Wednesday, April 10, 2019

Some pointers towards a chronological revision



Image result for exodus-documentary-evidence

 
by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 


 

 

 


A budding revisionist wrote to me:


….

It’s a joy to find your work. About seven months ago, I became very interested in chronological revisionism, first concerning the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan, but then more radical revisionism so that the Egyptian civilization (and others) might postdate the Flood (around 2274 BC in my estimation). I’ve read the work of David Rohl and Peter James, who appear to be “soft revisionists”- reworking the chronology so that the exodus and conquest make good sense, and I’m starting to read Donovan Courville right now. The difficulty is that I, as a non-expert, have virtually no way of evaluating the merits of these respective chronologies, especially where they diverge (concerning whether the Old Kingdom ought to undergo a radical revision and concerning the dates of the Amarna period on).

Do you have any recommendations as to where I should begin, and what work I should read first?

 

Thanks much ….


 

To which I replied (modified and updated now):

 

….

I can well appreciate how perplexing you must find the whole thing to be. There is the conventional system of which one ought to have a solid grasp, and then there are all of those quite different revised systems, none fully agreeing.

 

Peter James and David Rohl have been important, inasmuch as they have corrected some of the mistakes made by Dr. I. Velikovsky (who was a pioneer).

Peter James’s Centuries of Darkness is a classic, and ought to be read.

But I would agree with you that their (Rohl’s and James’s) revisions are “soft”, floating precariously as they do halfway between Velikovsky and convention.

 

Martin Sieff is, to my thinking, the pick of the revisionists writing in that quite productive period of the mid-late 70’s and the 80’s. Amongst the following one will find some classics of his:

 

  • “Velikovsky: The Score of Success”, SIS Newsletter 1, April 1975
  • “Velikovsky: The Open Minded Approach”, SIS Newsletter 2, September 1975
  • “In Defence of the Revised Chronology”, Peter James & Martin Sieff, SIS Review v1 No. 1, January 1976
  • “Diana at Ephesus”, Martin Sieff assisted by Peter James, SIS Review v1 No. 2, Spring 1976
  • “Planets in the Bible: I — The Cosmology of Job”, SIS Review v1 No. 4, Spring 1977
  • “The Two Jehorams”, SIS Review v2 No. 3, Special Issue 1977/78
  • “Velikovsky and His Heroes”, SIS Review v5 No. 4, 1984
  • “The Bible Through a King James Filter”, SIS Workshop no. 1, March 1978
  • “Book Review”, SIS Workshop no. 4, February 1979
  • “The Father of the Gods?”, SIS Workshop vol.3 No.2, October 1980
  • “Voyager: Questions and Answers”, SIS Workshop vol.3 No. 3, January 1981
  • “The Hittites in Israel”, SIS Workshop vol.4 No.1, July 1981
  • “Assyria and the End of the Late Bronze Age”, SIS Workshop vol.4 No. 2, September 1981
  • “Limited Fusion” and “Anode-Stars”, SIS Workshop vol.4 No. 3, December 1981
  • “The Emerging Revision of Ancient History: Recent Research”, Velikovskian vol. 2 No. 1, 1994
  • “The History Of The Revisionist Debate: A Personal View”, Velikovskian vol. 3 No. 4, 1997
  • “The Road to Iron: 8th and 7th Century Metallurgy and the Decline of Egyptian Power”, Catastrophism & Ancient History, Volume IV, Part 2, July 1982
  • “Scarab in the Dust: Egypt in the Time of the Twenty-First Dynasty”, Catastrophism& Ancient History, Volume VII, Part 2, July 1985
  • “The Libyans in Egypt: Resolving the Third Intermediate Period”, Catastrophism& Ancient History, Volume VIII, Part 1, January 1986
  • “Assyrians, Sodom, and Red Herrings”, Catastrophism & Ancient History, Volume X, Part 1, January 1988
  • “The Oracle of Cadmus”, Catastrophism & Ancient History, Proceedings of the Second Seminar of Catastrophism and Ancient History (Held Dec 1983)) 1985
  • “The Chaldeans of Sumer”, Aeon vol.1 No. 2, Feb 1988
  • “The Hyksos Were Not Assyrians”, Aeon vol.1 No.4, Jul 1988
  • “Remembering Velikovsky”, Aeon vol.4 No. 2, Aug 1995
     
    Dr. Courville is very good, systematic, but rather heavy going. He, too, was a pioneer and stands in need of some modifications.
    But he will generally set you on quite a good path.

