Moses Account Influenced Tale of Sinuhe, Not Vice Versa



Because of the appalling chronological dislocation of dynasties due to the conventional Sothic theory of the Egyptian calendar, see:

"Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited"

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v17/n3/sothic-theory

we end up with the biblical events associated with Egypt (e.g. those of the Exodus era) regarded as having been based entirely upon the less substantial Egyptian mythology that these biblical events had actually influenced.

A classic example of this is the famous The Story of Sinuhe, that bears some striking likenesses to the life of Moses (especially his flight to, and return from, Midian). Many have perceived the likenesses. But because Sinuhe is set during the early Twelfth Dynasty (c. 2000 BC, conventional dating), then 'it must have influenced', they say (and logically so in a Sothic dating context), the 'later' Exodus tales.   

 

Professor Emmanuel Anati, for one, has recognized this Egyptian story, the famous Tale of Sinuhe, as having "a common matrix" (Mountain of God, p. 158) with the Exodus account of Moses' flight from pharaoh. 

And also (http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2053940,00.html):

.... Nahum Sarna, in his book Exploring Exodus, notes the story's similarities to an Egyptian tale circulating at the time of Rameses. In it, the courtier Sinuhe takes refuge with Bedouins in southern Syria fearing he will be blamed for the assassination of a Pharaoh; there he marries the eldest daughter of the local chief. In the end, Sinuhe returns to Egypt to face the new Pharaoh.

Such tales of political refuge and return abound in the ancient Near East. But could someone like Moses ever become a prince?

In his book (http://global.oup.com/academic/product/israel-in-egypt-9780195130881;jsessionid),

 

{Israel in Egypt

The Evidence for the Authenticity of the Exodus Tradition

James K. Hoffmeier

• A pathbreaking book that argues for the historicity of the biblical account of the exodus
• Will interest a large reading public of specialists and non-specialists alike}

....

Hoffmeier notes that the Egyptian court reared and educated foreign-born princes, who then bore the title child of the nursery. He believes Moses was one of these privileged foreigners, some of whom went on to serve as high officials in their adopted land. ....

 

In a revised history, Moses did in fact belong to the era of Egypt's Twelfth Dynasty (and not the conventionally estimated New kingdom) which ancient dynasty needs to be re-located about half a millennium lower on the timescale than according to its conventional dates.

Archaeological data demands a big change of paradigms

 Dr. Hans-Ulrich Niemitz’s comments below, as expressed in his radical revision of AD time,   Did the Early Middle Ages Really Exist?   regarding the difficulties associated with bringing to the academic community an entirely different-from-conventional chronological paradigm (and the AMAIC does not necessarily accept all of the Phantom Time Hypothesis theories or explanations), are highly applicable as well to the efforts by many to introduce a much-needed revision of ancient history.   Taken from: http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/volatile/Niemitz-1997.pdf   .... How is it possible to do research work of this kind inside the scientific community? Is it perhaps necessary to research outside the scientific community, because it would demand a big change of paradigms, which means the end of certainty with regard to chronology. Usually a program of research relies on given research problems, which the general public defines. What will happen when the new research program in regard with its thesis or approach is too far from general public interest or too far from the academic society? (Who shall give financial support?) Then we don’t have the capability of joining ‘normal science’. I am aware of standing on the shoulders of our predecessors and that we work using their results, I can only emphasize again and again my respect for archaeologists and other scientists who are able to uncover artifacts and construct theories on them. I would like to repeat that our method consists in questioning specific research problems of archaeology and historiography. I must emphasize that the thesis of the phantom years is one proposal for solving those problems. It works surprisingly well and yields amazing results. It seems that scientists today do not see the common pattern in all the problems, which repeatedly appear, because there exists an unexpressed and unconscious prohibition against questioning the chronology as if it were unimpeachable. My request therefore is: where and how could our research work possibly join? What could we do together? Until today our research work was done marginally, but from now on it enters an important stage. The project has become so big that it cannot be worked out by a few people with small resources. Support from official institutions has become necessary so that we can continue our work at the edge of specialty (“im Rand des Faches”) as suggests Krohn and Küppers; papers in their book “The self-organization of science(-society)”: “It is only through activities in the margin of scientific institutions that outsiders can amplify the disturbances, so that instabilities will appear, which in the end will restructure existing research.” (Krohn, Küppers 1989,95).   If some colleagues accuse us of unrealistic or even fantastic behavior, I wish to express that it could not be a mortal sin in the business of science to question paradigms and slaughter holy cows. In case we are forced to turn to the general public in order to raise funds, this strategy will do as well. But: “One of the strongest but unwritten rules of scientific life is the interdiction against appealing to statesmen or to the general public in matters of science” (Kuhn 1970). Kuhn supposes: “As the unity of the scientific performance is a solved problem and as the group knows well which problems are already solved, only few scientists would be willing to take up a standpoint that reopens research on many already solved problems.” (Kuhn 1970). Our thesis produces new problems and questions – especially seemingly solved ones. But it promises to solve more problems than ever before in the historiography of the early Middle Ages. What can I request from the historian, the archaeologist of the Middle Ages, the philologist and the philosopher? What would I do in their place? Important is the need for discussion and sponsorship. There exist two attitudes toward research: One of them is direct professional approach (history, archaeology, and philology); the other is discussing the theory of knowledge and science. Obviously our project is one of interdisciplinary research. Only in this way we can produce the expected change of paradigms with the necessary emotional distance. …

Vulgate Book of Tobit Anchors Judith of Bethulia to Era of Sennacherib

 

No need any longer for biblical commentators to seek for the era of the Book of Judith drama - whether considered fully or only partially historical - late, during the Maccabean era. For one of the main characters in the Book of Judith,Achior, re-appears in the Vulgate version of the Book of Tobit as Tobit’s own nephew, otherwise known as Ahikar (Tobit 1:21-22 GNT). Achior and his own nephew, Nabath, will attend the joyous wedding of Tobit’s son, Tobias (= holy Job, see our site: http://bookofjob-amaic.blogspot.com.au/), at Nineveh (Tobit 11:20): “…. veneruntque Achior et Nabath consobrini Tobiae gaudentes …”. (“And Achior and Nabath the kinsmen of Tobias came, rejoicing”).

Now the era of the Book of Tobit spans the neo-Assyrian period of “Shalmaneser”(V), “Sennacherib” and “Esarhaddon”, with the latter two kings only being relevant for Achior/ Ahikar (1:21-22):

[The Assyrian king] Esarhaddon … put Ahikar, my brother Anael’s son, in charge of all the financial affairs of the empire. This was actually the second time Ahikar was appointed to this position, for when Sennacherib was emperor of Assyria, Ahikar had been wine steward, treasurer, and accountant, and had been in charge of the official seal. Since Ahikar was my nephew, he put in a good word for me with the emperor ….

The defeat of the massive Assyrian army, the central drama of the Book of Judith, occurred during the reign of Sennacherib, not Esarhaddon.

For more on all of this, see our:

 
 

Ahikar Part One: As a Young Officer for Assyria

http://www.academia.edu/7048703/Ahikar_or_Achior._Part_One
 

Ahikar Part Two: As a Convert to Yahwism

http://www.academia.edu/7067422/Ahikar_Part_Two_As_a_Convert_to_Yahwism

50 Figures: The Biblical and Archaeological Evidence

{The AMAIC would not necessarily endorse

all of the following details and dates}

....

EGYPT
1. Shishak (= Shoshenq I), pharaoh, r. 945–924, 1 Kings 11:40 and 14:25, in his inscriptions, including the record of his military campaign in Palestine in his 924 B.C.E. inscription on the exterior south wall of the Temple of Amun at Karnak in Thebes. See OROT, pp. 10, 31–32, 502 note 1; many references to him in Third, indexed on p. 520; Kenneth A. Kitchen, review of IBP, SEE-J Hiphil 2 (2005), http://www.see-j.net/index.php/hiphil/article/viewFile/19/17, bottom of p. 3, which is briefly mentioned in “Sixteen,” p. 43 n. 22 (where the Egyptian name Shoshenq is incorrectly transcribed).
Shoshenq is also referred to in a fragment of his victory stele discovered at Megiddo containing his cartouche. See Robert S. Lamon and Geoffrey M. Shipton, Megiddo I: Seasons of 1925–34, Strata I–V. (Oriental Institute Publications no. 42; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1939), pp. 60–61, fig. 70; Graham I. Davies, Megiddo (Cities of the Biblical World; Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 1986), pp. 89 fig. 18, 90; OROT, p. 508 n. 68; IBP, p. 137 n. 119 (in which the Egyptian name Shoshenq is incorrectly transcribed).
2. So (= Osorkon IV), pharaoh, r. 730–715, 2 Kings 17:4 only, which calls him “So, king of Egypt” (OROT, pp. 15–16). K. A. Kitchen makes a detailed case for So being Osorkon IV in Third, pp. 372–375. See Raging Torrent, p. 106 under “Shilkanni.”
3. Tirhakah (= Taharqa), pharaoh, r. 690–664, 2 Kings 19:9, etc. in many Egyptian hieroglyphic inscriptions; Third, pp. 387–395. For mention of Tirhakah in Assyrian inscriptions, see those of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal in Raging Torrent, pp. 138–143, 145, 150–153, 155, 156; ABC, p. 247 under “Terhaqah.” The Babylonian chronicle also refers to him (Raging Torrent, p. 187). On Tirhakah as prince, see OROT, p. 24.
4. Necho II (= Neco II), pharaoh, r. 610–595, 2 Chronicles 35:20, etc., in inscriptions of the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (ANET, pp. 294–297) and the Esarhaddon Chronicle (ANET, p. 303). See also Raging Torrent, pp. 189–199, esp. 198; OROT, p. 504 n. 26; Third, p. 407; ABC, p. 232.
5. Hophra (= Apries = Wahibre), pharaoh, r. 589–570, Jeremiah 44:30, in Egyptian inscriptions, such as the one describing his being buried by his successor, Aḥmose II (= Amasis II) (Third, p. 333 n. 498), with reflections in Babylonian inscriptions regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s defeat of Hophra in 572 and replacing him on the throne of Egypt with a general, Aḥmes (= Amasis), who later rebelled against Babylonia and was suppressed (Raging Torrent, p. 222). See OROT, pp. 9, 16, 24; Third, p. 373 n. 747, 407 and 407 n. 969; ANET, p. 308; D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626–556 B.C.) in the British Museum (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1956), pp. 94-95. Cf. ANEHST, p. 402. (The index of Third, p. 525, distinguishes between an earlier “Wahibre i” [Third, p. 98] and the 26th Dynasty’s “Wahibre ii” [= Apries], r. 589–570.)

