Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Archaeological Evidence For Moses


sinewave

Recommended Posts

As usual, I think it's telling you quote these things without telling us their source. We can't see if (or how) you've changed them, or if they agree with other translations. I can't see any real difference between using a religious source and using material from your website, since they're both essentially propagandist.

--Jaylemurph

I did state very clearly that these references come from Josephus [The New Complete Works of Josephus, William Whiston & Paul Maier, Kregel Publications, 1999], and the actual references appear directly after the name, e.g. AA means Against Apion, etc. I did neglect to add the reference for Justin, which comes from the same book, p. 1014, Dissertation 3, Justin Book 36, 1(75).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That made my day! You're quite right to point out my error! Well said!

--Jaylemurph

Thanks Jaylemurph! ... the line (" a little learning is a dangerous thing") is misquoted by most people... It's a GREAT poem isn't it? .. I had never read it before . I'm often incapable of participating in discussion, so i hope it's ok if i insert an occasional minor correction, when i can. In That spirit... Emma_Acid.. a fossil is any organism ,plant or animal, recorded in rock.. not just bone. ... i think... that may be a dangerous supposition on my part :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kmt, that sure was informative. that about wraps the issue up for me. Domestic pig farming was widespread after all and Jews are post exile, hebrews pre exile. Simple. The only point a would like to mention is as to the writing of the scripture. Is it prudent to think that Moses passed down the first five books in an oral tradition until they were wrote by scribes during the exile or were they written much earlier? Either way what is the chance of Books develoing or being altered in the centuries where it was recalled orally?

Now, if we argue that the Moses books were "edited" or passed down incoherently we are already casting doubt on the whole thing and are back to archeological evidence where the result is ..... (still looking for it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I would have to state that monotheism was first practiced in Egypt, if only for a very short time. It has nothing to do with Moses or the later rise of monotheistic Judah, which is obvious, but I am always compelled to say that. :D

Not to me!! Thanks anyway.

What was the purpose of this brief spate of monotheism? It seems that monotheism arises when there's a need for unity, such as Judaism and the tribes of Israel, or Christianity uniting the Eastern Roman Empire.

Is this the case with Egypt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Jaylemurph! ... the line (" a little learning is a dangerous thing") is misquoted by most people... It's a GREAT poem isn't it? .. I had never read it before . I'm often incapable of participating in discussion, so i hope it's ok if i insert an occasional minor correction, when i can. In That spirit... Emma_Acid.. a fossil is any organism ,plant or animal, recorded in rock.. not just bone. ... i think... that may be a dangerous supposition on my part :)

Yes, it is! It's marvelous, and remains one of the best examples of literary criticism in English -- I love how he manages to re-create every literary error and then correct it in the next line.

And only fools can't bear honest correction when they're wrong.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Kmt, that sure was informative. that about wraps the issue up for me. Domestic pig farming was widespread after all and Jews are post exile, hebrews pre exile. Simple. The only point a would like to mention is as to the writing of the scripture. Is it prudent to think that Moses passed down the first five books in an oral tradition until they were wrote by scribes during the exile or were they written much earlier? Either way what is the chance of Books develoing or being altered in the centuries where it was recalled orally?

I have a hard time seeing Moses as an actual, living person in the first place. I regard him as mytho-historical. I think it's safe to say no one named Moses was responsible for any of the Pentateuch (first five books). That many of the writings in the Pentateuch began as oral tradition is a near certainty, however. It's not all that different from the Iliad and Odyssey and Homer. Homer probably was a real person but it's quite unlikely he crafted the Iliad and Odyssey himself. For that matter we cannot be certain if Homer was even literate, but for whatever reason the Iliad and Odyssey were attached to him. The meter and composition of these two stories reveal that they began as oral tradition and were only later committed to paper.

So it is with the Old Testament. When the books of this part of the Bible, the Pentateuch included, first began as oral tradition is probably impossible to determine. We can see vestiges of themes borrowed from other cultures, such as the flood myth from Mesopotamia, the foundling in the basket from Assyria, and Egyptian wisdom teachings in such passages as Psalms, but the precise origins of oral traditions are extremely difficult to pin down.

