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 -
Riaan

When was the El Arish Shrine text written?

28 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Riaan

I must have brought it up in the past, but I am afraid your search facility is way too complicated for me. Could hardly find anything I have posted since becoming a member.

Nevertheless, I today came across a statement claiming that Amenhotep III (ca. 1350 BCE) was indeed the very first Egyptian king (pharaoh) proclaiming himself a deity [W. Raymond Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign (D. O’Connor, and E. H. Cline, eds.) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), pp. 86-94]. It is well known that Akhenaten referred to himself and Nefertiti as Shu and Tefnut, as attested to by a whipstock knob of blue faience, inscribed with the names of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and decorated with representations of the royal couple as Shu and Tefnut. Like his father before him, Akhenaten seems to have identified himself with Shu. The El Arish Shrine Text  (EAST) refers to the king and his son as Shu and Seb (Geb), respectively, and claims that Seb had seized Tefnut by force.  All this means that the EAST must have been written either during or probably shortly after the reign of Amenhotep III. It is generally believed to have be a text from the Ptolemaic period (305–31 BCE), but as I have shown in my book Thera and the Exodus, it matches the Exodus events in many respects and refers to the king's son sending ambassadors to 'the Asiatics in their land', like Moses who had sent ambassadors to the Hyksos rulers in Jerusalem (Manetho) and the king's firstborn son who had sent ambassadors to the Israelites in Jerusalem (The Story of Joseph and Asenath) - a truly unique event in Egyptian history. The latter part we have discussed many times, so let's not go there again, but I merely want to indicate that the EAST could have been written at or shortly after the time of A3.

Do you agree (from experience, I guess in one way or another you'll find a reason not to :))?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Israeli archaeologists and theologians don’t believe the Exodus to be a real event and it’s literslly a foundation myth for their culture, the Catholic Church (not one to eshue stranger ideas) believes it to be “myth that shines a light upon the ineffiable mysteries of God”, so why mention it as part of your theory?

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
18 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Israeli archaeologists and theologians don’t believe the Exodus to be a real event and it’s literslly a foundation myth for their culture, the Catholic Church (not one to eshue stranger ideas) believes it to be “myth that shines a light upon the ineffiable mysteries of God”, so why mention it as part of your theory?

Exodus is much later mythologized revisionist accounting of the Egyptian Ipuwer Papyrus c.1900BC, also referred to HERE, which was likely a real event. But no Moses or Yaweh, sorry, not to mention this would have taken place centuries before the eruption of Thera.    

I like this review of the book though:

"Wow! This writer is obviously hates Jesus. Nothing new under the sun here; just like the lies Satan told in the garden, this author mimics Satan. Don't even waste your time reading about ideas that are not true. Why would you even waste your time doing so"?

Nuff said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
Posted (edited)
22 hours ago, Riaan said:

I must have brought it up in the past, but I am afraid your search facility is way too complicated for me. Could hardly find anything I have posted since becoming a member.

Nevertheless, I today came across a statement claiming that Amenhotep III (ca. 1350 BCE) was indeed the very first Egyptian king (pharaoh) proclaiming himself a deity [W. Raymond Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign (D. O’Connor, and E. H. Cline, eds.) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), pp. 86-94]. It is well known that Akhenaten referred to himself and Nefertiti as Shu and Tefnut, as attested to by a whipstock knob of blue faience, inscribed with the names of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and decorated with representations of the royal couple as Shu and Tefnut. Like his father before him, Akhenaten seems to have identified himself with Shu. The El Arish Shrine Text  (EAST) refers to the king and his son as Shu and Seb (Geb), respectively, and claims that Seb had seized Tefnut by force.  All this means that the EAST must have been written either during or probably shortly after the reign of Amenhotep III. It is generally believed to have be a text from the Ptolemaic period (305–31 BCE), but as I have shown in my book Thera and the Exodus, it matches the Exodus events in many respects and refers to the king's son sending ambassadors to 'the Asiatics in their land', like Moses who had sent ambassadors to the Hyksos rulers in Jerusalem (Manetho) and the king's firstborn son who had sent ambassadors to the Israelites in Jerusalem (The Story of Joseph and Asenath) - a truly unique event in Egyptian history. The latter part we have discussed many times, so let's not go there again, but I merely want to indicate that the EAST could have been written at or shortly after the time of A3.

Do you agree (from experience, I guess in one way or another you'll find a reason not to :))?