---

Our free eBook Ten Top Biblical Archaeology Discoveries brings together the exciting worlds of archaeology and the Bible! Learn the fascinating insights gained from artifacts and ruins, like the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, where the Gospel of John says Jesus miraculously restored the sight of the blind man, and the Tel Dan inscription—the first historical evidence of King David outside the Bible.

---

MOAB
6. Mesha, king, r. early to mid-9th century, 2 Kings 3:4–27, in the Mesha Inscription, which he caused to be written, lines 1–2; Dearman, Studies, pp. 97, 100–101; IBP, pp. 95–108, 238; “Sixteen,” p. 43.
ARAM-DAMASCUS
7. Hadadezer, king, r. early 9th century to 844/842, 1 Kings 22:3, etc., in Assyrian inscriptions of Shalmaneser III and also, I am convinced, in the Melqart stele. The Hebrew Bible does not name him, referring to him only as “the King of Aram” in 1 Kings 22:3, 31; 2 Kings chapter 5, 6:8–23. We find out this king’s full name in some contemporaneous inscriptions of Shalmaneser III, king of Assyria (r. 858–824), such as the Black Obelisk (Raging Torrent, pp. 22–24). At Kurkh, a monolith by Shalmaneser III states that at the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.E.), he defeated “Adad-idri [the Assyrian way of saying Hadadezer] the Damascene,” along with “Ahab the Israelite” and other kings (Raging Torrent, p. 14; RIMA 3, p. 23, A.0.102.2, col. ii, lines 89b–92). “Hadadezer the Damascene” is also mentioned in an engraving on a statue of Shalmaneser III at Aššur (RIMA 3, p. 118, A.0.102.40, col. i, line 14). The same statue engraving later mentions both Hadadezer and Hazael together (RIMA 3, p. 118, col. i, lines 25–26) in a topical arrangement of worst enemies defeated that is not necessarily chronological.
On the long-disputed readings of the Melqart stele, which was discovered in Syria in 1939, see “Corrections,” pp. 69–85, which follows the closely allied readings of Frank Moore Cross and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold. Those readings, later included in “Sixteen,” pp. 47–48, correct the earlier absence of this Hadadezer in IBP (notably on p. 237, where he is not to be confused with the tenth-century Hadadezer, son of Rehob and king of Zobah).
8. Ben-hadad, son of Hadadezer, r. or served as co-regent 844/842, 2 Kings 6:24, etc., in the Melqart stele, following the readings of Frank Moore Cross and Gotthard G. G. Reinhold and Cross’s 2003 criticisms of a different reading that now appears in COS, vol. 2, pp. 152–153 (“Corrections,” pp. 69–85). Several kings of Damascus bore the name Bar-hadad (in their native Aramaic, which is translated as Ben-hadad in the Hebrew Bible), which suggests adoption as “son” by the patron deity Hadad. This designation might indicate that he was the crown prince and/or co-regent with his father Hadadezer. It seems likely that Bar-hadad/Ben-hadad was his father’s immediate successor as king, as seems to be implied by the military policy reversal between 2 Kings 6:3–23 and 6:24. It was this Ben-Hadad, the son of Hadadezer, whom Hazael assassinated in 2 Kings 8:7–15 (quoted in Raging Torrent, p. 25). The mistaken disqualification of this biblical identification in the Melqart stele in IBP, p. 237, is revised to a strong identification in that stele in “Corrections,” pp. 69–85; “Sixteen,” p. 47.
9. Hazael, king, r. 844/842–ca. 800, 1 Kings 19:15, 2 Kings 8:8, etc., is documented in four kinds of inscriptions: 1) The inscriptions of Shalmaneser III call him “Hazael of Damascus” (Raging Torrent, pp. 23–26, 28), for example the inscription on the Kurbail Statue (RIMA 3, p. 60, line 21). He is also referred to in 2) the Zakkur stele from near Aleppo, in what is now Syria, and in 3) bridle inscriptions, i.e., two inscribed horse blinders and a horse frontlet discovered on Greek islands, and in 4) inscribed ivories seized as Assyrian war booty (Raging Torrent, p. 35). All are treated in IBP, pp. 238–239, and listed in “Sixteen,” p. 44. Cf. “Corrections,” pp. 101–103.
10. Ben-hadad, son of Hazael, king, r. early 8th century, 2 Kings 13:3, etc., in the Zakkur stele from near Aleppo. In lines 4–5, it calls him “Bar-hadad, son of Hazael, the king of Aram” (IBP, p. 240; “Sixteen,” p. 44; Raging Torrent, p. 38; ANET, p. 655: COS, vol. 2, p. 155). On the possibility of Ben-hadad, son of Hazael, being the “Mari” in Assyrian inscriptions, see Raging Torrent, pp. 35–36.
11. Rezin (= Raḥianu), king, r. mid-8th century to 732, 2 Kings 15:37, etc., in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III, king of Assyria (in these inscriptions, Raging Torrent records frequent mention of Rezin in pp. 51–78); OROT, p. 14. Inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III refer to “Rezin” several times, “Rezin of Damascus” in Annal 13, line 10 (ITP, pp. 68–69), and “the dynasty of Rezin of Damascus” in Annal 23, line 13 (ITP, pp. 80–81). Tiglath-pileser III’s stele from Iran contains an explicit reference to Rezin as king of Damascus in column III, the right side, A: “[line 1] The kings of the land of Hatti (and of) the Aramaeans of the western seashore . . . [line 4] Rezin of Damascus” (ITP, pp. 106–107).
NORTHERN KINGDOM OF ISRAEL
12. Omri, king, r. 884–873, 1 Kings 16:16, etc., in Assyrian inscriptions and in the Mesha Inscription. Because he founded a famous dynasty which ruled the northern kingdom of Israel, the Assyrians refer not only to him as a king of Israel (ANET, pp. 280, 281), but also to the later rulers of that territory as kings of “the house of Omri” and that territory itself literally as “the house of Omri” (Raging Torrent, pp. 34, 35; ANET, pp. 284, 285). Many a later king of Israel who was not his descendant, beginning with Jehu, was called “the son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 18). The Mesha Inscription also refers to Omri as “the king of Israel” in lines 4–5, 7 (Dearman, Studies, pp. 97, 100–101; COS, vol. 2, p. 137; IBP, pp. 108–110, 216; “Sixteen,” p. 43.
13. Ahab, king, r. 873–852, 1 Kings 16:28, etc., in the Kurkh Monolith by his enemy, Shalmaneser III of Assyria. There, referring to the battle of Qarqar (853 B.C.E.), Shalmaneser calls him “Ahab the Israelite” (Raging Torrent, pp. 14, 18–19; RIMA 3, p. 23, A.0.102.2, col. 2, lines 91–92; ANET, p. 279; COS, vol. 2, p. 263).
14. Jehu, king, r. 842/841–815/814, 1 Kings 19:16, etc., in inscriptions of Shalmaneser III. In these, “son” means nothing more than that he is the successor, in this instance, of Omri (Raging Torrent, p. 20 under “Ba’asha . . . ” and p. 26). A long version of Shalmaneser III’s annals on a stone tablet in the outer wall of the city of Aššur refers to Jehu in col. 4, line 11, as “Jehu, son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 28; RIMA 3, p. 54, A.0.102.10, col. 4, line 11; cf. ANET, p. 280, the parallel “fragment of an annalistic text”). Also, on the Kurba’il Statue, lines 29–30 refer to “Jehu, son of Omri” (RIMA 3, p. 60, A.0.102.12, lines 29–30).
In Shalmaneser III’s Black Obelisk, current scholarship regards the notation over relief B, depicting payment of tribute from Israel, as referring to “Jehu, son of Omri” (Raging Torrent, p. 23; RIMA 3, p. 149, A.0. 102.88), but cf. P. Kyle McCarter, Jr., “‘Yaw, Son of ’Omri’: A Philological Note on Israelite Chronology,” Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 216 (1974): pp. 5–7.
15. Joash (= Jehoash), king, r. 805–790, 2 Kings 13:9, etc., in the Tell al-Rimaḥ inscription of Adad-Nirari III, king of Assyria (r. 810–783), which mentions “the tribute of Joash [= Iu’asu] the Samarian” (Stephanie Page, “A Stela of Adad-Nirari III and Nergal-Ereš from Tell Al Rimaḥ,” Iraq 30 [1968]: pp. 142–145, line 8, Pl. 38–41; RIMA 3, p. 211, line 8 of A.0.104.7; Raging Torrent, pp. 39–41).
16. Jeroboam II, king, r. 790–750/749, 2 Kings 13:13, etc., in the seal of his royal servant Shema, discovered at Megiddo (WSS, p. 49 no. 2; IBP, pp. 133–139, 217; “Sixteen,” p. 46).
17. Menahem, king, r. 749–738, 2 Kings 15:14, etc., in the Calah Annals of Tiglath-pileser III. Annal 13, line 10 refers to “Menahem of Samaria” in a list of kings who paid tribute (ITP, pp. 68–69, Pl. IX). Tiglath-pileser III’s stele from Iran, his only known stele, refers explicitly to Menahem as king of Samaria in column III, the right side, A: “[line 1] The kings of the land of Hatti (and of) the Aramaeans of the western seashore . . . [line 5] Menahem of Samaria.” (ITP, pp. 106–107). See also Raging Torrent, pp. 51, 52, 54, 55, 59; ANET, p. 283.
18. Pekah, king, r. 750(?)–732/731, 2 Kings 15:25, etc., in the inscriptions of Tiglath-pileser III. Among various references to “Pekah,” the most explicit concerns the replacement of Pekah in Summary Inscription 4, lines 15–17: “[line 15] . . . The land of Bit-Humria . . . . [line 17] Peqah, their king [I/they killed] and I installed Hoshea [line 18] [as king] over them” (ITP, pp. 140–141; Raging Torrent, pp. 66–67).
19. Hoshea, king, r. 732/731–722, 2 Kings 15:30, etc., in Tiglath-pileser’s Summary Inscription 4, described in preceding note 18, where Hoshea is mentioned as Pekah’s immediate successor.
20. Sanballat “I”, governor of Samaria under Persian rule, ca. mid-fifth century, Nehemiah 2:10, etc., in a letter among the papyri from the Jewish community at Elephantine in Egypt (A. E. Cowley, ed., Aramaic Papyri of the Fifth Century B.C. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1923; reprinted Osnabrück, Germany: Zeller, 1967), p. 114 English translation of line 29, and p. 118 note regarding line 29; ANET, p. 492.
Also, the reference to “[ ]ballat,” most likely Sanballat, in Wadi Daliyeh bulla WD 22 appears to refer to the biblical Sanballat as the father of a governor of Samaria who succeeded him in the first half of the fourth century. As Jan Dušek shows, it cannot be demonstrated that any Sanballat II and III existed, which is the reason for the present article’s quotation marks around the “I” in Sanballat “I”; see Jan Dušek, “Archaeology and Texts in the Persian Period: Focus on Sanballat,” in Martti Nissinen, ed., Congress Volume: Helsinki 2010 (Boston: Brill. 2012), pp. 117–132.

