Pharaoh of the Exodus greatly influenced by Twelfth Dynasty

by Damien F. Mackey “A significant set of evidence suggests the particular interest that Neferhotep I had both in the cult of Osiris at Abydos, and in Senwosret [Sesostris] III in particular”. Josef Wegner and Kevin Cahail Introduction Recapitulating who I think was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and how he was positioned in relation to Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty: While Moses was in exile in the land of Midian, the mighty Twelfth Dynasty, which had dominated his entire life of some eight decades, had come to an end with a briefly reigning female ruler. This dynasty, which “knew not Joseph” (Exodus 1:8), and which worshipped the Crocodile god, Sobek, may have been of foreign stock. The female ruler, Sobeknefrure bore the Crocodile (Sobek) name. Moses had been run out of Egypt by his foster father-in-law, “Chenephres”, who had married the woman, “Merris”. She was “the Daughter of Pharaoh” (Cheops-Amenemehet), who had drawn the baby Moses from the water (Exodus 2:1-10). “Chenephres” and “Merris”, of multiple identifications, span various dynasties, and even kingdoms. “Chenephres” is the Fourth Dynasty’s Chephren (Khafre), who married Meresankh (“Merris”). He is, again, the long-reigning Pepi Neferkare (= Kanefere/“Chenephres”), and the Sesostris who pursued Sinuhe (the semi-fictitious Moses character) from Egypt. As Sesostris so-called III, he was the last-reigning king of the Twelfth Dynasty. But Sesostris and his predecessor, Amenemhet (Amenemes), are also the Crocodile worshipping Sobekhoteps of the so-called Thirteenth Dynasty. We meet Sesostris again as Sobekhotep IV Nepherkhare/Khaneferre (“Chenephres”), who was a contemporary of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep (so-called I). The hard-hearted Pharaoh of the Exodus, Neferhotep, was already well established by the time of Moses’ return from Midian. This would suggest that he had been a well-known and active high official in the late stages of the Twelfth Dynasty. Sesostris may even have made Neferhotep co-ruler with him as his lengthy reign began to fade. Closeness of late Twelfth Dynasty and Thirteenth Dynasty In the following article: Co-Author with Josef Wegner: "Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?" (2) Co-Author with Josef Wegner: "Royal Funerary Equipment of a King Sobekhotep at South Abydos: Evidence for the Tombs of Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I?" | Kevin M. Cahail - Academia.edu we learn of Neferhotep’s profound veneration for Sesostris (III), and of his close association with Sobekhotep IV, who was also this Sesostris (III): …. Another important issue for consideration is the implications of the fact that [tomb] S10 does not stand alone. S10 is located adjacent to the similarly designed tomb S9. The king Sobekhotep (N) associated with S10 is likely to be connected in some distinct way with another king who reigned in close temporal proximity and who was also able to build a comparably large subterranean tomb at South Abydos. Recent excavation by Dawn McCormack on tomb S9 shows it too was completed and used for a royal burial, although S9 has, as yet, yielded no evidence on the identity of its owner.72 Consequently, these tombs should relate to two longer-reigning kings, quite possibly with familial connections, one of whom, we can now establish with a reasonable degree of certainty, bore the nomen Sobekhotep. Despite the disjunctions that characterize the Thirteenth Dynasty royal succession, there are a number of clear examples of familial succession associated with the Sobekhotep kings that could be reflected in such a tomb pairing. The two tombs could represent a father-son pair who ruled in sequence, or possibly one of the examples of brother-brother succession. This latter mode of succession occurs prominently at the beginning of the Thirteenth Dynasty during the shorter reigns of the first two Thirteenth Dynasty kings (Sobekhotep I-Sonebef) as well as in the long stable reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV. The other longer reigning candidates, Sobekhotep III and Sobekhotep VI would appear to be weaker options from this angle. Sobekhotep III stands alone in the royal succession, a military official who after his seven year reign was not succeeded by any offspring or family members; similarly Sobekhotep VI appears to be unrelated to both the preceding and succeeding kings. Would either Sobekhotep III or VI have built a tomb at South Abydos, perhaps placing it adjacent to that of an unrelated Thirteenth Dynasty king? This appears possible, but the close proximity and similarity of design between S9 and S10 suggests the greater likelihood of a pair of more intimately connected kings. From this angle of consideration Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV, already the strongest candidate on the basis of regnal length and building activity at Abydos, emerges yet again as a good option. His predecessor [sic] was his brother [sic] Neferhotep I whose eleven-year reign (ca. 1742–1731 BC) [sic] initiated the phase of long, stable reigns that continued through the period of Merneferre-Ay. Sobekhotep IV appears to have been a coregent during his brother’s reign after the early death of a third brother, Sahathor, who never became king.73 The close connection and long duration of both king’s reigns provides both a temporal and familial context that would accord well with tombs S9 and S10 at South Abydos. Beyond considerations of regnal length and familial associations, we need to bring under scrutiny the political and religious motivations that may have underlain two Thirteenth Dynasty kings choosing to build tombs at Abydos. While, in theory, the large mortuary complex built by Senwosret [Sesostris] III at the base of Dw-Inpw may have offered an attractive nucleus for later kings seeking to associate themselves with earlier Twelfth Dynasty rulers, it may have required a unique set of circumstances for this to actually happen. It is clear that many Thirteenth Dynasty kings built—or at least initiated—pyramid tombs on the post-Hawara model in the Memphite necropolis and in proximity to the residence at Itj-Tawy. However, what might have propelled two kings of this era to build their tombs at Abydos instead? Inscriptional sources paired with monumental remains show that a significant number of Thirteenth Dynasty kings were active at Abydos and invested in differing ways in the Osiris cult. Indeed, royal patronage of the Osiris cult may have been the norm rather than the exception even across the numerous short reigns of the Thirteenth Dynasty. In the case of Tombs S9 and S10, however, we should be looking at two closely associated Thirteenth Dynasty kings who display an unusually high level of interest in Abydos and perhaps kings for whom we can discern other motivating factors that could have led to their decision to build tombs in Upper Egypt. Among Thirteenth Dynasty kings, Neferhotep I stands out through the breadth of textual sources reflecting his investment in the Osiris cult. These include most prominently the now-lost Neferhotep stela (formerly in the Boulaq Museum) dating to year two of that king’s reign. The stela details how, after consulting documents relating to the Osiris temple, Neferhotep dispatched his custodian of royal property to Abydos to undertake work on the Osiris temple and its cultic equipment. The royal commission was followed by the king’s own visit to Abydos and participation in the Osirian rituals. This remarkable document indicates a level of personal interest in Abydos unparalleled by any Middle Kingdom ruler since Senwosret III. Neferhotep I is also associated with the well-known group of boundary stelae that he rededicated (after the earlier Thirteenth Dynasty king Wegaf) that demarcate the bounds of the private cemeteries on either side of the processional route to Umm el-Qa’ab. Fundamentally, these sources show how Neferhotep I initiated substantial rebuilding of the Osiris temple precinct in a mode that echoes the earlier investment in that temple conducted by the chief treasurer Ikhernofret on behalf of Senwosret III. Could this enhanced investment in Abydos under Neferhotep I—like that of Senwosret III a century before him [sic] —have had an additional expression in the king’s construction of his tomb at South Abydos? Interestingly, there is evidence that Neferhotep I sought to connect himself concretely with Senwosret III at another site besides Abydos. Three inscriptions at the island of Sehel demonstrate Neferhotep I’s desire to associate himself with the earlier pharaoh. In two instances, Neferhotep I placed his titulary directly on the left side an earlier inscription of Senwosret III (ig. 29). The Thirteenth Dynasty artists copied the layout and content of the earlier inscriptions, and positioned the copy as close as possible to, and at the same scale, as the original Senwosret III text. An implication of temporality might even be implied by the position of Neferhotep’s text to the left presenting the king as a direct successor of the Twelfth Dynasty pharaoh. In a more complex vignette also at Sehel (ig. 30), Neferhotep I’s artists copied a scene showing the goddess Anukis offering life to the king. Again, the addition by Neferhotep is positioned to the left of that of Senwosret III. As with the titular inscriptions, the two images are virtually identical in artistic layout, orientation and textual content. Taken together, these sources from Sehel and Abydos seem to indicate that Neferhotep I consciously chose to associate himself with Senwosret III. Might this mimicry have extended to funerary architecture at Abydos as well, leading Neferhotep I to construct his tomb (S9) directly next to that of Senwosret III, linking the enclosure walls of the two structures? The reigns of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV together represent ca. twenty-three years, more than a third of the stable phase of the middle Thirteenth Dynasty that extends from Neferhotep I to Merneferre Ay (ca. 1742–1677 BC). The Neferhotep I family, like that of Sobekhotep III, made no pretentions about royal origins. The descent of the family from the God’s Father Haankhef and his wife Kemi has been well documented.79 The family appears to have been of Theban origins as stated in Sobekhotep IV’s donation stela at Karnak.80 Both Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV built extensively at Karnak and the Neferhotep stela provides strong testimony that the Theban activity of the kings was matched with an Abydene component. Also significantly for our present discussion, it was during the reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV that we see a visible resurgence of economic and royal administrative activity in Upper Egypt. Some Egyptologists have viewed the indications for a growing emphasis on the south as reflecting the loss at this time of the Nile Delta by the kings of Itj-Tawy. This southward focus during the mid-Thirteenth Dynasty has been seen as leading up to the eventual (presumed) abandonment of Itj-Tawy and shift of the capital southwards to Thebes during the last phase of the dynasty.81 However, the possibility that the Thirteenth Dynasty had already lost control over the north, paired with the minimal evidence for the transfer of royal capital, suggests what we witness is rather a phase of economic stabilization at the helm of which were successful Upper Egyptian families including that of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV. Could it be in this political milieu that we have two Thirteenth Dynasty brother kings investing in tombs of the post-Hawara design at Abydos? Returning to the archaeology of South Abydos itself, another possible index to administrative activity during the reigns of Neferhotep I–Sobekhotep IV derives from the temple of Senwosret III and nearby settlement site of Wah-Sut. Archaeological evidence demonstrates this site was a thriving community through the middle Thirteenth Dynasty. Abundant examples of administrative sealings naming high officials contemporary with Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV have been recovered in the temple and town site. Among these we may highlight the frequent impressions in multiple scarab variants of the prominent treasurer Senebsumay whose career spans the reigns of Sobekhotep III and Neferhotep I, as well as other royal officials of the mid- to late Thirteenth Dynasty.82 Indeed, the most frequent royal name seal impressions recovered in the deposits associated with the Senwosret III mortuary temple are those of Neferhotep I. Later identified examples include Sobekhotep VI and Merneferre Ay.83 Wah-Sut at that time was an administrative center that would have formed an ideal context for Thirteenth Dynasty kings who may have wished to construct tombs in Upper Egypt. In view of the recent discovery of the funerary stela and cedar coffin of a king Sobekhotep at South Abydos, we now have indications for the identity of the Thirteenth Dynasty pharaohs who built tombs near that of Senwosret III at the site of Dw-Inpw/ Anubis-Mountain. The nature and scale of tomb S10 provides strong evidence for identifying Sobekhotep (N) as Sobekhotep IV. S9 may well in that case be attributed to his brother Neferhotep I. A significant set of evidence suggests the particular interest that Neferhotep I had both in the cult of Osiris at Abydos, and in Senwosret III in particular. The renaissance represented by these mid Thirteenth Dynasty reigns, paired with their Upper Egyptian origins, interest in the Osiris cult, as well as the resurgence of monument building may have been expressed in the addition of their tombs near that of Senwosret III at South Abydos. …. adjacent to and is even physically bonded to the Senwosret III enclosure wall, for brief discussion see: Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 377–81. 