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 6
Riaan

The Moses Puzzle

332 posts in this topic

Dear all,

Following complaints about the dry and academic style of Thera and the Exodus I decided to summarise the essence of the arguments I present in the book in a document I call The Moses Puzzle (you can read it online or download it here - 2.2MB). I chose this title as its emphasis is on the identification of Moses as Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the heir-to-the-throne of Amenhotep III, irrespective of any links between the Exodus and the eruption of Thera.

The key factor in the identification of Moses as Crown Prince Tuthmosis is the episode in which Moses sent messengers to the rulers of Jerusalem, summoning them to join his war against Egypt. In the El Arish Shrine Text the person who sent the messengers is named as the king’s son, and in The Story of Joseph and Asenath, written from the Hebrew perspective, he is named as the king’s eldest (firstborn) son. The Story of Joseph and Asenath also confirms Osman’s hypothesis that Joseph and Yuya were the same person, and Artapanus confirms that Moses assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull, as did Crown Prince Tuthmosis.

Please let me know what you think!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never found this idea to hold any water. As every Egyptologist has pointed out, the Jews appear to have been ancient Canaanites originally, and at this particular time in history were worshiping multiple deities (including Yahweh and his wife.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asherah#In_Israel_and_Judah

See also http://www.patheos.com/Library/Judaism.html

So Jewish monotheism would not have arisen at that time (or indeed for more than 500 years afterwards.) There's an indisputable Babylonian and Sumerian (and Persian) influence, but no real strong hallmarks of any Egyptian tradtions.

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a question; what language do you suppose your Egyptian 'Moses' was speaking? AE or Hebrew?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I never found this idea to hold any water. As every Egyptologist has pointed out, the Jews appear to have been ancient Canaanites originally, and at this particular time in history were worshiping multiple deities (including Yahweh and his wife.)

http://en.wikipedia....srael_and_Judah

See also http://www.patheos.c...ry/Judaism.html

So Jewish monotheism would not have arisen at that time (or indeed for more than 500 years afterwards.) There's an indisputable Babylonian and Sumerian (and Persian) influence, but no real strong hallmarks of any Egyptian tradtions.

I'm a conservative Christian, and I have to agree that Genesis and Exodus are just Creation Myth stories that really in all likelyhood never really happened. If archaeology showed signs of the Israelites ever being in Egypt, or of the Exodus ever happening, then I might think more on it, but so far I've not seen any convincing argument that the Jews ever came out of Egypt.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see little evidence that Moses was even a real person. Rather, he seems to be a mash up of various lawgiver myths popular among the people of the time.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...guess the OP isn't getting as many downloads as he wanted from this attempt.

--Jaylemurph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Just a question; what language do you suppose your Egyptian 'Moses' was speaking? AE or Hebrew?

That also occurred to me, which means (since even PaleoHebrew didn't really exist at that time) that Moses would have had to write the Bible in Egyptian hieroglyphs and that they'd have had to carry around scrolls of hieroglyphs with the source for the Torah.

And since PaleoHebrew wasn't a "thing" then the name of Tutmoses really DOES mean "Born of Thoth" and not "drawn forth" (http://biblehub.com/exodus/2-10.htm), so the meaning does not match.

Edited by Kenemet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear all,

Following complaints about the dry and academic style of Thera and the Exodus I decided to summarise the essence of the arguments I present in the book in a document I call The Moses Puzzle (you can read it online or download it here - 2.2MB). I chose this title as its emphasis is on the identification of Moses as Crown Prince Tuthmosis, the heir-to-the-throne of Amenhotep III, irrespective of any links between the Exodus and the eruption of Thera.

The key factor in the identification of Moses as Crown Prince Tuthmosis is the episode in which Moses sent messengers to the rulers of Jerusalem, summoning them to join his war against Egypt. In the El Arish Shrine Text the person who sent the messengers is named as the king’s son, and in The Story of Joseph and Asenath, written from the Hebrew perspective, he is named as the king’s eldest (firstborn) son. The Story of Joseph and Asenath also confirms Osman’s hypothesis that Joseph and Yuya were the same person, and Artapanus confirms that Moses assisted his father during the first burial of the Apis bull, as did Crown Prince Tuthmosis.

Please let me know what you think!

I go with the Sarcophaguses,, there is a Sarcophagus of Prince Thutmose's, but not Akhenaten. By DNA testing they don't know who it was in Akhenaten tomb. Moses was a Egyptian royal that had to have survived to go on to Cannon.

