|
|
Fittingly, Herodotus contrasted the impious and long-reigning Cheops and Chephren, the "oppressive" pharoahs during whose reign "the country was reduced in every way to the greatest misery", with the goodly Mycerinus [1630]:
... the son [sic] of Cheops ... of all kings who ruled in Egypt he had the greatest reputation for justice in the decision of legal causes, and for this the Egyptians gave him higher praise than any other monarch .... Such were [his] generosity and mild rule ....
Similarly, Exodus (18:13,16) portrays Moses as a fair judge; whilst Numbers (12:3) praises his mildness: "Now Moses was mild, the mildest man upon the face of the earth."
Moses' Flight
According to the Bible, the incident that led to Moses' flight into Midian was his act of killing an Egyptian foreman to protect one of his fellow-Israelites (cf. Exodus 2:12 & 2:15). Some Israelites though did not seem over grateful for Moses' sudden interest in their welfare. 'Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? Do you mean to kill me as you killed the Egyptian?', snapped a certain Hebrew whom Moses had stopped from fighting his compatriot (2:14). He no doubt resented prince Moses who would presumably have been ruler over the very foremen who were then so cruelly oppressing the slaves.
Tension had apparently been building up too between Moses and Chenephres because of Moses' popularity with the Egyptian people. In fact tradition has it that Chenephres was seeking to kill Moses out of jealousy, after Moses' successes in Ethiopia. Moses would have realised that his killing of an Egyptian, on behalf of an Israelite slave, would have given his f/father-in-law the very pretext he needed. Exodus tells us that: "When Pharaoh heard of it, he sought to kill Moses" (2:15). So Moses fled the country.
That Moses sojourned in Midian until this very same pharaoh was dead is argued as follows by D. Murphie [1640]:
... the bible narrative implies (and other source materials emphasise) that the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled to Midian remained on the throne of Egypt for all but the closing years of Moses' exile, expiring just as the latter was commissioned to return to Egypt. By any calculation, this would give that Pharaoh a lengthy reign of at least, say, 40 years. Josephus ...wrote, 'So Moses, when he understood that the Pharaoh, in whose reign he fled away, was dead, asked leave from Raguel (Jethro) to go to Egypt ... and (he) made haste to Egypt'.
The 45-year reign of Sesostris I completely covers this period, even allowing for his co-regency with Amenemes I.
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). [See F also for the way the 19 & 20th dynasty Ramessides have been duplicated]. 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 [1670]. 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" [1680].  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 [1690]:
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 CAH has noted with regard to the former. [1700] "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) [1710]. 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 [1720]:
... 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 [1730]:
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 .... [1750]
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 [1760]:
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. [1770] 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. [1780]
The whole drama may have been re-told again in the legend of Osiris and Set (Seth).[1785] 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] [1790] . .... 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") [1800].
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. [1850]
The long reigns of the two pharaohs under whom prince Moses served - 45 years each to Amenemes [III] & Sesostris [I] (corresponding well with Herodotus's approximate half-century long reigns each for Cheops and Chephren) - would suggest that these were the only two Egyptian rulers for the first 80 years of Moses' life. These were followed by the ill-fated pharaoh of the Exodus, whose reign lasted only about a year, and whose son died in the plague (Exodus 12:29). Most conveniently, the Old Kingdom's end came shortly after the 1-year reign of its last male ruler of the 6th dynasty, Merenre II, who thus looms as an excellent candidate for the Pharaoh of the Exodus. His Middle Kingdom alter ego may well be Amenemes IV, Maat-en-ra (similar to Mer-en-re), whose mummy has never been found.[1860]
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) [1870]:
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. (See also Stratigraphy section).
Whilst W. Stiebing would, contrary to Courville's view, flatly reject any notion of contemporaneity between the 6th and 12th dynasties [1880]:
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 [1890]:
Edwards certainly opens the possibility unconsciously when referring to the pyramid of Sesostris the First [1900]:
"... 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 [1910] , 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.
Jannes and Mambres
The apostle Paul has most obligingly left to us the names of two Egyptian dignitaries who he said resisted Moses. "As Jannes and Mambres [1920] opposed Moses ..." (2 Timothy 3:8; Numbers 21:4-9; John 3:14-15) [1925]. Had he actually given us their Egyptian names, there would perhaps have been little debate over the era of Moses. But Jannes and Mambres would be Grecised or Latinised versions of names that were originally Egyptian.  And these can be very different, as we have seen in the cases of Khnum-khuefui, converted into Cheops, and Ka-kheper-re, Chephren. More recognisable is Hor-mes, son of Hathor, who became Hermes for the Greeks. Hermes' Roman equivalent was Mercury (Mercurius), which may well have arisen from Moses' Egyptian name, Menkaure. The Romans also apparently borrowed Moses' name, Musare, and gave it, in inverted form, to Rome's two legendary founders, Romulus (originally Rhomus) and Remus [i.e., Re-Mu-Sa]. The famous legend of these twins being suckled by a she-wolf is merely an adaptation of the Egyptian legend of the one baby Horus being suckled by the goddess Hathor in the form of a cow. The original story, though, was about baby Moses being wet-nursed by his own human mother on behalf of the Egyptian princess, whose meeting with Moses' mother had been brought about by the sister of Moses (Exodus 2:5-10).
The task of identifying the two Egyptian dignitaries referred to by the apostle Paul - both of whom hopefully stand out as key figures in the above revision of the era of Moses - is complicated by two textual variations between the Latin and the Greek. (i) Whereas the Latin gives "Quemadmodum autem Jannes et Mambres restiterunt Moysi"; the Greek gives Jannes and Jambres in 2.Timothy 3:8 (Exodus 7:11, 22): 
Again, (ii) whereas the Latin tells us nothing of the pair's office; the Greek calls them: "pharaoh's magicians":  .
My preference in each case is for the Latin version.
Who were the two Egyptians who "resisted Moses"? Undoubtedly Chenephres who appears to have invoked a fatwa against Moses that he maintained to the very grave. I suggest that Chenephres is Jannes; the already westernised name Chenephres having been shortened to Chennes, hence Jannes. The other obvious Egyptian resister of Moses, again unto death, was the obdurate Pharaoh of the Exodus, Mer-en-re ('Beloved is Re')/Maat-en-re ('Truthful is Re'). Merenre/Maat-en-re is not a bad likeness to Mambres. We should actually prefer a "b" in the middle of the name, as in the case of e.g. Meribre, but to find such a name we might have to go back earlier in Egyptian history, to the beginning of the 10th dynasty.
That the Old Kingdom ended with a period of great confusion is fully confirmed by Breasted when describing the archaeological data at the end of the 6th dynasty [1950]:
The internal struggle which caused the fall of the Old Kingdom developed at last into a convulsion, in which the destructive forces were for a time completely triumphant. Exactly when and by whom the ruin was wrought is not now determinable [sic], but the magnificent mortuary works of the greatest of the Old Kingdom monarchs fell victims to a carnival of destruction in which many of them were annihilated. The temples were not merely pillaged and violated, but their finest works of art were subjected to systematic and determined vandalism which shattered the splendid granite and diorite statues of the kings into bits .... The nation was totally disorganized.
The Exodus
Regarding whether the Egyptians recorded the Exodus, Anati has written [1960]:
In the last 100 years, many efforts have been invested on finding some hints of the Israelites and their exodus in the Egyptian ancient literature. In the many Egyptian texts that date to the New Kingdom ... there is no mention of the flight from Egypt or the crossing of the "Red Sea".
Not even the general historical and social background correspond. ... If all of this tradition has a minimal basis in historical fact, then it cannot have been totally ignored by the Egyptians.
Nor, according to Professor Anati, did they ignore it [1970]:
... The relevant texts do not date to the New Kingdom at all, but to the Old Kingdom. In other words ... the archaeological evidence ..., the tribal social structures described in the Bible, the climatic changes and the ancient Egyptian literature all seem to indicate that the events and situations which may have inspired the biblical narrations of Exodus do not date to the thirteenth century BC but ... to the late third millennium BC.
Professor Anati still accepts the conventional dating of the Old and New Kingdoms [1975]. But this only means that his discoveries are all the more meaningful, because he has not set out to make a chronological statement [1977].
The story of the Exodus, Lemonick wrote, "involves so many miracles" - plagues, the parting of the Red Sea [1978], manna, from heaven, the giving of the Ten Commandments - that critics take it for "pure myth" [1979].
In this regard he referred to Fr. Anthony Axe, Bible lecturer at Jerusalem's École Biblique, who has claimed that a massive Exodus that led to the drowning of Pharaoh's army would have reverberated politically and economically throughout the entire region. And, considering that artefacts from as far back as the late Stone Age have turned up in the Sinai, Fr Axe finds it perplexing that - as he thinks - no evidence of the Israelites' passage has been found. Indeed Fr Axe is right in saying that an event such as the Exodus would have had widespread political and economic ramifications; but because he has been conditioned to thinking according to the Sothic-based time scale, Fr. Axe is unable to see the wood for the trees, so to speak. For, contrary to the conventional view, the Egyptian chronicles do give abundant testimony to a time of catastrophe reminiscent of the Exodus, and archaeology does clearly attest the presence of an invasive people sojourning for a time in the Sinai/Negev deserts.
And the reason why the Israeli archaeologists of the 60's-80's "... didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert", as M. Broshi, curator emeritus of the Dead Sea Scrolls, claims [1982], is because they were always expecting to find such "evidence" in a New Kingdom context. The error of looking to the New Kingdom for the Exodus scenario has already been pointed out by Anati, and will become even more apparent in our discussions of Stratigraphy below and in C.
Dr. Cohen, Deputy Director of the Israeli Antiquities Authority, when asked which Egyptian dynasty he considered to be contemporaneous with the Exodus events, nominated the Middle Kingdom's 12th dynasty [1984].