---

As the point where three of the world’s major religions converge, Israel’s history is one of the richest and most complex in the world. Sift through the archaeology and history of this ancient land in the free eBook Israel: An Archaeological Journey, and get a view of these significant Biblical sites through an archaeologist’s lens.

---

SOUTHERN KINGDOM OF JUDAH
21. David, king, r. ca. 1010–970, 1 Samuel 16:13, etc. in three inscriptions. Most notable is the victory stele in Aramaic known as the “house of David” inscription, discovered at Tel Dan; Avraham Biran and Joseph Naveh, “An Aramaic Stele from Tel Dan,” IEJ 43 (1993), pp. 81–98, and idem, “The Tel Dan Inscription: A New Fragment,” IEJ 45 (1995), pp. 1–18. An ancient Aramaic word pattern in line 9 designates David as the founder of the dynasty of Judah in the phrase “house of David” (2 Sam 2:11 and 5:5; Gary A. Rendsburg, “On the Writing ביתדיד [BYTDWD] in the Aramaic Inscription from Tel Dan,” IEJ 45 [1995], pp. 22–25; Raging Torrent, p. 20, under “Ba’asha . . .”; IBP, pp. 110–132, 265–77; “Sixteen,” pp. 41–43).
In the second inscription, the Mesha Inscription, the phrase “house of David” appears in Moabite in line 31 with the same meaning: that he is the founder of the dynasty. There David’s name appears with only its first letter destroyed, and no other letter in that spot makes sense without creating a very strained, awkward reading (André Lemaire, “‘House of David’ Restored in Moabite Inscription,” BAR 20, no. 3 [May/June 1994]: pp. 30–37. David’s name also appears in line 12 of the Mesha Inscription (Anson F. Rainey, “Mesha‘ and Syntax,” in J. Andrew Dearman and M. Patrick Graham, eds., The Land That I Will Show You: Essays on the History and Archaeology of the Ancient Near East in Honor of J. Maxwell Miller. (JSOT Supplement series, no. 343; Sheffield, England:Sheffield Academic, 2001), pp. 287–307; IBP, pp. 265–277; “Sixteen,” pp. 41–43).
The third inscription, in Egyptian, mentions a region in the Negev called “the heights of David” after King David (Kenneth A. Kitchen, “A Possible Mention of David in the Late Tenth Century B.C.E., and Deity *Dod as Dead as the Dodo?” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 76 [1997], pp. 39–41; IBP, p. 214 note 3, which is revised in “Corrections,” pp. 119–121; “Sixteen,” p. 43).
In the table on p. 46 of BAR, David is listed as king of Judah. According to 2 Samuel 5:5, for his first seven years and six months as a monarch, he ruled only the southern kingdom of Judah. We have no inscription that refers to David as king over all Israel (that is, the united kingdom) as also stated in 2 Sam 5:5.
22. Uzziah (= Azariah), king, r. 788/787–736/735, 2 Kings 14:21, etc., in the inscribed stone seals of two of his royal servants: Abiyaw and Shubnayaw (more commonly called Shebanyaw); WSS, p. 51 no. 4 and p. 50 no. 3, respectively; IBP, pp. 153–159 and 159–163, respectively, and p. 219 no. 20 (a correction to IBP is that on p. 219, references to WSS nos. 3 and 4 are reversed); “Sixteen,” pp. 46–47. Cf. also his secondary burial inscription from the Second Temple era (IBP, p. 219 n. 22).
23. Ahaz (= Jehoahaz), king, r. 742/741–726, 2 Kings 15:38, etc., in Tiglath-pileser III’s Summary Inscription 7, reverse, line 11, refers to “Jehoahaz of Judah” in a list of kings who paid tribute (ITP, pp. 170–171; Raging Torrent, pp. 58–59). The Bible refers to him by the shortened form of his full name, Ahaz, rather than by the full form of his name, Jehoahaz, which the Assyrian inscription uses.
Cf. the unprovenanced seal of ’Ushna’, more commonly called ’Ashna’, the name Ahaz appears (IBP, pp. 163–169, with corrections from Kitchen’s review of IBP as noted in “Corrections,” p. 117; “Sixteen,” pp. 38–39 n. 11). Because this king already stands clearly documented in an Assyrian inscription, documentation in another inscription is not necessary to confirm the existence of the biblical Ahaz, king of Judah.
24. Hezekiah, king, r. 726–697/696, 2 Kings 16:20, etc., initially in the Rassam Cylinder of Sennacherib (in this inscription, Raging Torrent records frequent mention of Hezekiah in pp. 111–123; COS, pp. 302–303). It mentions “Hezekiah the Judahite” (col. 2 line 76 and col. 3 line 1 in Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, pp. 31, 32) and “Jerusalem, his royal city” (ibid., col. 3 lines 28, 40; ibid., p. 33) Other, later copies of the annals of Sennacherib, such as the Oriental Institute prism and the Taylor prism, mostly repeat the content of the Rassam cylinder, duplicating its way of referring to Hezekiah and Jerusalem (ANET, pp. 287, 288). The Bull Inscription from the palace at Nineveh (ANET, p. 288; Raging Torrent, pp. 126–127) also mentions “Hezekiah the Judahite” (lines 23, 27 in Luckenbill, Annals of Sennacherib, pp. 69, 70) and “Jerusalem, his royal city” (line 29; ibid., p. 33).
25. Manasseh, king, r. 697/696–642/641, 2 Kings 20:21, etc., in the inscriptions of Assyrian kings Esarhaddon (Raging Torrent, pp. 131, 133, 136) and Ashurbanipal (ibid., p. 154). “Manasseh, king of Judah,” according to Esarhaddon (r. 680–669), was among those who paid tribute to him (Esarhaddon’s Prism B, column 5, line 55; R. Campbell Thompson, The Prisms of Esarhaddon and Ashurbanipal [London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1931], p. 25; ANET, p. 291). Also, Ashurbanipal (r. 668–627) records that “Manasseh, king of Judah” paid tribute to him (Ashurbanipal’s Cylinder C, col. 1, line 25; Maximilian Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Könige bis zum Untergang Niniveh’s, [Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7; Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1916], vol. 2, pp. 138–139; ANET, p. 294.
26. Hilkiah, high priest during Josiah’s reign, within 640/639–609, 2 Kings 22:4, etc., in the City of David bulla of Azariah, son of Hilkiah (WSS, p. 224 no. 596; IBP, pp. 148–151; 229 only in [50] City of David bulla; “Sixteen,” p. 49).
The oldest part of Jerusalem, called the City of David, is the location where the Bible places all four men named in the bullae covered in the present endnotes 26 through 29.
Analysis of the clay of these bullae shows that they were produced in the locale of Jerusalem (Eran Arie, Yuval Goren, and Inbal Samet, “Indelible Impression: Petrographic Analysis of Judahite Bullae,” in The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin [ed. Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011], p. 10, quoted in “Sixteen,” pp. 48–49 n. 34).
27. Shaphan, scribe during Josiah’s reign, within 640/639–609, 2 Kings 22:3, etc., in the City of David bulla of Gemariah, son of Shaphan (WSS, p. 190 no. 470; IBP, pp. 139–146, 228). See endnote 26 above regarding “Sixteen,” pp. 48–49 n. 34.
28. Azariah, high priest during Josiah’s reign, within 640/639–609, 1 Chronicles 5:39, etc., in the City of David bulla of Azariah, son of Hilkiah (WSS, p. 224 no. 596; IBP, pp. 151–152; 229). See endnote 26 above regarding “Sixteen,” pp. 48–49 n. 34.
29. Gemariah, official during Jehoiakim’s reign, within 609–598, Jeremiah 36:10, etc., in the City of David bulla of Gemariah, son of Shaphan (WSS, p. 190 no. 470; IBP, pp. 147, 232). See endnote 26 above regarding “Sixteen,” pp. 48–49 n. 34.
30. Jehoiachin (= Jeconiah = Coniah), king, r. 598–597, 2 Kings 24:5, etc., in four Babylonian administrative tablets regarding oil rations or deliveries, during his exile in Babylonia (Raging Torrent, p. 209; ANEHST, pp. 386–387). Discovered at Babylon, they are dated from the tenth to the thirty-fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylonia and conqueror of Jerusalem. One tablet calls Jehoiachin “king” (Text Babylon 28122, obverse, line 29; ANET, p. 308). A second, fragmentary text mentions him as king in an immediate context that refers to “[. . . so]ns of the king of Judah” and “Judahites” (Text Babylon 28178, obverse, col. 2, lines 38–40; ANET, p. 308). The third tablet calls him “the son of the king of Judah” and refers to “the five sons of the king of Judah” (Text Babylon 28186, reverse, col. 2, lines 17–18; ANET, p. 308). The fourth text, the most fragmentary of all, confirms “Judah” and part of Jehoiachin’s name, but contributes no data that is not found in the other texts.
31. Shelemiah, father of Jehucal the official, late 7th century, Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1
and
32. Jehucal (= Jucal), official during Zedekiah’s reign, fl. within 597–586, Jeremiah 37:3; 38:1 only, both referred to in a bulla discovered in the City of David in 2005 (Eilat Mazar, “Did I Find King David’s Palace?” BAR 32, no. 1 [January/February 2006], pp. 16–27, 70; idem, Preliminary Report on the City of David Excavations 2005 at the Visitors Center Area [Jerusalem and New York: Shalem, 2007], pp. 67–69; idem, “The Wall that Nehemiah Built,” BAR 35, no. 2 [March/April 2009], pp. 24–33,66; idem, The Palace of King David: Excavations at the Summit of the City of David: Preliminary Report of Seasons 2005-2007 [Jerusalem/New York: Shoham AcademicResearch and Publication, 2009], pp. 66–71). Only the possibility of firm identifications is left open in “Corrections,” pp. 85–92; “Sixteen,” pp. 50–51; this article is my first affirmation of four identifications, both here in notes 31 and 32 and below in notes 33 and 34.