79 Ryholt, The Political Situation, 225–31. Primary discussions are: M. Dewachter, “Le roi Sahathor et la famille de Neferhotep I,” RdE 28 (1976), 66–73; L. Habachi, “New Light on the Neferhotep I Family,” 77–81. 80 W. Helck, “Ein Stele Sebekheteps IV. aus Karnak,” MDAIK 24 (1969), 194–200. 81 The abandonment of Itj-Tawy is generally assumed to have occurred during or immediately following the reign of Merne-ferre Ay. Evidence for a southward retreat of the Thirteenth Dynasty is, however, extremely tenuous. It appears likely the kings grouped under this dynasty ruled from Itj-Tawy until the end of the dynasty. 82 Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 343–51. 83 On the royal name sealings: Wegner, The Mortuary Temple of Senwosret III, 313–15 and 340–43. 162 Observations on the Reuse of the Funerary Equipment of Sobekhotep (N). One of the notable results of recent work in and around tomb S10 is the evidence for the short time frame that elapsed between the original burial of king Sobekhotep (N) and the dismantling of his tomb and its equipment for reuse by Senebkay and other Second Intermediate period rulers buried at South Abydos. The evidence for the probable date of S10 in the mid-late Thirteenth Dynasty, and its possible attribution to Sobekhotep IV (ca. 1732–1720 BC) would place this tomb approximately half a century before the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The adjacent tomb of Woseribre-Senebkay represents a Second Intermediate period king whose reign we may attribute to the beginning of the unnumbered “Abydos Dynasty.” Senebkay may be one of two kings whose prenomina, Wsr///ra, are partially preserved at the beginning of Column 11 in the Turin Kinglist. The evidence appears to place the reign of Senebkay contemporary with the final disintegration of the Thirteenth Dynasty coeval with the emergence of the Theban Sixteenth Dynasty. Senebkay and his successors engaged in the wholesale stripping of S10 for construction of their own tombs. As we have seen above, this process includes the appropriation of cedar planks from Sobekhotep (N)’s coffin as well as (possibly) the use of Sobekhotep’s funerary stela as part of the masonry construction of Senebkay’s burial chamber. The reuse of portable elements of the burial assemblage of S10 is further amplified by the extraction and reuse of the massive quartzite sarcophagus from S10 to form the burial chamber of tomb CS6, the northernmost tomb of the Second Intermediate period “Abydos Dynasty” group. The process of denuding S10 and cannibalizing its materials thus proceeded within a short time frame from reuse of the tomb equipment to the wholesale deconstruction of the tomb’s interior architecture. Are these patterns of reuse indicative of opportunistic appropriation of valuable materials from an already plundered royal tomb, or are the “Abydos Dynasty” group of kings themselves implicated in the process of despoiling S10 and other late Middle Kingdom royal tombs at South Abydos? In view of the narrow chronological parameters, it is crucial to observe that Sobekhotep (N)’s burial appears to have survived intact for only a short period. How likely is it that the massive blocking system of S10 was penetrated and the tomb plundered, leaving in the wake of the robbery a random assemblage of materials of sufficient quality to be gathered up by Senebkay and his successors for reuse in their own tombs? Successful tomb robbery aimed at extracting precious metals, semi-precious stones and other materials and typically resulted in the extensive damage to the funerary equipment. Moreover, the plundering of S10—a prominent monument visible across the entirety of the Abydene landscape— would have required a large work force and explicit support by any authorities present at Abydos. Consequently, it appears that Senebkay and associated Second Intermediate period rulers themselves may have initiated the initial entry into S10’s still-intact substructure along with the acquisition and reuse of the materials and equipment located therein. Significantly, it is during this same timeframe of the later Second Intermediate period that the tomb of Senwosret III at South Abydos appears to have been entered and plundered. Senebkay and his contemporaries appear to have been making use of a rich array of materials deriving not just from the tomb of Sobekhotep, but also from Senwosret III as well as Tomb S9 and perhaps others. Along with the reused cedar coffin of king Sobekhotep N, the tomb of Senebkay furnishes additional evidence for the purposeful dismantling of monuments associated with the kings and royal officials of the late Middle Kingdom. The burial chamber of Senebkay is entirely built of reused limestone blocks that once belonged to one or more mortuary chapels of a prominent, extended family dating the mid- to late Thirteenth Dynasty. Senebkay’s builders dismantled blocks from three different tomb chapels belonging to members of this family, which include the royal seal bearer and overseer of fields, Dedtu, his son Ibiau who was overseer of the altars of Amun, and another individual, also likely connected to the Amun temple at Thebes, named Senebef. The evidence suggests the presence at Abydos of a Thirteenth Dynasty elite cemetery possibly located in North Abydos that was denuded by Senebkay’s builders. This evidence for state-supported tomb robbery that includes the dismantling of both royal and elite mortuary structures appears fundamentally to reflect the severely circumscribed economic and political context of Senebkay and other members of the “Abydos Dynasty” group. This activity appears symptomatic of the poverty of Upper Egypt during the Hyksos period and after the final dissolution of the Thirteenth Dynasty. The phenomenon broadly parallels situations such as occurred during the late Ramesside period at Thebes where the highest levels of local administration actively supported the looting of tombs. What is most striking, however, is the extent to which materials from those earlier burials were being actively incorporated into the funerary assemblages and tomb architecture of the Abydos Dynasty rulers. From that respect an instructive parallel to South Abydos occurs during the Third Intermediate period when the construction and furnishing of the royal tombs at Tanis made extensive use of spolia, as well as precious metals and royal funerary equipment that had been taken from the Valley of the Kings at Thebes. Objects that had been despoiled, in particular, from the Ramesside royal tombs at Thebes, made their way into the Twenty-First Dynasty burial assemblages at Tanis. This includes the granite third sarcophagus of Merenptah reused as the outer sarcophagus for Psusennes I. Although the scale of burial and distance involved is greater in the case of the Tanite tombs, the royally sponsored reuse of materials we see at South Abydos seems in many respects to parallel the phenomenon of reuse that occurs later at Tanis. It appears probable that during the Second Intermediate period, tomb S10 and the burial of king Sobekhotep (N) was opened and denuded under authority of Senebkay and his contemporaries. This may have been part of a wider process of robbery of known royal and elite Middle Kingdom tombs at Abydos that may have included the large subterranean tomb of Senwosret III. Regarding S10, however, it is striking the degree to which this particular monument appears to have been targeted at the hands of the “Abydos Dynasty” rulers. This raises an additional possibility to be considered. Conceivably there may have been a more sinister set of motivations in play: a conscious attempt at damnatio memoriae aimed specifically at the Abydene mortuary structures of king Sobkehotep (N) and his contemporaries. It seems possible that the systematic denudation of Thirteenth Dynasty royal and elite tombs and monuments may reflect a more carefully pursued program of desecration aimed at members of the Thirteenth Dynasty ruling elite. Could the challenging economic and political pressures concomitant with the end of the Thirteenth Dynasty have precipitated regional and familial rivalries, even vendettas, amongst certain members of the Upper Egyptian elite class? These motivations could perhaps be rooted in the events that led to the disintegration of the Thirteenth Dynasty and the formation of local lines of kings at Thebes and Abydos during the later Second Intermediate period. Thirteenth Dynasty kings with Theban origins—Sobekhotep IV and Neferhotep I—along with other high-ranking royal officials with Upper Egyptian origins such as the Dedtu family—might in this case have become targets for a concerted program of damnatio memoriae. If so, the very nature of the Thirteenth Dynasty, not as a dynasty in the classical sense, but as a discontinuous succession of elite families ascending to the rulership centered on Itj-Tawy may be of relevance. It appears possible that the rise to power of the Theban family of Neferhotep I and Sobekhotep IV could have resonated in negative ways that persisted a generation or two later during the time of the decline of the Thirteenth Dynasty. Alternatively, as visible statements of Thirteenth Dynasty associations with Abydos, Tombs S9 and S10 could have been targeted through another form of politically motivated rationale. Recent discussion has highlighted the possibility that Thirteenth Dynasty kings based at Itj-Tawy may have continued even in the context of an increasingly fragmented internal political situation that included the secession of the Theban region and the growth of the Hyksos Fifteenth Dynasty. For regional kings now using Abydos as their burial ground, and perhaps even in conflict with the vestiges of the Thirteenth Dynasty, there may have been a desire to sever associations with rulership emanating from Itj-Tawy. While the evidence at present opens up a series of possible scenarios to explain the nonharmonious relationship exhibited between Tomb S10 and the Second Intermediate period tombs near it, we see clear evidence for the short interval that S10 must have survived as an intact royal tomb. Second Intermediate period kings building their tombs at South Abydos evidently had no desire to associate themselves with Thirteenth Dynasty predecessors and indeed themselves engineered the robbery of those earlier royal tombs. It is to be hoped that continued excavations at South Abydos may shed further light on king Sobekhotep (N)—confirming or not the increasingly probable identification with Khaneferre-Sobekhotep IV- and illuminating how and why his burial, “S10” at South Abydos was so extensively dismantled by Senebkay and his successors during the Second Intermediate period.

