Sunday, November 6, 2016

More on 19th Dynasty Chronology

Velikovsky wasn't the first to suggest that Seti I actually reigned over 50 years.  All three versions of Manetho's 19th dynasty begin with Seti and give him about 54 or 55 years.  Same margin Herodotus gives Psammetichus.

Conventional chronology keeps shortening the reign of Seti I, apparently it recently became agreed upon that he didn't reign more then 11 years.  Even though when discussing Ramses II's son Khaemweset Seti's year 14 is mentioned.

Viewing Psammetichus as Seti I allows us to identify Seti's reign having more then one potential start date.  When he first started reigning as a local ruler upon the death of Rameses I/Necho I in 664 BC.  When he became sole ruler of Egypt in his 9th year in 656 BC.  Same 9th year I suspect Rameses II was crowned as an infant.  And possibly also later when he was recognized as independent by Assyria.  In one source he seems to be bragging about a lot of accomplishments already in his first year.

Mainstream Egyptologists think Ramses just made up the story about being crowned as an infant.  Now I get the reasoning a King might do that, and that could still fit the revised chronology, just having him actually date later events from the made up coronation.  But why randomly say it was Seti's 9th year?  If according to conventional chronology Ramses was born before Seti's reign started, why not say Seti did this right at the start?  That this lie was plausible is itself evidence Ramses birth didn't predate Seti's coronation.  Now if Seti was Psametichus we have a reason his 9th year was important, but maybe that was also when Ramses was born, and so he claimed he was crowned at his birth.

Returning to the subject of Hophra/Apries/Merneptah, and Amasis.  Herodotus reign lengths might be off here.  I believe Apries took the throne in 589 BC.  I think after 10 years was when he first fled Egypt.  I think about 579-572 would be the seven year reign of Seti II who Herodotus was unaware of.  Maybe Amenmes and Amasis are the same, maybe not.  I think the native Egyptian 19th Dynasty records are unaware of Egypt's 40 year exile/captivity(Ezekiel 29-30), which is why most or maybe all of Amasis reign (44 years according to Herodotus) is unknown.

I'm thinking of moving the death of Apries from 567 BC to 573-570 BC.  I think about 572-573 is also when Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt and sent them into captivity.  Amasis specifically gets exiled to Cyprus which Egyptian 26th Dynasty history prefers to remember as him Conquering Cyprus.

Cyrus allows Amasis and the Egyptians to return to Egypt not long after he allowed Judah to return.  It's possible like with Judah many Egyptians didn't return and were scattered.

Psamtik III could perhaps be the same as Siptah.  And Tworset the same as Nitetis, who I could see Cambyses allowing to reign as a vessel briefly after he defeated Psamtik III.

On the subject of the 19th Dynasty being perceived to directly follow the 18th.  One historical mystery I want to talk about is how Manetho seems to kind of record the 19th Dynasty twice, once at the end of the 18th Dynasty, and a second time as the 19th Dynasty.  Neither contains the whole picture of what archeology tells us.  But both have someone with a name similar to Rameses Miamun reigning for 60some years, archeology knows of only one pharaoh who's reign total was in the 60s at all, much less with basically the same name.

I think the 19th Dynasty rulers themselves wanted to pretend they followed the 18th because the time in-between was largely foreign occupation.  But maybe they did descend from some otherwise forgotten local dynasty that descended from the 18th?  Or maybe Manetho's garbled history reflects efforts by some previous Egyptian scribe trying to fill a gap he knew existed but didn't know how to fill.

I already said I think the Seti who was Rameses I's father may have been the Sethos of Herodotus.  With Rameses I as Necho I, perhaps this Seti is also either Nechepsos or Stephinates of Manetho's 26th dynasty before Necho I.  Herodotus begins the dynasty with Necho I.

Maybe also this Seti and his brother(s) can be identified with the Sethosis and his brother(s) who end Manetho's 18th Dynasty.  That places him about 710-700 BC.  Then with him proceeded by an Amenophis who reigned 40 years and a Miamun who reigned over 60, and then two short reigns for a Harmias and a Rameses, and then two Ascheneres of 12 years each.  And you wind up with Rathotis very near where Velikovsky (and possibly myself) placed Tutankamun, who Rathotis is commonly identified with.

Going back to Seti II.  He had a son named Seti-Merneptah about whom little is known.  He's assumed to have died during Siptah's reign, but there is no proof of that. 

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Cush, Africa, India and Arabia

One of the most confusing things in trying to determine the geography of Eden in Genesis 2 (if you think those names refer to the same places they do in Post-Flood geography, which Moses' present tense grammar supports), is how a river (The Gihon) sharing the same source as the Tigris, Euphrates and one seemingly linked to Arabia (Pishon), can encompass the Land of Cush (translated Ethiopia).  But of course this is confusing only to those who've gotten in the habit of thinking Cush only refers to Africa south of Egypt.

Rob Skiba mocks the theory that places the Gihon in northern India.  Well he is forgetting the Hindu Kush and the Kushan Empire.  I've already discussed on this blog that I think Cush's son Raamah traveled to India and that he was partly the basis for the Indian mythical figure of Rama.  Rama and Raamah both had two sons.  Rama's were mothered by Sita and named Lava and Kush, so like the Greeks the Indian mythical memory confused things.  The Ramayana, our main source on Rama, like the Mahabarata is post Alexander The Great, (they're not nearly as old as Ancient Aliens keeps saying they are).  Raamah's sons were Sheba and Dedan, maybe they are equally as linked to Arabia as Jokshan's pair of sons by those names.  But I think the Hindu god Shiva's name could come from Sheba, the Hebrew word Sheba is sometimes pronounced that way thanks to the B/V interchangeability.  And maybe Dedan is connected to the Danu and Danavas of Hindu mythology, and/or the Danuna of Burma.

Cush can also be linked to Mesopotamia starting with Nimrod.  Some theories on Eden say the Cush meant there is the city of Kish.  The Ziggurat of Kish is to a god who's name is possibly similar to two of Cush's sons.  Judges has a King of Mesopotamia with Cushan in his composite name and/or title.  Cushan in the Hebrew is just Cush with an N added at the end.  Some have also theorized the Kassites could come from Cush.

The names of some of Cush's sons in Genesis 10 can be linked to Arabia, even leaving out the names that have duplicates among the descendants of Shem.  Bill Cooper covers them in After The Flood Appendix 2.  I think his biggest mistakes are who he puts where with the duplicate names, but it's still all useful information.  He sadly missed Raamah's connection to India.

Another appearance in The Bible of the name Cushan is in Habakkuk 3:7 which all scholars agree is about Arabia.  Where Cushan is mentioned in close proximity to Midian.

The reference in Numbers 12 to Moses having a Cushite wife is, because of the tendency to by default assume that name means Africa, part of the origin of the tradition recounted in Josephus that Moses married a Nubian princess after conquering Ethiopia for Egypt.  This passage also becomes relevant to debates about both Polygamy and Inter-Racial marriage, with the text's condemnation of Aaron and Miriam's criticism here taken as a condemnation of opposition to either of those.

However there are scholars who have argued this wife may not even be a separate individual from Zipporah, the daughter of Jethro, thus making it irrelevant to Polygamy.  Jetho is called a Priest in Midian, and sometimes seemingly a Midanite by residence.  But his tribal identity is Kenite, we do not know how the Kenites fit into Genesis 10.  Bill Cooper's argument they came from Midian's son Henoch I do not find convincing.  Remembering that a Cushan is linked to Midian, the Kenites could very well be from Cush.

Bishop James Ussher in Annals of The World for the year 1615 BC quotes Eusebius Chronicles 1. 1. 1:53 as saying that the Ethiopians of Africa migrated there from the Indus River.  During the Old and Middle Kingdoms Egypt's main enemy to their south was called Kerma, there is no definitive evidence of a nation called Kush on the Nile River until the 18th Dynasty.

One scholar writing theories about the Igbo Tribe of Africa suggested that Midian's sons Ephah and Epher might have gone to Africa, and the name Africa itself might come from Epher.  I think all five sons of Midian were still in Midian in the days of Moses, and that is why Midian had five kings during the Wandering.  But maybe in the days of Gideon when some Midianites sought to conquer Israel, others migrated to Africa.  And perhaps at that time some of the Cushites near them did the same.  Midianites have already been suggested to be among the tribes that made up the Hyksos, perhaps the Cushites were as well.

Putting all of those factors into consideration.  There is no definitive proof ANY reference to Cush in The Torah ever means Africa.  And maybe even many references from later that cause confusion are confusing only because we assume Africa.

