Shiloh as Ta’anath Shiloh in valley east of Shechem

“Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown”. John Wijngaards I (Damien Mackey), finding somewhat unsatisfying the almost universally accepted archaeological identification of the ancient shrine of Shiloh with Khirbet Seiloun, did a quick search at academia.edu for a dissenting view, and straightaway found this intriguing article by John Wijngaards: An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? (1) (PDF) Alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh? An alternative location for the ancient sanctuary of Shiloh | John N M Wijngaards - Academia.edu Whilst I warmly encourage those interested to read Wijngaards’ 2020 article in full, here I shall simply reproduce the final part of it (pp. 23-24): …. In Gen 33,18 we find the following Massoretic vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shâlem °îr shekem ‘asher be’ereș kena°an. The Septuagint and the Vulgate render shalem as 'to Salim'. Many modern versions, following the Targum, read 'beshalôm', meaning 'safely, unscathed' (RSV; JB.; Powis-Smith; De Fraine). The text would then mean: “Jacob arrived safely at the town of Shechem in Canaanite territory”. However, this reading does violence to the consonantal text. Observing that Samaritanus and some other manuscripts presuppose the reading 'shl-o-m', I suggest the following vocalization: wayyâbô ya°aqôb shilô - m - °îr shekem. This would mean: 'And Jacob reached Shiloh of the city of 'Shechem' (enclytic mem). The parallelism with Gen 12,6 is striking: 'Abram came to the sanctuary (meqôm: status constructus) of Shechem. The text would, therefore, seem to imply that Shiloh is the sanctuary near the city of Shechem. From Gen 33,19 we learn further that, the site of Jacob's encampment, and consequently of Shiloh, was 'facing the city of Shechem', probably meaning 'East of Shechem', and certainly implying that it was not on the Ebal or Gerazim, but rather in the valley itself, facing Shechem across the open space of the valley. A. Alt has drawn attention to the extraordinary fact that “Shiloh the early prominence of which as centre of Jahwistic worship cannot be doubted” seems all the same devoid of vital relationships with the patriarchs. …. And yet we know that it was the 'God of Israel' who gave oracles at Shiloh (cf. 1 Sm 1,17; 2,30), that Yahweh's decrees promulgated at Shiloh (cf. Ps 78,5 and 78,60) were 'decrees for Jacob'. In other words: as amphictyonic centre Shiloh almost had to have had vital connections with Jacob. If our vocalization of Gen 33,18a is correct, Gen 3,18b-19 would provide the link between Jacob, Shiloh and Shechem. Overall conclusion Shiloh in the valley of Shechem? It would certainly make supreme sense in the light of the earliest covenantal renewal ceremonies celebrated in the North, as my studies have shown. …. Once every seven years, probably during the Sabbatical Year (Lev 25,1- 7), the tribes would gather at Transjordanian Succoth to re-live the forty years in the desert by celebrating the Feast of Tabernacles in the presence of the Ark of the Covenant. There they would be given instructions on the covenant with Yahweh and on new legislation that would form part of the covenant. To re-enact the crossing of the Red Sea and the landgiving, the Ark would then be carried, ahead of the people, across the Jordan into the valley of Shechem. After depositing the Ark in its sanctuary at Shiloh, the people would then formally renew the covenant by calling on themselves the blessings and curses of the covenant. Portions of the land would then be re-allocated, or re-affirmed, to the tribes at Shiloh before they would return to their own provinces (Josh 13,8 – 17,18). Taking everything into consideration, it seems certainly possible, if not likely, that the ancient pre-monarchic sanctuary of Shiloh lay in the valley of Shechem. “With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem …”. John Wijngaards John Wijngaards sets out on pp. 2-3 the plan of his article (as referred to above): In this essay (1) I will first elaborate how and why topographic information about biblical sites has been lost. (2) I will spell out my reasons for doubting Shiloh's identification with Khirbet Seiloun. (3) I will, from biblical sources, add a brief reconstruction of what Shiloh’s sanctuary must have looked like. (4) I will explain why biblical texts seem to favour a location of Samuel’s Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. (5) I will then proceed to illustrate why Ta'anath Shiloh, i.e. present-day Khirbet et-Tana or Kirbet el- Fauqain the valley of Shechem, could have been the location of early Shiloh. …. Now, on to his pp. 23-24, where he briefly discusses his proposed new site for ancient Shiloh: 5.2 Ta’anath Shiloh in the valley of Shechem --- Jos 16,6 In Jos 16,6 we learn of a place called tant šlh, vocalised by the Massoretes as ta’anathshiloh, rendered by the Septuagint as thênath sêlô. In modern translations the place is known as ‘Ta’anath-Shiloh’. Its location would satisfy the required conditions of Shiloh in the valley of Shechem. With the help of historical notes from Ptolemy and Eusebius and from the geographical data of the context Ta’anat-Shiloh is usually identified either with Khirbet Tana et-Tahta or Khirbet Tana el Fauqa, both of which lie east and south-east of Tell Balatah in the Valley of Shechem. …. I am unaware of any attempt to explain the derivation of the name, but it seems, to me that a Ugaritic passage may throw light on the question. In the text Baal speaks to Anath in these words (verses 18 to 29): “18. I've a word I fain would tell thee, 19. a speech I wouId utter to thee, 20. speech of tree and whisper of stone, 21. converse of heaven with earth, 22. even of the deep with the stars. 23. Yea, a thunderbolt unknown to heaven, 24. a word not known to men, 25. nor sensed by the masses on earth. 26. Come, pray, and I will reveal it 27. in the midst of my mount Godly Zaphon, 28. in the sanctuary, mount of my portion, 29. in the pleasance, the hill I possess.” The Ugaritic original of verse 21 reads: tant šmm °m arș. The word 'tant' in vs. 21 is here rendered by 'conversation' on account of the context. If we were to bring the word in connection with the Hebrew root tâ’ (room, parlour; cf. 3 Kgs 14,28; Ez 40,7ff.; Septuagint transliteration thê; cf. Assyrian ta'u), we might also understand it to mean 'meeting-place', 'parlour'. Ancient sanctuaries were, in fact, considered to be such points of contact between heaven and earth (cf. Gen 28,10-22; 11,4). In the Ugaritic text Baal is therefore inviting Anath to come to his holy mount, his sanctuary, the meeting place of heaven and earth, where through the stone and the tree an oracle will be communicated to her. Is it pure chance that the sanctuary in Shechem's valley possessed such a tree and such a stone? Should it not rather be seen as such an ancient 'meeting-place' between heaven and earth? This would explain why it is also called ‘the navel of the land’ and 'the diviners' oak' (Jdg 9,37), why it is the scene of oracles to Abram (Gen 12,7), to Jacob (Gen 35,1) and to the Shechemites (Jdg 9,7ff.)? Shiloh is also described as a meeting place in Psalm 78,60: “He forsook his dwelling at Shiloh, the tent where he dwelt among people”. Taanath Shiloh might, therefore, well fit as the holy place in the valley of Shechem, both on account of its position and on account of the implication of its name. ….

Dynastic anomalies surrounding Egyptian Crocodile god, Sobek

by Damien F. Mackey Once again, there is no real “absence of data” when we recognise the documents of the Middle Kingdom as being wholly relevant to the Old Kingdom. As preparatory reading, see e.g. my articles: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought (4) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom (4) Sphinx of Giza and Egypt’s so-called 'Middle' Kingdom | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (4) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Marco Zecchi wrote in (2010): Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period (4) Sobek of Shedet. The Crocodile God in the Fayyum in the Dynastic Period | Marco Zecchi - Academia.edu …. Old Kingdom Unfortunately, nothing of Shedet from the Old Kingdom has survived. We have no idea of its temple in this period and we do not even possess many documents regarding Sobek of Shedet and it must be stressed that none of these come from the Fayyum. Yet, it was in this period that the crocodile of Shedet was given the first opportunity to appear as a powerful god amongst the other deities of the Egyptian pantheon. It is plausible that the fortune of Sobek was somehow linked to the fortune of his region. And indeed, despite this lack of evidence, the assertion that the Fayyum played a very marginal role in the Old Kingdom is extremely questionable . Mackey’s comment: When the Egyptian Old Kingdom is properly connected to the Middle Kingdom, as it needs to be, then there will be found to have been no lack of Sobek data at Shedet. Two articles, both published in 1997, one in English by Andrzej Cwiek and one in Italian by Patrizia Piacentini , reflect an increasing interest in the region before the Middle Kingdom, when the Fayyum depression and its main town became of paramount importance in the politics of the reigning kings. Recent geoarchaeological survey and the results of field scanning methods have suggested that in the early dynastic period and in the Old Kingdom the lake level was at about 15m or 20m above sea level , and, as a consequence, the Fayyum must have been characterised by the presence of a huge extension of water. A great portion of the Fayyum depression was submerged and what remained above water was probably marshlands. Very likely, the most suitable areas for human occupation, apart from the territory around Shedet, at + 23m, were the area north of the lake and the eastern entrance to the region. Nevertheless, the potential agricultural and, above all, mineral resources of the region suggest that it was neither scarcely inhabited nor unimportant and indeed, besides Shedet, there were a few other centres of human activity. …. The construction of a pyramid on the desert edge, about 9 kilometres from Seila village in the eastern Fayyum, on the hills called Gebel el-Rus, may be explained through a comparison with the other so-called Minor Step Pyramids of the Old Kingdom . Following Günter Dreyer and Werner Kaiser , one can assert that the geographical distribution of the Minor Step Pyramids and their topographical relations with towns and religious centres is particularly important for the understanding of these monuments, which, with the possible exception of the pyramid of Seila erected most likely by king Snefru, were built close to important provincial towns. As Cwiek has remarked , however, the hypothesis that the Seila pyramid was erected in order to mark the western border of the country is hardly sustainable. Given that the Minor Step Pyramids were also symbols of royal power and of the presence of the reigning king in the Egyptian provinces, it is very likely that the Fayyum region itself had a certain appeal for Snefru. Mackey’s comment: But Snefru (or Snofru) was, according to my articles, the same as the Middle Kingdom’s Amenemes [Amenemhet], during which time devotion to the Crocodile god soared. In the proximity