    There are some anchors that I personally would insist upon, and you will find these within my articles at Academia.edu
    To summarise some to these:
     
    Bringing early Egyptian history into line with the Bible, especially using the perceptive stratigraphy of Dr. John Osgood for the period of Abram (Abraham).
    See e.g. my article:
     
    Better archaeological model for Abraham
     
     
    Also, and most importantly, the Middle Bronze I people as the Exodus Israelites:
     
    The Bible Illuminates History and Philosophy. Part Seven: Middle Bronze I Israelites
     
     
     

Dr. Courville has missed the compelling link between Joseph of Egypt and the genius Vizier Imhotep. See my attempt to correct this in my series:

 

Moses – may be staring revisionists right in the face

 

beginning with Part One:

 


 

Velikovsky’s thesis that the United Kingdom of Israel and Egypt’s 18th dynasty were contemporaneous, with Hatshepsut as the Queen of Sheba and Thutmose III as the biblical Shishak.

See e.g. my articles (for Hatshepsut):

 


 


and (for Thutmose III):

 


 


 

Dr. Velikovsky’s vitally important connections of El Amarna’s kings of Amurru with biblical kings of Syria (in Ages in Chaos, I).


Peter James’s important correcting of El Amarna’s Abdi-hiba of Urusalim (Velikovsky’s king Jehoshaphat) to Jehoshaphat’s son, Jehoram, instead. See e.g. my series on this:

 


 


 

and:

 


 




 

Another certain thing, the conventional view of Ramses II as a contemporary of Moses is hopelessly wrong. See e.g. my articles:

 

The Exodus in need of a realistic time-frame

 


 

and:

 

New Revision for Ramses II

 


 

Highly important (at least I think), too, is the synchronisation of king Sennacherib’s loss of his massive Assyrian army in Israel at the time of the heroine Judith, and narrated in the Book of Judith. See e.g. my article:

 


 


 

 

I hope that this will be of some use to you ….

 

My best regards,

Damien.





Part Two: Supplementing Part One






Dr. John Osgood appears to have nailed the archaeological period for

the oppressor king, Cushan-rishathaim of Judges 3:8.

 



Patriarch Abram (Abraham), archaeologically, needs to be located to the stratigraphical era of the Late Chalcolithic/Early Bronze I, and not to Middle Bronze I (MBI) - as is generally thought - where he would displace the Exodus Israelites, the true MBI people of half a millennium later.

 

The best fit for the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, early in the life of Moses, is, I think, pharaoh Amenemhet (Amenemes) I, the founder of the Twelfth Dynasty (Middle Kingdom, so-called). See e.g. my article:

 

Twelfth Dynasty oppressed Israel

 


 

And see the following articles for the archaeology of:

 


 


 

Eglon's Jericho

 


 


 


 

Who was Hiel? For my preferred candidate see:

 

Hiel's Jericho. Part Two (a): Who was this “Hiel of Bethel”?

 


 

Dr. John Osgood appears to have nailed the archaeological period for the oppressor king, Cushan Rishathaim of Judges 3:8. See his important stratigraphical article on this:

 

The Times of the Judges—The Archaeology:


 


(b) Settlement and Apostasy


 


 

Regarding Egypt, the United Kingdom of Israel’s kings, Saul, David and Solomon synchronise with the early Eighteenth Dynasty, from Ahmose I down to Thutmose III.

Regarding Mesopotamia, David and Solomon were contemporaneous with Shamsi-Adad I of Assyria, Zimri-Lim of Mari, and Hammurabi of Babylon: See my series:

 

Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon

 

commencing with:

 


 

Most of these Mesopotamian and Syrian kings have biblical identities.