On the subject of Revised Chronology there is Zerah The Cushite who fought a war with King Asa according to 2 Chronicles.  Nothing in that account mentions Egypt at all.  But all theories on who Shishak is think an Ethiopian invading Israel a generation later must be tied to Egyptian history somehow.  And while I have myself on this blog endorsed two possible Egyptian identifications for Zerah (the more recent one the only one I still consider plausible).  I now feel the need to point out that we do not need to.

The proper account of the war with Zerah doesn't mention Lubim (often taken to mean Libya) either.  But they are mentioned alongside the Ethiopians when a Prophet rebukes Asa later.  We don't know everything about Asa's 41 year reign, this may not have even been the same war.  But either way Libyans are in a much better position then Nubia to potentially come to Israel by sea and thus bypass Egypt altogether.  And perhaps what Lubim refers to is itself something we need to reevaluate, but I don't feel like looking into that myself just yet.

Isaiah 18 is also confusing.  Partly because this Prophecy includes a quotation.  I think most likely Israel is the nation that the nation "beyond the rivers of Cush" is sending messengers to.  The "rivers of Cush" I think best fits a Mesopotamian or Indian Cush.

In the reign of Jehoram/Joram of Judah, there is an account of Judah being attacked by Philistines and "Arabians who are by Cush".  That doesn't make sense if Cush and Arabia are on different continents.

One more thought on Cush and Arabia.  In an earlier Nimrod post I observed how the Book of Jubilees seems to make a daughter of Nimrod the mother of Peleg and probably also Joktan.  That would make Cush via Nimrod an ancestor of all the Semitic Tribes of Arabia.

Isaiah 20 is clearly the Cush in Africa however.  Same mostly with Ezekiel 38&39 where since I view it the same as Revelation 20's Gog and Magog invasion, Cush is the South and Phut the West, while Persia is the East, and the other invaders mentioned are the North, all four corners (though Arabia could also be described as South, Jesus called the Queen of Saba the Queen of the South).  And I do still think Taharqa is the 25th Dynasty ruler.

In an early post of this blog I made a big deal out of how Ethiopia in Greek mythology is linked to Joppa, and using that as evidence for the Ethiopian Jews claim to come from Dan. Since then I've read criticism that the Ethiopian Jews do not identify themselves with Dan, that idea comes solely from the legends spread by Eldad.  The various traditions the Ethiopian Jews have all seem to favor them coming from Judah.  That is something I may discus more in the future.

Maps drawn interpreting what was allotted to the Tribes tend to put Joppa in Dan.  But the city of Joppa is not mentioned in Joshua's account of the allotment at all.  Likewise the Samson narrative from Judges 23-26 makes no reference to Joppa even though Samson was a Danite in that area.  Joppa seems to not be referenced at all till the time of Solomon, it appears in the Old Testament only three times, in 2 Chronicles 2:16, Ezra 3:7 and Jonah 1:3.  Jonah is the most famous reference, but the other two are about the Lebanon in origin supplies for The Temple coming through there.

Once Dan existed solely in the North, his old allotment could have been absorbed by Judah, Benjamin, Ephraim or Western Manasseh.  All four of those tribes also had Monarchies at some point, but Manasseh's only lasted two years.  At the same time observations I've made elsewhere make Manasseh seem the most likely to be interested in Sea Faring and thus having a port city.  But they had other ports already like Dor.  Acts 9:32-28 refers to Lydda as being nigh to Joppa.  Lydda is in the Hebrew Bible Lod which is identified as a town of Benjamin (1 Chronicles 8:12; Ezra 2:33; Nehemiah 7:37; 11:35).

I mentioned how Cepheus is a name that could come from the same Semitic root the New Testament uses as the Hebrew/Aramaic counterpart to Petros/Peter.  As an non-Catholic I know that Petros is Peter but Petras, the true Rock, is Jesus.  Solomon is a type of Christ, and The Temple is a type of The Church.  So could Cepheus have been a name for a Davidic King?

But Petra is also the name of a city in modern Jordan and the classical definition of Arabia, that is possibly right where Sinai was.  So could this mythical Ethiopia also be an Arabian Cushan, and Joppa really just a port Perseus traveled through to get there?  Memnon king of Ethiopia of Greek mythology had a brother who was a king of Arabia.

The Rock Moses struck to provide Water for the Israelites was a type of Jesus as The Rock, so connecting Petra and Cepheus to that region is very logical.  Jeremiah 49:16 and Obadiah 3 both in prophecies against Edom refer to them "that dwellest in the clefts of the rock".  The word for Rock there is Cela/Sela/Selah, believed to be the name for the Seir/Petra area in the Amarna letters, and mentioned in 2 Kings 14:7 which seems to describe it's name being changed.  1 Samuel 23 possibly records how it got the name Cela to begin with.  Isaiah 42:11 also mentions Cela in close proximity to Kedar.

You might ask "where do Black Africans come from then?"

For starters as I don't believe in the Evolutionary model I think it's entirely possible many parts of Africa were not inhabited until after 1615 BC.  And some even far later then that.

But regardless of that.  I think Phut, the only Son of Ham who none of his own sons are named, could have been ancestral to more Tribes then we usually assume.  I also think the Seven sons of Mizriam may have spread further then we usually assume.  They certainly all started in Egypt, but ultimately the intent of Genesis 10 is to identify 70 distinct Nations, so I do think they were more then just subgroups of Egypt.  The Kingdom of Kerma was probably a Mizraimite offshoot for example.

Last but not least, given the premise of my Shem, Ham and Japheth post.  I'm willing to consider that the population of Africa is not limited to Ham.  I've already suggested Midianites came at the same time Cush did.  But maybe others came before that.  Most of the sons of Joktan are not as firmly accounted for as the big three, Sheba, Ophir and Havilah, and links to Africa are argued even for those.

And at a much later point even then Cush. I have entertained the arguments of some that many Israelites came to Africa and were ancestral to the same Tribes chiefly targeted by the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade.  But that shall be a subject for a future post.

Friday, November 4, 2016

Adjusting the 18th Dynasty

I still think Shishak is most likely an 18th Dynasty Pharaoh, or rather 18th Dynasty at the latest.

There are some out there now who support Velikovsky's identity for Shishak but can't his view of the 19th Dynasty.  And will thus try to argue a place for the 19th Dynasty putting it right after Velikovsky has the 18th end.  One variation is arguing Seti I is the "Saviour" of Jahoash.

And with that one could argue, though I haven't seen it yet, for placing the Libyan (22nd and 23rd) dynasties between 19 and 20.  Since Rameses III alludes to a foreign occupation then.

The thing is, I'm actually more convinced of Velikovsky's arguments for the 19th, 20th and 21st Dynasties then anything else, and I will be posting more on that in the future.  So I'm the opposite of others in this regard.

My desire to adjust the 18th Dynasty began only with problems I saw in which specific campaign of Tuthmosis III Velikovsky identified with Shishak taking treasures form The Temple.  We keep criticizing the conventional Shoshenk view by pointing out how Shoshenk's campaigns were in the North, ruled by Shishak's effective puppet Jeroboam.  But Tuthmosis III's 21st year campaign (first year of his sole rule) was mainly a siege of Megiddo, also a northern city.  Velikovsky talks about Megiddo being one of Solomon's main fortresses, but that doesn't matter, everything Solomon had north of Bethel became Jeroboam's by this point.

Something else I noticed.  The Bible records Shishak and Rehoboam fighting no battle.  The more detailed Chronicles account includes a description of his army, but because Rehoboam listened to the Prophet (unlike the Kings in the days of Jeremiah and Ezekiel) the Temple treasures was turned over without a fight.

So if it is a campaign of Tuthmosis III, it could easily be one of the campaigns that focused only on collecting tribute.  Or maybe it could fit Tuthmosis I's Syrian campaign where he describes how no one resisted him, a fact which has confused historians.

Solomon's marriage to the daughter of Pharaoh isn't mentioned in Chronicles, only in Kings, though Chronicles does mention Solomon bringing horses from Egypt.  And Gezer isn't mentioned when the marriage is first refereed to.  Pharaoh taking Gezer is thus based on only one verse, 1 Kings 9:16.  I shall quote it in the context of the verses before and after.
And this is the reason of the levy which king Solomon raised; for to build the house of the Yahuah, and his own house, and Millo, and the wall of Jerusalem, and Hazor, and Megiddo, and Gezer. 
 For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up, and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife.
 And Solomon built Gezer, and Bethhoron the nether.....
Velikovsky is willing to consider The Bible account imperfect or corrupted, as shown by his discussion of Ahab and Jehoram, which I responded to in my Amarna post.  And Rhol does the same when arguing for his view of Babel, I adjust his argument in a way that can be more consistent with viewing God's word as inspired and preserved.

