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 1
Joe Sniderman

Joseph and Akhenaten

75 posts in this topic

It seems to me that the Genesis sub-story of ‘how Joseph saved Egypt from famine’ could provide a simple, yet comprehensive, explanation for the events of the Amarna Period. I’ve written a paper on the topic:

PDF format: http://mysite.verizo...d Akhenaten.pdf

HTML format: http://mysite.verizo...d Akhenaten.htm

Have I succeeded in making a strong case?

Regards,

Joe

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for these links. Clearly you have put a lot of thought into your hypothesis. I would like to reply, but first I must complete reading the new book on Amarna by Barry Kemp, so I can better repy. I have one question in the meantime, is your hypothesis generally similar to the book by Graham Phillips "Atlantis and the Ten Plagues of Egypt". I say this only on the basis of a quick flick through, nothing set in stone...

Edited by Atentutankh-pasheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to reply, but first I must complete reading the new book on Amarna by Barry Kemp, so I can better repy.

Thanks for the response. I will look forward to your reply.

I have one question in the meantime, is your hypothesis generally similar to the book by Graham Phillips "Atlantis and the Ten Plagues of Egypt".

No, I don't think they have much in common at all.

Regards,

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that the Genesis sub-story of ‘how Joseph saved Egypt from famine’ could provide a simple, yet comprehensive, explanation for the events of the Amarna Period. I’ve written a paper on the topic:

PDF format: http://mysite.verizo...d Akhenaten.pdf

HTML format: http://mysite.verizo...d Akhenaten.htm

Have I succeeded in making a strong case?

Regards,

Joe

I like this! I think you are doing a good job linking things. It came to me that there may be many links to Moses as well as Joseph and to the Pharohs in those times.

Akhenaten was well known as the first to believe in One higher God and later they wanted him blotted out of history not all of the first pharoh's line so it would make sense. I got interested when I was researching my geneology and DNA and found lots of surprises going way back when I was researching myths and trying to link the time lines. I didn't have time to research as much as I'd like. Lots of Egyptian and Hebrew and Mesopotanian myths mesh together but I found it difficult to link the exact time lines. I'm glad to see others are researching the subject. I saved an interesting "Moses" you may find interesting. Look at that Hebrew nose! LOL :)

post-122220-0-38041000-1350511601_thumb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like this! I think you are doing a good job linking things. It came to me that there may be many links to Moses as well as Joseph and to the Pharohs in those times.

Akhenaten was well known as the first to believe in One higher God and later they wanted him blotted out of history not all of the first pharoh's line so it would make sense. I got interested when I was researching my geneology and DNA and found lots of surprises going way back when I was researching myths and trying to link the time lines. I didn't have time to research as much as I'd like. Lots of Egyptian and Hebrew and Mesopotanian myths mesh together but I found it difficult to link the exact time lines. I'm glad to see others are researching the subject. I saved an interesting "Moses" you may find interesting. Look at that Hebrew nose! LOL :)

Are you claiming that Thutmose III is Hebrew because of the shape of his nose? Hooked noses are not a monopoly of any one ethnicity!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming that Thutmose III is Hebrew because of the shape of his nose? Hooked noses are not a monopoly of any one ethnicity!

Come now, meryt-tetisheri. The caption clearly says Tuthmosis II, not Tuthmosis III. Clearly Tuthmosis II was Hebrew. :w00t:

Well, come to think of it, the ancient Egyptians had a lot of Semitics in their population. Their language was Afro-Semitic. But Semitic describes a wide range of peoples—of whom the Hebrews were (and are) but one.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread and have downloaded and read portions of Joe's paper. There are lots of comments I'd love to make but time is very limited for me this week, and will be for some days to come.

But I might direct Joe to a salient point: there's no proof for the existence of the Hebrews prior to the end of the Bronze Age.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But I might direct Joe to a salient point: there's no proof for the existence of the Hebrews prior to the end of the Bronze Age.