What we can say is that widespread literacy was common in Judah by the seventh century BCE (Schniedewind 2004: 99), but that doesn't necessarily tell us when the Torah was first penned. The more archaeology that is conducted in the Holy Land, the more informative the result can be. A recent issue of Biblical Archaeology Review (200th Issue) has a very interesting article on excavations taking place at the site of Ketef Hinnom, in which the clearing of a tomb in 1979 revealed two tiny silver-foil amuletic scrolls on which were written fragmented prayers. The excavators of the time were unable to examine these little scrolls properly because of the damage they had sustained, but advances in technology (including fiber optics) have enabled modern researchers to decipher them.

It turns out these two little scrolls bear the earliest extrabiblical references to Yahweh and the oldest-known reference to priestly blessings that would become part of Numbers 6:24-26. The scrolls date to the late seventh century BCE (BAR, Barkay 2009: 34-35, 122-124). This suggests that the Torah was first being assembled around the same time that literacy was becoming widespread in Judah.

I know, this is a long way to go to try to express the fact that the original writings of the Old Testament are significantly more complex than the general version that Moses and a scant handful of others sat down and penned them. We will never know, in fact, who actually first wrote them, and how many hands down through the centuries edited them. Finds such as the Dead Sea Scrolls near Qumran and the Nag Hammadi gnostic gospels in Egypt demonstrate the wide variety of forms and versions the oldest Judaic and Christian texts took. It was a conscious and deliberate act at the hands of the powers that be back then that shaped the Torah for the Jews and the New Testament for the Christians. We can go back even farther than Qumran for the Jews and see that after Cyrus the Great freed them from captivity and sent them back to Jerusalem, there was a fair amount of editing and revising of extant books such as Kings. The Old Testament was never a fixed or static icon but rather a corpus very long in the making. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not to me!! Thanks anyway.

What was the purpose of this brief spate of monotheism? It seems that monotheism arises when there's a need for unity, such as Judaism and the tribes of Israel, or Christianity uniting the Eastern Roman Empire.

Is this the case with Egypt?

Even the most brilliant historians alive today are still debating the exact reasons Akhenaten carried out his profound religious revisions in the fourteenth century BCE. I don't know if I can do it proper justice when compared to some of the experts who have written about the Amarna Period of Dynasty 18 (particularly Cyril Aldred, Donald Redford, and Nicholas Reeves), but there are competing theories.

  • Religious visionary. This theory is based solely on the piety and religious zeal Akhenaten may have possessed. The deity known as the Aten existed in the pantheon long before the time of Akhenaten, and indeed his own father, Amunhotep III, appears to have made veneration of the Aten a personal form of piety, but Akhenaten brought it to extremes. Akhenaten was probably schooled at Heliopolis and had the solar religion driven into him from an early age, but why he became so attached to the Aten is anyone's guess, in the end. The Aten was actually only a minor manifestation of the primary solar god Re, so in the early Amarna Period Akhenaten allowed the worship of Re and related deities such as Horus and Re-Horakhty; in fact, the earliest depictions of the Aten in Akhenaten's reign show it in the form of the solar aspect of Horus. It was only toward the end of his reign that Akhenaten narrowed the pool of gods to the Aten and the Aten alone. This theory would suggest a growing obsession with the Aten such that other more prominent deities were forced out of the scene.
  • Control of the Amun priesthood. Here, Akhenaten's veneration of the Aten was a means to bring the extremely powerful and wealthy cult of Amun to an end. This is quite plausible because Amun had been a god of ever-increasing importance since the Middle Kingdom (especially beginning around 1974 BCE), and kings were obligated to give a certain percentage of lands, wealth from military conquests, and foreign tributes to the main state temples. Amun was the main state god beginning in the New Kingdom, and by the time of Akhenaten, more than 600 years after Amun first began to grow in dominance, you can imagine how wealthy the priesthood of this god must have been. Amun's main cult center was in ancient Thebes, at the Karnak complex, and it is believed that by the time of Akhenaten this priesthood controlled fully a quarter of all cultivatable lands in Egypt.
    Bearing in mind that agriculture was the backbone of the Egyptian economy, this amount of wealth controlled by one priesthood is difficult to fathom. It's not an exaggeration to state that the high priests at Thebes rivaled Akhenaten in wealth and wielded significant power in the court. (As an aside, the female king Hatshepsut earlier in Dynasty 18 was able to assume full power of the throne most probably because of her powerful contacts within the Amun priesthood of her own time.) It's not difficult to imagine, then, how a king with different beliefs might be motivated to shut down this economic and possible political threat. The economy could not sustain two main gods with two main cult complexes at the same time, so the theory goes Akhenaten proscribed worship of Amun, closed down Karnak, and shifted full emphasis to the Aten.
  • Plague. A more recent theory suggests motivations based on widespread plague. There is evidence to suggest that sickness was ravaging the Nile Valley in the pervious reign of Amunhotep III. It's believed that migrants from Syro-Palestine may have brought the plague with them, into Egypt. Veneration of the old gods was not producing the desired results of ending the plague, so the theory goes, so in desperation Akhenaten abandoned the old ways, moved to a virgin site in Middle Egypt, built a new capital city, and took up veneration of a once-minor deity that he elevated to the highest status. The plague theory also seems plausible because Akhenaten wrote on boundary stelae surrounding his new city that he vowed never to leave it once he had moved in there. And by all appearances he kept to his word. His self-imposed isolation led to a collapse of Egypt's dominance in surrounding regions, the might of the military waned, and foreign powers like the Hatti and Mitanni were allowed to grow strong. It was as though Akhenaten was terrified of venturing beyond the confines of the city of Akhetaten. In point of fact, though Egypt would rebound in power and position after the time of Akhenaten, it would never quite regain the supreme and uncontested position it enjoyed before his reign.
  • A combination of the above. LOL A combination of the above.