When one allows that option, the possibly that Gezer somehow became an error for Megiddo is plausible.  I who do not consider it possible for the Masoretic text to be in error, am willing to consider that this whole account is a summery and by Pharaoh taking Gezer it might mean all three cities at the end of the previous verse.

That then opens up the option that Tuthmosis III's 21st-23rd years campaign is during Solomon's reign not Rehoboam.  When in Solomon's reign Gezer was taken isn't clear.  This verse seems to refer to it in past tense (the context of Solomon's reign at this point is about 20-25 years in).  But I think this did happen later then the marriage since Gezer isn't mentioned in the initial account of it.  And maybe in that case Gezer or Hazor is the city called Kadesh by Tuthmosis III.  Gezer did have a Canaanite High Place, so it too could have been a Holy City.  Hazor is actually quite close to Kadesh-Naphtali, not just both being in Naphtali, but very northern Naphtali, both significantly north of the Sea of Galilee.

So this could make the Shishak campaign either one of the very late campaigns of Tuthmosis III, or of Amenhotep II.  And could make the daughter of Pharaoh Solomon married either a daughter of Tuthmosis III or Neferure.

While I have many potential nitpicks of Velikovsky's Amarna view.  The strong evidence for the Amarna period being being contemporary with Shalmanezzer III I do find quite compelling.  But again for my view that would be Jehoram's reign over the north not Ahab's.

I tried to entertain David Rohl's Amarna view, his Mutbaal/Ishbaal connection is his strongest argument.  It's not only Rohl who argued Mutbaal means "Man of Baal" it's at the start of Mutbaal's wikipedia page.  However Labaya as Saul doesn't add up to me, I could see a Northern Kingdom ruler being defined mainly as Shechem, even the ones ruling from nearby Samaria.  But Saul's capitals were all in Benjamin.  Rohl also identifies Joab with a king of a very far northern city, which is just random.

The Amarna period must be some period of the Divided Kingdom.  Even how conventional chronology defines it has the area of modern Israel mostly being defined by the rivalry between Labaya in Shechem and the King of Jerusalem.

I read an argument once for Labaya as Basha.  I can't find it now.

But here is the thing, the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten is almost exactly 100 years after Tuthmosis III's battle of Megiddo, the Amarna period begins a decade before that, so 90 years later.  The Biblical timeline of the divided kingdom has 90 years after Shishak plundered Rehobaom as during the brief reign of Athaliah, and thus the Amarna period mostly after she died.  That's going off Ussher's dates.

So Velikovsky's synchronization for Shishak and Amarna can't both be right.

If the taking of Gezer can be synchronized to the Battle of Megiddo, then Amarna can be moved down a couple decades and perhaps fit much better.

And if the taking of Gezer was very early in Solomon reign, then 90 years after that takes us to right after Omri moved his capital from Tirzah to Samaria, in the region of Shechem. The Bible doesn't tell us how Omri died, but it was about 6 years after he moved the capital to Samaria.  The death of Labaya has sometimes been dated to while Amenhotep III still reigned.

If Ebed-Tov is a name all Kings of Judah used, then the letters might not even notice when Asa changed to Jehoshaphat.  Or maybe Jehoshaphat was writing the letters during the later part of his father's reign?

In my earlier Amarna post I had suggested the possibility that the grandfather of Jehu was a son of Omri other then Ahab who was placed in charge of the Transjordan.  Now that I'm considering Omri as Labaya, Mutbaal could have been an alternate name of Nimshi grandfather of Jehu.  Nimshi may be a name given to him post-mortem considering it's meaning.

But even without a Jehu connection, it would be logical for Omri to place a son as a governor in the Trans-Jordan.  And maybe it's because he ruled in the same region that he took the name of the much earlier Ishbaal.

End of part 1, Beginning of Part 2.

That timeline still has the issues so many find so unacceptable of the 19th Dynasty not immediately following the 18th.  I will make further arguments for the gap between the 18th and 19th Dynasties in the future.  But for the rest of this post I want to consider one more hypothetical timeline for the 18th Dynasty, one that would have it end pretty close to when Velikvosky has the 19th Dynasty begin.

The dates for Horemhab's reign are inconsistent, with most archeologists certain he didn't have more then 14 years, but with at least one ancient reference to 59 years.  Maybe power struggles with Nubia/25th dynasty are a part of that confusion.

If Horemhab can be placed about when Velikovsky argued him to be (which he did in the context of removing him from the 18th dynasty altogether) it can become possible to argue for the Amarna period being contemporary with Menahem and Pekah.  Menahem I think it is a bit easier to hypothetically identify with Labaya.

Let's talk about the sons of Labaya.  We know he had more then one, and we know the name of only one.  There is however no definitive proof Mutbaal was even among the sons referenced in other contexts.  I will not argue for identifying Mutbaal with Pekaiah.  I will for the next five paragraphs copy something I argued elsewhere not connected to revised chronology at all, for possibly making Hoshea a son of Menahem.  And at the same time giving his dynasty a link to the Transjordan (where Mutbaal reigned) via Gad.

King Menahem is called Ben Gadi or "Son of Gadi", Gadi is the same in the Hebrew as "Gadite", so perhaps Gadi wasn't the personal name of his father but rather this phrase identifies him as a Gadite?

The house of Menahem does NOT like Jeroboam, Baasha or Ahab have a declaration that it's male line was or will be entirely blotted out.  His son Pekahiah was killed in a coup by Pekah ben Remaliah.  Pekah is later killed in a coup by Hoshea ben Elah.  Could Hoshea have been of Menahem's house, that is often called the House of Gadi?   Hoshea and Menahem both paid tribute to the same Assyrian King, Tiglath-Pileser.

Maybe Elah was Pekahiah's brother?  Or Sister, ending with a Heh is usually grammatically feminine in Hebrew but our assumptions about some names forget that. Or maybe Elah was a wife of Menahem or Pekahiah?

We are repeatedly told there is more to the story in an alluded to Northern Kingdom counterpart to Chronicles, but it hasn't been preserved since it (being kept by a less faithful Kingdom) wasn't God's Word.

The idea of Kings coming from Gad is intriguing to me because I've noticed something about Moses Blessing on The Tribe of Gad in Deuteronomy 33:20-21 that most don't.  It's a blessing that seems to imply Royal status, similar terminology to that used of Judah in Genesis 49:9-10.  So Lost Tribes speculation aside that convinced me Samaria did have a Gadite dynasty.

 Maybe Hoshea could be Mutbaal, or maybe another brother.  If this dynasty was a Gadite one then it could have been important to them to place a potential heir as the governor of Gad, or of the whole Transjordan.

Maybe the Shalmanezzer alluded to is V rather then III?

This could place the start of the 18th Dynasty already after the time of Rehoboam.  And open the possibly that Shishak was a Hyksos.

I argued before that Shishak is in fact a Hebrew name the etymology of which can be 100% explained as Hebrew in origin, coming from a word for Linen.  And did so for the purpose of suggesting that we need not look for it in Egyptian records at all.  And I stand by that in terms of the first model I argued for in this post.

But the Hyksos used Semitic names.  Did they use one that could explain the origin of Shishak?  There is one very hotly debated figure of the second intermediate period who comes awfully close.  Sheshi.

Rohl attempted to argue Sheshi was the Sheshai who was an Anakim king.  In the Strongs that name is located close to some of the variants of Shishak, like Shashak and Sheshech.   One other attested Egyptian king some have sought to identify Sheshi with is Sharek.  So that is evidence for a version of the name with a K at the end.

Sheshi is also theorized to be the same as Shenshek.  Is Shoshenk proponents can add an n to the name, then adding one in s different spot is also acceptable.

The two theories about Sheshi provided by mainstream Egyptolgists I find most interesting here are, that he may have been a Hyksos who reigned between Khyan and Apepi.  Or that he was a Hyksos vessel who ruled in southern Canaan.

Shishak is NOT in either Kings or Chronicles called Pharaoh, the King who's daughter Solomon married was.  Shishak is only called the King (Melek) of Egypt.  But could it be this actually meant a King from or representing Egypt?  Perhaps ruling from Al-Arish or Sharuen?

And then, could the Pharaoh who's daughter Solomon married be Khyan?  Arguably the Hyksos ruler who's influence was the most extensive?  And the Hyksos may not have shared the hostility to marrying their daughter to foreign rulers that Amenhotep II and III did.