A mummy found in KV55 in 1907 has been identified as that of Akhenaten. This man and Tutankhamun are related without question,[14] but the identification of the KV55 mummy as Akhenaten has been questioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also occurred to me, which means (since even PaleoHebrew didn't really exist at that time) that Moses would have had to write the Bible in Egyptian hieroglyphs and that they'd have had to carry around scrolls of hieroglyphs with the source for the Torah.

And since PaleoHebrew wasn't a "thing" then the name of Tutmoses really DOES mean "Born of Thoth" and not "drawn forth" (http://biblehub.com/exodus/2-10.htm), so the meaning does not match.

Yep that was my concern in general but you added some excellent specifics!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I go with the Sarcophaguses,, there is a Sarcophagus of Prince Thutmose's, but not Akhenaten. By DNA testing they don't know who it was in Akhenaten tomb. Moses was a Egyptian royal that had to have survived to go on to Cannon.

A mummy found in KV55 in 1907 has been identified as that of Akhenaten. This man and Tutankhamun are related without question,[14] but the identification of the KV55 mummy as Akhenaten has been questioned.

The KV55 identity has actually been refuted by nearly everyone who has studied or is familiar with those skeletal remains. The genetic testing, if accurate, definitely shows a close kinship relationship between KV55 and Tutankhamun; they could certainly be father and son, respectively. But it is unlikely that KV55 was Akhenaten. It's much more likely that he was Smenkhkare (on which there is something of a consensus in the Egyptological and forensic communities). Personally I think the incorrect identification of KV55 resulted from Zahi Hawass's desperate wish that it be Akhenaten, but neither he nor anyone in his original team was able to offer a sustainable argument.

As for the OP, we've been over it all before. In very great detail. Needless to say I am opposed to Riaan's conclusions, which rest on personal reinterpretations of ancient inscriptions and the questionable products of writers from late antiquity who could not have meaningfully possessed a real understanding of ancient history. All of this has been addressed and answered in past UM discussions, although I appreciate Riaan's contributions and efforts. I don't know if I'm comfortable with using UM as a place to promote one's own work, although the issue is a bit skirted by the fact that the download is free.

On a final note for now, and although it's been explained in detail before, one should avoid turning to Ahmed Osman as though he were some sort of legitimate historian or researcher. He is not. Nor does the academic community take him seriously. Just remember that this is the same guy who wrote a book pushing the idea that Tutankhamun and Jesus were the same person. Enough said?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That also occurred to me, which means (since even PaleoHebrew didn't really exist at that time) that Moses would have had to write the Bible in Egyptian hieroglyphs and that they'd have had to carry around scrolls of hieroglyphs with the source for the Torah.

And since PaleoHebrew wasn't a "thing" then the name of Tutmoses really DOES mean "Born of Thoth" and not "drawn forth" (http://biblehub.com/exodus/2-10.htm), so the meaning does not match.

This is extremely picky and feel free to kick me in the bum, but wouldn't Moses have written the first books of the Bible in hieratic? You could be right, of course. You're definitely right that no form of Hebrew writing existed at that early date. I suppose, however, the Ten Commandments would've been written in hieroglyphs.

It never made sense to me that Moses was supposed to have written the first five books (the Pentateuch). I mean, he spent forty years wandering the desert and keeping legions of unruly followers in line, and then died before reaching the Promised Land. When did the man find the time?

I agree with you about the name of Tuthmoses. It cannot possibly work—especially since that derivation of it comes from the Greeks, not the Egyptians. Transliterated it would be DHwty-ms, and that skeletal, consonantal structure is really all that's left to us as the name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is extremely picky and feel free to kick me in the bum, but wouldn't Moses have written the first books of the Bible in hieratic? You could be right, of course. You're definitely right that no form of Hebrew writing existed at that early date. I suppose, however, the Ten Commandments would've been written in hieroglyphs.

Either hieratic or hieroglyphs. I recall a paper about the oldest identifiable Hebrew documents -- they were snake spells written in hieroglyphs. I don't know if they were refuted or not.

It never made sense to me that Moses was supposed to have written the first five books (the Pentateuch). I mean, he spent forty years wandering the desert and keeping legions of unruly followers in line, and then died before reaching the Promised Land. When did the man find the time?

He's old. He's creaky. What else could he do with his evenings? (wicked grin)

I agree with you about the name of Tuthmoses. It cannot possibly work—especially since that derivation of it comes from the Greeks, not the Egyptians. Transliterated it would be DHwty-ms, and that skeletal, consonantal structure is really all that's left to us as the name.

