Career of Moses re-writes ancient Egyptian dynasties

by Damien F. Mackey When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit. Fourth Dynasty What makes the Fourth Dynasty particularly appealing, from a biblical point of view, is that the Fourth Dynasty was a pyramid-building dynasty. Back in antiquity, historians then claimed that slaves built the great pyramids of Egypt, a theory not at all popular today: The pyramids of Giza were not built by slaves - Australian Associated Press (aap.com.au) How the pyramids of Giza were built remains one of Egypt’s biggest mysteries but Macquarie University Egyptologist Dr Karin Sowada told AAP FactCheck, that archaeological evidence shows the pyramids were not built by slaves. That misconception began with the Ancient Greek historian Herodotus and later continued with Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, who both claimed that slaves, Hebrew or otherwise, built the pyramids. …. Dr Karin Sowada might need to re-examine that “misconception”. But can the Fourth Dynasty be adequately matched to the life of Moses? Its list of rulers is generally given as follows: 1 Sneferu 2 Khufu 3 Djedefre 4 Khafre 5 Menkaure 6 Shepseskaf Six rulers, of whom several are poorly known. Those who seek to find a biblical match in relationship to ancient dynasties tend uncritically to accept the king lists as they stand, and will then try to force-fit the biblical data. We have seen this approach in the case of the Book of Tobit and the neo-Assyrian king-list. And, again, in the case of the Book of Daniel and the neo-Babylonian (Chaldean) king list. When the Bible is forcedly contoured to the king-lists it just does not fit. But when the king-lists are subjected to the cobalt gaze of biblical scrutiny, we learn that the received history needs to undergo a significant revision. That is because the king-lists generally contain duplicates, sometimes series of duplicates. On this, see e. g. my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Might this pattern also apply to the era of Moses? Might we be looking to fit the Book of Exodus, for instance, alongside an erratic king list? In my article: Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus (DOC) Moses, Egypt, Kings before the Exodus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I detected what I considered to be several potential duplicates within the Fourth Dynasty’s king-list arrangement. Before discussing that, however, let us consider what dynastic structure we might expect from the biblical data. According to the Book of Exodus, Moses was born during the reign of an oppressive ‘new king who knew not Joseph’ (1:8). When Moses grew up, he, at forty years of age, fled from a ruler of Egypt to the land of Midian, and sojourned there for another forty years. At the end of that period, Moses was informed that all the men who were seeking his life had died. What is clear from this information, albeit meagre, is that a new dynasty came into being some time prior to the birth of Moses, and that that dynasty had terminated not long prior to his return to Egypt from the land of Midian. Moses was now eighty years of age. This means that, if the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt is the dynasty of Moses’s birth and sojourn in Midian, it must have spanned roughly a century, and then died out before the Plagues and Exodus events occurring under a different dynastic ruler, who had no particular a priori grudge against Moses and Aaron. Conventionally, the Fourth Dynasty of Egypt spanned a little bit more than a century - close to according with the biblical data - estimated at from c. 2615 to c. 2495 BC. These dates will, of course, in a Mosaïc context, need to be lowered by about a millennium. Traditionally, two major kings figure in this part of Moses’ life: namely, 1. the “new king”, whose daughter, “Merris”, saved the baby Moses from the water; and 2. the husband of “Merris”, “Chenephres”. The latter, “Chenephres”, seems to have had the same sort of jealous and inimical attitude towards Moses as King Saul will have towards David. This traditional information (from the Jew, Artapanus) now gives me further confidence that I am on the right track in designating the Fourth Dynasty as that of Moses’s first 80 years. For it provide us with the perfect trio of (a) Cheops (Khufu), now as the initial oppressor-king of Exodus 1:8; his celebrated successor (b) Chephren (Khafre), the husband of (c) Meresankh. The name fits are very good, allowing for Greek transliterations of Egyptian: Chephren becomes the traditional “Chenephres”, husband of Meresankh, who is simply “Merris” with an Ankh, who is said to have saved the baby Moses (as according to Artapanus). It makes sense for Chephren to have been the inimical king from whom Moses fled to Midian. This reconstruction necessitates an alteration to the first part of the king list (1-4): 1 Sneferu 2 Khufu 3 Djedefre 4 Khafre Four kings now needing to become two. While Chephren (Khufu) stands firm here as the second oppressive ruler in the life of Moses, Cheops, however, I would merge with both Snofru and Djedefre, as follows: SNEFERU (SNOFRU) This (somewhat semi-legendary) ruler seems to me to connect well with Cheops in various ways. For instance (the pages are taken from N. Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt): Great “legendary” reputation – good natured P. 67 .... Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later [?] periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king who later Egyptian rulers … sought to emulate when they were attempting to legitimize their power. P. 70 Cheops ... is portrayed in [Papyrus Westcar] as the traditional legendary oriental monarch, good-natured, and eager to be shown magical things, amiable towards his inferiors and interested in the nature of human existence. Cult figure P. 67 Snofru’s enviable reputation with later rulers, which according to the onomastica was increased by his great popularity with the people, even led to the restoration of Snofru’s mortuary temple at Dahshur. P. 69 ... cult among Middle Kingdom miners in the Sinai. P. 165 There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara. P. 70 Cheops was not remembered as fondly as Snofru, although his funerary cult was still attested in the Saite (Twenty-Sixth) Dynasty and he was increasingly popular in the Roman period. According to Papyrus Westcar, he liked to listen to fantastic stories of the reigns of his predecessors. Meresankh (“Merris”) P. 170 Snofru is also associated with a Meresankh, though she is considered to be his mother. P. 67 [She was] one of Huni’s concubines. There is no definite proof of this .... Meresankh will become something of a golden thread, linking the traditional “Merris” of Moses’ childhood to the 4th Dynasty (Meresankh) …. Like his alter ego Cheops, P. 67 [Snofru’s] reign ... appears to have been both glorious and long-lasting (perhaps as much as forty years). Snofru built ... ships, fortresses, palaces and temples ... Three pyramids. If Snofru were Cheops, as I am arguing, then Snofru’s three pyramids - built perhaps early in his reign - would have been the perfect preparation for his later masterpiece, the Great Pyramid at Giza. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sneferu “Under Sneferu [Snofru], there was a major evolution in monumental pyramid structures, which would lead to Khufu's Great Pyramid, which would be seen as the pinnacle of the Egyptian Old Kingdom's majesty and splendour, and as one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World”. Less positive picture of the king P. 71 ... it is difficult to accommodate within this theory [building immoderation = unpopularity] the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors. Pp. 69-70 [Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule, and Herodotus’ version of events chose to emphasise his cruelty. Taken from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2120.htm 124. ... Cheops became king over them and brought them to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length. Moreover: 126. Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me); but she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to her to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length. …. DJEDEFRE “Djedefre …. His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates, or a longer period … sixty-three years … suggested by Manetho …”. N. Grimal Here I am taking Cheops’ presumed son, Djedefre, to be Cheops himself. Continuing on with N. Grimal: P. 71 The first [presumed son of Cheops] was Djedefre (Didufri or Radjedef) …. His personality and his reign are still obscure; it is not even possible to say whether he reigned for only eight years, as the Turin Canon indicates, or a longer period (without going as far as the sixty-three years suggested by Manetho). I find it most interesting that Grimal had written almost identically (just before this) re the reign length of Cheops: “It is not even known whether Cheops’ reign lasted for twenty-three years, as the Turin Canon suggests, or sixty-three years, which is the length ascribed to him by Manetho”. A possible sixty-three years of reign each! https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedefre/ “It is also notable that [Djedefre] managed to complete his pyramid at Abu Rawash, which was a sizable monument and so a reign of only eight years is perhaps unlikely”. P. 72 The place of Djedefre in the royal family, particularly his relationship with his half-brother [sic] Chephren who succeeded him on the throne, is unclear. His mother’s name is unknown, but he is thought to have married his half-sister Hetepheres …. Appropriately: p. 67: “… [Snofru] would have married … Hetepheres …”. And (p. 72) “Meresankh”, also appropriately to my reconstruction, “married Chephren …”. Pp. 73-74 The rift between the reigns of Djedefre and Chephren was probably not as great as scholars have often suggested, and there was in fact no real ideological contrast between the two kings: On the contrary, Chephren seems to have pursued the same theological course as his predecessor pursued: he continued to bear the title of ‘son of Ra’ and also developed, in a masterly fashion, the theological statement of Atum’s importance vis-à-vis Ra, which had already been emphasized by Djedefre. Whilst there may be no solid “evidence” to indicate that Djedefre had killed his own brother: https://mathstat.slu.edu/~bart/egyptianhtml/kings%20and%20Queens/Djedefre.html “There are stories about that Djedefre killed his brother and then grabbed the throne. There is no evidence for this theory however. It seems that Prince Kawab died during the reign of his father and was buried in a mastaba in Giza”, Djedefre himself may have been murdered: http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/ “Djedefre later married. He was later succeeded by his brother Khafre, and one theory is that Khafre killed Djedefre …”. http://anthropology.msu.edu/anp455-fs14/2014/10/09/djedefre/ I suspect that kings 5-6 of the list are a duplicate set of, respectively, Cheops and Chephren: 5 Menkaure 6 Shepseskaf MENKAURE Menkaure, or Mycerinus may have been, similarly to Cheops, disrespectful to his daughter: https://analog-antiquarian.net/2019/01/11/chapter-1-the-charlatan-and-the-gossip/ Legend had it that Menkaure had a daughter who was very special to him. One version of the tale said that she died of natural causes, whereupon in his grief he had a life-size wooden cow gilt with gold built as a repository for her remains. This, Herodotus claimed, could still be seen in his time in the city of Sais, “placed within the royal palace in a chamber which was greatly adorned; and they offer incense of all kinds before it every day, and each night a lamp burns beside it all through the night. Every year it is carried forth from the chamber, for they say that she asked of her father Mykerinos, when she was dying, that she might look upon the sun once in the year. …. Another, darker version of the tale had it that Menkaure had been rather too enamored of his daughter. She sought refuge from his unwelcome advances with his concubines, but they betrayed her, and her father proceeded to “ravish” her. She hanged herself in the aftermath, whereupon a remorse-stricken Menkaure buried her in the gilt cow and her mother the queen cut off the hands of the concubines who had betrayed her. This explained why, in a chamber near that of the cow in Herodotus’s time, there stood many statues of women with the hands lopped off, “still lying at their feet even down to my time. …. A distinct pattern seems to be emerging and it will become even more evident in later articles. It is that the founding Egyptian ruler, say (Snofru or) Cheops, is duplicated again in the king-list, as, say, Djedefre, but then recurs again yet further on. In this case (c) it will be Menkaure. This same pattern may be discerned (if I am right) in the 4th; 6th; and 12th dynasties. Returning to N. Grimal: P. 74 … Menkaure (‘Stable are the kau of Ra’), or, to take Herodotus’ transcription, Mycerinus. We recall Menkaure’s allegedly shameful treatment of his own daughter, reminiscent of Cheops’ own prostituting of his daughter, at least according to Herodotus. Grimal continues: “Manetho is uncertain about the length of his reign, which was probably eighteen years rather than twenty-eight”. Whilst this reign span may not accord so well with some of our longer-reigning (say forty years) alter egos, it is fascinating, nonetheless, that Phouka http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/05menkaure.html also has for Menkaure a Manethonian figure of sixty-three years, a figure that we have already met in the case of two other of our alter egos, Cheops and Djedefre. Whether or not our composite king, (Snofru)-Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure really reigned for a colossal 63 years (which is most unlikely in an Exodus context, even if he well preceded Moses’s birth), the attribution of the same extensive reign to three names that I have fused together as the one grandiloquent monarch gives me further confidence in my reconstruction. SHEPSESKAF The poorly known Shepseskaf (Shepseskaf - Wikipedia) Shepseskaf's family is uncertain. Egyptologist George Andrew Reisner proposed that Shepseskaf was Menkaure's son based on a decree mentioning that Shepseskaf completed Menkaure's mortuary temple. This, however, cannot be considered a solid proof of filiation since the decree does not describe the relationship between these two kings. Furthermore, the completion of the tomb of a deceased pharaoh by his successor does not necessarily depend on a direct father/son relation between the two. …. The mother, wives and children of Shepseskaf are unknown. …. Who I think (without much investigation) is probably just a duplicate of Khafre (Kaf-Shepses), does not really affect this reconstruction. Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty dies out while Moses was still in Midian. Its last ruler was actually (so I believe) an un-recorded for (this dynasty) female ruler. Fifth Dynasty Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”. If, as posited in my earlier discussion, Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, revised, fits promisingly as being the dynastic period of rule from the approximate childhood of Moses through to his sojourn in Midian, then, chronologically, the Fifth Dynasty, which supposedly followed the Fourth, must coincide with the return to Egypt by Moses; the Plagues; and the Exodus. None of this is at all evident during the Fifth Dynasty, however, which was a phase of intense building and supposed innovations – not one of extreme chaos. Thus, for instance, at: http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/5th-dynasty/index.html we read about this impressive dynasty (we can immediately ignore, though, the inflated dates given here): 5th Dynasty (2465-2323) Compared to the previous dynasties, the 5th Dynasty is fairly well known. All kings noted in the king-lists and by Manetho are attested by archaeological sources. This is largely due to the increased amount of documents from this period. This dynasty has brought some significant changes and innovations to the Egyptian society. First of all, the rising importance of the solar cult, already noted for the 4th Dynasty, came to a climax. Except for the last two of this dynasty, all kings built a so-called solar temple. Two such solar temples have been found and have proven to be quite unique buildings. The first solar temple, at Abusir, to the north of Saqqara, was built by Userkaf and extended by Neferirkare and Niuserre. The only other remaining one, was built by Niuserre at Abu Gorab, north of Abusir. The names of the other solar temples are known, but they have not yet been identified. …. Probably due to a shift in religious views, the building of solar temples came to a sudden stop with the reign of Djedkare. A second innovation only came at the end of the dynasty, with the reign of king Unas, who was the first to have religious texts, known today as Pyramid Texts, inscribed in the burial chamber, antechamber and part of the entrance corridor of his pyramid at Saqqara. It is not impossible that the appearance of these texts is related to the disappearance of the solar temples. …. On an architectural level, we not only note the building of the solar temples, but also a standardisation in the building of pyramid complexes. Most kings built their pyramid complex at Abusir, near the solar temple of Userkaf, who had built his own pyramid at Saqqara. The organisation and number of rooms in the pyramid, the buildings outside the pyramid and the rooms inside these buildings would more and more become part of a canon. We also note that the pyramids are significantly smaller than those of the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. This has often been explained by the more limited resources available to the 5th Dynasty kings. Against this view, it should be observed that most of the 5th Dynasty kings no longer appeared to limit their building efforts to a pyramid complex and that the complexes were often beautifully decorated. The Ancient Egyptian penchant for standardisation may also explain the smaller pyramids. The royal titulary was also extended and would from this dynasty on consist of 5 sets of titles. Although it was first used by 4th Dynasty king Djedefre, the title Son of Re would become an important part of the titulary. It was followed by the king's personal name and links him directly to the solar cult. The older titles, the so-called Horus- and Nebti-names, would still be part of the