Josephus's version of Manetho seems to place Khyan after rather then before Apepi/Apophis.   Modern Egyptologists are pretty sure him reigning before is correct.  Either way aspects of what I just argued could be seen as weakening the Amalekites/Hyksos connection.  But as I said the Hyksos were always a collection of tribes.

Sheshi's successor has been theorized to be Nehesy Aaserhe.  With Nehesy being interpreted to mean "The Nubian".  Could Aaserhe somehow become Zerah?  Maybe it could come from an attempt in the Egyptian language to represent Ha-Zerah (Zerah with a definite article, because Hebrew did use those before personal names).  And "The Nubian" used to translate "The Cushite".

Thia second model is perhaps better compatible with a 6th Dynasty Exodus Model then a Middle Kingdom model.

Thursday, October 27, 2016

The succesors of Rameses II aka Pharoh Necho

I already talked about Necho being Rameses.  This is a follow up of sorts.

Revised Chronologists and Conventional Chronology both tend to assume the Pharaoh Jeremiah called Hophra is the same one Herodotus called Apries.  Velikovsky identified that Pharaoh with Merneptah (hetep-her-maat) the son of Ramses II.  One question not addressed usually is what about the Psamtik II who came between Necho and Apries according to Herodotus?

Well first I think Herodotus was likely mistaken on how they're genealogically related.

Psamtik II invaded Nubia.  I think that war with Nubia should perhaps be identified with Rameses II's Nubian Campaign in his 22nd year.

Interestingly in Abu Simbel a Greek Graiftti on a statue of Ramses II reads.
"When King Psammetichus (i.e., Psamtik II) came to Elephantine, this was written by those who sailed with Psammetichus the son of Theocles, and they came beyond Kerkis as far as the river permits. Those who spoke foreign tongues (Greek and Carians who also scratched their names on the monument) were led by Potasimto, the Egyptians by Amasis. ["king Psammetichus II (Psamtik II)". Retrieved 2011-11-20.]
Which I think is good circumstantial evidence.

We know Rameses was accompanied on that campaign by Amun-her-khepeshef his original Crown Prince.  When discussing the Sed Festival of Rameses year 30 it is said that Amun-her-khepeshef became effectively co-ruler.  But that seems like a contradiction since Amum is supposed to have died in year 26.  But given Velikovsky's suggestions on how to count the reign of Rameses, this could be a difference of which year 30.

Amun had one known son, a son named Seti.  Psamtik's only alleged son is Apries but is said to have had daughters, one was a High Presitess of Heliopolis which could be interesting latter.

 Timeline wise that would then put Amum's death about 589 BC, a date commonly given for the death of Psammetichos II.  And Ussher's date for a military victory Nebuchadnezzar had over Egypt leading up to the fall of Jerusalem (Jeremiah 37), an event dated partly on the grounds of Ezekiel 30:20-21.

Ezekiel 30 seems to refer to a Pharaoh of Egypt being mortally wounded by the Sword of the King of Babylon (inferred to be Nebuchadnezzar).  Generally it is debated whether this means Necho or Hophra, but the Mummy of Amun-her-khepeshef has a mortal head wound, usually theorized to be from a Mace but I think it could have been a Sword.  (But The Bible sometimes uses Sword idiomatically of any weapon or act of violence.)  Those who think Rameses was the Pharaoh of the Exodus attempt to use this as evidence Amun was the first born killed in the 10th Plague, but I think this Biblical connection is far more compelling.

On page 201 of Ages in Chaos II Ramses II and his time, Velikovsky mentions the head of Merneptah's mummy having a hole made by a sharp instrument in it, and suggests he died violently.  However nothing else I've read seems to back up this claim, and the images I've seen of Merneptah's Mummy shows no damage besides something that looks probably post-mortem.  Still Velikovsky argued this not even citing Ezekiel's statement.

One issue Velikovsky didn't address when dealing with the reign length of Rameses is that there were two Crown Princes who each served 25 years who predeceased him.  First Amum from year 1 to 26, then another Rameses from years 25-50.   I however have no trouble seeing them serving as Crown Prince at the same time, perhaps Ramses considered dividing upper and lower Egypt again.  Also each was the firstborn of a different wife.  Perhaps for whatever weird reason Amun was usually dated from Rameses II sole rule, while Prince Ramses was dated from the co-regency with Seti.

In Against Apion 1:26 Josephus addresses a story that seems to serve as an alleged Egyptian POV of the Exodus.  This story is the source of affiliating the 19th and/or 18th Dynasty with the Exodus due to it being seemingly affiliated with the same Amenophis identified as the successor of Rameses Miamun who reigned 66 years.  I've always been intrigued by this story since it's obviously mythical propaganda and I place the Exodus in the 12th or 13th Dynasty, yet still I've always suspected there is an otherwise forgotten real chapter of 19th Dynasty history hidden here.

Osarsiph who is alleged to be Moses is identified as a Priest of Heliopolis/On.  What's curious about that is that one of the sons of Rameses II was High Priest of On, Meryatum.  He was the son of Nefertari, the same mother as Amun-her-khepeshef, but a different one then Merneptah, so who knows what kinds of sibling rivalries they might have had.

The story involved him conspiring with descendants of the centuries before expelled Hyksos, or at least people coming from the same area.  Velikovsky tied the Hyksos to the Amalekites, but 1 Chronicles 4:40-43 records the last of the Amalekites being wiped out by the Simeonites when they migrated to Edom in the time of Hezekiah.  And earlier the city of Sharuhen was allotted to Simeon in the Book of Joshua, the actual city the Hyksos fled to when Avaris fell.  Maybe Simeonites were involved in this and that is where the Hyksos and Israelites being confused with each other begins?

Because of Jeremiah 43 and 44 we know Israelites came to Egypt during the reign of Hophra.

I  have discussed the Sea Peoples before mainly in the context of Rameses III and the 20th Dynasty.  But Merneptah also encountered them (and Ramses II had a battle with just the Sherden).  This comes up in Ages of Chaos II connecting this to Apries wars involving Cyrene.  Perhaps that also ties into the above story.

As for why Merneptah seems to be called Amenophis in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus in Agaisnt Apion.  This story also mentions this Pharaoh Amenophis seeking advise from someone else who has the same name.  Maybe the retelling of this story gave the name of this adviser to the Pharaoh himself for some reason.  Among the Children of Rameses there is an Amenhotep listed as number 14, right after Merneptah.  The Amenhoteps of the 18th dynasty tended to become Amenophis in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus.  And there was also an Amunemopet (“Amun on the Opet Feast).  Perhaps one of his brothers became this key adviser of Merneptah?  Neither is a son of Nefertari meaning they could be of the same mother as Merneptah.

Another note on the Children of Rameses, one being named Astarteherwenemef (“Astarte Is with His Right Arm”) I also feel circumstantially better fits his reign being during the Neo-Babylonian era.  His daughter Bintanath also has a Semitic name.

I think it's possible that Herodotus history of Amasis is very wrong, and that he was influenced by native Egyptian propaganda seeking to hide that Amasis was really a puppet of Nebuchadnezzar.  Basically in the account of the civil war between Apries and Amasis, I think which side had Babylon's backing got switched.  And this switching of the history to say Babylon backed the losing side is why skeptics think The Bible is wrong in saying Nebuchadnezzar conquered Egypt.  Bishop Ussher expressed a similar view on the matter.

It is popular in revised Chronology to suggest the post Merneptah 19th Dynasty Pharaohs actually reigned before Ramses I.  I'm not as convinced of that argument.  The Sethos of Herodotus being the Seti who was Rameses I's father is plausible however.

Amasis does not seem to be recorded in the traditional 19th Dynasty sources, at least not as a Phararoh.  I'd in the past considered identifying him with Amenmesse, but his reign was too short.

I'm now considering that Amasis could be the same as Meryatum/Osarsiph, or some other half-brother of Merneptah.  The name Amasis (used in Greek texts to transliterate Ahmose) has in it the Egyptian root that the name of Moses (Moshe) comes from, so perhaps that is a factor in this person being identified with Moses much later.  Amasis was earlier a leading general of Psamtik II's conquest of Nubia, perhaps that's a factor in how the extra-Biblical legend of Moses conquering Ethiopia came about.

Seti II and Amenmesse tend to be identified in Manetho as transcribed by Josephus with Sethosis and Rameses also called Armais/Hermeus.  The "two brothers" they are often called.  But based on the direct 19th Dynasty sources the paternity of Amenmesse is uncertain, though his mother seems to be a Takhat, who was also the mother of Seti II's wife Twosret, and yet also listed as his wife herself.  And a Takhat is also one of the named daughters of Rameses II.  So maybe the story as known to Manetho is off on the exact genealogy.