In other words, there can be no easy answer as to why Akhenaten created the world's oldest version of monotheism. We simply do not have all of the answers. The harsh truth is, we know next to nothing about the actual personalities and characters of Egyptian kings, so it goes to follow that we often don't know what their true motivations were for any given course of action.

Sorry this got so long, and I'm sure it's a helluva lot more than you wanted. You know me, though: when it comes to ancient Egypt, I can't shut up. And the Amarna Period of Dynasty 18 is one of the most mysterious and interesting periods in all of pharaonic history. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to rely on Kmt-Sesh for the exact Dynasty here.

The warrior pharaoh Tuthmoses the II(?) or III(?), whose disfigured mummy resides in the Egyptian museum has, in recent years, been considered the best candidate to be the pharaoh of the Exodus. Translated his name means "brother of Moses". Any glance at his remains show he died a horrific death, possibly in battle. His skull shows lethal signs of having been repeatedly struck with a battle ax; his wounds were compared to the marks a copy of that era's Kmt battle axe and the marks are close to a perfect match, allowing for the fact he was not mummified in a decent amoount of time, decomposition had already started.

His face is contorted in what can only be described as a death scream, his hands and arms are raised in a deffensive manner.

Scant period records of neighboring countries, such as modern day Isreal and the Sudan, have been uncovered in recent years that mention a great migration out of Kmt at the same time Tuthmoses died. It is known that Tuthmoses did indeed have an elder brother whose name is lost in time, who was to ascend the throne by right of direct lineage.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that both Tuthmosis I and II were 18th dynasty but I'd be interested in kmt_sesh's reply, myself, as to the translation of the name as "brother of Moses". Particularly as "Moses" as a name didn't exist in Ancient Egypt. A more correct translation would be "born of Thoth", IIRC.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will have to rely on Kmt-Sesh for the exact Dynasty here.

The warrior pharaoh Tuthmoses the II(?) or III(?), whose disfigured mummy resides in the Egyptian museum has, in recent years, been considered the best candidate to be the pharaoh of the Exodus. Translated his name means "brother of Moses". Any glance at his remains show he died a horrific death, possibly in battle. His skull shows lethal signs of having been repeatedly struck with a battle ax; his wounds were compared to the marks a copy of that era's Kmt battle axe and the marks are close to a perfect match, allowing for the fact he was not mummified in a decent amoount of time, decomposition had already started.

His face is contorted in what can only be described as a death scream, his hands and arms are raised in a deffensive manner.

Scant period records of neighboring countries, such as modern day Isreal and the Sudan, have been uncovered in recent years that mention a great migration out of Kmt at the same time Tuthmoses died. It is known that Tuthmoses did indeed have an elder brother whose name is lost in time, who was to ascend the throne by right of direct lineage.