Twelfth Dynasty of Egypt and Hyksos

by Damien F. Mackey This [Twelfth] dynasty will terminate with a crocodile-named woman ruler, Sobek-neferure Crocodile Sobek Despite all that I have written so far about the Twelfth Dynasty, the Egyptian dynasty that began the Oppression of Israel under its “new king” (Exodus 1:8), Amenemes, I yet suspect that there are some further dimensions needing to be added to it. According to my reconstruction of the life of the Egyptianised Moses (Sixth Dynasty’s Weni and Twelfth Dynasty’s Mentuhotep), the Twelfth Dynasty needs to expire while Moses is yet in Midian. This dynasty will terminate with a crocodile-named woman ruler, Sobek-neferure (amongst her various other names). That has led me to the conclusion that the Twelfth Dynasty, so busy in the crocodile region of the Fayyum oasis, was a crocodile worshipping dynasty. Consequently, I have been able conveniently to propose identification of my two composite rulers, Amenemes (Amenemhat) and Sesostris, with supposed Thirteenth Dynasty rulers, Amenemhat and (the composite) Sobekhotep. That reconstruction now leaves it open for Khasekhemre Neferhotep (whom various revisionists have recognised as the Pharaoh of the Exodus), to have been the stubborn ruler whom Moses and Aaron had had to confront to the end of setting Israel free (Exodus 5:1). The Oppression begun by Amenemes, with male babies being killed, and heavy slave building construction, would only intensify with this Neferhotep, with Moses and Aaron getting the blame for it from their fellow Israelites. Thus (Exodus 5:4-21): But the king of Egypt said, ‘Moses and Aaron, why are you taking the people away from their labor? Get back to your work!’ Then Pharaoh said, ‘Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working’. That same day Pharaoh gave this order to the slave drivers and overseers in charge of the people: ‘You are no longer to supply the people with straw for making bricks; let them go and gather their own straw. But require them to make the same number of bricks as before; don’t reduce the quota. They are lazy; that is why they are crying out, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to our God.’ Make the work harder for the people so that they keep working and pay no attention to lies’. Then the slave drivers and the overseers went out and said to the people, ‘This is what Pharaoh says: ‘I will not give you any more straw. Go and get your own straw wherever you can find it, but your work will not be reduced at all’.’ So the people scattered all over Egypt to gather stubble to use for straw. The slave drivers kept pressing them, saying, ‘Complete the work required of you for each day, just as when you had straw’. And Pharaoh’s slave drivers beat the Israelite overseers they had appointed, demanding, ‘Why haven’t you met your quota of bricks yesterday or today, as before?’ Then the Israelite overseers went and appealed to Pharaoh: ‘Why have you treated your servants this way? Your servants are given no straw, yet we are told, ‘Make bricks!’ Your servants are being beaten, but the fault is with your own people’. Pharaoh said, ‘Lazy, that’s what you are—lazy! That is why you keep saying, ‘Let us go and sacrifice to the LORD.’ Now get to work. You will not be given any straw, yet you must produce your full quota of bricks’. The Israelite overseers realized they were in trouble when they were told, ‘You are not to reduce the number of bricks required of you for each day’. When they left Pharaoh, they found Moses and Aaron waiting to meet them, and they said, ‘May the LORD look on you and judge you! You have made us obnoxious to Pharaoh and his officials and have put a sword in their hand to kill us’. We can know that the status of the ‘Asiatic’ Semites (or Aamu) in Egypt had deteriorated even from the time of (my composite) Amenemes (Amenemhat) to the time of Neferhotep. Dr. David Rohl has referred to this very situation, without himself making the (Exodus 5) connection that I would: Several texts have come to light which indicate that certain of these Aamu managed to reach high positions in the administration during the latter part [sic] of the 12th Dynasty (some also marrying Egyptian women), but that this state of affairs did not last long into the 13th Dynasty. The fact that important persons in the time of Amenemhat III felt free to designate themselves as Aam (Asiatic) or as born of an Aamet (female Asiatic) means that one can hardly consider them as slaves in the ordinary sense as in the Brooklyn Papyrus. One must therefore reckon with a deterioration in the status of Asiatics between the time of Amenemhat III and that of Neferhotep. …. Previously, I had proposed that: Apart from the Era of Moses involving the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties, we need also to factor in the Thirteenth, based on some known correspondences of its officials with the Twelfth Dynasty. Dr. Courville has provided these most useful connections, when writing of the Turin list which gives the names of the Thirteenth Dynasty officials (“On the Survival of Velikovsky’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 … 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.” [End of quotes] “Hyksos kings” - hold that last thought! What I had not appreciated at that stage was the great devotion that Amenemhet (so-called III) had for the crocodile deity, Sobek. https://www.arce.org/resource/rise-sobek-middle-kingdom At Shedet, the new administrative capital of dynasty 12, the cult of Sobek saw yet another plot twist. Amenemhat II began to evoke an early dynastic, merged form of Sobek and Horus. Horus of Shedet was shown as a crocodile on a seal from the reign of Khasekhmwy of the second dynasty. Amenemhat II was the first to see this merge of Sobek and Horus of Shedet as the perfect syncretism to affirm the king’s divinity. But it was Amenemhat III who brought the role of “Sobek of Shedet-Horus residing in Shedet” to the highest significance. Sobek-Horus of Shedet became associated with epithets like “Lord of the wrrt (White) Crown,” “he who resides in the great palace” and “lord of the great palace.” All of these epithets were related to the king rather than associated with any god. Even the name of Horus in this merged form was enclosed in a serekh like a king’s name. The king has always been identified as Horus on earth. With the new divine form of Sobek-Horus, the king as Horus merged with Sobek and incorporated himself as one with the god Sobek. …. [End of quote] Of course, in my scheme of things, “Amenmhat [Amenemes] II” was “Amenemhat III”. As to the Twelfth Dynasty’s female ruler, we read: https://landioustravel.com/egypt/history-egypt/ancient-history/twelfth-dynasty-ancient-egypt/ Sobekneferu Sobekneferu or Neferusobek (Ancient Egyptian: Sbk-nfrw meaning ‘Beauty of Sobek’) was a pharaoh of ancient Egypt and the last ruler of the Twelfth Dynasty …. She adopted the complete royal titulary, distinguishing herself from prior female rulers. She was also the first ruler to have a name associated with the crocodile god Sobek. …. One reader has wondered if this Sobeknefrure might have been the same person as the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses (we know her as Merris = Meresankh), perhaps coming down to the Fayyum to pay tribute to her crocodile god, when she saw the baby Moses afloat in a ‘basket’ in the water. Whilst that may be an intriguing consideration, the fact is that Moses was now about 80 when the Twelfth Dynasty died out, meaning that Meresankh, as Sobeknefrure, would have to have been close to 100 years of age. Khayan (Khyan) “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.” So we read above. Could it be that the non-royal founder of the Twelfth Dynasty was, in fact, a foreigner? That would perhaps explain why it is said of him, the “new king” (Exodus 1:8), that Joseph meant nothing to him. It might also explain why his statues, and those of Sesostris, have a different, “brutal” appearance to them: HTTPS://EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG/WIKI/HYKSOS “The so-called "Hyksos Sphinxes" are peculiar sphinxes of Amenemhat III which were reinscribed [?] by several Hyksos rulers …. Earlier Egyptologists thought these were the faces of actual Hyksos rulers. …”. Were Amenemes and Sesostris in fact the first foreign Hyksos rulers of Egypt? What has set me thinking in this new direction (and I might be entirely off the track) is the apparent evidence for the powerful Hyksos ruler, Khayan, as a contemporary of Sobekhotep, meaning, in my revised context, a contemporary of the Twelfth Dynasty, before the Plagues and the Exodus. This opens the door, perhaps, for Khayan to have been the dynastic founder himself, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, whilst his son, Yanassi, could be the Unas of the so-called Fifth Dynasty (its last male ruler), whom I have already identified as Sesostris. The origins of Khayan (Amenemes?) may even have been Amorite (Syro-Mitannian). For he, Khayan, or Khyan (Hayanu, h-ya-a-n), may possibly have been a distant ancestor of Shamsi-Adad I (c. 1800 BC, conventional dating), who must be re-dated to c. 1000 BC, where he emerges as King David of Israel’s Syrian foe, Hadadezer (2 Samuel 8:3-8). https://en-academic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2991710 “Ryholt notes that the name, Khyan, generally has been "interpreted asAmorite "Hayanu" (reading "h-ya-a-n") which the Egyptian form represents perfectly, and this is in all likelihood the correct interpretation." [Kim SB Ryholt, op. cit., p.128] It should be stressed that Khyan's name was not original and had been in use for centuries prior to [sic] the fifteenth Hyksos Dynasty. The name Hayanu is recorded in the Assyrian king lists--see "Khorsabad List I, 17 and the SDAS List, I, 16"--" "--"for a remote ancestor of Shamshi-Adad I (c.1800 BC)." [Kim SB Ryholt, op. cit., p.128] Khyan's name is transcribed as Staan in Africanus' version of Manetho's Epitome".”