In this regard he referred to the Ipuwer Papyrus as describing the conditions in Egypt that could be expected as the result of the ten devastating plagues (cf. Exodus 7-12). Cohen of course is not the first to have suggested the relevance of the 12th dynasty, or of the Ipuwer Papyrus, to the situation of the Israelites in Egypt and the Exodus. Courville [1986] had discussed in detail its suitability as the background for the enslavement and ultimate deliverance (Exodus 1:8-5:22). More recently, Down [1988] has developed this view. And Velikovsky had presented a compelling case for both the Ipuwer and Ermitage papyrii's being recollections of the plagues and devastation of Egypt. [1989]
Stratigraphy
Despite what might at first seem to be a dearth of positive archaeological data from this truly dark moment in Egyptian history, the collapse of the Old/Middle Kingdom, there is clear evidence that the 'Asiatic' labourers in Egypt departed suddenly and unexpectedly. The archaeology at Illahûn for example (where, as we saw, these foreign labourers had been living in numbers) reveals the exact time when they abandoned the town. Up to the time of Khasekhemre-Neferhotep I of the mid-13th dynasty, there was evidence of a continuous occupation. But then, as Rosalie David, explains, it was deserted [1990]:
There is every indication that Kahun [Illahûn] continued to flourish throughout the 12th dynasty and in to the 13th dynasty .... It is evident that the completion of the king's pyramid was not the reason why Kahun's inhabitants eventually deserted the town, abandoning their tools and other possessions in the shops and houses. The quantity, range and type of articles of everyday use which were left behind in the houses may suggest that the departure was sudden and unpremeditated.
We may now presume that Khasekhemre-Neferhotep I, the 13th dynasty prince in charge of Illahûn when the desertion occurred, was a ruler contemporary with the Exodus. This data enables us now to synchronise the 13th dynasty as well with the Exodus scenario so far ascertained. Neferhotep's full name is not unlike Nofer-ka-ra (Nefer-kare) of the 6th dynasty referred to above. Quite possibly this was the same person; death having come as a result of the tenth plague. David Rohl [2000] describes the archaeology at Tell el-Daba (ancient Avaris, in the eastern Nile Delta), which he thinks may be evidence for this plague:
At the end of stratum G/1 ... [Manfred] Bietak and his archaeological team began to uncover a gruesome scene. All over the city of Avaris they found shallow burial pits into which the victims of some terrible disaster had been hurriedly cast. These were no careful internments of the deceased. The bodies were not arranged in the proper burial fashion but rather thrown into the mass graves, one on top of the other. There were no grave goods placed with the corpses as was usually the custom. Bietak is convinced that we have here direct evidence of plague or some other sudden catastrophe at Avaris.
Rohl next tells of a mass exodus from Avaris [2020]: "What is more, analysis of the site archaeology suggests that a large part of the remaining population of the town abandoned their homes and departed from Avaris en masse."
This was followed at some point by a foreign invasion [2030]:
The site was then reoccupied after an interval of unknown duration by Asiatics who were not 'Egyptianised' like the previous population of stratum G. Stratum F marks a new beginning in the settlement of purely Asiatic (Canaanite) people ... The inhabitants of stratum G seem to have left the site before the arrival of [this other] wave of Asiatic immigrants, who settled and remained there until the be-ginning of the New Kingdom.
According to Rohl, the Asiatics who had dwelt in Egypt during this Middle Kingdom period were thoroughly 'Egyptianised' (just as one would expect the Hebrews to have been on the eve of the Exodus). It appears that these 'Egyptianised' foreigners fled Avaris at this time of plague, only to be replaced some time afterwards by other Asiatics (stratum level F) who show no evidence of their having been 'Egyptianised'. These latter would therefore be the 'Hyksos' invaders. They began at Avaris, during the reign of Neferhotep's brother, Sobekhotep IV.
From Avaris, the Hyksos foreigners gradually moved towards Memphis [2050], following the eastern ridge of the Delta: [2055]: "This progression took place over a period of almost half a century, until about 1675 BC [sic]. The Thirteenth Dynasty had by then reached its thirty-third or thirty-fourth king, Dedumesiu I"; almost certainly to be identified with Manetho's unfortunate "Tutimaius".
With the Old and Middle Kingdoms now combined, it will become necessary also to merge the EBA (= Old Kingdom) with MBA (= Middle Kingdom). This is something that Courville neglected to do. He tried to argue, against the facts, that the combined Old/ Middle Kingdom belonged entirely to the EBA. That this leads to some huge problems, which Courville does not appear to have even recognised, is already apparent from Stiebing's criticisms. It will become even more apparent in C.
Part C: MBI: Joshuan Conquest
History
TIME magazine: "... and relatively few modern historians believe in Joshua's conquest of Jericho and the rest of the Promised Land. In the most extreme view, all of the above are complete fabrications, invented centuries after the supposed fact." [2100]
Lemonick, having presented the typical opinions of the archaeologists in regard to the Exodus, then proceeds to sum up their views about the Conquest [2110]:
Unlike the Exodus, the story of Joshua and the conquest of Canaan can be tested against a rich archaeological record. The scientific consensus: bad news for the biblical account.
According to the Book of Joshua, the Israelite leader and his armies swept into Canaan, destroying cities including Jericho, Hazor and Ai, after which the Israelites settled the land. Archaeology tells a more complicated tale .... Joshua's conquest would have taken place in the 13th century B.C.
But British researcher Kathleen Kenyon, who excavated at Jericho for six years, found no evidence of destruction at that time. Indeed, says Dead Sea Scrolls curator emeritus Broshi, "the city was destroyed from the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C." So was Ai .... And so, according to archaeological surveys, was most of the land surrounding the cities. Says Broshi: "The central hill regions of Judea and Samaria were practically uninhabited. The Israelites didn't have to kill and burn to settle."
Already we have, in our discussion of the Exodus, prepared the ground for a correct dating of the conquest by showing that the Israelites whom Moses, and later Joshua, led, were the products of Egypt's Old/Middle Kingdom (EBA/MBA); not the New Kingdom's LBA. No matter then, as Broshi states, that there is no indication of a habitable city standing on the site of Jericho ''from the beginning of the 15th century until the 11th century B.C."; for, by conventional reckoning, these centuries belong to LBA.
The important fact is - as will now be discussed in the Stratigraphy section - that there was a very strong city standing on the site of Jericho during the EBIII phase, and that it was this city that was utterly devastated by the MBI invaders.
Stratigraphy
That the conventional chronologico-stratigraphical arrangement cannot by any means accommodate the conquest sequence in its New Kingdom context (various points in LBA having been suggested) is apparent from the above testimonies of both Kenyon and Broshi. It is also apparent from the following facts as pointed out by S. Vaninger [2160]:
At none of the points [in LBA] is a cultural break indicated in the archaeological strata that would suggest the arrival of a new people. At none of these points has there been found any evidence of fortified cities at Jericho and Ai, much less of a destruction level. At none has there been found a previous occupation at Arad and Hormah that is required by Numbers 21:1-3 and Judges 1:17. In short, at none of these points has there been any real success in matching the archaeological evidence with biblical conquest narratives.
Vaninger could also have included the absence during LBA of Hebron (Numbers 13:22; Joshua 14:15 & 15:13; Judges 1:10,20) and Gibeon/El Jib (Joshua 9-10; ca. 9 km NW of Jerusalem).
Everything changes though when the conquest is located earlier to the Canaanite EBIII stage, with the conquerors being the MBI people whom more and more experts are calling the 'Israelites' [2190].
Even conventional scholar Stiebing, who rejects an MBI conquest of EBIII as the time of Joshua, admits that the conquest's location at this point would solve certain problems. Let us first listen to his important distinctions between EBIII and MBI [2200]:
Several scholars believe that agreement between archaeology and the Bible can be achieved if the conquest is placed at the end of the Early Bronze Age. The latter part of the Early Bronze Age was an era of widespread urbanization in Palestine (including the Negev) and Transjordan. But almost every one of the flourishing Palestinian cities was destroyed at the end of the Early Bronze III (EB III) period. The succeeding era, Middle Bronze Age I (MB I), ... was characterized by a non-urban pastoral society.
The change from EB III to MB I has often been seen as a total cultural break. The urban culture of EB III was succeeded by an era in which there were no true cities in Palestine, only small villages consisting of a few flimsy, poorly built structures. Pottery types and other artifacts were very different in the two periods. The Early Bronze practice of multiple burials in large caves was replaced by single or double burials in smaller tombs, and the differences between the tomb styles and burial practices during the MB I period might indicate that they belonged to non-sedentary groups with a tribal social structure. This view that the EB III culture was almost totally destroyed and replaced by that of invading semi-nomadic tribes has led some scholars to place the Israelite conquest of Canaan at this point in the archaeological history of Palestine.
Stiebing now points to what he sees as certain advantages of this interpretation [2240]:
An EB III exodus and conquest would solve some problems. Both Ai and Jericho were large, walled cities during EB III and were destroyed at the end of that era. And the widespread destruction of cities and the changes in material culture which took place at the end of EB III could be credited to the invading Israelites. The almost total cultural break between EB III and MB I could indicate that the Israelites conquered virtually all of Palestine and massacred most of the Canaanite population, just as the Bible says.
Such a scenario, Stiebing goes on to tell, has recently been strengthened by the testimony of experts.
Firstly by Dr. Cohen [2250]:
This view has been bolstered in recent years by Israeli archaeologist Rudolph Cohen's claim that the spread of the MB I culture into Palestine follows the pattern which the Bible gives for the invading Israelites. Cohen argues that the MB I culture first appeared in northern Sinai and the southern Negev, spread through Transjordan, then across the Jordan into the southern hill country, and finally into northern Palestine. ....
Secondly, by Anati [2260]:
Emmanuel Anati, professor of paleo-ethnology at the University of Lecce, in Italy, furthermore has found an EB III/MB I holy mountain which he claims is Mount Sinai. Anati discovered a great concentration of rock art (much of it with what seem to be religious themes) at Har Karkom, a mountain in the southern Negev of Israel. He also found standing stones and altars [2270], suggesting that this mountain had been a place of religious pilgrimage. All in all, he feels it fits the Bible's description of Mount Sinai quite well.
The largest number of habitation sites near Har Karkom (think now Jebel el Lawz) and the greatest volume of rock art there belong to the Early Bronze Age and Middle Bronze Age I. There seems to have been little activity at this site during the Middle Bronze II, Late Bronze, and Iron Ages. .... So, if Har Karkom was Mount Sinai (as Anati believes, but we believe it was Jebel el Lawz), then the exodus must have begun during the Early Bronze Age and the conquest must have taken place at the end of EB III.