of the pyramid, a stela with Snefru’s titulary, a mud brick chapel, a statue of the king and an altar were found , suggesting that this was an active cult centre. Whatever was the function of this pyramid, it is plausible to state that it was also the focus of an administrative centre. The priests who had to perform the necessary rituals might have come from Meidum, 11 kilometres away, but might have lived in the proximity of Seila. Moreover, a necropolis dating from the Third to the Sixth Dynasties was discovered by Bernard Grenfell and Arthur Hunt in 1900 at Fag el-Gamus, close to the pyramid. Two statues in limestone published by Ludwig Borchardt and found during illegal explorations near the village of Seila might come from the same necropolis . It is not known if Snefru can be regarded as the first Egyptian king to start the colonisation of the Fayyum . Nevertheless, there is no doubt that, according to the available data, his reign represents a significant step in the development of the region. …. The most ancient document connecting Sobek’s name with the main town of the Fayyum, Shedet, dates back to the Fourth Dynasty and comes from Dahshur. It is a false-door from the tomb of the vizier Ka-nefer, who, amongst many others, carried the title of Hm-ntr sbk Sdt, ‘hem-priest of Sobek of Shedet’ (doc. 1). Another important man to be bestowed with the same title was the homonymous Ka-nefer of the Fourth or Fifth Dynasty, who was buried at Giza and who was also imy-r wpt, xrp aH and smr (doc. 2). …. Mackey’s comment: With the Fourth and Fifth dynasties now merged into one, the Vizier Ka-Nefer can simply be reduced to just the one high official. It should be stressed, however, that the two [sic] Ka-nefer were influential people connected with Memphis. What cannot be ascertained with certainty is whether Sobek’s cult was so important as to have its own clergy in this locality, or, most likely, whether in the Fourth and Fifth Dynasties the priesthood of Sobek in the Fayyum was not very strong or locally organised and, therefore, it was not independent, but directly controlled by high-ranking dignitaries who gravitated around the city of Memphis. Nevertheless, in the Old Kingdom Sobek of the Fayyum was surely already regarded as a prominent deity of the Egyptian pantheon. Not only had he religious personnel who took care of his image, but he also started to be represented on the walls of the royal temples of the Fifth Dynasty and also sporadically quoted in the ‘Pyramid Texts’. …. The temple of Niuserra is innovative from the point of view of iconography, as, for the first time after the above-mentioned seal of the Second Dynasty with the crocodile-headed Horus, it clearly shows Sobek of Shedet through a common combination of anthropomorphic and zoomorphic elements, an iconography that would become, together with his pure animal aspect, Sobek’s standardised depiction. On a limestone relief, the god is shown as a crocodile-headed man in a striding pose; he wears a striated wig, a broad collar and the typical short skirt and holds was-staff and ankh-sing (doc. 5)60. The crocodile god appears also in the temple of Pepy II , but with no geographical indication. Here, some gods stride in four rows, one of which is lead [sic] by Sobek himself, once again in the guise of a crocodile-headed man, followed by Wadjet, Sokar, Hathor, Khonsu and Hekau. Mackey’s comment: Niuserra [Neuserre] and Pepi II, I have also amalgamated with the Middle Kingdom as, respectively, Amenemes and Sesostris. The ‘Pyramid Texts’ offer a new perspective with which to regard Sobek’s personality in the Old Kingdom. Here the god is quoted in seven spells. In Spell 301 the crocodile god is associated for the first time with the wrrt-crown, as the rising sun receives this crown from ‘the great and mighty foreigners who preside over Libya’ and from ‘Sobek lord of Bakhu’ (nb bAhw) (Pyr. §456) . …. It seems particularly significant that in the only spell in which the god is associated with a town, a ‘civic space’, this town is Shedet. This might be interpreted as an indication that Shedet, amongst all others, was considered as his specific and original cult-centre. In Spell 582, the king, identified with a few deities, declares that he ‘governs as Sobek who is in Shedet (sbk imy Sdt) and Anubis in Takhib. Pepy will call for a thousand and the populace will come to him bowing’ (Pyr. §§ 1564b) (doc. 6). In another spell , we read: ‘My father has inherited from Horus as Horus in Seal-ring, Seth in the Ennead, Sobek in [Shedet]. Let arms beat, let drumming go down!’. In Spell 275 the sovereign is once again identified with the crocodile-god of the Fayyum: the king ‘Unis will open the double doors, Unis will attain the limit of the horizon, Unis having laid the msdt-garment there on the ground, and Unis will become the Great One who is in Shedet (wr imy Sdt)’ (Pyr. § 416) . Despite the possibility that the toponym Sdt has been chosen merely because of a pun with the noun msdt, it is however evident that the regal function coincides with that of the crocodile-god of the Fayyum. The die is cast: in the Middle Kingdom, it was Sobek of Shedet who, before any other Sobek worshipped in Egypt, was to be connected with the royal function…. Mackey’s comment: Once again, the ruler Unis [Unas] is likely just another version of the Middle Kingdom’s Sesostris. One of the striking characteristics of the religion of the Fayyum before the Twelfth Dynasty is the complete lack of documents, with the exception of Horus’ name, on the presence of other deities. It is hardly believable that the crocodile-god dominated the Fayyum religious world in a way that did not permit his coexistence with other forms of veneration. Perhaps, other gods were already living in the Fayyum, even though we cannot know the extent of their inluence within the region. Nevertheless, it is impossible not to note this absence of data, which most likely is the result of archaeological accidents. Mackey’s comment: Once again, there is no real “absence of data” when we recognise the documents of the Middle Kingdom as being wholly relevant to the Old Kingdom. But it is also possible that some Egyptian gods were at last able to claim a cult within the region only from the Middle Kingdom onwards, when they started to be theologically interwoven with Sobek’s personality and functions. …. At the end of the Sixth Dynasty, the god disappears from Egyptian sources, to appear again at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. …. Mackey’s comment: There is actually no ‘disappearance’. The Sixth Dynasty and the Twelfth Dynasty is/are one and the same. Chapter II THE MIDDLE KINGDOM …. The beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty Even though the ‘Cofin Texts’ are an important source on Sobek, here the god still remains prevalently a crocodile-deity, deeply immersed in his own natural habitat. With the end of the Old Kingdom, Sobek of Shedet seems to vanish, despite the fact he had reached a quite solid position amongst the Egyptian gods. After the Sixth Dynasty, the first document, mentioning the god and dated with certainty, goes back to the reign of Amenemhat II. Indeed, it is difficult to glimpse Sobek of Shedet at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty, despite the fact this very dynasty was a decisive moment in the history of the Fayyum. Mackey’s comment: That is because the Twelfth Dynasty has been over-complicated by Egyptologists not recognising the need for a radical fusion of multiple names, Amenemes and Sesostris. …. The earliest level of recognisable work in the area was in the approach, or pro-temenos, of the temple, where a bed of broken pottery of the Twelfth Dynasty and clean sand was led, most likely for the road to the temple. Buildings were on both sides of the road, evidently to keep the access to the temple clear. But, probably in the III or IV century, red-brick houses were built there, and ‘soon after that, the rubbish mounds were piled up, and in the V and VI century overflowed and filled up the entrance to the then deserted temple’ . Unfortunately, there is no way of knowing the conditions and dimensions of the temple at the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. We do not even know whether it stood in the same place as the temple of the Old Kingdom, or whether the latter was completely destroyed or simply enlarged and embellished by the following kings. At any rate, the interest of the new dynasty for the Fayyum and the house of Sobek began with Amenemhat I . Mackey’s comment: This accords with the enormous veneration by Sobek of Amenemes [Amenemhat] III, an alter ego of Amenemhat I. Contrary to what has been claimed, it cannot be demonstrated that Amenemhat I initiated the construction of a new temple at Shedet. As a matter of fact, the assertion that this king was the founder of the temple of the Twelfth Dynasty is based on Golénischeff’s erroneous attribution of an inscription on a granite column, which, as shown by Habachi , belonged instead to Amenemhat III. Mackey’s comment: Another indication to me that Amenemes I was the same ruler as III. …. Sobekneferu, the beauty of Sobek Shedety The temple of Renenutet at Medinet Madi is the only place [?] where the name of Amenemhat IV is associated to Sobek-Horus of Shedet. This king does not seem to have worked in any other site of the Fayyum and, most significantly, he never occurs in the Hawara complex . After Amenemhat IV’s reign, the crown passed to queen Sobekneferu. The reasons of her accession remain unclear. Mackey’s comment: The “reasons” are, according to my various Moses articles, that the Twelfth Dynasty died out, terminating in the brief reign of a female. The hypothesis that she was wife or sister, or half-sister, of Amenemhat IV is not actually based on any contemporary source , where she is never referred to as king’s wife or sister . On the contrary, the fact that she contrived to proclaim herself king and that, during her reign, she used Amenemhat III’s memory for politic and religious aims seem to indicate that she was related to this king and it is very likely that she was one of his daughters. But, as in the case of princess Neferuptah, we do not know the name of her mother. Family connections and loyalties to her deceased alleged father seem to be the key to events and behaviour of this female king. The activities and interests of her reign are turned towards the Fayyum region. Sobek of Shedet had taken, as of right, a position at the centre of Amenemhat III’s policy. And during Sobekneferu’s reign, there was no deity who was able to oppose his supremacy. Even through her names, which were innovative, she showed a predilection for the crocodile god, and, specifically, for that of the Fayyum. She was the first Egyptian ruler to have a theophoric name composed with that of Sobek, even though this was given to her at birth. But when, for whatever reasons, she obtained the crown, she chose for herself also a prenomen composed with that of the same god . …. Mackey’s comment: She may not, however, have been “the first Egyptian ruler to have a theophoric name composed with that of Sobek …”, since the Thirteenth Dynasty’s Sobekhoteps might also have to be factored in to the Twelfth Dynasty, with Sobekhotep IV bearing a prenomen, Nefer-ka-re, that we find also amongst various of my alter egos for Sesostris, such as Pepi so-called II.

A sensible approach to the Pyramid Era

by Damien F. Mackey In Dr. John Osgood’s scenario, the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, though approximately contemporaneous, remain nevertheless as separate dynasties. For him, this is the time of Joseph and the Famine. Dr John Osgood has made this insightful observation in his new book, They Speak With One Voice. A Correlation of the Bible Record with Archaeology, 2020 (p. 263): Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. This is analogous to our society suddenly returning to the 18th century, and although they placed more on tradition than do we, it still makes no sense. Conventionally, the Sixth Dynasty closes at c. 2150 BC, whilst the Twelfth Dynasty commences at c. 1940 BC, slightly more than two centuries apart. Dr. Osgood is working here at trying to tie up, as the biblical Famine at the time of Joseph, a supposed famine during the reign of Sesostris, in the Twelfth Dynasty, and a supposed famine in the reign of Unas, of the Fifth Dynasty. This is a futile task, I believe, because Joseph is better situated to the Third Dynasty, to the reign of Horus Netjerikhet, when there apparently was a famine lasting for seven years. But what Dr. Osgood has managed to do is to argue for a dynastic re-arrangement that is virtually the very one that I have been working on in recent times, according to which the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth Egyptian dynasties were contemporaneous. Dr. Donovan Courville had already made the suggestion in his classic set, The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (CA, 1971), that the Sixth and Twelfth dynasties were contemporaneous. I have gone so far as, not only to make contemporaneous the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, but to identify them all as the one dynasty, and at the time of Moses. For more on my early dynastic reconstructions at the time of Moses, see e.g. my article: First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses (3) First two Egyptian kings during career of Moses | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu In Dr. John Osgood’s scenario, the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties, though approximately contemporaneous, remain nevertheless as separate dynasties. For him, this is the time of Joseph and the Famine. From Dr John Osgood’s account of The 6th Dynasty, beginning on p. 260 of his book, we learn that, for this dynasty: The Turin Canon then suggests a possible 13 kings (and Queen) Manetho and the Abydos List give 6. Sakkara gives only 4. That is not entirely encouraging. Sakkara’s 4 comes closest to my estimation of only 3 rulers, two kings and a Queen – the latter having come to rule on the throne as the very last of this great dynasty. Dr. Osgood continues (op. cit., pp. 260-261): Newberry has suggested that T [Turin] 4:10 is a king named Nefersahor (1943, p. 52). Karkare Ibi’s pyramid has been discovered among the Pepi II group at Sakkara. Newberry also made the case (not accepted by all) that Neith, whose pyramid is among the group of Pepi II’s wives at Sakkara is in fact the Nitocris of Manetho, and was: Eldest daughter of Pepi I. The sister and wife of Merenre. The sister and wife later of Pepi II, during his minority. Avenged the murder of her brother Merenre and died (allegedly suicide) after a 12 year reign with Pepi II during his early years. How complicated! As I showed in my article above, on Moses, and, regarding the Queen who came to the throne: Female Ruler of Egypt late during sojourn of Moses in the land of Midian (5) Female Ruler of Egypt late during sojourn of Moses in the land of Midian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu the Sixth Dynasty was composed of only 3 main royal persons: Teti [= Merenre I-II]; Pepi [I-II]; and Nitocris All three of these monarchs can be found, under various alter egos, amongst several Old Kingdom dynasties, and the Middle Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty. Thus, for instance, the assassinated Merenre was the same ruler as the assassinated Teti, Sixth Dynasty, who, in turn, connects with the assassinated Amenemes (so-called I) of the Twelfth Dynasty. Teti, Amenemes, as well, shared the throne name, Sehetibre, and the Horus name, Sehetep-tawy. Newberry may well be right that Nefersahor belongs amongst the group, given the second ruler of the dynasty’s many Nefer names (“First Two Kings” article above): “Neferikare has a heap of Kha- element and Neferkare type names (Nephercheres, Neferkeris, Kaikai, Kaka, Nefer-it-ka-re, Neferirkara)”. But I may be able to be even more specific than that. Pepi’s prenomen was Nefersahor, according to: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/pepii/ Prenomen nfr sA Hr (Nefersahor) – Horus Is Perfect In Protection (Abydos kings list) Nor is it so very surprising, in my revised context, that various Sixth Dynasty pyramids would be found amongst Twelfth Dynasty ones. Dr. Osgood continues (op. cit., p. 261): In the Abydos list the next 2 kings may well be repetitions of some of the 6th Dynasty kings (and Queen). No. 40 Netjerkare – may well reflect Pepi II’s Horus name Neterkhau. No. 41 Menkare – the alternate name for Nitocris. In my “First Two Kings” article, Menkare, Menkaure, however, is yet another alter ego for Teti (= Cheops and Amenemes so-called III). Thus I wrote: …. [Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule, and Herodotus’ version of events chose to emphasise his cruelty. Taken from: https://www.sacred-texts.com/cla/hh/hh2120.htm 124. ... Cheops became king over them and brought them to every kind of evil: for he shut up all the temples, and having first kept them from sacrificing there, he then bade all the Egyptians work for him. So some were appointed to draw stones from the stone-quarries in the Arabian mountains to the Nile, and others he ordered to receive the stones after they had been carried over the river in boats, and to draw them to those which are called the Libyan mountains; and they worked by a hundred thousand men at a time, for each three months continually. Of this oppression there passed ten years while the causeway was made by which they drew the stones, which causeway they built, and it is a work not much less, as it appears to me, than the pyramid; for the length of it is five furlongs and the breadth ten fathoms and the height, where it is highest, eight fathoms, and it is made of stone smoothed and with figures carved upon it. For this, they said, the ten years were spent, and for the underground chambers on the hill upon which the pyramids stand, which he caused to be made as sepulchral chambers for himself in an island, having conducted thither a channel from the Nile. For the making of the pyramid itself there passed a period of twenty years; and the pyramid is square, each side measuring eight hundred feet, and the height of it is the same. It is built of stone smoothed and fitted together in the most perfect manner, not one of the stones being less than thirty feet in length. Moreover: 126. Cheops moreover came, they said, to such a pitch of wickedness, that being in want of money he caused his own daughter to sit in the stews, and ordered her to obtain from those who came a certain amount of money (how much it was they did not tell me); but she not only obtained the sum appointed by her father, but also she formed a design for herself privately to leave behind her a memorial, and she requested each man who came in to her to give her one stone upon her building: and of these stones, they told me, the pyramid was built which stands in front of the great pyramid in the middle of the three, each side being one hundred and fifty feet in length. Menkaure, or Mycerinus, who will also figure in this series … may have been similarly disrespectful to his daughter: https://analog-antiquarian.net/2019/01/11/chapter-1-the-charlatan-and-the-gossip/ Legend had it that Menkaure had a daughter who was very special to him. One version of the tale said that she died of natural causes, whereupon in his grief he had a life-size wooden cow gilt with gold built as a repository for her remains. This, Herodotus claimed, could still be seen in his time in the city of Sais, “placed within the royal palace in a chamber which was greatly adorned; and they offer incense of all kinds before it every day, and each night a lamp burns beside it all through the night. Every year it is carried forth from the chamber, for they say that she asked of her father Mykerinos, when she was dying, that she might look upon the sun once in the year.” Another, darker version of the tale had it that Menkaure had been rather too enamored of his daughter. She sought refuge from his unwelcome advances with his concubines, but they betrayed her, and her father proceeded to “ravish” her. She hanged herself in the aftermath, whereupon a remorse-stricken Menkaure buried her in the gilt cow and her mother the queen cut off the hands of the concubines who had betrayed her. This explained why, in a chamber near that of the cow in Herodotus’s time, there stood many statues of women with the hands lopped off, “still lying at their feet even down to my time.” …. Ammenemes III “....This economic activity formed the basis for the numerous building works that make the reign of Ammenemes III one of the summits of state absolutism”. Recall: “[Cheops’] pyramid transforms him into the very symbol of absolute rule …”. [End of quotes] “But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I. E. S. Edwards ‘The Pyramids of Egypt’ discusses the similarity, not only in style, but also the pyramid texts. Particularly the similar style of the 6th and the 12th”. Dr John Osgood Dr John Osgood, beginning on p. 263 (-264) of his book, will offer his revised version of the Placement of the 6th Dynasty: The conventional arrangement of the 6th Dynasty is sequential to the 5th, and considered the last dynasty before the ‘First Intermediate Period’. Here the 6th is seen as logically following the 5th, but reasons will be given to show that the 6th, in fact, is for the most part parallel to and subsidiary to the 12th. The concept of a First Intermediate Period is here rejected as historically untenable. 1) The Biblical chronology and narrative does not allow the long time required for the First Intermediate Period. 2) Manetho’s history, in fact, does not require it either, as that dynastic historical arrangement is presented on the basis of sequelae on a geographic basis, ie. The Memphite Dynasties do not necessarily follow sequentially the end of the Thinite Dynasties, and the Heracleopolitan Dyasties (9/10), do not necessarily follow sequentially the Memphite group, nor the Theban group sequential to the Heracleopolitan group; parallelisms can fit well with this arrangement. In fact at least once Manetho admits to multiple parallel rules of native dynasties (at the Hyksos invasion he states that multiple kings were overcome). Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. This is analogous to our society suddenly returning to the 18th century, and although they placed more on tradition than do we, it still makes no sense. Courville, in discussion of the famines, showed reason to place Unis [Unas] of the end of the 5th Dynasty parallel to the early 12th Dynasty. But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I. E. S. Edwards ‘The Pyramids of Egypt’ discusses the similarity, not only in style, but also the pyramid texts. Particularly the similar style of the 6th and the 12th. …. [End of quote] What is happening here is that Dr. Osgood, like Dr. Courville whom he largely follows regarding the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynastic arrangement, needs to identify a famine to associate with the biblical Joseph who they both believe to have belonged to the early Twelfth Dynasty. Such they cannot convincingly identify, I believe, because the biblical famine had occurred much earlier than this, during the Old Kingdom’s Third Dynasty. Despite the fact that both Drs. Courville and Osgood were attempting to situate Joseph where, in fact, Moses ought to be, they still managed to come up with a close connection between the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth dynasties – {which is precisely what I have done; my reconstruction, though, being according to a Moses context} - because they, unlike I, have over-stretched these dynasties according to the excessively lengthy king lists. Thus Dr. Osgood is basically correct with many of the points that he makes above – but for the wrong reasons. To give some examples, to which I must add my own twist: The conventional arrangement of the 6th Dynasty is sequential to the 5th, and considered the last dynasty before the ‘First Intermediate Period’. With Drs. Courville and Osgood I reject that sequential arrangement. Here the 6th is seen as logically following the 5th, but reasons will be given to show that the 6th, in fact, is for the most part parallel to and subsidiary to the 12th. The concept of a First Intermediate Period is here rejected as historically untenable. My Moses articles un-complicate all of this, by identifying the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth as the one and same dynasty. …. Manetho’s … dynastic historical arrangement is presented on the basis of sequelae on a geographic basis …. In fact at least once Manetho admits to multiple parallel rules of native dynasties (at the Hyksos invasion he states that multiple kings were overcome). Geography is not so terribly important here as any one ruler could be variously situated at different locations at different times. Nor is the Hyksos invasion of a later time at all relevant here. Let us look at the testimony of the pyramids – a purely sequential arrangement of the dynasties makes no sense with the pyramids. For it demands that after the demise of the 6th Dynasty, over 200 years passed and the almost identical technology was resurrected in the building of the 12th Dynasty pyramids. I fully agree with this one. Courville, in discussion of the famines, showed reason to place Unis [Unas] of the end of the 5th Dynasty parallel to the early 12th Dynasty. That was in order to parallel a supposed famine in the time of Unas with a supposed famine in the time of Sesostris. But Unis’ pyramid is very similar to the 6th Dynasty pyramids and … they are very similar to the 12th Dynasty pyramids. They are indeed, because the Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth - one and the same dynasty. Dr Osgood continues on p. 265: Examples: (p. 220) ‘Fundamentally, it (Pepi II’s pyramid) resembled closely the complex of Ammenemes I’. (p. 223) ‘… the arrangement of the enclosure walls in this complex was almost identical with the plan of the walls in the complex of Ammenemes I’. And why would that be? Well, in my scheme, Pepi (s0-called II) immediately follows the rule of Amenemes (so-called I). Dr. Osgood: And (p. 220) ‘… the greater part of the original plan of Sesostris I’s complex has been established and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied form the Mortuary Temple’s [sic] of the VI th Dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi II, is clearly evident’. Of course, if the two dynasties were parallel, it may be that Pepi II copied that of Sesostris I. Or it may be, as according to my scheme, that Sesostris was Pepi. Dr. Osgood: The practice of co-regency is discussed by Gardiner (‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’), a practice which frequently occurred during the 12th Dynasty, but on p. 129 he mentions the possible practice during the 6th Dynasty: ‘… perhaps even at the start it was not quite an innovation, for we find evidence that Piopi [Pepi] I of Dyn VI may have adopted a similar course.’ If the dynasties were parallel that would not be surprising. Again, even less surprising if as according to my comments above. For more on matters such as these, see e.g. my articles: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought (5) Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms Far Closer in Time than Conventionally Thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu and: Was Great Sphinx of Egypt a Middle Kingdom project? (5) Was Great Sphinx of Egypt a Middle Kingdom project? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep

by Damien F. Mackey “Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king’s-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …”. Inscriptions of Mentuhotep Dr. Donovan Courville had proposed, in The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications (Vols. I and II, 1971), that Egypt’s so-called Old and Middle Kingdoms were, in part, contemporaneous – a view with which I would broadly agree. He then proceeded to select, as the Patriarch Joseph of Egypt, the significant official, MENTUHOTEP, vizier to Sesostris I, the second king of Egypt’s Twelfth Dynasty. And very good revisionists have followed Dr. Courville in his choice of Mentuhotep for Joseph. With my own system, though, favouring (i) the Third Dynasty for Joseph; (ii) Amenemes [Amenemhet] I for the “new king” of Exodus 1:8; and (iii) Amenemes I’s successor, Sesostris I, for the pharaoh from whom Moses fled (as recalled in the semi-legendary “The Story of Sinuhe”), then Mentuhotep of this era must now loom large as a candidate for the Egyptianised Moses. Introduction In 1981 I began a search for Moses in the Egyptian records. The first lesson that I had to learn (and Courville’s two-volume set served as my handy guide in this) was that the history books and the Bible just did not align. Now, after decades of effort on this work of revision, I have been blessed to have encountered - and sometimes to have made - exciting discoveries, including the appropriate (so I think) era for Moses and the Exodus, and the true archaeology for the Israelite (Joshuan) Conquest of Palestine, the MBI people. But Moses himself, the person, had proven to be most elusive. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I now think that - and it has taken me only about 34 years to realise it - this Mentuhotep may be Moses staring revisionists right in the face. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In my excursions into this era of biblico-history, I have returned to the view - in line with the thinking of professor Immanuel Anati, in his classic, The Mountain of God - that the famous Egyptian “Sinuhe” tale carried a reminiscence of the historical Moses: “I accept that this famous Egyptian tale is based upon a real biblical event. The semi-legendary Sinuhe may at least provide us with the time of the flight of Moses from Egypt to Midian, during the early reign of Sesostris I”. And I as well, in line with my revised Old to Middle Kingdom parallelism, tentatively making contemporaneous: 4th Dynasty 6th Dynasty 12th Dynasty 13th Dynasty have also suggested a possible connection of Sinuhe with the Sixth Dynasty’s Weni. Thus: There is a famous Sixth Dynasty official, Weni (or Uni), who may be the parallel of the Twelfth Dynasty’s Sinuhe as a candidate for the elusive Moses. I have previously written on this: Now, given our alignment of the so-called Egyptian Middle Kingdom’s Twelfth Dynasty with the Egyptian Old Kingdom’s Sixth Dynasty (following Dr. Donovan Courville), then the semi-legendary Sinuhe may find his more solidly historical identification in the important Sixth Dynasty official, Weni, or Uni. Like Weni, Sinuhe was highly honoured by pharaoh with the gift of a sarcophagus. We read about it, for instance, in C. Dotson’s extremely useful article (“…. The Cycle of Order and Chaos in The Tale of Sinuhe”): https://journals.lib.byu.edu/spc/index.php/StudiaAntiqua “…. The king gives Sinuhe a sarcophagus of gold and lapis lazuli as a housewarming gift. The gift of a coffin by the king was considered a great honor and a sign of respect. In the Autobiography of Weni from the Old Kingdom, Weni records that the king had given him a white sarcophagus and “never before had the like been done in this Upper Egypt.” …. [End of quote] Naturally, Dr. Courville’s radical proposal that the Egyptian Sixth and Twelfth dynasties were contemporaneous - whereas, according to conventional history some four centuries separate the end of the Sixth (c. 2200 BC) from that of the Twelfth (c. 1800 BC) - has not been well received by non-revisionist historians, such as e.g. professor W. Stiebing who has written: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Yf2NWgNhEecC&pg=PA131&lpg=PA131&dq=co “There is simply no textual support for making the Sixth and Twelfth Dynasties contemporaneous, as Courville does”. However, as I have previously noted: …. [Dr.] J. Osgood proposes a possible close relationship between the 6th and 12th dynasty mortuary temples ....: Edwards certainly opens the possibility unconsciously when referring to the pyramid of Sesostris the First ....: “... and the extent to which its Mortuary Temple was copied from the Mortuary Temples of the VIth dynasty, as illustrated by that of Pepi II ... is clearly evident.” The return of a culture to what it was before ... after some three hundred years must be an uncommon event. The theoretical possibility that the two cultures, the Twelfth and the Sixth Dynasties were in fact contemporary and followed a common pattern of Mortuary Temple must be borne in mind as real. …. [End of quote] That there is in fact some impressive evidence to suggest that: Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms [were] far closer in time than conventionally thought (8) Egypt's Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu is apparent from a set of examples that I listed there taken from Nicolas Grimal’s text book, A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell 1994). After recalling some striking similarities between the Sixth Dynasty founder, Teti, and the Twelfth Dynasty founder, Amenemes I, as follows: “…. {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. ….}”, I continued: Grimal notes the likenesses: Pp. 80-81 “[Teti‟s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (“He who pacifies the Two Lands”) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (“The devotee of Ra”)”. …. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s “co-regency” with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s “black pyramid” and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …”. [End of quotes] Moses as Chief Judge and Vizier “Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives … “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. Comparing Weni - (and Sinuhe) - with Vizier Mentuhotep About Sinuhe, we learn (http://www.reshafim.org.il/ad/egypt/texts/sinuhe.htm): “I was a henchman who followed his lord, a servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess, the highly-praised Royal Consort of Sesostris in the pyramid-town of Khnem-esut, the Royal Daughter of Amenemmes in the Pyramid-town of Ka-nofru, even Nofru, the revered”. We have already learned something of the greatness of Mentuhotep. Weni has, for his part, been described as a “genius”. This little excerpt on the “Autobiography of Weni” already tells us a lot about the man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_Weni Weni rose through the ranks of the military to become commander in chief of the army. He was considered by both his contemporaries and many Egyptologists to have been a brilliant tactician and possibly even a genius. His victories earned him the privilege of being shown leading the troops into battle, a right usually reserved for pharaohs. Weni is the first person, other than a pharaoh, known to have been portrayed in this manner. Many of his battles were in the Levant and the Sinai. He is said to have pursued a group of Bedouins all the way to Mount Carmel. He battled a Bedouin people known as the sand-dwellers at least five times. Weni’s famous “Autobiography” has been described as, amongst other superlatives: https://books.google.com.au/books?id=sgoVryxihuMC&pg=PA352&lpg=PA352 “… the best-known biographical text of the Old Kingdom and has been widely discussed, as it is important for literary and historical reasons; it is also the longest such document”. This marvellous piece of ancient literature, conventionally dated to c. 2330 BC - and even allowing for the revised re-dating of it to a bit more than half a millennium later - completely gives the lie to the old JEDP theory, that writing was not invented until about 1000 BC. Here I take some of the relevant inscriptions of the renowned Vizier, Mentuhotep (http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbook_text/Ancient_Records_of_Egypt_v1_10000750), and juxtapose them with comparable parts of the “Autobiography” of Weni (in brown) (http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mor) (all emphasis added): INSCRIPTIONS OF MENTUHOTEP …. 531. Hereditary prince, vizier and chief judge The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. attached to Nekhen, judge attached to Nekhen, prophet of prophet of Mat (goddess of Truth), giver of laws, advancer of offices, confirming … the boundary records, separating a land-owner from his neighbor, pilot of the people, satisfying the whole land, a man of truth before the Two Lands … accustomed … to justice like Thoth, his like in satisfying the Two Lands, hereditary prince in judging the Two Lands …. supreme head in judgment, putting matters in order, wearer of the royal seal, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep. Hereditary prince, count the count … chief of all works of the king, making the offerings of the gods to flourish, setting this land … according to the command of the god. the whole was carried out by my hand, according to the mandate which … my lord had commanded me. …. sending forth two brothers satisfied pleasant to his brothers with the utterances of his mouth, upon whose tongue is the writing of Thoth, I alone was the one who put (it) in writing …. more accurate than the weight, likeness of the balances, fellow of the king in counselling … giving attention to hear words, like a god in his hour, excellent in heart, skilled in his fingers, exercising an office like him who holds it, favorite of the king I was excellent to the heart of his majesty, for I was pleasant to the heart of his majesty before the Two Lands, his beloved among the companions, for his majesty loved me. his majesty appointed me sole companion and superior custodian of the domain of the Pharaoh. powerful among the officials, having an advanced seat to approach the throne of the king, a man of confidences to whom the heart opens. his majesty praised me for the watchfulness and vigilance, which I showed in the place of audience, above his every official, above [his every] noble, above his every servant. 532. Hereditary prince over the … the (royal) castle (wsh't) … finding the speech of the palace, knowing that which is in every body (heart), putting a man into his real place, finding matters in which there is irregularity, giving the lie to him that speaks it, and the truth to him that brings it, giving attention, without an equal, good at listening, profitable in speaking, an official loosening the (difficult) knot, whom the king (lit., god) exalts above millions, as an excellent man, whose name he knew, true likeness of love, free from doing deceit, whose steps the court heeds, when preparing court, when preparing the king’s journey (or) when making stations, I did throughout so that his majesty praised me for it above everything. overthrowing him that rebels against the king, hearing the house of the council of thirty, who puts his terror … among the barbarians (fp^s'tyw), when he has silenced the Sand-dwellers, pacifying the rebels because of their deeds, whose actions prevail in the two regions, lord of the Black Land and the Red Land, giving commands to the South, counting the number of the Northland, His majesty sent me to despatch [this army] five times, in order to traverse the land of the Sand-dwellers at each of their rebellions, with these troops, I did so that [his] majesty praised me [on account of it]. When it was said there were revolters, because of a matter among these barbarians in the land of Gazelle-nose, I crossed over in troop-ships with these troops, and I voyaged to the back of the height of the ridge on the north of the Sand-dwellers. When the army had been [brought] in the highway, I came and smote them all and every revolter among them was slain. His majesty sent me at the head of his army while the counts, while the wearers of the royal seal, while the sole companions of the palace, while the nomarchs and commanders of strongholds belonging to the South and Northland …. in whose brilliance all men move, pilot of the people, giver of food, advancing offices, lord of designs, great in love, associate of the king in the great castle (wsfi't), hereditary prince, count, chief treasurer, Mentuhotep, he says: 533. …'I am a companion beloved of his lord, doing that which pleases his god daily, prince, count, sem priest, master of every wardrobe of Horus, prophet of Anubis of … the hry ydb, Mentuhotep, prince in the seats of … Splendor … at whose voice they (are permitted to) speak in the king's-house, in charge of the silencing of the courtiers, unique one of the king, without his like, who sends up the truth …. One to whom the great come in obeisance at the double gate of the king's-house ; attached to Nekhen, prophet of Mat, pillar … 'before the Red Land, overseer of the western highlands, First of the Westerners …. leader of the magnates of South and North … advocate of the people … merinuter priest, prophet of Horus, master of secret things of the house of sacred writings …. Never before had one like me heard the secret of the royal harem. [Sinuhe, too, was] servant of the Royal harim attending on the hereditary princess …. governor of the (royal) castle, governor of the South prophet of Harkefti, great lord of the royal wardrobe, who approaches the limbs of the king, chamber-attendant …. overseer of the double granary, overseer of the double silver-house, overseer of the double gold-house, master of the king's writings of the (royal) presence, wearer of the royal seal, sole companion, master of secret things of the 'divine words’ (hieroglyphics) …. 534. Here follows a mortuary prayer, after which the concluding lines (22, 23) refer specifically to his building commissions at Abydos …. I conducted the work in the temple, built of stone of Ayan I conducted the work on the sacred barque {nlm * /), I fashioned its colors, offering tables His majesty sent me to Hatnub to bring a huge offering-table …. of lapis lazuli, of bronze, of electrum, and silver; copper was plentiful without end, bronze without limit, collars of real malachite, ornaments (mn-nfr't) of every kind of costly stone. of the choicest of everything, which are given to a god at his processions, by virtue of my office of master of secret things. [End of quotes] I recall (but do not currently have it with me) that professor A. S. Yahuda had, in his Language of the Pentateuch in Its Relation to Egyptian, Vol. 1 (1933), when discussing the Exodus 5:5 encounter between Pharaoh and Moses and Aaron: “Then Pharaoh said, ‘Look, the people of the land are now numerous, and you are stopping them from working’”, referred to the rank of Moses and Aaron (differentiating them from the common people) as something akin to new men. Anyway, that is precisely how Weni is classified in this next piece: http://drelhosary.blogspot.com.au/2014/03/weni-elder-and-his-mortuary.html Everyone who has studied ancient Egyptian history is familiar with the autobiography of Weni the Elder, an enterprising individual who lived during the 6th Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (ca. 2407-2260 BCE). His inscription, excavated in 1860 from his tomb in the low desert at Abydos in southern Egypt, enthusiastically describes his long service under three kings, culminating in his appointment as "True Governor of Upper Egypt." Scholars have hailed it as "the most important historical document from the Old Kingdom" and have used it to illustrate the rise of a class of "new men" in Egyptian politics and society--persons whose upward mobility rested in their abilities, not in noble birth. Early in the season, we excavated a number of inscribed relief fragments from this area, including two pieces that, when joined together, furnished the name "Weni the Elder" and a fragment providing the title "True Governor of Upper Egypt," the highest title recorded in Weni's autobiography. Further evidence emerged supporting this association. The exterior face of the north wall incorporates a large niche, and during excavations here a damaged false door inscribed for Weni the Elder was discovered in situ. Not only does this false door provide a nickname for Weni ("Nefer Nekhet Mery-Ra"--Egyptian nicknames were often longer than birth names!), but it also documents his final career promotion, a fact not recorded in his autobiography: Chief Judge and Vizier. [End of quote] Weni was, just like Mentuhotep, “Chief Judge and Vizier”. Weni was also, as we read above, “commander in chief of the army”. And Mentuhotep was also “Chief of Police”. Was this also the historical Moses, whose Judgeship, whose Rulership, some of the Hebrews chose to reject (Exodus 2:14): ‘Who made you ruler and judge over us?’ If Moses were Weni, then may not Hur be Hurkhuf? “The king praised me. My father made a will for me, (for) I was excellent ......... [one beloved] of his father, praised of his mother, whom all his brothers loved. I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat”. Inscription from tomb of Hurkhuf [The following is most tentative] Hurkhuf (var. Herkhuf, Harkhuf) comes across here as like an ancient Job (cf. Job 31:19). The question I now ask, could Hurkhuf have been the biblical Hur, who, with Aaron, held up the arms of a tiring Moses against Amalek at Rephidim (Exodus 10:8-13)? The Amalekites came and attacked the Israelites at Rephidim. Moses said to Joshua, ‘Choose some of our men and go out to fight the Amalekites. Tomorrow I will stand on top of the hill with the staff of God in my hands’. So Joshua fought the Amalekites as Moses had ordered, and Moses, Aaron and Hur went to the top of the hill. As long as Moses held up his hands, the Israelites were winning, but whenever he lowered his hands, the Amalekites were winning. When Moses’ hands grew tired, they took a stone and put it under him and he sat on it. Aaron and Hur held his hands up—one on one side, one on the other—so that his hands remained steady till sunset. So Joshua overcame the Amalekite army with the sword. In Jewish tradition, Hur is indeed an exemplary character. For example: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/7942-hur By: Emil G. Hirsch, M. Seligsohn, Joseph Jacobs, Louis Ginzberg …. —1. Biblical Data: Man of Judah, the grandfather of Bezaleel, the chief artificer of the Tabernacle (Ex. xxxi. 2, xxxv. 30, xxxviii. 22). According to the fuller genealogy in I Chron. ii. 18-20, he was the first-born son of Ephrath, the second wife of Caleb ben Hezron. Besides Uri, Hur had three other sons, founders of Kirjath-jearim, Beth-lehem, and Beth-gader (I Chron. ii. 50, 51). In I Chron. iv. 4, however, Hur is called the father of Bethlehem. He is first mentioned with Moses and Aaron on the occasion of the battle with Amalek at Rephidim, when he aided Aaron to uphold the hands of Moses (Ex. xvii. 10, 12); he is again mentioned as having, with Aaron, been left in charge of the people while Moses ascended Mount Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 14). According to Josephus ("Ant." iii. 2, § 4), Hur was the husband of Miriam; in the Targum to I Chron. ii. 19, iv. 4, Hur's mother, Ephrath, is identified with Miriam. There is a tendency among modern critics to regard the Hur associated with Moses as another than Hur, grandfather of Bezaleel. E. G. H. M. Sel.—In Rabbinical Literature: Hur was the son of Caleb, and when Moses was about to be taken by God, he appointed his nephew Hur, with Aaron, as leader of the people. While Moses tarried on the mountain, the people came to Aaron and Hur with the request to make them a god in the place of Moses (Ex. xxxii. 1). Then Hur, remembering his lineage and high position, rose up and severely reproved the people for their godless intentions; but they, aroused to anger, fell upon him and slew him. The sight of his lifeless body induced Aaron to comply with the wishes of the people, as he preferred to commit a sin himself rather than see the people burdened with the crime of a second murder (Pirḳe R. El. xliii.; Ex. R. xli. 7; Lev. R. x. 3; Num. R. xv. 21; Tan., ed. Buber, ii. 113; Sanh. 7a; comp. also Ephraem Syrus to Ex. xxxii. 1). As a reward for Hur's martyrdom, his son, Bezaleel, was the builder of the Tabernacle; and one of his descendants was Solomon, who had the Temple built (Ex. R. xlviii. 5; comp. Soṭah 11b). [End of quote] As for Hurkhuf, he was a highly important official in Old Kingdom Egypt, following very much in the mould of Weni. And, did he actually assume the gubernatorial office of Weni when the latter (as Moses) had departed Egypt for Midian? http://www.bookrags.com/history/ancient-egypt-social-class-and-economy/sub14.html#gsc.tab=0 Harkhuf served as Governor of Upper Egypt after Weni. Harkhuf's career is not spelled out in his autobiography in as much detail as Weni gave in his text. Though Harkhuf achieved the rank of Count and Sole Companion, he also functioned as a Lector Priest, Chamberlain, Warden of Nekhen, Mayor of Nekheb, Royal Seal Bearer, and, most importantly, as a Chief of Scouts who led four trading expeditions to Nubia. His autobiography is most informative about the nature of trade relations between Nubia (southern Egypt and the Sudan) and Egypt at the end of Dynasty 6 (circa 2350-2170 B.C.E.). His autobiography also highlights the ambiguity surrounding these expeditions and the difficulty of classifying them as trade expeditions or military maneuvers. …. And again: https://ipfs.io/ipfs/QmXoypizjW3WknFiJnKLwHCnL72vedxjQkDDP1mXWo6uco/wiki/Autobiography_of_Harkhuf.html The Autobiography of Harkhuf is a tomb inscription from Ancient Egypt which is significant to Egyptology studies. Harkhuf was a governor of Upper Egypt in the 23rd century BC. His name is sometimes spelled Herkhuf, Horkhuf, or Hirkhuf. All that is known of Harkhuf's life comes from the inscriptions in his tomb at Qubbet el-Hawa on the west bank of the Nile at Aswan, near the First Cataract of the Nile. He was a native of Elephantine. He was appointed governor of the southern part of Upper Egypt and overseer of caravans under the pharaoh Merenre I, third king of the 6th Dynasty. His primary business was trade with Nubia,[1] forging political bonds with local leaders,[2] and preparing the ground for an Egyptian expansion into Nubia. He led at least four major expeditions during his life. On the last expedition, he brought back with him what his correspondence with the young pharaoh Pepi II referred to as a dwarf, apparently a pigmy.[3] He travelled a considerable distance to a land called Iyam, which probably corresponds to the fertile plain that opens out south of modern Khartoum, where the Blue Nile joins the White. However, Jean Yoyotte [4] thought Iyam was located further north in the Libyan Desert. The inscriptions in Harkhuf's tomb reflect changes in the Egyptian world view that were occurring during the Late Old Kingdom and the First Intermediate Period, with the person of the king becoming more human and displaying emotions and interests,[5] while commenting on a person leading a moral life by helping his neighbour: I gave bread to the hungry, clothing to the naked, I ferried him who had no boat.[6] ….

Egypt’s Old and Middle Kingdoms far closer in time than conventionally thought

by Damien F. Mackey The following samples are taken entirely from Nicolas Grimal’s A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell 1994. P. 67: “Like his Third Dynasty predecessors, Djoser and Nebka, Snofru soon became a legendary figure, and literature in later periods credited him with a genial personality. He was even deified in the Middle Kingdom, becoming the ideal king whom later Egyptian rulers such as Ammenemes I sought to emulate when they were attempting to legtimize their power”. P. 71: “… texts that describe the Fourth Dynasty kings …. It was … quite logical for the Egyptians of the Middle Kingdom and later to link those past rulers represented primarily by their buildings with the greatest tendencies towards immoderation, thus distorting the real situation (Posener 1969a: 13). However, it is difficult to accommodate within this theory the fact that Snofru’s reputation remained untarnished when he built more pyramids than any of his successors”. P. 73 “A Twelfth Dynasty graffito found in the Wadi Hammamat includes Djedefhor and his half-brother Baefre in the succession of Cheops after Chephren”. P. 79 “The attribution of the Maxims to Ptahhotep does not necessarily mean that he was the actual author: the oldest versions date to the Middle Kingdom, and there is no proof that they were originally composed in the Old Kingdom, or, more specifically, at the end of the Fifth Dynasty. The question, moreover, is of no great importance”. Pp. 80-81 {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/ Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]”. “Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. P. 84: “[Pepy I] … an unmistakable return to ancient values: Pepy I changed his coronation name from Neferdjahor to Merire (‘The devotee of Ra’)”. P. 146: “The words of Khety III are in fact simply the transposal into the king’s mouth of the Old Kingdom Maxims”. P. 159: [Ammenemes I]. Like his predecessors in the Fifth Dynasty, the new ruler used literature to publicize the proofs of his legitimacy. He turned to the genre of prophecy: a premonitory recital placed in the mouth of Neferti, a Heliopolitan sage who bears certain similarities to the magician Djedi in Papyrus Westcar. Like Djedi, Neferti is summoned to the court of King Snofru, in whose reign the story is supposed to have taken place”. P. 164: “[Sesostris I]. Having revived the Heliopolitan tradition of taking Neferkare as his coronation name …”. P. 165: “There is even evidence of a Twelfth Dynasty cult of Snofru in the region of modern Ankara”. P. 171: “Ammenemes IV reigned for a little less than ten years and by the time he died the country was once more moving into a decline. The reasons were similar to those that conspired to end the Old Kingdom”. P. 173: “… Mentuhotpe II ordered the construction of a funerary complex modelled on the Old Kingdom royal tombs, with its valley temple, causeway and mortuary temple”. P. 177: “… Mentuhotpe II’[s] … successors … returned to the Memphite system for their funerary complexes. They chose sites to the south of Saqqara and the plans of their funerary installations drew on the architectural forms of the end of the Sixth Dynasty”. …. The mortuary temple was built during the Ammenemes I’s ‘co-regency’ with Sesostris I. The ramp and the surrounding complex were an enlarged version of Pepy II’s”. P. 178: “The rest of [Sesostris I’s el-Lisht] complex was again modelled on that of Pepy II”. Pp. 178-179: “[Ammenemes III’s ‘black pyramid’ and mortuary structure at Dahshur]. The complex infrastructure contained a granite sarcophagus which was decorated with a replica of the enclosure wall of the Step Pyramid complex of Djoser at Saqqara (Edwards 1985: 211-12)”. “[Ammenemes III’s pyramid and mortuary temple at Harawa]. This was clearly a sed festival installation, comparable to the jubilee complex of Djoser at Saqqara, with which Ammenemes’ structure has several similarities”. “The tradition of the Old Kingdom continued to influence Middle Kingdom royal statuary …”. P. 180: “The diversity of styles was accompanied by a general return to the royal tradition, which was expressed in the form of a variety of statues representing kings from past times, such as those of Sahure, Neuserre, Inyotef and Djoser created during the reign of Sesostris II”. P. 181: “A comparable set of statures represents Ammenemes III (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 385 from Hawara) … showing the king kneeling to present wine vessels, a type previously encountered at the end of the Old Kingdom (Cairo, Egyptian Museum CG 42013 …) …". Some Striking Visual Evidence Representations of various Old and Middle Kingdom pharaohs show that artistic styles with regard to them had barely changed in more than 600 years of conventional history. Take pharaoh Khufu (Gk: “Cheops”) as a perfect case of one in desperate need of an alter ego. Incredibly, as we read: http://www.guardians.net/egypt/khufu.htm “Although the Great pyramid has such fame, little is actually known about its builder, Khufu. Ironically, only a very small statue of 9 cm has been found depicting this historic ruler. This statue … was not found in Giza near the pyramid, but was found to the south at the Temple of Osiris at Abydos, the ancient necropolis”. Obviously there is something seriously missing here: namely a detailed historical record, and extensive monuments, concerning the reign of one of the mightiest pharaohs of Egypt! I have begun to fill out Khufu in various articles. After having confidently connected: (i) the 6th Dynasty founder, Teti, with (ii) the 12th Dynasty founder, Amenemhet I, as (iii) the “new king” of the babyhood of Moses, I hinted: “Once again we have a strong founder-king, Amenemes [Amenemhat] I, who will enable us to fill out the virtually unknown Khufu as the “new king” of Exodus 1:8”. Teti, who is found to have borne a most striking likeness to Khufu, is variously thought to have reigned for from 7 to 33 years. Though N. Grimal, in A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1994), thinks a figure such as the last is impossible, otherwise Teti would have celebrated a Heb-Sed Jubilee. Amenemhet I, however, Teti’s proposed alter ego, did reign long enough apparently to celebrate the Jubilee festival. http://disc.yourwebapps.com/discussion.cgi?id=177754;article=12367 “Inscriptions on the foundation blocks of Amenemhat I's mortuary Temple at Lisht show that the king had already celebrated his royal jubilee, and that year 1 of an unnamed king thought to be his successor Senwosret I had already elapsed”. First Twelfth Dynasty ‘Fold’ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- …. it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- My suspicion is (and, yes, my revision does require a shortening of the 12th dynasty) that at least some of the 12th dynasty kings, Amenemhet (I-IV), and at least some of the kings Sesostris (I-III), must be duplicates. The same would apply, I suggest, for the double 6th dynasty sequence of Pepi (I and II) and Merenre (I and II). And it is right here and now that I want to suggest my first possible ‘folding’ for the 12th dynasty: Amenemhet I and II. The latter may also be in need of some enfleshing because, despite his reign of about 33 years (including co-regency) (Grimal) - very close to the figure for Amenemhet I - he has fairly little to show for it in terms of building works, according to Phouka: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn12/03amenemhet2.html There is a good chance that Amenemhet II was already middle aged when he took the throne, so the estimate that he ruled for ten or so years is more likely than that 38 attributed to him by Manetho. Ten years also jives better with his lack of building. Amenemhet did very little building during his reign; not many temples bear his handiwork. [End of quote] Like Amenemhet I, Amenemhet II celebrated a Heb-Sed jubilee (see Dorman, Monuments of Senemut, Ch. 5, p. 133): https://books.google.com.au/books?id=I5QrBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA133&lpg=PA133&dq=amenemhet+II+heb+sed+jubilee&source=bl&ots=dDHlscAsgq&sig=0fBcmm28KNpP3V_ Though the titulary may vary, the mothers’ names at least were similar, Nofret (Nefret), for I, and Nefru for II. And Amenemhet II looks just like his other proposed alter egos:

Sparser Spartans

by Damien F. Mackey “Hugo Jones writes that the Spartans held in the highest regard a certain ancient law-giver, much like Moses the law-giver of Israel. The Spartans celebrated new moons (Rosh Chodesh), and unlike their Greek counterparts, even a seventh day of rest! Of course, the Spartans themselves were very different from other Greeks, particularly those in Athens, whom Sparta often battled”. Mayim Achronim According to King Arius of Sparta, his people shared a common ancestry with the Jews through Abraham. I Maccabees 12:19-23: This is a copy of the letter that they sent to Onias: ‘King Arius of the Spartans, to the high priest Onias, greetings. It has been found in writing concerning the Spartans and the Jews that they are brothers and are of the family of Abraham. And now that we have learned this, please write us concerning your welfare; we on our part write to you that your livestock and your property belong to us, and ours belong to you. We therefore command that our envoys report to you accordingly’. Given that Abraham was, as according to the meaning of his new name: “The Father of many nations” (Genesis 17:5): “Your name will no longer be Abram; your name will be Abraham, for I will make you the father of many nations”, then the task of identifying a more specific relationship between the Jews and the Spartans is not an easy one. Legend tends to favour that the Spartans were descended from Abraham through his wife, Keturah. A seemingly semi-mythological example of this tradition is given at: https://www.mayimachronim.com/when-jews-and-greeks-were-brothers-the-untold-story-of-chanukah/ Greek Sons of Abraham Sometime in the 2nd century BCE lived a Greek historian and sage named Cleodemus, sometimes referred to as Cleodemus the Prophet. He also went by the name Malchus which, because of its Semitic origins, makes some scholars believe he could have been Jewish. Cleodemus wrote an entire history of the Jewish people in Greek. While this text appears to have been lost, it is cited by others, including Josephus (Antiquities, i. 15). Cleodemus commented on Abraham’s marriage to Keturah (typically identified with Hagar), and their children. This is recorded in Genesis 25, which begins: And Abraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah. And she bore him Zimran, and Yokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuach. And Yokshan begot Sheva and Dedan. And the sons of Dedan were Ashurim, and Letushim, and Leumim. And the sons of Midian were Ephah, and Epher, and Chanokh, and Avidah, and Elda’ah. All these were the children of Keturah. And Abraham gave all that he had to Isaac, while to the sons of the concubines that Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and he sent them away from Isaac, while he was still alive, to the east country. Abraham had six children with Keturah, from which came at least seven grandchildren, and three great-grandchildren which the Torah names explicitly. The Torah then makes it clear that Abraham gave everything that he had to Isaac—including the Covenant with God and the land of Israel—while the others received gifts and were sent away from the Holy Land. Cleodemus suggests that Epher (or another child named Yaphran), the great-grandson of Abraham, migrated to Africa—which is where the term “Africa” comes from! (This is particularly interesting because Epher was the son of Midian, and Tziporah the wife of Moses was a Midianite, and is described as a Cushite, or African/Ethiopian.) Cleodemus states that Epher, Yaphran, and Ashurim assisted the Greek hero Hercules in one of his battles. Following this, Hercules married one of their daughters—a great granddaughter of Abraham—and had a son with her. This son was Diodorus, one of the legendary founders of Sparta! …. [End of quote] Others, such as Steven M. Collins, narrow all of this down considerably more by identifying the Spartans as actual Jews (descendants of Abraham), even specifying that they were of the tribe of Simeon. And so we read at: https://stevenmcollins.com/the-spartan-israelites-who-halted-the-persian-empire/ THE SPARTAN ISRAELITES WHO HALTED THE PERSIAN EMPIRE by Steven M. Collins | Sep 17, 2018 | Ten Tribes - Ancient History Many readers have, no doubt, seen the movie, 300, starring Gerard Butler which was released a number of years ago. It tells the inspiring story of King Leonidas of Sparta, who led 300 of his Spartan warriors to the pass at Thermopylae circa 480 BC to block the path of the immense Persian army under Xerxes that was descending upon Greece. Their noble sacrifice in the battle of Thermopylae inspired all of Greece and bought time for the various city-states to organize a resistance to the Persian invasion. The aforementioned movie is drenched in graphic and bloody combat scenes and is outlandish at times (especially in its portrayal of Xerxes), but the self-sacrifice of the martial Spartan detachment inspires people still today. That movie also is laughably inaccurate in its portrayal of the Spartan warriors, who are presented as soldiers who went to war with appropriate armaments but dressed only in capes and leather loincloths. There was an earlier movie, The 300 Spartans, released in 1961 starring Richard Egan, which told the same story but it showed the Spartans dressed and armored in a much more realistic manner. However, it dated to a time when Hollywood presented war movies in a very sanitized way where the battle scenes were acted out with very little blood being shown. In both my books (available at the homepage of this website) and an article, I make the case that the Spartan warriors were Israelites from the Israelite tribe of Simeon, which, like the Spartans, was known for being warlike and ruthless. According to the book of First Maccabees, a Spartan king acknowledged in a letter to a Jewish High Priest that the Jews and Spartans were “kinsmen” and fellow descendants of Abraham. If so, where is the historic connection between the two groups of people? The Bible actually does offer us a solid historical context where the Spartans could have originated from a group of Israelites that branched off from the rest of the Israelite tribes. In the book of Numbers, there are two separate censuses taken of the Israelite tribes when they left Egypt. The first is in Numbers 1 and the second is in Numbers 26. The second census indicates that a majority of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite encampment right after a chief Simeonite prince was executed by a Levite, Phineas, in Numbers 25. The context argues that Moses saw that so many people had left the Israelite encampment at that time that he decided to call for a second census to see how many had departed from the various tribes. If they had struck out on their own, one would expect the Simeonites to found a martial city or nation of their own…in other words, a city-state just like Sparta. History records that the Spartans had a different origin than the rest of the Greeks. The fact that the Spartan letter cited in I Maccabees records that the Spartans regarded themselves as kinsmen of the Jews and jointly descended from the patriarch, Abraham, is strong evidence that the Spartans had to be from a fellow Israelite tribe, but where had they originated? Since Numbers 25-26 confirms that most of the tribe of Simeon left the Israelite wilderness encampment circa 1410 BC, it makes sense that this warlike band of Simeonites would resurface later in history in a location other than the Promised Land. The origin of the city-state of Sparta is unknown, but it began to be noticed as an independent entity by at least the 11th or 10th century BC. Years ago, I wrote an article about the Spartan connection to the Israelite tribe of Simeon and I am including a link to that article. I urge all readers with an interest in history to read that article as it will enable you to see ancient Greek and Mediterranean history in an entirely new light. As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. Gideon and his 300 warriors were also Israelites. Leonidas and his 300 did not emerge victorious although their noble sacrifice has been honored throughout time. I cannot help but wonder how the story of Leonidas and his 300 holding the narrow pass at Thermopylae would have ended if they had not been sabotaged by a traitor who revealed a secret pass around the Spartan position to the Persians. Perhaps they might actually have won if it had not been for that betrayal. At the very least, they would have delayed the Persian host for a much longer period of time. [End of quote] I may be able to add another element that could bridge the long chronological gap for the Spartans, as descendants of Abraham, to a connection with Moses. The Spartans looked back to a great Lawgiver called Lycurgus (Lykourgos), generally considered to be semi-mythical. Lycurgus is commonly compared with the Lawgiver supreme, Moses. Why? Because, as I think, Lycurgus was actually based on Moses. See e.g. my article: Moses and Lycurgus (11) Moses and Lycurgus | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Readers might pick up Moses likenesses also in the following by Ellen Lloyd (2023): https://www.ancientpages.com/2023/01/09/enigma-of-lycurgus-of-sparta-great-reformer-and-his-foundation-of-a-warlike-superior-state/ As we trace the ancient history of Sparta and Lycurgus, we learn he emerged during a deep crisis. According to Spartanophilic Xenophon, a disciple of Socrates and soldier who fought for Sparta against Athens, Lycurgus lived during the time of Heraclidae, around 1,000 B.C. Herodotus informs that Lycurgus “had brought the Spartans out of an era of extreme political disorder (kakonomotatoi) and into one of good order (eunomie), which in turn led to the city’s increased power. With the support of the Delphic oracle, Lycurgus changed “all the laws,” and created the gerousia, the ephorate, and the Spartan military organization (there is mention of the syssitia among the military institutions).” 3 Lycurgus “was able to persuade his fellow Spartans to introduce the comprehensive and compulsory educational cycle called the Agoge (agôgê, literally a ‘raising’, as of cattle). This system of education, training and socialisation turned boys into fighting men whose reputation for discipline, courage and skill was unsurpassed.” 4 Some scholars suggest the political reforms in Sparta introduced by Lycurgus were the earliest system of Greek citizen self-government. Many aspects Lycurgus system were strange to foreigners, and the Spartan rules and customs were radically different from the rest of the Hellenes. Perhaps this was also the goal because the Lycurgus altered decisively the psychological make-up of the citizens. The Spartans’ “own belief in their ideology was absolute. Throughout Spartan history there were very few defectors – or whingers.” 4 How Lycurgus came up with the laws is a mystery. Herodotus provides two entirely different versions of the Spartan lawgiver. One story tells Lycurgus received the laws directly from God Apollo. In another text, Herodotus ascribes the origins of Lycurgus’s laws to the Cretan constitution. Modern historians have long downplayed the role of Lycurgus in the history of Sparta. Still, in recent years scholars have argued the ancient lawgiver may have been of greater importance to the state than previously assumed. …. [Ends of quote] There is enough here to suggest, too, that the Spartans were foreigners in Greece. The first step, then, is to re-set Sparta in an Israelite direction by re-identifying the Lawgiver Lycurgus (c. 820 BC) as Moses (c. 1450 BC). The second step is to carry this re-orientation down into the Judges period, by seeing Leonidas and his 300 as a Greek appropriation of Gideon and his 300 (Judges 7). We read that Steven M. Collins had not missed this similarity (without making my connection): …. As a side-bar, I’d like to note that there was an earlier “Brave Three Hundred” warrior group which was mentioned in the Bible. It is the group of 300 warriors that accompanied the hero, Gideon, when he, like Leonidas and his 300, fought against an immense army of invaders who came from the east (circa 1150 BC). The story of Gideon and his brave 300 warriors is told in Judges 6-7. Unlike Leonidas and his 300, Gideon and his 300 emerged victorious over the eastern host albeit with God’s intervention to grant the victory. …. In e.g. my article: Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae (3) Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I suggested biblical antecedents for the so-called Battle of Thermopylae and the 300 Spartans. If Leonidas and his 300 are not taken from Gideon and his 300, wherein the name Gideon has become Grecised as Leonidas: [G]ID-EON = [L]EON-ID-AS then I’ll eat my hat. The third step is to recognise that: Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian (3) Admiral Lysander was probably an Egyptian | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Even The Iliad epic associated with the more obviously fictitious Sparta-ruling Menelaus has a biblical base: ‘Homeric’ borrowings from life of King Saul (4) 'Homeric' borrowings from life of King Saul | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu King Ahab and Agamemnon (4) King Ahab and Agamemnon | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu Judith the Jewess and “Helen” the Hellene (4) Judith the Jewess and " Helen " the Hellene | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu

Was Egeria an early visitor to Mount Sinai?

“Egeria’s account is very precise, detailed, clear and direct to the point that it does not make room to any personal interpretation. She portrays the territory in a photographic manner, describing the form and position of the mountains, the form and dimensions of the valley, the precise distances and travel times from one point to the other.” Flavio Barbiero We read at: EGERIA AT HAR KARKOM (altriocchi.com) – web site of Flavio Barbiero Summary: - The paper shows that Har Karkom was known as the biblical Mount Sinai by Christian pilgrims of the first four centuries C.E. Evidence is provided by a manuscript found in 1884 in the Tuscan town of Arezzo, with the diary kept by a Christian pilgrim, named Egeria, who at the end of the IV century made a trip to the mountain of Moses. Immediately the scholars decided that the account was referred to St Katherine, but unfortunately the description, very accurate and detailed, does not fit at all the reality of that mountain, perhaps apart a single match at the end of the visit. The described distances, travel times and description of the environment are unsuitable to the area of Santa Catherina in a macroscopic way. Besides, the pilgrim reports the existence of monks’ communities and agricultural sites both on the mountain and in the surrounding valley, including dwellings and churches which, according to the archaeological evidence, did not exist there at that time. In all evidence the account is referring to a different location. Through an accurate survey at Har Karkom, however, it becomes plausible that the narrative refers to a journey made on that precise area. If we strictly follow the indications of the manuscript, starting from the very point where the pilgrim looked out from a gorge over the God’s valley, we are then taken along an itinerary completely matching, down to the smallest detail, the information provided by the diary, at the point that it could be regarded as the best guide ever to a biblical tour of Har Karkom. Sinai, a Nabatean mountain An interesting outcome of the archeological discoveries at Har Karkom is that this mountain was known as the biblical Sinai since the beginning of the Christian era. As a matter of fact, 30% of its 1200 archaeological sites belong to the roman-byzantine epoch and in all probability they were due to communities of monks, who thrived there until the beginning of the 7th century, when they were swept away by the Islamic invasion. St. Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, says that soon after his conversion in Damascus he went for “three years to Arabia”, that is the kingdom of the Nabateans, adding after a few rows that “Sinai is a mountain of Arabia” (4, 25), within which borders there is Har Karkom. The existence of monks, more precisely ebionites[1], in that area is testified by Epiphanius, who in his book “Panarion” (30, 18, 1 & 29, 7 7-8), written on 375, says that they were spread over most of the provinces of the Nabataean Arabia. His words were confirmed a few years later by a Roman pilgrim, Egeria (381-384), who in his diary described communities of monks in Transjordan, as well as around and on top of the God’s mountain. In the following pages we will show that this mountain was not the St. Katherine, but Har Karkom, that fits entirely the pilgrim’s description. The Codex Aretinus Egeria’s diary was discovered on 1884 in Arezzo, Tuscany, and it’s written on a parchment called Codex Aretinus 405, produced between 1087 and 1105 in the monastery of Monte Cassino. [2] The initial, the final and four intermediate pages of the manuscript are missing. No other copies of the diary have been found so far, but precious information about the content of the missing parts is contained in a letter, written around 680 by a monk named Valerius to his brothers of Bierzo’s monastery, in Galicia, Spain, in which he makes a list of the mountains climbed by the pilgrim and of the biblical sites that she visited. Egeria’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land took place between 381 and 384 and the visit to the mountain of God is supposed to have been made at the end of 383. Mackey’s comment: I would not necessarily accept as accurate any of these AD dates. Unanimously the scholars agreed that the mountain visited by the Roman pilgrim had to be identified with the St Katherine massif, in the southern part of the Sinai Peninsula, which the Christian tradition blessed as the biblical Sinai since the beginning of the sixth century (the very first mention of it as a possible biblical Sinai is made by Procopius, historian at the court of emperor Justinian). A survey made on 1899 by M. J. Lagrange, trying to identify on the St Katherine an itinerary somehow fitting the narrative of the manuscript, failed to demonstrate a close match with it, to the point that 90 years later another scholar, Franca Mian, made a second attempt, proposing a few alternatives, with the same disappointing result. Mount Sinai in Egeria’s description Egeria’s account is very precise, detailed, clear and direct to the point that it does not make room to any personal interpretation. She portrays the territory in a photographic manner, describing the form and position of the mountains, the form and dimensions of the valley, the precise distances and travel times from one point to the other. She describes what she sees near the path she walks along, relating everything to the biblical text: tombs, churches, caves, ancient encampments, dwellings, altars and so on. All real elements that should be easily verified by a survey on the concerned area. She reports her own activities with precision and coherence, her movements, the precise time of every activity, and her encounters with monks who lived upon the mountain and in the surrounding valley. These information allow us to draw a precise outline of Egeria’s visit to the holy mountain. Dimensions of the God’s valley and distances In Egeria’s account the valley’s dimensions and the distances between key points are reported with precision: - four miles from the entrance of the valley to the mountain (§1,2 of the manuscript), - sixteen thousand footsteps the length of the valley and four thousand footsteps its width (§2,1); - three miles from the top of Mount Horeb to the site of the burning bush (§ 4,5); - thirty five miles from Faran to the mountain of God (§ 6,1). These are important information and therefore it is essential to understand what they really mean. The Romans, when marching their armies through Europe, used the unit of long distance mille passuum (literally "a thousand paces"), corresponding to about 1,480 meters (1,620 yards), because each pace or stride was two steps. If this was the unit of length used by Egeria, then the distances reported in her account were respectively of 6, 24, 4.5 and 52 km. Egeria, however, is keen to point out that those measures were told to her by the local guides, ignorant monks who almost certainly were not familiar with the Roman army practices. For them distances had to be expressed in simple footsteps, of about 70 cm each, and therefore those values go down to 3, 12, 2.2 and 26 km. Besides, those distances were measured along the paths and therefore they were a little bit longer than the distances as the crows fly. Let’s say a 10 % longer. In the first case the dimensions of the God’s valley were of 22 km by 5, hugely out of scale in the St Katherine scenario. In the second and more probable case, these dimensions are reduced to 11 by 2.5 km, still at least three times longer than the real ones. Surprisingly the distance from the God’s mountain to Feiran (and only this) is correct if it was expressed in Roman miles (while is half of its real value if expressed in normal footsteps). A part this lonely match, in both cases the dimensions of the God’s valley, as reported by Egeria’s diary, are macroscopically wrong in the St. Katherine’s scenario, as can be seen in the following map. Maps and pictures show that there is no match between Egeria’s account and the geography of the St. Katherine, with the only exception of the distance from Feiran to that mountain (which in any case could not have been covered in one day only, as we understand from the manuscript). A manipulated account A large part of Egeria’s account is dedicated to encounters with several monks who lived in that area, and to describe churches, agricultural sites, both upon the mountain near its top and in the surrounding valley, archaeological remnants, attributed to the exodus’ Jews, and so on. Nothing of this kind existed in the St. Katherine area at Egeria’s time. We can therefore state with certainty that her account is related to a different mountain. There are, however, two data that look correct in the St. Katherine scenario: the declared distance from Faran to the God’s mountain is the same as that from Feiran to the Gebel Musa (if we suppose that it was expressed in Roman miles), and the fact that Egeria, according to the manuscript, went on on her trip following backward the legs of the Jews’ exodus, undoubtedly starting from Feiran, because two days later she reached the Red Sea shores and walked along the beach up to Suez and then to Egypt. Clearly there is some problem with this narrative. Through a thorough analysis of the manuscript we can easily find it out. Let’s jump directly to the conclusions. The codex found in Arezzo is not a full transcription of the original Egeria’s diary, but only a “collage” of excerpts, quoting the journeys outside Jerusalem made by the pilgrim during the three years of her sojourn in the holy city, assembled in a different order from the original. From Valerius’ letter we know that the very first journey of Egeria was made to Egypt, where she followed “all the legs of the ancient peregrination of Israel…”(Cap.1). Only later, “burning for the desire to see the holy mountain of God” (cap.2), Egeria programmed a dedicated journey to mount Sinai. In the manuscript the order of the two journeys has been inverted and they have been put in sequence in such a way as to make the Faran of Egeria coincide with the oasis of Feiran. In this point the copyist inserted the distance of 35 miles, which couldn’t be known to Egeria in this form, because that distance was expressed in Roman miles only in the VI century, when emperor Justinian established a garrison in Feiran and built a fortified monastery at the foot of Gebel Musa. Evidence of this manipulation is shown at page 37 of the Codex Aretinus, where a footnote, written by the copyist, tries to fix some contradiction, yielded on the text by the operation of connecting in the wrong sequence two different journeys. …. Thus, the only data in the manuscript, supporting the identification of Egeria’s holy mountain with the St Katherine, is devoid of any value. EGERIA’S ITINERARY AT HAR KARKOM Egeria’s diary is too precise, coherent and detailed to be a fantastic tale; it certainly describes a real journey in a real place. Let’s see then how it fits the area of Har Karkom. If we set all the information provided by the manuscript in the Har Karkom’s scenario, we are forced to follow an itinerary that matches completely, down the smallest detail, the data provided by Egeria. 1st day - From Beer Ada (Faran) to the site HK 183 The starting and return point of the itinerary is Beer Ada, a site at the confluence of wadi Karkom with wadi Faran, whit important archaeological remains of the roman-byzantine period. It’s an obligated choice, because Egeria left and returned back to a place named Faran. …. Read the full, fascinating article.