The King of Egypt of Exodus 2:23

by Damien F. Mackey “During that long period, the King of Egypt died. The Israelites groaned in their slavery and cried out, and their cry for help because of their slavery went up to God. God heard their groaning and he remembered his covenant with Abraham, with Isaac and with Jacob. So God looked on the Israelites and was concerned about them”. Exodus 2:23-25 Here we learn of the death of that ruler of Egypt who had tried to kill Moses in revenge for the latter’s slaying of an Egyptian overseer (Exodus 2:14-15): The man said, ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us? Are you thinking of killing me as you killed the Egyptian?’ Then Moses was afraid and thought, ‘What I did must have become known’. When Pharaoh heard of this, he tried to kill Moses, but Moses fled from Pharaoh and went to live in Midian, where he sat down by a well. He must have been a very long-reigning Pharaoh, since his rule had to encompass some of Moses’ career in Egypt from before his exile in Midian until near to forty years later, when Moses would return to Egypt (Acts 7:29-30). Co-regency with his predecessor might be able to account for a part of these estimated 50-60 years. From the semi-legendary Story of Sinuhe, we learn that the Pharaoh inimical to Moses was Sesostris, so-called I, of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty. In the Story of Sinuhe, however, Sesostris does not die, but will later welcome back Sinuhe from his exile. Sesostris (Kheperkare) is considered to have reigned for 45 years (c. 1971-1926 BC, conventional dating), plus a co-regency with his father, Amememes, so-called I: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sesostris-I “Sesostris I (flourished 20th–19th century bce) was a king of ancient Egypt who succeeded his father after a 10-year coregency and brought Egypt to a peak of prosperity”. That presumed 45 years plus 10 or so (= 55 approximately) ought quite adequately cover the biblical span of time in question. We learn from tradition (Artapanus) that the Pharaoh was one “Chenephres”, whose wife, “Merris”, was the Egyptian princess who drew the baby Moses out of the water. Now “Chenephres” was jealous of Moses, as, later, Saul would be of David. I wrote about this in my article: King “Chenephres” of Egypt - an ancient type of King Saul (3) King "Chenephres" of Egypt - an ancient type of King Saul | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu …. Keeping in mind King Saul’s wretched treatment of his loyal and faithful servant David, Saul constantly hoping for – and doing his best to engineer - the young man’s demise, consider now what the Jewish historian, Artapanus, wrote about the Egyptian king “Chenephres” and his shabby treatment of Moses: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/which-real-story-moses-was-he-criminal-philosopher-hero-or-atheist-008008 Moses, according to Artapanus, was raised as the son of Chenephres, king of Upper of Egypt. Chenephres thought Moses was his own son – but, apparently, the bond between a father and a son wasn’t enough to keep Chenephres from trying to kill him. Chenephres sent Moses to lead his worst soldiers into an unwinnable war against Ethiopia, hoping Moses would die in battle. Moses, however, managed to conquer Ethiopia. He became a war hero across Egypt. He also declared the ibis as the sacred animal of the city – starting, in the process, the first of three religions he would found by the end of the story. He started his second religion when he made it back to Memphis, where he taught people how to use oxen in agriculture and, in the process, started the cult of Apis . He didn’t get to enjoy his new cult for long. His father started outright hiring people to assassinate him, and he had no choice but to leave Egypt. .... [End of quote] So, any excuse to kill Moses would have been warmly welcomed by king “Chenephres”, and he found it with Moses’ killing of the Egyptian. But how to reconcile Sesostris (Kheperkare) with “Chenephres”? The link is to be found with Chephren of the Fourth Dynasty, who married Meresankh, the “Merris” of Artapanus – the name also occurs as Ankhesenmerire. Chephren must then be “Chenephres”, a name not entirely unlike Sesostris’s Kheperkare. Chephren is Sesostris. As Chephren built the Great Sphinx of Giza, so were the kings “Sesostris” - whom I have compressed into just the one king – sphinx builders. Here (below) is Sesostris so-called III (Kheper, Khakaure) – {reign of 39 years (c. 1878-1839 BC, conventional dating), and also thought to have shared a co-regency with an Amenemes} - represented as a sphinx. The name “Chenephres” is even better found in Neferkare (Ka-nefer-re - Chenephres), the prenomen of Pepi, so-called II, who is one of my various alter egos for Chephren-Sesostris. Pepi’s exceedingly long reign (94 years at its upper end, Manetho) more than encompasses the requisite biblical time span for Moses. Moses was afterwards told that he could return to Egypt because (Exodus 4:19): “… all the men who were seeking your life are dead”. And the woman? The Twelfth Dynasty had passed, with a female, Sobeknefure, reigning briefly at the end of it. Conclusion: The vindictive “King of Egypt” of Exodus 2:23 was, all at once, “Chenephres” (tradition) – Chephren (Khafre) of the Fourth Dynasty – Pepi Neferkare of the Sixth Dynasty – Sesostris (Story of Sinuhe) Kheperkare of the Twelfth Dynasty. Footnote: I need to add that the Twelfth Dynasty, that so dominated the life of Moses for nearly eight decades, was a Crocodile (Sobek) worshipping dynasty: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (5) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Why, did not its last ruler, the female Sobeknefrure (“Beauty of Sobek”), bear the Crocodile (Sobek) name? Thus I suspect that the multiplicity of so-called Thirteenth Dynasty kings “Sobekhotep”, were, in actuality, the two mighty Twelfth Dynasty rulers, Amenemes (Amenemhat) - Amenemhat Sobekhotep II - and Sesostris, Neferkhare Sobekhotep IV. The latter, indeed, bears the exact traditional name of Moses’ foster father-in-law, “Chenephres” (Khaneferre): http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn13/14sobekhotep4.html “Praenomen Neferkhare “The appearance of Re is beautiful”, sometimes Khaneferre, “Beautiful is the Appearance of Re”.