Dr. Cohen, known as 'the King of the South', is highly qualified to speak about the discoveries in this part of the world where he has been excavating for the last 25 or so years. He thus belongs to that era of Israeli archaeologists of the 60's-80's who, according to Broshi, "didn't find a single piece of evidence backing the Israelites' supposed 40-year sojourn in the desert". Anyway, third millennium archaeologists in the region are concluding quite differently from those earlier excavators.
Uniquely qualified is professor Anati, who has been labouring in the Sinai/Paran wilderness for as long as the Israelites were said to have: 40 years (Numbers 14:33) [2300].
Kadesh Barnea
Dr. Cohen has provided an interesting account of the archaeological situation at Kadesh Barnea - a place of great familiarity to the Israelites during their sojourn in the desert (cf. Num 32:8; Deut. 9:23; Josh 14:7). Prior to the irruption of the MBI people into the Negev, he said, that region had been occupied by a Canaanite people of the EBIII era, as indicated by the Kadesh pottery styles. The end of EBIII came about with destruction and ruin. No more occupation after that. But, interestingly, there were numerous MBI settlements in the surrounding area. The pottery styles and way of life of this new people were sharply different from those of the Canaanites; e.g., the MBI people preferred to settle on hills rather than in the valleys as the Canaanites had done [2320].
Importantly, the MBI culture showed a definite Egyptian influence. W. Albright [2330] referred to "the preponderance of weapons and ornaments made in Egypt, or made after Egyptian models". And Cohen himself noted in the BAR article that these MBI people carried with them grinding stones (querns) made of Aswan granite, conch shells from the Red Sea and even fragments of ostrich egg shells (ostriches being native to Africa). All of this would seem to suggest that the MBI people, or at least traders, had come across the Sinai from the direction of Egypt.
The MBI Conquest (Part One)
For this section (Part One) I shall be sticking to the simple idea, as discussed above, that the MBI were the Israelites who destroyed the major EBIII Canaanite sites. The situation is actually far more complex than this, as we should expect from our previous comments that stratigraphy does not follow a neat linear pattern (e.g. the Mesopotamian flood sequences; Kenyon's explanation; Ur III and the Chalcolithic age). Of necessity too would the MBI Israelites, because of their abrupt departure from Egypt and their nomadic circumstances, reflect quite a rudimentary form of MB culture; more basic than the stable, urban civilisations that they conquered. These latter should largely reflect a sophisticated Middle Kingdom/MBA culture. However, much of the archaeological data and the Bible can be correlated by this simple application of MBI = Israelite conquest.
Afterwards (Part Two), I shall deal with the problems that arise from this simple scenario, using a fuller stratigraphical matrix. Vaninger, who accepts the MBI = Israelite scenario is a useful guide for Part One with the following ten points of his [2370]:
Another Conquest
.... There is an abundance of positive archaeological evidence for synchronizing the conquest with the end of the Early Bronze III period. ....
1. Almost every major site in Palestine was destroyed and/or abandoned at the end of the Early Bronze III period .... This agrees with the general statement in Joshua 11:23 that "Joshua took the whole land".
2. Both Jericho and et-Tell [Ai] were prosperous and fortified cities during EBIII and both were violently destroyed at the end of that period. The last EBIII walls of Jericho fell flat outward from the city and show the effects of intense burning. These facts are uncontested and agree perfectly with the biblical narrative of the conquest of Jericho and Ai recorded in Joshua 6:1-8:29. ....
3. Shechem was at most a small unfortified village during EBIII and would not have been capable of resisting the Israelites. This explains why the Bible gives no account of a confrontation with Canaanite forces when the Israelites went there to recite the blessings and curses of the law (Deuteronomy 27; Joshua 8:30-35). Arad and Hormah, on the other hand, were both occupied during EBIII and both experienced a discontinuity at the end of that period. Arad was abandoned altogether until the Iron Age, while Hormah was taken over by a new people (see below). This agrees with the conquest account found in Scripture (Numbers 21:1-3; Judges 1:17).
4. Excavations have shown that Gibeon was one of the few cities not destroyed or abandoned at the end of EBIII, but that the site does show evidence of a radically new cultural influence at this time. This fits perfectly with the Joshua 9 narrative where Gibeonites deceitfully entered into a covenant with Israel in order to avoid conquest - and subsequently became subject to the invaders anyway.
5. The people of the Early Bronze Age were for the most part displaced by newcomers having an entirely different culture (this EBIV/MBI transitional society was later superseded by the greatly superior MBII culture with no destruction levels separating the two ...).
6. The new culture introduced at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age proper (MBII) continued through the Late Bronze and even into the Iron Age, and it is the only culture in Palestine that could possibly correspond to a distinctive Israelite society.
7. The people who destroyed the Early Bronze civilization and introduced cultural innovations initially occupied northern Transjordan and the Negev in addition to northern and southern Cisjordan - the very same regions that were given to Israel as an inheritance in Numbers 34 and later conquered under the leadership of Moses and Joshua.
8. According to William Dever the geographical progression of the EBIV/MBI transitional culture can actually be traced archaeologically; it appeared first in northern Transjordan, entered Cisjordan by crossing the river at Jericho, spread first to the southern hill country and the Negev, and finally to northern Cisjordan. This corresponds exactly with the advance of the Hebrew conquest recorded in Deuteronomy 2, 3; Joshua 3, 10, and 11.
9. The new people had a tribal organization, as evidenced by burial practices.
10. The abundance of copper weapons in many of the MBI burials suggests that the newcomers were warriors and took the land by force.
From an Egyptian perspective, the Israelites of the Exodus would correspond well with those 'Egyptianised' Asiatics who left Egypt in a hurry, en masse. In terms of Palestinian archaeology these were the MBI people, carrying Egyptian artefacts, who can be traced through the northern Sinai, at the oasis of Kadesh-barnea, who were at Har Karkom, and who destroyed the Midianite cities at Babh-Ed Dhra, Numeira etc. in the western portion of Moab, east of the Dead Sea, and perhaps at its southern end (cf. Numbers 31) [2450]. More on Israel in Egypt.
EB IV culture can now be defined as Moabite [2460].
Jericho (Part One)
The Israelites totally destroyed the inhabitants of Jericho (except for Rahab and her family) and burned the city to the ground (v.24). Joshua placed Jericho at that time under a curse; so that whoever rebuilt its wall would do so at the cost of the lives of his two sons (v.26). This prediction was fulfilled more than half a millennium later, at the time of King Ahab, when the wall was rebuilt by Hiel the Bethelite (I Kings 16:34).
Taking as our guide the biblical scenario, we should expect that the archaeologists would find at the appropriate stratum on the mound of ancient Jericho (modern Tell es Sultan), a mighty Canaanite city, well fortified with strong walls.
We should further expect them to find that these walls had collapsed, apparently as the result of an earthquake. In regard to this latter phenomenon, I must pause to ask the question:
What more unique incident could be hoped for as an anchor point for properly correlating the archaeology of this area with its history (unique because the incident belongs in the category of a general invasion followed by a natural catastrophe, and followed by evidences of occupation of the entire territory by a new people - and even further unique because of the peculiar nature of the destruction of Jericho)?
In 1930 the British researcher, John Garstang, undertook an investigation of the site of Jericho that lasted for six years. Among Garstang's finds was the discovery of the double line of walls around the city that had been thrown down violently, apparently by an earthquake. Garstang positively regarded these as the walls destroyed at the time of Joshua. The bricks of the walls had been thrown down the sides of the slope of the mound, and the outer wall base had been tilted outward, giving further indication that the destruction had been a violent one by natural causes. We should furthermore expect archaeologists to find that there occurred the destruction by fire of the city inside these walls. Kenyon, describing the ferocity with which the destruction of the EBIII city at Jericho came about, wrote [2490]:
The final end of the Early Bronze Age civilization came with catastrophic completeness. The last of the Early Bronze walls of Jericho was built in a great hurry, using old and broken bricks, and was probably not completed when it was destroyed by fire. Little or none of the town inside the walls has survived subsequent denudation, but it was probably completely destroyed for all the finds show an absolute break, and that a new people took the place of the earlier inhabitants. Every town in Palestine that has so far been investigated shows this same break.
Courville [2510] has suggested that the evident haste in erecting the last of these protective walls "reflects in an amazing manner the fear of the people of Jericho at the rumours of the approach of the armies of Israel." As formidable as were the defences already prepared, there was a hasty effort to strengthen these fortifications (cf. Joshua 2:9-11). But there is even more correspondence. According to an intriguing detail of supporting evidence as gleaned by professor Anati from the Book of Joshua, EBIII Jericho alone qualifies for the city destroyed by the Israelites [2520]:
With regard to the correspondence between archaeology and biblical descriptions, if the latter is reliable in terms of historical reconstruction, then the following passage may prove to be particularly significant: 'Rahab let them down from the window by a rope, for her house was against the city wall itself' (Jos 2:15). Which of the archaeological layers that have been excavated might correspond to this description? ...
This ... description can only refer to a form of urban planning and surrounding wall from the Early Bronze Age .... There were no windows that looked towards the outside of the walls, during the Middle and Late Bronze Ages, either at Jericho or at any other site in the Syro-palestinian region.
All well and good so far. But now things should - and do - become more complicated.  For should we not also expect, from our alignment of Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms, for an MBA civilisation already to have been established in Canaan before the arrival of the MBI people? This also is in keeping with our non-linear theory (Kenyon). Recognition of this complexity will help to solve the stratigraphical problems now to be considered in the second part of this analysis.
The MBI Conquest (Part Two)
We have seen how an MBI conquest of EBIII fits well with the Joshuan scenario. However, the picture is by no means that simple, for what we find also is that there are some glaring anomalies associated with this proposed situation, and it is undoubtedly these that are keeping archaeologists from fully embracing the MBI = Israelites equation.
First of all I shall give Stiebing's general points that are unfavourable to this simple equation; and, after that, his more specific points in relation to certain problematical sites. The reader may be surprised to find that even Jericho now has its anomalies.