The name Tuthmosis, which is a Greek derivation of the actual name Djehutymose, does not refer to the biblical Moses. In this case it means "born of Thoth.' Again the Greeks are guilty of some linguistic corruption because to the Egyptians Thoth was actually pronounced Djehuty, the Egyptian god writing, magic, and wisdom. The "mose" portion (transliterated ms) means "born of" ("child of" is another translation).

Both Tuthmosis II and Tuthmosis III reigned in Dynasty 18 (1549-1069 BCE). Tuthmosis II died an old man and as his mummy reveals, there are no indications of trauma; he died of natural causes. Tuthmosis III also died in old age. Likewise, his mummy, although badly damaged in antiquity, shows no sign of perimortem trauma. Again, natural causes.

Some have tried to fix the Exodus within the reign of Tuthmosis III because of 1 Kings 6:1, where we are told that Solomon built his temple 480 years after the Exodus. By Dodson's chronology Tuthmosis III reigned 1479-1424 BCE. Solomon built his temple in 968 BCE. Counting back 480 years, then, we arrive at the approximate date of 1448 BCE. So indeed, the date would fall within the reign of Tuthmosis III, the most powerful warrior pharaoh of dynastic history. The problem is, many years of exhaustive archaeological work in the Holy Land have confirmed that the Hebrews did not yet exist at this early time. The very earliest evidence for them anywhere is on the Victory Stela of Merenptah, who reigned 1212-1201 BCE, in Dynasty 19, over 200 years after the time of Tuthmosis III.

There is, however, a royal mummy who bears the wounds you're describing, and this mummy is very well known for it. Examine this image. The most likely explanation for these gruesome wounds is in fact battle, although alternative explanations have been posited. This is the mummy of Seqenenre Tao II, who reigned 1558-1553 BCE, late in Dynasty 17. This was at the end of the Second Intermediate Period. This king, also known as Intef V Sekhemre-wepmaat, is probably the man who initiated war with the Hyksos, who ruled all of Lower Egypt and portions of Upper Egypt at this time. He likely perished in battle against the Hyksos, and his battle cry was subsequently carried on by his sons Kamose and Ahmose I, the latter of whom was ultimately successful in driving the Hyksos out of Egypt and deep into Canaan, where he virtually exterminated them. Ahmose I was the founder of Dynasty 18 and the New Kingdom, whereupon Egypt became the primary power of the Near East.

The Hyksos are most definitely not to be confused with the Hebrews, as I've repeatedly tried to stress in other posts. You find the connection on a myriad of dubious websites and in a number of books written by fringe writers who do not appear to understand how to practice good research methods, so the connection between the Hyksos and Hebrews can be dismissed with confidence. This was in a time well before the Hebrews existed. The Hyksos were simply a mixture of Western Semitic peoples mostly from southern Palestine, and it is clear from the excavations of their principal settlements in the Nile Delta that they practiced the same sort of burials and worshiped the same pagan gods as their Canaanite kin up north. Seqenenre Tao II died at the hands of worshipers of Baal and Astarte, not Yahweh. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know that both Tuthmosis I and II were 18th dynasty but I'd be interested in kmt_sesh's reply, myself, as to the translation of the name as "brother of Moses". Particularly as "Moses" as a name didn't exist in Ancient Egypt. A more correct translation would be "born of Thoth", IIRC.

cormac

Hey, I just posted my response. Didn't you notice? Oh, wait, yours came first. :P

I did address the "brother of Moses" comment. It is not accurate, to be sure. In an earlier post of this thread I believe I mentioned that there are a few examples, actually, of men from ancient Egypt who did in fact bear the name Ms or Mss. Exactly how the vowels may have worked is anyone's guess, so "Moses" might be one example. We don't know for sure, so in the literature the name is typically written as Mese, Mose, Meses, and other variations. To be sure, none of these have any connection with the biblical Moses. That would be speculative nonsense, of course.

I personally am not sure what the name Ms or Mss would have meant in ancient Egypt, but it probably would not have meant the same thing as the root ms ("born of") in a name like Tuthmosis or Ramesses. The element ms is found in a very large number of Egyptian words, and alone it can mean such things as "calf," "boquet," "indeed," and even the verb "to bring, present" (Faulkner 2002:116-117). It likely has a myriad of other meanings, some of which might lend themselves well to a person's name, but to be honest I'm not inclined to go digging through my library or something as verbose as the Wörterbuch to find more answers. I'm too damn tired and it's time to get my beauty sleep!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People have long tried to fix a time for the biblical Exodus. The Old Testament (1 Kings 6:1) tells us the Exodus occurred 480 years after the building of Solomon's temple, which was erected around 968 BCE. This would place the Exodus in around 1448 BCE. In Egypt this would place the Exodus in Dynasty 18, specifically during the reign of Tuthmosis III, who was on the throne from around 1479 to 1425 BCE (Reeves & Wilkinson 1996).

