Powered By Blogger

Thursday, March 21, 2024

Did Hadrian or Herod build the Wailing Wall?

by Damien F. Mackey “When you compare the temple mount walls with other projects we know for certain [Herod] did build, we find some major differences. First, most of Herod's projects used stones much smaller than the temple wall and most did not have the pillow cut border around each stone. These projects include: Masada, Herodian, Cypros and Jericho, the stones are small, rough and have no cut frames”. Steve Rudd Following on from my recent article: King Herod could not have built the Wall (7) King Herod could not have built the Wall | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the gist of which is that the Wall was constructed later than the time of King Herod: …. But archaeologists with the Israel Antiquities Authority now say diggers have found coins underneath the massive foundation stones of the compound's Western Wall that were stamped by a Roman proconsul 20 years after Herod's death. That indicates that Herod did not build the wall — part of which is venerated as Judaism's holiest prayer site — and that construction was not close to being complete when he died. …. I have come across this somewhat compatible piece on the subject by Steve Rudd (Biblical Archeologist): https://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-jerusalem-temple-mount-threshing-floor-walls-stones.htm The temple mount walls are more likely "Hadrian" then "Herodian": 1. While most people refer to the border cut around the stones (embossed frames) as "Herodian", many of Herod's projects did not cut the "pillow border" into the stones. When Herod did cut the border onto the stones, the work was much sloppier than we see on the temple mount walls. This style was not unique to Herod being used between 700 BC - 1100 AD by many different builders. 2. A simple glance at the outer walls of the temple mount show that there have been multiple constructions over a thousand years. The wall has been destroyed several time, repaired and endured many earth quakes. The foundation level stones at the bottom of the wall were set it place by either Herod in 25 BC or Hadrian in 135 AD. In addition to the fact that the current size of the temple mount area is twice as large as what Josephus recorded in 70 AD is one piece of evidence that Hadrian, not Herod built the wailing wall. Only a small central section of the outer wall is considered to be built before Herod. 3. When you compare the temple mount walls with other projects we know for certain he did build, we find some major differences. First, most of Herod's projects used stones much smaller than the temple wall and most did not have the pillow cut border around each stone. These projects include: Masada, Herodian, Cypros and Jericho, the stones are small, rough and have no cut frames. 4. Herod's projects where he used the "embossed frame" include: David's Tower, Caesaria and Shomron. But workmanship is noticeably different since the cuts are rough and the stones are smaller than the temple mount walls. 5. The stones that compose the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron are of similar size, quality as the temple mount walls, they are "pillow cut". However these is no evidence in any literary sources that Herod actually built the structure. 6. The Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek, Lebanon, has a complex history with no one single builder. Augustus was said to start the project and Hadrian is said to have worked on the temple at Baalbek. It does have the "pillow cut" stones in one portion of the temple. Below is a photo of a man sitting on one set of stones, then the huge "Trilithon" stones, then directly above these on the corner, you can see the "embossed frame" cut stones that are similar in size and design to the wall at the temple mount. (Link to detailed view of the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek) 7. Both the Cave of the Patriarchs and the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek are close matches in their stonework. More work needs to be done to determine exactly who built the Cave of the Patriarchs, which is almost universally ascribed to Herod. We know that Hadrian did not build Cave of the Patriarchs, so if not him or Herod then who? We need proof that it was Hadrian who laid the "pillow cut" stones in the Temple of Jupiter in Baalbek. …. To complicate matters further, King Herod was, according to my revision, an actual contemporary, and sub-king, of/to the emperor Hadrian: Herod, the emperor’s signet right-hand man (7) Herod, the emperor's signet right-hand man | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Tuesday, March 19, 2024

Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep

by Damien F. Mackey “Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king’s-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …”. Inscriptions of Mentuhotep Dr. Donovan Courville had proposed, in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Vols. I and II, 1971), that Egypt’s so-called Old and Middle Kingdoms were, in part, contemporaneous – a view with which I would broadly agree. He then proceeded to select, as the Patriarch Joseph of Egypt, the significant official, MENTUHOTEP, vizier to Sesostris I, the second king of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty. And very good revisionists have followed Dr. Courville in his choice of Mentuhotep for Joseph. With my own system, though, favouring (i) the Third Dynasty for Joseph; (ii) Amenemes [Amenemhet] I for the “new king” of Exodus 1:8; and (iii) Amenemes I’s successor, Sesostris I, for the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (as recalled in the semi-legendary “The Story of Sinuhe”), then Mentuhotep of this era must now loom large as a candidate for the Egyptianised Moses. Introduction In 1981 I began a search for Moses in the Egyptian records. The first lesson that I had to learn (and Courville’s two-volume set served as my handy guide in this) was that the history books and the Bible just did not align. Now, after decades of effort on this work of revision, I have been blessed to have encountered - and sometimes to have made - exciting discoveries, including the appropriate (so I think) era for Moses and the Exodus, and the true archaeology for the Israelite (Joshuan) Conquest of Palestine, the MBI people. But Moses himself, the person, had proven to be most elusive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I now think that - and it has taken me only about 34 years to realise it - this Mentuhotep may be Moses staring revisionists right in the face. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my excursions into this era of biblico-history, I have returned to the view - in line with the thinking of professor Immanuel Anati, in his classic, The Mountain of God - that the famous Egyptian “Sinuhe” tale carried a reminiscence of the historical Moses: “I accept that this famous Egyptian tale is based upon a real biblical event. The semi-legendary Sinuhe may at least provide us with the time of the flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian, during the early reign of Sesostris I”. And I as well, in line with my revised Old to Middle Kingdom parallelism, tentatively making contemporaneous: 4th Dynasty 6th Dynasty 12th Dynasty 13th Dynasty have also suggested a possible connection of Sinuhe with the Sixth Dynasty’s Weni. Thus: There is a famous Sixth Dynasty official, Weni (or Uni), who may be the parallel of the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sinuhe as a candidate for the elusive Moses. I have previously written on this: Now, given our alignment of the so-called Egyptian Middle Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty with the Egyptian Old Kingdom’s Sixth Dynasty (following Dr. Donovan Courville), then the semi-legendary Sinuhe may find his more solidly historical identification in the important Sixth Dynasty official, Weni, or Uni. Like Weni, Sinuhe was highly honoured by pharaoh with the gift of a sarcophagus. We read about it, for instance, in C. Dotson’s extremely useful article (“…. The Cycle of Order and Chaos in The Tale of Sinuhe”): https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/StudiaAntiqua “…. The king gives Sinuhe a sarcophagus of gold and lapis lazuli as a housewarming gift. The gift of a coffin by the king was considered a great honor and a sign of respect. In the Autobiography of Weni from the Old Kingdom, Weni records that the king had given him a white sarcophagus and “never before had the like been done in this Upper Egypt.” …. [End of quote] Naturally, Dr. Courville’s radical proposal that the Egyptian Sixth and Twelfth dynasties were contemporaneous - whereas, according to conventional history some four centuries separate the end of the Sixth (c. 2200 BC) from that of the Twelfth (c. 1800 BC) - has not been well received by non-revisionist historians, such as e.g. professor W. Stiebing who has written: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yf2NWgNhEecC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=co “There is simply no textual support for making the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties contemporaneous, as Courville does”. However, as I have previously noted: …. [Dr.] J. Osgood proposes a possible close relationship between the 6th and 12th dynasty mortuary temples ....: Edwards certainly opens the possibility unconsciously when referring to the pyramid of Sesostris the First ....: “... and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied from the Mortuary Temples of the VIth dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi II ... is clearly evident.” The return of a culture to what it was before ... after some three hundred years must be an uncommon event. The theoretical possibility that the two cultures, the Twelfth and the Sixth Dynasties were in fact contemporary and followed a common pattern of Mortuary Temple must be borne in mind as real. …. [End of quote] That there is in fact some impressive evidence to suggest that: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms [were] far closer in time than conventionally thought (8) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu is apparent from a set of examples that I listed there taken from Nicolas Grimal’s text book, A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell 1994). After recalling some striking similarities between the Sixth Dynasty founder, Teti, and the Twelfth Dynasty founder, Amenemes I, as follows: “…. {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. ….}”, I continued: Grimal notes the likenesses: Pp. 80-81 “[Teti‟s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (“He who pacifies the Two Lands”) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (“The devotee of Ra”)”. …. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s “co-regency” with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s “black pyramid” and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …”. [End of quotes] Moses as Chief Judge and Vizier “Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives … “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. Comparing Weni - (and Sinuhe) - with Vizier Mentuhotep About Sinuhe, we learn (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/sinuhe.htm): “I was a henchman who followed his lord, a servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess, the highly-praised Royal Consort of Sesostris in the pyramid-town of Khnem-esut, the Royal Daughter of Amenemmes in the Pyramid-town of Ka-nofru, even Nofru, the revered”. We have already learned something of the greatness of Mentuhotep. Weni has, for his part, been described as a “genius”. This little excerpt on the “Autobiography of Weni” already tells us a lot about the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Weni Weni rose through the ranks of the military to become commander in chief of the army. He was considered by both his contemporaries and many Egyptologists to have been a brilliant tactician and possibly even a genius. His victories earned him the privilege of being shown leading the troops into battle, a right usually reserved for pharaohs. Weni is the first person, other than a pharaoh, known to have been portrayed in this manner. Many of his battles were in the Levant and the Sinai. He is said to have pursued a group of Bedouins all the way to Mount Carmel. He battled a Bedouin people known as the sand-dwellers at least five times. Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sgoVryxihuMC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352 “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. This marvellous piece of ancient literature, conventionally dated to c. 2330 BC - and even allowing for the revised re-dating of it to a bit more than half a millennium later - completely gives the lie to the old JEDP theory, that writing was not invented until about 1000 BC. Here I take some of the relevant inscriptions of the renowned Vizier, Mentuhotep (http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Ancient_Records_of_Egypt_v1_10000750), and juxtapose them with comparable parts of the “Autobiography” of Weni (in brown) (http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mor) (all emphasis added): INSCRIPTIONS OF MENTUHOTEP …. 531. Hereditary prince, vizier and chief judge The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. attached to Nekhen, judge attached to Nekhen, prophet of prophet of Mat (goddess of Truth), giver of laws, advancer of offices, confirming … the boundary records, separating a land-owner from his neighbor, pilot of the people, satisfying the whole land, a man of truth before the Two Lands … accustomed … to justice like Thoth, his like in satisfying the Two Lands, hereditary prince in judging the Two Lands …. supreme head in judgment, putting matters in order, wearer of the royal seal, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep. Hereditary prince, count the count … chief of all works of the king, making the offerings of the gods to flourish, setting this land … according to the command of the god. the whole was carried out by my hand, according to the mandate which … my lord had commanded me. …. sending forth two brothers satisfied pleasant to his brothers with the utterances of his mouth, upon whose tongue is the writing of Thoth, I alone was the one who put (it) in writing …. more accurate than the weight, likeness of the balances, fellow of the king in counselling … giving attention to hear words, like a god in his hour, excellent in heart, skilled in his fingers, exercising an office like him who holds it, favorite of the king I was excellent to the heart of his majesty, for I was pleasant to the heart of his majesty before the Two Lands, his beloved among the companions, for his majesty loved me. his majesty appointed me sole companion and superior custodian of the domain of the Pharaoh. powerful among the officials, having an advanced seat to approach the throne of the king, a man of confidences to whom the heart opens. his majesty praised me for the watchfulness and vigilance, which I showed in the place of audience, above his every official, above [his every] noble, above his every servant. 532. Hereditary prince over the … the (royal) castle (wsh't) … finding the speech of the palace, knowing that which is in every body (heart), putting a man into his real place, finding matters in which there is irregularity, giving the lie to him that speaks it, and the truth to him that brings it, giving attention, without an equal, good at listening, profitable in speaking, an official loosening the (difficult) knot, whom the king (lit., god) exalts above millions, as an excellent man, whose name he knew, true likeness of love, free from doing deceit, whose steps the court heeds, when preparing court, when preparing the king’s journey (or) when making stations, I did throughout so that his majesty praised me for it above everything. overthrowing him that rebels against the king, hearing the house of the council of thirty, who puts his terror … among the barbarians (fp^s'tyw), when he has silenced the Sand-dwellers, pacifying the rebels because of their deeds, whose actions prevail in the two regions, lord of the Black Land and the Red Land, giving commands to the South, counting the number of the Northland, His majesty sent me to despatch [this army] five times, in order to traverse the land of the Sand-dwellers at each of their rebellions, with these troops, I did so that [his] majesty praised me [on account of it]. When it was said there were revolters, because of a matter among these barbarians in the land of Gazelle-nose, I crossed over in troop-ships with these troops, and I voyaged to the back of the height of the ridge on the north of the Sand-dwellers. When the army had been [brought] in the highway, I came and smote them all and every revolter among them was slain. His majesty sent me at the head of his army while the counts, while the wearers of the royal seal, while the sole companions of the palace, while the nomarchs and commanders of strongholds belonging to the South and Northland …. in whose brilliance all men move, pilot of the people, giver of food, advancing offices, lord of designs, great in love, associate of the king in the great castle (wsfi't), hereditary prince, count, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep, he says: 533. …'I am a companion beloved of his lord, doing that which pleases his god daily, prince, count, sem priest, master of every wardrobe of Horus, prophet of Anubis of … the hry ydb, Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king's-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …. One to whom the great come in obeisance at the double gate of the king's-house ; attached to Nekhen, prophet of Mat, pillar … 'before the Red Land, overseer of the western highlands, First of the Westerners …. leader of the magnates of South and North … advocate of the people … merinuter priest, prophet of Horus, master of secret things of the house of sacred writings …. Never before had one like me heard the secret of the royal harem. [Sinuhe, too, was] servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess …. governor of the (royal) castle, governor of the South prophet of Harkefti, great lord of the royal wardrobe, who approaches the limbs of the king, chamber-attendant …. overseer of the double granary, overseer of the double silver-house, overseer of the double gold-house, master of the king's writings of the (royal) presence, wearer of the royal seal, sole companion, master of secret things of the 'divine words’ (hieroglyphics) …. 