Marianne Luban
Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign
Thu Dec 28, 2017 13:52
75.169.219.88

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 had him returning and leading the Israelites out of Egypt soon after the reign of Amunhotep III in an epitome or kinglist. By that point in the 18th Dynasty, more than a hundred years would have passed since 1510. The pharaoh was called “Cencheres” and the notation was “About this time Moses led the Jews in the march out of Egypt.” In his kinglist Eusebius assigns sixteen years of rule to “Cencheres".

Pseudo-Dionysius wrote: “In the Year 490, the king of Egypt died and Cencheres reigned for sixteen years. This was he who waged a contest with Moses with the help of Jannes and Jambres the magicians. It was about him that Moses said: He drowned Pharaoh and his army in the Red Sea.”

One can see by the year given by Pseudo-Dionysius that he is following the number stated in the Book of Exodus for the sojourn of the Hebrews in Egypt―430 years from the promise to Abraham―which is actually supposed to be the time when Moses fled from Egypt. This is indicated by Pseudo-Dionysius and also Artapanus, another historian who claimed Moses left fearing the wrath of a king called “Cenephres” [Thutmose I]. So Pseudo-Dionysius is following the same reckoning as Eusebius but supplies the year of the return of the lawgiver to confront a new pharaoh.

The Egyptian historian, Manetho, has neither Cenephres nor Cencheres in his Dynasty 18. The real nomen of “Cenephres” was Thutmose [I], who added “xai nfrw” as an epithet in his nomen cartouche. Manetho gives him as “Tethmosis” and places him at the beginning of the dynasty where he belongs. I have come to feel that Cencheres was erroneously put near its end in the epitome of Eusebius because that is where Manetho listed some rulers he called “Acencheres”―which is how “Cencheres” is written in the Armenian version of the epitome of Eusebius, as well.

However, according to the math of Pseudo-Dionysius, “Cencheres” [or Achencheres] did not belong after Amunhotep III but before him. This particular Achencheres should, in fact, have come to the throne in 1450 BCE, sixty years after Moses had departed from Egypt. That indicates that, contrary to Acts 7:23, the adopted Egyptian prince was not forty years old at the time but a young man of twenty. According to the High Chronology I follow, Thutmose III ended his long reign in 1450 BCE and his son, Aakheperure Amunhotep II succeeded. Therefore, the prenomen of Aakheperure must have been the “Acencheres/Cencheres” that Pseudo-Dionysius had in mind. Otherwise, Amunhotep II is curiously absent from the kinglist of Manetho and presumably also of Ptolemy of Mendes as Africanus, who followed the latter, omits him in his proper spot in the dynastic roster, also. But now he has been found in that of Eusebius due to the mathematical hint of Pseudo-Dionysius. “Achencheres” was assigned sixteen years on the throne by Eusebius, which is a decade short of the twenty-six years of Amunhotep II. This is nothing unusual. We know that “Harmais” or King Horemheb reigned for fourteen years, but he appears with only four in the 18th Dynasty of Manetho.

Syncellus notes that others did not select Acencheres as the Pharaoh of the Exodus, which Eusebius, himself, admitted―but if we allow that Moses did not flee Egypt at the age of forty and was absent elsewhere for sixty years instead of only forty to return at the age of eighty, [Acts 7:30] Amunhotep II is a candidate. And he really was a new king in 1450 BCE, his father just having died―precisely as Pseudo-Dionysius claimed. The new king was only eighteen years old and he and Moses would never have previously met. Amunhotep II has the reputation with Egyptologists of having been a cruel man, lacking the redeeming intellectual qualities of his predecessor."

To this I will add that Cencheres appears in the Book of Sothis in the same spot, after Amunhotep III, but with 26 years--his correct duration.

  • Re: Amenhotep II and His ReignMarianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:44
    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... more
    • Re: Amenhotep II and His Reign — Marianne Luban, Thu Dec 28 13:52
      • 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 8 08:07
                      Joe wrote: "However Eusebius did not use the Julian calendar. He used the Syro-Macedonian calendar of Caesarea to fix the start of the year which began in October and he dated years both by Olympiads ... 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