Marianne Luban
Re: But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquity
Tue Feb 19, 2008 23:55
66.53.218.68 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

Cullom: I think the church historians engaged in a bit of historical revision for political as well as religious reasons. It might have seemed preferrable to have Moses and God best a famous king of Egypt rather than an insignificant king of the 13th dynasty. Josephus seems to have wanted the Hebrews to be deposed kings instead of escaped slaves for reasons of ethnic pride.
Some conflation seems to have occurred in the story you relate. The daughter of Palmanothes (Amenhotep I) did marry Cullom: Thutmosis I. Chenephres (Thutmosis II) did marry Merris or Amerris (Hatshepsut) daughter of Thutmosis I.

ML: Hatshepsut isn't even called "Amerris" in Manetho's kinglist. She [apparently] is listed as "Amensis" or "Amessis". In various Net discussions I have proposed this is just "Hmt nsw" or "Hime insi". Nobody has argued with me so far. When I first mentioned this to James Allen years ago at an Egyptological conference, he seemed sceptical at first, then thought it over and said, "Yes, it works."

Regardless, those ancient proponents of this story do give a definite timeframe [and see the 18th Dynasty via Syncellus and Eusebius]. In order to get back 60 years from "Cencheres", and to involve an Amenhotep [Palmanothes], we can't go back as far as Amenhotep I and Amenhotep III is too late. So that leaves Amenhotep II. We don't think of him as having a son-in-law--but why wouldn't he? The man lived into middle age, as evidenced by his mummy. If he was 18 when he succeeded [as was claimed] and his highest attested year is 34, the man died when over 50. We don't know much about his children at all.

Why bring in the 13th Dynasty? Rohl's interpretation of this narrative is not holy writ, you know. Deposed kings? Well, yes, the last of the Hyksos certainly was. Yet I think there were many more people living in the eastern Delta than just a "shepherd king". The Bible tells us that some ruler granted the clan of Joseph grazing rights in "the land of Raamses". That has to be an anachronism for the time, but where was the land of Ramesses? In the eastern Delta, of course! If the "Hyksos" from the Levant [and Kamose claims they were] were considered a foreign element to be driven out--what would any Canaanites in Lower Egypt be considered?

Cullom: I interpret the names Achencherres, Chencherres and Acherres as 'rebel criminal' which describes Aknaten, Nefertiti and Smenkhare.
Bocchoris would have been BaKaRe Tanutamon of the 24th.
I don't think Manetho or what we have of his work is really confused. It has been made to appear confused by trying to pick and choose various elements to please modern scholars and their chronological theories.

ML: Er, Cullom, one thing is very clear. Nobody in antiquity believed that an exodus occurred during anything but the 18th Dynasty. That's why the versions of Manetho differ--yes, to each his own. But nobody placed the event in the 13th or 24th Dynasties. The name "Bocchoris" is given by Lysimachus--but the story he tells is the same as that of Manetho, who calls the pharaoh "Amenophis". Manetho hasn't been confused by anyone in modern times. Because it's too late for that. Manetho surely made some errors of his own and those who came after him--well, they had their theories, too. Manetho, as far as we can tell [and it is hard to tell because not much survives of his history of Egypt in three books except the epitomes] never mentioned Moses in connection with anyone except "Amenophis".

  • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityCullom, Tue Feb 19 19:50
    Hello Marianne, Your comments are very interesting and informative. I think the church historians engaged in a bit of historical revision for political as well as religious reasons. It might have... more
    • Re: But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquity — Marianne Luban, Tue Feb 19 23:55
      • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityCullom, Wed Feb 20 18:23
        Hello Marianne, Do you know of any king besides Ahmose and Amenhotep I during the period in question who was succeeded by a son-in-law? I suppose Thutmosis II was succeeded by a son-in-law since his... more
        • Re: But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityAnonymous, Fri Feb 22 02:02
          Cullom: Do you know of any king besides Ahmose and Amenhotep I during the period in question who was succeeded by a son-in-law? ML: Nope. And Ahmose was succeeded by a son. Cullom: I suppose... more
          • Re: But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityMarianne Luban, Fri Feb 22 02:13
            Oops--pressed some wrong button. Hatshepsut, her Speos Artemidos inscription, says the "Aamu" were ensconced at Avaris "with vagabonds among them". Now, the Aamu were realistically depicted in a tomb ... more
            • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityCullom, Sat Feb 23 08:51
              Hello Marianne, I should have said that Thutmosis I was succeeded by a "son-in-law" since his son Thutmosis II married his daughter Hatshepsut. The story of Abisha is remarkably similar to the story... more
              • But, as usual -- disagreement in antiquityMarianne Luban, Sat Feb 23 15:55
                Cullom: In your earlier post you related that Egypt was ruled by Palmanothes AND Chenephres so Chenephres must have been more than an important official. ML: Why? He can have been a local lord.... more
Click here to receive daily updates