After cautiously observing publications and withholding judgment for several years, I am now affirming the four identifications in notes 31 through 34, because I am now convinced that this bulla is a remnant from an administrative center in the City of David, a possibility suggested in “Corrections,” p. 100 second-to-last paragraph, and “Sixteen,” p. 51. For me, the tipping point came by comparing the description and pictures of the nearby and immediate archaeological context in Eilat Mazar, “Palace of King David,” pp. 66–70, with the administrative contexts described in Eran Arie, Yuval Goren, and Inbal Samet, “Indelible Impression: Petrographic Analysis of Judahite Bullae,” in Israel Finkelstein and Nadav Na’aman, eds., The Fire Signals of Lachish: Studies in the Archaeology and History of Israel in the Late Bronze Age, Iron Age, and Persian Period in Honor of David Ussishkin (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2011), pp. 12–13 (the section titled “The Database: Judahite Bullae from Controlled Excavations”) and pp. 23–24. See also Nadav Na’aman, “The Interchange between Bible and Archaeology: The Case of David’s Palace and the Millo,” BAR 40, no. 1 (January/February 2014), pp. 57–61, 68–69, which is drawn from idem, “Biblical and Historical Jerusalem in the Tenth and Fifth-Fourth Centuries B.C.E.,” Biblica 93 (2012): pp. 21–42. See also idem, “Five Notes on Jerusalem in the First and Second Temple Periods,” Tel Aviv 39 (2012): p. 93.
33. Pashhur, father of Gedaliah the official, late 7th century, Jeremiah 38:1
and
34. Gedaliah, official during Zedekiah’s reign, fl. within 597–586, Jeremiah 38:1 only, both referred to in a bulla discovered in the City of David in 2008. See “Corrections,” pp. 92–96; “Sixteen,” pp. 50–51; and the preceding endnote 31 and 32 for bibliographic details on E. Mazar, “Wall,” pp. 24–33, 66; idem, Palace of King David, pp. 68–71) and for the comments in the paragraph that begins, “After cautiously . . . .”
ASSYRIA
35. Tiglath-pileser III (= Pul), king, r. 744–727, 2 Kings 15:19, etc., in his many inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 46–79; COS, vol. 2, pp. 284–292; ITP; Mikko Lukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria, no. 19; Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013); ABC, pp. 248–249. On Pul as referring to Tiglath-pileser III, which is implicit in ABC, p. 333 under “Pulu,” see ITP, p. 280 n. 5 for discussion and bibliography.
On the identification of Tiglath-pileser III in the Aramaic monumental inscription honoring Panamu II, in Aramaic monumental inscriptions 1 and 8 of Bar-Rekub (now in Istanbul and Berlin, respectively), and in the Ashur Ostracon, see IBP, p. 240; COS, pp. 158–161.
36. Shalmaneser V (= Ululaya), king, r. 726–722, 2 Kings 17:2, etc., in chronicles, in king-lists, and in rare remaining inscriptions of his own (ABC, p. 242; COS, vol. 2, p. 325). Most notable is the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series, Chronicle 1, i, lines 24–32. In those lines, year 2 of the Chronicle mentions his plundering the city of Samaria (Raging Torrent, pp. 178, 182; ANEHST, p. 408). (“Shalman” in Hosea 10:14 is likely a historical allusion, but modern lack of information makes it difficult to assign it to a particular historical situation or ruler, Assyrian or otherwise. See below for the endnotes to the box at the top of p. 50.)
37. Sargon II, king, r. 721–705, Isaiah 20:1, in many inscriptions, including his own. See Raging Torrent, pp. 80–109, 176–179, 182; COS, vol. 2, pp. 293–300; Mikko Lukko, The Correspondence of Tiglath-pileser III and Sargon II from Calah/Nimrud (State Archives of Assyria, no. 19; Assyrian Text Corpus Project; Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 2013); ABC, pp. 236–238; IBP, pp. 240–241 no. (74).
38. Sennacherib, king, r. 704–681, 2 Kings 18:13, etc., in many inscriptions, including his own. See Raging Torrent, pp. 110–129; COS, vol. 2, pp. 300–305; ABC, pp. 238–240; ANEHST, pp. 407–411, esp. 410; IBP, pp. 241–242.
39. Adrammelech (= Ardamullissu = Arad-mullissu), son and assassin of Sennacherib, fl. early 7th century, 2 Kings 19:37, etc., in a letter sent to Esarhaddon, who succeeded Sennacherib on the throne of Assyria. See Raging Torrent, pp. 111, 184, and COS, vol. 3, p. 244, both of which describe and cite with approval Simo Parpola, “The Murderer of Sennacherib,” in Death in Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the XXVie Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, ed. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), pp. 171–182. See also ABC, p. 240.
An upcoming scholarly challenge is the identification of Sennacherib’s successor, Esarhaddon, as a more likely assassin in Andrew Knapp’s paper, “The Murderer of Sennacherib, Yet Again,” to be read in a February 2014 Midwest regional conference in Bourbonnais, Ill. (SBL/AOS/ASOR).
On various renderings of the neo-Assyrian name of the assassin, see RlA s.v. “Ninlil,” vol. 9, pp. 452–453 (in German). On the mode of execution of those thought to have been conspirators in the assassination, see the selection from Ashurbanipal’s Rassam cylinder in ANET, p. 288.
40. Esarhaddon, king, r. 680–669, 2 Kings 19:37, etc., in his many inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 130–147; COS, vol. 2, p. 306; ABC, pp. 217–219. Esarhaddon’s name appears in many cuneiform inscriptions (ANET, pp. 272–274, 288–290, 292–294, 296, 297, 301–303, 426–428, 449, 450, 531, 533–541, 605, 606), including his Succession Treaty (ANEHST, p. 355).
BABYLONIA
41. Merodach-baladan II (=Marduk-apla-idinna II), king, r. 721–710 and 703, 2 Kings 20:12, etc., in the inscriptions of Sennacherib and the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles (Raging Torrent, pp. 111, 174, 178–179, 182–183. For Sennacherib’s account of his first campaign, which was against Merodach-baladan II, see COS, vol. 2, pp. 300-302. For the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series, Chronicle 1, i, 33–42, see ANEHST, pp. 408–409. This king is also included in the Babylonian King List A (ANET, p. 271), and the latter part of his name remains in the reference to him in the Synchronistic King List (ANET, pp. 271–272), on which see ABC, pp. 226, 237.
42. Nebuchadnezzar II, king, r. 604–562, 2 Kings 24:1, etc., in many cuneiform tablets, including his own inscriptions. See Raging Torrent, pp. 220–223; COS, vol. 2, pp. 308–310; ANET, pp. 221, 307–311; ABC, p. 232. The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle series refers to him in Chronicles 4 and 5 (ANEHST, pp. 415, 416–417, respectively). Chronicle 5, reverse, lines 11–13, briefly refers to his conquest of Jerusalem (“the city of Judah”) in 597 by defeating “its king” (Jehoiachin), as well as his appointment of “a king of his own choosing” (Zedekiah) as king of Judah.
43. Nebo-sarsekim, chief official of Nebuchadnezzar II, fl. early 6th century, Jeremiah 39:3, in a cuneiform inscription on Babylonian clay tablet BM 114789 (1920-12-13, 81), dated to 595 B.C.E. The time reference in Jeremiah 39:3 is very close, to the year 586. Since it is extremely unlikely that two individuals having precisely the same personal name would have been, in turn, the sole holders of precisely this unique position within a decade of each other, it is safe to assume that the inscription and the book of Jeremiah refer to the same person in different years of his time in office. In July 2007 in the British Museum, Austrian researcher Michael Jursa discovered this Babylonian reference to the biblical “Nebo-sarsekim, the Rab-saris” (rab ša-rēši, meaning “chief official”) of Nebuchadnezzar II (r. 604–562). Jursa identified this official in his article, “Nabu-šarrūssu-ukīn, rab ša-rēši, und ‘Nebusarsekim’ (Jer. 39:3),” Nouvelles Assyriologiques Breves et Utilitaires2008/1 (March): pp. 9–10 (in German). See also Bob Becking, “Identity of Nabusharrussu-ukin, the Chamberlain: An Epigraphic Note on Jeremiah 39,3. With an Appendix on the Nebu(!)sarsekim Tablet by Henry Stadhouders,” Biblische Notizen NF 140 (2009): pp. 35–46; “Corrections,” pp. 121–124; “Sixteen,” p. 47 n. 31. On the correct translation of ráb ša-rēši (and three older, published instances of it having been incorrect translated as rab šaqê), see ITP, p. 171 n. 16.
44. Evil-merodach (= Awel Marduk, = Amel Marduk), king, r. 561–560, 2 Kings 25:27, etc., in various inscriptions (ANET, p. 309; OROT, pp. 15, 504 n. 23). See especially Ronald H. Sack, Amel-Marduk: 562-560 B.C.; A Study Based on Cuneiform, Old Testament, Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, no. 4; Kevelaer, Butzon & Bercker, and Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener, 1972).
45. Belshazzar, son and co-regent of Nabonidus, fl. ca. 543?–540, Daniel 5:1, etc., in Babylonian administrative documents and the “Verse Account” (Muhammed A. Dandamayev, “Nabonid, A,” RlA, vol. 9, p. 10; Raging Torrent, pp. 215–216; OROT, pp. 73–74). A neo-Babylonian text refers to him as “Belshazzar the crown prince” (ANET, pp. 309–310 n. 5).
PERSIA
46. Cyrus II (=Cyrus the great), king, r. 559–530, 2 Chronicles 36:22, etc., in various inscriptions (including his own), for which and on which see ANEHST, pp. 418–426, ABC, p. 214. For Cyrus’ cylinder inscription, see Raging Torrent, pp. 224–230; ANET, pp. 315–316; COS, vol. 2, pp. 314–316; ANEHST, pp. 426–430; P&B, pp. 87–92. For larger context and implications in the biblical text, see OROT, pp. 70-76.
47. Darius I (=Darius the Great), king, r. 520–486, Ezra 4:5, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own trilingual cliff inscription at Behistun, on which see P&B, pp. 131–134. See also COS, vol. 2, p. 407, vol. 3, p. 130; ANET, pp. 221, 316, 492; ABC, p. 214; ANEHST, pp. 407, 411. On the setting, see OROT, pp. 70–75.
48. Xerxes I (= Ahasuerus), king, r. 486–465, Esther 1:1, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own (P&B, p. 301; ANET, pp. 316–317), and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (COS, vol. 2, p. 188, vol. 3, pp. 142, 145. On the setting, see OROT, pp. 70–75.
49. Artaxerxes I Longimanus, king, r. 465-425/424, Ezra 4:6, 7, etc., in various inscriptions, including his own (P&B, pp. 242–243), and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (COS, vol. 2, p. 163, vol. 3, p. 145; ANET, p. 548).
50. Darius II Nothus, king, r. 425/424-405/404, Nehemiah 12:22, in various inscriptions, including his own (for example, P&B, pp. 158–159) and in the dates of documents from the time of his reign (ANET, p. 548; COS, vol. 3, pp. 116–117).