titulary. From the beginning of this dynasty on, we also note an increase in the number of high officials. Contrary to the 4th Dynasty, high offices were now no longer restricted to members of the royal family. Government and administration were reformed and this resulted in a far more efficient bureaucracy through which the king could control the country. The larger number of dignitaries also resulted in more documentation left to us and this is one of the reasons why we know more of this dynasty then of the previous one. Despite all these changes, the 5th Dynasty may have been closely related to the 4th. The Turin King-list lists the kings of this dynasty immediately after those of the 4th, without marking any change. The founder of this dynasty, Userkaf, is believed to have been a descendant of Kheops, perhaps directly or through marriage. The story noted on the Papyrus Westcar, however, makes Userkaf the brother of his two successors and the son of a priest of Re and a woman named Radjedet. Archaeological sources contradict this view, which has been held for true by many Egyptologists. The story is likely to have been intended to explain the close relationship between the 5th Dynasty and the solar cult. [End of quote] Some things here, though, are just not quite right. Most significantly, four of the known six sun temples of the so-called Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”. I wrote about this sensational fact in my article: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (DOC) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, just as I suspect that evolution’s missing link will forever remain missing, so do I believe the same to be the case with the missing temples of the Fifth Dynasty. That would not be music to the ears of Jeff Burzacott, “The missing sun temples of Abusir”: https://www.nilemagazine.com.au/2015-5-june-archive/2015/6/9/the-missing-sun-temples-of-abu-sir There are some sun temples out there somewhere. Abusir is one of the large cemeteries of the Old Kingdom kings, around 16 kilometres south of the famous Great Pyramids of Giza. Although the history of the Abusir necropolis began in the 2nd Dynasty, it wasn't until King Userkaf, the first ruler of the Fifth Dynasty, chose to build here that the Abusir skyline changed forever. What Userkaf built here wasn't a pyramid; he nestled his final resting place close to the world's first pyramid, that of Djoser at Saqqara. What Userkaf raised at Abusir was something new - a sun temple. The sun temple was a large, squat obelisk, raised on a grand pedestal, and connected with the worship of the setting sun. Each day the sun sank below the western horizon into the Underworld where it faced a dangerous journey before rising triumphantly, reborn at dawn. It was a powerful symbol of cyclical resurrection. The obelisk shape is likely symbolic of the sacred benben stone of Heliopolis, which represented the primeval mound, the first land to rise from the waters of Nun at the dawn of time, and where creation began. This was the centre of the cosmos. For the next 70 years, Abusir was a hive of activity as the pyramids of Userkaf's sons, Sahure (rightmost pyramid) and Neferirkare, (leftmost pyramid), as well as his grandson, Niuserre (centre) raised their own step pyramids and sun temples there. Buried in the Abusir sand are also the barely-started pyramids of Fifth Dynasty pharaohs whose short-lived reigns saw their grand monuments hastily sealed, just a few courses of stone above the desert. Six sun temples are mentioned in inscriptions, although only the ruins of Userkaf's and Niuserre's have been discovered. Hopefully, buried out there somewhere lay four more sun temples, waiting to feel Ra's rays once again. [End of quote] Can we get further if we proceed, as was done with Egypt’s famous Fourth Dynasty, by patterning the Fifth Dynasty around the early era of Moses? There may already be clues to this end in the ancient-egypt.org “5th Dynasty …” article above. For example: Its solar cult already apparent in the 4th dynasty; a bunch of missing solar temples – suggesting, to me, a duplication of kings; the geography of Fifth Dynasty buildings, Saqqara, Abusir, complementing the 4th dynasty’s Giza – as if all built in alignment; continuation of pyramid building; royal titulary, “son of Re”, simply a continuation of its use by 4th dynasty’s Djedefre; close relationship between 4th and 5th dynasties. In the case of the Fourth Dynasty, it was a matter of dealing with six king names. These were ultimately reduced to only two. Now, with the Fifth Dynasty, we are confronted with an imposing nine names. 1 Userkef 2 Sahure 3 Neferirkare Kakai 4 Neferefre (Neferkhau) 5 Shepseskare Ini 6 Neuserre Izi 7 Menkhauhor Kaiu 8 Djedkare Isesi 9 Unas That there must be extensive duplications amongst this list, though, suggests itself to me by the fact that only two of the six sun temples have been found. Are we again, therefore, looking at only two kings amongst the multitude of names? My own view is that the two great rulers of the Fourth Dynasty, Cheops and Chephren, built their massive pyramids at Giza, but also smaller ones at Abusir and Saqqara, along with their two sun temples at, respectively, Abu Gorab and Abusir. Neuserre Izi, who built his sun temple at Abu Gorab, would then be the Re-named first king, Cheops-previously-fused-with-Djedefre-Menkaure. Whilst Userkaf, who built his sun temple at Abusir, would then be the Khaf-named second king, Khafre-previously-fused-with-Shepseskaf. Khafre, Shepseskaf, may likewise have been married to a Khamerernebti. Now, as the older Neuserre extended Userkaf’s sun temple, as we read above, so, as we have read before, (the younger) “Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/ We also read above that Neferirkare, too, extended Userkaf’s sun temple. Something of a pattern is now beginning to emerge: Cheops-Menkaure (4th dynasty) Neferirkare-Neuserre (5th dynasty) Chephren-Khafre Userkaf And we can probably add these three pairs of similar names: Djedefre (4th dynasty) Djedkare Isesi (= Izi for Neuserre) (5th dynasty) Menkaure Menkauhor (= Neferkhau?) Shepseskaf Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?) That covers all but Sahure, another of those Re-names. Sixth Dynasty Previously I may have lain the foundations for linking Egypt’s mighty pyramid-building Fourth Dynasty with the Sixth Dynasty, and indeed with the Twelfth Dynasty (to be considered later). Linking the 4th, 6th … dynasties? We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. “Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”. Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”. I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh. “We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”. … From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be an excellent candidate for the “new king” during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour. The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Egypt’s ruler would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. [End of quote] In preceding sections it has been shown that Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, that Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty, can be contoured to the life of Moses, from his birth to his exile in Midian. Basically I determined that, despite the multiplicity of royal names, there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs. Now, can the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt likewise be adequately matched to the life of Moses? Its list of rulers is generally given as follows: 1 Teti 2 Userkare 3 Pepi I 4 Merenre I 5 Pepi II 6 Merenere II 7 Netjerkare Siptah (Nitocris) Again as in the case of the Fourth Dynasty, six rulers are listed, of whom several are poorly known. Very little is known about Userkare, for instance, and the ephemeral ruler Merenre II. And the list concludes with, appropriately, the female ruler, Nitoctris. So, immediately, I would be inclined to look for alter egos for the two poorly attested rulers, Userkare and Merenre II. And here we may establish a link. Merenre II follows in a tradition of murdered kings of (Old-Middle) Egypt, including Djedefre, purportedly killed by Khafre (as we have previously noted); Teti; and Amenemes I. Merenre II | ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merenre II - AskAladdin (ask-aladdin.com) “According to Herodotus, Merenre II was murdered. This Greek historian had recorded a legend where an Egyptian Queen named Nitocris avenged her brother as well as husband's murder by drowning all the murderers in [a] pre-arranged banquet. The name of the brother and husband was allegedly Nemtyemsaf II (Merenre II)”. Merenre II now connects with the composite dynasty founder: Cheops-Djedefre-Menkaure (Fourth); Neferirkare-Neuserre-Menkauhor-Djedkare (Fifth); Teti; Merenre (Sixth) There appears to be a triple series of duplicates in the conventional Sixth Dynasty list, with the proper sequence inverted from numbers 3-6. I would suggest the following re-ordering: Dynastic founder: Teti-Merenre I-II (murdered) Second king: Userkare-Pepi I-II Female ruler: Nitocris. Once again, as with the Fourth Dynasty (and probably the Fifth), “there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs”. The obscure Userkare now becomes an alter ego of Userkaf (Fifth), and of the far more substantial Pepi I-II (Sixth), who is Chephren-Khafre (Fourth). Thus: Chephren-Khafre-Shepseskaf (Fourth); Userkaf-Shepseskare Ini (= Unas?) (Fifth); Userkare-Pepi I-II Twelfth Dynasty “… the Amen-em-hat [I] who was the FOUNDER OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY … makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN, and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits”. History of Ancient Egypt Eduard Meyer, the father of the “Sothic” theory mangling, was one (amongst many) who would deny the very existence of Moses and his work. We read this information in the Preface to Martin Buber’s book, Moses (1946): “In the year 1906 Eduard Meyer, a well-known historian, ex¬pressed the view that Moses was not a historical personality. He further remarked”: After all, with the exception of those who accept tradition bag and baggage as historical truth, not one of those who treat [Moses] as a historical reality has hitherto been able to fill him with any kind of content whatever, to depict him as a concrete historical figure, or to produce anything which he could have created or which could be his historical work. …. One could reply to this that, thanks to Berlin School Meyer’s own confusing rearrangement of Egyptian chronology, an artificial ‘Berlin Wall’ has been raised preventing scholars from making the crossing between the text book Egyptology and a genuine biblical history and archaeology. Admittedly Moses - not a native Egyptian, but a Hebrew fully educated in Egyptian wisdom (Acts 7:22): “Moses was educated in all the wisdom of the Egyptians and was powerful in speech and action” - has been most difficult for historians to identify in the Egyptian records. Impossible for conventional historians (thanks to the likes of Eduard Meyer), who will always be searching in the wrong historico-archaeological period, but also difficult for revisionists. According to John D. Keyser (http://www.hope-of-israel.org/dynastyo.html): Some say the Israelites labored in Egypt during the 6th Dynasty; while others claim the dynasty of the oppression was the 19th. Still others proclaim the 18th to be the one -- or the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt!” Keyser then concludes: “By turning to the Bible and examining the works of early historians, the dynasty of the oppression becomes very apparent to those who are seeking the TRUTH with an open mind! Keyser’s theory here is sound. However, it turns out to be much more difficult to realise in practice. Concerning “the period of the Hyksos rulers of Egypt”, mentioned here by Keyser, there is at least one very good reason why some have fastened onto it. It is because chariots - seemingly lacking to early Egypt - are thought to have become abundant at the time of the Hyksos conquest (c. 1780 BC, conventional dating). The Pharaoh of the Exodus, we are told, pursued the fleeing Israelites with 600 war chariots (Exodus 14:7): “[Pharaoh] took six hundred of the best chariots, along with all the other chariots of Egypt, with officers over all of them”. That incident would have occurred in 1533 BC according to P. Mauro’s estimate (The Wonders of Bible Chronology) - a date estimate that will ultimately need significant lowering in light of a revised Persian-Greek history. Yet, about two centuries earlier than that, we find Joseph riding in “a chariot” (Genesis 41:43): “[Pharaoh] had [Joseph] ride in a chariot as his second-in-command, and people shouted before him, ‘Make way!’ Thus he put him in charge of the whole land of Egypt”. A plausible explanation for Joseph’s “chariot” can be found at: https://josephandisraelinegypt.wordpress.com/tag/merkabah/ The enigma of chariots in the 3rd dynasty of Egypt is easily explained …. The Bible records that Joseph was given a chariot to travel through Egypt. If Joseph and Imhotep were the same person, this would mean that chariots existed in Egypt as early as the third dynasty. In the third dynasty, only high officials like the pharaoh and his chancellor / sage / vizier were afforded a chariot to travel in. Chariots in the 3rd dynasty were not horse drawn, they were carried by a procession of servants. The Hebrew word ‘merkabah’ in the Bible can be translated as ‘chariot’ or ‘riding seat’. It does not distinguish between a vehicle that is horse drawn or a vehicle that is carried. In Joseph’s time, this word is better translated as ‘Riding Seat’ as there were no horse drawn Chariots with wheels in the third dynasty. …. It is what we might call a palanquin. King Solomon used one (Song of Solomon 3:9): “King Solomon made himself a palanquin [or sedan chair] of the wood of Lebanon”. I presume that when, later, Genesis 50:9, referring to the funeral procession of Jacob, father of Joseph, tells that: “Chariots and horsemen also went up with him. It was a very large company”, we may need still to separate the “chariots” from the “horsemen”. Things would be much more straightforward if we were talking about Mesopotamia for which, by contrast, we have very early evidence of chariots - going back as far as 2500 BC (conventional dating). See e.g.: https://traveltoeat.com/chariots-the-first-wheels-of-war/ Based on the extensive biblical evidence, it should be possible to find abundant traces of Moses both in history and in mythology, for, according to Exodus 11:3: “… the man Moses was very great in the land of Egypt, in the sight of Pharaoh’s servants, and in the sight of the people”. More sympathetic to Moses and the biblical Patriarchs was the Hellenistic Jewish author, Artapanus (C2nd BC, conventional dating), who claimed in περὶ ʾΙουδαίων (“On the Jews”), some extraordinary innovations and inventions by the Patriarchs and Moses, as described at: http://www.encyclopedia.com/religion/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/artapanus The purpose of this work was to prove that the foundations of Egyptian culture were laid by Abraham, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses. When Abraham came to Egypt, he taught the pharaoh (Pharethothes or Pharetones) the science of astrology. Jacob established the Egyptian temples at Athos and Heliopolis. Joseph was appointed viceroy of all Egypt and initiated Egyptian agrarian reforms to ensure that the powerful would not dispossess the weak and the poor of their fields. He was the first to divide the country and demarcate its various boundaries. He turned arid areas into arable land, distributed land among the priests, and also introduced standard measures for which he became popular among the Egyptians (Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica, 9:23). But the one who excelled all was Moses, whom Artapanus identifies with Musaeus, teacher of Orpheus, and with Hermes-Thoth, god of Egyptian writing and culture. The name Hermes was given to Moses by the priests who revered him for his wisdom and paid him divine homage. Moses founded the arts of building, shipping, and weaponry, as well as Egyptian religion and philosophy. He was also the creator of hieroglyphic writing. In addition, he divided the city into 36 wards and assigned to each its god for worship. Moses was the founder of the cult of Apis the Bull and of Ibis. All these accomplishments of Moses aroused the jealousy of King Kheneferis, father of Maris, Moses' foster mother. He tried to kill Moses, but failed. Here, undoubtedly, we have an interesting blend of fantasy and reality. We have previously read that the famous account of baby Moses placed in a basket on the river bank (Exodus 2:2-10) was re-visited later in legends about the mighty Sargon of Akkad, who actually pre-dated Moses by some centuries. At: http://www.genesisproclaimed.org/Content/Detail/7 we read: “The parallel lives of Sargon and Moses are intriguing. Both were born to Semite mothers. Both were placed in reed baskets lined with pitch and set afloat. Both were reared in the homes of non Semites, one Sumerian, the other Egyptian. As young men, both became part of their respective royal courts. Both confronted rulers. And both became mighty leaders over a great nation”. For my explanation of this, see e.g. my article: Did Sargon of Akkad influence the Exodus account of the baby Moses? https://www.academia.edu/35752394/Did_Sargon_of_Akkad_influence_the_Exodus_account_of_the_baby_Moses Background to Birth of Moses About sixty-four (64) years are estimated to have elapsed from the death of Joseph at age 110 (1677 BC) to the birth of Moses (1613 BC): P. Mauro’s dates. That phase of time would probably be sufficient to explain why it is said of the Pharaoh of the Oppression (Exodus 1:8): “Now there arose a new king over Egypt, who did not know Joseph”. The great Imhotep (Joseph) – surely this “new” pharaoh ‘knew’ of him! The Hebrew (לֹא-יָדַע) here, translated as “did not know”, can also mean something along the lines of ‘did not take notice of’, which is not surprising if more than half a century had elapsed. Moreover, as we are going to find out from the testimony of Josephus, the crown of Egypt had at this stage passed into ‘a new family’. King Solomon, though, many centuries later, will be scathing in his Book of Wisdom about the Egyptian ingratitude (19:13-17): On the sinners, however, punishments rained down not without violent thunder as early warning; and they suffered what their own crimes had justly deserved since