 

Dr. I. Velikovsky had re-located the era of the El Amarna (EA) correspondence (pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV) to the time of the Divided Kingdom of Israel, the time of Ben-Hadad I and Hazael of Syria, and King Ahab of Israel.

 

My choice for King Ahab in EA is Lab’ayu, ruler of northern Israel:

 

King Ahab in El Amarna

 


 

See same article for my identification of the only female EA correspondent, Baalat-neše, with the biblical Queen Jezebel.

 

I have long held the view that the:

 

Assyrian King Sargon II [was] Otherwise Known As Sennacherib

 


 

For a radical revision of the era of King Hezekiah of Judah - the time of King Sennacherib’s demise - down to the Babylonian Captivity, and on into the Medo-Persian period, see my article:

 


 


 

This revision of the later kings of Judah ought to be read in conjunction with my revision of the neo-Assyrian-Babylonian kings:

 

Aligning Neo Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part One: Shortening the Chaldean Dynasty

 


 

and:

 

Aligning Neo-Babylonia with Book of Daniel. Part Two: Merging late neo-Assyrians with Chaldeans

 


 

 

 

 





















 
Posted by AMAIC at 5:30 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,

Amenhotep son of Hapu had rôle like Senenmut


 


by
 
Damien F. Mackey


 
 
The career of Amenhotep son of Hapu appears to have been
modelled closely on that of the great man, Senenmut.
 
  
 
 
Amenhotep son of Hapu was a highly influential figure, whose fame reached down even into Ptolemaïc times. Horemheb, for one, may have been stylistically influenced by Amenhotep. For according to W. Smith and W. Simpson (The Art and Architecture of Ancient Egypt, Yale UP, 1998, p. 195): “The large grey granite statue of Horemheb in the pose of a scribe … is related stylistically to those of Amenhotep son of Hapu … Horemheb has the same plump, well-fed body and wears a long wig similar to that of the aged wise man …”.
 
Who really was this Amenhotep son of Hapu, upon whom there were bestowed “unprecedented” honours, investing him with virtually regal status?
 
Statuary and Privileges
 
Egyptologist Joann Fletcher offers us a glimpse of his extraordinary power (Egypt’s Sun King. Amenhotep III, Duncan Baird, 2000, p. 51):
 
In an unprecedented move, Amenhotep III gave extensive religious powers to his closest official and namesake, Amenhotep son of Hapu, not only placing the scribe’s statuary throughout Amun’s temple, but also granting his servant powers almost equal to his own: inscriptions on the statues state that Amenhotep son of Hapu would intercede with Amun himself on behalf of those who approached. The king’s chosen man, who was not a member of Amun’s clergy, could act as intermediary between the people and the gods on the king’s behalf, bypassing the priesthood altogether.
[End of quote]
In light of what we learned, however, in:
 
Solomon and Sheba
 
 
the powers accorded by pharaoh Amenhotep III to his namesake, the son of Hapu, were not “unprecedented”. All of this - and perhaps even more - had already been bestowed upon Senenmut, the ‘power behind the throne’ of Pharaoh Hatshepsut.
 
I have identified this Senenmut as King Solomon in Egypt.
 
We read in “Solomon and Sheba” of Senenmut’s quasi-royal honours (compare the son of Hapu’s “virtually regal status” above):
 