To add to this, there's no evidence of an exodus of some 600,000 people out of Egypt at any point during the New Kingdom.

cormac

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Come now, meryt-tetisheri. The caption clearly says Tuthmosis II, not Tuthmosis III. Clearly Tuthmosis II was Hebrew. :w00t:

Well, come to think of it, the ancient Egyptians had a lot of Semitics in their population. Their language was Afro-Semitic. But Semitic describes a wide range of peoples—of whom the Hebrews were (and are) but one.

I've been keeping an eye on this thread and have downloaded and read portions of Joe's paper. There are lots of comments I'd love to make but time is very limited for me this week, and will be for some days to come.

But I might direct Joe to a salient point: there's no proof for the existence of the Hebrews prior to the end of the Bronze Age.

My eyes are shot! It's too late here and I'm starting to have double vision it seems

I used 'Hebrew' because it is the word used by White Unicorn, it doesn't seem that 'semitic' is what is referenced in this thread as much as hebrew (Joseph). I am aware that ancient Egyptians and their language were afro-semitic, that the first mention of Israel was in Merneptah's stele, and that there is no evidence of the exodus. I have doubts that a foreign adopted son would have ascended to the throne, or that an Egyptian prince would have been sent abroad to spend his formative years there. Frankly, I was hoping that you would participate in this thread. I remember reading a long time ago of succession rights passing through the matrilineal side, I cannot verify if this remains a valid theory, but it might be relevant here. Your input, when you have the time, will be much appreciated.

Sometimes it is very difficult being an Egyptian on this forum, my ancestors either tend to play the disappearing act here, or lose their identity and become aliens, atlanteans, giants, subsaharan africans, hebrews...My nickname at school was Hatshepsut, my family is full of Snefrus, Ramses, Ahmose; Kemy, Meryt (there is even an amenhotep)....can you imagine how conflicted I'm feeling now? :rofl:

Edited by meryt-tetisheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My eyes are shot! It's too late here and I'm starting to have double vision it seems

I used 'Hebrew' because it is the word used by White Unicorn, it doesn't seem that 'semitic' is what is referenced in this thread as much as hebrew (Joseph). I am aware that ancient Egyptians and their language were afro-semitic, that the first mention of Israel was in Merneptah's stele, and that there is no evidence of the exodus. I have doubts that a foreign adopted son would have ascended to the throne, or that an Egyptian prince would have been sent abroad to spend his formative years there. Frankly, I was hoping that you would participate in this thread. I remember reading a long time ago of succession rights passing through the matrilineal side, I cannot verify if this remains a valid theory, but it might be relevant here. Your input, when you have the time, will be much appreciated.

Sometimes it is very difficult being an Egyptian on this forum, my ancestors either tend to play the disappearing act here, or lose their identity and become aliens, atlanteans, giants, subsaharan africans, hebrews...My nickname at school was Hatshepsut, my family is full of Snefrus, Ramses, Ahmose; Kemy, Meryt (there is even an amenhotep)....can you imagine how conflicted I'm feeling now? :rofl:

Hello meryt-tetisheri. I'm sure kmt_sesh will make an appearance as he has time, but as far as I know the only time an outsider was ever asked to ascend the throne was during what is referred to as the Zannanza Affair:

http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/zannanza_affair.htm

This of course didn't happen as Zannanza came up missing on his way to Egypt and it is believed that he may have been assassinated before he had the chance to sit on the throne. At no other time has an outsider ever been asked, or even been put on the throne. At least until the time of the Persians, by which time Ancient Egypt wasn't entirely Egyptian. As to succession rights, I believe they were always patrilineal, but obviously with multiple wives of a pharaoh jockeying for their sons to take the throne and not always successfully.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello meryt-tetisheri. I'm sure kmt_sesh will make an appearance as he has time, but as far as I know the only time an outsider was ever asked to ascend the throne was during what is referred to as the Zannanza Affair:

http://www.reshafim....anza_affair.htm

This of course didn't happen as Zannanza came up missing on his way to Egypt and it is believed that he may have been assassinated before he had the chance to sit on the throne. At no other time has an outsider ever been asked, or even been put on the throne. At least until the time of the Persians, by which time Ancient Egypt wasn't entirely Egyptian. As to succession rights, I believe they were always patrilineal, but obviously with multiple wives of a pharaoh jockeying for their sons to take the throne and not always successfully.

cormac

Thank you for answering my questions Cormac, much appreciated.