they had shown such bitter hatred to foreigners. Others, indeed, had failed to welcome strangers who came to them, but the Egyptians had enslaved their own guests and benefactors. The sinners, moreover, will certainly be punished for it, since they gave the foreigners a hostile welcome; but the latter, having given a festive reception to people who already shared the same rights as themselves, later overwhelmed them with terrible labours. Hence they were struck with blindness, like the sinners at the gate of the upright, when, yawning darkness all around them, each had to grope his way through his own door. Another possible explanation is that the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 did not know Joseph because he was a foreign, non-native Egyptian, presumably a dynastic founder - likely the first ruler of the Fourth (Old) and the first ruler of the Twelfth (Middle) kingdom[s]. Beginning with the Fourth Dynasty, the “new king” would be none other than Khufu (Cheops), best-known pharaoh because of his Great Pyramid at Giza (Gizeh). Yet, for all this, he is surprisingly, unknown. In fact, we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu. “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm Thus Khufu, like the seemingly great, yet poorly known, pharaoh Zoser, at the time of Joseph, is crying out for an alter ego. And that we get, quite abundantly, I believe, in the person of Amenemhet [Amenemes] I, the founder of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty, Moses’s dynasty (along with the Fourth; Fifth; and Sixth). John D. Keyser has, with this useful piece of research, arrived at the same conclusion as mine, that Amenemhet I was the Book of Exodus’s “new king” (op. cit.): In the works of Flavius Josephus (1st-century A.D. Jewish historian) we read the following: Now it happened that the Egyptians grew delicate and lazy, as to painstaking; and gave themselves up to other pleasures, and in particular to the love of gain. They also became VERY ILL AFFECTED TOWARDS THE HEBREWS, as touched with envy at their prosperity; for when they saw how the nation of the Israelites flourished, and were become eminent already in plenty of wealth, which they had acquired by their virtue and natural love of labour, they thought their increase was to their own detriment; and having, in length of time, forgotten the benefits they had received from Joseph, PARTICULARLY THE CROWN BEING NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY, they became very abusive to the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; FOR THEY ENJOINED THEM TO CUT A GREAT NUMBER OF CHANNELS [CANALS] FOR THE RIVER [NILE], 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 OWN 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 themselves to hard labour. And FOUR HUNDRED YEARS [sic] did they spend under these afflictions.... (Antiquities of the Jews, chap. IX, section 1). Within this passage from Josephus lie several CLUES that will help us to determine the dynasty of the oppression of the Israelites. The Change of Rulership Josephus mentions that one of the reasons the Egyptians started to mistreat the Israelites was because “THE CROWN [HAD]...NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY.” Does Egyptian history reveal a time when the crown of Egypt passed into the hands of a totally unrelated family? Indeed it does! In the Leningrad museum lies a papyrus of the 12th DYNASTY, composed during the reign of its FIRST KING AMENEMHET I. The papyrus is in the form of a PROPHECY attributed to the sage Nefer-rehu of the time of King Snefru; and in it an amazing prediction is made: A king shall come from the south, called AMUNY [shortened form of the name Amenemhet], the son of a woman of Nubia, and born in Upper Egypt....He shall receive the White Crown, he shall wear the Red Crown [will become ruler over ALL Egypt]....the people of his time shall rejoice, THE SON OF SOMEONE shall make his name for ever and ever....The Asiatics shall fall before his carnage, and the Libyans shall fall before his flame....There shall be built the ‘WALL OF THE PRINCE [RULER],’ and the Asiatics shall not (again) be suffered to go down into Egypt. Here the NON-ROYAL DESCENT of Amenemhet I. is clearly indicated, for the phrase “son of Someone” was a common way of designating a man of good, though not princely or royal, birth. According to George Rawlinson: “There is NO INDICATION OF ANY RELATIONSHIP between the kings of the twelfth and those of the eleventh dynasty; and it is a conjecture not altogether improbable, that the Amen-em-hat who was the FOUNDER OF THE TWELFTH DYNASTY was descended from THE FUNCTIONARY OF THE SAME NAME, who under Mentuhotep II. [of the previous dynasty] executed commissions of importance. At any rate, he makes NO PRETENSION TO ROYAL ORIGIN, and the probability would seem to be that he attained the throne NOT THROUGH ANY CLAIM OF RIGHT, but by his own personal merits. (History of Ancient Egypt. Dodd, Mead and Co., N.Y. 1882, pp.146-147). “His own personal merits” probably included conspiracy: “We have to suppose that at a given moment he CONSPIRED AGAINST HIS ROYAL MASTER [last king of the 11th Dynasty], and perhaps after some years of confusion mounted the throne IN HIS PLACE. A recent discovery lends colour to this hypothesis. A Dyn. XVIII inscription extracted from the third pylon at Karnak names after Nebhepetre and Sankhkare a ‘GOD’S FATHER’ SENWOSRE who from his title can only have been the NON-ROYAL PARENT of Ammenemes I [Greek form of Amenemhet].” (Egypt of the Pharaohs, by Sir Alan Gardiner. Oxford University Press, England. 1961, p.125). The inscriptions on the monuments make it clear that his elevation to the throne of Egypt was no peaceful hereditary succession, but a STRUGGLE for the crown and scepter that continued for some time. He fought his way to the throne, and was accepted as king only because he triumphed over his rivals. After the fight was ended and the towns of Egypt subdued, the new pharaoh began to extend the borders of Egypt. The fact that the 12th Dynasty was a “maverick” dynasty -- one that did not conform to the royal blood line of the pharaohs -- was well known in the 18th Dynasty. According to information provided by the family pedigrees in several tombs of the 18th Dynasty, and by texts engraved or painted on certain objects of a sepulchral nature, the ANCESTOR of the royal family of this dynasty was worshiped in the person of the old Pharaoh MENTUHOTEP OF THE 11th DYNASTY, the 57th king of the great Table of Abydos. The royal family of the 18th Dynasty considered the dynasty of Amenemhet I. to be an aberration! According to Henry Brugsch: “The transmission of the PURE BLOOD of Mentuhotep to the king Amosis (Aahmes) of the EIGHTEENTH DYNASTY was made by the hereditary princess Aahmes-Nofertari (‘the beautiful consort of Aahmes’), who married the said king, and whose issue was regarded as the LEGITIMATE RACE of the Pharaohs of the house of Mentuhotep.” (A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs. Second edition. John Murray, London. 1881, p. 314). Thus, with the ascension of Amenemhet I. of the 12th Dynasty, the crown had “NOW COME INTO ANOTHER FAMILY”. …. The implications of this choice for the “new king”, though, would likely mean that Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty needs to be shortened, as I have long realised. The possibility of any such radical shortening of the Twelfth Dynasty - along the lines of what I have already done for the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth - will be seriously considered as we proceed. I have mentioned Khufu of the Fourth Dynasty, and shall return to him soon, but I find a more ready and striking alter ego for Amenemhet I in the founder of the Sixth Dynasty, Teti. As I have written previously: Starting at the beginning of the 6th dynasty, with pharaoh Teti, we have found that he has such striking likenesses to the founder of the 12th dynasty, Amenemhet (Amenemes) I, that I have had no hesitation in identifying ‘them’ as one. Thus I wrote in my “Bible Bending” article: Pharaoh Teti Reflects Amenemes I …. These characters may have, it seems, been dupli/triplicated due to the messy arrangement of conventional Egyptian history. Further most likely 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 pharaoh Teti - and the fact that they would have him (c. 2300 BC) well pre-dating the early 12th dynasty (c. 1990 BC) - historians have noted that pharaoh 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 similarly through assassination. This triplicity appears to me to be another link between the ‘Old’ and ‘Middle’ kingdoms!” But Amenemhet I combined with Teti - shaping up remarkably well as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - may need further yet to include the alter ego of the Fourth Dynasty’s Khufu. Though, as noted earlier, “we have only one tiny statuette representation of pharaoh Khufu”, that one depiction of him finds a virtual ‘identical twin’ in a statue of Teti I have viewed on the Internet (presuming that this statue has rightly been labelled as Teti’s). Linking the 4th, 6th and 12th dynasties? We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. “Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”. Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”. I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh. “We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”. http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/khafre.htm Apart from neo-Assyrian literature picking up the biblical story of Moses and re-applying it, restrospectively, to Sargon of Akkad, the story would also become enshrined in later Greco-Roman accounts of Egyptian myth. Although, as we have found, the ancient gods tend to have originated from major antediluvian characters - and this may also apply to the Egyptian gods, Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus - Greco-Roman authors were wont to tell variant tales of them. This is not the way “modern biblical scholarship” would explain it, however - as is apparent from the following article by Gary Rendsburg, according to which the Book of Exodus ‘borrowed’ from the pagan myths: http://forward.com/articles/9812/the-subversion-of-myth/ A major finding of modern biblical scholarship is the extent to which the narrative in the book of Exodus is informed by the ancient Israelites’ knowledge of Egyptian culture, religion and literature. The birth story of Moses in Exodus 2:1-10 provides an excellent illustration of both the extent of and the transformation involved in such borrowing. One of the core myths of ancient Egypt concerned the gods Seth, Osiris, Isis and Horus. Seth and Osiris were brother deities, the former representing evil and chaos, the latter representing good and fertility. The battle between the two resulted in the death of Osiris, but before he died Osiris had impregnated his wife, Isis, goddess of wisdom and beauty. Isis in turn gave birth to Horus, the falcon-headed god of kingship. When Seth learned that his brother Osiris’s offspring had been born, he sought to kill the baby Horus. Isis prepared a basket of reeds to hide him in the marshland of the Nile Delta, where she suckled him and protected him, along with the watchful eye of her sister, Nephthys, from the snakes, scorpions and other dangerous creatures until he grew and prospered. Scholars have noted that the birth story of Moses is part of a larger motif of ancient literature, namely the exposed-infant motif. The ancients delighted in telling tales of their heroic leaders who at birth were exposed to nature, usually by their parents who, for one reason or another, did not desire their newborn sons. Among the most famous accounts are the stories of Oedipus from Greece and Romulus and Remus from Rome, along with the less well known but equally important story of Sargon of Akkad (in ancient Mesopotamia). There is a difference, however, between the Moses story and the other exposed-infancy narratives, for in Exodus, chapter two, the goal of Moses’ mother is not to be rid of the child but to save him. This occurs elsewhere in ancient literature only in the story of the baby Horus, whose mother, Isis, sought to protect him from his wicked uncle, Seth. The Hebrew and Egyptian stories share this crucial feature, which is lacking in the other parallels, and therefore beckon us to read the former in the light of the latter. The list of specific features shared by the two accounts is truly remarkable. In both stories, it is the mother who is the active parent (in the Egyptian version, Osiris is dead; in the Hebrew account, Moses’ father is mentioned in passing in Exodus 2:1, after which the role of the mother is highlighted). Both mothers construct a small vessel of reeds and place the baby in the marshland of the Delta. In both accounts, another female relative watches over the baby (Nephthys in the Horus story; Miriam in the biblical account). Significantly, in both stories the mother’s suckling of the child is emphasized: Isis’s nursing of the baby Horus is a prominent feature of Egyptian artwork, with many statues portraying this action; while in the biblical story, Miriam arranges for Moses’ mother to nurse the child. Most importantly, in both stories the baby is hidden and protected from the wicked machinations of the villain. The fact, noted briefly above, that Horus is the god of kingship is of critical importance. It means that every pharaoh was considered the living embodiment of Horus. …. Thus, if Moses is the baby in the bulrushes in the biblical account, he has become, as it were, Horus, and thus the equivalent of the pharaoh. And if the pharaoh of the biblical account is the one who commands that Hebrew baby boys be drowned in the Nile, and who by extension seeks the death of the baby Moses, then he has been transformed into the wicked Seth. The biblical author, in short, subverts the foundational myth of ancient Egypt by portraying Moses as the good Horus and by converting the pharaoh into the wicked Seth. Such subversions are typical of the manner in which a weaker people (in our case, ancient Israel) gains power, as it were, over the stronger nation (in our case, ancient Egypt). The story of Moses’ birth implies that not only did the author of our text possess a thorough knowledge of ancient Egyptian culture, religion and literature, but that his audience, or at least a significant portion thereof, did, as well. One can imagine the ancient Israelite reader, conversant with all matters Egyptian, delighting in such a tale portraying Moses, and not Horus or the pharaoh, as the hero, and depicting the pharaoh not as the good force but as the evil force identified with Seth. [End of quote] But, continuing our merging of kingdoms and dynasties, this family relationship may again be duplicated (though in garbled form) in that the Sixth Dynasty ruler, Piops I, had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Merenre married. It probably should be the other way around, that Teti (who was Cheops-Amenemes I) had a daughter also called Ankhenesmerire, whom his son Piops-Userkare married. From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be an excellent candidate for the “new king” during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour. Thus Josephus: ... they became very abusive toward the Israelites, and contrived many ways of afflicting them; for they enjoined them to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its banks: they set them also to build pyramids, and by all this wore them out; and forced them to learn all sorts of mechanical arts, and to accustom them to hard labor. The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Pharaoh would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. From the 12th dynasty, we gain certain further elements that are relevant to the early era of Moses. Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemhet I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Cheops as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8. The reign of Amenemhet 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. Amenemhet I celebrated his accession by adopting the Horus name: Wehem-Meswt (“He who repeats births”), thought to indicate that he was “the first of a new line”, that he was “thereby consciously identifying himself as the inaugurator of a renaissance, or new era in his country’s history”. Amenemhet I is thought actually to have been a commoner, originally from southern Egypt. I have thought to connect him to pharaoh Khufu via the nobleman from Abydos, Khui. “The Prophecy of Neferti”, relating to the time of Amenemhet I, shows the same concern in Egypt for the growing presence of Asiatics in the eastern Delta as was said to occupy the mind of the new pharaoh of Exodus, seeing the Israelites as a political threat (1:9): “‘Look’, [pharaoh] said to his people, ‘the Israelites have become far too numerous for us’.” That Asiatics were particularly abundant in Egypt at the time is apparent from this information from the Cambridge Ancient History: “The Asiatic inhabitants of the country at this period [of the Twelfth Dynasty] must have been many times more numerous than has been generally supposed ...”. Dr David Down gives the account of Sir Flinders Petrie who, working in the Fayyûm in 1899, made the important discovery of the town of Illahûn [Kahun], which Petrie described as “an unaltered town of the twelfth dynasty”. Of the ‘Asiatic’ presence in this pyramid builders’ town, Rosalie David (who is in charge of the Egyptian branch of the Manchester Museum) has written: It is apparent that the Asiatics were present in the town in some numbers, and this may have reflected the situation elsewhere in Egypt. It can be stated that these people were loosely classed by Egyptians as ‘Asiatics’, although their exact home-land in Syria or Palestine cannot be determined .... The reason for their presence in Egypt remains unclear. Undoubtedly, these ‘Asiatics’ were dwelling in Illahûn largely to raise pyramids for the glory of the pharaohs. Is there any documentary evidence that ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt acted as slaves or servants to the Egyptians? “Evidence is not lacking to indicate that these Asiatics became slaves”, Dr. Down has written with reference to the Brooklyn Papyrus. Egyptian households at this time were filled with Asiatic slaves, some of whom bore biblical names. Of the seventy-seven legible names of the servants of an Egyptian woman called Senebtisi recorded on the verso of this document, forty-eight are (like the Hebrews) NW Semitic. In fact, the name “Shiphrah” is identical to that borne by one of the