Some of the lesser sons of Rameses II listed separate from the main 28, I think could maybe actually be Grandsons.  Either way many of them were named Rameses, so perhaps that could help explain Amenmesse also being known as Rameses.  Or what if the source naming a daughter of Rameses II as Takhat is actually using that as an alternate name for one of the more well known daughters that Rameses married himself?  Yes he married at least three of his own daughters.

I've seen it claimed these later 19th dynasty rulers only really ruled Upper Egypt, that could explain them being unknown to Herodotus and other Greek historians.

The misconceptions that the 19th Dynasty followed the 18th directly may well go back to official propaganda of the 19th dynasty.  The history we place in-between is pretty much defined by foreign occupation, Libyan(22nd and 23rd) Nubian(25th) and Assyria.

I should also mention the theory of Osarseph being Chancellor Bey.  Bey is now known to have been executed during the reign of Siptah.

Friday, September 23, 2016

Using Manetho to prove Cheops of Herdotus was Kufu

I'm no longer as inclined to believe any typical fringe theories about the Great Pyramid (and the other two Giza Pyramids).  I don't think it was a Monument to Yahuah, I don't think it has anything to do with Isaiah 19, I don't think it's Pre-Flood or built by Enoch, nor built by Noah or Shem or Melchizedek or Abraham or Joseph or Moses.

I still have doubts about the evidence for identifying it's builder as Kufu of the 4th Dynasty.  But if it wasn't Kufu, I am inclined to be the opposite of most fringe theories and say I think it's younger not older then the traditional view.   That it's absurd to think the most impressive Pyramids predate many inferior ones.

For one thing if you take Herodotus' account in the context of his full Egyptian narrative, it makes it younger than the Fall of Troy.  His Cheops is later then his Sesostris who he identifies as the contemporary of the Fall of Troy.

I see the logic of how Kufu can become Cheops etymologically, but I still feel it's shaky.  The big issue is when people use Manetho as a smoking gun on that identification.  First off Manetho highly criticized Herdotus elsewhere, he hated his narrative of Egypt.

And who knows if these details were added by transcribers.  These same transcribers have Manetho identify Memnon of the Trojan War with an Amenhotep, but Josephus makes no such reference discussing the same dynasty in Manetho.

When discussing the Fourth Dynasty, Manehto as transcribed by Eusebius says.
Of these the third was Suphis, the builder of the Great Pyramid, which Herodotus says was built by Cheops. Suphis conceived a contempt for the gods, but repenting of this, he composed the Sacred Book, which the Egyptians hold in high esteem.
This can equally be interpreted as attacking Herodutus and saying this guy not his made up Cheops built it.

That account is interesting in light of claims the Great Pyramid builder wasn't following the normal Egyptian religion.  What Archeology tells us about Kufu doesn't fit that legend however.

A quote attributed to Manetho, but that is not authentically Ancient is circulating the net saying the Hyksos built the Great Pyramid.  This quote seems adapted from what Josephus quotes as it firmly misidentifies the Hyksos as Israelites.  But Josephus doesn't mention the Great Pyramid.  It doesn't even seem to come from the Book of Sothis which is at least medieval.

Theorists using this don't want to make the Pyramid younger though, so they attempt to say the Second Intermediate period Hyksos weren't the only Hyksos and that the 4th Dynasty Pharaohs were Hyksos too.  They do this by misquoting the start of Manetho's Fourth Dynasty account "The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different royal line. "  By saying "The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different race."  See the difference?

Tuesday, May 17, 2016

Osiris and Horus may be mentioned in The Bible, but they're not Nimrod or Tammuz

We don't know for sure how any Egyptian words or names were properly pronounced, we have their scripts which like Hebrew did not represent vowels, and since no one's spoken it in at least 2000 years, the precise pronunciations are lost.

And with many names our most common default forms of them are filtered through Greek sources, which among other things often ended words with an S that didn't in their native language (this has influenced our pronunciations of Jesus and Moses who in Hebrew is Moshe).  And among the Egyptian names subject to this are Osiris, Isis and Horus, none of whom end with an S in Egyptian inscriptions.

I've long noticed many names of Egyptian gods happen to look and sound a lot like Hebrew words but usually with very different meanings.  Particularly the fact that Ra sounds like a Hebrew word for evil (Strongs number 7451).

I find Set/Seth being known by that name interesting, like there was an attempt to deliberately Corrupt the history of Genesis 4 by giving the name of Seth to someone who committed Cain's sin.

A Hebrew etymology for Toth/Thoth is easy to imagine too, just use two Teths or a Tau and a Teth, and maybe a Vav in between.

The most probable correct form of Isis is Aset or Iset.  Not quite identical to any Hebrew name, but makes sense as being related to the names of Ashteroth/Astarte and Ishtar/Easter, the Near East equivalents to Isis.  Perhaps Strong numbers 6245 or 6247 are Hebrew word Aset could have come from.

The letters that spell Osiris seem to be, Wsjr, with suggested pronunciations being Asar, Yasar, Aser, Asaru, Ausar, Ausir, Wesir, Usir, Usire, and Ausare.  This website, proposes Oh-SEAR, Ou-SEAR or Oh-SEAR-ee.

The Hebrew spelling that would be most likely used for Wsjr would be Vav-Shin-Yot-Resh.  That is basically a form of Seir with a Vav added at the beginning as a Prefix.  Vav can be used as a Prefix, the reference to Dan in Ezekiel 27 uses a Vav as a Prefix in the Hebrew.

The connection between Seir and Osiris I've noted before, it's on Wikipedia.  But I had originally thought that was an alternate name, now I see that the name Osiris itself may come from Seir.

What Seir means in Hebrew is Goat.  Banebdjedet (The Goat of Mendes), the Egyptian Goat-god (sometimes mistakenly called a Ram-god) must have originally been an aspect of Osiris since he's also the father of Horus The Child, and shrines to Osiris and his mythical ancestors exist in his main Temple.  And the Book of the Heavenly Cow calls the Goat of Mendes the Ba(Soul) of Osiris.

On the Wkipedia page the suggested Egyptian meaning for Seir is Prince.  One Hebrew word for Prince is Sar, which in Hebrew is two letters, S-R, Seir arguably comes from adding a vowel like letter between the two letters that spell Sar

Horus is really Hor or Haru.  Which could very likely equate in Hebrew to Hor, Hori, Horite/Horim and Horeb.  All place or tribal names in or near Edom.

Seir is a name linked to Edom but it was first the name of a Horite, the people who lived in Edom's land before Esau, who were there at least as early as Genesis 14.  While Seir is called a Horite, I think that name comes from his grandson Hori, mentioned in Genesis 36:20.

Hori is the son of Lotan and Lotan the son of Seir.  So how did the grandson become a son?

Well Lotan is not used in The Bible besides this name, but it's used in Pagan Canaanite texts of Ugarit as a seven headed Dragon that Baal destroyed, and possibly a form of Yam, Baal's brother.  Comparative mythology tends to compare Lotan to both Leviathan/Rahab and Typhon of Greek mythology.  We know from Manetho that the Greeks of Egypt often identified Typhon with Set.  And some references to Rahab are taken as seeming like references to Egypt.

So how did Seir's son become his brother?  It's not uncommon in antiquity including in The Bible for a Son to take as his wife a wife or concubine of his father, but usually not the one who's his mother, to secure succession.  It was also often common to call any wife poetically a sister.

Maybe a rumor persisted that Hori was actually fathered by Seir, even though it should have been chronologically clear he was conceived after Seir died.  Horus in Egyptian mythology was conceived after Osiris died.

Hori's brother was Hemam, what the Strongs says for entries 1967 and 1968 implied Hemem is related to Aman, which is in turn related to Amon.  So perhaps this name is connected to the Egyptian god Amon.

Timna is refereed to as the sister of Lotan.  Set also had a Sister-Wife, Nephthys (or Hebet Het, or Nepthet), but it seems like a not very real Marriage, they didn't have any kids, and both are often linked to Homosexuality.  I think maybe the assumption that this Timna and the mother of Amalek are the same could be mistaken, and she really lived much earlier.  Or perhaps this connection is a factor in why the Hyksos favored the worship of Set.

If Aholibamah is a descendant rather then direct daughter of Anah, then Seir could well have lived long before Esau or even Abraham.

Maybe the Egyptian name for the Moon, Iah or Aah, could come from Ajah/Aiah, which is not a Yah theophoric name but can easily be confused for one, it comes from the Hebrew word for Hawk or Kite or Vulture.  The Egyptian moon god, Khonsu's name is spelled with Hieroglyphics that resemble similar kinds of birds.