God could have used natural phenomena for the Plagues of Egypt

“But as the frogs died, it would have meant that mosquitoes, flies and other insects would have flourished without the predators to keep their numbers under control”. Dr Stephan Pflugmacher Benjamin Leon has written, in his article: The 10 plagues of Egypt happened: Scientists - The Standard (newsday.co.zw) The 10 plagues of Egypt happened: Scientists …. The scientists believe this switch in the climate was the trigger for the first of the plagues. The rising temperatures could have caused the river Nile to dry up, turning the fast-flowing river that was Egypt’s lifeline into a slow moving and muddy watercourse. These conditions would have been perfect for the arrival of the first plague, which in the Bible is described as the Nile turning to blood. Dr Stephan Pflugmacher, a biologist at the Leibniz Institute for Water Ecology and Inland Fisheries in Berlin, believes this description could have been the result of a toxic fresh water algae. He said the bacterium, known as Burgundy Blood algae or Oscillatoria rubescens, is known to have existed 3 000 years ago and still causes similar effects today. He said: “It multiplies massively in slow-moving warm waters with high levels of nutrition. And as it dies, it stains the water red.” The scientists also claim the arrival of this algae set in motion the events that led to the second, third and forth plagues — frogs, lice and flies. Frogs development from tadpoles into fully formed adults is governed by hormones that can speed up their development in times of stress. The arrival of the toxic algae would have triggered such a transformation and forced the frogs to leave the water where they lived. But as the frogs died, it would have meant that mosquitoes, flies and other insects would have flourished without the predators to keep their numbers under control. This, according to the scientists, could have led in turn to the fifth and sixth plagues — diseased livestock and boils. Professor Werner Kloas, a biologist at the Leibniz Institute, said: “We know insects often carry diseases like malaria, so the next step in the chain reaction is the outbreak of epidemics, causing the human population to fall ill.” Another major natural disaster more than 600km away is now also thought to be responsible for triggering the seventh, eighth and ninth plagues that brought hail, locusts and darkness to Egypt. One of the biggest volcanic eruptions in human history occurred when Thera, a volcano that was part of the Mediterranean islands of Santorini, just north of Crete, exploded around 3 500 years ago, spewing billions of tonnes of volcanic ash into the atmosphere. Nadine von Blohm, from the Institute for Atmospheric Physics in Germany, has been conducting experiments on how hailstorms form and believes that the volcanic ash could have clashed with thunderstorms above Egypt to produce dramatic hail storms. Dr Siro Trevisanato, a Canadian biologist who has written a book about the plagues, said the locusts could also be explained by the volcanic fall out from the ash. He said: “The ash fallout caused weather anomalies, which translates into higher precipitations, higher humidity. And that’s exactly what fosters the presence of the locusts.” The volcanic ash could also have blocked out the sunlight, causing the stories of a plague of darkness. Scientists have found pumice, stone made from cooled volcanic lava, during excavations of Egyptian ruins despite there not being any volcanoes in Egypt. Analysis of the rock shows that it came from the Santorini volcano, providing physical evidence that the ash fallout from the eruption at Santorini reached Egyptian shores. The cause of the final plague, the death of the first borns of Egypt, has been suggested as being caused by a fungus that may have poisoned the grain supplies, of which male first born would have had first pickings and so been first to fall victim. But Dr Robert Miller, associate professor of the Hebrew scriptures, from the Catholic University of America, said: “I’m reluctant to come up with natural causes for all of the plagues.” The problem with the naturalistic explanations, is that they lose the whole point. “And the whole point was that you didn’t come out of Egypt by natural causes, you came out by the hand of God.” [End of quotes] Mackey’s comment: While I would once have shared Dr. Robert Miller’s view here, I now think that there is enough in the account of the Plagues of Egypt (Exodus 7-11) to warrant one’s giving all the glory and praise to God, even if one also posits the use of natural phenomena. All the fine timing, for instance, was His. And so was, a bit further on (Exodus 13:21-22), the Glory Cloud (popularly known as Shekinah), which served Israel as their guide along the way: And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud (בְּעַמּוּד עָנָן) to lead them along the way, and by night in a pillar of fire (בְּעַמּוּד אֵשׁ) to give them light, that they might travel by day and by night. The pillar of cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night did not depart from before the people. This was the same manifestation of glorious Light that the Shepherds and the Magi would later witness in relation to the Christ Child, who would appear on the radiant Cloud in 1925, at Pontevedra in Spain. See my article: The Magi and the Star that Stopped (4) The Magi and the Star that Stopped | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu 2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. 2:10 The river is blood. Ipuwer Papyrus https://ohr.edu/838/print The Ten Plagues - Live From Egypt by Rabbi Mordechai Becher In the early 19th Century a papyrus, dating from the end of the Middle Kingdom, was found in Egypt. It was taken to the Leiden Museum in Holland and interpreted by A.H. Gardiner in 1909. The complete papyrus can be found in the book Admonitions of an Egyptian from a heiratic papyrus in Leiden. The papyrus describes violent upheavals in Egypt, starvation, drought, escape of slaves (with the wealth of the Egyptians), and death throughout the land. The papyrus was written by an Egyptian named Ipuwer and appears to be an eyewitness account of the effects of the Exodus plagues from the perspective of an average Egyptian. Below are excerpts from the papyrus together with their parallels in the Book of Exodus. (For a lengthier discussion of the papyrus and the historical background of the Exodus, see Jewish Action, Spring 1995, article by Brad Aaronson, entitled When Was the Exodus? ) IPUWER PAPYRUS - LEIDEN 344 TORAH - EXODUS 2:5-6 Plague is throughout the land. Blood is everywhere. 2:10 The river is blood. 2:10 Men shrink from tasting - human beings, and thirst after water 3:10-13 That is our water! That is our happiness! What shall we do in respect thereof? All is ruin. 7:20 …all the waters of the river were turned to blood. 7:21 ...there was blood thoughout all the land of Egypt …and the river stank. 7:24 And all the Egyptians dug around the river for water to drink; for they could not drink of the water of the river. 2:10 Forsooth, gates, columns and walls are consumed by fire. 10:3-6 Lower Egypt weeps... The entire palace is without its revenues. To it belong [by right] wheat and barley, geese and fish 6:3 Forsooth, grain has perished on every side. 5:12 Forsooth, that has perished which was yesterday seen. The land is left over to its weariness like the cutting of flax. 9:23-24 ...and the fire ran along the ground... there was hail, and fire mingled with the hail, very grievous. 9:25 ...and the hail smote every herb of the field, and broke every tree of the field. 9:31-32 ...and the flax and the barley was smitten; for the barley was in season, and flax was ripe. But the wheat and the rye were not smitten; for they were not grown up. 10:15 ...there remained no green things in the trees, or in the herbs of the fields, through all the land of Egypt. 5:5 All animals, their hearts weep. Cattle moan... 9:2-3 Behold, cattle are left to stray, and there is none to gather them together. 9:3 ...the hand of the Lord is upon thy cattle which is in the field... and there shall be a very grievous sickness. 9:19 ...gather thy cattle, and all that thou hast in the field... 9:21 And he that did not fear the word of the Lord left his servants and cattle in the field. 9:11 The land is without light 10:22 And there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt. 4:3 (5:6) Forsooth, the children of princes are dashed against the walls. 6:12 Forsooth, the children of princes are cast out in the streets. 6:3 The prison is ruined. 2:13 He who places his brother in the ground is everywhere. 3:14 It is groaning throughout the land, mingled with lamentations 12:29 And it came to pass, that at midnight the Lord smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sat on his throne to the firstborn of the captive that was in the prison. 12:30 ...there was not a house where there was not one dead. 12:30 ...there was a great cry in Egypt. 7:1 Behold, the fire has mounted up on high. Its burning goes forth against the enemies of the land. 13:21 ... by day in a pillar of cloud, to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them light; to go by day and night. 3:2 Gold and lapis lazuli, silver and malachite, carnelian and bronze... are fastened on the neck of female slaves. 12:35-36 ...and they requested from the Egyptians, silver and gold articles and clothing. And God made the Egyptians favour them and they granted their request. [The Israelites] thus drained Egypt of its wealth. Mackey’s continues: What gave pause to my earlier view (see above) was that the Plagues of Egypt were re-visited in modern times, with the Mount Saint Helens volcano (1980) - though the actual sequence of plagues may vary from the Exodus account - making me wonder if God had chosen to use the ancient Thera (Santorini) cataclysm as a backdrop to the biblical phenomena – as some commentators have suggested. “The vastness of Santorini compared to the others – more than 80 cubic kilometres of island thrown into the sky one terrible night – is amazing”. Gavin Menzies The scholar who pioneered the fascinating notion of there being a material causal connection between the Plagues and Exodus of the Old Testament and the Thera (Santorini) cataclysm was Dr. Hans Goedicke, the Chairman of the Department of Near Eastern Studies at John Hopkins University, Baltimore. Since then, other scholars and writers have taken up this suggestion, often using the more recent eruptions of Vesuvius and Krakatoa, but especially Mount St. Helens in Washington State, as a template of what might have occurred in the Theran – Old Testament case. Dr. I. Velikovsky (Worlds in Collision, 1950) was one; Graham Phillips (Act of God), another, and (heavily indebted to Phillips), Gavin Menzies (Lost Empire of Atlantis). The latter, in the “New Evidence” section on pp. 3-32 at the back of his book, will summarise Velikovsky and a host of others, whilst giving his own interpretation. In Part Three (p. 9), Menzies writes: ‘1444 BC – The year the earth faced extinction’ The Book of Exodus (1444 BC) compared with the Santorini Volcanic Eruption: (Hebrew scholars date the Exodus to 1444 BC – from Old Testament records) I have had the good fortune to visit Vesuvius and Mount St Helens, to fly over the Indonesian Caldera, and to lie in bed looking down onto the Caldera of Santorini. The vastness of Santorini compared to the others – more than 80 cubic kilometres of island thrown into the sky one terrible night – is amazing. [May be linked to Aegean island of Yali] P. 9: … Aegean volcanic arc … Yali …. P. 10: As the Thera foundation states: ‘The sampled profiles in Yali and Santorini consist of tephra layers with different radioactivity, possibly implying different eruptive phases, recorded on the neighbouring islands. The latter may indicate occasionally simultaneous eruptions of both Yali and Santorini volcanoes …’. On p. 12, Menzies will reproduce some of G. Phillips’ comparisons between the plagues of Egypt and Mount St. Helens (Phillips also discusses this in his book, Acts of God, ch’s 9 “Cataclysm” and 10 “Exodus”). Comparisons between the Nine Plagues of the Old Testament Book of Exodus (1444 BC) and the Mount St Helens Volcanic Eruption (AD 1980) (thanks to Graham Phillips website: www.grahamphillips.net). showing parallels at Mount St. Helens with dead fish and blood red water: - Flies - Boils (skin sores and rashes) - Hail (pellet-size volcanic debris, fiery pumice) - Foul water (water supplies had to be cut off) - Darkness (sun obscured for hours over 500 miles from volcano).