---

BAS Library Members: Read “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible” by Lawrence Mykytiuk as it appears in the March/April 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.

....

Taken from: http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/people-cultures-in-the-bible/people-in-the-bible/50-people-in-the-bible-confirmed-archaeologically/

Giza Pyramids: The How, When and Why of Them

 

by

Damien F. Mackey

 

How Were The Pyramids Built?

Though I am no technician, I had been very impressed by the theory of the French polymer scientist, professor Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, who had been claiming that the stones of the Giza pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete, or liquid (wet) cement, created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. According to the Wikipedia article, for a basic view on the professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits):

 

Davidovits was not convinced that the ancient Egyptians possessed the tools or technology to carve and haul the huge (2.5 to 15 ton) limestone blocks that made up the Great Pyramid. Davidovits suggested that the blocks were molded in place by using a form of limestone concrete. According to his theory, a soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of ancient cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement.

 

Using Davidovits' theory, no large gangs would be needed to haul blocks and no huge and unwieldy ramps would be needed to transport the blocks up the side of the pyramid. No chiseling or carving with soft bronze tools would be required to dress their surfaces and new blocks could be cast in place, on top of and pressed against the old blocks. This would account for the unerring precision of the joints of the casing stones (the blocks of the core show tools marks and were cut with much lower tolerances). Proof-of-concept experiments using similar compounds were carried out at Davidovits' geopolymer institute in northern France. It was found that a crew of ten, working with simple hand tools, could build a structure of fourteen, 1.3 to 4.5 ton blocks in a couple of days. According to Davidovits the architects possessed at least two concrete formulas: one for the large structural blocks and another for the white casing stones. He argues earlier pyramids, brick structures, and stone vases were built using similar techniques.

 [End of quote]

 

However, as there appeared to be amongst mainstream pyramid experts little interest - to practically none whatsoever - in what seemed to my mind to be the eminently sensible and scientific thesis of Davidovits, and since I personally did not have the sort of scientific expertise to push the case of the matter, I have tended to lose interest in the theory until now. This was not because I am unprepared to back a supposed rogue ‘maverick’ against the mainstream flow of conforming scholars. My acceptance of the revision of ‘maverick’ scholar, or ‘wayward polymath’, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos series), against the conventional view of chronology, is clear evidence of this.

Anyway, my interest in the theory of Davidovits has been rekindled by the following article in support of it (http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html):

 

The Surprising Truth About

How the Great Pyramids Were Built

 

telling about the discovery along the same lines by one Michel Barsoum, described therein as “a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics”, and “a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University”. The authors of this article, Sheila Berninger and Dorilona Rose, write about how Barsoum, initially as a sceptic, came to reconsider the whole matter:

 

…. Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world.

The widely accepted theory — that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps — had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes.

 

Burst out laughing

 

According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water.

"It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," Barsoum said. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he said, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy.

It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory … yet.

"What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum said.

[End of quote]

 

The article goes on to explain some of the geology of the matter, “these blocks are not natural limestone”, and to account for what has puzzled Egyptologists over a long period of time: namely, the high water content:

 

A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral.

The stones also had a high water content — unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau — and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous.

The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. "Therefore," Barsoum said, "it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block."

More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone.

[End of quote]

 

The article then comes to the same dramatic (and somewhat poignant) conclusion arrived at also by chronological revisionists along the lines of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (though not intended by the authors of the article): We have been misled.

 

Generations misled

 

At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original — albeit unknowing — nanotechnologists."

As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks.

Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau?

Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit.

Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever.

[End of quote]

 

Whilst ignorance in such cases can be to some degree simply a natural outcome of pioneering efforts to reach right conclusions about an overwhelming mass of early evidence, Velikovskian-inspired revisionists would be well aware, too, of another common factor that is inexcusable: the persistence by mainstream scholars to proceed in the face of hard evidence.

 

 

When Were The Pyramids Built?

 

Apparently, to account for the make-up of the Giza complex, one no longer has to resort to some of the more esoteric views according to which, due to the high water content - and the heavy erosion associated with the Great Sphinx - the Giza complex was constructed hundreds, to thousands, of years before the era of Egypt’s 4^th dynasty, where conventional Egyptology (with which I would here fully agree) has the pyramids being built. Robert Bauval, for instance (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/piramides/esp_piramide_15.htm), would suggest a possible date of as far back as 10,500 BC for the Sphinx and for the initial planning of the Giza necropolis, though not for the Great Pyramid itself, which he locates to “somewhere around 2500 BC”. This is the conventional time for the 4^th dynasty (c. 2613 to 2494 BC).

I, too, would unhesitatingly accept that the Giza complex was created during Egypt’s powerful 4^th dynasty, but yet with some major differences from convention, whose grossly over-inflated dates have been estimated on the back of the artificial Sothic theory. See my post-graduate thesis:

 

Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar

 

http://www.academia.edu/2568413/Sothic_Star_Theory_of_the_Egyptian_Calendar

 

and, for simpler reading:

 

The Fall of the Sothic Theory: Egyptian Chronology Revisited

 

http://www.academia.edu/3665220/The_Fall_of_the_Sothic_Theory_Egyptian_Chronology_Revisited

 

Hence I would - based on such previous research - depart from conventional Egyptian history, and re-set standard dates - in the case of the 4^th dynasty, by (i) radically re-dating this dynasty to approximately a millennium lower on the time scale, but also, through a re-alignment of Egypt’s so-called Old and Middle kingdoms, by (ii) merging the pyramid- and sphinx-making 4^th dynasty with the pyramid- and sphinx-making 12^th dynasty: an era that revisionists have found highly compatible with the presence of biblical Israel in Egypt (read on).

 

Israel in Egypt

 

According to Josephus it was the Israelite captives in Egypt who built the pyramids for the pharaohs. Dr. Ed (Ewald) Metzler tells of this and links it to Middle Kingdom Egypt (http://moziani.tripod.com/pyramids/ammm_1_5.htm):

 

§  8.  The pyramids were built by the people of   Israel,   by  its  twelve  tribes  known  as  the
Dodecarchs “twelve rulers” or “dynasts”, whence
the  “twelve  dynasties”  of  the pyramid age, and
after   their   Exodus  at  the  end  of  the  twelfth
dynasty  no more pyramids were built in Egypt.²²⁾

This   is  confirmed  by  Josephus  Flavius,  who
writes  in  his  Jewish  Antiquities  (II,  9) that the
people  of Israel suffered from building pyramids
and  irrigation  ditches,  which fits the description
of  the  last  pyramids  of the Middle Kingdom in
Fayoum,  irrigated  by  diverting  water  from the
Nile  into the Baher Youssouf canal.²³⁾

….
–––––––––––––– 
            22)  A connection between the “Dodecarchs” of Herodotus
and the “twelve dynasties” of Manetho was already suspected by
Francis  Llewellyn  Griffith,  as  quoted  by  Armayor (N. 20) p. 62.