534. Here follows a mortuary prayer, after which the concluding lines (22, 23) refer specifically to his building commissions at Abydos …. I conducted the work in the temple, built of stone of Ayan I conducted the work on the sacred barque {nlm * /), I fashioned its colors, offering tables His majesty sent me to Hatnub to bring a huge offering-table …. of lapis lazuli, of bronze, of electrum, and silver; copper was plentiful without end, bronze without limit, collars of real malachite, ornaments (mn-nfr't) of every kind of costly stone. of the choicest of everything, which are given to a god at his processions, by virtue of my office of master of secret things. [End of quotes] I recall (but do not currently have it with me) that professor A. S. Yahuda had, in his Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relation to Egyptian, Vol. 1 (1933), when discussing the Exodus 5:5 encounter between Pharaoh and Moses and Aaron: “Then Pharaoh said, ‘Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working’”, referred to the rank of Moses and Aaron (differentiating them from the common people) as something akin to new men. Anyway, that is precisely how Weni is classified in this next piece: http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mortuary.html Everyone who has studied ancient Egyptian history is familiar with the autobiography of Weni the Elder, an enterprising individual who lived during the 6th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2407-2260 BCE). His inscription, excavated in 1860 from his tomb in the low desert at Abydos in southern Egypt, enthusiastically describes his long service under three kings, culminating in his appointment as "True Governor of Upper Egypt." Scholars have hailed it as "the most important historical document from the Old Kingdom" and have used it to illustrate the rise of a class of "new men" in Egyptian politics and society--persons whose upward mobility rested in their abilities, not in noble birth. Early in the season, we excavated a number of inscribed relief fragments from this area, including two pieces that, when joined together, furnished the name "Weni the Elder" and a fragment providing the title "True Governor of Upper Egypt," the highest title recorded in Weni's autobiography. Further evidence emerged supporting this association. The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. [End of quote] Weni was, just like Mentuhotep, “Chief Judge and Vizier”. Weni was also, as we read above, “commander in chief of the army”. And Mentuhotep was also “Chief of Police”. Was this also the historical Moses, whose Judgeship, whose Rulership, some of the Hebrews chose to reject (Exodus 2:14): ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?’ If Moses were Weni, then may not Hur be Hurkhuf? “The king praised me. My father made a will for me, (for) I was excellent ......... [one beloved] of his father, praised of his mother, whom all his brothers loved. I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat”. Inscription from tomb of Hurkhuf [The following is most tentative] Hurkhuf (var. Herkhuf, Harkhuf) comes across here as like an ancient Job (cf. Job 31:19). The question I now ask, could Hurkhuf have been the biblical Hur, who, with Aaron, held up the arms of a tiring Moses against Amalek at Rephidim (Exodus 10:8-13)? The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands’. So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. In Jewish tradition, Hur is indeed an exemplary character. For example: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7942-hur By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Joseph Jacobs, Louis Ginzberg …. —1. Biblical Data: Man of Judah, the grandfather of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30, xxxviii. 22). According to the fuller genealogy in I Chron. ii. 18-20, he was the first-born son of Ephrath, the second wife of Caleb ben Hezron. Besides Uri, Hur had three other sons, founders of Kirjath-jearim, Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader (I Chron. ii. 50, 51). In I Chron. iv. 4, however, Hur is called the father of Bethlehem. He is first mentioned with Moses and Aaron on the occasion of the battle with Amalek at Rephidim, when he aided Aaron to uphold the hands of Moses (Ex. xvii. 10, 12); he is again mentioned as having, with Aaron, been left in charge of the people while Moses ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 14). According to Josephus ("Ant." iii. 2, § 4), Hur was the husband of Miriam; in the Targum to I Chron. ii. 19, iv. 4, Hur's mother, Ephrath, is identified with Miriam. There is a tendency among modern critics to regard the Hur associated with Moses as another than Hur, grandfather of Bezaleel. E. G. H. M. Sel.—In Rabbinical Literature: Hur was the son of Caleb, and when Moses was about to be taken by God, he appointed his nephew Hur, with Aaron, as leader of the people. While Moses tarried on the mountain, the people came to Aaron and Hur with the request to make them a god in the place of Moses (Ex. xxxii. 1). Then Hur, remembering his lineage and high position, rose up and severely reproved the people for their godless intentions; but they, aroused to anger, fell upon him and slew him. The sight of his lifeless body induced Aaron to comply with the wishes of the people, as he preferred to commit a sin himself rather than see the people burdened with the crime of a second murder (Pirḳe R. El. xliii.; Ex. R. xli. 7; Lev. R. x. 3; Num. R. xv. 21; Tan., ed. Buber, ii. 113; Sanh. 7a; comp. also Ephraem Syrus to Ex. xxxii. 1). As a reward for Hur's martyrdom, his son, Bezaleel, was the builder of the Tabernacle; and one of his descendants was Solomon, who had the Temple built (Ex. R. xlviii. 5; comp. Soṭah 11b). [End of quote] As for Hurkhuf, he was a highly important official in Old Kingdom Egypt, following very much in the mould of Weni. And, did he actually assume the gubernatorial office of Weni when the latter (as Moses) had departed Egypt for Midian? http://www.bookrags.com/history/ancient-egypt-social-class-and-economy/sub14.html#gsc.tab=0 Harkhuf served as Governor of Upper Egypt after Weni. Harkhuf's career is not spelled out in his autobiography in as much detail as Weni gave in his text. Though Harkhuf achieved the rank of Count and Sole Companion, he also functioned as a Lector Priest, Chamberlain, Warden of Nekhen, Mayor of Nekheb, Royal Seal Bearer, and, most importantly, as a Chief of Scouts who led four trading expeditions to Nubia. His autobiography is most informative about the nature of trade relations between Nubia (southern Egypt and the Sudan) and Egypt at the end of Dynasty 6 (circa 2350-2170 B.C.E.). His autobiography also highlights the ambiguity surrounding these expeditions and the difficulty of classifying them as trade expeditions or military maneuvers. …. And again: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Autobiography_of_Harkhuf.html The Autobiography of Harkhuf is a tomb inscription from Ancient Egypt which is significant to Egyptology studies. Harkhuf was a governor of Upper Egypt in the 23rd century BC. His name is sometimes spelled Herkhuf, Horkhuf, or Hirkhuf. All that is known of Harkhuf's life comes from the inscriptions in his tomb at Qubbet el-Hawa on the west bank of the Nile at Aswan, near the First Cataract of the Nile. He was a native of Elephantine. He was appointed governor of the southern part of Upper Egypt and overseer of caravans under the pharaoh Merenre I, third king of the 6th Dynasty. His primary business was trade with Nubia,[1] forging political bonds with local leaders,[2] and preparing the ground for an Egyptian expansion into Nubia. He led at least four major expeditions during his life. On the last expedition, he brought back with him what his correspondence with the young pharaoh Pepi II referred to as a dwarf, apparently a pigmy.[3] He travelled a considerable distance to a land called Iyam, which probably corresponds to the fertile plain that opens out south of modern Khartoum, where the Blue Nile joins the White. However, Jean Yoyotte [4] thought Iyam was located further north in the Libyan Desert. The inscriptions in Harkhuf's tomb reflect changes in the Egyptian world view that were occurring during the Late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period, with the person of the king becoming more human and displaying emotions and interests,[5] while commenting on a person leading a moral life by helping his neighbour: I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat.[6] ….