Where the Exodus and the Conquest belong

by Damien F. Mackey “Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan?” Robert M. Porter I fully agree with the following conclusions about the Exodus and the Conquest as arrived at by Robert M. Porter, who introduces as follows his article: Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III (2) Towards an Alternative Reconciliation of the Old Testament with History and Archaeology: Exodus at end of Old Kingdom and Conquest at end of Early Bronze III | Robert M Porter - Academia.edu …. without worrying too much about dates, what point in the archaeology of Canaan best fits a literal interpretation of the biblical Conquest story? At the end of the Early Bronze Age III period (EB III), Jericho and most of Canaan’s other walled cities were destroyed or abandoned and there then followed a period variously named as EB IV, MB I (Middle Bronze I), EB-MB or IB (Intermediate Bronze). …. The varying nomenclature reflects the strangeness of the transition – pottery styles changed although not greatly but the civilisation changed from city dwelling to villages and nomadism. Assuming that the Exodus was followed a generation or two later by the Conquest, could these events correspond, as will be proposed here, to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt and the end of EB III in Canaan? …. [End of quote] Dr. Donovan Courville (in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) had arrived at a rather neat, tucked-in model whereby Egypt’s Old and Middle kingdoms were, in part, synchronous, and the succeeding First and Second intermediate periods were one and the same. Thus: Old Kingdom – Middle Kingdom First Intermediate – Second Intermediate I had embraced this neat set of equations, without, however, having really bothered to probe the supposed Intermediates. Robert M. Porter has accepted the First Intermediate Period as being a time of collapse for Egypt, despite our knowing little about the period – especially in its earliest phase: “The end of the Old Kingdom (end of Dynasty 6, typically dated c. 2200 BC) was a time of Egyptian collapse, followed by the so-called First Intermediate Period for which, in its early stages, we have little historical or archaeological information”. I. The First Intermediate Period So, what is exactly is the First Intermediate Period? Well, according to Joshua J. Mark: https://www.worldhistory.org/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The First Intermediate Period of Egypt (2181-2040 BCE) is the era which followed the Old Kingdom (c. 2613-2181 BCE) and preceded the Middle Kingdom (2040-1782 BCE) periods of Egyptian history. The name was given to the era by 19th-century CE Egyptologists, not by the ancient Egyptians. Stable eras of Egyptian history are referred to as 'kingdoms' while eras of political strife or instability are known as 'intermediate periods.' This period has long been labeled a 'dark age' when the central government of the Old Kingdom, which had been built on the model of the Early Dynastic Period in Egypt (c. 3150-2613 BCE) collapsed and plunged the country into chaos. Recent scholarship has revised this opinion, and now the First Intermediate Period is seen as a time of change and transition, where the power and customs dictated by the monarchy at Memphis, capital of the Old Kingdom of Egypt, were disseminated throughout the country to those of traditionally lower status. Probably the best way to understand the First Intermediate Period of Egypt is to consider modern retail capitalism and mass consumerism. In the mid-19th century CE (c. 1858) the American department store Macy's in New York City boasted that they sold "Goods suitable for the millionaire at prices in reach of the millions" (14th Street Tribune, 2). Prior to the Industrial Revolution and mass consumerism, certain goods were available only to the wealthy who had the disposable income to spend on such purchases. With the rise of department stores like Macy's, following the Industrial Revolution and mass production, these kinds of goods, though of lesser quality, were available to anyone at a much-reduced cost. This is precisely what happened during Egypt's First Intermediate Period. Those who previously could not afford elaborate homes, gardens, tombs, tomb inscriptions, or their own Pyramid Texts to guide them through the afterlife now found that they could because wealth was no longer only in the hands of the upper-class nobility. Whereas once only the king was provided with tomb inscriptions in the form of the Pyramid Texts, now nobility, officials, and ordinary people were also provided with a guide book to the underworld through the Coffin Texts. This was possible because of the collapse of the central government at Memphis and the rise of individual nomarchs (governors or administrators of nomes, Egyptian districts) who finally held more power than the king of Egypt. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The First Intermediate Period, described as a 'dark period' in ancient Egyptian history,[1] spanned approximately 125 years, c. 2181–2055 BC, after the end of the Old Kingdom.[2] It comprises the Seventh (although this is mostly considered spurious by Egyptologists), Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties. The concept of a "First Intermediate Period" was coined in 1926 by Egyptologists Georg Steindorff and Henri Frankfort.[3] …. [End of quote] The First Intermediate Period therefore “comprises the Seventh … Eighth, Ninth, Tenth, and part of the Eleventh Dynasties”. But let us take a closer look at this. The Seventh Dynasty, for its part, is considered spurious, even non-existent: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/143lp1s/ancient_egypt_the_unknown_7th_dynasty_15th_hyksos/ “According to Manetho, the 7th dynasty contained 70 kings who ruled for a total of 70 days. Given the implausible nature of this claim, and the lack of other evidence to support the idea of the existence of the 7th dynasty, Egyptologists have traditionally viewed the 7th dynasty as being something that did not actually exist”. Not much better, we find is: The Eighth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eighth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Eighth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty VIII) is a poorly known and short-lived line of pharaohs reigning in rapid succession in the early 22nd century BC, likely with their seat of power in Memphis”. Same again for the “extremely obscure”: The Ninth Dynasty (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Dynasty_of_Egypt): “The Ninth Dynasty of ancient Egypt (Dynasty IX) is often combined with the 7th, 8th, 10th and early 11th Dynasties under the group title First Intermediate Period.[1] The dynasty that seems to have supplanted the Eighth Dynasty is extremely obscure”. Discounting the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, the Eighth Dynasty, I find, has a predominance of names, Neferkare, which is the prenomen of Pepi, who is my “Chenephres” (Kanefere), the foster father-in-law of Moses. Even more suspiciously, one of the supposedly Eighth Dynasty names is Neferkare Pepiseneb. And there are also Fifth Dynasty names in there, such as Neferirkare and Djedkare. With the Seventh and Eighth dynasties we may not even be in an Intermediate Period. And the same comment may well apply to the Ninth Dynasty, which swings us back, at least in part, to the time of Abram and the ruler, Nebkaure Khety, whom I have identified with Hor-Aha (Menes), right at the beginning of Egyptian dynastic history: Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac (2) Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu But the great name, Imhotep (the biblical Joseph), also emerges here in the Ninth. The Tenth Dynasty reproduces Neferkare and the name Khety. And, with the Eleventh Dynasty, synchronous with the Third Dynasty, we have arrived at the time of Jacob and Joseph (and Famine) in Egypt. After the most obscure Eighth Dynasty (of suspicious Neferkare names), which supposedly follows the virtually non-existent Seventh Dynasty, we find ourselves back in the era of Abram, and then of Jacob and Joseph. Therefore the pattern of the so-called First Intermediate Period of Egypt is that it - supposedly arising out of a real dynastic kingdom, the Sixth Dynasty – ghosts its way back to the Sixth, then all the way back to Abram, then on to Jacob and Joseph. The so-called First Intermediate Period of Egyptian history cannot at all, therefore, be construed as a collapse of Egypt following on from the end of the Old Kingdom. Instead, it is a confused mixture of eras preceding any major collapse of the country. II. The Second Intermediate Period Joshua J. Mark again: https://www.worldhistory.org/Second_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt/ The Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782 - c.1570 BCE) is the era following the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) and preceding the New Kingdom (1570-1069 BCE). As with all historical designations of the eras of Egyptian history, the name was coined by 19th-century CE Egyptologists to demarcate time periods in Egypt's history; the name was not used by ancient Egyptians. This era is marked by a divided Egypt with the people known as the Hyksos holding power in the north, Egyptian rule at Thebes in the center of the country, and Nubians ruling in the south. As with the First Intermediate Period of Egypt, this time is traditionally characterized as chaotic, lacking in cultural advancements, and lawless, but as with the earlier period, this claim has been discredited. The Second Intermediate Period of Egypt was a time of disunity and records of the time are confused or missing, but it was not as dark a time as later Egyptian writers claimed. This period begins as the Egyptian rulers of the 13th Dynasty move the capital from Itj-tawi (in Lower Egypt near Lisht, south of Memphis) back to Thebes, the old capital of the late 11th Dynasty in Upper Egypt, loosening their control over the north. In the beginning of the 12th Dynasty, the king Amenemhat I (1991-1962 BCE) founded the small town of Hutwaret (better known by the Greek name Avaris) in the far north, which grew into a trading center with easy access to the sea and connected by land routes to Sinai and the region of Palestine. In the course of the 13th Dynasty successful trade and immigration brought an influx of Semitic peoples to Avaris who eventually gained enough wealth and power to exert political influence in the country. These people were known to the Egyptians (and themselves) as Heqau-khasut ('Rulers of Foreign Lands') but were called 'Hyksos' by the Greek writers, the name they are known by in history. The later Egyptian writers depict the Hyksos as brutal conquerors who destroyed Egypt, ransacked the temples, and oppressed the country until it was liberated and unified under the reign of Ahmose of Thebes (c. 1570-1544 BCE). Archaeological evidence and records of the time, however, strongly suggest a very different story. The Hyksos, far from the cruel conquerors of later histories, admired Egyptian culture greatly and adopted it as their own. They lived cordially, if not exactly peacefully, with the government at Thebes until a perceived insult drove the Theban kings to declare war on them and they were driven out. Ahmose I's victory signaled the end of the Second Intermediate Period and the beginning of the New Kingdom. …. [End of quote] More prosaically, Wikipedia tells of it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Intermediate_Period_of_Egypt The Second Intermediate Period dates from 1700 to 1550 BC.[1]: 123  It marks a period when ancient Egypt was divided into smaller dynasties for a second time, between the end of the Middle Kingdom and the start of the New Kingdom. The concept of a Second Intermediate Period generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties, however there is no universal agreement in Egyptology about how to define the period.[2] It is best known as the period when the Hyksos people of West Asia established the 15th Dynasty and ruled from Avaris, which, according to Manetho's Aegyptiaca, was founded by a king by the name of Salitis.[3] The settling of these people may have occurred peacefully, although later recounts of Manetho portray the Hyksos "as violent conquerors and oppressors of Egypt".[4] …. [End of quote] The Second Intermediate Period “generally includes the 13th through to the 17th dynasties …”. More can be made of this, I think, than with the First Intermediate Period. An early view of the Second Intermediate Period may have had the Twelfth Dynasty collapsing and then, immediately following this, the emergence of the supposedly weak Thirteenth Dynasty - just as the standard view tends to have the Sixth Dynasty collapsing, immediately followed by the First Intermediate Period. But, then, researchers came to appreciate that the Thirteenth Dynasty rulers, the Sobekhoteps and Neferhoteps, who presumably followed those of the Twelfth, were rather significant kings in the own right, giving no indications of an immediate collapse of Egypt. My own solution, wrapped around the life of Moses, is that ancient Egypt did collapse almost immediately after the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty. Here is the new scenario simplified (referencing only the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties): The thoroughly Egyptianised Moses (cf. Exodus 2:19) had fled from the wrath of pharaoh Pepi Neferkare-Sesostris (“Chenephres”) after his killing of the Egyptian (2:12-15). After spending 40 years as an exile in the land of Midian, Moses was told by an angel that all those seeking his life had died (4:19). This means that the Sixth/Twelfth dynasty (that ended with the brief reign of a female) had come to an end. Now we need to bring in the Thirteenth Dynasty. The Crocodile worshipping Sobekhoteps, thought to have reigned in strength after the passing of the Twelfth Dynasty, I believe to have actually been of the Twelfth Dynasty. And that includes the female Crocodile, Sobeknefure, the female ruler: Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek (3) Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Moses saw nothing of the now defunct Twelfth Dynasty upon his return from Midian, but only the Thirteenth Dynasty king, the hard-hearted (cf. Ex. 4:21; 7:3; 14:4) Neferhotep, Pharaoh of the Exodus. Thus it was a very short period of time from the demise of the mighty Twelfth Dynasty to the Exodus during the Thirteenth Dynasty, which ushered in the beginning of an Intermediate Period that would deteriorate even further, presumably, in the reign of Dudimose (“Tutimaeus” – Josephus following Manetho) when the foreigners invaded Egypt ‘after a blast from God’.