It requires a real stretch to make the parental names match, and the names of siblings and spouses (often ignored in these exercises) are also no match at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's old. He's creaky. What else could he do with his evenings? (wicked grin)

Ah but

Deuteronomy 34:7

King James Bible

And Moses was an hundred and twenty years old when he died: his eye was not dim, nor his natural force abated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not for a moment believe that "Moses" had written the Pentateuch - it must have been compiled by later scribes. As kmt_sesh points out, we have discussed some of these topics before at length - I have just put them all together.

I get the impression that few of you come from a scientific background - if so, you would understand the concept of statistics and likelihood. How do you explain away the fact that three independent versions from different perspectives exist of the "messengers to Jerusalem" affair, and that quite a few other accounts relate that Moses had led a revolution in Egypt?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Moses may have written part of Deuteronomy, the other books seems to write about him, where as in Deuteronomy he writes in the( I) sense.

And I made an ark of shittim wood, and hewed two tables of stone like unto the first, and went up into the mount, having the two tables in mine hand.

http://biblehub.com/...ronomy/10-3.htm

Edited by docyabut2
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I get the impression that few of you come from a scientific background

You'd be very wrong about this. At least 3 of the posters here are scientists who know something about culture (archaeologists, anthropologists) and at least two of them have Masters' and at least one of them is a PhD (I know several people on this thread personally.)

How do you explain away the fact that three independent versions from different perspectives exist of the "messengers to Jerusalem" affair, and that quite a few other accounts relate that Moses had led a revolution in Egypt?

The only accounts of Moses leading a revolution all come after the Pentateuch was written down and come from Judaeo-Christian sources. An account of a revolt led by Moses written in hieroglyphs (or Demotic) and found in Upper Egypt with the names of pharaohs and military officers would confirm the story's authenticity. Accounts written 1,000 years after the purported event by people in other countries do not qualify as high-quality sources.

As to different perspectives on the same story, one has only to look at the Aarne-Thompson classification of folklore to see the same story told by multiple perspectives (and often independent of each other.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aarne%E2%80%93Thompson_classification_system

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Either hieratic or hieroglyphs. I recall a paper about the oldest identifiable Hebrew documents -- they were snake spells written in hieroglyphs. I don't know if they were refuted or not.

What comes to mind when you mention this is an analysis from some years ago about certain Pyramid Texts that had long baffled historians and Egyptologists. They didn't seem to make sense. But then a specialist in Semitic languages puzzled out the fact that these spells were serpent charms originating in Canaan and written in an early Canaanite dialect. This dates to a very long time before the emergence of the Hebrews so the writing was in a Semitic tongue, but not Hebrew. It is the oldest-attested Semitic writing, although recorded in Egyptian script. I don't know for sure if this is what you're talking about, however.

He's old. He's creaky. What else could he do with his evenings? (wicked grin)

Well, I usually feel old and creaky (and cranky) but by Moses' standards I'm a youngster. But unlike Moses I have the internet, so I can entertain myself in other ways, come evening (even wickeder grin).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not for a moment believe that "Moses" had written the Pentateuch - it must have been compiled by later scribes. As kmt_sesh points out, we have discussed some of these topics before at length - I have just put them all together.

I get the impression that few of you come from a scientific background - if so, you would understand the concept of statistics and likelihood. How do you explain away the fact that three independent versions from different perspectives exist of the "messengers to Jerusalem" affair, and that quite a few other accounts relate that Moses had led a revolution in Egypt?

Speaking for myself, I have two college degrees with a background in archaeology and anthropology, although I am not a professional historian. I've also invested about three decades of research into ancient Near Eastern civilizations. Speaking on behalf of other UM posters you've debated, and as Kenemet has emphasized, our own experience and education are not in question.

This is not a matter of statistics and likelihood, but is much more a matter of critical analysis and proper interpretation of historical sources. Most of your sources are understood to be much later adaptations and elaborations of the original Judeo-Christian corpus, and are not regarded as legitimate historical sources that can offset or replace modern archaeology and philology. As has been shown, your take on the El Arish inscription is simply incorrect. Your interpretation does not rest on a proper academic analysis but derives from highly suspect, fringe or alternative-history spin. For example, El Arish never mentions Jerusalem or Hebrews; it merely makes vague references to Asiatics and their lands (which actually describes all of Syro-Palestine).