Hebrew midwives whom Pharaoh had commanded to kill the male babies (Exodus 1:15). “Asian slaves, whether merchandise or prisoners of war, became plentiful in wealthy Egyptian households [prior to the New Kingdom]”, we read in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Amenemhet I was represented in “The Prophecy of Neferti” - as with the “new king” of Exodus 1:8 - as being the one who would set about rectifying the problem. To this end he completely reorganised the administration of Egypt, transferring the capital from Thebes in the south to Ithtowe in the north, just below the Nile Delta. He allowed those nomarchs who supported his cause to retain their power. He built on a grand scale. Egypt was employing massive slave labour, not only in the Giza area, but also in the eastern Delta region where the Israelites were said to have settled at the time of Joseph. Professor J. Breasted provided ample evidence to show that the powerful 12th dynasty pharaohs carried out an enormous building program whose centre was in the Delta region. More specifically, this building occurred in the eastern Delta region which included the very area that comprised the land of Goshen where the Israelites first settled. “... in the eastern part [of the Delta], especially at Tanis and Bubastis ... massive remains still show the interest which the Twelfth Dynasty manifested in the Delta cities”. Today, archaeologists recognise the extant remains of the construction under these kings as representing a mere fraction of the original; the major part having been destroyed by the vandalism of the New Kingdom pharaohs (such as Ramses II). The Biblical account states that: “... they made their lives bitter with hard bondage, in mortar and in brick”. (Exodus 1:14). John Keyser, again, has written very interestingly, in a compatibly revised context, of the oppressive pharaonic labour demands upon the Israelite slaves, he now incorporating pharaoh Amenemhet III into the mix. Thus Keyser has written (op. cit.): Josephus’ description of the type of labor the Israelites were forced to endure under the new pharaoh is REMARKABLY SIMILAR to the observations of DIODORUS SICULUS, the first-century B.C. Greek historian: Moeris ... dug a lake of remarkable usefulness, though at a cost of INCREDIBLE TOIL. Its circumference, they say, is 3,600 stades, its depth at most points fifty fathoms. Who, then, on estimating the greatness of the construction, would not reasonably ask HOW MANY TENS OF THOUSANDS OF MEN MUST HAVE BEEN EMPLOYED [?], AND HOW MANY YEARS THEY TOOK TO FINISH THEIR WORK? No one can adequately commend the king’s design, which brings such usefulness and advantage to all the dwellers in Egypt. Since the Nile kept NO DEFINITE BOUNDS in its rising, and the fruitfulness of the country depended upon the river’s regularity, THE KING DUG THE LAKE TO ACCOMMODATE THE SUPERFLUOUS WATER, SO THAT THE RIVER SHOULD NEITHER, WITH ITS STRONG CURRENT, FLOOD THE LAND UNSEASONABLY AND FORM SWAMPS AND FENS, nor, by rising less than was advantageous, damage the crops by lack of water. BETWEEN THE RIVER AND THE LAKE HE CONSTRUCTED A CANAL 80 STADES IN LENGTH AND 300 FEET IN BREADTH. Through this canal, at times he admitted the water of the river, at other times he excluded it, thus providing the farmers with water at fitting times by opening the inlet and again closing it scientifically and at great expense. — The Pyramids of Egypt, by I.E.S. Edwards. Viking Press, London. 1986, pp. 234-235. These engineering marvels are noted by author J. P. Lepre: “Amenemhat III is also credited with the mighty engineering feat of constructing the irrigation canal now known as the Bahr Yusif, and of using this canal to REGULATE THE FLOW OF WATER FROM THE NILE to Lake Fayum during the flood season. This water was held there by sluices, and later let out again, at will, back to the section of the Nile from Assyout down to the Mediterranean Sea, REGULATING THE HEIGHT OF THE RIVER in that area during the dry season. This irrigation system was the PROTOTYPE for the modern High Aswan Dam.” Although Amenemhat III was involved in several great engineering works, the Bahr Yusif endeavor is of special note. For here, two 20-mile long dykes -- one straight and the other semicircular -- were constructed so as to aid in the ADJUSTMENT OF THE WATER LEVEL through the use of sluices, and to reclaim 20,000 acres of farmland by enriching the soil." (The Egyptian Pyramids. McFarland & Company, Inc. Jefferson, N.C. 1990, pp. 217-218). Obviously, both Josephus and Diodorus Siculus are talking about THE SAME construction project carried out during the reign of AMENEMHET III. OF THE 12TH DYNASTY! …. Historians in pursuit of the Era of Oppression of the Israelites have spent much time and consideration pondering the crucial geographical information as provided in Exodus 1:11: “So they put slave masters over them to oppress them with forced labour, and they built Pithom and Rameses as store cities for Pharaoh”. Lacking here, but no doubt crucial, is the extra piece of information supplied by the Septuagint version of this verse, that the Israelites also built On (Heliopolis): “And he set over them task-masters, who should afflict them in their works; and they built strong cities for Pharao, both Pitho, and Ramesses, and On, which is Heliopolis”. Let us follow John Keyser further as he considers, in a sensibly revised Twelfth Dynasty context, now (“The Strong City of Ramesses”), and now (“The City of the Sun!”), Heliopolis - however, I would not necessarily adhere to his view that the city of Ramesses was so named before Rameses II ‘the Great’, as later biblical editors were quite able to (as Moses certainly did with the older patriarchal toledôt) update geographical names: The Strong City of Ramesses If we go now to the book of Exodus in the Bible, we can uncover some more clues to help us pinpoint the dynasty of the oppression: And there rose up another king over Egypt, who knew not Joseph....And he set over them [the Israelites] taskmasters, who should afflict them in their works; and THEY BUILT STRONG CITIES FOR PHARAO, BOTH PITHO [PITHOM], AND RAMESSES, AND ON, WHICH IS HELIOPOLIS....And the Egyptians tyrannised over the children of Israel by force. And they embittered their life by hard labours, IN THE CLAY AND IN BRICK-MAKING, and all the works in the plains, according to all the works, wherein they caused them to serve with violence. -- Exodus 1:8, 11, 13. Septuagint”. If we can determine when the cities of Ramesses, Pithom and On were built, we can place the Israelite slaves in the right dynasty! Because one of these cities was named “Ramesses,” many scholars believe it was named after Ramesses the Great of the 19th Dynasty, and was therefore constructed during this time -- but is this true? Notice the following: LONG BEFORE RAMESSES THE GREAT WAS BORN, THERE WERE SEVERAL KINGS, NOT KNOWN BY MODERN HISTORIANS, WITH SOME FORM OF THE NAME RAMESSES. The record of these kings of the delta, foolishly rejected by ALL historians today, is the KEY to this enigma in the Bible. The names are preserved by Syncellus in the Book of Sothis. A list of them may be found in Waddell’s Manetho, page 235...Among these rulers is a Ramesses WHO LIVED IN THE DAYS OF JOSEPH and the fourth dynasty. Many historians have been puzzled by the fact that the name of Ramesses should appear on so many of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the THIRD AND FOURTH DYNASTIES. Their mistaken explanation is that the later Ramesses had his servants take the time out to carve his name on ALL these stones. It NEVER OCCURRED TO THEM that there might actually have been a Rameses who assisted in the erection of these fabulous monuments of a by-gone era. -- Compendium of World History, by Herman L. Hoeh. Vol.I. Ambassador College, Pasadena, CA. 1963, pp. 94-95”. There is another reason why the Israelites cannot have built the city of Ramesses during the reign of Ramesses the Great. The earliest reference to Israel outside of the Bible is on the famous MERNEPTAH STELE. Merneptah was the successor of Ramesses II (“the Great”). Notice what Hans Goedicke, chairman of the department of Near Eastern Studies at John Hopkins University, has to say: Merneptah’s famous stele records his military achievements to the fifth year of his reign. By that time, ISRAEL HAD SUCH SIGNIFICANCE AS A PEOPLE that it is listed among these achievements: “ Israel’s seed is not,” Pharaoh Merneptah boasted, with obvious exaggeration. The people of Israel was plainly a POLITICAL PROBLEM for Merneptah. This could hardly have been the case if the people who became Israel had SO RECENTLY become a “people” after the Exodus. Are we to believe that within 75 years at most, the Exodus group became A POLITICAL AND MILITARY POWER of the magnitude reflected in the Merneptah stele, especially after a 40-year desert sojourn? -- BAR, September/October 1981. The answer is, obviously, NO! In 1966, an Austrian archaeological team, headed by Dr. Manfred Bietak, began long-term excavations four miles north of the delta town of Faqus -- at a site called Tell el-Dab’a. Bietak was aware that this site had an earlier name, Tell el-Birka -- “the mound of the LAKE.” Old maps revealed that this lake was at one time joined to the old Pelusiac branch of the Nile by an artificial waterway that anciently