The theory I mentioned was used to explain father/daughter marriage among the royalty, that it was necessitated by the need to maintain the legitimacy of the king's rule when the 'great king's wife' died or disappeared. I cannot remember the source, and apparently it is not a valid theory anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been keeping an eye on this thread and have downloaded and read portions of Joe's paper. There are lots of comments I'd love to make but time is very limited for me this week, and will be for some days to come.

I have been looking forward to your comments. You seem to understand that the surest way to defeat conclusions is to find the flaws in the premises and reasoning that were used to reach those conclusions.

But I might direct Joe to a salient point: there's no proof for the existence of the Hebrews prior to the end of the Bronze Age.

Let me know if you still think this is a salient point after you have had an opportunity to familiarize yourself with the arguments I have presented.

Regards,

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To add to this, there's no evidence of an exodus of some 600,000 people out of Egypt at any point during the New Kingdom.

I am confused. I certainly have never suggested that I believe there is evidence of an exodus of 600,000 people! I do not understand why you think this statement would be relevant to the topic at hand.

Regards,

Joe

Edited by Joe Sniderman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused. I certainly have never suggested that I believe there is evidence of an exodus of 600,000 people! I do not understand why you think this statement would be relevant to the topic at hand.

Regards,

Joe

What you believe is one thing, what you can demonstrate by archeological findings is quite another. Even if Armana would have been full of servant Jews the number would have been nowhere near 600,000 plus their families (see Numbers) in fact it would have been nowhere to 1/100 of that. For the rest of Egypt we know for sure that there was no time in history when suddenly half a million people disappeared. That would have been around 1/4 of the population and certainly noticeable in the archeological findings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am confused. I certainly have never suggested that I believe there is evidence of an exodus of 600,000 people! I do not understand why you think this statement would be relevant to the topic at hand.

Regards,

Joe

I know you've not suggested such, but an integral part of the Hebrew story is the Biblical Exodus. As to Akhenaten being Joseph:

Markers DYS393 and YGATA-H4 showed identical allele constellations (repeat motif located in the microsatellite allele reiterated 13 and 11 times, respectively) in Amenhotep III, KV55, and Tutankhamun but different allelotypes in the nonrelated CCG61065 sample from TT320 (9 and 9, respectively). Syngeneic Y-chromosomal DNA in the 3 former mummies indicates that

they share the same paternal lineage.

We identified Yuya and Thuya as great-grandparents of Tutankhamun, Amenhotep III and KV35EL as his grandparents, and the KV55 male and KV35YL as his sibling parents...

Source: Ancestry and Pathology in King Tutankhamun’s FamilyJAMA, February 17, 2010—Vol 303, No. 7

Since you’ve already shown Tutankhamun is Akhenaten’s son in your PDF then the genetics would show that Akhenaten is indeed the son of Amenhotep III.

cormac

Edited by cormac mac airt
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What you believe is one thing, what you can demonstrate by archeological findings is quite another. Even if Armana would have been full of servant Jews the number would have been nowhere near 600,000 plus their families (see Numbers) in fact it would have been nowhere to 1/100 of that. For the rest of Egypt we know for sure that there was no time in history when suddenly half a million people disappeared. That would have been around 1/4 of the population and certainly noticeable in the archeological findings.

I wrote a paper to show the archeological findings that support what I believe to be true. I do not believe the 600,000 number is true. Perhaps you can show what I have said to make you think otherwise.