Only problem is Genesis does not connect the Horites to Egypt, they seem to be Canaanites not Mizriamites.  But they are near Israel's border with Egypt, and Egypt had a more diverse population then most realize.  And if Velikovsky is right that Canaan is Ta Netjer "God's Land".  There is evidence the Egyptians viewed Ta Netjer as their ancestral Home Land.  This article discuses how many people groups made up Pre-Dynastic Egypt, and at least one came from Asia, though because of their conventional bias that's not the group they think came from Ta Neteru.

Egypt is called in The Bible the Land of Ham in Psalms 105 and 106, and one of Egypt's names for itself, Khem, is more similar to Ham then Misraim.  Maybe all of Ham's sons had connections to Egypt.  1 Chronicles 4:40 when recording Simeon's much later migration to Edomite territory says "for they of Ham had dwelt there of old".  Why say Ham and not Canaanites?  Maybe this verse specifically means Ham in the sense of Egypt being the Land of Ham?

Seir had many sons according to Genesis 36, perhaps it was mainly descendants of Lotan who came to Egypt, while the others mostly stayed in what would become Edom.

The myths about Osiris-Set-Horus in their most common forms talk as if they are taking place in Egypt.  But it's natural that would happen.  If Ta Neteru is called the "land of the gods" it must mean the gods lived there.

Horus was the son of Osiris and his successor who defeated Set.  That is well known but what isn't as well known is that the Turin Papyrus lists a second Horus reigning at the end of the dynasty of the gods, between the two are Thoth and Maat.  Even less well known is that Horus's wife Hathor is depicted in the Dendera Temple as bearing him a son named Ihy who is also called Hor-seme-tawy, or Horus the Younger.

The earliest known ruler of Pre-Dynastic Egypt that archaeology has uncovered is Iry-Hor in Upper Egypt.  I think he is Ihy/Horus the Younger. 

Going back to the name of Osiris.  Another possibly enters my mind, that maybe the prefix part before the Seir could give a meaning that could justify meaning he's a son or descendant of Seir, maybe specifically the Firstborn. 

The name in Egyptian mythology for the father of Osiris, Isis, Set and Nephthys is Geb, which means Earth, but he's male unlike other Earth deities which were goddesses.  It could easily comes from an Egyptian translation of them being called sons or daughters of Adam, who's name means Human, Red and Earth.  Which makes the coincidence of Set's name even more interesting.  Either way it's likely at this point the genealogy becomes purely mythological.

Another Egyptian meaning proposed for Osiris name is "the place of doing or creation", meaning the idea is right there that it is also a place name.  Seir was a sacred site in Edom, both for Pagans and Monotheists as it is linked Biblically to Yahuah.  Could people of that region have thought it was the site of Adam's creation?  The sons of Seir are all called Dukes of the Horites, perhaps Lotan was the Duke of Mount Seir.  Ladon, another Lotan figure of Greek mythology coils around an Apple Tree in the Garden of Hesperides, this myth is the reason we came to think of the Forbidden Fruit as an Apple.

Lotan means in Hebrew is assumed to mean covering, only place where it's root is used not as a name (Lot is the other name form of the root) is Isaiah 25:7, "And he will destroy in this mountain the face of the covering cast over all people, and the veil that is spread over all nations.".  Next verse sounds like it's about the end of Revelation 20 going into 21.  Basically Isaiah 25:7 could support a desire to affiliate the name of Lotan with Satan and/or the Antichrist, of whom we often view Osiris as a type.

However I also think it could be Tan, a root meaning Dragon, with an L as a prefix.  This fits the Lotan of mythology being a Dragon like monster.

The second son of Seir is Shobal, who's name begins with the same letter as Seth.

The Greeks often got things wrong in their identifications, it can be said the more accurate Typhon-Lotan figure of Egyptian mythology is Apep, a coiling Serpent.  Who is in fact the enemy of Set in the myths where Set isn't a villain.  Adding to that Set's affiliation with Storms and one could see him as very similar to the Canaanite Baal, which identification cold be a factor in why the Asiatic Hyksos favored him.

Disagreeing with the Strongs proposed meaning for Shobal, which seems convoluted to me.  Perhaps it's a shorting of sorts of Seth-Baal?  And Lotan Ben-Seir Duke of the Horites of Mount Seir became the basis for both Osiris and Apep depending on how one viewed Shobal?  Osiris is often depicted with Green Skin, usually this is explained as him being a vegetation god, but I don't see the basis for that, maybe it's evidence he was once a Serpent god.

Certain Atlantis themed fringe theorists make a big deal of the idea that the god-kings ruled in a different land.  But they're not reliable sources, so it's only because of the verification I talked about above already that I know that claim has some small truth to it.  But their claims it's in specifically Manetho I can't find, nor can I find in Manetho the name "Auritean" or "Aulitean".  

They want to place the "Land of the gods" to the West so they can make it Atlantis.  This website on the subject however admits that Dr. Charleton Coon (who's Racist bias was also for Civilization coming from the West) says Osiris home was sometimes placed to the North rather then West.  Daniel 11 defined Ptolemaic Egypt as the South from the perspective of Israel, so it makes sense a Holy Land location like Seir might be viewed as the North from an Egyptian perspective.

The references to the West these people are drawing on is probably Amentu, the Egyptian name for the land of the Dead which also meant the West because they believed it was also where the Sun traveled from west to east during the night.

Many in Revised Chronology date the beginning of the first Dynasty of Egypt to around 2100 BC, I'd long noticed how that happens to corresponds with Ussher's date for the founding of Egypt in 2188 BC.  Still I'm willing to date the first Dynasty's founding to a little before that.

Still however the Biblical Chronology I support places the time of Genesis 12 in 2322 BC, and 14 I'd say within a few years, a decade tops.  So I think Abraham's time in Egypt was probably what Archaeologists now call Pre-Dynastic Egypt.

We should remember that we use Pharaoh how we do largely because of The Bible, or how we perceive The Bible's use of it.  Ancient Egyptians didn't use it as a word for King, it was a word for the palace the King lived in.  So calling the leader of Egypt "Pharaoh" is equivalent to calling the President of the United States, The White House.  Which is pretty common, though we don't strictly mean an individual when we do it.

Basically the use of "Pharaoh" in Genesis 12 (which may have been just Moses editorial decision anyway, the word is only used by the narrative voice not in dialogue), does not contradict it being "Pre-Dynastic".  In fact I feel it does not even require a Monarchical form of Government, which could also be interesting to keep in mind reading Prophecies about Egypt that may or may not be about Modern/End Times Egypt (Like Isaiah 19, or Ezekiel 29-32).

Abraham died when Jacob and Esau were 15 in 2222 BC, their birth was in 2237 BC.

Going back to the possibly of Osiris meaning "of Seir".  I recently learned that Osiris and Isis show up later in Egyptian History then most realize, in the 5th Dynasty.  While Horus and Set were there from the start.  It came up on a Wikipedia talk page.
 J. Gwyn Griffiths pointed out long ago that there's no certain evidence of Isis and Osiris before the Fifth Dynasty. (There is some ambiguous evidence earlier than that, such as a relief from a shrine of Djoser that may depict the Ennead, which would imply that Isis and Osiris were around by then, but we can't be sure that's what it is.) Based on that and some inconsistencies in the Pyramid Texts' characterization of Osiris and Horus, Griffiths argued that the Horus–Seth rivalry was originally a separate tradition from the murder of Osiris and that the two were conjoined, producing the Osiris myth as we know it, sometime before the PT were written down. Egyptologists today generally seem to agree with this thesis, though it's hard to tell how widespread that acceptance is. Anyway, the impression I get is that during the Old Kingdom, Isis and Osiris emerged from obscurity and were tied in with kingship and the Horus–Seth conflict. By being connected with the king in the afterlife, Osiris became much more important, displacing deities like Anubis to become the premier god of the afterlife by the end of the Old Kingdom.
So maybe the Hor of Genesis 36 was originally the basis for both Osiris and Horus, but became split in two later.

Thursday, May 5, 2016

Damien F. Mackey

Is a figure in Revised Chronology circles we need to be very cautious of.  He makes some good observations, but.....

It seems the work done on the now gone SpecialtyInterests site (which I always had mixed feelings on) was mostly his work.

But back then he mostly agreed with Velikovsky probably more then I do, but is now abandoning several pillars of Velikovsky's models while still it seems clinging to Hatsheput as the Queen of Sheba.

What is more dangerous however is his being involved in really weird theories saying certain Pharaohs of Egypt and Kings of Israel were the same persons.  He plays games with the Song of Solomon and Abishag to make her, Shulamith, the Queen of Sheba and Hatshebsut all the same person.  And make David Tuthmosis I.  That is simply wrong.