Hello.

I think you have to bear in the mind the different original versions of the bible when you are trying to date things. For example this verse:

Exodus 12:40

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt [ Masoretic Text; Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint Egypt and Canaan ] was 430 years.

The little word 'and' that appears in some versions will change your timeline by 215 years. Most dates in the bible have this problem. Which version of the original text you use will change the timelines by centuries.

Egyptology has this problem too. Some dynasties are now claimed to have ruled concurrently in different parts of Egypt, upper and lower, especially in the 20s. Depending on which King list you use, some Pharoahs will be concurrent or consecutive and will also throw your timelimes out by centuries.

The modern tradition of Moses is also based on an interpretation of a translation, supported by later tradition. If you take the location of Mount Sinai for example, Coptic and Catholic tradition has a location in Egypt and a monastery has been built on it. However, the bible's location of Mount Sinai is not there. Jewish tradition has it in modern day Saudi Arabia.

So when no evidence is found to support a traditional interpretation it does not mean the original event never happened, it may just mean that the traditional interpretation is flawed.

The 'Red Sea' is another one. The bible doesnt say the 'Red Sea' parted. A translation from 1603 does!

:w00t:

Edited by lismore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello.

I think you have to bear in the mind the different original versions of the bible when you are trying to date things. For example this verse:

Exodus 12:40

Now the length of time the Israelite people lived in Egypt [ Masoretic Text; Samaritan Pentateuch and Septuagint Egypt and Canaan ] was 430 years.

The little word 'and' that appears in some versions will change your timeline by 215 years. Most dates in the bible have this problem. Which version of the original text you use will change the timelines by centuries.

Egyptology has this problem too. Some dynasties are now claimed to have ruled concurrently in different parts of Egypt, upper and lower, especially in the 20s. Depending on which King list you use, some Pharoahs will be concurrent or consecutive and will also throw your timelimes out by centuries.

The modern tradition of Moses is also based on an interpretation of a translation, supported by later tradition. If you take the location of Mount Sinai for example, Coptic and Catholic tradition has a location in Egypt and a monastery has been built on it. However, the bible's location of Mount Sinai is not there. Jewish tradition has it in modern day Saudi Arabia.

So when no evidence is found to support a traditional interpretation it does not mean the original event never happened, it may just mean that the traditional interpretation is flawed.

The 'Red Sea' is another one. The bible doesnt say the 'Red Sea' parted. A translation from 1603 does!

:w00t:

All of which is why (as I said in the beginning of this thread) no serious historian uses the Bible as a source text.

--Jaylemurph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parting of the Sea

Anyone ever considered this possibility?

In the Koran it is claimed that the very first plague to hit Egypt was a flood, and that this flood was accompanied by a mighty blast and showers of stone. This 'flood', a tsunami caused by the eruption of Thera, would have been perceived as a 'wall of water' that collapsed on the Egyptians and everyone else along the coastline. The Pharaoh's chariots were swept away by this tsunami, but the facts were later distorted into the biblical version we have today.

Koran [VII.133, 136]: "We sent them the flood and the locusts and the vermin and the frogs and the blood … therefore we drowned them in the sea: because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of them."

Koran [XXIX, 39-40, Ali]:

"(Remember also) Qarun, Pharaoh and Haman: there came to them Moses with clear signs, but they behaved with insolence on the earth; yet they could not overreach (Us). Each one of them we seized for his crime: of them, against some we sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some we caught by a (mighty) blast; some we caused the earth to swallow up; and some we drowned (in the waters): it was not Allah who injured (and oppressed) them: they injured (and oppressed) their own souls."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder what relevance there is to a text from a religion (Islam) that didn't even exist until more than 2200 years after the Thera eruption. Current dating of which is given as 1613 BC +/- 10 years. Also there is no evidence that this catastrophe was the first to ever hit Egypt. That's a bit presumptuous on someone's part. Also there is no evidence in Egyptian records (archaeological or textual) of a pharaoh or his army being destroyed by this event.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there is no evidence in Egyptian records (archaeological or textual) of a pharaoh or his army being destroyed by this event.

cormac

It really is a pity the the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed - it would no doubt have shed some light on the issue.