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you’ve already shown Tutankhamun is Akhenaten’s son in your PDF then the genetics would show that Akhenaten is indeed the son of Amenhotep III.

cormac

Cormac,

Your premise for this argument is flawed. I do not believe that Tut was Akhenaten’s son. If my paper gave you that impression, then I need to do some re-writing.

Regards,

Joe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Unlike the other royal children who made clear that they were the offspring of Pharaoh, Akhenaten only used the same filial terms that vassals used toward their suzerains:

Aldred says that Tutankhuaten was referred to as "The King‟s Son, of his loins,…" (p.287) He also quotes another prince as being "The eldest son of the divine flesh…". (p.136) Redford says that the daughters of Akhenaten were called the "king‟s bodily daughters… born of the great king‟s wife Nefertity". (p.79-82)

All of which relates these people to Akhenaten the way Aldred has written it.

There's also this, from another source:

In El Ashmunein, during the last century, a limestone block that was broken into two pieces was found. The first piece of the block has an inscription that reads: the king’s son of his body Tutankhaton. On the other piece of the block the inscription reads: the daughter of the king, of his body, his great desire of the king of Two Lands, Ankhesenpaaton. Scholars suggest that this inscription is not only one of the few pieces of evidence showing Tut is from Tell El Amarna but also showing Akhenaton is the father of Tut because Tut is mentioned as the son along with the well-known daughter of Akhenaton, Ankhesenpaaton. Ankhesenpaaton was the third daughter of Akhenaton and Nefertiti and she was the wife of Tut.

Which effectively makes both Tutankhamun and Ankhesenpaaton children of Akhenaten.

http://guardians.net/hawass/articles/tut_akhenaten.htm

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jumping in for a moment, there's another timeline issue Joe needs to consider.

People often try to place Joseph into a fixed time period within Egypt. Usually I see people try to equate Akhenaten with Moses, which in and of itself brings up all sorts of problems, but this one about Joseph is a bit different. The Old Testament offers clues that help us to place Joseph.

Exodus 12:40 states that the Israelites dwelled in Egypt for 430 years. Now, due to the Old Testament's description of the Hebrews' bondage in Pi-Ramesses and Pithom (Exodus 1:11), most biblical scholars identify Ramesses II as the pharaoh of Exodus. Playing devil's advocate and setting aside for the moment that there is no extra-biblical evidence for anything like Exodus to have occurred, this identification with Ramesses II is the most logical choice. The city of Pi-Ramesses (pr-ramss) did not exist prior to Ramesses II, so there you go. The traditional date for the death of Ramesses II is 1212 BCE.

Now, back to Joseph. If the Hebrews dwelled in the land of Egypt for 430 years, subtracting this from 1212 BCE gives us a date of 1642 BCE. This date in the mid-seventeenth century BCE falls within Dynasty 15, the period of the Hyksos and their domination over Lower Egypt and parts of the southern realms. This is why a lot of people who view the Hyksos as the same people as the Hebrews believe that Joseph lived at this time in Egypt. Moreover, the name Yosef is well attested in Semitic dialects, and the Hyksos were largely from southern Palestine.

That the Hyksos actually were not the Hebrews and in fact had no connection with them is another debate. The fact is, the only evidence for the biblical Joseph is the Old Testament itself, so we are obligated to turn to the Old Testament and observe what it can tell us. It tells us Joseph would've lived almost 300 years before Akhenaten.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you claiming that Thutmose III is Hebrew because of the shape of his nose? Hooked noses are not a monopoly of any one ethnicity!

First it is a statue of Mosesaka Tutmosis II

I agree about the nose comment but this statue looked very different than the other pharohs, could be from the mother's side. But its definitely not African.

I was totally shocked when I discovered I had ancient Egyptian markers. I suspected that Joseph as well as some other Hebrew decendents included Eqyptian Pharoh DNA markers as well because of intermarriages, concubines or slaves even though they were frowned upon by both sides. They lived in the same land and depending on what language of heiroglyphs or old Hebrew sephers different names could have been referring to the same people in some instances that became Biblical characters.