General
The general stratigraphical problem of the Courville/Vaninger model is well explained by Stiebing, who had previously admitted this model's strong points [2600]:
This theory, however, contains a major inconsistency in dealing with cultural breaks in Palestinian archaeology. On the one hand, the break between EB III and MB I is seen as evidence for the invasion of a new population group. But the equally complete and dramatic change from MB I to MB IIA .... is supposedly due only to the Israelites' settling down and becoming more urbane.
Vaninger tries to remove this inconsistency by minimizing the cultural discontinuity between MB I and MB IIA and by arguing that population growth, climatic change, new pottery-making techniques, and influence from the north through trade account for the differences between the two periods. .... But he rejects the opinion of archaeologists who have argued for continuity between EB III and MB I on much the same grounds - that the changes reflect socio-cultural fluctuations between periods of urban settlement and eras of pastoralism and small villages, rather than invasions by new groups of people. ....
Vaninger justifies his different treatment of the two periods of cultural change by noting that major destructions mark the end of EB III towns while no destruction levels delineate the end off MB I ....
However, climatic changes and internal strife can lead to widespread destruction, abandonment and urbanization, and a reversion to pastoral life. The EB III destructions do not necessarily prove that an invasion took place.
On the other hand, since during the MB I period there were only small semi-nomadic encampments or villages in Palestine, rather than cities, destruction levels should not be expected. If invaders had arrived in strength at the end of MB I they would have had little reason to burn and destroy the undefended villages they found, especially since most of the MB I settlements were in the Negev, an area in which the MB IIA population chose not to settle. So destruction layers at the end of EB III do not prove that an invasion occurred then, nor does the lack of destruction levels at the end of MB I prove there was no invasion at that time. The changes between MB I and MB IIA are comparable to those between EB III and MB I. If such changes signal the appearance of new population groups at the end of EB III, then the abrupt change from MB I pastoralism to the new urban culture of MB IIA should also be credited to invaders.
Specific Sites
Continuing with Stiebing [2700]:
... excavations have shown that Beth-shean, Dor, and Beth-shemesh were not occupied in EB III ..., and thus could not have survived the Israelite conquest as the Book of Judges claims. ... Shiloh and Gaza present major problems for theories of an EB III conquest. Shiloh was one of the centers of Israelite activity during the period of the Judges (Joshua 18:1-10; Judges 21:12,19; etc.) and Gaza was a Philistine city which plays an important role in the stories about Samson (Judges 13-16). Yet Shiloh (Khirbet Seilun) was occupied for the first time in MB IIB (which begins just before the time of Saul, according to the Courville/Vaninger chronology), while Gaza (Tell Harube) was not occupied until the Late Bronze Age (which equals the Divided Monarchy in their system) ....
It should be noted immediately, with regard to Shiloh, that scholars are not unanimous as to its true location [2730]. As for Gaza, its emergence in LBA is exactly what one would expect from the stratigraphical pattern that I shall now begin to trace, following Bimson.
Jericho (Part Two)
Bimson shows how the archaeological data for the end of MBA Jericho corresponds strikingly well with the conquest scenario [2740]:
In analysing the Biblical account, we must go back to Numbers, 25. Here, just a few weeks or months before the attack on Jericho, we find the Israelites living in a camp which extends along the eastern side of the Jordan just opposite the city ....
During this time the area was affected by a severe plague. Numbers 25:9 reports that 24,000 Israelites died of this plague. In due course the Jordan was crossed (Josh. 3) and a new camp established at Gilgal. From here the campaign against Jericho was launched. The Israelite victory was assured when an earthquake broke down the city's walls. The inhabitants were slaughtered and the whole city burned to the ground.
Precisely the same sequence of events is evidenced by archaeological finds from the final phase of MBA Jericho.
Late in the series of MBA tombs at Jericho, several multiple burials are evidenced. Kenyon has concluded from these that "some catastrophe caused high mortality on an occasion very late in the history of Middle Bronze Age Jericho" .... All the evidence points to the conclusion that MBA Jericho "suffered a plague" shortly before the greater catastrophe of the city's destruction .... It is logical to identify this plague with the one which struck the Israelite camp at Shittim in Numbers 25. Shittim was not very far from Jericho. It was from there that spies were sent out to the city (Joshua 2:1) ....
Evidence for an earthquake at the end of MBA Jericho comes from the tombs containing the multiple burials. Organic material contained in these tombs was found to be unusually well preserved. F.E. Zeuner, who carried out tests in some of these tombs when they were first opened, concluded that the material was preserved because a short while after the burials were made, natural gas containing methane and carbon dioxide entered the tombs and brought the process of biological destruction to an end .... Earth movement and resultant fissuring are suggested as the best explanation of how this gas was suddenly released into the tombs.
The MBA city was destroyed in a terrible conflagration [2800]:
"All the Middle Bronze Age buildings were violently destroyed by fire .... There is no doubt from the scorched surfaces of the walls and floors of the violence of the conflagration" .... Dame Kathleen Kenyon, who wrote these words, concluded from the violence of the destruction that this burning was the result of an enemy attack on the city ....
Further in favour of Bimson's revision, against Courville/Vaninger's, is the following [2820]:
According to the Biblical tradition, there was no city at Jericho between the Conquest and the reign of Ahab. We have seen that in the scheme offered above, the archaeological evidence confirms this picture. In Courville's scheme, however, the archaeological findings do not correspond with the Biblical tradition at all, since the strongly fortified and populous MB II city fills the period which ought to have been one of abandonment or, at the most, sporadic temporary habitation ....
Moreover, that Bimson's synchronism between the MBA phase at Jericho and Egypt's Middle Kingdom is accurate is apparent from the nature of the scarabs [2840]:
... only four of the MBA scarabs bear royal names. Three of these definitely come from the Twelfth and Thirteenth (pre-Hyksos) Dynasties .... The date of the fourth, which bears the obscure name "Sheshi", is debated. In Gardiner's view, however, scarabs bearing this name date from immediately prior to the rise of the Hyksos. The Sheshi scarab from Jericho was found in one of the multiple burials which date from very near the end of the MBA city's history.
The question for Courville and Vaninger becomes: If the Israelites had previously left an Egypt that had seen the demise of all the 12th dynasty pharaohs, how come it is the MBA city at Jericho (which Courville would presumably maintain was built some time after the era of Joshua) that contains the scarabs of the 12th dynasty kings?
More precisely, Bimson has noted that scarabs of Sesostris I of the 12th dynasty begin to occur in MBII A contexts in Western Asia. But Egyptian Middle Kingdom objects are far more numerous in MBII B-C, which - according to convention - was the Hyksos period [2860]. Bimson has thus rejected MBII as the Hyksos period. Instead he has concluded that, since MBII was contemporaneous with Egypt's Middle Kingdom, then LBI was, at least partially, contemporaneous with the Hyksos period [2870].
Concluding remarks
While the conventional view of a conquest during LBA is quite inadequate, strong arguments can be made for either the EBIII and MBA scenarios. But both of these latter also have their shortcomings. It is only when EBA and MBA are properly integrated - the logical result of Courville's revision of pre-New Kingdom Egypt - that the full picture emerges and the anomalies disappear. As with the Mesopotamian flood, so with Jericho, have the archaeologists provided only an incomplete part of the picture. I ask:
What are the chances of two distinct cities at Jericho, supposedly well separated in time, suffering collapse from earthquake followed by radical burning from an enemy? It is like reading the same story twice.
The EBIII city whose walls fell outward, that was burned to the ground, must be recognised as the same as the MBA city that suffered earthquake and was burned. This was the city contemporaneous with Egypt's 6th and 12th dynasties - and with the Exodus - that the Joshuan forces attacked and destroyed. Its MBA defences, clearly observable on the sides of the mound [2900], were likely the most recent fortifications for what was a very old city. But EBA and MBA Jericho was not a separate city.
Other seeming anomalies for the conquest, too, can be solved from a complete archaeological application along these lines, recognising that archaeology is not purely linear.
Judges
Just a few words about the long Judges period, as I shall not be devoting a separate section to it. It corresponds with the Hyksos domination of Egypt, and hence the Bible nowhere during the Judges era speaks of Egypt as a contemporary power.
Stratigraphically, it would largely be represented by LBI
Quite early in the Judges period, Israel was oppressed for 8 years by the Syro-Mesopotamian king, Cushan-rishathaim (Judges 3:8). Regarding the historical identification of Cushan-rishathaim, I am very impressed with Hickman's reconstruction, according to which Israel's oppressor was none other than the renowned Sargon of Akkad (cf. Agade), currently dated to c. 2334-2279, to even before Ur III. [2940] Cushan is likely also the hard-to-locate, chronologically, Enshag-kushanna of the Mesopotamian lists, considered to be close to the time of Sargon of Akkad. [2950]
If this reconstruction be correct, then the Judges period would for much of its first part be contemporaneous with the lengthy Sargonid dynasty in Mesopotamia.
But the latter part of the Judges era (e.g. closer to the time of Samuel) would be - as we shall now learn from Zimri Lim - contemporaneous with the early First Babylonian Dynasty, whose chief king, Hammurabi, was, as I shall suggest, a contemporary of Solomon's.
Notes and References Part A
[010] SIS Review, Vol. VI, Issues 1-3 (Soc. for Interdisciplinary Studs., UK, 1982), 16-26.
[020] "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (TIME Christmas edition, 1995), 51.
[030] "The Restoration of Ancient History" (Internet), 18.
[120] The Facts of Life (Fourth Estate, London, 1992), 60.
[150] The Archaeology of Mesopotamia, London (Thames & Hudson, 1984), 92. Emphasis added. The Ubaid period (c.4000 BC) is currently separated from Early Dynastic (c.3000 BC) by about a millennium.
[160] Archaeology in the Holy Land (Ernest Benn, London, 1960), 69-70, 273. Emphasis added.