There is a significant amount of circumstancial evidence (textual) relating to the events of the Exodus - see my earlier response on this topic, and read more here if you are interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is a pity the the Library of Alexandria had been destroyed - it would no doubt have shed some light on the issue.

There is a significant amount of circumstancial evidence (textual) relating to the events of the Exodus - see my earlier response on this topic, and read more here if you are interested.

From your website:

Many scholars have realized that the plagues of Egypt must have been caused by an eruption of the Aegean volcano Thera, today called Santorini.

Who are these “many scholars” and what makes them think the Thera eruption “must” have been what caused the plagues. Many of which have happened several times in Egyptian history.

So Prince Tuthmosis, whose name means “born of Thoth” and who was described as "Crown Prince, Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, High Priest of Ptah in Memphis and Sm-priest (of Ptah)" is being equated with Moses. Rather a stretch. Being the first born son of Amenhotep III would make him full Egyptian, not Hebrew. Being an Egyptian priest doesn’t help the claim, either. As he is believed to have died late in his fathers reign, that puts him out of the lineup for being Moses, who was allegedly 120 years old when he died.

Contrary to what you wrote, the Thera eruption has shown not to date to 1360 BC and is therefore irrelevant to any story about Amenhotep III.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of which is why (as I said in the beginning of this thread) no serious historian uses the Bible as a source text.

--Jaylemurph

They dont use a traditional Western interpretation of a translation of a version of the bible you mean. But they do use Egyptian records, which are interpreted and translated and as another poster pointed out with the battle of Kadesh, highly fantasised.

Its a matter of perspective, the Old Testament was written by Jews about Jews, so they figure prominently in it. However, they are a small nation and a small people in the overall scheme of things. What is important to a small nation's history might not merit a mention on the world history stage.

My point is that many scholars set out to disprove things that the original bible doesnt say in the first place.

The date worked out for the Exodus above {reign of Tutmosis} was from a version of the biblical text with a missing word which throws the meaning out 215 years and based on an Egyptian Chronology where the Pharoahs are all mixed up. That date might be approaching 500 years off what the bible would infer............

Edited by lismore
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also there is no evidence in Egyptian records (archaeological or textual) of a pharaoh or his army being destroyed by this event.

If Rameses had died in the battle of Kadesh he wouldnt have been able to write all his whopping big lies about it would he? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rameses had died in the battle of Kadesh it would still have nothing to do with Moses, so is meaningless to this discussion.

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One has to wonder what relevance there is to a text from a religion (Islam) that didn't even exist until more than 2200 years after the Thera eruption.

That would depend on the Koran itself. What was it based on? Oral tradition or earlier written documents? And also when it was written and by whom? If some of what it says ties-in with the Jewish scriptures.......that would be interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Parting of the Sea

Anyone ever considered this possibility?

In the Koran it is claimed that the very first plague to hit Egypt was a flood, and that this flood was accompanied by a mighty blast and showers of stone. This 'flood', a tsunami caused by the eruption of Thera, would have been perceived as a 'wall of water' that collapsed on the Egyptians and everyone else along the coastline. The Pharaoh's chariots were swept away by this tsunami, but the facts were later distorted into the biblical version we have today.

Koran [VII.133, 136]: "We sent them the flood and the locusts and the vermin and the frogs and the blood … therefore we drowned them in the sea: because they denied Our revelations and were heedless of them."

Koran [XXIX, 39-40, Ali]:

"(Remember also) Qarun, Pharaoh and Haman: there came to them Moses with clear signs, but they behaved with insolence on the earth; yet they could not overreach (Us). Each one of them we seized for his crime: of them, against some we sent a violent tornado (with showers of stones); some we caught by a (mighty) blast; some we caused the earth to swallow up; and some we drowned (in the waters): it was not Allah who injured (and oppressed) them: they injured (and oppressed) their own souls."

I would have to agree with cormac. With respect to the religion of Islam, the Quran is no more a reliable work of history than is the Torah, and is arguably less so. In simplest terms Islam is a melding of Judaism, early Christianity, and far older pagan Arabic traditions.

