Marianne Luban
But, as usual--disagreement even in antiquity
Tue Feb 19, 2008 06:14
66.53.209.139 (XFF: 81.106.124.212)

Naturally, wouldn't you know that some ancient authors, like Eusebius and Artapanus failed to believe that the Hebrews left Egypt 430 years after they had arrived--and that's one of the reasons Manetho's 18th Dynasty is rather screwed up in the various versions, with everybody trying to impose their own idea of the Exodus there. But who was to say who was wrong? There was surely more than one exodus, even though all can't have been led by Moses.

The other story goes like this: In the year 490, sixty years past 430, "the king of Egypt died and Chencheres reigned for 16 years. It was he who waged a contest with Moses with the help of Jannes and Jambres, the magicians."

The years 400-430 were supposedly ruled by Palmanothes [pA-n-imnHtp, the name of an Egyptian month,becoming
"Phamenoth"] and his son-in-law, "Chenephres", this last having married the daughter of the first, "Merris". Merris was the gal whoh adopted Moses and protected him from the jealousy of Chenephres, her husband. However, Merris died and Moses went to bury her with the help of Khanothis, who had been commissioned by Chenephres to kill Moses. But the reverse happened, even though Moses didn't flee Egypt just yet. In the intervening 60 years prior to Moses returning to Egypt, two other rulers, "Oros" and "Achencheres" appeared. Moses, as was said, fled in the reign of Oros and returned under Chencheres, the successor of Achencheres. Chencheres was the one who became king in 490. Some of these persons can be seen in Manetho's 18th Dynasty, transmitted by Syncellus from Eusebius.

Syncellus wrote: "Eusebius alone places the exodus of Israel under Moses in this reign, although no argument supports him, but all his predecessors held a contrary view, as he testifies."

But some did agree with Eusebius, such as Artapanus and the polymath Bar Hebraeus. So...assuming the year 430 is 1454, sixty years later is 1394. Well, it has to amount to Akhenaten or some immediate successors like Ankheperure or Smenkhkare! Pretty strange. And, yet, "Achencheres" is "Ankhe[t]kheperure" and so "Chencheres" must surely be Smenkhare. Whatever did these people do to get so much attention from the ancient historians? Well, Akhenaten was, as "Bocchoris" [pA xrw--"the criminal"] associated with a plague and those "polluted ones" he got rid of. Manetho calls him "Amenothes". And that was his original name, after all. According to Manetho, the revolt against the king started in Helipolis, one of the few places he still had temples and priests,[outside of the Aten temples] as Heliopolis was dedicated to the worship of Ra, of which Akhenaten, of course, approved. One of those priests was the leader and a man who changed his name to "Moses".

In other words, he probably considered himself another Moses for fomenting a rebellion against this family. But Eusebius insists this was the "real" Moses, come back to haunt the king. Anyway, chronologically, there must have been two significant occurences there in Egypt within 60 years or so. A very interesting dynasty--although God knows just who "Palmanothes and Chenephres" were supposed to have been.

  • Re: V. Spaeth and the Birth of MosesMarianne Luban, Sun Feb 17 22:29
    You know, this is pretty wild. That date for the birth of Moses works out every time. The Torah says that Moses didn't return to Egypt until he was 80 "because all who had sought his life were dead". ... more
    • But, as usual--disagreement even in antiquity — Marianne Luban, Tue Feb 19 06:14
      • 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 antiquityMarianne Luban, Tue Feb 19 23:55
          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... more
          • 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