[170] Studying the Book of Genesis, we know, we study the history of the rise of individuals and nations, even the history of mankind. In its pages a sharp separation occurs between the followers of God [Abel] and those who forsook God and followed their own agenda [Cain] because of sin. The event of sin is the great stumbling block which author's often pay little attention too, yet it and its resolution is the key to understand the whole Bible. Leaving out the aspect of sin and how it influenced people, is like leaving out the grid and dirt which is the cause of an engine wearing out. Right from the outset, God delineated for Adam and Eve that overcoming the curse of sin they had begun would require the shedding of sacrificial blood, Gen. 3:15. While Adam and Eve still walked in their perfect relationship with God, yet unmarred by sin, they knew that disobedience had occurred and God gave them only one, apparently small test, to remain untainted from sin. Of all the trees they could only not eat from one. They also knew that God's creatures could not talk and that, Adam letting Eve wander off by herself, and Eve leaving her husband, potential danger could arise. The arch rebel had no restrictions of movement yet. God's perfect universe gives true freedom and liberty. Lucifer's act led to enslavement to selfish desires and estrangement from God, the source of all life. Today too, only seeking God and trusting Him can redeem us from the snares of God's arch enemy and bring us back to our Savior and Maker. God's faithful people since Abel have something, the descendants and followers of Cain have not, at last their love of God, brings them true liberty and freedom from sin. Just like Adam and Eve, we have only two choices: Ignoring the reality of sin in our life brings death, confessing, repenting and accepting the offering of Jesus brings life.
[200] According to Dr. James Harrell, `The bitumen used as a preservative in some ancient Egyptian mummies was previously thought to come only from the Dead Sea area in Palestine.
A closer source of bitumen was investigated at Gebel Zeit on the southwestern shore of Egypt's Gulf of Suez. Here two ancient oil wells were discovered. These were hand-dug in Pleistocene reef limestone and fed by petroleum seepage along a fault. Bitumen samples from the Dead Sea, Gebel Zeit, another site in the Gulf of Suez, and five mummies were analyzed using molecular biomarkers derived from gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. It was found that four of the mummies contained Dead Sea bitumen, and the fifth and oldest one (that of the Libyan Pasenhor from about 900 BC (conv. date)) had bitumen from Gebel Zeit. This is the first evidence (pending correct logic of the method) for the use of an indigenous source of bitumen in ancient Egypt.'
[230] Canaan means `purple' and is said to be the earliest, native name for Palestine since it first appears in some of the world's oldest books, the Book of Genesis 11:31; Exodus 6:4.
[250] Ishmael 'signed' the colophon ending at Genesis 25:12, indicating that he had written the history of Abraham up to that point, having begun after the colophon of Terah (Genesis 11:27). Isaac then took Abraham's history a few verses further, to 25:19.
[255] On the subject of the 3rd Dynasty Dr. Zahi Hawass, Secretary General of the Supreme Council of Antiquities in Egypt, Director of the Giza Pyramids Excavation, stated that, "Günter Dreyer, the director of the German Institute, made the important discovery, that Djoser, the builder of the Step Pyramid at Saqqara, was the founder of the third dynasty. He came to this conclusion when he found Djoser's name inside the tomb of his father, Khasekemwy, the last Pharaoh of the second dynasty, who was buried there along with the Pharaoh Peribsen." For an older, B&W image of the Step Pyramid and interesting alabaster vases and carpenter tools see Leonard Cottrell, Life Under the Pharaohs, plate 7.
See also, Mark Lehner's The Pyramid Age Settlement of the Southern Mount of Giza in JARCE, Vol. XXXIX, 2002, p. 27-74. The article shows maps, B&W photos of the area, drawings and a photo of the remains of the Gallery (barracks) sets II and III, the hypostyle hall, the `Wall of the Crow', the western extension, the south street magazines, the `Royal Administrative Bulding' and a part of the eastern town and round Silos.
[280] For an article on episodes between Abraham (Gen. 21:22-32) and Isaak (Gen. 26:12-22) and Abimelech see V.H.Matthews, `The Wells of Gerar' in BA, Vol. 49, June 1986, p. 118-125.; The events center around confrontations between the immigrant Patriarchs and Abimelech, i.e. water rights, herd management and establishing a clear title to a well by the diplomatically acute Abraham using a symbolic/economic gesture implying long term usage. In the case of Isaac the events had to do with cautious nomad-urban relations, establishing acceptance before the indigenous population to demonstrate their role as heirs of a covenant with Yahweh by acquiring impressive wealth and a large household.
[330] CE, Vol. 8, "Ebla" (P.F. Collier, Inc. NY), p. 501. Also `The Adventure of Archaeology', Nat. Geogr. Book, p. 318-319.
[340] H. Storck in Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism & Ancient History (C&AH Press, Toronto, 1986), 43.
[360] Ibid.. ref. 340.
[380] Ibid., ref. 340.
[400] The term `Ibid' is a Latin term meaning `refer back to the referenced book mentioned before'.
[420] See ref. 340.; We tentatively agree with those who state the preliminary view that the area around the Sphinx was originally one vast quarry, from which perhaps the bulk of the stone in the Great Pyramid was taken. In the process of quarrying, however, bedrock was reserved not only for the Sphinx, but also for the causeway of Khaefre which borders the south side of the Sphinx basin. Thus, in effect, Khufu's quarrying operations anticipated not only the position of the Sphinx, but also the line of Khaefre's causeway. Nearby is also the area where, what is described as round `silos' or `granaries', were found. Also note the deep, square shaft(s) which we show. [For a B&W image of the silo area see JARCE, Vol. XXIX, p. 33, 63.]
Furthermore, the Sphinx and the temple-complex of Khaefre were elements of the integrated site plan according to which the positions of the pyramids of Khufu [Horus name: hr md ddw hwfw], Khaefre and Menkaure were determined. The 3rd pyramid of Giza, the pyramid of Menkaure, is discussed and shown in color in Aidan Dodson, `Tombs of the Royal Families of Egypt' in KMT, Vol. 15, Summer 2004, p. 47-(50ff)-55. Also shown are the pyramids of Unas and Pepy II, his wife Iput II, as well as the plan of a single room structure of Henutsen.
[430] Ibid., 44; `Dedan' is mentioned in Genesis 10:7; 25:3; 1.Chronicles 1:9, 32.
[440] Ibid., 45.
[450] Ibid., See ref. 430.
[470] Ibid., 46.
[480] The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vol.1 (Loma Linda CA, 1971), 170-176.
[485] Most notably T. Chetwynd, "A Seven Year Famine in the Reign of King Djoser with Other Parallels between Imhotep and Joseph", C&AH, Vol. IX, pt.1 (Jan., 1987), 49-56.
[500] Following Uenephes, I note, was one Usaphaidos, the first part of whose name (Usaiph) pronounces almost identically Yusef, the Hebrew name for Joseph (JseOy).
[510] Some of the capitals of ancient nomes in the Nile Delta area were: Kom el-Hisn (Old Kingdom), Buto, Mendes, Tell el-Dab'a, Heliopolis, Memphis. [JARCE, Vol. XXV, 1988, p. 7]
[520] A History of Ancient Egypt, (Blackwell UK, 1994), 139. Khety III conventionally dated to the 7th/8th Dynasty. But see Here!
[525] Ibid., 145.
[550] Ibid., 45. Storck had already noted, ibid. with reference to Poebel, that the name Azarah might be composed of a Western Semitic (WS) form, "to come forth" and WHR "moon" (month).
[570] CAH, Vol. I, pt.2 (3rd ed.) , 602.
[578] The identity of the word `Kharu' is, according to Gardiner, supposed to relate to the area from the Sinai frontier of Egypt at `Sile to Upe, the area of Damascus, and for the entire coast from Gaza to Byblos. In no reference do we have any indication that Kharu was used for territory north of the ancient state of Amurru (which straddled the border of Lebanon). This is the same area known as Canaan (Numbers 34:1-12). Therefore H3ru/Kharu is a synonym for Canaan, not Syria. Equating the Kharu with the Khurru/Khurrians from cuneiform sources, the latter were northern Syrians, is not the meaning found in Egyptian sources. [Anson Rainey in BAR, Mar 1992, p. 73.]
[580] Open citato (`in the work cited'), 45-46.
[585] CE, ibid.
[595] Roux, G., Ancient Iraq (Penguin, 1992), 170. See also CAH, 600.
[620] Roux, ibid. For a full page color image of the Sumerian King List see `The Horizon Book of the Lost Worlds', N.Y., 1962, p. 150.
[650] CAH, 601. Emphasis added. Famous Sumerian art from the time of Gudea , ruler of Lagash, are the continuous intertwining snakes shown in `... the Lost Worlds', N.Y., 1962, p. 148. Images and text on statues of Gudea at the Detroit Institute of Art can be seen in BAR, Vol. IX, May/June 1983, p. 74f. Also well known is the 14 ½ inch long dagger of Mes-kalem-dug with a hilt of lapis lazuli and a sheath of gold. Also Donald P. Hanson, Royal building activity at Lagash in BA, Dec. 1992, p. 206-211. Shows plan and views of the Ibgal of Innana.
See also André Parrot, Tello - Vingt Campagnes de Fouilles (1877-1933), Paris, 1948, Ch. III, Les Neo-Sumeriens, p. 143-273. Images shown in B&W include reliefs featuring Gudea, a goblet, a great cylindric cuneiform inscribed cylinder of Gudea, various fragments of reliefs and statuettes, pictures of the excavation of `Dur-Ningirsu et Digume' showing its mighty brick walls, drawings of various objects including what looks like a cunei inscribed round bellied bowl with a small hole in the top similar to an ink container but larger.
[653] A number of door socket stones bearing the archaic cuneiform name of `Gudea' are or were stored at the Paris Louvre and the London British Museum. [B.T.A. Evetts, Discovery of Babylonian Antiquities in the City of London' in PSBA, Nov/Jun 1890/91, p. 54-(57f)-64.]
[670] Roux, 167.
[680] Ibid., 168.
[700] Ibid., 167.
[720] CAH, ibid. "Other towns listed as destroyed in the unremitting wars of Shulgi and his son... are Kimash and Khumurti, named with Madqa, from which Gudea had obtained asphalt ...".
[760] Michael G. Hasel, Recent Developments in Near Eastern Chronology and Radiocarbon Dating', www.grisda.org.