  1. SENENMUT IN HATSHEPSUT'S
KINGSHIP (REGNAL YEARS 7-16)
 
Hatshepsut's Coronation
 
In about the 7th year of Thutmose III, according to Dorman [52], Hatshepsut had herself crowned king, assum­ing the name Maatkare or Make-ra (‘True is the heart of Ra’). In the present scheme, this would be close to Solomon's 30th regnal year. From then on, Hatshepsut is referred to as ‘king’, sometimes with the pronoun ‘she’ and sometimes ‘he’, and depicted in the raiment of a king. She is called the daughter of Amon-Ra - but in the picture of her birth a boy is moulded by Khnum, the shaper of human beings (i.e. Amon-Ra) [53].
According to Dorman, Senenmut was present at Hatshep­sut's coronation and played a major rôle there [54]. On one statue [55] he is given some unique titles, which Berlandini-Grenier [56] identifies with the official responsible for the ritual clothing of the Queen ‘the stolist of Horus in privacy’, ‘keeper of the diadem in adorning the king’ and ‘he who covers the double crown with red linen’. Winlock was startled that Senenmut had held so many unique offices in Egypt, including ‘more intimate ones like those of the great nobles of France who were honored in being allowed to assist in the most intimate details of the royal toilet at the king's levees’ [57]. The rarity of the stolist titles suggested to Dorman [58] ‘a one-time exercise of Senenmut's function of stolist and that prosopographical conclusions might be drawn’, i.e., he had participated in Hatshepsut's coronation.
….
 
And even more startling is this:
 
…. of special interest is the astronomical information in tomb 353, particularly the ceiling of Chamber A [75]. Senenmut's ceiling is the earliest astronomical ceiling known. We are reminded again of Solomon's encyclopaedic knowledge of astronomy and calendars (Wisdom 7:17-19). The ceiling is divided into two parts by transverse bands of texts, the central section of which contains the names ‘Hatshepsut’ and ‘Senenmut’ [76]. The southern half contains a list of decans derived from coffins of the Middle Kingdom period that had served as ‘a prototype’ for a family of decanal lists that survived until the Ptolemaïc period; whilst ‘The northern half is decorated with the earliest preserved depiction of the northern constellations; four planets (Mars, Venus, Jupiter, Saturn) are also portrayed with them, and the lunar calendar is represented by twelve large circles’. [77]
In tomb 71 at Sheikh Abd el-Qurna, · the sarcophagus itself is carved of quartzite in a unique oval form adapted from the royal cartouche shape. Dorman [78] says ‘... the sarcophagus seemed to be yet another proof ... of the pretensions Senenmut dares to exhibit, skirting dangerously close to prerogatives considered to be exclusively royal’. Winlock [79] would similarly note that it was ‘significantly designed as almost a replica of royal sarcophagi of the time’,
 
  • one of the painted scenes features a procession of Aegean (Greek) tribute bearers, the first known representation of these people [80] - the only coherent scene on the north wall of the axial corridor portrays three registers of men dragging sledges that provide shelter for statues of Senenmut, who faces the procession of statues.
 
Senenmut had presented to Hatshepsut ‘an extraordinary request’ for ‘many statues of every kind of precious hard stone’, to be placed in every temple and shrine of Amon-Ra [81]. His request was granted. Meyer [82] pointed to it as an indication of his power.
 
[End of quotes]
 
Titles
 
Amenhotep son of Hapu, likewise, had some most imposing titles
 
Hereditary prince, count, sole companion, fan-bearer on the king's right hand, chief of the king's works even all the great monuments which are brought, of every excellent costly stone; steward of the King's-daughter of the king's-wife, Sitamen, who liveth; overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North, chief of the prophets of Horus, lord of Athribis, festival leader of Amon. ….
 
Several inscriptions outline his career and show how he rose through the ranks.
Amenhotep started off as a king's scribe as mentioned on his statue:
 
I was appointed to be inferior king's-scribe; I was introduced into the divine book, I beheld the excellent things of Thoth; I was equipped with their secrets; I opened all their [passages (?)]; one took counsel with me on all their matters.
 
After distinguishing himself, Amenhotep was promoted to the position of Scribe of Recruits.
 
... he put all the people subject to me, and the listing of their number under my control, as superior king's-scribe over recruits. I levied the (military) classes of my lord, my pen reckoned the numbers of millions; I put them in [classes (?)] in the place of their [elders (?)]; the staff of old age as his beloved son. I taxed the houses with the numbers belonging thereto, I divided the troops (of workmen) and their houses, I filled out the subjects with the best of the captivity, which his majesty had captured on the battlefield. I appointed all their troops (Tz.t), I levied -------. I placed troops at the heads of the way(s) to turn back the foreigners in their places.
 
Amenhotep mentions being on a campaign to Nubia.
 