[End of quote]

 

Astute revisionists, rejecting the conventional view that the Israelites would have been in Egypt, if at all, during the 19^th dynasty period of Ramses II ‘the Great’, have pointed to evidences of 12^th dynasty pharaohs employing - for their pyramid building purposes - bricks mixed with straw, just as according to the Book of Exodus. I take this interesting section from Digging up the Past (http://www.diggingsonline.com/pages/rese/dyns/yusef.htm):

 

The Chronology of Joseph and the Exodus

 

By the present chronological system of Egyptian history there are serious problems in synchronising the events described in the Biblical account with Egyptian history. Most scholars have therefore concluded that the Bible record is unreliable or distorted. In 1 Kings 6:1 it is stated that "In the 480th year after the children of Israel had come out of the land of Egypt, in the 4th year of Solomon's reign over Israel ... that he began to build the house of the Lord". Most scholars would accept a date of about 970 BC for the beginning of Solomon's reign. His 4th year would be 966 BC, and this being the 480th year after the Exodus would place that event about 1445 BC.

But because of the lack of archaeological evidence both in Egypt and Israel to support this date, most scholars have rejected the information supplied in 1 Kings 6:1, and have accepted a date closer to 1200 BC for the Exodus. But even for this date there is only very flimsy circumstantial evidence, and scholars still disagree as to who was the Pharaoh of the Exodus. Dr Immanual Velikovsky claims that the fault lies, not with the Biblical information, but with the generally accepted chronology of Egypt, and that the Egyptian dates need to be reduced by some 600 years at the time of the Exodus. This would mean that the ruling dynasty of Egypt at the time Exodus would be the 13th dynasty, rather than the 18th or 19 dynasty as is now generally believed, and the pharaohs at the time of Joseph and Moses were the rulers of the 12th dynasty. When this system is adopted there is found to be remarkable agreement between the histories of Egypt and Israel. The following article, the substance of which has appeared in articles already published in Diggings, demonstrate the consistency of the revised chronology.

….

 

The Oppression of Israel

"Now there arose up a new king over Egypt which knew not Joseph." (Exodus 1:8) Not that the pharaoh was ignorant of Joseph's services to the nation, but he wished to make no recognition of them, and, so far as possible, to bury them in oblivion. Josephus wrote:

"Having in length of time forgotten the benefits received from Joseph, particularly the crown being now come into another family, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them." Antiquities of the Jews, book 1, chapter IX, paragraph 1

….

From the historical records we learn that Asiatic slaves were used during the twelfth dynasty.

"The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period must have been more times more numerous than has been generally supposed. Whether or not this largely slave population could have played a part in hastening ... the impending Hyksos domination is difficult to say." Cambridge Ancient History, vol II part I, p. 49

"Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households." Encyclopaedia Britannica 1964, volume 8, p. 35

Gardiner wrote:

"It should be noted, however, that on stelae and in papyri Asiatic slaves are increasingly often mentioned, though there is no means of telling whether they were prisoners of war or had infiltrated into Egypt of their own accord." Egypt of the Pharaohs, p. 133

From the Scripture records, we can say that they did infiltrate into Egypt of their own accord, but were subsequently enslaved.

There was an extensive building program carried on in the Delta where the Israelites were located during this dynasty. The temples of the eighteenth dynasty at Luxor were too far away from the delta to have been built with Israelite slave labour - and they were built of stone. The buildings constructed in the delta under the twelfth dynasty were made of mud brick. Mountains of such bricks went into the city of Avaris and nearby cities.

Moreover the pyramids of Sesostris III and Amenemhet III were also made of mud bricks. The early dynasties' burial places were made of mud brick. The magnificent third and fourth dynasty pyramids were built of stone. For some strange reason these twelfth dynasty rulers reverted to mud brick. It is interesting in this connection to note that Josephus wrote:

"They (the Egyptians) set them (the Israelites) to build pyramids." Antiquities of the Jews, book 2, chapter IX, paragraph 1

On the assumption that the oppression took place during the eighteenth or nineteenth dynasty, this statement is regarded by scholars as a glaring blunder by Josephus, for by this time, according to their view, the Pyramid Age had ended. The pharaohs of the New Kingdom dynasties were buried in the Valley of the Kings near Luxor. But maybe it is the scholars who have blundered, for the kings of the twelfth dynasty did build pyramids, and what is more, they built them of mud bricks mixed with straw. "Ye shall no more give the people straw to make brick as heretofore: let them go and gather straw for themselves." (Exodus 5:7)

Especially relevant is the research done by Rosalie David whose book The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt was published in 1986. She researched the work done by Sir Flinders Petrie in the Faiyyum. Petrie worked in the Faiyyum in 1889 and he explored the pyramids of the 12th dynasty and identified the owners.

He also excavated the remains of a town that had been occupied by the workmen who actually built these pyramids. He wrote:

"The great prize of Illahun was unknown and the unsuspected by anyone. On the desert adjoining the north side of the temple, I saw traces of a town, brick walls, houses and pottery; moreover, the pottery was of a style as yet unknown to me. The town wall started out in a line with the face of the temple; and it dawned on me that this could hardly be other than the town of the pyramid builders, originally called Ha-Usertesen-hotep, and now known as Kahun. A little digging soon put it beyond doubt, as we found cylinders of the age, and no other; so that it was evident that I actually had in hand an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty, regularly laid out by the royal architect for the workmen and stores required in building the pyramid and its temple. After a few holes had been made, I formed up the workmen in a line along the outmost street, and regularly cleared the first line of chambers, turning the stuff into the street; then the chambers beyond those were emptied into them; and so line after line, block after block, almost every room in the town was emptied out and searched." Ten Years Digging in Egypt, pp. 112 - 113

From the unidentified pottery and other evidence, Petrie concluded that the occupants had been foreigners. Expanding on this thought Rosalie David has an entire chapter headed "The foreign population at Kahun." She wrote:

"From his excavations at Kahun, Petrie formed the opinion that a certain element of the population there had come from outside Egypt." The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, p. 175

"It is undeniable that the inhabitants used foreign wares which were derived from the Aegean islands or from Syria-Palestine." p. 188.

"It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may reflect the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as 'Asiatics', although their exact homeland in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear." pp. 190-191.

Neither Petrie nor David guessed that these Asiatics were the Israelites because they unquestioningly accept the standard chronology. Velikovsky's views have so far not been widely accepted by the archaeological world, but obviously the evidence fits the Biblical records in a remarkable way.

[End of quote]

 

Whilst many revisionists seem to have arrived at this same conclusion, that the 12^th dynasty era fits very well indeed as the Era of the Oppression of Israel in Egypt, a lot of these, including contributors to Digging up the Past, have continued to follow the conventional view in its separation of the Old and Middle kingdoms. Consequently, they have missed out on what other revisionists believe to be the vital connection of the biblical Joseph with the genius Imhotep of Egypt’s 3^rd dynasty. I strongly favour this connection of Joseph with Imhotep. My revised alignment of the Famine era 3^rd and 11^th dynasties (era of Joseph), and the Oppression era 4^th and 12^th dynasties (era of Moses), I have outlined in my:

 

Connecting the Biblical Patriarchs to Ancient Egypt

 

http://www.academia.edu/3689899/Connecting_the_Biblical_Patriarchs_to_Ancient_Egypt

 

For Joseph as Imhotep (among others), see my:   

 

Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy

 

http://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re-Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy

 

And why might not the Israelites have (together with slaves from other nations) built pyramids both of stone (but also as we have seen above using ancient cement) and later - perhaps as materials became scarcer - of bricks mixed with straw?

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms were, I believe, far closer in time than is conventionally thought. The following samples that might indicate this necessary shortening of eras are taken entirely from N. 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 …) …".

 

[End of quotes]

 

So far, my attempts to align the 3^rd with the 11^th, and the 4^th (possibly including the 6^th) with the 12^th, dynasties, have been fairly sketchy. Regarding the latter pairing 4^th (possibly 6^th) and 12^th, I have in the past put together the following bits and pieces in relation to Moses and the Book of Exodus:

 

4th Dynasty

 

From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be a good candidate for "the new king" during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour.

"... they became very abusive toward the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its banks: they set them also to build pyramids, and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom them to hard labor." ….

The widespread presence of Asiatics in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little though is known of Cheops … despite his being powerful enough to build one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego.

In Cheops' daughter, Mer-es-ankh [III], we have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the 'life' symbol for Egypt worn by people even today.

Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Ka-kheper-re), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably of the Great Sphinx. He thus became Moses' f/father-in-law. Chephren is the Chenephres of tradition …. Prince Moses, now a thorough-going 'Egyptian' (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. "Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions." (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall see that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren's alter ego.

….

 

The Name 'Moses' 

'Moses' is generally thought to be identified with the Egyptian ms (pronounced Mes), and derived from the root msy, 'conceive, give birth', in the sense of 'child, son of so-and-so'. Egyptologists point to names like Thut-mose, 'Son of [the god] Thoth' and Ra-meses, 'Son of [the god] Ra', which incorporate the ms element with the theophoric (god-name). Professor A. Yahuda … however, strongly disagreed with this standard explanation, claiming that the identification of Moshe with ms, or msy, whilst "having the appearance of being in order" is in fact "very far-fetched." The whole explanation "falls to the ground", he wrote, in view of the fact that the very name 'Rameses', in which ms is held to be of the same root as the Hebrew mes in Moshe, is twice transliterated in the Exodus narrative (1:11 and 12:37), not as should be expected by Ramešes, but by Rameses. Yahuda considered it "unthinkable" that the same Egyptian word ms could be reproduced at one time as Moshe and at another as Mose, not only "in two different vocalizations but also in two sibilants [i.e. sh and s] which etymologically and phonetically are quite different." As to Yahuda's own account of the name, Moshe, from the elements mw and še (i.e. Mwše), I am half in agreement with him. I can readily accept his view that the first element of the name corresponds to Egyptian, mw, meaning 'water' (vocalised as Mu, alternatively Nu …).