Those alike Biblico-Egyptian names: Unas, Uni, Iannes, Ioannes, Ianassi

by Damien F. Mackey Now certain traditions tell that the pair, Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. A simple as possible attempt will be made here to sort out, from the Bible and Egyptian history, those like names that can be the source of much confusion. Iannes (and Iambres) What shall we say about Saint Paul’s “Jannes and Jambres [Mambres]”? (2 Timothy 3:8): “And even as Jannes and Jambres [Mambres/Iambres] withstood Moses, so do these also withstand the truth. Men corrupted in mind, reprobate concerning the faith”. Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) and Jambres [var. Mambres] are generally considered to have been Pharaoh’s magicians. I, though, had tried to connect them to actual Pharaohs, thereby stretching Moses’ life around Pharaoh Unas (my “Jannes”), from whom I suggested Moses had fled into Midian, and the Hyksos Maibre Sheshi (my “Mambres”), Pharaoh of the Exodus. (5th and 14th dynasties, respectively). But, for one, Dr. John Osgood has brilliantly shown that pharaoh Maibre belonged much later, to the Judges era of Eglon, king of Moab, ruling at Jericho: Over the Face of All the Earth Home / Archaeology / Over the Face of All the Earth In this fascinating volume, Dr John Osgood explores man’s past using the most ancient evidences and records. Building on his vast research over 40 years, Dr Osgood has developed a new and arguably superior framework of study which brings together all the evidence from ancient history to establish a true understanding of mankind’s exciting past. John presents a convincing case for accepting a modified version of the so-called ‘revised chronology’ of ancient Egypt and demonstrates how a genuine look at the facts establishes the accuracy and reliability of the Biblical records. …. One ought not neglect Hebrew traditions, which - while various of them can be quite misleading - can often throw much light on a subject, even to the point of clinching the matter. Now certain traditions tell that the pair Jannes and Jambres (or Mambres), were two Reubenite (Israelite) brothers, troublemakers for Moses, Dathan (or Jathan) and Abiram. On this, see e.g. my article: Jannes and Jambres (2) Jannes and Jambres | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu It was to this pair (names poorly transliterated into Greek), and not to any Egyptians, that Saint Paul was referring. He probably would not have said about idolatrous Egyptians, “Men … reprobate concerning the faith”. Conclusion One: Jannes (Iannes, Ioannes) was a Reubenite, not an Egyptian. Unas (Unis) Pharaoh Unas of Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (Old Kingdom) was indeed the king from whom Moses fled: Moses and Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (7) Moses and Egypt's Fifth Dynasty | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Unas needs to be multi-identified. He is also Chephren; Pepi; and Sesostris (and more). On this, see e.g. my: First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses (4) First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu There I wrote: The Tale of Sinuhe, which seems to recall in rough fashion the flight of Moses from Egypt, may help us here by locating this famous incident to early in the reign of Sesostris I. With the tyrannical “new king” of Exodus 1:8 firmly established as, among many names, Teti-Amenemes I, the founding dynastic king (who was murdered) whose land was becoming overrun by foreigners, then the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian - some time after the murder of Amenemes I, according to Sinuhe - can only have been the (son- successor of that first dynastic king. To jump ahead of our story, by taking account of the C2nd BC Jewish historian, Artapanus, Moses was the foster son of the Egyptian queen “Merris”, who had married “Chenephres”: https://www.ancient-origins.net/history-famous-people/which-real-story-moses-was-he-criminal-philosopher-hero-or-atheist-008008 Moses, according to Artapanus, was raised as the son of Chenephres, king of Upper of Egypt. Chenephres thought Moses was his own son – but, apparently, the bond between a father and a son wasn’t enough to keep Chenephres from trying to kill him. Chenephres sent Moses to lead his worst soldiers into an unwinnable war against Ethiopia, hoping Moses would die in battle. Moses, however, managed to conquer Ethiopia. He became a war hero across Egypt. He also declared the ibis as the sacred animal of the city – starting, in the process, the first of three religions he would found by the end of the story. He started his second religion when he made it back to Memphis, where he taught people how to use oxen in agriculture and, in the process, started the cult of Apis . He didn’t get to enjoy his new cult for long. His father started outright hiring people to assassinate him, and he had no choice but to leave Egypt. .... [End of quote] With “Merris” already identified as Meresankh - of whom Egyptology may have unnecessarily created several versions, not to mention her alter egos in Ankhesenmerire I-II - then “Chenephres”, apart from being Sesostris I (as in the Story of Sinuhe), must be the Fourth Dynasty’s Chephren (Khafre), who married Meresankh”: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Khafre-king-of-Egypt “Khafre was the son of King Khufu and succeeded the short-lived Redjedef, probably his elder brother. He married his sister Khamerernebti, Meresankh III”. Khufu (Cheops) I have already identified with the founder king of Exodus 1:8. But I have also identified him with Redjedef (Djedefre), who was not (as I think) a ruler distinct from Khufu. Let us now recall, very briefly, our many versions of the first dynastic king (from Part One) to determine if each of these may have a (son-) successor who is appropriate for “Chenephres”. Snofru His appropriate successor, I think – though it does not follow conventionally – would be the (albeit poorly known - parentage uncertain) Huni. The name Huni may link up further on with Unis (Wenis) of the Fifth Dynasty. Huni’s nomen may enable us to link him up with the Sixth Dynasty’s Pepi. “[Huni] may have had the Nomen Neferkare ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/huni/ “Kerpheris” the name given to Huni, apparently, by Manetho is not unlike Kenephres/ Chenephres. Khufu (Djedefre) His highly appropriate (son-) successor was Khafre (Chephren), a name that will be reflected amongst the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sesostris’s praenomina (Kheperkare, Khakheperre, Khakaure). Menkaure The Kaf- element (Khafre) now becomes significant. The successor in this case can only be Shepseskaf (Manetho’s Sebercheres), who, like Khafre, was closely associated with (married to) a Khamerernebti. Shepseskaf continued his predecessor Menkaure’s building works, “... he completed the pyramid of Menkaure ...”: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/shepseskaf/ Sahure Just going by names here of Sahure’s presumed successors: Neferikare has a heap of Kha- element and Neferkare type names (Nephercheres, Neferkeris, Kaikai, Kaka, Nefer-it-ka-re, Neferirkara). And Shepseskaf (see previous paragraph) seems to re-emerge in Shepseskare. But the more important Fifth Dynasty connection (e.g., with Huni) will be Unis (Wenis), see next. Djedkare Isesi As just noted, his successor was Unis or Wenis, and most appropriately Auguste Mariette, as we read in Part One, showed that Unis (Unas) followed on immediately after Tet (Teti), who is my 6th Dynasty version of the dynastic founder king. Teti and Unas also figure together in pyramid text decoration: “Two of the pyramids (those of Unas and Teti) contain chambers decorated with hieroglyph texts (the so called 'Pyramid Texts') that are amongst the earliest manifestations of ancient Egyptian writing”: https://www.flickr.com/photos/amthomson/43838532761 Merenre As in some of the other instances, the Sixth Dynasty is out of sequence (my opinion), with Merenre - my dynastic founder king (= Teti) - following Pepi (Neferkare), who is, in fact, the son-successor. The life of Moses before the return from Midian knew of only two long-reigning Egyptian monarchs, the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, and the ruler from whom Moses fled to Midian. That one dynasty died out (Exodus 4:19) - its last ruler a woman - and Moses returned to Egypt. [End of article] Conclusion Two: Unas (Unis) was the ruler from whom Moses fled, to Midian. Uni (Weni) Uni, or Weni, was likely Moses himself (6th dynasty), the same as Mentuhotep (12th dynasty). He was Vizier and Chief Judge in Egypt: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (4) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Drs. Courville and Osgood have unfortunately identified Mentuhotep as Joseph, thereby missing out on Joseph (Imhotep, 3rd dynasty), a connection that many others have embraced. See e.g. my article: Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? (2) Enigmatic Imhotep - did he really exist? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Dr. Osgood does follow Courville, and builds on him, in rightly recognising a link between the 6th and 12th dynasties – which syncretism conventional history would regard as absurd. This is another of those useful contributions in Dr. Osgood’s book. Conclusion Three: Uni (Weni) was likely Moses himself. Ianassi Finally, Ianassi was the son of the Hyksos pharaoh Khyan. Conclusion Four: Ianassi was the son of Hyksos pharaoh Khyan.