I was the chief at the head of the mighty men, to smite the Nubians [and the Asiatics (?)], the plans of my lord were a refuge behind me; [when I wandered (?)] his command surrounded me; his plans embraced all lands and all foreigners who were by his side. I reckoned up the captives of the victories of his majesty, being in charge of them.
 
Later he was promoted to "Chief of all works", thereby overseeing the building program of Pharaoh Amenhotep III
His connections to court finally led to Amenhotep being appointed as Steward to Princess-Queen Sitamen.
[End of quotes]
 
Official Relationship to Amon
 
The son of Hapu was, as we read above, “overseer of the cattle of Amon in the South and North … [and] festival leader of Amon”. ….
 
Now regarding Senenmut, as I wrote in “Solomon and Sheba”:
 
Historians claim ‘Steward of Amon’ was the most illustri­ous of all Senenmut's titles. This would be fitting if he were Solomon, and Amon-Ra were the Supreme God, the ‘King of Gods’, as the Egyptians called him. Senenmut was also ‘overseer of the garden of Amon’ (see Appendix A). Like Solomon, a king who also acted as a priest, Senenmut's chief rôle was religious. He was in charge of things pertaining to Amon and was ‘chief of all the prophets’. Solomon, at the beginning of his co-regency with David, had prayed for wisdom and a discerning mind (I Kings 3:9). On the completion of the Temple, he stood ‘before the altar of the Lord in the presence of all the assembly of Israel, [he] spread forth his hands towards heaven’ (I Kings 8:22). Likewise, Senenmut is depicted in Hatshepsut's temple with arms up-stretched to heaven, praying to Hathor, the personification of wisdom.
 
Thomas C. Hamilton has provided this most perceptive comment about Amonism (Amunism) in a revised context (http://kabane52.tumblr.com/post/132812715270/amunism-and-atenism):
 

Amunism and Atenism

 
Akhenhaten is widely known as the “monotheistic Pharaoh” and his cult of the Aten has absurdly been described as the “first monotheism.” This ignores the abundant evidence that monotheism is the earliest religion of the human race, as was documented in detail by Wilhelm Schmidt in his twelve volume work on the subject, popularly summarized lately by Winfried Corduan. My intent, however, is not to complain about that. Instead, it is to present a revised view of what Atenism was on a revised chronology, largely drawing on the fascinating work of traditional Catholic scholar Damien Mackey.
 
I have pointed out in the past that the descriptions of Amun in Egyptian literature converge in fascinating ways with the biblical description of God. Amun-Re is a sun-god. The sun, of course, is one of the Lord’s chief symbols in Scripture, and the nations worshiped God as the “God of Heaven.” This is why the phenomenon of original monotheism is called the “sky-god” phenomenon. That a god was associated with the sun does not mean that he had always been identified with the sun. Indeed, I think the “fusion” of Amun and Re was the recovery of a pristine monotheistic religion. Just as Yahweh and El were two titles for one God, so also Amun and Re. Imhotep, whom I have identified with Joseph, served as High Priest of Re at Heliopolis.
[End of quote]
 
The career of Amenhotep son of Hapu in relation to Egypt reminds me in many ways of that of that other quasi-royal (but supposed commoner), Senenmut, or Senmut, at the time of Pharaoh Hatshepsut. Amenhotep son of Hapu is in fact so close a replica of Senenmut that I would have to think that he had modelled himself greatly on the latter.
Senenmut was to pharaoh Hatshepsut also a Great Steward, and he was to princess Neferure her mentor and steward.
So was Amenhotep son of Hapu to pharaoh Amenhotep III a Great Steward, and he was to princess Sitamun (Sitamen) her mentor and steward.
 
Again, as Senenmut is considered by scholars to have been a commoner, who, due to his great skills and character, rose up through the ranks to become scribe and architect and steward of Amun, so is exactly the same said about Amenhotep son of Hapu.
Each seemed to be a real ‘power behind the throne’.
 
Son of Hapu, like Senenmut, is thought not to have (married or to have) had any children.
 
 
 
Posted by AMAIC at 3:51 PM 0 comments
Labels: , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)