[770] For a view of the mountain top `White Temple' of Erech including the stairway ascent and the altar area, and the Eanna-Zikkurat see Hartmut Schmökel, Ur, Assur and Babylon, Stuttgart 1948, Tafel 3, 56.
[780] Kovac, M. G. The Epic of Gilgamesh, 1989.; Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts, `The Epic of Gilgamesh', pp. 72-99, Tablets I-XII.; A B&W image of the famous Gilgamesh Epic written in Cuneiform on 11 clay tablets and found in 1853 in Niniveh, may be seen in K.G. Hoglund's, `The Collections at Yale University' in BA, Sept. 1984, p. 160-165.; Also shown is an ancient literary catalogue, listing various Sumerian compositions by their first lines or "incipits". [Yale Babylonian Collection #3654.] See also `Gilgamesh slays the bull of heaven' agate cylinder seal in BAR, Sep/Oct 2002, p. 32.; For an Assyrian period image of Gilgamesh holding a sickel and a lion pub and a fragment of a Gilgamesch Epic from Megiddo, see BAR, May/June 2005, p. 20. Characters appearing in the Epic includes: Gilgamesh, his friend Enkidu and a monster named Humbaba. - Consult also the `Second Seal of Lugalanda' showing a ritual combat of Gilgamesh full faced with a beard and Enkidu endowed with head hair, breasts and a naval. On the left side is a Mesopotamian cartouche. The seal is housed in the Louvre, Paris, France. [See BA, Sep 1990, Vol. 53, No. 3, p. 151.]
[800] "Times of Abraham", Ex Nihilo Tech J., vol.2, 181. David Ussishkin, `The Ghassoulian Temple in En-Gedi and the origin of the hoard from Nahal Mishmat' in BA, Vol. 34, p. 23-39. - We suggest to regard this association with great cautionary care.; See also Osgood's elaboration on this in vol.3 (1988). "Techlets", 124-125.
[850] Op. cit., Vol.2 (Loma Linda CA, 1971), 144, 145.
[860] A partially damaged Early Bronze Age jug was found in the `Bay of Atlit', Mediterranian coast of Israel, evaluated as having been made of Nile mud which contained `5500' year old fresh water shells common in Africa. Eretz, Dec. 2002. A good B&W quality image of a dried body of a, according to E.A.W. Budge, predynastic Egyptian including pottery can be seen in his `By Nile and Tigris', Vol. II, 1920, p. 360 (BM#32751).
[880] See. p. 33 of this article.
Notes and References Part B
[1010] Lemonick, M., "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (Christmas, 1995).
[1020] The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, Vols. 1&2 (Loma Linda CA, 1971).
[1040] On the extent of resources required to built the pyramids see Mark Lehner's `Lost City of the Pyramids', `Fire in the Desert' in Egypt Revealed, Fall 2000, p. 42-(53)-57; The constant fires required in the bakeries, copper tool making and similar workers shops, suggests the author, may have led to a period of deforestation in Egypt.
[1050] See P. Mauro's The Wonders of Bible Chronology (Reiner Publications, 1933), 32. How these ca. 60 years were calculated is also shown at this link.
[1060] Op. cit., I, Ch.XV.
[1070] Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine (Uni. of Michigan, 1976).
[1090] "Famines in the Early History of Egypt and Syro-Palestine", SIS Workshop, No. 1 (UK, 1986), 32.
[1100] Labib Habachi, Building Activities of Sesostris I in the Area to the South of Thebes in Mitteilungen of the DAI, Band 31, 1975, p. 27-37, Tafeln 12-14. Inscriptions shown and discussed include: a) Offering table from Elephantine, b) Base of the Triad of Elephantine, c) Stela of Elephantine, d) Boundary Stela from Karnak, e) Boundary Stela in the Cairo Museum, f) A block from El-Ashar (no picture). The translated text of a well preserved, grey granite Offering table (1.02 x 0.735 x 0.51 m) of Sesostris from El-Lisht was found in June 1976. See Aly El-Khouly, An Offering Table from El-Lisht in Egyptian Archaeology, Vol. 64, 1978, p. 44.
See also Wolfgang Schenkel, Die Bauinschrift Sesostris' I. im Satet-Tempel von Elephantine in Ibid., p. 109-125; Featuring numerous inscription images.
[1110] As quoted by Courville, op. cit., I, 141-142.
[1120] Courville, ibid., 142.
[1150] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford U.P., 1933), 33.; Perhaps one good thing could be learned from the Egyptian author Moustafa Gadalla who theorizes that the Egyptian original of Joseph's Egyptian name could also be read as, `[S ph] - ntr - iw-f-`nh', meaning "success/creation - god - is he - live", where we note the elements `s' and `ph', or `seph'. So the whole name could mean `creation/success/medicine of god, may he live'. M.G., 1Historical Deception, 1999, p. 167f.
[1157] A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1988), 158. For an image of a limestone relief attributed to king Mentuhotep III see KMT, Summer 2003, p. 20. However, this relief is in fact of the time of Mentuhotep II of the 11th Dynasty according to modern classifications, whose cartouche appears twice on the relief. See also A.H. Sayce, `The Karian [10c] and Lydian Inscriptions' in PSBA, Vol. XVII, Jan/Dec 1895, p. 39-43.; "This inscription was cut on the ledge of the sandstone rock overhanging a quarry which had been excavated. ... These inscriptions are for the most part of the XIth and XIIth dynasties, and several of them contain the name of Mentuhotep." p. 41.
Grimal wrote, " ... [Mentuhotep II] added to the decoration of the sanctuaries of Monthu at el-Tod and Armant and in the cliffs of Deir el-Bahri he built himself a funerary monument modelled on the pyramid complexes of the Old Kingdom".
" ... [Mentuhotep II] also revived the foreign policy of the Old Kingdom by leading an expedition to the west against the Tjemehu and Tjehenu Libyans and into the Sinai peninsula against the Mentjiu nomads".
"In Nubia, he attempted to attain the level of domination that had been achieved by the end of the Sixth Dynasty, at least as far as mining and trading were concerned".
About Mentuhotep III Grimal wrote, " ... [Mentuhotep III] was able to revive the practice of sending expeditions to Punt. In the eighth year of his reign, an expedition of 3000 men under the command of Henenu were sent from Koptos to the Wadi Gasus, digging twelve new wells along the route ....The expedition acquired numerous products from Punt, including quantities of 'gum Arabic'. On their return journey the same expedition also quarried stone in Wadi Hamammat".
" .... At this point the Turin Canon mentions 'seven empty years' which correspond to the reign of Mentuhotpe IV, whose coronation name, Nebtawyre ('Ra is the lord of the Two Lands') perhaps represents a return to the values of the Old Kingdom". [N. Grimal,"A History of Ancient Egypt", (1994), p.157-158.]
[1160] Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1988).
[1170] A discussion of the deified Imhetep can also be read in Chassinat's, `Pseudo-architecte du temple d'Horus a Edfu' (Ancient Egypt, Sep 1930, p. 91). For the image of a recently naophoros statue of Imhotep see KMT, Vol. 14, Fall 2003, p. 52. According to the description this statue was made in the Roman-period cult of the deified 3rd Dynasty physician/architect Imhotep. We present the hieroglyphics of this naos Here.
[1180] The wisdom of Ptahhotep was echoed in the New Kingdom by The Instruction of Amenemope, and later by The Instruction of Ankhsheshonky.
[1210] See also Jaroslav Cerny, `A Note on the Recently Discovered Boat of Cheops' in JEA, Vol. 41, 1955, p. 75-79. Also C. Aldred, `Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom', London, 1965, p. 87ff & David O'Connor, The Earliest Royal Boat Graves, in Egyptian Archaeology, 1995, p. 3-7. It may be of interest that a laquered wooden funerary boat was found in a keyhole shaped mound in a southern province of Japan's main island of Honshu and dated to the 4th century A.D. Its decoration were concentric circles. A Japanese `Ark Shrine', or `Tenno-Sama', ``Mikoshi', may be seen in TSBA, Vo. V., 1877, p. 550 or here. On the subject of ancient Egyptian road construction click Here.
For the importance of the Israelite `Ark' click here.
[1220] Josephus, F., Antiquities of the Jews, Bk.II, Ch.IX, par.1 (trans. Whiston). [Conventionalists also realize that Dashur seems mostly to have been used as a necropolis at the beginning of the 4th Dynasty (Snofru) and during the 12th Dynasty (Amenemhat II and III and Sesostris III.] Inside Khufu's Great Pyramid of Giza the names of work gangs were found in the steep passage to the tomb. One work gang called itself, "The strong boatmen of Khufu" and another simply "The pure" according to the movie, Building the Great Pyramid directed by Jonathan Stamp..
[1230] Grimal, N., A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1988), 71. Cheops was succeeded by Djedefre.
[1240] As cited by Courville, op. cit., I, 155.
[1250] The Language of the Pentateuch in its Relation to Egyptian (Oxford U.P., 1933), 259.
[1280] It appears from Yahuda, ibid., 262 [n.1], that Egyptian m and n are sometimes interchanged, mw and nw both meaning 'water'.
In this regard we find in the Story of Sinuhe that whereas the hero's name is usually spelt with an n in the middle, the princesses, in their song of welcome on Sinuhe's return to Egypt, call him Samehit (also given as Sime-hyet), with an m.
[1310] Grimal, op. cit., 158. My emphasis.
[1320] CAH, 495. My emphasis;. [Conventional authors also may make statements like, "The first four tombs in the list (Dyn. IV, Ra`djedef to Shepsekaf) could be earlier than the reign of Ra`djedef', but they are better placed in this group to allow for possible later dating. ... Probably the earliest chapel in this group belongs to (Kawah) a son of Khufu." A description of scenes of mat making, boats (dhows) and dragnets with cages of ducks follows. "... Both figures hardly differ in posture and activity from the figures in mat making scenes from Dynasty VI."[Harpur, Yvonne, `Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom', N.Y., 1987, p. 180; CIAS comment: Conventionally over 200 years separate Khufu from the 6th Dynasty.]
[1330] "Prophecy of Neferti"; Peter Clayton, `Chronicle of the Pharaohs', p. 78f.
[1350] CAH, Vol. 11, pt. 1, 49. My emphasis.
