delta and the ashfall travelled in a northeastern direction from Santorini. So there wouldn't have been darkness on the western horizon.

cormac

hi cormac

good points .. on the point quoted, the bulk of the ashfall evidence on the ground (as you have shown previously here (post #101)) occurred mostly from the n.e to s.e of thera, however this does not preclude the possibility of northerly winds at higher altitudes dispersing the upper ash cloud southward toward egypt, enough for it to be seen at least as an ominous shadow to the north, or even to the west as suggested by riaan (i am no expert but it could have blanketed the skies over egypt for a time without dropping too much ash to remain observable in the windswept desert landscape today).

as an example here is a satellite photo of Mt Etna's ash cloud (similar latitude to Thera) spreading southward toward the coast of Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/science/space/20111202-planetscapes.html?ref=science#4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi cormac

good points .. on the point quoted, the bulk of the ashfall evidence on the ground (as you have shown previously here (post #101)) occurred mostly from the n.e to s.e of thera, however this does not preclude the possibility of northerly winds at higher altitudes dispersing the upper ash cloud southward toward egypt, enough for it to be seen at least as an ominous shadow to the north, or even to the west as suggested by riaan (i am no expert but it could have blanketed the skies over egypt for a time without dropping too much ash to remain observable in the windswept desert landscape today).

as an example here is a satellite photo of Mt Etna's ash cloud (similar latitude to Thera) spreading southward toward the coast of Africa.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/12/02/science/space/20111202-planetscapes.html?ref=science#4

If northerly winds at higher altitudes prevailed southward, as you speculate, then there would be evidence greater than the 0.1 centimeter of ash in northern Egypt. Add to that that the distance between the cities involved are about 549 miles distant and any of the plume, if seen at all, is in the wrong direction from the Biblical description which claims that whatever it was LEAD the Israelites into the Jordan Valley. Neither of which, again, would be on the western horizon IMO.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If northerly winds at higher altitudes prevailed southward, as you speculate, then there would be evidence greater than the 0.1 centimeter of ash in northern Egypt. Add to that that the distance between the cities involved are about 549 miles distant and any of the plume, if seen at all, is in the wrong direction from the Biblical description which claims that whatever it was LEAD the Israelites into the Jordan Valley. Neither of which, again, would be on the western horizon IMO.

cormac

yes .. i make no connection between thera's eruptions and biblical stories, only the possibility of theran ash cloud dispersal (however tenuous) over ancient egypt

you may be correct as there is no evidence .. but the possibility remains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes .. i make no connection between thera's eruptions and biblical stories, only the possibility of theran ash cloud dispersal (however tenuous) over ancient egypt

you may be correct as there is no evidence .. but the possibility remains

True, but Riann has and his conclusions are faulty on so many levels. As to what's possible, it's also possible that an undocumented eruption in the Tarso Toh volcanic field in Chad was responsible for whatever the Egyptians were referring to. Assuming, of course, that the description should be taken literally.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, but Riann has and his conclusions are faulty on so many levels. As to what's possible, it's also possible that an undocumented eruption in the Tarso Toh volcanic field in Chad was responsible for whatever the Egyptians were referring to. Assuming, of course, that the description should be taken literally.

cormac

that does seem the problem with scriptural referencing (not just biblical), you have to go back to the original literal sources to come even close to descriptions based on actual events (if not entirely myth) which over time have become misunderstood and mis-translated

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I trust you have a citation to substantiate this claim? Particularly as the extant evidence suggests there were no eruptions between c.1610 BC and 197 BC.

Santorini

1. “On the Relation Between the Thera Eruption and the Destruction of Eastern Crete, c. 1450 B.C.”, Thera and the Aegean World I, 1978, pp. 691-698.

2. Santorini Volcano, Druitt, 1999, p46 (1450-1500 BCE)

3. Dating Pharaonic Egypt, Hendrik J. Bruins, Science 328, 1489 (2010); DOI: 10.1126/science.1191410 (1480-1510 BCE, indicates RC dating and archaeo-historical dating, see image below)

Dating%20Pharaonic%20Egypt%20-%20Hendrik%20Bruins%20Science%20328%20-%202010%20pp%201489-1490.jpg

Reported by whom? Citation please.