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

by Damien F. Mackey The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994. P. 67: “Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”. P. 71: “… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”. P. 73 “A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”. P. 79 “The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”. Pp. 80-81 {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/ Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”. P. 146: “The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …". Some Striking Visual Evidence Representations of various Old and Middle Kingdom pharaohs show that artistic styles with regard to them had barely changed in more than 600 years of conventional history. Take pharaoh Khufu (Gk: “Cheops”) as a perfect case of one in desperate need of an alter ego. Incredibly, as we read: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”. Obviously there is something seriously missing here: namely a detailed historical record, and extensive monuments, concerning the reign of one of the mightiest pharaohs of Egypt! I have begun to fill out Khufu in various articles. After having confidently connected: (i) the 6th Dynasty founder, Teti, with (ii) the 12th Dynasty founder, Amenemhet I, as (iii) the “new king” of the babyhood of Moses, I hinted: “Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemes [Amenemhat] I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8”. Teti, who is found to have borne a most striking likeness to Khufu, is variously thought to have reigned for from 7 to 33 years. Though N. Grimal, in A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994), thinks a figure such as the last is impossible, otherwise Teti would have celebrated a Heb-Sed Jubilee. Amenemhet I, however, Teti’s proposed alter ego, did reign long enough apparently to celebrate the Jubilee festival. http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12367 “Inscriptions on the foundation blocks of Amenemhat I's mortuary Temple at Lisht show that the king had already celebrated his royal jubilee, and that year 1 of an unnamed king thought to be his successor Senwosret I had already elapsed”. First Twelfth Dynasty ‘Fold’ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My suspicion is (and, yes, my revision does require a shortening of the 12th dynasty) that at least some of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet (I-IV), and at least some of the kings Sesostris (I-III), must be duplicates. The same would apply, I suggest, for the double 6th dynasty sequence of Pepi (I and II) and Merenre (I and II). And it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. The latter may also be in need of some enfleshing because, despite his reign of about 33 years (including co-regency) (Grimal) - very close to the figure for Amenemhet I - he has fairly little to show for it in terms of building works, according to Phouka: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn12/03amenemhet2.html There is a good chance that Amenemhet II was already middle aged when he took the throne, so the estimate that he ruled for ten or so years is more likely than that 38 attributed to him by Manetho. Ten years also jives better with his lack of building. Amenemhet did very little building during his reign; not many temples bear his handiwork. [End of quote] Like Amenemhet I, Amenemhet II celebrated a Heb-Sed jubilee (see Dorman, Monuments of Senemut, Ch. 5, p. 133): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=I5QrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=amenemhet+II+heb+sed+jubilee&source=bl&ots=dDHlscAsgq&sig=0fBcmm28KNpP3V_ Though the titulary may vary, the mothers’ names at least were similar, Nofret (Nefret), for I, and Nefru for II. And Amenemhet II looks just like his other proposed alter egos:

Sunday, March 17, 2024

Author of the Book of Judith

by Damien F. Mackey “The sacred writer of this Book is generally believed to be the high priest Eliachim (called also Joachim)”. Introduction to Judith (Douay) The Douay testimony here, that the high priest of the Book of Judith, Joakim (var. Eliakim), has traditionally been regarded as being (substantially) the author of the book, is the view that I had accepted as being most plausible in my university thesis: A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf There I wrote (Volume Two, pp. 58-59): The Author of [Book of Judith] BOJ A tradition has Eliakim (Joakim), the high priest of the story, as the author of BOJ [the Book of Judith] 1283 We already saw that the high priest was ‘a man of letters’, writing to the northern towns, including Bethulia. This would support the view of commentators that this highly pious work (BOJ), extremely scrupulous about religious observance, appears to have been written by a priest who was most faithful to the Mosaïc Law, and who evinces a remarkable knowledge of the Old Testament, especially the Psalms. It would also accord with the view that BOJ was an ancient document, frequently copied. No doubt the story would have been written with an enormous amount of eyewitness input from the ubiquitous Achior, whom the high priest would presumably have met after Assyria’s defeat. Achior would then have been able to fill in Joakim on all relevant details pertaining to the Assyrian campaign and strategy, including information in regard to the secret council prior to the western invasion. Less certain is how the author would have learned that Holofernes’ consumption of wine, just prior to his death, was “much more than he had ever drunk in any one day since he was born” (12:29). It is just possible that Achior, presumably a young man like Holofernes, had grown up with the latter in the royal palace, and thus had been familiar with the prince’s habits. Sennacherib does refer to a “Bêl-ibni … who had grown up in Nineveh ‘like a young puppy’,” whom he made king of Babylon upon the demise of Merodach-baladan.1284 Comment: I have since learned that “Achior”/Ahikar (Ahiqar) had actually “reared” “Holofernes”/Nadin. Now, continuing with the thesis section: Judith herself could have told the high priest about her personal encounter with Holofernes in the Assyrian camp, when they met after the victory (15:8), just as she had recounted the entire story to Achior and the Bethulians (14:8). And Joakim himself could have added most of the rest; all the basic narrative of the Assyrian incursion into Palestine and its effect upon Jerusalem. Finally, a later scribe could have added notes and glosses, e.g. about Arioch as governor of Elam; how long Judith lived; the festival. I thus see no real obstacle in the way of the tradition that Eliakim was the author of BOJ, meaning that the original version of the book must therefore have been compiled in c. 700 BC. [C.] Moore has counterbalanced the view of some that BOJ consists of two very unequal parts (chapters 1-7 and 8-16) - that is, in regard “to their respective importance, interest, and literary quality”, not length - by his juxtaposing of this with mention of Craven’s excellent study, which makes it “clear that the book of Judith is made of a whole cloth and was intended as a balanced and proportional narrative”:1285 Craven’s study shows that the book has in each of its parts a threefold chiastic structure and a distinctive thematic repetition. More specifically, each part has as its major chiastic feature its own repeating theme: in chaps. 1-7, the theme is fear or its denial (cf. 1:11; 2:28 [twice]; 4:2; 5:23; 7:4), and men play all the leading roles; in chaps. 8-16 it is beauty, mentioned or implied, and a woman has center stage …. Thus, just as fear of the Assyrians had a “domino effect,” knocking down successive nations and peoples in chaps. 1-7, so Judith’s beauty bowled over one male after another …. Perhaps to be alternatively considered (especially if the author were the high priest), would be a contrast between (a servile) fear and its opposite, the virtue of courage (prompted by trust in Yahweh), rather than a contrast of the unrelated fear and beauty (the latter though, admittedly, being an important factor in chapters 8-16). Thus, the fear shown by men (and nations), in the first half of BOJ, is in contrast to the courage (trust) borne by the beautiful woman, in the second half. I shall focus more in the next chapter on such matters of literary interest. [End of quote] For more on the high priest Joakim of the Book of Judith, see e.g. my article: Hezekiah’s Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest

Friday, March 15, 2024

Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian

by Damien F. Mackey Herodotus, in The Histories, tells of a skilful physician, Democedes of Croton, a character that I claim to be fictitious and based upon a really attested historical figure, the Egyptian, Udjahorresne[t]: Udjahorresne and Democedes (5) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The latter, who was a mentor in Egypt to Cambyses, appears under different names, all of which, I think, are mergeable the one with the other. Thus: Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne (5) Esarhaddon and Nes-Anhuret, Ashurbanipal and Usanahuru, Cambyses and Udjahorresne | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu The Greek writers (whoever they really were) have supposed Greek navy men, such as Polycrates, Lysander, fighting in Greek wars, but also interfering in Egypto-Persian battles. These supposed Greeks – and presumably their Greek wars (at least in part) – were a fiction. With all of this in mind, the name Lysander (Greek: Λύσανδρος) now looms for me as a Greek-ised version of Usan[a]huru, the Assyrian rendering of the Egyptian name, Udjahorresne. Compare the two names: USAN[H]UR[U] AND [L]USAN[D]ER Lysander was supposedly, like Udjahorresne (Usanhuru) really was, a navy admiral. Lysander was named admiral of the Spartan navy in 407 BC. Lysander: The Ambitious Admiral - Spartapedia Udjahorresne … had previously held the office of navy commander. http://www.displaceddynasties.com/uploads/6/2/6/5/6265423/displaced_dynasties_chapter_7_-_udjahorresne_-_statue__tomb.pdf Serving a Great King, Darius …. Great King Darius of Persia replaced the local satrap Tissaphernes with Darius’ younger son, Cyrus. Cyrus was an ambitious prince with a desire to foster closer ties with Sparta that they might one day assist his future claim to the Persian throne. He was thus eager to build a relationship with the incoming admiral [Lysander]. Udjahorresne … identified as a high official under Cambyses and Darius I …. Left something of a bad legacy: … scholars have wrongly maligned him, falsely accusing him of collaborating with the enemy. Lysander was a most unspartanlike Spartiate. Time and again he put him own goals before the common good, used his position for self-benefit, and promoted and celebrated himself in the most unpious fashion. In many ways, he exemplified the human flaws which characterized the unravelling of Lycurgan Sparta and its decline from power. To fill him out completely, as Udjahorresne, Lysander probably needs to be aligned also with the physician, Democedes: Udjahorresne and Democedes (6) Udjahorresne and Democedes | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Monday, March 11, 2024