Akhenaten refers to himself and Nefertiti as Shu and Tefnut because he had deified his father as Ra-Horakhty, when this occured is subject to debate due to the co-regency problem. In their convoluted and contradictory theology, Ra-Horakhty, via the Ra element, is synonymous with Atum, the father of Shu and Tefnut. Though even before death, AIII was being described as the Shining Aten, which makes him the visible personification of Ra. As far as AIII becoming an actual god before his death, this is documented at the temple at Soleb where he became Khonsu, and therefore a god of the Moon, which seems to have an odd echo with Tutankhamun. So he became a god in life not quite as grand as Ra-Horakhty, but still a god. There is no evidence in myth of a conflict between Shu and Geb, nor between any members of the royal family of AIII. What happened at the end of the reign of Akhenaten is a different matter though, but as that was either 17 or 9 years, depending on co-regency beliefs, after the death of AIII, it has no bearing here. I'll just add for the sake of honesty that I do not believe in an exodus from Egypt, and that Crown Prince Thutmose was not "Jacob" and Akhenaten was not "Moses".

Edited by Wepwawet
typo
  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
2 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

Crown Prince Thutmose was not "Jacob" and Akhenaten was not "Moses".

In my book I provide evidence that Crown Prince Thutmose was Moses, not "Jacob", and  Akhenaten only came to the fore when Thutmose mysteriously disappeared. As for the claim, ""Wow! This writer is obviously hates Jesus. Nothing new under the sun here; just like the lies Satan told in the garden, this author mimics Satan. Don't even waste your time reading about ideas that are not true. Why would you even waste your time doing so"?", Barbelo merely summarises the conclusions I had reached concerning the person called Christ, after having spent at least a decade studying any related document I could lay my hands on. Whoever made this comment must obviously be a Christian - only Christians believe in the existence of a Satan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
10 minutes ago, Riaan said:

In my book I provide evidence that Crown Prince Thutmose was Moses, not "Jacob", and  Akhenaten only came to the fore when Thutmose mysteriously disappeared. As for the claim, ""Wow! This writer is obviously hates Jesus. Nothing new under the sun here; just like the lies Satan told in the garden, this author mimics Satan. Don't even waste your time reading about ideas that are not true. Why would you even waste your time doing so"?", Barbelo merely summarises the conclusions I had reached concerning the person called Christ, after having spent at least a decade studying any related document I could lay my hands on. Whoever made this comment must obviously be a Christian - only Christians believe in the existence of a Satan.

I haven't read your book, so I was mentioning Thutmose as Jacob as some others think he was, or that he was Joseph, or any other kind of mix with Akhenaten in there as multiple identities as well, and for good measure Thutmose III as David and Amunhotep III as Solomon. It's that these historical people were not the myths of another nation not yet even born in the 18th Dynasty that is my point.

As for the rant about Satan, you hit the wrong target there, check who posted what again.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Riaan
46 minutes ago, Wepwawet said:

As for the rant about Satan, you hit the wrong target there, check who posted what again.

Not sure what you mean by this - why would Thanos5150 have stated "I like this review of the book though:", and then refer to a reviewer's opinion of me (I assume) hating Jesus? Thera and the Exodus has nothing to do with Christ, Barbelo - The Story of Jesus Christ obviously has everything to do with Christ. Never mind, I'm not really interested to know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
1 hour ago, Riaan said:

Not sure what you mean by this - why would Thanos5150 have stated "I like this review of the book though:", and then refer to a reviewer's opinion of me (I assume) hating Jesus? Thera and the Exodus has nothing to do with Christ, Barbelo - The Story of Jesus Christ obviously has everything to do with Christ. Never mind, I'm not really interested to know.

I would not presume to know the inner workings of that poster's mind and why he writes the things he does, and I too don't want to know...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
3 hours ago, Riaan said:

In my book I provide evidence that Crown Prince Thutmose was Moses, not "Jacob", and  Akhenaten only came to the fore when Thutmose mysteriously disappeared. As for the claim, ""Wow! This writer is obviously hates Jesus. Nothing new under the sun here; just like the lies Satan told in the garden, this author mimics Satan. Don't even waste your time reading about ideas that are not true. Why would you even waste your time doing so"?", Barbelo merely summarises the conclusions I had reached concerning the person called Christ, after having spent at least a decade studying any related document I could lay my hands on. Whoever made this comment must obviously be a Christian - only Christians believe in the existence of a Satan.

So Jesus isn’t real, but the Exodus totes happened?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats

Ohh and this forum has rules about shilling for a book your wrote. Either stop or pony up with some facts.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
1 minute ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

So Jesus isn’t real, but the Exodus totes happened?

