Was Moses indeed a King of Egypt – albeit briefly?

by Damien F. Mackey There was … Kagemni, which name occurs in both the Fourth and Sixth dynasties. Egyptologists, with their lengthy chronological separation of the Fourth from the Sixth dynasty must assume that two Viziers Kagemni are involved here. No need for that if, as I think, the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were contemporaneous. My search for the historical Moses • Phase One Initially, inspired by a legend that Moses was “a king” (was this clue from Artapanus?), I searched for him amongst whichever pharaohs I considered to be chronologically reasonable for Moses. This took up a lot of time, with no positive result. • Phase Two Much later, after I had to my satisfaction identified Moses as Vizier and Chief Judge of Egypt (cf. Exodus 2:14) - a high office, but clearly subordinate to Pharaoh - I came to reject any notion that Moses could have been a King (Pharaoh). And I decried legends that, whilst often helpful, can sometimes be highly misleading. See e.g. my article: ‘Chenephres’ drives Moses out of Egypt (6) 'Chenephres' drives Moses out of Egypt Moses was, I now confidently concluded: Sixth Dynasty: Weni (Uni), Vizer and Chief Judge; Twelfth Dynasty: Mentuhotep, Vizer and Chief Judge, and the semi-legendary Sinuhe, whose story shares “a common matrix” with that of Moses (professor Emmanuel Anati). I also liked Moses as the Sixth Dynasty’s general and trader, Iny, a name very like Weni (Uni), and who, like Weni, was nautically involved in both war and trading. • Phase Three Now, jJust in the last several weeks (late March 2025), a handful of likely Moses types has come to my notice. These were all writers and teachers of Instructions and Maxims. But, most significantly, a briefly reigning Pharaoh is amongst them. See Phase Four. There was (i) Kagemni, which name occurs in both the Fourth and Sixth dynasties. Egyptologists, with their lengthy chronological separation of the Fourth from the Sixth dynasty must assume that two Viziers Kagemni are involved here. No need for that if, as I think, the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were contemporaneous. Kagemni wrote Instructions. (Cf. Acts 7:22: “And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and deeds)”. And he, like Weni-Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge, was “Chief justice and vizier”. There was also (ii) Ptahhotep. Many, myself included, have been hypnotised by his supposed life span of 110 years, like Joseph of Egypt (Genesis 50:26): “So Joseph died at the age of 110”. And we have tried to make of Ptahhotep the biblical Joseph. But, although he is sometimes mentioned in a Third Dynasty (Joseph’s) context, he properly belonged to the Fifth Dynasty (Moses’s). Dr. Ernest L. Martin, who was absolutely convinced that Ptahhotep was Joseph, mistakenly mentioned him in a Third Dynasty context: “This Egyptian document is often called “The Oldest Book in the World” and was originally written by the vizier in the Fifth (or Third) Dynasty”: https://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040501.htm Ptahhotep handed down wise Maxims. There was (iii) Djedefhor (Hordjedef), another wise writer of Instructions during the Fourth Dynasty. Summary of One to Three Moses, as Weni(Iny)-Mentuhotep, Vizier and Chief Judge (Fourth/Twelfth dynasties), combines nicely with Kagemni, Chief Justice and Vizier, Fourth/Sixth dynasties, also greatly strengthening my case for the Fourth and Sixth being just the one dynasty. And Kagemni, as a writer of Instructions, combines nicely with the Vizier Ptahhotep (Fifth Dynasty), a famous sage and writer of Maxims – both of these now connecting with Djedefhor (Fourth Dynasty), for all of the same reasons. Now, this is where Moses as a briefly-reigning king comes in. • Phase Four The wise Djedefhor was actually a son of Khufu, our dynastic founding “new king” of Exodus 1:8). Like Weni (my Moses), known as “the Elder” - pertaining to scholarship? - Djedefhor was called “the Old”. And like Moses, who renounced the Crown (Hebrews 11:24-26): By faith Moses refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter when he was grown up. He chose to be mistreated with God’s people instead of having the temporary pleasures of sin. He thought that the abuses he suffered for Christ were more valuable than the treasures of Egypt, since he was looking forward to the reward …. Djedefhor disdained to become Crown Prince. And he later abdicated. Here is the Moses-like Biography of this scholarly prince: https://althistory.fandom.com/wiki/Djedefhor_I_(Pharaonic_Survival) Djedefhor I (Pharaonic Survival) …. Djedefhor, called the Old and the Scholar, was an ancient Egyptian pharaoh of the Fourth Dynasty during the Old Kingdom. He is also known as Hordjedef. Djedefhor was the son of Khufu … and successor of Bakara, his nephew, and his mother was Meritites I. He is notable for being one of the few Egyptian Pharaohs to Abdicate …. Biography Djedefhor was a son of Pharaoh Khufu and brother of pharaohs Djedefra … and Khafra … his mother was Queen Meritites … making him a full brother of Djedefra …. The Teachings of Djedefhor, a document of which only fragments remain, is attributed to him. Djedefhor was deified after his death. …. As a prince, Djedefhor dedicated himself to scholarly pursuits, showing a profound interest in education and intellectual growth. His elder brother Kawab's untimely death left a vacancy in the line of succession. Their father, Khufu, initially intended for Djedefhor to ascend the throne, recognizing his wisdom and capabilities. However, Djedefhor declined the offer, feeling that his contributions were better suited to other roles. Consequently, his younger brother Djedefra was named Crown Prince. Djedefhor continued to cultivate his reputation as a learned and highly respected individual. His counsel was sought after and greatly valued during the reigns of his brothers, contributing significantly to the governance and intellectual climate of the time. Upon the premature death of King Bakara, Djedefhor was elected king by the Great 20 of Upper and Lower Egypt. [End of quote] A few clarifications are necessary here: Djedefhor’s presumed mother, Meritites, would likely be the same as Meresankh (Ankhesenmerire), Moses’s actual Egyptian foster-mother, “Merris” (Artapanus). His supposed half-brother, Djedefra, who reigned for a short time, would be Djedefhor himself. The names are identical, except for the altered theophoric, where ra (the Sun god, Ra) is replaced with hor (the falcon god, Horus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djedefre Djedefre (also known as Djedefra and Radjedef; died c. 2558 BC) [sic] was an ancient Egyptian king …of the 4th Dynasty during the Old Kingdom. He is well known by the Hellenized form of his name Rhatoisēs (Ῥατοίσης) by Manetho. Djedefre was the son and immediate throne successor of Khufu, the builder of the Great Pyramid of Giza …. Finally, since the Fourth and Sixth dynasties were one and the same, Djedefre would be the same as the short-reigning, Userkare, who, most interestingly, was erased by Pepi (one of my versions of ‘Chenephres’ who pursued Moses out of Egypt), with the word “desert” (to where Moses fled) inserted: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Userkare Userkare (also Woserkare, meaning "Powerful is the soul of Ra"; died c. 2332 BC) [sic] was the second king of the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt, reigning briefly, 1 to 5 years, in the late 24th or the early 23rd century BC. Userkare's relation to his predecessor Teti and successor Pepi … is unknown and his reign remains enigmatic. Although he is attested in some historical sources, Userkare is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and usually report the names of the kings whom they served. Furthermore, the figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". Egyptologists thus suspect a possible Damnatio memoriae on Pepi I's behalf against Userkare. ….

Were the Ten Plagues in Exodus aimed at Egyptian gods-goddesses?

“Again warning is given before the enactment of the plague takes place. Pharaoh is warned of the impending doom that will be faced if he does not listen to the Lord, and forget his own Egyptian gods and goddesses”. This interesting idea has been developed at various sites, one of these being: https://www.stat.rice.edu/~dobelman/Dinotech/10_Eqyptian_gods_10_Plagues.pdf- Ten Egyptian Plagues For Ten Egyptian Gods and Goddesses The God of Israel is greater than all other Egyptian Gods and Goddesses. Moses was a great prophet, called by God with a very important job to do. As an instrument in the Lord's hand he performed many signs, or "wonders", attempting to convince Pharaoh to allow the Israelites freedom from their bondage of slavery to the Egyptians. These "wonders" are more commonly referred to as "plagues" sent from the God of Israel, as a proof that the "one true God" was far greater than all of the multiple Gods of the Egyptians. These Egyptian Plagues were harsh and varied to correspond to the ancient egyptian gods and goddesses that were prevelant [sic] during Moses time in Egypt. The number ten is a significant number in biblical numerology. It represents a fullness of quantity. Ten Egyptian Plagues Means Completely Plagued. Just as the "Ten Commandments" become symbolic of the fullness of the moral law of God, the ten ancient plagues of Egypt represent the fullness of God's expression of justice and judgments, upon those who refuse to repent. Ten times God, through Moses, allows Pharaoh to change his mind, repent, and turn to the one true God, each time increasing the severity of the consequence of the plagues suffered for disobedience to His request. Ten times Pharaoh, because of pride, refuses to be taught by the Lord, and receives "judgments" through the plagues, pronounced upon his head from Moses, the deliverer. The Ten Egyptian Plagues testify of Jesus the Anointed One and His power to save. Moses and Aaron are sent as messengers of the Lord, to Pharaoh, to instruct him to let the children of Israel go "so that they may serve the Lord." It is further stipulated that they must be allowed to travel a three days journey so that they may offer their sacrifices as a means of worship. Pharaoh responds simply, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice to let Israel go? I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go." Soon however, Pharaoh will find out who this God is, and why he should obey His voice. He will understand His power over all the other Egyptian gods and goddesses. These ten Egyptian plagues not only demonstrated the power of God to Moses, the children of Israel, the Egyptians, and Pharaoh, but they were of such magnitude that they would be remembered for all generations, throughout the entire world. They again testify, as does both the Old and New Testament alike that salvation, from beginning to end, is only accomplished through Jesus Christ, "the author and finisher of our faith." (Heb 12:2) Corresponding Egyptian God and Goddess to the type of plague: Hapi- Egyptian God of the Nile This Egyptian God was a water bearer. Egyptian Plague- Water Turned to Blood The first plague that was given to the Egyptians from God was that of turning the water to blood. As Aaron, the spokesman for Moses, touched the "rod" of the Lord to the Nile River it immediately turned to blood, all the fish died, and the river stank. Partially able to duplicate this miracle, the magicians of Pharaoh also turn water into blood, leaving Pharaoh unimpressed with this great wonder from God. Seven days the water throughout all the land of Egypt remained in this state, unsuitable for drinking, the perfect length of time to demonstrate that the Lord was superior to all the other Gods of Egypt. Heket- Egyptian Goddess of Fertility, Water, Renewal Heket the Egyptian Goddess, had the head of a frog. Egyptian Plague- Frogs coming from the Nile River Still, Pharaoh refused to let the children of Israel go from the presence of Egypt. The second plague that was extended upon Egypt, from the "rod" by Aaron, was that of frogs. The frogs came up from the river and were in their houses, in their food, in their clothing, in every place possible. From the greatest to the least, no one in Egypt escaped the plague of frogs. Pharaoh's magicians were able to bring more frogs in their attempt to imitate the power of God, but only Moses was able to make the frogs go away. This was another attack on a famous Egyptian Goddess, Heket. Geb- Egyptian God of the Earth The Egyptian God Geb, was over the dust of the earth. Egyptian Plague- Lice from the dust of the earth Still Pharaoh would not concede, even after this display of power from the Lord, or magnificent plague, he would not let them go. At the command of the Lord to Moses, Aaron was told to stretch forth his rod and smite the dust of the earth. When he did the dust became lice throughout all the land, on both people and beasts. The very dust that was referred to in the creation process of man is now used to plague men, as a reminder of his mortality and sin which both lead to death. Finally, the magicians of Pharaoh are humiliated, being unable to compete with this power that was so much greater than themselves and the powers that they had from their Egyptian gods and goddesses, and they profess, "this is the finger of God." This was the last plague that required Aaron's involvement, as the next set of three plagues are issued by the word of Moses himself. Khepri- Egyptian God of creation, movement of the Sun, rebirth Khepri, the Egyptian god had the head of a fly. Egyptian Plague- Swarms of Flies With the fourth Egyptian plague, which consisted of flies, begins the great miracle ot separation or differentiation. Moses met Pharaoh at the Nile River in the morning and made the demand, speaking on behalf of the Lord, "Let My peole go, that they may serve Me." Again, Pharaoh hardened his heart and disregarded the request, resulting in a pronouncement of swarms of flies. This time, however, only the Egyptians are affected by the judgement, or plague, and the children of Israel remain unscathed. This wonder also moves the Egyptian plagues to a different level, adding destruction as well as discomfort to the consequence of their decisions. Plagued by flies, Pharaoh tried a new tactic and begins bargaining with the Lord, showing his desire to maintain power and authority over God. He tries to dictate the terms and conditions of the offer, telling them they may sacrifice but only "in the land" clearly not complying with the requested "three days journey" that the Lord required. Moses wouldn't budge, and Pharaoh relented allowing them to leave, but telling them not to "go very far." This temporary allowance is made solely to have Moses "intreat the Lord that the swarms of flies may depart", at this point Pharaoh has learned in part who the Lord is and asks for His assistance over the Egyptian gods and goddesses. As soon as the request is granted by the Lord, Pharaoh reneges on his promise and will not let them go, and continues to worship his Egyptian Gods. Hathor-Egyptian Goddess of Love and Protection Usually this Egyptian Goddess was depicted with the head of a cow. Egyptian Plague- Death of Cattle and Livestock Moses once again demanded of Pharaoh, "Let my people go, that they may serve me", revealing also the next Egytian plague to occur on the condition of continued disobedience to the request. This plague was given with an advanced warning, allowing a period of repentance to occur, which goes unheeded. "Tomorrow" the hand of the Lord would be felt upon all the cattle and livestock, of only the Egyptians, as"grievous murrain." This means that disease and pestilence would fall upon their livestock with so severe a consequence as to cause them to die. This plague affected the Egyptian by creating a huge economic disaster, in areas of food, transportation, military supplies, farming, and economic goods that were produced by these livestock. Still Pharaohs heart remained hard and he would not listen to the Lord but remained faith to the Egytian gods and goddesses. Isis- Egyptian Goddess of Medicine and Peace Egyptian Plague- Ashes turned to Boils and Sores Unannounced the sixth Egyptian plague is given, for the first time, directly attacking the Egyptian people themselves. Being instructed by the Lord, Moses took ashes from the furnace of affliction, and threw them into the air. As the dust from the ashes blew all over Egypt, it settled on man and beast alike in the form of boils and sores. As with the previous two, throughout the remaining Egyptian plagues the division is drawn between the Egyptians and the children of Israel, as God gives protection to his covenant people. The severity of the judgment of God has now become personal, as it is actually felt by the people themselves. Cleanliness being paramount in the Egyptian society, this plague pronounces the people "unclean." The magicians who have been seen throughout the previous plagues are unable to perform ceremonially rituals to their Egyptian Gods and Goddesses in this unclean state, not allowing them to even stand before Pharaoh; they are seen in the scriptural account no more. It is great to notice the contrast shown as Moses and Aaron are the only ones left standing in front of Pharaoh, with the "One True God" as their support. Nut- Egyptian Goddess of the Sky Egyptian Plague- Hail rained down in the form of fire Again warning is given before the enactment of the plague takes place. Pharaoh is warned of the impending doom that will be faced if he does not listen to the Lord, and forget his own Egyptian gods and goddesses. Hail of unspeakable size and ability to destroy, would rain down from the sky and turn to fire as it hit the ground. The Lord, in showing Pharaoh that "there is none like Him in the Earth", allows those who are willing to hear His word, and do as He commands, to be saved. A division is now felt between the Egyptians in the form of those "converted" to the Lord, as shown by their obedience and willingness to escape to the protection of their "houses." Similarly we are warned to make our houses a place of refuge from the world today, we have been warned. Interestingly enough, the crops that were destroyed by the hail consisted of flax and barley, which were ripening in the fields. These two particular crops were not the mainstay of their diet, but were used more specifically for their clothing and libations. This destruction would make their life uncomfortable, but as far as effecting their food supply , the wheat still survived. This gave the Egyptians still another chance to turn to "the One True God", and forsake their own Egyptian gods and goddesses, thus showing His mercy and grace even yet. Seth- Egyptian God of Storms and Disorder Egyptian Plague- Locusts sent from the sky Still Pharaoh would not listen to the message of the Lord, still he relys on his own Egyptian gods and goddesses. The eighth plague issued by the Lord had an even greater purpose than all the others, it was to be felt so that Pharaoh would tell even "his sons and son's sons" the mighty things of the Lord, thus teaching even future generations of the power of the "strong hand of God" over all the other Egyptian gods and goddesses. Moses and Aaron approached Pharaoh with the same request, "Let my people go so that they may serve me", and pronounced the judgment of locusts if not heeded. This is the second wave of destruction to follow the hail, and whatever crops were left in tact after that display, were now completely consumed by the swarms of locusts that were unleashed from the sky. This wonder definitely affected their life source. By hitting them in their food supply, the Lord displayed the possibility of eminent death if a change of heart did not occur. Yet still, Pharaoh would not listen. Ra- The Sun God Egyptian Plague- Three Days of Complete Darkness Darkness now fell upon Egypt, unannounced, as a prelude to the future fate to be felt by the Egyptian empire when the message of the Lord was not heeded, and they still turned to their own Egyptian gods and goddesses. Three days of palpable darkness, that was so immense it could be physically felt, covered the land of Egypt. The sun, the most worshipped God in Egypt other than Pharaoh himself, gave no light. The Lord showed that he had control over the sun as a witness that the God of Israel had ultimate power over life and death. The psychological and religious impact would have had a profound influence on the Egyptians at this point. Darkness was a representation of death, judgment and hopelessness. Darkness was a complete absence of light. Pharaoh- The Ultimate Power of Egypt Egyptian Plague- Death of the Firstborn Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, was worshipped by the Egyptians because he was considered to be the greatest Egyptian God of all. It was believed that he was actually the son of Ra himself, manifest in the flesh. After the plague of darkness felt throughout the land was lifted, Pharaoh resumed his position of "bargaining with the Lord" and offered Moses another "deal." Since virtually all of the Egyptian animals had been consumed by the judgments of the Lord, Pharaoh now consented to the request made, to let the people go, but they must leave their animals behind. This was a totally unacceptable offer, as the animals were to be used as the actual sacrifice to the Lord. The Lord is uncompromising when He has set the terms. Enraged by the refusal, Pharaoh pronounced the last deadly plague to be unleashed upon the land from his very own lips as he warns Moses, "Get thee from me, take heed to thyself, see my face no more; for in that day thou seest my face thou shalt die." And Moses said, "Thus saith the Lord, About midnight will I go out into the midst of Egypt: And all the firstborn in the land of Egypt shall die, from the firstborn of Pharaoh that sitteth upon his throne, even unto the firstborn of the maidservant that is behind the mill; and all the firstborn of beasts. And there shall be a great cry throughout all the land of Egypt, such as there was none like it, nor shall be like it any more." At this point the passive obedience that the children of Israel have shown is now moved to a level of active obedience. They are given strict instructions to follow so that they do not also feel the judgment of this last plague sent by the Lord. These instructions are known as "The Feast of Passover", "The Feast of Unleavened Bread", and "The Law of the Firstborn." In these rituals are displayed the law of sacrifice, the law of the gospel, and the law of consecration, all necessary requirements to receive ultimate salvation from spiritual death. "Let My people go that they may serve Me" As God's children today we have learned through this great show of power that ultimately it will require "active obedience" to receive salvation from the "One True God." Looking back over the instructions that were given to Pharaoh to "let my people go that they may serve me", this principle is manifest throughout. Service to the Lord is the requirement of His people, and the blessing for this show of obedience and sacrifice is the ultimate salvation not only from physical death but from spiritual death as well.

Moses in Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty

by Damien F. Mackey Previously, and hopefully, I have lain the foundations for linking Egypt’s pyramid-building Fourth Dynasty with the Sixth Dynasty, and indeed with the Twelfth Dynasty (to be considered later). Linking the 4th, 6th … dynasties? We may be able to trace the rise of the 4th dynasty’s Khufu (Cheops) - whose full name was Khnum-khuefui (meaning ‘Khnum is protecting me’) - to the 6th dynasty, to the wealthy noble (recalling that the founding 12th dynasty pharaoh “had no royal blood”) from Abydos in the south, called Khui. An abbreviation of Khuefui? This Khui had a daughter called Ankhenesmerire, in whose name are contained all the elements of Mer-es-ankh, the first part of which, Meres, accords phonetically with the name Eusebius (following Artapanus) gave for the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, “Merris”. “Merris, the wife of Chenephres, King of Upper Egypt; being childless, she pretended to have given birth to [Moses] and brought him up as her own child. (Eusebius, l.c. ix. 27)”. Earlier, we read a variation of this legend with “King Kheneferis [being the] … father of Maris, Moses' foster mother”. I shall be taking this “Chenephres” (“Kheneferis”) to be pharaoh Chephren (Egyptian Khafra), the son of Khufu, since Chephren had indeed married a Meresankh. “We know of several of Khafre's wives, including Meresankh … and his chief wife, Khameremebty I”. … From the 4th dynasty, we gain certain elements that are relevant to the early career of Moses. Firstly we have a strong founder-king, Cheops (Egyptian Khufu), builder of the great pyramid at Giza, who would be an excellent candidate for the “new king” during the infancy of Moses who set the Israelite slaves to work with crushing labour (Exodus 1:8). This would support the testimony of Josephus that the Israelites built pyramids for the pharaohs, and it would explain from whence came the abundance of manpower for pyramid building. Cheap slave labour. The widespread presence of ‘Asiatics’ in Egypt at the time would help to explain the large number of Israelites said to be in the land. Egypt’s ruler would have used as slaves other Syro-Palestinians, too, plus Libyans and Nubians. As precious little, though, is known of Cheops, despite his being powerful enough to have built one of the Seven Wonders of the World, we shall need to fill him out later with his 12th dynasty alter ego. In Cheops’ daughter, Mer-es-ankh, we presumably have the Merris of tradition who retrieved the baby Moses from the water. The name Mer-es-ankh consists basically of two elements, Meres and ankh, the latter being the ‘life’ symbol for Egypt worn by people even today. Mer-es-ankh married Chephren (Egyptian, Khafra), builder of the second Giza pyramid and probably, of the Great Sphinx. He would thus have become Moses’s foster/father-in-law. Moses, now a thorough-going ‘Egyptian’ (cf. Exodus 2:19), must have been his loyal subject. “Now Moses was taught all the wisdom of the Egyptians and became a man of power both in his speech and in his actions”. (Acts 7:22) Tradition has Moses leading armies for Chenephres as far as Ethiopia. Whilst this may seem a bit strained in a 4th dynasty context, we shall find that it is perfectly appropriate in a 12th dynasty one, when we uncover Chephren’s alter ego. [End of quote] Most recently, I have added a further connection between the Fourth and Sixth dynasties, this time through the agency of a wise Chief Justice and Vizier: Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt’s Fourth and Sixth dynasties (2) Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt's Fourth and Sixth dynasties And, in other recent papers, it has been shown that Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, that Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty, can be contoured to the life of Moses, from his birth to his exile in Midian: Moses in Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (3) Moses in Egypt's Fourth Dynasty Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty (3) Moses in Egypt's Fifth Dynasty Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities (3) Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities Basically I determined that, despite the multiplicity of royal names, there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs. Now, can the Sixth Dynasty of Egypt likewise be adequately matched to the life of Moses? Its list of rulers is generally given as follows: 1 Teti 2 Userkare 3 Pepi I 4 Merenre I 5 Pepi II 6 Merenere II 7 Netjerkare Siptah (Nitocris) Again as in the case of the Fourth Dynasty, six rulers are listed, of whom several are poorly known. Very little is known about Userkare, for instance, and the ephemeral ruler Merenre II. And the list concludes with, appropriately, the female ruler, Nitoctris. So, immediately, I would be inclined to look for alter egos for the two poorly attested rulers, Userkare and Merenre II. A new thought, not yet developed, is that pharaoh Userkare may correspond to the Fourth Dynasty’s Djedefre, whom I have recently identified, with Djedefhor, as Moses (see “Fourth Dynasty” article above). And with Merenre we may establish a link. Merenre II follows in a tradition of murdered kings of (Old-Middle) Egypt: Teti and Amenemes I. Merenre II | ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merenre II - AskAladdin (ask-aladdin.com) “According to Herodotus, Merenre II was murdered. This Greek historian had recorded a legend where an Egyptian Queen named Nitocris avenged her brother as well as husband's murder by drowning all the murderers in [a] pre-arranged banquet. The name of the brother and husband was allegedly Nemtyemsaf II (Merenre II)”. Merenre II may now connect with the composite dynastic founder (cf. Exodus 1:8): Cheops-Menkaure (Fourth); Neferirkare-Neuserre-Menkauhor-Djedkare (Fifth); Teti; Merenre (Sixth) There appears to be a triple series of duplicates in the conventional Sixth Dynasty list, with the proper sequence inverted from numbers 3-6. I would suggest the following re-ordering: Dynastic founder: Teti-Merenre I-II (murdered) Second king: (Userkare) Pepi I-II Female ruler: Nitocris. Once again, as with the Fourth Dynasty (and probably the Fifth), “there were only two major male rulers of Egypt - the dynasty closing with a female due to a lack of heirs”. Moses as an historical figure in the Sixth Dynasty, I have already identified as Weni, the Chief Judge and Vizier of Egypt: Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep (3) Historical Moses may be Weni and Mentuhotep Weni’s primary offices, Chief Judge and Vizier, correspond perfectly with those of the Fourth-Sixth dynasties Kagemni, as Chief Justice and Vizier of Egypt. And I have further suggested that Moses was general Iny (a name very like Weni/Uni) of the same Sixth Dynasty: Moses a trusted world trader for Egypt in the Pyramid Age? (3) Moses a trusted world trader for Egypt in the Pyramid Age? In short, the Sixth Dynasty versions of Moses were Weni (Uni) and Iny.

Moses in Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty

by Damien F. Mackey Should we have been considering Ptahhotep as Moses? If, as posited in my recent article: Moses in Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (3) Moses in Egypt's Fourth Dynasty Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty, revised, fits promisingly as being the dynastic period of rule from the approximate childhood of Moses through to his sojourn in Midian, then, chronologically, the Fifth Dynasty, which supposedly followed the Fourth, ought to have coincided with the return to Egypt by Moses, and with the Plagues, and, finally, with the Exodus. None of this is at all evident during the Fifth Dynasty, however, which was, as we have learned in my article: Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities (5) Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities a phase of intense building and supposed innovations – not one of extreme chaos. Now, with the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh, Menkaure, identified with the Fifth Dynasty pharaoh (probably Menkauhor), Sahure (and also as the dynastic founding “new king” of Exodus 1:8), not least on the basis of seemingly identical appearance: then virtually inevitable will be a Fifth Dynasty emergence of Moses – {alongside my Fourth Dynasty identifications of him as the royal Djedefre/Djedefhor (in article, “Moses in Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty”), and as the Vizier, the teaching sage, Kagemni}: Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt’s Fourth and Sixth dynasties (5) Vizier Kagemni another vital link for connecting Egypt's Fourth and Sixth dynasties Indeed, a most likely Fifth Dynasty candidate for Moses can now step forward. Moses as Ptahhotep I do not know if anyone yet has proposed Ptahhotep for Moses. Revisionists, searching for the two Hebrew sages, Joseph and Moses, in the Egyptian historical records, have considered Ptahhotep as a possibility for the ‘dream weaver’, Joseph (others, however, favouring the viziers, Imhotep and Mentuhotep), with some revisionists being adamant about this. Apart from the fact that Ptahhotep was a highly educated sage, with a gift for creating proverbs and instructions, but especially lured by his supposed attainment to that magical age of 110 (cf. Genesis 50:26), revisionists, myself included, have been drawn like a moth to a flame. Surely Ptahhotep was Joseph! But then, again, if Ptahhotep were, as we are told, a Vizier to Djedkare Isesi of the Egyptian Fifth Dynasty, a pharaoh whom I have multi-identified, and have fused with the dynastic founding “new king” of Exodus 1:8, then Ptahhotep would have been born far too late (almost two centuries) to have been Joseph of Egypt. According to the standard view of things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ptahhotep Ptahhotep (Ancient Egyptian: ptḥ ḥtp "Peace of Ptah"; (fl. c. 2400 BC) [sic], sometimes known as Ptahhotep I or Ptahhotpe, was an ancient Egyptian vizier during the late 25th century BC and early 24th century BC Fifth Dynasty of Egypt. He is credited with authoring The Maxims of Ptahhotep, an early piece of Egyptian "wisdom literature" or philosophy meant to instruct young men in appropriate behavior. Life …. Ptahhotep was the city administrator and vizier (first minister) during the reign of King Djedkare Isesi in the Fifth Dynasty. He had a son named Akhethetep, who was also a vizier. He and his descendants were buried at Saqqara. Ptahhotep's tomb is located in a mastaba in North Saqqara (Mastaba D62). His grandson Ptahhotep Tjefi, who lived during the reign of Unas, was buried in the mastaba of his father (Mastaba 64). …. Their tomb is famous for its outstanding depictions. …. Next to the vizier's titles he held many other important positions, such as overseer of the treasury, overseer of scribes of the king's document, overseer of the double granary and overseer of all royal works. …. [End of quote] If I have placed the Era of Moses - he under multiple guises now - during a combination of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Twelfth (including the Thirteenth in part) dynasties of Egypt, why have I not recognised the obvious, that Ptahhotep, in the Fifth Dynasty, could not possibly have been Joseph, but must have been Moses - his name, Ptahhotep, being just a theophoric variation on his Twelfth Dynasty name, Mentuhotep, who was a Chief Judge and Vizier of Egypt? Well, if I may make a few excuses here, there were several obstacles encumbering me from concluding the obvious as it is in retrospect. Firstly, there was that hypnotising number 110 years old at the age of death. Secondly, there was some apparent degree of confusion as to whether Ptahhotep belonged to the Fifth, or to the Third (Joseph’s) dynasty. Thirdly, there were those fantastic legends that came to surround Ptahhotep (as also in the case of Imhotep, the real Joseph), attributing to Ptahhotep some Joseph-like characteristics. Fourthly, there were rumours of more than one Ptahhotep. Fifthly, Ptahhotep’s pharaoh, Djedkare Isesi, is poorly known in some crucial aspects. On this, see e.g. my article: More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates (5) More 'camera-shy' ancient potentates Regarding that golden number, 110, it became an age to be aspired to by the Egyptians. No doubt this was due to the greatness of Joseph. A later notable, Amenhotep son of Hapu, had hoped to reach that age. In the course of mythical elaborations on the life of Ptahhotep, the age of 110 was attached to him. As Moses, he went even better, attaining to 120 (Deuteronomy 34:7): “Moses was a hundred and twenty years old when he died, yet his eyes were not weak nor his strength gone”. As for multiple sages “Ptahhotep”, such duplicating can be due to an over-extended chronology. And, although there is a fair amount of obscurity attached to pharaoh Djedkare Isesi, this vanishes when he is fitted with his various alter egos. As I wrote in my article, “Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities”: In the course of this section the following names all became potential candidates for reconstructing the “new king” of Exodus 1:8: SNOFRU; KHUFU … MENKAURE; MENKAUHOR; NEUSERRE; SAHURE; DJEDKARE ISESI; TETI; MERENRE; AMENEMES I (AND PERHAPS II-IV) Ptahhotep’s maxims are often considered to constitute “the oldest book in the world”. They can be very biblical, as we shall find. While the following, taken from: http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040501.htm actually identifies Ptahhotep with Joseph, it can well be applied to Moses: “The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep” This brings us to consider the author of an early Egyptian work called “The Instruction of the Vizier [the Prime Minister] Ptah-Hotep.” The man who wrote this document of proverbial teaching was so close to the Pharaoh that he was considered Pharaoh’s son — from his own body. This does not necessarily mean that the author was the actual son of the Pharaoh. It is a designation which means that both the author (the Prime Minister) and the Pharaoh were one in attitude, authority, and family. …. Could this document be a composition of the patriarch Joseph? There are many parallels between what the document says and historical events in Joseph’s life. Indeed, the similarities are so remarkable, that I have the strong feeling that modern man has found an early Egyptian writing from the hand of Joseph himself. Though it is evident that the copies that have come into our possession are copies of a copy (and not the original), it still reflects what the autograph said; in almost every section it smacks of the attitude and temperament of Joseph as revealed to us in the Bible. Let us now look at some of the remarkable parallels. This Egyptian document is often called “The Oldest Book in the World” and was originally written by the vizier in the Fifth (or Third) Dynasty. The Egyptian name of this vizier (i.e., the next in command to Pharaoh) was Ptah-Hotep. This man was, according to Breasted the “Chief of all Works of the King.” He was the busiest man in the kingdom, all-powerful (only the Pharaoh was over him). He was the chief judge and the most popular man in Pharaoh’s government. …. The name Ptah-Hotep was a title rather than a proper name, and it was carried by successive viziers of the Memphite and Elephantine governments. The contents of this “Oldest Book” may direct us to Joseph and to the later teachings of Israel. Notice what this Ptah-Hotep (the second in command in Egypt) had to say of his life on earth. How long did he live? The answer is given in the concluding statement in the document: “The keeping of these laws have gained for me upon earth 110 years of life, with the gift of the favor of the King, among the first of those whose works have made them noble, doing the pleasure of the King in an honored position.”  “The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep,” Precept XLIV This man, with the title Ptah-Hotep, was one who did great construction works. Joseph was supposed to have done mighty works — traditionally, even the Great Pyramid was built through the dole of grain during the seven years of low Niles. [sic] And remember, Joseph also lived 110 years (Genesis 50:26) just as did this Ptah-Hotep. He resembled Joseph in another way. “If you would be held in esteem in the house wherein you enterest, whether it be that of a ruler, or of a brother, or of a friend, whatever you do enter, beware of approaching the wife, for it is not in any way a good thing to do. It is senseless. Thousands of men have destroyed themselves and gone to their deaths for the sake of the enjoyment of a pleasure which is as fleeting as the twinkling of an eye.”  Precept XVIII Here again we have Joseph! Even though adultery was the common thing in Egypt (thousands of men were doing it), only one uncommon example shines out in its history — that of Joseph. This virtue of Joseph was so strong, that its inclusion into these “Precepts” again may indicate that Joseph had a hand in writing them. Now look at the beginning of Precept XLIV. Ptah-Hotep says that if the laws of the master were kept, a person’s father will give him a “double good,” i.e., a double portion. Joseph did in fact receive the birthright and with it the “double good” (double blessing, Deuteronomy 21:15–17). This birthright blessing is repeated in Precept XXXIX. “To hearken [to your father] is worth more than all else, for it produces love, the possession doubly blessed.”  Precept XXXIX Ptah-Hotep Was a Great Man There is much more that is like Joseph in the document of Ptah-Hotep. Notice Precept XXX: “If you have become a great man having once been of no account, and if you have become rich having once been poor, and having become the Governor of the City [this exactly fits Joseph’s experience], take heed that you do not act haughtily because you have attained unto a high rank. Harden not your heart because you have become exalted, for you are only the guardian of the goods which God has given to you. Set not in the background your neighbor who is as you were, but make yourself as if he were your equal.”  Precept XXX The instruction above almost sounds as if it came from the Bible itself! The parallel to such high ethical teaching could be an indication that Joseph wrote it. There is also, in these Precepts, an emphasis on obedience, especially to one’s father(s). “Let no man make changes in the laws of his father; let the same laws be his own lessons to his children. Surely his children will say to him ‘doing your word works wonders.’”  Precept XLII “Surely a good son is one of the gifts of God, a son doing better than he has been told”  Precept XLIV “When a son hearkens to his father, it is a double joy to both, for when these things are told to him, the son is gentle toward his father. Hearkening to him who has hearkened while this was told him, he engraves on his heart what is approved by his father, and thus the memory of it is preserved in the mouth of the living, who are upon earth.”  Precept XXXIX “When a son receives the word of his father, there is no error in all his plans. So instruct your son that he shall be a teachable man whose wisdom will be pleasant to the great men. Let him direct his mouth according to that which has been told him [by his father]; in the teachableness of a son is seen his wisdom. His conduct is perfect, while error carries away him who will not be taught; in the future, knowledge will uphold him, while the ignorant will be crushed.”  Precept XL The emphasis of Ptah-Hotep is that his own greatness depended upon his attendance to the laws of his fathers. He encouraged all others to do the same. This gave him the reason for recording for posterity these basic laws, and he says that these words of his fathers “shall he born without alteration, eternally upon the earth” (Precept XXXVIII). “To put an obstacle in the way of the laws, is to open the way before violence”  Precept V “The limits of justice are unchangeable; this is a law which everyman receives from his father.  Precept V Some of those teachings are so biblical and right! It could well be a fact that these principles and good teachings came from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are here recorded by Joseph, the one respecting the teachings of his fathers. Notice this Precept: “The son who receives the word of his father shall live long on account of it.’  Precept XXXIX Compare this with the Fifth Commandment: “Honor thy father and mother: that the days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you.”  Exodus 20:12 Could it be that many of the laws that became a part of the Old Covenant which God made with Israel at the Exodus were known long before — in the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? We are told that the early patriarchs knew some of God’s laws (Genesis 26:5). ….

Some Fourth and Fifth Dynasty similarities

by Damien F. Mackey “Despite all these changes, the 5th Dynasty may have been closely related to the 4th”. ancient-egypt.org The Fifth Dynasty was, as I have maintained in my reconstructions of the life of Moses, for example: Life of Moses and reform of the Old - Middle Kingdom of Egypt (5) Life of Moses and reform of the Old - Middle Kingdom of Egypt the same dynasty as was the Fourth (and the Sixth and the Twelfth). For instance, there are various compelling parallels between the dynastic founder of the Sixth Dynasty, Teti (d. c. 2333 BC, conventional dating) and the dynastic founder of the Twelfth Dynasty, Amenemhet so-called I (c. 1939-1910 BC, conventional dating) – these names being wrongly separated apart by Egyptologists by some four centuries. Then there is the golden thread of the female name “Merris” (Egyptian foster-mother of Moses: Artapanus), as Meresankh (meres + ankh), coupled with her husband, “Chenephres” (Artapanus), running through the Fourth (Chephren/Khafre/Kanefere and Meresankh), and Fifth (Meresankh so-called IV), and Sixth (Pepi Neferkare/ Kanefere and Ankhesenmerire = Meresankh) dynasties. In the Moses article above, I ventured to identify Menkaure of the Fourth Dynasty with Menkauhor of the Fifth Dynasty. The Egyptians commonly switched between the theophoric, re, and hor, as we find, for example in the name of the sage, Djedefre, which name is also rendered as Djedefhor. On this, see my article: Moses in Egypt’s Fourth Dynasty (5) Moses in Egypt's Fourth Dynasty In this article I sketched some possible associations with Menkaure, on the one hand, and Cheops (Khufu) and Menkauhor, on the other hand: …. (b) Incorporating Menkaure Continuing with N. Grimal P. 74 … Menkaure (‘Stable are the kau of Ra’), or, to take Herodotus’ transcription, Mycerinus. We recall Menkaure’s allegedly shameful treatment of his own daughter, reminiscent of Cheops’ own prostituting of his daughter, at least according to Herodotus. Grimal continues: “Manetho is uncertain about the length of his reign, which was probably eighteen years rather than twenty-eight”. Whilst this may not accord so well with some of our longer-reigning (say forty years) alter egos, it is fascinating, nonetheless, that Phouka (http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/05menkaure.html also has for Menkaure a Manethonian figure of sixty-three years, a figure that we have already met in the case of … Cheops …. Menkaure may also enable us to incorporate into our revisionist mix the Fifth Egyptian Dynasty via Menkaure’s virtual namesake, Menkauhor, whose reign is otherwise “poorly known” (p. 74). Grimal continues: “… like Neuserre [Menkauhor] sent expeditions to the Sinai mines …”. As did our other alter egos. We read above that Menkauhor is “poorly known”, a phrase that – along with “little known” – one encounters time and time again in ancient history. That is because kings, kingdoms, have been split up into pieces by historians and scattered. The fact that (p. 74): … Menkauhor’s pyramid has not yet been identified, and it is difficult to decide whether it is likely to have been at Dahshur, or at northern Saqqara where a personal cult was dedicated to him in the New Kingdom … could lead us now to the conclusion that Menkauhor’s missing pyramid may have been Menkaure’s (far from missing) pyramid at Giza. (Soon we shall read about a supposedly missing sun temple as well). Note, again (from quote above), that Menkauhor became – like the other alter egos – a “cult” figure. From there I looked also towards: (c) Incorporating Sahure The following description of the Fifth Dynasty expansion by N. Grimal could just as well have been written of the Sixth, the Twelfth, Egyptian dynasties. It is apparently all one and the same. P. 76 During the fifth Dynasty Egypt seems to have been opened up to the outside world, both northwards and southwards. The reliefs in the mortuary temple built by …. Sahure, include the usual … conquered countries …. To which Grimal adds: “… (belonging more to rhetoric than to historical evidence)”. This is another observation that we frequently encounter in ancient history, a failure to believe a straightforward record only because the limited knowledge of historians prevents them from grasping the bigger picture. However, as Grimal then goes on to tell: … but they also show the return [sic] of a maritime trading expedition probably from Byblos, as well as forays into the Syrian hinterland; if the references to bears in these region are to be believed. A campaign against the Libyans has also been dated to Sahure’s reign …. Grimal then becomes negative again, adding: “… although there is some doubt surrounding this “. Re trade to Byblos, we find M. Bernal (Black Athena, p. 149) mentioning three Old Kingdom names in connection with it, all of whom are “new king” alter egos of mine: “… the names of Menkauḥōr and Izozi [= Isesi, to be discussed in (e)] as well as that of Sahureˁ …”. Sahure’s trade and exploits read like Snofru again, as well as others: … primarily economic: the exploitation of mines in the Sinai, diorite quarrying to the west of Aswan and an expedition to Punt, which is mentioned in the Palermo Stone and perhaps also depicted on the reliefs in Sahure’s mortuary temple. That “diorite quarrying” no doubt served to provide the material for superb 4th dynasty statues: In one of Sahure’s names, Sephris (Manetho), I think that we might come close to Cheops’ name of Suphis (Manetho): http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn04/02khufu.html There is some confusion as to the husband of the Fifth Dynasty’s Meresankh. I wrote: The name Meresankh, our ‘golden thread’, also re-emerges in connection with the Fifth Dynasty: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedkare/ “[Djedkare] may have been married to Meresankh [so-called] IV who was buried in the main necropolis in Saqqara, but it is also possible that Meresankh was the wife of Menkauhor”. As with Khufu/Cheops, Meresankh (“Merris”) would have been, instead, the daughter (not wife), who married the succeeding ruler. …. Grimal makes this comparison between Sahure and Djedkare Isesi: P. 79 Like Sahure, [Isesi] pursued a vigorous foreign policy that led him in similar directions [also, again, like Snofru]: to the Sinai, where two expeditions at ten-year intervals are recorded at Wadi Maghara; to the diorite quarries west of Abu Simbel; and further afield to Byblos and the land of Punt. There is also a Merenre connection – {for more on Merenre, see (f)}: “Isesi’s expedition to Punt, mentioned in a graffito found at the lower Nubian site of Tomas, was evidently still remembered [sic] in the time of Merenre”. But this (e.g. Nubian site of Tomas) also connects perfectly with Teti (founder of the 6th Dynasty), whom I have already linked with the “new king” [Exodus 1:8], especially akin to his persona in Amenemes I. On Teti, Grimal has written: P. 81 [Teti] … was able to continue [sic] many of the international links of the Fifth Dynasty: he maintained relations with Byblos and perhaps also with Punt and Nubia, at least as far as the site of Tomas in northern Nubia. As with … Menkauhor (Menkaure?), so with Teti, the chief officials and governors appear to have been allowed greater power. Thus: P. 79 The acquisition of greater powers by officials continued during Isesi’s reign, leading to the development of a virtual feudal system. Likewise, with suggested alter ego Menkauhor: P. 78 It was during this period that the provincial governors and court officials gained greater power and independence, creating an unstoppable movement which essentially threatened the central authority. Likewise, with suggested alter ego Teti: P. 80 Thus ensconced in the legitimate royal line, [Teti] pursued a policy of co-operation with the nobles …. P. 81: “Clearly, Teti’s policy of pacifying the nobles bore fruit”. Likewise, with suggested alter ego Amenemes I: P. 160 … he allowed those nomarchs who had supported his cause … to retain their power … he reinforced their authority by reviving [?] ancient rites. Nor is one now surprised to read (p. 80): “… there were a good number of officials who served under Djedkare and Wenis as well as Teti …”, because this historical period in my revision (including Wenis in Part Two later) encompasses only two successive reigns. Correspondingly, we find in Auguste Mariette’s (https://pharaoh.se/library-vol-9) Note on a fragment of the Royal Papyrus and the Sixth Dynasty of Manetho the sequence … Tet [Teti], Unas [Wenis] …. They read: 1. Menkeher 2. Tet 3. Unas. (e) Incorporating Merenre The era of Merenre introduces us to some key characters, including my 6th Dynasty Moses: WENI …. As well there is “Khui, a noble from Abydos” (p. 83), who is my Khufu (Cheops). Khui, in turn, had a daughter Ankhenesmerire (i.e., Meresankh), who is (my) Khufu’s daughter, Meresankh, the “Merris” of Moses’ legend. …. On p. 168 we learn that Sesostris III (probably our “new king” of Exodus 1:8’s actual successor – he to be considered in Part Two), “… began by enlarging the canal that Merenre had built near Shellal to allow boats to pass through the rapids of Aswan”. In my revision this activity of Sesostris would have occurred soon after the death of Merenre. In conventional history it would have been a time distance of roughly (2260 – 1860 =) 400 years. Finally, just as we have found that our founder king (Teti; Amenemes I) had come to a sticky end, having been murdered, so, too, it may have been with Merenre. https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/merenreII/ “However, according to Herodotus, Merenre was murdered, forcing his queen, Nitocris, to take revenge before committing suicide”. In the course of this section the following names all became potential candidates for reconstructing the “new king” of Exodus 1:8: SNOFRU; KHUFU … MENKAURE; MENKAUHOR; NEUSERRE; SAHURE; DJEDKARE ISESI; TETI; MERENRE; AMENEMES I (AND PERHAPS II-IV) That is a conventional time span of some (2600 – 1800 =) 800 YEARS! At http://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/old-kingdom/5th-dynasty/index.html we read about this about the impressive Fifth Dynasty (we can immediately ignore, though, the inflated dates given here): 5th Dynasty (2465-2323) Compared to the previous dynasties, the 5th Dynasty is fairly well known. All kings noted in the king-lists and by Manetho are attested by archaeological sources. This is largely due to the increased amount of documents from this period. This dynasty has brought some significant changes and innovations to the Egyptian society. First of all, the rising importance of the solar cult, already noted for the 4th Dynasty, came to a climax. Except for the last two of this dynasty, all kings built a so-called solar temple. Two such solar temples have been found and have proven to be quite unique buildings. The first solar temple, at Abusir, to the north of Saqqara, was built by Userkaf and extended by Neferirkare and Niuserre. The only other remaining one, was built by Niuserre at Abu Gorab, north of Abusir. The names of the other solar temples are known, but they have not yet been identified. Probably due to a shift in religious views, the building of solar temples came to a sudden stop with the reign of Djedkare. A second innovation only came at the end of the dynasty, with the reign of king Unas, who was the first to have religious texts, known today as Pyramid Texts, inscribed in the burial chamber, antechamber and part of the entrance corridor of his pyramid at Saqqara. It is not impossible that the appearance of these texts is related to the disappearance of the solar temples. The Pyramid Texts found inside the pyramid of Unas at Saqqara are the oldest known funerary texts found thus far on the walls of a royal tomb. On an architectural level, we not only note the building of the solar temples, but also a standardisation in the building of pyramid complexes. Most kings built their pyramid complex at Abusir, near the solar temple of Userkaf, who had built his own pyramid at Saqqara. The organisation and number of rooms in the pyramid, the buildings outside the pyramid and the rooms inside these buildings would more and more become part of a canon. We also note that the pyramids are significantly smaller than those of the beginning of the 4th Dynasty. This has often been explained by the more limited resources available to the 5th Dynasty kings. Against this view, it should be observed that most of the 5th Dynasty kings no longer appeared to limit their building efforts to a pyramid complex and that the complexes were often beautifully decorated. The Ancient Egyptian penchant for standardisation may also explain the smaller pyramids. The royal titulary was also extended and would from this dynasty on consist of 5 sets of titles. Although it was first used by 4th Dynasty king Djedefre, the title Son of Re would become an important part of the titulary. It was followed by the king's personal name and links him directly to the solar cult. The older titles, the so-called Horus- and Nebti-names, would still be part of the titulary. From the beginning of this dynasty on, we also note an increase in the number of high officials. Contrary to the 4th Dynasty, high offices were now no longer restricted to members of the royal family. Government and administration were reformed and this resulted in a far more efficient bureaucracy through which the king could control the country. The larger number of dignitaries also resulted in more documentation left to us and this is one of the reasons why we know more of this dynasty then of the previous one. Despite all these changes, the 5th Dynasty may have been closely related to the 4th. The Turin King-list lists the kings of this dynasty immediately after those of the 4th, without marking any change. The founder of this dynasty, Userkaf, is believed to have been a descendant of Kheops, perhaps directly or through marriage. The story noted on the Papyrus Westcar, however, makes Userkaf the brother of his two successors and the son of a priest of Re and a woman named Radjedet. Archaeological sources contradict this view, which has been held for true by many Egyptologists. The story is likely to have been intended to explain the close relationship between the 5th Dynasty and the solar cult. [End of quote] Some things here, though, are just not quite right. Most significantly, three of the presumed six sun temples of the Fifth Dynasty are – as has been said of evolution’s missing link – “still missing”. I wrote about this sensational fact in my article: Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples (3) Missing old Egyptian tombs and temples And, just as I expect that evolution’s missing link will forever remain missing, so do I believe the same to be the case with some of the missing temples of the Fifth Dynasty. My amalgamation of Egyptian dynasties Four and Five would mean that, in this revised revolution of Egypt’s Old Kingdom, there is no need to look for missing links, as Menkaure (Ka-nebty… nub-netjery-) seems to merge well into (Menkauhor) into Sahure (khau-nebty … netjery-num). Most strikingly, though, one has only to look at the almost identical faces:

More ‘camera-shy’ ancient potentates

by Damien F. Mackey One may find it very hard to imagine that a ruler of the significance of Djedkare Isesi (Assa), whose reign may have been as long as forty years, has only one image of which to boast. Following on from my very brief article: Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar were ‘camera-shy’? (3) Shalmaneser V and king Nebuchednezzar were 'camera-shy'? | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu I have come across two other powerful rulers of substance, for whom we have, in both cases, only the one statue. These two are Djedkare Isesi of Egypt’s Fifth Dynasty, and Ashurnasirpal, so-called II, of Assyria. Regarding the seriously megalomaniacal Assyrian king, Ashurnasirpal, I expressed my great surprise in: De-coding Jonah (3) De-coding Jonah as follows: Kings unnecessarily duplicated I was very greatly surprised to read the following piece of information as provided by Mattias Karlsson regarding the almost total lack of statuary depicting the, albeit megalomaniacal, Ashurnasirpal ("Early Neo-Assyrian State Ideology Relations of Power in the Inscriptions and Iconography of Ashurnasirpal II (883–859) and Shalmaneser III (858–824)", p. 39. My emphasis): http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:637086/FULLTEXT01.pdf "Staying in Nimrud, two gateway lions (A111) and a statue of the king (AI12, Fig. 18) from the second half, based on the date of the temple inscription, have been excavated from the Sharrat-niphi temple of Nimrud. .... The statue in question is the only known one which depicts Ashurnasirpal II. ...". [End of quotes] As was the case with kings Shalmaneser V and Nebuchednezzar, I have sought for an alter ego for Ashurnasirpal, to put him all back together again. For instance: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (DOC) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu And, now, regarding the long-reigning king of Egypt’s so-called Fifth Dynasty, Djedkare Isesi, I recently wrote in my article: Life of Moses and reform of the Old - Middle Kingdom of Egypt (3) Life of Moses and reform of the Old - Middle Kingdom of Egypt …. Just as in the case of the mighty and long-reigning Khufu, one may find it very hard to imagine that a ruler of the significance of Djedkare Isesi (Assa), whose reign may have been as long as forty years - a figure that we have already found connected with the reign of Snofru - has only one image of which to boast: https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/djedkare/ “The only image of the king is from a temple to Osiris …”. In this same article, “Life of Moses …”, one will find multiple proposed alter egos to suggest that pharaoh Djedkare may by no means have been devoid of ego.

Giza blocks “are not natural limestone”

by Damien F. Mackey The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. “Therefore”, Barsoum said, “it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block”. Though I am no technician, I had been very impressed by the theory of the French polymer scientist, professor Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, who had been claiming that the stones of the Giza pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete, or liquid (wet) cement, created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. According to the Wikipedia article, for a basic view on the professor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Davidovits): Davidovits was not convinced that the ancient Egyptians possessed the tools or technology to carve and haul the huge (2.5 to 15 ton) limestone blocks that made up the Great Pyramid. Davidovits suggested that the blocks were molded in place by using a form of limestone concrete. According to his theory, a soft limestone with a high kaolinite content was quarried in the wadi on the south of the Giza plateau. It was then dissolved in large, Nile-fed pools until it became a watery slurry. Lime (found in the ash of ancient cooking fires) and natron (also used by the Egyptians in mummification) was mixed in. The pools were then left to evaporate, leaving behind a moist, clay-like mixture. This wet "concrete" would be carried to the construction site where it would be packed into reusable wooden molds. In the next few days the mixture would undergo a chemical hydration reaction similar to the setting of cement. Using Davidovits' theory, no large gangs would be needed to haul blocks and no huge and unwieldy ramps would be needed to transport the blocks up the side of the pyramid. No chiseling or carving with soft bronze tools would be required to dress their surfaces and new blocks could be cast in place, on top of and pressed against the old blocks. This would account for the unerring precision of the joints of the casing stones (the blocks of the core show tools marks and were cut with much lower tolerances). Proof-of-concept experiments using similar compounds were carried out at Davidovits' geopolymer institute in northern France. It was found that a crew of ten, working with simple hand tools, could build a structure of fourteen, 1.3 to 4.5 ton blocks in a couple of days. According to Davidovits the architects possessed at least two concrete formulas: one for the large structural blocks and another for the white casing stones. He argues earlier pyramids, brick structures, and stone vases were built using similar techniques. [End of quote] However, as there appeared to be amongst mainstream pyramid experts little interest - to practically none whatsoever - in what seemed to my mind to be the eminently sensible and scientific thesis of Davidovits, and since I personally did not have the sort of scientific expertise to push the case of the matter, I have tended to lose interest in the theory until now. This was not because I am unprepared to back a supposed rogue ‘maverick’ against the mainstream flow of conforming scholars. My acceptance of the revision of ‘maverick’ scholar, or ‘wayward polymath’, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos series), against the conventional view of chronology, is clear evidence of this. Anyway, my interest in the theory of Davidovits has been rekindled by the following article in support of it: http://www.livescience.com/1554-surprising-truth-great-pyramids-built.html The Surprising Truth About How the Great Pyramids Were Built telling about the discovery along the same lines by one Michel Barsoum, described therein as “a well respected researcher in the field of ceramics”, and “a distinguished professor in the Department of Materials Science and Engineering at Drexel University”. The authors of this article, Sheila Berninger and Dorilona Rose, write about how Barsoum, initially as a sceptic, came to reconsider the whole matter: …. Barsoum received an unexpected phone call from Michael Carrell, a friend of a retired colleague of Barsoum, who called to chat with the Egyptian-born Barsoum about how much he knew of the mysteries surrounding the building of the Great Pyramids of Giza, the only remaining of the seven wonders of the ancient world. The widely accepted theory — that the pyramids were crafted of carved-out giant limestone blocks that workers carried up ramps — had not only not been embraced by everyone, but as important had quite a number of holes. Burst out laughing According to the caller, the mysteries had actually been solved by Joseph Davidovits, Director of the Geopolymer Institute in St. Quentin, France, more than two decades ago. Davidovits claimed that the stones of the pyramids were actually made of a very early form of concrete created using a mixture of limestone, clay, lime, and water. "It was at this point in the conversation that I burst out laughing," Barsoum said. If the pyramids were indeed cast, he said, someone should have proven it beyond a doubt by now, in this day and age, with just a few hours of electron microscopy. It turned out that nobody had completely proven the theory … yet. "What started as a two-hour project turned into a five-year odyssey that I undertook with one of my graduate students, Adrish Ganguly, and a colleague in France, Gilles Hug," Barsoum said. [End of quote] The article goes on to explain some of the geology of the matter, “these blocks are not natural limestone”, and to account for what has puzzled Egyptologists over a long period of time: namely, the high water content: A year and a half later, after extensive scanning electron microscope observations and other testing, Barsoum and his research group finally began to draw some conclusions about the pyramids. They found that the tiniest structures within the inner and outer casing stones were indeed consistent with a reconstituted limestone. The cement binding the limestone aggregate was either silicon dioxide (the building block of quartz) or a calcium and magnesium-rich silicate mineral. The stones also had a high water content — unusual for the normally dry, natural limestone found on the Giza plateau — and the cementing phases, in both the inner and outer casing stones, were amorphous, in other words, their atoms were not arranged in a regular and periodic array. Sedimentary rocks such as limestone are seldom, if ever, amorphous. The sample chemistries the researchers found do not exist anywhere in nature. “Therefore”, Barsoum said, “it's very improbable that the outer and inner casing stones that we examined were chiseled from a natural limestone block”. More startlingly, Barsoum and another of his graduate students, Aaron Sakulich, recently discovered the presence of silicon dioxide nanoscale spheres (with diameters only billionths of a meter across) in one of the samples. This discovery further confirms that these blocks are not natural limestone. [End of quote] The article then comes to the same dramatic (and somewhat poignant) conclusion arrived at also by chronological revisionists along the lines of Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky (though not intended by the authors of the article): We have been misled. Generations misled At the end of their most recent paper reporting these findings, the researchers reflect that it is "ironic, sublime and truly humbling" that this 4,500-year-old limestone is so true to the original that it has misled generations of Egyptologists and geologists and, "because the ancient Egyptians were the original — albeit unknowing — nanotechnologists." As if the scientific evidence isn't enough, Barsoum has pointed out a number of common sense reasons why the pyramids were not likely constructed entirely of chiseled limestone blocks. Egyptologists are consistently confronted by unanswered questions: How is it possible that some of the blocks are so perfectly matched that not even a human hair can be inserted between them? Why, despite the existence of millions of tons of stone, carved presumably with copper chisels, has not one copper chisel ever been found on the Giza Plateau? Although Barsoum's research has not answered all of these questions, his work provides insight into some of the key questions. For example, it is now more likely than not that the tops of the pyramids are cast, as it would have been increasingly difficult to drag the stones to the summit. Also, casting would explain why some of the stones fit so closely together. Still, as with all great mysteries, not every aspect of the pyramids can be explained. How the Egyptians hoisted 70-ton granite slabs halfway up the great pyramid remains as mysterious as ever. [End of quote] Whilst ignorance in such cases can be to some degree simply a natural outcome of pioneering efforts to reach right conclusions about an overwhelming mass of early evidence, Velikovskian-inspired revisionists would be well aware, too, of another common factor that is inexcusable: the persistence by mainstream scholars to proceed in the face of hard evidence. On this sad phenomenon, see e.g. my article: Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology (8) Dumb and Dumbfounded archaeology | Damien Mackey - Academia.edu