[1355] Petrie, as quoted in Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 3.
[1360] David, R., The Pyramid Builders of Ancient Egypt, 191; as quoted in Arch. Dig., Vol.2, No. 6, 9.
[1370] Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 5. The documentary movie Building the Great Pyramid directed by Jonathan Stamp, though impressive, fails to present a well documented account of the issues surrounding the building of the Great Giza Pyramid of Khufu.
[1380] E.B. (1964), vol. 8, 35. See also Mace, A. C., and H. E.Winlock. 1916. `The tomb of Senebtisi at Lisht'. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art. According to the Brooklyn Papyrus, she tries to ascertain her right to own 95 servants. See also N. Reeves, `The Great Discoveries', p. 141.
[1390] Breasted, J., A History Of Egypt, 189-200.
[1400] As quoted in Digging Up the Past (October, 1986), 8. Emphasis added.
[1410] A Test of Time (London, Random House Century, 1995), 271.
[1420] See Grimal, op. cit., 161.
[1430] Hence, I suggest, the beautiful diorite statues of the Fourth Dynasty.
[1440] Grimal, 159-161.
[1450] Courville, op. cit. I, 189, 214, also finds the name Sesonchosis common to these two pharaohs.
[1470] Grimal, 164-165. Emphasis added.
[1480] The Mountain of God (Rizzoli, NY., 1986), 158, Emphasis added. See also, `The Ashmolean Ostracon of Sinuhe' by JWB Barns, Oxford, 1952 as described in JEA, Vol. 39, 1953, p. 124f.
[1500] Donald B. Redford, A Response to Anson Rainey's Egypt, Canaan and Israel in Ancient Times in BASOR, Feb 1996, p. 77-81 where he also writes about Sinuhe.
[1520] Petrie, W.F., Egyptian Tales (Methuen & Co., London), 133, calls him Sanehat, which he translates as 'Son of the Sycamore'.
[1525] E.g. by J. Kaster, The Literature and Mythology of Ancient Egypt (Allen Lane, The Penguin Press); and A. Nibbi, Ancient Egypt and Some Eastern Neighbours (Noyes, Press, N.J., 1981).
[1527] Petrie, op. cit.
[1530] The Egyptians commonly inverted name-elements, e.g. Neferkare = Khaneferre.
[1540] Op. cit., 122.
[1555] Roman mythology eventually borrowed from this, with Remus (i.e. Musa-re) being suckled by the she-wolf. The Old kingdom Dynasties are also known for developing highly artistic, painted marsh scenes, Yvonne Harpur, `Decoration in Egyptian Tombs of the Old Kingdom', London, 1987.
[1560] Possibly linking the 5th dynasty with Moses, as a priest-king. Interestingly enough from the 5th dynasty also comes reportedly the first example of `Pyramid Texts (Wenis Text)', also the pyramids of the 6th dynasty feature these texts. See Cyril Aldred, Egypt to the end of the Old Kingdom, London, 1965, p. 100f. An image of Isis suckling the infant Horus can be seen in Leonard Cottrell, Life Under the Pharaohs, plate 3.
[1570] "Often she has the form of a cow - the animal sacred to her ..." E.A.W. Budge, The Egyptian Book of the Dead, p. cxx. - For the reader: Pagan gods and goddesses are Satanic inventions and to occupy oneself with these aside from understanding only history should not be entertained for there are dangers, these human inventions are forbidden by the Creator God who alone is worthy of our worship.
[1580] Abdel-Aziz Saleh, `Excavations Around Mycerinus Pyramid Complex' in Mitteilungen of the DAI, Band 30,1, 1974, p. 131-154; Tafeln 19-34. Among many other accounts the article describes 2 prominent types of pottery associated with the late OK: 1) a rough pottery with a brown surface; 2) large jars with a coarse heavy stuff covered with a whitish wash, sometimes on the outside, and largely on the inside.
[1585] At least in Jewish accounts. According to information the lower courses of the third Giza pyramid of Menkaure/Mycerinus "... were of red Aswan granite instead of the usual white limestone. The outer faces of the stones were not smoothed off until after they were put in place, and we can still see the exact point at which the ancient workers laid down their tools when word came that the god had joined his fathers" which is taken in conventional view as an indication to his early demise which would be in our revision his rejection of his Egyptian roots and becoming Moses of the Israelites. [B.Mertz, Temples, Tombs, and Hieroglyphs, p. 70.]
[1590] Egyptian Tales (Methuen & Co., London).
[1600] Israel in Egypt, as referred to in TIME's "Who was Moses?" (December 14, 1998).
[1630] The Histories, Penguin, 1972, Bk.II. Emphasis added to third block quote (about Mycerinus).
[1640] D. Murphie, "Critique of David Rohl's A Test of Time", C&C Review (1997:1), 33.
[1670] D. Murphie, Ibid. See also Here! As the pectoral of Usertesen III shows the two creatures placing each a paw on a subordinat/ captive figure, that shows the roots and principles of despotism which is strikingly discussed here in a series of articles from about 173 years ago.
[1680] CAH, 514. Emphasis added.
[1690] E.g. D. Down in articles in his periodicals, Digging Up the Past; (later) Diggings and Archaeological Diggings.
[1700] Grimal, 169-170. Emphasis added.
[1710] Ibid., 70.
[1720] No longer need it be said, according to the textbooks, that Sesostris II was the first to undertake the extensive exploitation of this area, since (according to this revision) the Faiyûm-developing Amenemes III is now to be dated before Sesostris II and would therefore have inaugurated this massive project.
[1730] See e.g. Grimal, 80-81.
[1750] Authors may state, "We have good evidence that Semites who have been settled in Egypt for generations became state slaves after the liberation of Egypt from its foreign rulers. This evidence comes from the Proto-Sinaitic insriptions, discovered by Petrie and others since 1905." [The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 36, No. 2, 1973, p. 54.]
Any Semitic, or in particular Israelite presence in Egypt during 18th Dynasty times is abundantly explained by our revised chronology. Too much is being made of the dubious meaning of "Proto" type inscriptions which are used as a crutch too heavily leaned upon. Instead of such crutches, scholars should trust the Biblical account even if it tells them in places that they are sinners and should worship the Creator God. Numerous periods, if not all, during Egyptian history saw slavery in that country. Large scale Israelite slavery was in place before the period of the Hyksos/ Amalekites began in Egypt.
[1760] Ibid., 89.
[1770] For the Hawara pyramid of Amenemhat III see Aldan Dodson, The Intact Burial at Hawara ... in KMT, Winter 2000-01, p. 40-(42)-47.
[1780] See Jealouse paper.
[1785] See also P. Le Page Renouf, `The Myth of the Osiris Unnefer' in TSBA, Vol. IX, 1893, p. 281-294; Read on April 6, 1886.
[1790] The Giza Archives Project documents also the Giza Old Kingdom tomb art work. Among it the 3 rock cut statues in tomb G 7530-7540 of Meresankh in the north chamber. See Peter Der Manuelian, Virtual Pyramids - Real Research' in KMT, Fall 2005, p. 68-(77)-80. The artikel compares the 1930 photo of the three statue personages in the tomb with a photo how they appear today. It emphasizes the considerable damage these statues suffered over the years.
[1800] The Jealousy paper. According to Gerald Herm, Phoenicians, p. 128-129, "In Phoenicia, as in Egypt, the king is a priest-tyrant."
[1850] See e.g. ibid., p. 80-81. For the Horus throne name click here.
[1860] The Bible teaches that Moses, rather then be in line to become Pharaoh, by faith esteemed being part of Christ's purposes higher than the riches and treasures of Egypt, Hebrews 11. Was this a good choice? We may say, if Moses would have chosen to be in line for Pharaoh, to find him, we would be best off looking for him in the corners of the British Museum, or as a mummy in a dusty tomb in Egypt. Instead, the Bible teaches that Moses is now in heaven for he appeared, together with Elias, to Jesus and the disciples on the Mount of Transfiguration according to Matthew, Mark and Luke.
[1870] Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del Centro, 1993), 76. Emphasis added. See also P.E.Newberry, `Queen Nitocris of the 6th Dynasty' in JEA, Vol. 29, 1943, p. 51f. Now we have concluded that Har Karkom was only a visited location, but Mt. Sinai/ Horeb has to be Jebel el Lawz in Saudi Arabia.
[1880] Ibid.; John MacDonald wrote, "... various Palestinian pottery wares have been found in sizeable quantities in Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Egyptian sites. These various facts must be regarded, even at a conservative evaluation, as indicative of an Egyptian presence in the Lower Levant." [J. MacDonald, Egyptian Interests in Western Asia' in the Australian Journal of Biblical Archaeology - AJBA, Vol. II, 1972, p. 74.; Referencing W. Helck, Die Beziehungen Aegyptens zu Vorderasien im 3. & 2. Jahrtausend v.Chr.', Wiesbaden, 1962, S. 31f.; See also D. Courville on the 6th Dynasty.
[1890] "The Time of the Judges - The Archaeology: (a) Exodus to Conquest", EN Tech. J., Vol.2 (1986), 76.
[1900] The plan of the pyramid complex of Sesostris I. can be seen in Aidan Dodson, `An Eternal Harem' in KMT, Spring, 2005, p. 28. In essence the article agrees with the assessment saying: "The pyramid complex of Senwosret I. is both better preserved and published than that of his father, and thus rather more data on its arrangements is available. It has many affiliations with the pyramids of the Old Kingdom, particularly as regards the design of the principle parts of the mortuary temple and position of the subsidiary pyramid." Ibid., p, 27.
[1910] For a dated document on `the recently discovered Pyramid of Pepi II (Meren-ra) of the 6th Dynasty at Sakkara' see PSBA, June 1881, p. 111-116. The inscription on his sarcophagus was read then as : "The living Horus, life of diadems, king of upper and lower Egypt, life of diadems Meren-ra the double or second golden hawk Meren-ra the heir of Kheb Meren-ra, the great god lord of the horizon Meren-ra living like the sun." The lengthy hieroglyphic pyramid text is also featured beginning on page 124.