No, Jesus gay....from what I can make out so far......:blink:

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Wearer of Hats
Just now, Piney said:

No, Jesus gay....from what I can make out so far......:blink:

Let me guess - the fragment that mentions kissing “the disciple he loved the most” with added misogyny that it wasn’t Mary Magdalene to whom they were referring? 
Let me guess, he loved the biggest goose in all the New Testament, Peter?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

Let me guess - the fragment that mentions kissing “the disciple he loved the most” with added misogyny that it wasn’t Mary Magdalene to whom they were referring? 
Let me guess, he loved the biggest goose in all the New Testament, Peter?

I just read a review....it wasn't good.

Now I'm weighing whether or not a seminarian of my caliber wants to waste my time. :yes:

Edited by Piney
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Piney
On 5/21/2020 at 2:18 PM, Riaan said:

Do you agree (from experience, I guess in one way or another you'll find a reason not to :))?

There is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt. 

There is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus whatsoever.    

There is plenty proving the Hebrews developed in situ in the hills of Canaan. 

The Mosaic books were written in response to Ptolemaic rule to give the Jews a "folk hero" against Egypt and take the Greek influence out of the Jewish religion. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
On 5/21/2020 at 1:18 PM, Riaan said:

Nevertheless, I today came across a statement claiming that Amenhotep III (ca. 1350 BCE) was indeed the very first Egyptian king (pharaoh) proclaiming himself a deity

Nope.  Unas, in the Pyramid Texts, identifies himself as a deity.  All the others after that were known as "Horus" (and had Horus names) and the deceased pharaoh was known as the deity, Osiris.

They were worshiped, and offerings given to both the living and the deceased pharaoh.  Hatshepsut, for example, proclaimed that her father was actually Amun and she traced her family to the goddess Mut https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatshepsut

 

Quote

[W. Raymond Johnson, “Monuments and Monumental Art under Amenhotep III: Evolution and Meaning,” in Amenhotep III: Perspectives on his Reign (D. O’Connor, and E. H. Cline, eds.) (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press), pp. 86-94]. It is well known that Akhenaten referred to himself and Nefertiti as Shu and Tefnut, as attested to by a whipstock knob of blue faience, inscribed with the names of Akhenaten and Nefertiti and decorated with representations of the royal couple as Shu and Tefnut. Like his father before him, Akhenaten seems to have identified himself with Shu. The El Arish Shrine Text  (EAST) refers to the king and his son as Shu and Seb (Geb), respectively, and claims that Seb had seized Tefnut by force.  All this means that the EAST must have been written either during or probably shortly after the reign of Amenhotep III. It is generally believed to have be a text from the Ptolemaic period (305–31 BCE),

The identification of it as Ptolemaic period is pretty solid, as an examination of the mythos shows. For instance, Ra-Horakhty is NOT the father of Shu in the original theology; Atum is (and there is a line in the Pyramid Texts about this.)  The Greeks, who came in and conflated and confused everything (hence, Ra-Harmachus) also modified the theology to suit them.  

Pharaohs role-played at a number of deities in addition to Horus.  The famous portrait bust of Nefertiti shows her with the crown of Neith, and she used a lot of Neith's iconography.  Akhenaten was the "mouthpiece" of The Light (and he was awful, too.  Very self-absorbed, uncaring about the people.)

 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt
4 hours ago, Piney said:

There is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt. 

There is no archaeological evidence for the Exodus whatsoever.    

There is plenty proving the Hebrews developed in situ in the hills of Canaan. 

The Mosaic books were written in response to Ptolemaic rule to give the Jews a "folk hero" against Egypt and take the Greek influence out of the Jewish religion. 

By Mosaic books I’m assuming you are referring to the Pentateuch which, while possibly a response to Ptolemaic rule, WAS ALSO a response to the existence of many other cultures having their own deities and related stories by allowing the Hebrews/Jews to create their own as well while giving it an heir of authenticity not otherwise in evidence. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wepwawet
3 hours ago, Kenemet said:

Akhenaten was the "mouthpiece" of The Light

And that is a rare explanation of his role which should be used more often I think. The rays of the Aten are almost always described as just being a way of representing sunlight, with the addition that Akhenaten and his family are singled out as being the prime beneficiaries of the life giving light, but it is also a representation of the Aten speaking to Akhenaten. You know this of course, but I thought I would take the opportunity to bring some more light to the subject.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenemet
10 hours ago, Wepwawet said:

And that is a rare explanation of his role which should be used more often I think. The rays of the Aten are almost always described as just being a way of representing sunlight, with the addition that Akhenaten and his family are singled out as being the prime beneficiaries of the life giving light, but it is also a representation of the Aten speaking to Akhenaten. You know this of course, but I thought I would take the opportunity to bring some more light to the subject.