Achior a true Israelite

by Damien F. Mackey “… Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5), should read, instead, “… Achior, leader of all the Elamites”. Not that Achior was ethnically an Elamite, but because king Esarhaddon had assigned him to govern Elam. For Achior was the same person as the famous Ahikar, governor of Elam, of whom the blind Tobit tells (2:10): “… Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais [Elam]”. Although Biblical critics claim to find whom they call “enlightened pagans” all through the Bible (Old and New Testaments), I am not so sure that they always get this right. I took a sample of characters: MELCHIZEDEK; RAHAB; RUTH; ACHIOR; JOB and concluded - in some cases following other researchers - that none of these was in reality a pagan character. Keeping it very simple by way of summary here: MELCHIZEDEK was, according to Jewish tradition, the great Shem, righteous son of Noah. Whilst that does not make him a Hebrew (Israelite/Jew), which tribal concepts did not exist at that early stage, he, truly blessed as he was (cf. Genesis 9:26-27), was not, as is commonly thought, an enlightened Canaanite (hence pagan) king. Melchizedek was the eponymous Semite (Shem-ite), a master of Canaan (9:26). RAHAB the prostitute, in the Book of Judges, was truly enlightened (Hebrews 11:31): “By faith the prostitute Rahab, because she welcomed the spies, was not killed with those who were disobedient”, but she, actually Rachab, may need to be distinguished from (the differently named) Rahab of Matthew’s Genealogy of Jesus the Messiah (Matthew 1:5). RUTH was a Moabite only geographically, but not ethnically, otherwise she would have encountered this ban from Deuteronomy 23:3-4: No Ammonite or Moabite or any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, not even in the tenth generation. For they did not come to meet you with bread and water on your way when you came out of Egypt, and they hired Balaam son of Beor from Pethor in Aram Naharaim to pronounce a curse on you. ACHIOR. The same comment would thus apply to Achior ‘the Ammonite’, presuming that he truly was an Ammonite. He wasn’t. Achior needs some special extra treatment (see further on). JOB was, in my firm opinion, Tobias, the son of Tobit, a genuine Israelite from the tribe of Naphtali, in Ninevite captivity. I suspect that his given pagan name in captivity was the Akkadian ‘Habakkuk’ (also shortened to Haggai), the prophet of that name. And I suspect, too, that others could be added to the list, as Israelites, not pagans. The Magi, for one. See e.g. my article: A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi (13) A Nativity Shining Light of relevance to Israelite Magi | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Delilah, a presumed Philistine. Whilst she may not deserve the epithet, “enlightened”, Delilah most probably was an Israelite - as brilliantly explained by George Athas: https://withmeagrepowers.wordpress.com/2016/07/11/samson-and-delilah-the-israelite-woman/ Achior, his conversion and circumcision Various significant misconceptions abound about this important character, ACHIOR. First of all, Achior of the Book of Judith (and the Douay Tobit) was not an Ammonite. The Book of Judith, as we now have it, suffers from an unfortunate confusion of names (people and places), making it most difficult to make sense of it. “… Achior, the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5), should read, instead, “… Achior, leader of all the Elamites”. Not that Achior was ethnically an Elamite, but because king Esarhaddon had assigned him to govern Elam. For Achior was the same person as the famous Ahikar, governor of Elam, of whom the blind Tobit tells (2:10): “… Ahikar took care of me for two years before he went to Elymais [Elam]”. To confuse matters even further, the Book of Judith has a gloss (1:6), in which Achior/Ahikar is now called “Arioch”: “Rallying to [the king] were all who lived in the hill country, all who lived along the Euphrates, the Tigris, and the Hydaspes, as well as Arioch, king of the Elamites …”. As noted, had Ruth been a Moabite, or Achior an Ammonite – as is commonly thought – then the Deuteronomical ban against these two nations (23:3-4) would disallow either from being received into the Assembly of Israel – which, in fact, Achior was, after the triumphant Judith had shown him the head of his Commander-in-chief, “Holofernes” (Judith 14:6-7, 10): When [Achior] came and saw the head of Holofernes … he fell down on his face in a faint. When they raised him up he threw himself at Judith’s feet and did obeisance to her and said, ‘Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed’. …. When Achior saw all that the God of Israel had done, he believed firmly in God. So he was circumcised and joined the House of Israel, remaining so to this day. The unfortunate misconception that Achior was an Ammonite, who converted to the House of Israel despite the Deuteronomical ban, is one of the primary reasons why the Jews (Protestants) have not accepted the Book of Judith into their scriptural canons. The confusion of names (people and places), as already mentioned, is another reason. But this, too, can be rectified. Tobit himself tells us precisely who was this Ahikar (Achior) (Tobit 1:21-22): But not forty days passed before two of Sennacherib’s sons killed him, and when they fled to the mountains of Ararat, his son Esarhaddon reigned after him. He appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Hanael, over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over the entire administration. …. Now Ahikar was chief cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration and accounts under King Sennacherib of Assyria, so Esarhaddon appointed him as second-in-command. He was my nephew and so a close relative.