Matthew the Evangelist presents Jesus Christ as the new Moses

‘If you had believed Moses, you would believe Me, because he wrote about Me’. John 5:46 Bart D. Ehrman writes: https://global.oup.com/us/companion.websites/0195161238/studentresources/chapter6/#:~:text=Matthew%20further%20emphasizes%20Jesus'%20importance,give%20the%20(new)%20law Jesus, The Jewish Messiah: The Gospel According to Matthew Chapter Summary: The author of the Gospel of Matthew used Mark, Q, and his own sources (designated by scholars as "M"). The Gospel was written between 80-85 C.E., probably somewhere outside of Palestine. This chapter applies the redactional method to uncover Matthew's narrative emphases. The redactional method relies on the principle that an author only changes his/her sources for particular reasons. These changes, therefore, give the reader hints about the author's emphases. Damien Mackey’s comment: But see my article: Carsten Peter Thiede’s early dating of Matthew’s Gospel (2) Carsten Peter Thiede's early dating of Matthew's Gospel | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Bart D. Ehrman continues: The Importance of Beginnings: Jesus the Jewish Messiah in Fulfillment of Jewish Scriptures In Matthew, Jesus is unmistakably Jewish: Matthew emphasizes Jesus' connection to two of the most important figures in Jewish history, David and Abraham. Jesus' relationship to Jewish history is further underscored by the genealogy presented in chapter 1. According to this genealogy, there were fourteen generations between Abraham and David, fourteen between David and the deportation to Babylon, and fourteen between the Babylonian exile and Jesus. At the end of each period, something important happened in Jewish history: first came the greatest king, then the worst catastrophe, and finally the arrival of the messiah. The emphasis on Jesus' Jewish roots and the insistence that his life was a fulfillment of prophecy can be traced from the genealogy to the birth narrative and through the rest of the Gospel. Matthew uses "fulfillment citations" to prove that Jesus was the Jewish messiah. Matthew further emphasizes Jesus' importance to Judaism by modeling his birth and ministry on Moses' birth and mission: Jesus is the new Moses who has been appointed by God to free his people from bondage and to give the (new) law. According to Matthew, people do not need to choose between Jesus and Moses, nor must they choose between Jesus' law and Moses' law. Jesus is, for this author, the final interpreter of Mosaic Law. The Portrayal of Jesus in Matthew: the Sermon on the Mount as a Springboard The Sermon on the Mount is one of five blocks of teaching in Matthew. The five-fold structure may mimic the five books of Moses. This sermon is a clear example of Matthew's propensity to equate Moses' and Jesus' roles: Jesus delivers the law of God while standing on a mountain. The sermon deals largely with life in the kingdom of heaven, an earthly kingdom that God will establish on earth. The Beatitudes serve as assurances to those who are currently weak and oppressed-they will have a place in the kingdom of heaven. The Beatitudes are not, therefore, commands but statements of fact. Matthew's Jesus does not advocate abandoning the Mosaic Law. Instead, Jesus insists he has not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it. Jesus urges his followers to keep the law even more rigorously than the scribes and Pharisees. Jesus explains what he means in the next passage, known as the antitheses. In these statements, it is clear that the spirit of the law, not the letter, is ultimately what God's people are called to keep. The law is summarized in two commandments: "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind" and "love your neighbor as yourself." Thus, love is at the core of the entire law. Jesus Rejected by the Jewish Leaders Although Jesus is presented as thoroughly Jewish in the Gospel of Matthew, he strongly opposes Judaism as it is practiced by the leaders of his day. Jesus requires Jews to keep the law, but urges them to reject the Jewish leaders. For this author, the Jewish authorities are hypocrites who are blind to Jesus' messianic identity. In a story unique to Matthew, Pilate washes his hands of Jesus' blood, and the crowd of Jews cries out, "His blood be on us and on our children" (27:25). Rather than implicating the Jews as a whole for Jesus' death, however, Matthew indicts the Jewish leaders who stir up the crowds; it is the leaders who are responsible for Jesus' death. Matthew and His Readers Because of Matthew's insistence on keeping the law, scholars have surmised that his audience consisted of a number of Jewish converts. There were probably Gentile converts in the community as well, however, because Matthew writes that outsiders will enter the kingdom of God. At the end of the Gospel, moreover, Jesus commands the disciples to baptize the nations - a commandment that does not distinguish Jews from Gentiles. Scholars suggest that the Gospel of Matthew originated somewhere near Palestine. The author's criticism of Jewish leaders may indicate his community's opposition to a local Jews. Matthew may have written his Gospel to show that Jesus was in fact the Jewish messiah who, like Moses, gave his people God's law.

Pharaoh of Abraham and Isaac

by Damien F. Mackey Upon close examination, the Book of Genesis appears to provide us with several vital clues about the “Pharaoh” encountered by Abram and Sarai. These may be such clues as can assist us in determining just who was, in the Egyptian records, this enigmatic ruler. From a study of the structure of the relevant Genesis passages, from toledôt and chiasmus, as considered in my article: Toledôt Explains Abram’s Pharaoh https://www.academia.edu/26239534/Toled%C3%B4t_Explains_Abrams_Pharaoh we learned that the biblical “Pharaoh”: Was the same as the Abimelech of Gerar, ruler of the Philistines, contemporaneous with both Abram (Abraham) and Isaac. which means that: This particular monarch must have reigned for at least 60+ years (the span from Abram’s famine to the marriage of Isaac and Rebekah). The era of Abram also closely approximated, so we have found - as archaeologically determined by Dr. John Osgood - the time of Narmer. Now, while some consider this Narmer to have been the father of Egypt’s first dynastic king, Menes, my preference is for Narmer as the invasive Akkadian king, Naram-Sin. Though I would also make allowance for him to have been, perhaps, the Elamite king, Chedorlaomer, of Genesis 14. …. what makes most intriguing a possible collision of … Menes with a Shinarian potentate … is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin … had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920, pp. 89-98). I am also inclined to accept the view that the classical name “Menes” arose from the nomen, Min, of pharaoh Hor-Aha (“Horus the Fighter”). Most importantly, according to Manetho, Hor (“Menes”) ruled for more than 60 years: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01menes.html Moreover, Emmet Sweeney has provided a strong argument for a close convergence in time of Abraham and Menes: http://www.emmetsweeney.net/article-directory/item/70-abraham-and First Conclusion My tentative estimation would be that Abram came to Egypt at the approximate time of Narmer, and right near the beginning of the long reign of Hor-Aha (Menes), who in his youthfulness had fancied Sarai. However, by the end of the pharaoh’s long reign, at the time when Isaac had married Rebekah, he (as Abimelech) no longer sought personal involvement with the young woman, but rather commented (Genesis 26:10): ‘What if one of the men had taken Rebekah for himself?’ In my recent article: Abram and Egypt (4) Abram and Egypt | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I added this Tenth Dynasty extension to Hor-Aha (Menes): EXPANDING MENES Just as I had earlier suggested that the Noachic Flood, when properly deciphered, might serve to bring into some sort of coherent synthesis those unwieldy and vast Geological Ages, so, too, do I believe that the Patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph), in company with Moses of the Pentateuch, may serve to tidy up the early Egyptian Kingdoms and dynasties. And here is a preview of how I think it may be done. In this article I shall be proposing that those aforementioned Patriarchs and Moses span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (as we have already learned) to (and even slightly beyond), in the case of Moses, the last king (actually a woman) of the so-called Middle Kingdom. Here is the schematic outline of it, with consideration of a possible Tenth Dynasty connection to Abraham and Isaac to follow after it: Abraham and Isaac (1, 10 dynasties); Joseph (3, 11 dynasties); Moses (4-6, 12-13 dynasties). Dynasties 7-9, which are thought to have followed the collapse of Egypt’s Old Kingdom as a First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 BC), are omitted here. The implications of the drastic revision that I have outlined above are that a period of Egyptian history Sothically calculated as spanning, very roughly, (3100-1780 =) 1320 years, was actually the same 430-year period that we had calculated from the arrival of Abram in Canaan, aged 75, down to the Exodus under Moses. This is a time discrepancy between Egypt and the Bible of a whacking (1320-430 =) 890 years! In terms of the Early Bronze Ages (I-IV), these can neatly be set out (to be elaborated on) as: Abraham and Isaac (EBI); Jacob and Joseph (EBII); Moses (EBIII/IV). Now, in fashion similar to my condensing of the Akkadian dynasty by identifying alter egos, or duplicate rulers, so here do I intend to shorten the early Egyptian history which, I think, fits so poorly against the biblical record. The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’). And I have been able – following the structure of the Book of Genesis (toledôt and chiasmus) – to link that ruler with the Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1). Whilst Abimelech (אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙) is a Hebrew name, meaning “My Father is King”, it has a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty Egyptian king, Raneb (or Nebra): that is, “Father Ra is King”. Before I had come to the conclusion that Abram’s ruler of Egypt belonged to the First Dynasty, I had thought – the same as Dr. David Rohl, although quite independently of him – that that ruler must have been the Tenth Dynasty’s Khety. Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered the same ruler as Khety III (N. Grimal, I note, has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148). If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time, I had thought, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep). Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt – not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era – I am now inclined to return to it. Previously I had written on this: So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure. Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III: There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era – including the Hebrews themselves – who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt): Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time: The nome of This was ravaged; Though it happened through my doing, I learned it after it was done. [Emphasis added] Cf. Genesis 12:17-19: But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai …. So Pharaoh called Abram, and said, ‘What is this you have done to me? Why did you not tell me that she was your wife? Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife? Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’. It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II. If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles. The death of Menes may be connected with the death of Akhthoes Khety. Manetho says that a hippopotamus carried off Menes at the end of his life. How Menes died is part of his legend, with the hippopotamus version being only one possibility. Diodorus Siculus wrote he was chased by dogs, fell into a lake, and was rescued by crocodiles, leading scholars to think possibilities include death by dogs and crocodile. It seems that Khety ruled over his neighboring nomarchs with an iron fist, and it is likely for this reason that in later times this ruler became Manetho's infamous Achthoes, a wicked king who went insane and then was killed by a crocodile. Second Conclusion Hor-aha (Menes) was also Khety Nebkaure of the Tenth Dynasty.