You have to link the archeology. DNA and the myths for clues to help fill in the unknown. It needs serious research to discover the reality behind the stories. I'm glad some people are starting to speculate even if it's not totally correct because that means it will be researched eventually :) Myths do have a basis on reality.Tower of Babel was considered a total myth but then ruins were finally discovered that confirmed there was a gigantic building there.

As for the other post about 600.000 left Egypt with Moses being absurd.

You have to consider the old language might of meant "souls" not necessarily living people. The Exodus generation was supposed to be of the one "soul" of Adam whether living or dead. At the time of Exodus from Egypt the generations of Adam had became 600,000 existing "soul" parts meant to become as one Adam soul. You can't take everything literally especially in ancient religions, there are too many variables to be concidered. But still, I think you can find clues to the real history thats also part of the equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it is a statue of Mosesaka Tutmosis II

I agree about the nose comment but this statue looked very different than the other pharohs, could be from the mother's side. But its definitely not African.

I was totally shocked when I discovered I had ancient Egyptian markers. I suspected that Joseph as well as some other Hebrew decendents included Eqyptian Pharoh DNA markers as well because of intermarriages, concubines or slaves even though they were frowned upon by both sides. They lived in the same land and depending on what language of heiroglyphs or old Hebrew sephers different names could have been referring to the same people in some instances that became Biblical characters.

You have to link the archeology. DNA and the myths for clues to help fill in the unknown. It needs serious research to discover the reality behind the stories. I'm glad some people are starting to speculate even if it's not totally correct because that means it will be researched eventually :) Myths do have a basis on reality.Tower of Babel was considered a total myth but then ruins were finally discovered that confirmed there was a gigantic building there.

As for the other post about 600.000 left Egypt with Moses being absurd.

You have to consider the old language might of meant "souls" not necessarily living people. The Exodus generation was supposed to be of the one "soul" of Adam whether living or dead. At the time of Exodus from Egypt the generations of Adam had became 600,000 existing "soul" parts meant to become as one Adam soul. You can't take everything literally especially in ancient religions, there are too many variables to be concidered. But still, I think you can find clues to the real history thats also part of the equation.

Tuthmose II's royal names were Aakheperenre, Thutmose, Ka Nekhet User Pehty, Neter Nesyt and Sekhem Kheperu. On what basis are you claiming Mosesaka was used in any part of his royal names?

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tuthmose II's royal names were Aakheperenre, Thutmose, Ka Nekhet User Pehty, Neter Nesyt and Sekhem Kheperu. On what basis are you claiming Mosesaka was used in any part of his royal names?

cormac

It's the name as listed on the statue at the museum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First it is a statue of Mosesaka Tutmosis II

I agree about the nose comment but this statue looked very different than the other pharohs, could be from the mother's side. But its definitely not African.

I was totally shocked when I discovered I had ancient Egyptian markers. I suspected that Joseph as well as some other Hebrew decendents included Eqyptian Pharoh DNA markers as well because of intermarriages, concubines or slaves even though they were frowned upon by both sides. They lived in the same land and depending on what language of heiroglyphs or old Hebrew sephers different names could have been referring to the same people in some instances that became Biblical characters.

You have to link the archeology. DNA and the myths for clues to help fill in the unknown. It needs serious research to discover the reality behind the stories. I'm glad some people are starting to speculate even if it's not totally correct because that means it will be researched eventually :) Myths do have a basis on reality.Tower of Babel was considered a total myth but then ruins were finally discovered that confirmed there was a gigantic building there.

As for the other post about 600.000 left Egypt with Moses being absurd.

You have to consider the old language might of meant "souls" not necessarily living people. The Exodus generation was supposed to be of the one "soul" of Adam whether living or dead. At the time of Exodus from Egypt the generations of Adam had became 600,000 existing "soul" parts meant to become as one Adam soul. You can't take everything literally especially in ancient religions, there are too many variables to be concidered. But still, I think you can find clues to the real history thats also part of the equation.