But we've been over this in significant detail already. You are free to bring it up again, but bringing it up again does not make it accurate. We can dish it all out again, which I'd rather not do myself but am willing to do if necessary, but the end result will still be the same.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Or we can make it easy on other posters. Instead of rehashing the debate, people can read a couple of the old threads for themselves. More recently, these include:

The ten biblical plagues as a polemic (a thread I started and in which you joined around the point of the linked page)

Yuya and Joseph - the Joseph & Asenath link (a thread you started and in which I participated)

There are other, older threads of course, but interested members can use the forum's search feature to track them down.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be very wrong about this. At least 3 of the posters here are scientists who know something about culture (archaeologists, anthropologists) and at least two of them have Masters' and at least one of them is a PhD (I know several people on this thread personally.)

Pfft. PhDs. MAs. I got letters after my name, too: BSc*, SSc**. Your post does nothing to militate against the basic skeptic's propaganda that people who know things about a thing have a superior understanding of that thing and more valuable opinions of the thing. That's unfair and therefore cannot be true.

--Jaylemurph

* Bronze Swimming Certificate

** Silver Swimming Certificate

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

What comes to mind when you mention this is an analysis from some years ago about certain Pyramid Texts that had long baffled historians and Egyptologists. They didn't seem to make sense. But then a specialist in Semitic languages puzzled out the fact that these spells were serpent charms originating in Canaan and written in an early Canaanite dialect. This dates to a very long time before the emergence of the Hebrews so the writing was in a Semitic tongue, but not Hebrew. It is the oldest-attested Semitic writing, although recorded in Egyptian script. I don't know for sure if this is what you're talking about, however.

It was, indeed, but I was too lazy to look it up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pfft. PhDs. MAs. I got letters after my name, too: BSc*, SSc**. Your post does nothing to militate against the basic skeptic's propaganda that people who know things about a thing have a superior understanding of that thing and more valuable opinions of the thing. That's unfair and therefore cannot be true.

--Jaylemurph

* Bronze Swimming Certificate

** Silver Swimming Certificate

Well, gosh! I got my Girl Scout merit badge in... ah... something or another way last century! I think it was swimming and lifesaving. And I got one in crafts, too (I think.)

That counts for something, right???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only accounts of Moses leading a revolution all come after the Pentateuch was written down and come from Judaeo-Christian sources. An account of a revolt led by Moses written in hieroglyphs (or Demotic) and found in Upper Egypt with the names of pharaohs and military officers would confirm the story's authenticity. Accounts written 1,000 years after the purported event by people in other countries do not qualify as high-quality sources.

As to different perspectives on the same story, one has only to look at the Aarne-Thompson classification of folklore to see the same story told by multiple perspectives (and often independent of each other.)

http://en.wikipedia....fication_system

How is it possible that three independent accounts of an incredibly unique event, with corroborating information, can possibly exist? It is all about statistics and likelihood- the chances that these accounts could have been created independently, by chance, are very,very small. In other words, logic would dictate that it must have had a factual basis.

Furthermore, there numerous other indicators that also point to Moses and Tuthmosis being the same person, as I have pointed out before - including Manetho and Artapanus, and the legends about the Moses' armed rebellion, and the Israelites leaving Egypt fully armed, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL Or we can make it easy on other posters. Instead of rehashing the debate, people can read a couple of the old threads for themselves. More recently, these include:

The ten biblical plagues as a polemic (a thread I started and in which you joined around the point of the linked page)

Yuya and Joseph - the Joseph & Asenath link (a thread you started and in which I participated)

There are other, older threads of course, but interested members can use the forum's search feature to track them down.

Yes, I agree - no need to return to all the arguments again. I wrote The Moses Puzzle for those who may be interested in looking at everything together, instead of having to struggle through my book (an admittedly very tedious affair).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it possible that three independent accounts of an incredibly unique event, with corroborating information, can possibly exist? It is all about statistics and likelihood- the chances that these accounts could have been created independently, by chance, are very,very small. In other words, logic would dictate that it must have had a factual basis.

Actually, the statistical likelihood is really huge -- just like the chances of the Cinderella story showing up in 22 other cultures (and more) around the world. http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/type0510a.html

Furthermore, there numerous other indicators that also point to Moses and Tuthmosis being the same person, as I have pointed out before - including Manetho and Artapanus, and the legends about the Moses' armed rebellion, and the Israelites leaving Egypt fully armed, etc.

All from the same culture, expressing points that say the culture's version of religious history is correct, and all dating from a thousand years later.

The material contemporary to Thutmose and material NOT biased by that religion or culture and NOT written a thousand years later does not support this concept. Amenhotep III didn't conquer the Syrian region and then turn around and beg them for help because of an internal rebellion. Thutmose did not vanish from history during Ahkenaten's reign, but during the reign of their father, Amenhotep III.

During those periods when Egypt had to call for assistance, it always leaves very clear signs in the culture -- none of which appear at this time.

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 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.