Marianne Luban
Re: Dahamunza Again
Wed Jul 19, 2017 09:42

Moreover, my High Chronology agrees with the math set forth by Eusebius in his "Chronicon" [via St. Jerome] and Robert Killian should pay close attention to this.

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.

  • Re: Dahamunza AgainMarianne Luban, Tue Jul 18 09:41
    Joe wrote, quoting Chris Bennett: "Mean date of inundation ("plenitude"): August 17 (corresponding to August 13 at Thebes)" There is something wrong with this. In my research the first signs of the... more
    • Re: Dahamunza Again — Marianne Luban, Wed Jul 19 09:42
      • Re: DahamunzaRobert Killian, Thu Jul 20 03:12
        Marianne, You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History. I can also assure you that, as you should know by now, that... more
        • Re: DahamunzaMarianne Luban, Thu Jul 20 10:12
          Robert: "You can rest assured that I am paying close attention, to this, your latest attempt to reconstruct this portion of History." It is at least partly history as the math calculates backwards... more
          • re: MosesRich McQuillen, Fri Jul 21 22:40
            Hi Marianne, We are in agreement with your reading, and that your reading is in alignment with Standard Biblical Chronology. ***** I don't subscribe to standard Biblical Chronology, with the cut off... more
            • re: MosesMarianne Luban, Sat Jul 22 09:55
              Rich wrote: "I don't subscribe to standard Biblical Chronology, with the cut off point of before David. All of those Patriarchs from Methuselah to Moses living such long lives, it doesn't make sense... more
              • re: Temple of JerusalemRich McQuillen, Sat Jul 22 20:06
                "But who designed the Jerusalem Temple in your scheme? Frank Lloyd Wright? Sorry--couldn't resist." -- I love the reference. :) The temple of Solomon hasn't been found yet...... more
                • re: Temple of JerusalemRobert Killian, Mon Jul 24 04:14
                  Hi Rich, has: Siamun:986 to 967. has: Siamun: 986 to 967. Mattis Kantor, in "THE JEWISH TIME-LINE ... more
                • re: Temple of JerusalemMarianne Luban, Sun Jul 23 09:22
                  Rich: "In my scheme, or timeline, I have Solomon as a contemporary of Siamun in Egypt(975BC)." That's pretty standard but, previously you wrote: "Moses 140 years later in 1159BC(Ramses 4)". How do... more
                  • re: Judges 11:26Rich McQuillen, Wed Aug 2 22:28
                    "In fact, in Judges 11:26 it states that Israel had been in Canaan for 300 years already" -- The chronology in that passage is in dispute. Note: I don't have an opinion on this dispute at this time.... more
                    • re: Judges 11:26Marianne Luban, Thu Aug 3 10:31
                      I wrote: "In fact, in Judges 11:26 it states that Israel had been in Canaan for 300 years already" Rich: -- The chronology in that passage is in dispute." and "Three hundred years.--There is an... more
                    • re: Judges 11:26Robert Killian, Thu Aug 3 03:30
                      Hi Rich, You quote:---"In fact, in Judges 11:26 it states that Israel had been in Canaan for 300 years already". Yes!---If Exodus was in 2448AM, as Mattis Kantor 'places' that event in "Codex... more
                    • re: Judges 11:26Rich McQuillen, Thu Aug 3 01:23
                      "New International Version For three hundred years Israel occupied Heshbon, Aroer, the surrounding settlements and all the towns along the Arnon. Why didn't you retake them during that time?" -- I'm... more
                • re:Temple of JerusalemRobert Killian, Sun Jul 23 00:48
                  Hi Rich, Perhaps: a sequence like this? David 1008 to 968 Siamun ac.986 to 967 Solomon: ac.968 to 928 Psusennes II ac.967 to 943 Rehoboam: ac.928 to 911 Jeroboam: ac.928 to 907 Shoshenq I: ac.943 to... more
            • re: MosesRobert Killian, Sat Jul 22 04:00
              Hi Rich, For the 'Actual' birth date of Moses: Jewish calendar count 1948AM, 1813CJ/BCE, + 131yrs = 1944BCE. See: . Enjoy,
Click here to receive daily updates