For The Song of Solomon, I have argued elsewhere that Solomon is not the Beloved and that Shulamith is his granddaughter Shelomith.

Psalm 45 may have a thematic parallel to the Song of Solomon, but I don't think it's about the same Romance since it would have been written by David before Solomon's reign began.

He actually responded to my Queen of Sheba article in some places.  Basically making an argument I already dealt with in advance, the Queen of Sheba does NOT need to be important by Secular standards.

What Jesus said about her requires no more then what the TNAK says.  Jesus mentioned her because she was Saved, Hatshebsut clearly never converted to Monotheism, but there is nothing to contradict the kingdoms of Yeman being Monotheistic at this time.

Tuesday, April 26, 2016

Sinai in Midian/Arabia

I've agreed before with placing Sinai in Midian and identifying it with Jabal El Lawz, and citing the research of Bob Cornuke to support that.

Recently I've read some critics of the view, fellows believers who are critics of it and who support the traditional site (or at least a Sinai Peninsula view), not Atheists.  Mainly two from the Idolphin website, Is Mt Sinai in Saudi Abrabia? and Problems with Mt Sinai in Saudi Arabia.

I'm not interested in addressing every criticism there, no one is perfect, and I'm very open to Sinai being not Jabal El Lawz but some other site in Midian or really anywhere in Arabia for reasons that will become clear later.  The main reason for favoring this mountain over other Midianite candidates is that it's the tallest.  1, only Extra Biblical sources say Sinai was the tallest, 2, things change and others might have been taller in the past.  I've recently developed an interest in Jabel al-Madhbah near Petra.

I've also been thinking, maybe Horeb and Sinai aren't the same mountain.  They certainly must be near each other though.

Nor am I as interested in denying that the traditional site has antiquity to it, maybe even before Helena though we're pretty much dependent on her word that a tradition already existed.

One argument against the traditional site not addressed is the significance of Edom not letting the Israelites pass through their land in Numbers 20.

First of all if they were coming from the Sinai Peninsula they would not have been dependent on Edom to enter the Promised Land from the South.  The Philistine lands at least were lands Edom wouldn't have ruled.

But second, Edom controlled everything between the Dead Sea and the Gulf of Aqaba, so if Israel couldn't pass through Edom how did they wind up east of the Jordan when the wandering was over?  And if you're going to object that maybe Edom didn't always control all the way to the Gulf of Aqaba then you are only further undermining the significance of not being allowed to pass through Edom being such an inconvenience and a large part of why they were stuck in this wilderness for 40 years.

I also do not see the necessity of crossing the Red Sea in the traditional view, and it often overlaps with the ridiculous "Sea of Reeds" argument, which only even works as a pun in English, the Hebrew is Yam Suf.  I've seen it claimed that Yam Suf refers specifically to the Gulf of Aqaba, but I'm not going to bet on that right now, but I know it includes that Gulf from references to Solomon's port on it in 1 Kings 9:26.

Also I personally have come to see the limited geography associated with the wandering even by Conruke and other Jabal El Lawz supporters as being pretty silly given this a 40 year wandering.  Yet if they were stuck in Sinai you have no choice but to limit it, and that limitation is the reason we became so used to viewing it's scale as so small.  Basically I think it's possible they wandered all over Arabia and Jordan.  The narrative parts of Exodus-Deuteronomy are mostly about specific situations and I do not think are a complete record of 40 whole years at all.   For a modern comparison, that is equivalent to from the Bicentennial, 1976, to this year (I'm writing this in late April 2016).  From the last year of Ford to the last year of Obama.  Also both World Wars happened in less then 40 years.

Arguing whether or not all of what we today call Sinai can be considered part of Egypt I would agree shouldn't be as big a deal.  But their certainty it was not has one big unacknowledged problem, that the Wadi Al-Arish is by any descent scholar known to be the the "River of Egypt" often refereed to as a Border of what was Promised to Abraham.  A few uninformed commentators will act like that is the Nile, but that idea is obviously absurd, clearly Egypt's heart was not it's border with Israel.

The allotments of Ezekiel 40-48 make clear the Sinai Peninsula was not part of what God promised to Israel.

They do not deny that Midian refers to land in North Western Saudi Arabia east of the Gulf of Aqaba.  But make all kinds of convoluted arguments to justify saying Jetho was a Priest East of Aqaba but his flocks were west of it.  His argument about Shepherds sometimes traveling long distances to tend their flocks is valid, in the modern world, and maybe in the ancient world, but that a Midanianite Priest wold have his flocks on effectively a different continent is ridiculous.

The first article attempts to use Exodus 18 and Numbers 10 to Prove Sinai was outside Midian.  Neither chapter says "Midian" in the verses cited, both are Midianite individuals talking while at Sinai of returning to their homeland.  Their homeland could very well have been a different part of Midian then where Sinai was.  Genesis 25:4 gives Midian 5 sons, and Numbers 31:8 divides Midian between 5 kings at this time.  (Speaking of Numbers 22, 25 and 31, how was Israel involved in a geo-political scenario that involved both Midian and Moab from the Sinai Peninsula?)  Bill Cooper in After The Flood (A book this same Website supports) says in Appendix 1 that the Kenites descended from Midian's son Henoch, why he thinks that is still unclear to me.

But it could be explained other ways too.  Like how when I go to Burlington, I've left Racine City but am still in Racine County.  Josephus in Antiquities of The Jews Book 2 says Moses came to a City called Midian.

For dealing with what Paul said in Galatians 4:24-26, they cite a few ancient Greek sources that define Arabia in a way that includes the Sinai Peninsula.  While I would concede that allows sufficient room for doubt, but it's clear the majority of Roman and Jewish references to Arabia clearly do not include it. Also in-context Paul is linking the mountain to Hagar and Ishmael, who were never located west of the Dead Sea/Edom.

The second article cites Josephus quoting Apion in against Apion as saying Sinai was "Between Egypt and Arabia" and says if Josephus disagreed with that he would have said so.  Josephus had bigger concerns here then a geographical error.  And we can't be sure what Apion meant given how Arabia clearly means different things in different references, either way Apion certainly doesn't agree with the other sources they care so much about that defines Arabia broadly enough to put Sinai within it.

Overall Josephus supports Sinai in Midian.  That website is a little confused by what Jospehus means when he refers to Petra, and how that effects dating Josephus.  Petra was the capital of the Nabatean Kingdom already before Rome conquered it.  But that need not discredit it's overall point.

But either way Josephus doesn't settle the matter, I unlike most fellow Revised Chronologists think Josephus was wrong when he said the Queen of Sheba ruled Egypt.  And I already said an antiquity for the traditional view proves nothing.  I don't necessarily expect the correct view to have antiquity because eventually the Midianites became Pagans and Israel as a Kingdom never ruled where Sinai was.

The second article also mentions the Muslim origins of the Arabian Sinai theory to try and discredit it.  I'm not so reactionary that I need to reject anything Muslims have ever thought just because their religion has a horrible theology.  I think the Muslim view of the Desert of Paran is probably the correct one, as I argued for on my Prophecy Blog about the Wandering.

The first article likewise cites the traditional Sinai view derived placements of Paran, Kadesh Barnea and Seir to support their Sinai view.  Jerome and Eusebius were Pre-Islamic non Arabic Christians who placed Paran is Arabia Desteria.  Arabia Desteria is a far more precise Roman geographical term that can't be reinterpreted by citing the broadest possible meaning for Arabia.  It refers specifically to the vast Arabian desert between the Nabatean Kingdom (Jordan) and Arabia Felix (Yemen).  Meaning Saudi Arabia basically.  And there is no proposed site for Sear that is east of the Gulf of Aqaba.

They argue that the Kadesh Barnea location suggested by Jabal El Lawz supporters to fit the eleven day journey statement would, since Barnea is also cited as a border of Israel, place all of Edom in Israel.  They are overlooking that the Tribal Allotments of Joshua also gave Asher all of Phoenicia including Tyre and Zidon in Joshua 19:24-31, and the Trans-Jordan Tribes much of Ammon they never actually took.  Israel was supposed to subject all these people but failed to, that is part of the theme of Judges.

The eleven days journey is also less of an issue if it's a more Northern Midianite mountain.  And I often think our modern assumptions underestimate how far an Ancient could travel in a given time period, this effects my perspective on a number of things.

There is good reason to believe Teman is modern Ma'an.  And the way Habakkuk 3:3 parallels Deuteronomy 33:2 has me thinking Seir was in Teman.