Tuesday, March 5, 2024

Patriarch Joseph unlikely to have come to power under Hyksos king

by Damien F. Mackey “Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh, hinting at a native Egyptian administration. Asiatics usually wore beards, Egyptians typically were clean-shaven”. Jon Gleason Genesis 41:14: “So Pharaoh sent for Joseph, and he was quickly brought from the dungeon. When he had shaved and changed his clothes, he came before Pharaoh”. According to Nahum M. Sarna, though, Joseph was likely contemporaneous with the Hyksos rule of Egypt: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1987/12/research-and-perspectives/who-was-the-pharaoh-who-knew-not-joseph?lang=eng Who Was the Pharaoh Who “Knew Not Joseph”? By Nahum M. Sarna The biblical account of Goshen, slavery, brickmaking, and midwives matches well with current knowledge about Egypt, according to a modern scholar. Israel sojourned 430 years in Egypt. Recent archaeological discoveries and increasing knowledge about languages and cultures have helped us understand that sojourn as never before. …. The biblical account accurately portrays two ancient civilizations, which were at first allies, then bitter enemies. It takes us from Joseph, who rose to power under the Egyptian dynasty known as the Hyksos, up to dire bondage two dynasties later under the Pharaoh Ramses II. …. The Hyksos were Asiatics who ruled Egypt for about a century and a half. …. The name itself means “Rulers of Foreign Lands.” The Hyksos were a conglomeration of ethnic groups who infiltrated Egypt over a long period in ever-increasing numbers, probably coming from Canaan. By about 1720 B.C.., they controlled the Eastern Delta of the Nile and had established their capital at Avaris. …. By about 1674 B.C., a Hyksos king with the Semitic name Salitis occupied Memphis, the ancient capital of Egypt. The Hyksos constituted the XVth and XVIth Dynasties, adopting the style and bureaucratic institutions of the traditional pharaohs. Gradually, Semites replaced Egyptians in high administrative offices. The rise of Joseph to power and the migration of the Hebrews fits in well with what is known of the era of Hyksos rule. …. [End of quote] The only thing that can be said in favour of the Hyksos being rulers at the time of the Patriarchs, Jacob and Joseph, is that their conventional dating - which we now know, in fact, to be hopelessly wrong - fits relatively well with the standard biblical dates. Jon Gleason gives some reasons why Hyksos was not the historical period for Joseph (2012): A King Who Knew Not Joseph | Mind Renewers … many scholars put Joseph in the Hyksos period so we’ll take a few minutes on it. …. One reason cited is dating. Some think Galatians 3:17 puts Abraham in the time of Senusret III, and thus they put Joseph in the time of the Hyksos. This is not the only way to understand Galatians 3:17, so alone it is not conclusive. Another reason sometimes given is the idea that a foreign Pharaoh was more likely to promote a Hebrew than a native Egyptian would be. I give this little credence — the record of Genesis 41 provides enough explanation for his promotion, even if one forgets the sovereign working of God (and one should never forget that). Joseph doesn’t fit in the Hyksos period very well:  Joseph shaved when going to see Pharaoh, hinting at a native Egyptian administration. Asiatics usually wore beards, Egyptians typically were clean-shaven.  Joseph was placed “over all the land of Egypt” (Genesis 41:41, 43). The Hyksos only ruled the northern part of Egypt.  Joseph’s wife was a daughter of a sun-priest (Genesis 41:45) — a great honour under a native Egyptian, less so to a Hyksos.  Egypt’s rulers held Hebrews in abomination (Genesis 43:32). The Hyksos would likely have seen Hebrews (from the same region) as potential allies, not abominable enemies.  They also hated shepherds (Genesis 46:34, etc.). Though the Hyksos may or may not have been “Shepherd Kings,” there is no evidence they hated shepherds, and it makes little sense given their background.  Genesis 47:18-20 doesn’t make sense if the Egyptians were slaves under the Hyksos. While the identity of Joseph’s Pharaoh can’t be certain, if one takes the clues in the Biblical record seriously it is hard to see how Joseph fits in the reign of the Hyksos. “More and Mightier than We” Exodus 1:8-10 8 Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. 9 And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more and mightier than we: 10 Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up out of the land. Verse eight hints at more than the normal succession of father to son — a change of dynasty, perhaps, to one with no appreciation for Joseph and his service to Egypt. There were many dynasty changes in Egyptian history — but in many cases, appreciation for past service would continue. That would not be the case if the new king was a foreigner, especially if he came to power through an invasion. .… [End of quotes] The era of Moses was the pyramid building era of the Fourth Dynasty (Old Kingdom), which must be aligned with the similarly mighty Twelfth Dynasty (Middle Kingdom). And this may have been a new, foreign (even Hyksos) dynasty. Pharaoh Ramses II ‘the Great’, thought by many to be the Pharaoh of the Oppression based on Genesis 1:11, “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh” - clearly a later editorial addition - belongs to a much later era. See e.g. my article: The Complete Ramses II (6) The Complete Ramses II | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu