Marianne Luban
Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign
Thu Dec 28, 2017 13:44
75.169.219.88

Joe wrote:

"As you know, I support the Low Chronology for Dynasty 18 (accession of Thutmose 1 = 1479) and the Middle Chronology for Dynasty 19 (accession of Rameses 2 = 1290). These dates are set astronomically by Lunar Day 1 data and historically by synchronisms between Egypt and Babylon/Assyria/Ḫatti.
For Thutmose 3 the first known lunar data is the occurrence of lunar day 1 (psḏntyw) on 21/I Šmw/24, the day of the battle of Meggido."

I suggest reading this:

https://www.academia.edu/24662705/Unlucky_Day_During_an_Asiatic_Campaign

Joe:
"Now I know we disagree over the day but I follow the text itself (see Glenn Lello, Thutmose III’s First Lunar Date, JNES 37/4 (1978) 327-330) and have no need to change the date to 20/I Šmw (as do others who seemingly have forgotten how the Egyptians dated by sunrise)."

This has nothing to do with sunrise, however. But, if you want to go there, the unlucky day of the 20th began at sunrise, too. There is nothing left to tell you about calculating by Gregorian dating for BCE. The retroactive moon phases calculators and those programs that put ancient Egyptian dates into perspective all reckon with Julian dating! Why you would concern yourself with a calendar that came into being so late is beyond me, especially since you also supply the Julian date. But there is nothing in the Egyptian text, itself, that can help you. The only thing that can assist is that the 20th was probably considered a totally unlucky day and because of this nothing was undertaken by the king and the day was even omitted in the annals. The fact that the battle was scheduled for the 21st certainly does not point to an inauspicious day at all.

Joe:
"An inscription in the tomb of Amenemḥeb, a general of Tuthmose 3, records the date Thutmose died as 30/III Prt/54 and immediately follows this with the statement that Amenḥotep 2 then established himself on the thrown of his father. Problem here is the the accession date of Amenḥotep is known to have been 1/IV Ꜣḫt. Since I do not see formal co-regencies as a practice at this time in Egypt (other then the attempt by Ḥatšepsut to establish her independent authority), I too - like others - accept that Maḥu, the scribe who wrote the tomb biography of Amenemḥeb, made a slip in the date."

I'm glad we agree about something.

Joe:
"As to why I assign 25 years and 10 months to Amenḥotep 2, who does not even appear in Manetho’s listing. It is because when some scribe at some stage in the process of copying a pre-Manetho list, made a quite common error (the error probably was made long before Manetho had access to this copied list). After copying the name of Thutmose 3 (or however the manuscript recorded his name), over to the new copy, the scribe’s eye, on returning to the source list dropped down a line and so read the reign length of Amenoḥotep 2. As such the actual reign length of Thutmose 3 and the name of Amenḥotep 2 fell out of this newly copied list (these errors are illustrated in red in the following table)."

That doesn't work, Joe, because there is no such thing as a 25 year terminus for Amenhotep II. Since I am the only one in God knows how many decades who has made any progress with Manetho and you still refuse to read my very inexpensive book on the subject, it's starting to become a bit ridiculous that I have to keep addressing this here. The date from the mortuary temple of Amenhotep II says Year 26. That does not mean "Year 25 and 10 months" because that is not how Manetho worked. He cared nothing about when a pharaoh succeeded except it helped him to know when the predecessor died. His months always corresponded to the month of the calendar year in which someone died--not how many months the king had reigned before it was time for his next anniversary. However, there were only 12 months in the year, so Amenhotep II may have died in the 10th month. But, if he did, we don't learn it from Manetho.

Joe:
"Now as for the claim that the Kenkherēs of Eusebius version of Manetho (as preserved in manuscripts of later copiers of Eusebius) was the pharaoh of the exodus - this is purely a concoction of Eusebius."

I addressed this here previously, so if I can find the post I'll copy it here again.

  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Thu Dec 28 01:59
    Hi Marianne As you know, I support the Low Chronology for Dynasty 18 (accession of Thutmose 1 = 1479) and the Middle Chronology for Dynasty 19 (accession of Rameses 2 = 1290). These dates are set... more
    • Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign — Marianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:44
      • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:52
        This is what I wrote here in July of 1017 in the "Dahamunza" thread: "I now believe I have solved the problem of why Eusebius, by whose reckoning Moses should have left Egypt in 1510 BCE, perversely... more
        • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Dec 30 02:50
          Hi Marianne As for the Chronicle of pseudo-Dionysius, which is now called the Zuqnin Chronicle and whose last entry is for 774/5 AD, I am afraid it does not support your argument. Now, I can not find ... more
          • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 09:10
            Joe wrote: "Here the era used is (inclusive) years since the birth of Abraham. So 490 in pseudo-Dionysius, is just 490 (inclusive) years after the birth of Abraham. In this year Chencheres began his... more
            • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Jan 6 21:15
              Hi Marianne pseudo-Dionysius ... is the first one to say that the Year 490 is when Moses confronted Cencheres This entry does not say Moses confronted Cencheres in 490. The entry says “Year 490. The... more
            • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 09:27
              And see Pietersma's book on page 8 as to when Palmanothes and Cenephres were placed. They were Amenhotep I and Thutmose I.... more
              • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Dec 31 10:52
                Here, once again, is the math of Eusebius. According to Eusebius, there are 2044 years from the birth of Abraham to the 15th year of Tiberias Caesar [which is 29 CE]. Abraham born in 2015 BCE.... more
                • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Sat Jan 6 21:22
                  Hi Marianne In response to your posts, I, for clarity, again give a chart showing the chronology of Eusebius, Pseudo-Dionysius and his excerpts from Artapanos (I add an extra one - via Eusebius [in... more
                  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Sun Jan 7 12:50
                    Joe wrote: "In your post of 31 Dec 2017 (post 17794) you said According to Eusebius, there are 2044 years from the birth of Abraham to the 15th year of Tiberias Caesar [which is 29 CE]. Abraham born... more
                    • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignJoe Baker, Mon Jan 8 06:51
                      Hi Marianne On the 15th year of Tiberius you said The consensus now is 29 AD for the 15th Year of Tiberias--so I reckon with that. Can you explain how you know how Eusebius counted? It does not... more
                • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Mon Jan 1 11:31
                  Studying Latin for four years comes in handy once in awhile, so I was able to translate the version of Pseudo-Dionysius from that language to a more or less accurate degree. Here is the relevant... more
                  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignRobert Killian, Wed Jan 3 04:26
                    This post, by Marianne, can be verified mathematically. "Suggestion", for integrating most of this information. Year 000 b.Abram 1948AM, 1813CJ/BC,+131yrs=1944BC. ----------------------+420yrs---... more
                  • ErrataMarianne Luban, Tue Jan 2 14:31
                    I should make some corrections to my previous post. They are: "[*Obviously, Pseudo-Dionysius got all this from Artapanus [via Euseubius] but knew that the story had to do with that same Amenhotep who ... more
        • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 15:48
          The interpretation of the words of the lunar date of Thutmose III hangs on this phrase "hrw m Hb n psDntiw r mty"-- meaning "the day the festival of the new moon as usual" in my opinion. Of course,... more
Click here to receive daily updates