[1920] Everistus Mader, `Mambre - Die Ergebnisse der Ausgrabungen im heiligen Bezirk Ramet El-Halil in Südpalästina', Mit Erlaubnis der Ordensobern, München, 15. April, 1957. Mit Kirchlicher Druckerlaubnis, Freiburg im Breisgau, 27. April, 1957. - Hier ist ein Beispiel wie die katholische Kirche Gedankengut zu beeinfliessen sucht. Here is an example how the Katholik Church seeks to influence what people think.
[1925] The imagery of the lifted up brass serpent is used by Jesus in his discussion with the nightly visitor Nicodemus to explain to him that "... the brass serpent had the appearance of a serpent but lacked its venom, so too, when Christ would be lifted up upon the bars of the Cross, He would have the appearance of a sinner and yet be without sin." [John 3:14-21; Fulton J. Sheen, `Life of Christ', p. 90.]
[1950] A History of Egypt (Uni. of Chicago Press, 1954), 147. Emphasis added.
[1960] As quoted by Lemonick, op. cit.
[1970] Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del Centro, 1993), 76. Emphasis added. `Jebel el Lawz' in even newer discoveries.
[1975] Thus he would re-locate the Exodus about 500-600 years too early.
[1977] Indeed, Anati is far from being a biblical 'literalist'. He does not baulk at rejecting as fact a given statement of Scripture for which he himself can find no factual evidence. Moreover, he appears to follow the liberal "Documentary Hypothesis" of scriptural interpretation. Har Karkom, 22.
[1978] op. cit. That the biblical route for the Exodus went nowhere near the Red Sea is apparent from Anati's examination of the geography of it in The Mountain of God, however, new information detemined that `Nuweiba Beach' is the spot where the crossing occured.
[1979] Actually, there may be a somewhat logical progression to the 10 plagues, from: health/insect related: water turns to blood/red, frogs, lice, flies, murrain (infected boil); weather related: hail; health/insect related continued: locusts, darkness, firstborn. More on the frogs plague. The Egyptians believed that before the world was formed, there was a watery mass of dark, directionless chaos. In this chaos lived the Ogdoad of Khmunu (Hermopolis), four frog gods and four snake goddesses of chaos. These deities were Nun and Naunet (water), Amen and Amaunet (invisibility), Heh and Hauhet (infinity) and Kek and Kauket (darkness). The water stretched infinitely off in all directions, as ever lasting as time itself. Heh and Hauhet came to symbolise infinity. After the Egyptians believed that time began, Heh and Hauhet came to symbolise limitless time, and long life.[http://www.touregypt.net/magazine/godsofancientegypt.htm] According to Budge quoting Lanzone 853, Rec. 3,65, IV, 224, Heqit was the Frog-goddess, a goddess of reproduction and resurrection. He wrote: `On a Christian lamp in the form of a frog is the Greek inscription, "Egw eimi anastasis. (`I shall depart' or `I come again.')"' [E.A.W.Budge, An Egyptian Hieroglyphic Dictionary, Vol. I, p. 514, column A. Heqit was created by Thoth as one of the eight primordial deities of creation (Amen, Amenet, Heq, Heqet, Nun, Naunet, Kau, Kauket). Comment: Some may see in the Egyptan frog symbol, product of their holy Nile, the idea of immortality by reason of its plentious laying of eggs, the frogs future is assured. Conversly to being a goddess of resurrection she may have been also the goddess of immortality.
[1982] As quoted by Lemonick, op. cit.
[1984] Down, D., "Dr. Cohen Identifies the Mysterious MBI People", Diggings No.9 (September, 1992), 7. See also the article by the same title and the accompanying color images in BAR, Vol. IX, No. 4, July/ August 1983, p. 16-29.
[1986] `The Exodus Problem', Vol. 1, esp. ch's IX, X, XIII.
[1988] Down, Ibid.
[1989] Velikovsky, I., Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, pp. 35-29. - - Other scholars like Gardiner concluded that the `Admonitions of Ipuwer' (Leiden Papyrus) referred to conditions under the 10th dynasty and therefore should not have been written under the 12th. (Gardiner, `Egypt of the Pharaohs', p. 111). Now that is interesting since Velikovsky and John Van Seeters dated the papyrus to the 2nd Intermediate Period (JEA, 50, 1964, 13-23), the view received the support of William Albright (BASOR, 179, 1965, 40f.; BA, 36, 1973, 30), as well as being corroborated independently by some later researchers.
[1990] Rosalie Davis, `Source', xxx. Peter Clayton wrote in `Chronicle of the Pharaohs': "Kahun was like an Egyptian Pompeii since it seems to have been suddenly abandoned, with many possessions left behind." p. 83.
[2000] Op. cit., pp. 34-39.
[2020] Ibid., 279 (Check).
[2030] Ibid., 279-280.
[2050] Amelia B. Edwards, Egyptologist, wrote in her book, 'A Thousand Miles up the Nile,' pages 97-99: "And this is all that remains of Memphis, eldest of cities: a few rubbish heaps, a dozen or so of broken statues, and a name! . . . Where are the stately ruins that even in the Middle Ages extended over a space estimated at half a day's journey in every direction? One can hardly believe that a great city ever flourished on this spot or can hardly understand how it should have been effaced so utterly." Ezekiel 30:13 says: "Thus says the Lord Jehova: I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of Noph (Memphis); and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egypt.."
[2055] Grimal, 185.
Notes and References Part C
[2100] "Are the Bible's Stories True?" (Christmas, 1995).
[2110] Ibid., 54.
[2160] "Abraham to Hezekiah: An Archaeological Revision", C&AH, Vol.V, pt.2 (CA, July, 1983), 71.
[2190] See latest Archaeological Diggings (October 2002). Opinion of archaeologists working in the Negev.
[2200] "New Archaeological Dates for the Israelite Conquest" C&AH, Vol.X, pt.1 (CA, Jan., 1988), 5-7.
[2240] Ibid., 7.
[2250] Ibid., 7.
[2260] Ibid., 7.
[2270] Milt Machlin, Joshua's Altar', p. 94.; Presents the large, ancient looking `Elon Moreh (Oak {terebinth}of Moreh)' between Gerrizim and Shechem (B&W image provided), Genesis 35:4; Joshua 24:26. States when the bole of an oak is killed the root system remains alive and sends up sprouts which spread over an area and can grow many oak trees as something that might be alluded to in Job 14:7-9.
[2300] See his Har Karkom in the Light of New Discoveries (Edizioni del Centro, 1993).
[2320] Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August 1983. The full title of this article is: "The Mysterious Middle Bronze I People. Does the Exodus Tradition in the Middle East Preserve the Memory of their Entry into Canaan?"
Down, D., "Dr. Cohen Identifies the Mysterious MBI People", Diggings No.9 (September, 1992), 2-7.
[2330] Albright, W., The Archaeology of Palestine (Penguin Books, 1960), 87. Albright, of course, was not intending to identify the MBI people with the Israelites.
[2370] Op. cit., 72-74.
[2450] Not the cities of Pentapolis (Genesis 19) as is sometimes thought.
[2460] See Osgood's detailed treatment of this in "Times of the Judges - Archaeology", EN Tech J., Vol.2 (1986), 65-68.
[2490] Kenyon, K., Archaeology in the Holy Land (London, 1960), 134. Kenyon referred to the MBI people as Early Bronze-Middle Bronze. Emphasis added.
[2510] The Exodus Problems and its Ramifications, I, 88.
[2520] The Mountain of God, 280. Emphasis added.
[2600] Op. cit., 11-12.
[2700] Ibid., 9, 13.
[2730] See e.g. T. Lawrences's "Shiloh", SIS Workshop, Vol.6, No.3 (Feb., 1986), 9.
[2740] "The Conquest of Canaan & the Revised Chronology", SIS Review Vol.I, No.3 (Summer 1976), 5-6.
[2800] Ibid., Ref#2740.
[2820] Ibid., 3.
[2840] Ibid., 6-7.
[2860] "The Hyksos and the Archaeology of Palestine", SIS Review Vol.II (1977), 60.
[2870] Ibid., Ref. #2860.
[2870] Conquest of Canaan, 6.
[2940]&[2950] "The Dating of Hammurabi", Proc. of the 3rd Seminar of Catastrophism & Ancient History (C&AH Press, Toronto, 1986), 18-19. Another reading of `Agade' is Agama, the center of Sargon I.'s kingdom located on the site of Agane and mentioned by Ptolemy and by the Talmudic writers. Telling the lecture by W. St. C. Boscawan:
"The author then pointed out the importance of Babylonian history of this period, and showed the high position which the Semitic traders had attained to in the profits of the empire. He pointed out how the Semitic dynasty of Sargon, which was mainly composed of settlers of Arab descent, who had become influenced by Akkadian culture and taken to settled agricultural habits, still retained both the marked Semitic characteristics of war and trade. A sketch was then given of the Elamite and Kassite dynasties by whom the Semitic line was overthrown. The author then pointed out that there could be little doubt, that at that period, when there was the great struggle between Semitic and Non-Semitic races in Babylonia, ending in the defeat of the latter, that the Hebrew migration took place." Sargon I. is conventionally dated to ca. 2300 BC. Transferring these events to the time of the Judges (Judges 3:8) would allow interesting insights relating to the effects of the Israelite tribes spreading out in Canaan and where previous peoples might have gone to.[PSBA, Jun 1879, p. 45.]
If this revision is correct, then no longer can the story of Sargon's being placed in the water as a child be seen as the paradigm for the tale of baby Moses.
|
|
Furthermore, mention of this term is made by Shu-Sin of Ur in his fourth year name and in the time of Gudea. "Tidanum a mountain district of Amurru" .... - Poebel also connects this form with the Biblical Dedan .... Finally and most interestingly, an "assembly of Didanu" .... is mentioned in a kinglist of Ugarit recently treated by K.A. Kitchen. He proposes that Didanu was a shared common ancestor with Assyria and Babylon's Amorite tradition.
"... 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." [
for 'seed' in the sense of 'child, son' [e.g. mw ntry 'divine water' of So-and-so = 'divine son'].
, that is, 'not recognising' what Joseph had done for Egypt. 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" [
Crawl out of this tomb
Previous
Above
Below
Next