Indeed.  It should be added that the official line was that ONLY he and his wife and children could speak directly to the Aten.  Everyone else had to pray to the Royal Family and have the Royal Family pass along the prayers to the Aten.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2020 at 4:45 PM, Piney said:

There is no archaeological evidence for the Hebrews in Egypt. 

It is unfortunate that this topic is all but synonymous with the Exodus as since Predynastic times Egypt and the Levant/Canaan have had a profound and continuous hydraulic relationship which lasted throughout the Dynastic Period and is part and parcel of Egyptian history. I think you mean "Jews" not necessarily "Hebrews", but regardless there is overwhelming archaeological evidence of not only Levantine/Canaanite peoples in Egypt throughout predynastic and Dynastic history, but Egyptians in the Levant which at various points in history were considered a vassal of Egypt. Ironically, the time which the Ipuwer papyrus refers to, the FIP/MK (as was the 3rd Intermediate Period that directly followed), was a period of heavy interaction with Canaan (though this would place the Exodus in the time of Abraham, not Moses), so there is no wonder why this Egyptian story would find its way into later Levantine myths. Anyhoo, were there Levantine slaves in Egypt? Of course-boatloads full of them all throughout DE history. And when I say "boatloads" I mean actual boats full of them. Does this mean therefore this Yahweh character is "real" and the events as described in Exodus actually took place-of course not. But there was a substantial relationship between Egypt and Canaan which is extremely interesting and important to our understanding of AE history.  

 

 

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

There is often confusion over the meaning of 'Egypt' many think it refers just to the NIle region but there was also an Empire (circa 1500-1,000 BCE) farther south and into what is now modern Israel, Lebanon and beyond.

 

538.png.webp?v=1569515408

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cormac mac airt

It should be pointed out that being a Canaanite neither makes one a Hebrew nor a Jew. To state or imply otherwise would be a lie. 
 

cormac

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hanslune

I could see how a group of disgruntled folks could leave the area controlled by the Pharaoh in the land of their northern Empire and later myths would make this a much greater event than it actually was. It wasn't actually Pharaoh they fled from but his local ruler, a puppet perhaps who ruled in his name. They may have stayed out of the Imperial area for forty years then come back. However, it could all be false information or a story adopted from another group of people.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
On 5/24/2020 at 10:04 AM, cormac mac airt said:

It should be pointed out that being a Canaanite neither makes one a Hebrew nor a Jew. To state or imply otherwise would be a lie. 
 

Is this actually something someone would "lie" about? But being a Hebrew does largely make on a Canaanite. 

Canaan is a geographical location with "Canaanites" being the various populations and ethnic group that lived there. The Hebrews lived in Canaan. Early Hebrews were culturally and materially very similar if not in some ways indistinguishable. Early Hebrews worshiped the same gods and the Canaanites. The Hebrew language is considered a "Canaanite language. 

I don't think Biblical scholar Mark S Smith is "lying" when he says: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel p6-7:

Quote

Despite the long regnant model that the "Canaanites" and Israelites were people of fundamentally different culture, archaeological data now cast doubt on this view. The material culture of the region exhibits numerous common points between the Israelites and "Canaanite" culture....The record would suggest that the Israelite culture largely overlapped with, and derived from, "Canaanite" culture....In short, Israelite culture was largely "Canaanite": in nature.

   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jaylemurph
On 5/22/2020 at 3:48 PM, Piney said:

No, Jesus gay....from what I can make out so far......:blink:

He’s pretty famous for getting kissed by another dude...

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanos5150
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Thanos5150 said:

Is this actually something someone would "lie" about? But being a Hebrew does largely make one a Canaanite. 

Canaan is a geographical location with "Canaanites" being the various populations and ethnic groups that lived there. The Hebrews lived in Canaan. Early Hebrews were culturally and materially very similar if not in some ways indistinguishable. Early Hebrews worshiped the same gods and the Canaanites. The Hebrew language is considered a "Canaanite language. 

I don't think Biblical scholar Mark S Smith is "lying" when he says: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel p6-7:

   

Corrected version above. That should be "make one a Canaanite", not "make on a Canaanite", and "ethnic groups that lived there" plural, not "group".  

Edited by Thanos5150
  • Like 3

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

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.