So Sinai being in Midian remains the only Biblically viable option.

Friday, April 1, 2016

Did the Magi/Wise Men really come from Persia/Parthia?

I've spent a lot of time on my Prophesy Blog playing up the Biblical significance of Persia, Media and Parthia.  So perhaps nothing is more shocking then to see me of all people argue for removing them from this Biblical theme.  And I've in the past supported Chuck Missler's the Magi were taught by Daniel conjecture, that depends on them coming from Persia.  But I've rethought much of this.

All of the stars rise in the East like the sun does, so saying they observed the Star of Bethlehem rising in the east I don't consider a clue to where they came from.  Likewise them coming to Jerusalem from the East could just mean they entered through an Eastern gate.  Now the location I'm going to suggest can be described as East of Jerusalem and Judea, but that's not necessarily the first or even primary geographical direction one is likely to use describing it's relationship to Judah.

Magi (translated Wise Men in the KJV) gets used as a proper name for a specific priesthood that is usually refereed to as Median in origin.  But the word is only in that exact form once of all the times it's used in Matthew 2, and it's used elsewhere in the New Testament like in Acts 8 and 13 to refer to Samaritan and Jewish miracle workers, no one connects either of those individuals to Persia, Josephus also uses the word of certain Jews.  The word Mage comes from the same term.  In Ancient Greek texts it in time simply became their standard word for Magician in-spite of being non-Greek in origin.  The following is copied form Wikipedia.
According to Robert Charles Zaehner, in other accounts, "we hear of Magi not only in PersiaParthiaBactriaChorasmiaAriaMedia, and among the Sakas, but also in non-Iranian lands like SamariaEthiopia, and Egypt. Their influence was also widespread throughout Asia Minor. It is, therefore, quite likely that the sacerdotal caste of the Magi was distinct from the Median tribe of the same name."
 Zaehner, Robert Charles (1961), The Dawn and Twilight of Zoroastrianism, New York: MacMillan, p. 163.
Also in Jeremiah 39, Rabmag is clearly used of a Babylonian office.

Wikipedia is of course not always up to do date on how we now know the Medina Magi were originally enemies of the Zoroastrian religion, they worshiped Mithra, they were not inclined toward Monotheism.

Isaiah 60:6 is often taken by scholars as being connected to the visit of the Magi because it refers to Gold and Incense/Frankincense, (in fact this verse is why they're often depicted riding Camels, Camels aren't mentioned in Matthew 2).  The ultimate fulfillment is clearly about the Messianic Kingdom (either the Millennium or New Jerusalem or both) but it's believed that the visit of the Magi at Jesus Birth serves as a lesser near fulfillment, the Myrrh isn't in the final fulfillment because it represents His Death which is in the past by that point.

But when suggesting this connection it's often forgotten that specific nations are named there.
The multitude of camels shall cover thee, the dromedaries of Midian and Ephah; all they from Sheba shall come: they shall bring gold and incense; and they shall show forth the praises of Yahuah.
All names linked to Arabia, but the big one is Sheba, indeed the visit of the Queen of Sheba to Solomon is also thought of as connected to this since Solomon is also a type of the Messianic Kingdom.  Psalm 72 also further seems to back up Sheba playing this role.  Jeremiah 6:20 is also an interesting reference.

Indeed history shows that the various nations of Ancient Yemen including the Sabaeans were the leading exporters of Frankincense and Myrrh, so to First Century readers that's possibly the first place they'd think of reading Matthew's account.  And Gold we know could be found in this region because that's where Ophir was.  The Ancient Kingdom of Saba continued to exist till 275 AD.

Tony Maalouf argues the Magi were from Arabia in "Were the Magi From Persia or Arabia?", Bibliotheca Sacra, 156 (October 1999), 423-42.  The earliest report of the magi's place of origin is found in Justin Martyr, and he identifies them as Arabians (Dialogue With Trypho, 77). Clement of Rome, refers to Arabia as "the East", and associates the region with frankincense and myrrh, while addressing a context other than Matthew 2 (First Clement, 25).

Christianity is believed to have come to this region as early as 70-135 AD among Jews who fled the Roman destruction of Jerusalem.

From around 275-570 AD various calamities reshaped ancient Yemen among them were the conquests of the Himyar and the collapse of the Ma'rib Dam.  That caused many Qahtanite/Joktanite Arabic tribes of Yemen to migrate North to Jordan and Syria.  Among these were the Tanukhids from whom came the Christian Queen Mavia.  And the Gassanids who formed a Christian Kingdom that controlled modern Jordan and much of modern Syria and the Golan Heights.  And the Lahkmids who formed a Christian Kingdom in modern Iraq west of the Euphrates.

All in territory that was Biblically Ishmaelite, which probably explains why Mavia was mistakenly called an Ishmaelite in some Byzantine sources.  Many of the Ishmaelites (mainly of Kedar/Qedar) began migrating south to the areas of Mecca and Medina after the fall of the Nabatean kingdom during the reign of Trajan.

All of this further backs up that the Queen of Sheba must have been a Queen in Arabia not Africa.

The Koran in Sura 2:62 refers to those who already in some way believed in "Allah" before Muhammad, and were distinct from the pagan polytheists.  While most such references refer to only two groups, Jews and Christians, this one refers to three groups, those and the Sabeans.  I don't think Himyarite Jews are what is meant, in fact I think most of Muhammad's references to Jews had primarily Himyar and Yathrib in mind, especially the Anti-Semitic verses, those were the Jews that he fought wars with.  But I can't entirely rule them out either.

Jesus mentions the Queen of Sheba as an example of a Gentile who was saved.  Many extra-Biblical traditions say that results in a conversion of her entire Kingdom.  Maybe there is more truth to that then we thought.

The surviving Kings Lists of Sheba do not take us all the way back to Solomon's time.  But only to 755 or 750 BC.  This also seems to contradict certain traditions (mentioned in the Joktan link) that imply after king Phar'an the Kingdom was ruled only by Queens, (some of those look to me like they could be more feminine then our biases assume, but many are clearly masculine).  At face value those traditions imply the Queen who visited Solomon was the last.  But I have trouble seeing 60 Queens reigning in just the time from Reu to Solomon.  So perhaps 755-750 BC marks when the Matriarchy was supplanted by a patriarchy.

According to one version of the Kings List, the King at the time Jesus was born was Yadail Darih II, who reigned from 10 BC-10 AD.

But since we've discussed the subject of Sheba's relationship to matriarchy.  I feel like also pointing out that Matthew doesn't really tell us the gender of the Magi.

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

Antediluvian Sumerian Kings List

I have a hypothesis about the Antediluvian Sumerian Kings List.

Quoting that Wikipedia page.
The antediluvian reigns were measured in Sumerian numerical units known as sars (units of 3,600), ners (units of 600), and sosses (units of 60).
Since I believe before the Flood and maybe still awhile after the lunar and solar cycles were perfectly in sync with 30 day months and 360 day years of exactly 12 months.  I speculated, what if the "units" meant there are days rather then years with sars being decades, sosses 2 months each and ners periods of 20 months?

I then calculated the reigns of the 8 antediluvian kings to be 670 years total.  Ending that period with The Flood puts it's start one year before the rapture of Enoch which was 669 years before The Flood.

I argued in an earlier post on this blog that the Pre-Flood Eridu was the city founded in Genesis 4, that it was actually founded by Enoch Ben-Cain and named after Irad.  I don't think this event is when it was founded though, I think it existed for awhile.  Still since I think Enoch Ben-Cain was born sometime later then Seth, he could have easily lived to 79 years after the rapture of Enoch.

With the Creation and Flood dates I have argued for.  That would be 3419 BC (986 AM) for the beginning of Alulim's reign as king of Eridu.  Followed by 3418 BC for the rapture of Enoch.

Alulim reigned 80 years from 986-1066 AM
Alangar reigned 100 years from 1066-1166 AM
180 total of Eridu(Irad) as the capital

En-men-lu-ana reigned 120 years from 1166-1286 AM
En-men-gal-ana reigned 80 years from 1286-1366 AM
Dumuzid The Shepherd(Tammuz) reigned 100 years from 1366-1466 AM
300 years total of Bad-tibira as the capital

En-sipad-zid-ana reigned 80 years from 1466-1546 AM from Larag

En-men-dur-ana reigned 58 years and 4 months from 1546-1604/5 AM from Zimbir

Ubara-Tutu reigned 51 years and 8 months from 1604/5-1656 AM from Shuruppag

I think Eridu alone might be about the same location as the post Flood cite affiliated with it.  My hunch is from there each new capital went further east.  But that is purely speculative.