While the Thera eruption had to have wreaked havoc throughout the eastern Mediterranean, Egypt included, there is simply no physical evidence for widespread destruction in the Delta. This is beside the fact that no extant Egyptian text speaks of such an event in Lower Egypt. Archaeology of Delta sites to learn more about their history has not yielded evidence of anything like a tsunami or other natural destructive forces. You can be sure, such evidence would exist in the stratigraphy of any given site. What we have instead are sites like Avaris and Mendes (ancient Djedet) which yield only evidence for destruction at the hands of man, but in no way tied to biblical events.

So Prince Tuthmosis, whose name means “born of Thoth” and who was described as "Crown Prince, Overseer of the Priests of Upper and Lower Egypt, High Priest of Ptah in Memphis and Sm-priest (of Ptah)" is being equated with Moses. Rather a stretch. Being the first born son of Amenhotep III would make him full Egyptian, not Hebrew. Being an Egyptian priest doesn’t help the claim, either. As he is believed to have died late in his fathers reign, that puts him out of the lineup for being Moses, who was allegedly 120 years old when he died.

Contrary to what you wrote, the Thera eruption has shown not to date to 1360 BC and is therefore irrelevant to any story about Amenhotep III.

cormac

Cormac, is Prince Thutmose actually someone's candidate for Moses? I must have missed that. Well, as you stated, he can be dismissed outright. Never mind the fact that the Hebrews did not yet exist at this time (reign of Amunhotep III, Dynasty 18)--like you said, he predeceased Amunhotep III. He was the elder son and crown prince, in line to succeed his father. The only reason Akhenaten came to the throne was the untimely death of his older brother, Thutmose. In fact, it seems clear Amunhotep III was not terribly interested in elevating his younger son because Akhenaten does not even appear in the historical record until after Prince Thutmose had died. :rolleyes:

I'm editing to add that perhaps it's I who am confused. I just remembered that it was Sigmund Freud's pet theory that the early death of Thutmose is what allowed Akhenaten to gain the throne and become Moses, or something silly like that. To be sure, however, anyone who attempts to use Sigmund Freud as a reliable historical source is seriously deluding himself. Um, I'd say let's stick with the actual experts on ancient Egypt, not a shrink with a pet theory. :lol:

Edited by kmt_sesh
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would depend on the Koran itself. What was it based on? Oral tradition or earlier written documents? And also when it was written and by whom? If some of what it says ties-in with the Jewish scriptures.......that would be interesting.

As I recall the story of the Prophet goes something like this. He was an illiterate guy who lived with his uncle the trader. He has some experiences like being transported to Jerusalem and dining with the patriarchs. He then starts having these dreams where a high pitched voice tells him to Iqra (recite). So he recites the Koran over and over. He would regularly have seizures and start reciting. I guess people started writing it down and it stuck. I ain't know scholar but that was the gist. He was a changed man after these experiences (as you would be) and led his people with strength and fought many battles. The Koran apparently is the same now as it was then, in theory with academic exceptions no doubt. An alternative view is that he was linked with the Sabean group who were an offshoot of the Nazoreans. In this case he could have been drugged or intiated or something more. What they have in common is extensive: Kosher/Halal are almost identical. Both venerate the patriarchs and have much else in common despite them being possibly a millenia or two apart. Surprising why more than anyone these faiths fail to coexist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Rameses had died in the battle of Kadesh he wouldnt have been able to write all his whopping big lies about it would he? :D

And there would be a hell of a lot fewer monuments in Egypt and a lot of blank space on temple walls. The Hittites, on the other hand, would've been delighted. :D

Ramesses II, nevertheless, is still the favorite for many scholars who have tried to find a time for the Exodus. The timeline as drawn from the Old Testament simply does not work. It's indeed interesting that the very earliest written evidence for the Hebrews appears in the subsequent reign of Merenptah, but that doesn't change the fact that wherever one wishes to plop the Exodus in the timeline, there is simply no real evidence whatsoever that it ever occurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cormac, is Prince Thutmose actually someone's candidate for Moses?

Kmt_sesh, that's from Riann's website. And yes, it's Freud's idea.

The idea that the Thera eruption has anything to do with Amenhotep III or Prince Tuthmosis is laughable at best. They're separated by about 250 years.

cormac

Link to comment
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.