Yahuda claimed that mw here stands metaphorically for 'seed' in the sense of 'child, son' [e.g. mw ntry 'divine water' of So-and-so = 'divine son']. But perhaps his explanation of the second element, as še, meaning 'pond, lake, expanse of water', "... applied here to the Nile which was called by the Egyptians also še", may give rise to a redundancy. Whilst Yahuda's overall conclusion, that "the name means simply 'Child of the Nile'", is ingenious, I rather find the impression he creates of Moses as a Watery Seed of the Nile to be a bit too, well, watery for my liking. For a possible further clue on the name 'Moses' we shall need to turn to the 12th dynasty, to the famous The Story of Sinuhe … the Egyptian Moses.

 

The 12th Dynasty and The Story of Sinuhe

 

From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemes I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as "the new king" of Exodus 1:8. This new ruler "knew not Joseph", not in the sense of never having heard of him (the great Imhotep, still 'known' about a millennium and a half later in Ptolemaïc times), but in the Hebrew sense of 'not knowing', presumably , that is, 'not recognising' what Joseph had done for Egypt. {But also not having been alive during the lifetime of Joseph}. The reign of Amenemes I was, deliberately, an abrupt break with the past. The beginning of the 12th dynasty marks not only a new dynasty, but an entirely new order. Amenemes I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt ("He who repeats births"), thought to indicate that he was "the first of a new line" … that he was "thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country's history." …. Amenemes I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt …. Further on … I shall attempt to track down his beginnings. This will be done via the 6th dynasty, which too will be found to be contemporaneous with the 4th and 12th.

"The Prophecy of Neferti", relating to the time of Amenemes I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9). That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from the Cambridge Ancient History …: "The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...". D. Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as "an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty" …. Of the 'Asiatic' presence in this pyramid builders' town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written …:

It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as 'Asiatics', although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined ... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear.

Undoubtedly, the 'Asiatics' were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that 'Asiatics' in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? "Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves", Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus …. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name "Shiphrah" is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15). "Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]", we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. ….

Amenemes I was represented in the 'prophecy' - as with the 'new pharaoh' of Exodus - as one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled …. "... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis, ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities." Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II).

The Biblical account states that: "... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick". (Exodus 1:14).

According to the Book of Exodus, not only did the Egyptians enslave the Israelites, to keep them in check, but Pharaoh even gave orders for all their male babies to be slain at birth, to stem the numbers (1:15-16). In the light of this grim episode, an intriguing aspect of Sir Flinders Petrie's discoveries was the unusual number of infant burials beneath the floors of the houses of Illahûn. Rosalie David thus describes Petrie's find …:

"Larger wooden boxes, probably used to store clothing and other possessions, were discovered underneath the floors of many houses at Kahun. They contained babies, sometimes buried two to three to a box, and aged only a few months at death .... Internment of bodies at domestic sites was not an Egyptian custom, although such practices occurred in other areas of the ancient Near East".

David Rohl …, moreover, has noted multiple graves in the Delta region, at Tell el-Daba during the same approximate period, had an excessively large proportion of babies:

"... it was discovered that there was a higher percentage of infant burials ... than is normally found at archaeological sites of the ancient world. Sixty-five per cent of all the burials were those of children under the age of eighteen months. Based on modern statistical evidence obtained from pre-modern societies we would expect the infant mortality rate to be around twenty to thirty per cent. Could this be explained by the slaughter of the Israelite infant males by the Egyptians?"

Amenemes I assumed a co-regency with Sesostris I …, who acted as the king's deputy and was entrusted with the control of the army, responsible for Libya and Ethiopia. Also, late in his reign, Amenemes undertook campaigns into Ethiopia (Nubia), opening up to him the diorite quarries at Wadi Toshka …. And he campaigned against the Bedouin in the Sinai, thereby safeguarding the turquoise mining operations at Serabit el-Khadem …. It is at this point in history that the 4th and 12th dynasties can really be found to converge, thus seeming to vindicate Courville's view of the contemporaneity of the two kingdoms. For instance, Sesostris I had, as another of his names, Kheper-ka-re; a name containing the exact same elements as we had discovered in the Egyptian name of (the Greek version) Chephren …. Thus, as far as names go, Sesostris I (Kheper-ka-re) is as equally likely as Chephren (Kha-kheper-re) to have been Chenephres, the traditional f/father-in-law of Moses.

….

Then there is the further seemingly identifying element of Sphinx obsession in the case of 'these' prolific builders. This is quite obvious with Chephren, in his building of the Great Sphinx of Giza. And it is again obvious in the case of Sesostris I, from his building works, because he was an obsessive builder of sphinxes. For example: …:

Gold was brought also from mines east of Koptos and hard stone from the nearby Wãdi Hammãmãt, where, in Sesostris I's thirty-eighth year, an expedition of more than seventeen thousand men quarried the blocks for sixty sphinxes and one hundred and fifty statues.

There is also the fact of the 12th dynasty's extension of empire into Ethiopia, where tradition has prince Moses playing so important a rôle.

But the most likely reason for Sesostris I's being the pharaoh whom Moses last served before his flight is that the high official Sinuhe, the 'Moses' of Egyptian folklore, was the servant of Sesostris I. Professor Anati is amongst many who have perceived what are in fact quite startling likenesses between the Exodus account of Moses' flight to Midian/ Arabia and Egypt's account of Sinuhe …:

"The account of Moses in the land of Midian [Exodus 2:15-25] describes how he settled there for several years and formed a family .... Apparently the biblical account also corresponds quite closely to an Egyptian text ... which tells the story of Sinuhe, an officer of Pharaoh Amen-em-het I who lived in the harem and served the hereditary princess. It seems that he committed a violation of some sort, and when the Pharaoh died Sinuhe feared his successor. He fled into Asia, 'in the land of Yaa near the desert', where he was welcomed by a local chieftain.

He took the chieftain's eldest daughter as his wife, raised a family, and tended his father-in-law's pastures and flocks. Finally he was called back to Egypt and returned to his homeland from exile. The chronicle of Sinuhe contains many elements in common with the biblical account of Moses, who escaped to Midian, and his father-in-law, Jethro. It is hard to believe that these similarities are pure coincidence. It seems, instead, quite legitimate to hypothesize that the two accounts have a common matrix that cannot have originated later than the twentieth century B.C". [sic]….

Before we fill out the historical aspects further, and bring to a conclusion the 4th dynasty in its relation to the 12th - and both in relation to prince Moses - we need to conclude our analysis of Moses' name.

The Name 'Moses' (Part Two)

Is it possible to merge the name Sinuhe with the Egyptian name for Moses? And can the former throw any light on the meaning of the latter? I think that the name Sinuhe…, when unravelled, may provide a needed clue. The first part of Sinuhe is variously given as Si …, or Sa …, and translated as 'Son of ...'.

Combining Yahuda's element Mw (i.e. Mu or Nu) with the Sa element from [Sinuhe], we arrive at Sa-mu or Sa-nu, 'Son [or Child] of the Nile', the very same conclusion that Yahuda had reached though via different means. Perhaps 'Child of the Water' ('Water- baby') is more accurate. We can easily discern in the name Sinuhe the two elements Sa-nu …, meaning 'Son [Child] of the Water.' Now I suggest that Sinuhe (var. Sanehat, Samehit) is composed of these same two elements, Sa and Mu (Nu), in reverse (quite a common feature of Egyptian names), with the addition of the theophoric: either Hat, for the goddess Hathor (as in Sanehat), or Re. Originally, Sinuhe was probably something like Sa-nu-re. Now this is a genuine Egyptian name, being found, element for element, in the name of the Fifth Dynasty Pharaoh, N(e)userre, and the Fourth Dynasty Pharaoh, My-ce-ri[nus] (i.e., the Greek version of Menkaure).

Moses' full Egyptian name would therefore have meant, e.g: 'Child Drawn from the Water by Hathor', of which goddess pharaoh's daughter was apparently a personification: "She named him Moses, 'because', she said, 'I drew him out of the water'." (Exodus 2:10). Now notably we find in Egyptian mythology that Hathor was identified with the wet-nurse of Horus, the Moses-like baby god drawn from the marshes of the Nile Delta. And from this legend of Horus I suggest that the Greeks got their concept of Hermes, that is, Hor-mes, "Son of Hathor"; a name carrying exactly the same meaning as Sanehat.

Later, of course, the Yahwistic (monotheistic) Moses would have dropped from his name any Egyptian theophoric elements.

….

… Sinuhe had impressive official titles such as: "... hereditary prince, royal seal-bearer, confidential friend ... follower ... of the house of the hereditary princess, the greatly favoured, the royal wife." Petrie … claimed that these titles were of a very high rank, implying that Sinuhe was the son either of the king or of a great noble. And his position in the queen's household shows him to have been of importance, quite familiar with the royal family. That someone like Moses could realistically have become a prince of Egypt is affirmed by archaeologist J. Hoffmeier …. The Egyptian court, he says, did rear and educate foreign-born princes, who then bore the title "child of the nursery." Hoffmeier believes that Moses was one of these privileged foreigners, some of whom went on to serve as high officials in their adopted land.

 

We can now tabulate our 4th and 12th dynasty synthesis around Moses in the following basic fashion:

 

Fourth/Twelfth Dynasty Integration

 

1. Cheops = Amenemes I = Moses' f/grand-father;

2. Chephren = Sesostris I = Moses' f/father-in-law;

3. {Mycerinus?} = Sinuhe = Moses.

 

….

 

The following is also highly tentative and incomplete:

 

Shortening the Twelfth Dynasty

 

According to this scenario, supported by Exodus 4:19, there would be no room for the conventional 12th dynasty sequence of pharaohs Amenemes and Sesostris (3-4 of each name). …. The founder-pharaoh Amenemes I is, I now suggest, the same person as the mighty Amenemes III; whilst Sesostris I is to be equated with the equally mighty Sesostris III. The name Kheper-ka-ra is common, in variant form, to Sesostris I-II-III …. And Courville refers to the "striking discrepancy between the latest monumental inscription of Sesostris II (10th year) and the total figure as given by Manetho (48 years)", as indicating that there was "something unusual in the situation at this point" …. The unusual situation I suggest is simply that Sesostris II stands in need of his alter ego's. Murphie thinks that Amenemes III, as a master of water management, is a candidate also for the legendary Menes himself, unifier of Egypt …:

Ammenemes III ... was a particularly strong ruler, renowned for massive projects involving water storage and channelling on a gargantuan scale. He is credited with diverting much of the Nile flow into the Fayuum depression to create what became known as lake Moeris (the lake Nasser project of his time).