That Thutmose II/III mistake keeps haunting me! I plead bleary-eyed-double-vision-very-late-at-night excuse. Now, if you have ancient Egyptian DNA markers, that makes us kind of distant cousins so please let go of it, after all, to err is human! :blush::P

I think it is unrealistic to totally rule out intermarriage in general, but it is also unreasonable to connect a nose shape to one ethnicity in particular or to read too much into it. Myth may be used to shed light on historical events but only if there are historical and archaeological evidence to support it. You are right that the subject is interesting and should be studied, but not only are all records silent about a sizeable Hebrew population being settled for a long time in Egypt, there are no traces of their settlements. No writings, articles of worship, foundations of temples or houses etc., nor of the plagues either were found. According to the Bible, the Pharaoh and his army gave chase and drowned at the end, but there is nothing from the Egyptian side to corraborate or even indicate that such traumatic events took place. As a Copt I have no inhibitions against the myth or the Bible, but unless it is verified and proven it has to remain separate from historical facts.

I am not sure I fully understood your explanation of the 600,000 souls being of the 'one soul of Adam'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the name as listed on the statue at the museum

If that's true I think someone at the museum screwed up, since Mosesaka is not an Ancient Egyptian name AFAIK. It does look alot like "Moses AKA" which would be an English term meaning "Moses ALSO KNOWN AS". And no Egyptologist of any merit would equate Moses with Tuthmose II.

cormac

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joe are you placing Joseph and Moses at the same time ?, or are you placing Joseph at Akenaten time of 1353-1336 and the exodus later? I relate moses and the plaques to the time of Akenaten, there is evidence of the bunonic plaque at Armana.

Edited by docyabut2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That Thutmose II/III mistake keeps haunting me! I plead bleary-eyed-double-vision-very-late-at-night excuse. Now, if you have ancient Egyptian DNA markers, that makes us kind of distant cousins so please let go of it, after all, to err is human! :blush::P

I think it is unrealistic to totally rule out intermarriage in general, but it is also unreasonable to connect a nose shape to one ethnicity in particular or to read too much into it. Myth may be used to shed light on historical events but only if there are historical and archaeological evidence to support it. You are right that the subject is interesting and should be studied, but not only are all records silent about a sizeable Hebrew population being settled for a long time in Egypt, there are no traces of their settlements. No writings, articles of worship, foundations of temples or houses etc., nor of the plagues either were found. According to the Bible, the Pharaoh and his army gave chase and drowned at the end, but there is nothing from the Egyptian side to corraborate or even indicate that such traumatic events took place. As a Copt I have no inhibitions against the myth or the Bible, but unless it is verified and proven it has to remain separate from historical facts.

I am not sure I fully understood your explanation of the 600,000 souls being of the 'one soul of Adam'.

Yes we are cousins if we can believe DNA markers.

My grandparents on both sides had inter faith marriages. One side had the family records to the 1400's so that was no mystery how they migrated country to country. I knew of the Jewish roots on one side and the Huegonauts some Orthodox then Kabbalah as well as European Catholics and Protestants on the others sides of the family history. I wanted to know about what I was missing and then went the DNA route with some other members of my family. I always thought I was much more European decent then anything else. The really ancient markers linking to the Pharoh mummy DNA lead me to say "where the h*ll did that come from!" I searched a little and that's when I found that statue...it put a twist of lot of what if's in my head but there's really NOT enough evidence for all the different speculations.

I still like the people trying to connect the dots even is it's wrong at first at least they're interested enough to link the stories as clues and do research on the time lines the best they can. I don't want to discourage anyone from doing research.

I like reading the oldest translations and museum copies of the original language of ALL old religions, myths and symbology. Soul of Adam is an old concept kind of like being a member of the body of Christ in modern Christianity. The faithful decendents of Abraham will become as Adam before the fall when they are truly united and not breaking any covenants, more or less. They should have been that way during Moses' time but we all know what happened in the story of the creation of the golden calf idol.

Edited by White Unicorn
1 person likes this

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 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.