A) In Syncellus’ version of Manetho’s king list, the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty listed in order were 1) Amos, 2) Chebros, 3) Amenophthis, 4) Queen Amensis, 5) Misaphris, 6) Misphragmuthosis and 7) Tuthmosis. He aslo asserts that

“The sixth, Misphragmuthosis, for 26 years; in his reign the flood of Deucalion's time occurred. Total, according to Africanus, down to the reign of Amôsis, also called Misphragmuthosis, …”

(Manetho (Waddell), p. 113)

Misphragmuthosis is generally associated with Tuthmosis III, in whose reign there are no records of a flood. Apparently Ahmose was also called Misphragmuthosis , in which case the flood of Deucalion would have occurred in his reign. It was actually the flood of Ogygus.

B ) According to Africanus, the great first flood in Attica occurred during the reign of Ogygus, who lived at the time of Moses and the Exodus (Iulius Africanus Chronographiae, (Wallraff), F34, p. 75.)

C) Eusebius recorded that the flood of Deucalion occurred during the reign of Cecrops, at the time when Moses had become recognised amongst the Hebrews (Bedrosian, Robert. Eusebius’ Chronicle, 1.66, 23 September 2011.

D) In the time of Joshua, the son of Nun (successor of Moses), a man of the tribe Japhet, named Ogygus, an original inhabitant of the country, reigned over the land of Attica for 32 years. In his reign a great flood occurred and Ogygus and all that land were destroyed, as was every soul living in that land of Attica (Iulius Africanus Chronographiae, (Wallraff), 10. Ibid., T54C, p. 161)

E) Syncellus questioning Africanus,

... there will thus be 120 years from the beginning of Amos’ rule to the end of Misphragmuthosis’; this we are assured was the length of Moses’ life. Now how can it be that from the beginning of Moses’ rule – that is, from the Exodus out of Egypt, if we grant Africanus’ opinion that he left during the reign of Amos, or from his youth (this is also a dilemma for Africanus) – up to the death of this same Moses, there occurred two famous floods among the Greeks? (Iulius Africanus Chronographiae, (Wallraff), T55, pp. 165,167.)

No Judeo-Christian texts link the two.

See above

You're taking gross liberties here, IMO, as Santorini lies Northwest/North Northwest of the Egyptian Delta and the ashfall travelled in a northeastern direction from Santorini. So there wouldn't have been darkness on the western horizon.

The direction of the wind could easily have created the appearance that it came from the west.

Your dates are wrong, per the following:

Ahmose: Dated to between 1570 and 1544 BC (95 percentile accuracy)

Amenhotep I: Dated to between 1545 and 1519 BC (95 percentile accuracy)

Source: DOI: 10.1126/science.1189395

Science 328, 1554 (2010);

Christopher Bronk Ramsey, et al.

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt

You are referring to the new RC dates, I have quoted the conventional chronology dates. Considering the two floods remembered by the Greeks, either of the two dating techniques must be out by a couple of decades.

This date has been known to be wrong for quite some time.

If one assumes that there had been only one eruption in the period in question, all evidence pointing to a second eruption would indeed be ‘wrong’ in view of the 1613 BCE RC date. This is the reason why Bruins believes a discrepancy of between 90 and 170 years to exist.

The Hyksos weren't taken captive by Ahmose, they were driven to the city of Sharuhen and after a lengthy campaign the city with its inhabitants was razed to the ground.

Main source of this information is Josephus, who relates that after a long siege of Avaris, Ahmose amicably agreed that the Hyksos could leave. Absolute nonsense – the Egyptians hated the Hyksos with a passion and would have killed or enslaved anyone Hyksos they could find.

Uh NO, as the names of Tuthmosis III are well attested: Prenomen: Menkheperre; Nomen: Thutmose Neferkheperu; Horus name: Kanakht Khaemwaset; Nebty name: Wahnesytmireempet; Golden Horus: Sekhempahtydsejerkhaw; None of these are "Sesostris".

You are missing the point completely. Although Sesostris is generally believed to be a Greek name phonetically similar to an Egyptian name like Senusret (often identified with him), it is in fact a Greek nickname for Tuthmosis III. In my book I show that many of the exploits of Sesostris match those of Tuthmosis III, a prerequisite for identifying Sesostris with Tuthmosis III.

You make Puzzler's lego-linguistics look downright valid in comparison.

Seems simple to me.

Thanks nevertheless for your detailed reply!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any comments about the link between Moses and Crown Prince Tuthmosis? Only a huge coincidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

well, I have not read all of the Praeparatio Evangelica, but how do you know that the author knew what he was talking about? Who is Artapanus (the Praeparatio Evangelica was written by Eusebius)? How reliable of a source is this Artapanus? Is there any corroborating information elsewhere? Does he have a good track record in other matters that can be verified with other sources?

Basically is your "indisputable proof' based upon nothing more than a single obscure quotation?

The Praeparatio Evangelica is at best a secondary source (and more likely tertiary) when dealing with something that happened more than a thousand years before it was written in the early to mid 4th century CE, so anything in it could hardly be described as 'indisputable'.

edit: Artapanus would be Artapanus of Alexandria, and the Praeparatio Evangelica would be at best a tertiary source in this case because it doesn't even quote him directly, it quotes Polyhistor's quotation of Artapanus... and while Artapanus pushes back the 'quotation' to perhaps the 3rd century BCE, you are still a thousand or more years off the mark given your timeline... still not likely to be a overly reliable source.

Edited by Conrad Clough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3. Dating Pharaonic Egypt, Hendrik J. Bruins, Science 328, 1489 (2010); DOI: 10.1126/science.1191410 (1480-1510 BCE, indicates RC dating and archaeo-historical dating, see image below)

Yet Hendrik J. Bruins apparently didn't have a problem with the Carbon 14 dating method in 2006 in the article co-written by Johannes van der Plicht entitled "RADIOCARBON DATING IN NEAR-EASTERN CONTEXTS: CONFUSION AND QUALITY CONTROL". At best, it appears he's trying to rationalize the age discrepancy between the subjective archaeo-historical method and the more objective Carbon 14 dating method.

On your A thru E, all of this is highly interpretive by much, MUCH later writers and is not evidence that the Ancient Egyptians wrote or believed any of it to be true.

The direction of the wind could easily have created the appearance that it came from the west.

And yet there isn't a shred of evidence to support that contention.

You are referring to the new RC dates, I have quoted the conventional chronology dates.

Which means that you're working from a faulty premise to begin with.

If one assumes that there had been only one eruption in the period in question...

One doesn't assume anything. One relies on the available evidence as it stands, which doesn't suggest an eruption a few centuries later. If you have actual evidence to the contrary then present it.

Main source of this information is Josephus, who relates that after a long siege of Avaris, Ahmose amicably agreed that the Hyksos could leave. Absolute nonsense – the Egyptians hated the Hyksos with a passion and would have killed or enslaved anyone Hyksos they could find.

Your second sentence, as written, invalidates the first and is in agreement with what I previously said.

Although Sesostris is generally believed to be a Greek name phonetically similar to an Egyptian name like Senusret (often identified with him), it is in fact a Greek nickname for Tuthmosis III.

So first you claim it was his name and now you claim it was his nickname. I'm not buying it. The Greeks at the time of Tuthmosis III were Mycenaean and would only have known Tuthmosis III (if at all) by one of his Royal Titles in Egyptian or a translation/transliteration thereof into Mycenaean. Much the same would have been true of later Greeks. You really have a non-argument.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet there isn't a shred of evidence to support that contention.

And knowing the paleoclimate of the Mediterranean it is even less likely. The winds here came as long as anybody remembers from the North to Northwest in Summer and South to Southeast in Winter, even in the oldest accounts we know (i.e. the Odyssey) that does not change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well, I have not read all of the Praeparatio Evangelica, but how do you know that the author knew what he was talking about? Who is Artapanus (the Praeparatio Evangelica was written by Eusebius)? How reliable of a source is this Artapanus? Is there any corroborating information elsewhere? Does he have a good track record in other matters that can be verified with other sources?

Basically is your "indisputable proof' based upon nothing more than a single obscure quotation?

The Praeparatio Evangelica is at best a secondary source (and more likely tertiary) when dealing with something that happened more than a thousand years before it was written in the early to mid 4th century CE, so anything in it could hardly be described as 'indisputable'.

edit: Artapanus would be Artapanus of Alexandria, and the Praeparatio Evangelica would be at best a tertiary source in this case because it doesn't even quote him directly, it quotes Polyhistor's quotation of Artapanus... and while Artapanus pushes back the 'quotation' to perhaps the 3rd century BCE, you are still a thousand or more years off the mark given your timeline... still not likely to be a overly reliable source.

It is not based on a single quotation. It is merely proof of a significantly bigger theory - read my web page on this, as well as Graham Phillip's Act of God. What we have here are two completely independent, detailed statements, one from a a Judaic source, the other from Egyptian history. There is no way that can be coincidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

And knowing the paleoclimate of the Mediterranean it is even less likely. The winds here came as long as anybody remembers from the North to Northwest in Summer and South to Southeast in Winter, even in the oldest accounts we know (i.e. the Odyssey) that does not change.

Can you declare with any certainy that these were the atmospheric conditions that prevailed 3350 years ago?

Edited by Riaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Yet Hendrik J. Bruins apparently didn't have a problem with the Carbon 14 dating method in 2006 in the article co-written by Johannes van der Plicht entitled "RADIOCARBON DATING IN NEAR-EASTERN CONTEXTS: CONFUSION AND QUALITY CONTROL". At best, it appears he's trying to rationalize the age discrepancy between the subjective archaeo-historical method and the more objective Carbon 14 dating method.

On your A thru E, all of this is highly interpretive by much, MUCH later writers and is not evidence that the Ancient Egyptians wrote or believed any of it to be true.

And yet there isn't a shred of evidence to support that contention.

Which means that you're working from a faulty premise to begin with.

One doesn't assume anything. One relies on the available evidence as it stands, which doesn't suggest an eruption a few centuries later. If you have actual evidence to the contrary then present it.

Your second sentence, as written, invalidates the first and is in agreement with what I previously said.

So first you claim it was his name and now you claim it was his nickname. I'm not buying it. The Greeks at the time of Tuthmosis III were Mycenaean and would only have known Tuthmosis III (if at all) by one of his Royal Titles in Egyptian or a translation/transliteration thereof into Mycenaean. Much the same would have been true of later Greeks. You really have a non-argument.

cormac

Cormac, there is unfortunately not much sense in continuing with these arguments without presenting everything (the book). It is quite lengthy with more than 1000 references, etc. For example, the name Sesostris is also spelled Sesonchosis and Sesoösis, both of which can be translated directly from Greek and have more or less the same meaning as what I have proposed for Sesostris. As I have stated here, in the book I can show that several of the exploits pertaining to Sesostris can be linked to actual exploits by Tuthmosis III. The Greeks named him Sesostris, which we today will refer to as a nickname.

You regularly state that I can't provide a "a shred of evidence" to support my arguments, which is simply not true. It is clear to me that you will not be able to evaluate anything I present here with an open mind.

Riaan

Edited by Riaan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, the name Sesostris is also spelled Sesonchosis and Sesoösis, both of which can be translated directly from Greek and have more or less the same meaning as what I have proposed for Sesostris.

Not from Mycenaean Greek, meaning Linear B, which is the only Greek relevant to the timeframe. Anything else is an anachronistic after-thought.

It is clear to me that you will not be able to evaluate anything I present here with an open mind.

I evaluate things based on the available facts, something of which you've not shown yourself to have at this point.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you declare with any certainy that these were the atmospheric conditions that prevailed 3350 years ago?

You just have to read ancient accounts and you will find the same story, meltemi blowing in summer and etesian in winter. In fact the words themselves is as old as the Minoan civilization. Because these winds are so reliable whole wars were planned around them, Phillip II of Macedonia planned his attack over land so that he could not be outflanked by the Athenian navy.

Homer dedicates large part of his Odyssey to the meltemi that did not let Odysseus return home going further and further adrift to the South. So yes, you can say that the weather did not change that much since those times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

hmmm... looking The Praeparatio Evangelica over more closely I don't see any indication that "Chenephres" was the first to bury an Apis bull, nor does the text of him burying the bull at a temple he had constructed for himself fit with the the first burying of a apis bull by Amenhotep III (which happened at a cemetary).

Chenephres would not seem to be Amenhotep III in any case as Artapanus describes him as a local king of the regions above memphis... and indicates that Egypt had "many kings" in those days... which I do not believe was the case during the reign of Amenhotep III (perhaps one of the better versed Egyptian scholars can say yea or nay to this one).

This really seems to be the case of making an assumption based upon a selective reading of a questionable source, and comparing it to another source which is in all likelihood not referring to the same event.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and this is not it.

If I were you I would think about looking for other evidence to bolster your hypothesis, or at least to make more of a concrete connection between Chenephres and Amenhotep III, like checking all the available sources and seeing if anybody besides Artapanus talks about a king named Chenophres, and if so who they are talking about. Some think that Artapanus was talking about Sobekhotep IV based on the fact that Sobekhotep is thought to have invaded Nubia, a event that Artapanus links to Chenophres... did Amenhotep III invade Nubia?

Given that Sobekhotep IV ruled about 350 odd years before Amenhotep III, if he was Chenophres either Artapanus was wrong about him burying an apis bull, or the tradition goes back further than Amenhotep III. Either one is a possibility, but I still wouldn't put that much trust in Artapanus since as I already mentioned he is writing about something that took place more than 1000 years before hand, and the quality of the sources he was using (since he obviously wasn't there to witness this stuff personally) are impossible to verify as they have been lost (as have the original writings of Artapanus himself, as I mentioned before what we are reading is a second hand attribution with in another attribution.

I do want to thank you, I am enjoying my reading of the Praeparatio Evangelica.

Edited by Conrad Clough

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmm... looking The Praeparatio Evangelica over more closely I don't see any indication that "Chenephres" was the first to bury an Apis bull, nor does the text of him burying the bull at a temple he had constructed for himself fit with the the first burying of a apis bull by Amenhotep III (which happened at a cemetary).

Chenephres would not seem to be Amenhotep III in any case as Artapanus describes him as a local king of the regions above memphis... and indicates that Egypt had "many kings" in those days... which I do not believe was the case during the reign of Amenhotep III (perhaps one of the better versed Egyptian scholars can say yea or nay to this one).

This really seems to be the case of making an assumption based upon a selective reading of a questionable source, and comparing it to another source which is in all likelihood not referring to the same event.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence... and this is not it.

If I were you I would think about looking for other evidence to bolster your hypothesis, or at least to make more of a concrete connection between Chenephres and Amenhotep III, like checking all the available sources and seeing if anybody besides Artapanus talks about a king named Chenophres, and if so who they are talking about. Some think that Artapanus was talking about Sobekhotep IV based on the fact that Sobekhotep is thought to have invaded Nubia, a event that Artapanus links to Chenophres... did Amenhotep III invade Nubia?

Given that Sobekhotep IV ruled about 350 odd years before Amenhotep III, if he was Chenophres either Artapanus was wrong about him burying an apis bull, or the tradition goes back further than Amenhotep III. Either one is a possibility, but I still wouldn't put that much trust in Artapanus since as I already mentioned he is writing about something that took place more than 1000 years before hand, and the quality of the sources he was using (since he obviously wasn't there to witness this stuff personally) are impossible to verify as they have been lost (as have the original writings of Artapanus himself, as I mentioned before what we are reading is a second hand attribution with in another attribution.

I do want to thank you, I am enjoying my reading of the Praeparatio Evangelica.

Chenephres 'having given the name Apis to a bull' can certainly be interpreted that he was the first to do so ('he named the Apis bull'), especially given the circumstances. You have to realize that the facts of these legends would have become distorted over the years, meaning that you cannot discard it simply because not every fine detail matches (temple vs cemetry). The basic story is however the same.

Manetho records that the pharaoh of the Exodus was a king called Amenophis, who had a sacred scribe also called Amenophis, the son of Papis. Of all the Amenhotep rulers only Amenhotep III had such a scribe, who was known as "Amenhotep called Huy, the son of Hapu". So here we have another independent piece of the puzzle that points to the same conclusion.

There are a number of names by which this pharaoh was referred to in legend, which includes Chenephres. I deal with them in my book (sorry for continuously having to keep referring to it).

Regarding the better versed scholars, you'll be surprised how much information can be obtained through the Internet, and I am not referring to Wikipedia alone. It costs a bit, but one can nowadays purchase almost any article ever published on Egyptian history. I have spent quite a couple of bucks on these. There are also differences between 'Egyptologists'. I'm pretty sure not everyone agrees Zahi Hawass, probably the most famous of them all.

The lack of Egyptian evidence relating to the Exodus affair can in the first instance be attributed to the actions of Horemheb and later rulers, who attempted to erase all evidence of the Amarna kings and what had taken place, as well as the various destructions of the Library of Alexandra.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The lack of Egyptian evidence relating to the Exodus affair can in the first instance be attributed to the actions of Horemheb and later rulers, who attempted to erase all evidence of the Amarna kings and what had taken place, as well as the various destructions of the Library of Alexandra.
the erasure seems to start with Amenhotep III's heir Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten though, it can hardly be said that anybody tried to erase the evidence Amenhotep III or his reign, after all he has the most surviving statues of any Egyptian king, if the events of exodus occurred during his reign we could expect to find some mention of that. If the events of the exodus happened sometime between the end of his reign and the beginning of Horemheb's I might be able to better buy the 'erased along with other happenings of the Amarna kings' hypothesis, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Riann said:

The Greeks named him Sesostris, which we today will refer to as a nickname.

Wrong. A nickname is a name (usually a shortening of one's own name) that one uses in reference to oneself, or used by family and/or friends in reference to oneself. In short, it is contemporary to the person for which it is being used. I challenge you to provide evidence in Mycenean Greek (Linear "B") that Tuthmosis III ever used or was referred to by the name of Sesostris. Anything else is, as I've said before, an anachronistic after-thought.

Manetho records that the pharaoh of the Exodus was a king called Amenophis...

And yet the cities of Pithom and Raamesses, the store cities of the Bible, were said to have been built by the pharaoh of the Exodus which definitely wasn't Amenhotep III. More Swiss Cheese on your part?

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the erasure seems to start with Amenhotep III's heir Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten though, it can hardly be said that anybody tried to erase the evidence Amenhotep III or his reign, after all he has the most surviving statues of any Egyptian king, if the events of exodus occurred during his reign we could expect to find some mention of that. If the events of the exodus happened sometime between the end of his reign and the beginning of Horemheb's I might be able to better buy the 'erased along with other happenings of the Amarna kings' hypothesis, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying.

Amunhotep III is one of the best-attested kings of pharaonic history, so you and I are in agreement. Once Horemheb took the throne at the end of Dynasty 18, he immediately began the erasure of history back through the reigns of Ay, Tutankhamun, Smenkhkare, and Akhenaten—but did not include Amunhotep III. In fact, were we to believe Horemheb's order of events, he was the successor of Amunhotep III.

Amunhotep III was not technically one of the Amarna kings. He was their immediate predecessor, and was looked on by later monarchs as a great and worthy king. His memory was preserved.

Which is probably beside the point, as there is no textual or archaeological evidence anywhere in the Middle East, Israel included, that the Hebrews even existed at this time. There is no reason to abandon legitimate historical understanding in favor of revisionism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

And yet the cities of Pithom and Raamesses, the store cities of the Bible, were said to have been built by the pharaoh of the Exodus which definitely wasn't Amenhotep III. More Swiss Cheese on your part?

cormac

Always an excellent point, cormac. "Raamesses" was the Delta city of Per-Ramesses ("House of Ramesses"), the new capital founded by Ramesses II. This fact alone, then, discounts revisionist gameplay at squeezing Exodus farther back in time. If Riaan is going to draw so heavily on writings of late antiquity, he is obligated to observe pertinent facts and to avoid picking and choosing where it's convenient.

Let's address something else that's essential to bear in mind: All writings on Moses and Exodus are subsequent to the Hebrew Bible. Manetho, Artapanus, Josephus, and the like were drawing on the traditions of the Old Testament, which was their source for their accounts on this subject. The exception might be Josephus, who also drew on what survived of Manetho's writings by his time, but that doesn't help. Repeating factual errors only compounds mistakes—it doesn't fix them.

When exactly Exodus was penned is difficult to discern, but it was certainly not until the Iron Age, a great many centuries after the events were supposed to have occurred. There is simply no extrabiblical evidence—in Egypt or elsewhere—that Exodus even occurred. It is mytho-history. The Hebrew scribes who wrote it down from oral tradition were establishing a cultural and socio-political background for the nascent kingdom sprouting from Jerusalem in the Early Iron Age, but they were not recording factual history.

There's more I'd like to contribute to this debate, including directly addressing some of Riaan's points, so I'll get back to it when I can. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the erasure seems to start with Amenhotep III's heir Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten though, it can hardly be said that anybody tried to erase the evidence Amenhotep III or his reign, after all he has the most surviving statues of any Egyptian king, if the events of exodus occurred during his reign we could expect to find some mention of that. If the events of the exodus happened sometime between the end of his reign and the beginning of Horemheb's I might be able to better buy the 'erased along with other happenings of the Amarna kings' hypothesis, but that doesn't appear to be what you are saying.

That is correct, up to the point where the sacrifice of the firstborn started. It is well known that he had erected hundreds of statues to Sekhmet, the goddess of destruction, which must have been to appease her and bring an end to the plague which was devastating Egypt. When this did not work, his sacred scribe, known also by names such as Phrasius and Phritiphantes, advised him to sacrifice the firstborn. When this also failed, many of the Egyptians turned against Amenhotep and the priesthood of Amun. He then retreated into Nubia, as is well attested by the numerous statues of him that can be found in that country. Josephus states that he was the only pharaoh known as the king of Egypt and of Ethiopia. As many Egyptian kings had held sway over Nubia, this must confirm that he was the only king who actually lived there for some years. He must have died there and his mummy returned to Egypt when the Egyptian army did so. It is this part of Amenhotep's history that would have been erased by Horemheb and the others.

In the Restoration Stele of Tutankhamun it is recorded that the whole of Egypt had been vandalized. This is usually attributed to Akhenaten, but was in fact committed by the marauding rebels and the Asiatic invaders from Jerusalem (Solomon's army). As commented elsewhere, David Rohl correctly identified Saul and David as Amarna Labayu and Dadua, but mistakenly moved the Amarna era to 1000 BCE as a result. He should have moved Saul and David back in time to the Amarna era.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The exception might be Josephus, who also drew on what survived of Manetho's writings by his time, but that doesn't help. Repeating factual errors only compounds mistakes—it doesn't fix them.

Hi kmt_sesh, I'm not sure what you mean by this. Josephus quoted his opponents verbatim in order to refute them. Are you suggesting that Josephus (deliberately) quoted them incorrectly, or that Manetho did not know what he was talking about? It is clear from his writings that he knew about Amenhotep (III) who had a scribe called Amenhotep, and the stories related to him, but it is very likely that he had difficulty in placing them because of the attempts to erase that part of their history by Horemheb and others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 3

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.