encircled the whole area. When aerial photography revealed the ancient bed of the Pelusaic branch of the Nile, Bietak was convinced he had found the SITE OF RAMESSES. During the 1979-80 excavation season, Bietak realized that the city had been built DURING THE 12TH DYNASTY BY AMENEMHET I. -- WITH ADDITIONS AND/OR REBUILDING BY SENWOSRET III. OF THE SAME DYNASTY! Some FIVE HUNDRED YEARS BEFORE THE TIME OF RAMESSES II. this had been a CAREFULLY LAID OUT CITY of some importance during the time of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, a century or so PRIOR to Egypt’s takeover by the Hyksos. Readily discernible were the foundations of an imposing 450-foot-long palace, with a huge court lined by columns, that had probably served as a ROYAL SUMMER RESIDENCE....Records show that order [in Egypt] was re-established by STRONG GOVERNMENT on the part of the kings of Egypt’s MIDDLE KINGDOM, and IT IS TO THESE THAT CAN BE ATTRIBUTED THE COLUMNED PALACE west of the Tell el-Dab’a mound, as well as a variety of OTHER BUILDINGS AND MONUMENTS that seem to have surrounded the Birka lake. One of these, a TEMPLE OF THE EGYPTIAN KING AMENEMHET I., was found to contain a tablet specifically referring to the ‘TEMPLE OF AMENEMHET in [at] the water of the town’ -- independent corroboration of the town’s abundance of water.... But what is also quite obvious from Dr. Bietak’s findings is that not only was this site the TRUE BIBLICAL RAMESSES, it quite evidently had a history MUCH EARLIER than the time of Ramesses II. as well, and was in fact none other than the HYKSOS CAPITAL, AVARIS, referred to in Manetho’s History. -- The Exodus Enigma, by Ian Wilson. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London. 1985, pp. 48, 49 & 52. The City of the Sun! Let’s look at another city mentioned in the Septuagint version of the Bible -- On, or Heliopolis. Although the city of On wasn’t originally settled during the Middle Kingdom, it was, however, REBUILT ON A MASSIVE SCALE by a pharaoh of the 12th DYNASTY! We read about this in Henry Brugsch-Bey’s book, A History of Egypt Under the Pharaohs: ...a remarkable document on parchment, which I had the good fortune to acquire at Thebes in 1858, and which for some years past has been in the possession of the Berlin collection of Egyptian antiquities, make the fact certain, that USURTASEN I. [Sesostris I of the 12th Dynasty], at the very beginning of his reign, occupied himself with BUILDINGS AT THE TEMPLE OF THE CITY OF THE SUN [ON, HELIOPOLIS]. This important material informs us how, in the third year of his reign, he assembled round his throne the first officials of his court, to hear their opinion and their counsel as to his intention of RAISING WORTHY BUILDINGS TO THE SUN-GOD. As usual in such assemblies, the king begins his address with a solemn reference to his divine descent.... From this he proceeds to a discourse on the importance of the buildings and monuments dedicated to the deities, starting from the idea that such alone are able to immortalize the memory of a ruler. After the address, the assembled counsellors UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE the good intentions of their lord, and encourage him to carry out the same without delay. THE PHARAOH IMMEDIATELY GIVES HIS COMMAND TO THE PROPER COURT OFFICIAL, ENJOINS HIM TO WATCH OVER THE UNINTERRUPTED PROGRESS OF THE WORK WHICH HAS BEEN DETERMINED UPON, and then begins the solemn ceremony of LAYING THE FOUNDATION-STONE by the king himself. -- Pp.151-152. The result of this ceremony was a work that can still be seen today! Not far from Cairo, in the neighborhood of the village of Matarich, a huge obelisk made out of the hardest and most beautiful rose granite points skyward, commemorating the work of the Israelites as they slaved under this pharaoh to re-build the “City of the Sun.” Usurtasen [Sesostris] erected a massive BRICK-BUILT double wall around the main temple at Heliopolis, which also surrounded the area of present-day Tell Hisn. The area this wall enclosed has been estimated to measure some 1,100 by 475 meters, or 1,203.4 by 519.7 yards! (Atlas of Ancient Egypt, by Baines and Malek, p. 173). Apart from the Era of Moses involving the Fourth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties, we also need to add the Thirteenth, based on some known correspondences of its officials with the Twelfth Dynasty. Dr. Donovan Courville has provided these useful, when writing of the Turin list which gives the names of the Thirteenth Dynasty officials (“On the Survival of Veliovsky’s Thesis in ‘Ages in Chaos”, pp. 67-68): The thirteenth name [Turin list] (Ran-sen-eb) was a known courtier in the time of Sesostris III …”. “The fourteenth name (Autuabra) was found inside a jar sealed with the seal of Amenemhat III …. How could this be, except with this Autuabra … becoming a contemporary of Amenemhat III? The explanations employed to evade such contemporaneity are pitiful compared with the obvious acceptance of the matter”. “The sixteenth name (RaSo-khemkhutaui) leaves a long list of named slaves, some Semitic-male, some Semitic-female. One of these has the name Shiphra, the same name as the mid-wife who served at the time of Moses’ birth …. [Exodus 1:15]. RaSo-khemkhutaui … lived at the time of Amenemhat III. …. This Amenemhet III, as we pick up from reading about him in N. Grimal’s book (op. cit.), 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). The grim-faced depictions of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet III and Sesostris III, have been commented upon by conventional and revisionist scholars alike. Cambridge Ancient History has noted with regard to the former …: “The numerous portraits of [Amenemhet] 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 - and rightly so - represent the cruel taskmasters who forced the Israelites to build using bricks mixed with straw (Exodus 5:7, 8). In fact, this very combination of materials can clearly be seen for example in Amenemhet III’s Dahshur pyramid. Amenemhet III, according to Grimal …: … was respected and honoured from Kerma to Byblos and during his reign numerous eastern workers, from peasants to soldiers and craftsmen came to Egypt. This influx 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 [Amenemhet] III ruled a country that had reached a peak of prosperity … and the exploitation of the Faiyûm went hand in hand with the development of irrigation and an enormous growth in mining and quarrying activities. The Faiyûm was a huge oasis, about 80 km S.W. of Memphis, which offered the prospect of a completely new area of cultivable land. Exodus 1:14 tells of the Israelite slaves doing “all kinds of work in the fields.” Mining and quarrying also, apparently, would have been part of the immense slave-labour effort. Grimal continues …: In the Sinai region the exploitation of the turquoise and copper mines reached unprecedented heights: between the ninth and forty-fifth years of [Amenemhet 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 …. Amenemhet III was, it seems, a complete dictator … (my emphasis): The economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of [Amenemhet] III one of the summits of state absolutism. Excavations at Biahmu revealed two colossal granite statues of the seated figure of [Amenemes] III …. Above all, he built himself two [sic] pyramids, one at Dahshur and the other at Hawara…. Beside the Hawara pyramid were found the remains of his mortuary temple, which Strabo described as the Labyrinth. …. From the birth of Moses to the Exodus 80 years later, the Twelfth Dynasty rulers sorely oppressed Israel, beginning with an infanticide that Herod in Israel would later emulate. King Solomon tells - in what ought to be a wake-up call for our own times - how Egypt paid for this pharaonic “decree of infanticide” (Wisdom 11:5-16, emphasis added): Thus, what had served to punish their enemies became a benefit for them in their difficulties. Whereas their enemies had only the ever-flowing source of a river fouled with mingled blood and mud, to punish them for their decree of infanticide, you gave your people, against all hope, water in abundance, once you had shown by the thirst that they were experiencing how severely you were punishing their enemies. From their own ordeals, which were only loving correction, they realised how an angry sentence was tormenting the godless; for you had tested your own as a father admonishes, but the others you had punished as a pitiless king condemns, and, whether far or near, they were equally afflicted. For a double sorrow seized on them, and a groaning at the memory of the past; when they learned that the punishments they were receiving were beneficial to the others, they realised it was the Lord, while for the man whom long before they had exposed and later mockingly rebuffed, they felt only admiration when all was done, having suffered a thirst so different from that of the upright. For their foolish and wicked notions which led them astray into worshipping mindless reptiles and contemptible beetles, you sent a horde of mindless animals to punish them and to teach them that the agent of sin is the agent of punishment”. Adopted into the royal household of the mighty and prosperous Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, the Hebrew Moses would grow up to be a great man in the land of Egypt.