Indeed if a newcomer to Egyptian history was challenged to identify a candidate for the legendary Menes (organiser of a system of dykes and channels to bring the river Nile under control) on the basis of works alone, (ignoring the remarkable similarity in names), he could do far worse than nominate Ammenemes for the role. ...

The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemes III and Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and revisionist scholars alike. Thus Cambridge Ancient History has noted with regard to the former …: "The numerous portraits of [Amenemes] III include a group of statues and sphinxes from Tanis and the Faiyûm, which, from their curiously brutal style and strange accessories, were once thought to be monuments of the Hyksos kings." For revisionists, these pharaohs can represent the cruel taskmasters who forced the Israelites to build using bricks mixed with straw (Exodus 5:7, 8) …. This combination of materials can clearly be seen for example in Amenemes III's Dahshur pyramid.

Now when one slots Amenemes III into his rightful place at the beginning of the 12th dynasty, there emerges a very comprehensive picture of the régime under which captive Israel toiled. Amenemes III, according to Grimal …:

"... was respected and honoured [sic] from Kerma to Byblos and during his reign numerous eastern workers, from peasants to soldiers and craftsmen came [sic] to Egypt. This influx [sic] of foreign workers resulted both from the growth in Egyptian influence abroad and from the need for extra workmen to help exploit the valuable resources of Egypt itself. For forty-five years [Amenemes] III ruled a country that had reached a peak of prosperity ... and the exploitation of the Faiyûm went hand in hand with the development of irrigation and an enormous growth in mining and quarrying activities".

The Faiyûm was a huge oasis, about 80 km S.W. of Memphis, which offered the prospect of a completely new area of cultivable land. Exodus 1:14 tells of the Israelite slaves doing "all kinds of work in the fields." Mining and quarrying also, apparently, would have been part of the immense slave-labour effort. Grimal continues …:

"In the Sinai region the exploitation of the turquoise and copper mines reached unprecedented heights: between the ninth and forty-fifth years of [Amenemes III's] reign no less than forty-nine texts were inscribed at Serabit el-Khadim .... The seasonal encampments of the miners were transformed into virtually permanent settlements, with houses, fortifications, wells or cisterns, and even cemeteries. The temple of Hathor at Serabit el-Khadim was enlarged .... The expeditions to quarries elsewhere in Egypt also proliferated ...". ….

Here, surely, was all the organisation and slave work force needed for the building of the (contemporary) Giza pyramids as well!

Amenemes III, it seems, was a complete dictator …:

"The economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of [Amenemes] III one of the summits of state absolutism. Excavations at Biahmu revealed two colossal granite statues of the seated figure of [Amenemes] III .... Above all, he built himself two [sic] pyramids, one at Dahshur and the other at Hawara…. Beside the Hawara pyramid were found the remains of his mortuary temple, which Strabo described as the Labyrinth".

….

 

The Jealousy of Chenephres

 

We already alluded to the fact that pharaoh Chenephres had become jealous of prince Moses - who had been growing in popularity with the people because of his military successes - and had set his mind upon killing Moses. There is a perfect parallel here to Saul's jealousy of David for the very same reasons (I Samuel 18:6-9).

But perhaps the jealousy of Chenephres went even further than all this, to regicide. The assassination of Amenemes I may be implicit in Grimal's likening of the growing civil disorder in the reign of Teti - founder of the 6th dynasty - leading to Teti's assassination, to what happened during the reign of Amenemes I ….

The whole drama may have been re-told again in the legend of Osiris and Set (Seth)…. Let me briefly recall that legend, inserting real names in square brackets after the names of the gods and goddesses:

"Osiris [Khufu/Amemenes] was King of Egypt. Set [Chephren/Sesostris], his brother, urged on by jealousy, resolved to dethrone him and put him to death. The faithful Isis [wife of the King], discovered this criminal design and succeeded for some time in foiling the plots of Set, but his skilful intrigues ended by triumphing over Osiris whom he treacherously assassinated. Set then seized the throne of Egypt".

Enter Horus the Avenger whom we have already associated, in his infancy, with Moses. The chronology is a bit askew, but it is only a legend after all:

"... Isis [here, Moses' Hebrew mother] then gave birth to Horus [Moses] in the marshes of the Delta, near the sacred town of Buto, with the help of the goddess Hathor [Meresankh III, Moses' f/mother]. .... Horus, brought up by his mother amid a thousand dangers, driven to seek a sanctuary in the desert [Midian] to escape the implacable pursuit of Set, grew at last to maturity, and dethroned Set".

Clearly this story has its basis during Moses' career as a prince of Egypt.

Grimal has noted other striking likenesses, too, between Teti and Amenemes I, though he would conventionally date the former about half a millennium earlier than Amenemes. They shared the same throne name, Sehetibre, and the same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy (meaning "He who pacifies the Two Lands") ….

 

Linking the 4th/12th Dynasty with the 6th Dynasty

 

We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty's Khufu (Cheops) to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble from Abydos in the south, called Khui. The latter had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, daughter of the Pharaoh who became Moses' adopted mother and married Chephren/ Chenephres. This family relationship may again be duplicated in that Piops I (Cheops?) had a daughter Ankhenesmerire whom his 'son' Merenre I (Chephren/Sesostris?) married. These characters, it seems, have been dupli/triplicated.

Further possible links with the 6th dynasty are the likenesses between the latter's founder, Teti, and Amenemes I, as pointed out by historians. Despite the little that these admit to knowing of Teti - and the fact that they would have him pre-dating the 12th dynasty by half a millennium - historians have noted that Teti shared some common features with Amenemes I, including the same throne name, Sehetibre, the same Horus name, Sehetep-tawy ("He who pacifies the Two Lands"), and the likelihood that death came in 'both' cases through assassination ….

….

It is noticeable that both the 6th and 12th dynasties ended with a woman ruler, respectively Nitocris and Sobek-neferure, whom I suspect was the same person, suggesting that there were no more male members left of the royal family (after the biblical plagues) …:

The Turin Canon lists Nitocris immediately after Merenere II, describing her as the 'King of Upper and Lower Egypt'. This woman, whose fame grew in the Ptolemaic period in the guise of the legendary Rhodopis ... courtesan ... was the first known queen to exercise political power over Egypt.

Nofer-ka-ra (Nefer-kare) of the 6th dynasty may have been the ill-fated 'first born son' who died in the tenth plague (Exodus 12:29), since it was during his lifetime that Egypt was plunged into darkness. ….

Whilst W. Stiebing would, contrary to Courville's view, flatly reject any notion of contemporaneity between the 6th and 12th dynasties …:

This revision, however, ignores the fact that while Palestinian EB III pottery is found in Sixth Dynasty tombs, it is not found in tombs belonging to the supposedly contemporaneous Twelfth Dynasty. It also ignores stylistic differences and developments in tomb reliefs and inscriptions which indicate that the Old and Middle Kingdoms were not contemporaneous .... there might be some substantial architectural evidence to support Courville. Thus 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".

 

 

Why Were The Pyramids Built?

 

With Imhotep, the first pyramid builder, architect of the wondrous Step Pyramid at Saqqara, now identified as a Hebrew, as the biblical Joseph, then perhaps we might find a clue in the Book of Genesis to the why of at least this particular pyramid. My suggestion in the past has been that the Step Pyramid, built by Joseph-Imhotep, was “a ‘material icon’ of his father Jacob’s vision of a ladder (or staircase or ramp) to heaven”. Genesis 28:12: “[Jacob] had a dream in which he saw a stairway resting on the earth, with its top reaching to heaven, and the angels of God were ascending and descending on it”.

And this seemingly esoteric view actually has some degree of support from conventional Egyptology. We read at the beginning the real truth about how the pyramids were built. Well, in 2003, Joyce Tyldesley provided, in her book on the pyramids, what she considered to be: Pyramids: The Real Story Behind Egypt’s Most Ancient Monuments

(http://joycetyldesley.co.uk/pyramids-the-real-story/ emphasis added):

 

The Old Kingdom pharaohs believed that death was the beginning of eternal life. That they would rise from their tombs to shimmer in the deep blue night as an unsetting star. Or that they would sail endlessly across the watery heavens in the shining boat of the sun god Re. To help them on their way they built pyramids: huge ramps or stairways charged with the most potent magic, leading directly to the sky. These massive monuments came to symbolize the might of a powerful nation ruled by a semi-divine god king.

[End of quote]

 

I think that Tyldesley is not far wrong on this one. But it was originally inspired by Hebrew, not by Egyptian, genius.

{Pharaoh Unas of the 5th dynasty also talks about a ‘ladder to heaven’ (in the Pyramid Texts), and he was possibly as well a king of a famine era}.

Given Joseph’s/Imhotep’s pioneering pyramid building, coupled with Davidovits’ view that: “… the architects possessed at least two concrete formulas: one for the large structural blocks and another for the white casing stones … earlier pyramids, brick structures, and stone vases were built using similar techniques”, then might not the genius Joseph, a Hebrew, have brought this cement technology to Egypt?

 

Finally, I find highly plausible Robert Bauval’s thesis below about the Giza pyramids (http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/piramides/esp_piramide_8.htm#):

 

The Orion Mystery

The three pyramids of Giza are a perfect reproduction of the 3 stars of Orion’s belt:

• Like the pyramids, the three stars of Orion are not perfectly aligned, the smallest of them is slightly offset to the East.
• All three are slanted in a Southwesterly direction (Note the exact match in the animation).
• Their orientation to the Nile recreates Orion’s orientation to the Milky Way.
• The layout of the pyramids, and their relative sizes were a deliberate design plan, and not the result of three king’s enormous egos as been preached as dogma by the so-called Egyptologists.