Archaeologically Dating the Exodus to Amenhotep III

by LorenzoSmithXVII 180 Replies latest admin removed

  • Mephis
    Mephis

    Lorenzo, I'll waste a few minutes.

    The move towards Aten worship began under Amenhotep III. In fact the inscriptions show that in his 30th year, at his sed festival then, he took on the persona of a sun deity. He called himself "tjehen Aten" from at least the 11th year of his reign. Spot where his son got the idea from? Try to fit that into your theory of this being related to monotheistic Judaism (which may be an anachronism for early Judaism in any case)... Raymond Johnson pointed this out back in the mid-90s.

    Other stuff.. yes the mummy is badly damaged. It was in a tomb which got plundered/looted and then the mummy was moved (with several others) into another burial site for safekeeping. The technique isn't actually unique - just early. And if he was a fat man, it would make sense to try and pad out his body with resin. It didn't work. So it goes.

    If Egypt was in decline, why was Amarna unwalled? This was a time of relative peace and prosperity still.

    re.Amarna letters. You're building a theory from one word in a ritualised greeting? That's stretching things. Likewise with the gold statues - Tushratta wanted his two solid gold ones, and whined about it for a number of letters. There are other plausible reasons for him not receiving them rather than jumping to Exodus happened. The constant stream of requests for assistance which comes from some of the vassal states has more recently been reinterpreted as Egyptian foreign policy continuing as normal rather than some failure within the Egyptian state. There may well have been no expectation of assistance, no letter mentions a breach of faith or broken promise on this, and so Egypt may well have intervened or not at the pharaoh's whim alone. (see Cohen and Westbrook's analysis of the letters for this).

    And, yes, you are trying to hammer the Egyptian record to fit a story which is internally anachronistic for the time period it sets out to portray. You're taking the bible and trying to fit things into that. That's not really how it works outside of pseudo-history land.

  • marmot
    marmot
    *cue Lars posting another 18 paragraphs of manic drivel, completely unfazed by the massive bitch-slapping he just got.*
  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    @Mephisan hour ago

    Lorenzo, I'll waste a few minutes.

    Thank-you, thank-you! Much appreciated. Feedback is good.

    The move towards Aten worship began under Amenhotep III. In fact the inscriptions show that in his 30th year, at his sed festival then, he took on the persona of a sun deity. He called himself "tjehen Aten" from at least the 11th year of his reign. Spot where his son got the idea from? Try to fit that into your theory of this being related to monotheistic Judaism (which may be an anachronism for early Judaism in any case)... Raymond Johnson pointed this out back in the mid-90s.

    I don't know why but I can't stop laughing. There's just something humorous about your post. Maybe I'm so shocked someone would actually add to this conversation. It's not that I find anything objectionable. I didn't know specifically about Amenhotep III taking on the name of "Aten." But part of the context of Atenism did include the idea that "Aten" was specifically related to Yahweh even before the Exodus. There was evidence that Aten was the god of Akenaten's mother! So the influence, I believe was through her on both her son and husband. So this wouldn't change anything but would actually clarify why Atenism developed. That is, confirming that Aten was the God his mother was already worshipping, or at least some concept of the God. So Aten could very much have been already part of the polytheistic pantheon that Egypt created. Egypt adopted or adapted every foreign god, no problem. So this just further establishes "Aten" already had an identity in Egypt and Aten was understood to be the God of the Israelites. When "Aten" competed with the other gods of Egypt and won, then monotheism exclusive to Aten occurred. Keeping in mind that the god the Israelites called "Yahweh" in their language was known to lots of peoples in Canaan, in fact, Jerusalem was where Melchizedek was much earlier, who was a king-priest of Yahweh before Abraham even had children. So what this only means is that Aten was a god known in Egypt and apparently the god of the Israelites as well as Akhenaten's mother, perhaps suggesting she was related to the Israelites or a Midianite or from some other nation that recognized Yahweh/Aten. This just confirms that Akhenaten's mother was already an atenist, but perhaps not a full-fledged monotheist. How do I fit this into my theory? No problem. It was already part of my theory.

    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/dd/c9/92/ddc9927a9e71a857220761f1ee7fc86e.jpg

    Other stuff.. yes the mummy is badly damaged. It was in a tomb which got plundered/looted and then the mummy was moved (with several others) into another burial site for safekeeping. The technique isn't actually unique - just early. And if he was a fat man, it would make sense to try and pad out his body with resin. It didn't work. So it goes.

    According to my references it was unique, used once and never before. Point is, the other mummies didn't need this process. Now maybe it was before he was fat or had some disease or some other reason. All I'm saying is that his body needed special handling. So it begs the question where this special embalming process due to the lack of immediate availability of his body? I believe that is just as logical as presumption as any other reason, such he was obese, which is as reasonable as any other reason. Of course, wouldn't be that hard to look at how many other pharaohs were obese. But here's what they are saying.

    "The embalmers had packed the skin of the deceased king with a resinous

    material, and Smith's description of this as being "analogous" to embalming
    techniques used in the 21'st Dynasty led Douglas Derry to question the
    identification of the mummy as being that of Amenhotep III. Edward Wente,
    however, points out that the resinous material used here for packing was
    quite unlike the materials employed by 21'st Dynasty embalmers. Long before
    the controversy regarding the identity of this mummy had arisen, Smith
    himself had noted (in the same report in RM that caused Derry's
    uncertainties) that the method of packing used in Nebmaatre-Amenhotep's
    mummy is altogether UNIQUE, and takes special care to distinguish it from
    21'st Dynasty practices which, he goes on to explain, utilized linen, mud,
    sand, sawdust, or mixtures of fat and soda for packing materials, but not
    resins. Therefore, there is nothing about this mummy that would point to the
    21'st Dynasty as the time of its original embalming."

    Again, just a detail about his mummy. That it is said to be the least well preserved of any other mummy and it also underwent a special, unique embalming process. You can take it from there. Just a detail that might be explained since we know he drowned in the Red Sea. When did he wash up on shore? When was his body found? Did his body need special embalming? Just questions.

    If Egypt was in decline, why was Amarna unwalled? This was a time of relative peace and prosperity still.

    Oh, no. You were doing so well. Egypt was still prosperous. They just lost their brick-making slaves, who lived off the land and their herds. There was gold rationing. And the military was compromised. Many first-born males died, but that's it. Egypt was still wealthy otherwise. Plus this was a great time of peace in Egypt with many other nations which wouldn't have dramatically changed. In fact, Assyria converted to monotheism along with Egypt per the Bible after the Exodus. But also, Amarna did have walls. Have you seen images of the city?


    re.Amarna letters. You're building a theory from one word in a ritualised greeting? That's stretching things. Likewise with the gold statues - Tushratta wanted his two solid gold ones, and whined about it for a number of letters.

    What is fun about this is that the gold statues had already been made!-- the solid gold ones, just not delivered. Then suddenly gold-plated ones were sent. hahahah! So you know my pro-Exodus mind. I'm imagining when the Israelites left the Egyptians gave them all the gold in sight and those two solid gold statues went with the Israelites. Then after that, there was gold rationing, explaining the plated gold ones. But again, this is just a detail that doesn't contradict the context of the Exodus. The opposite of this would be why there was no mention of gold rationing during this time. You could easily ask if the Egyptians were "stripped" of there gold, then why is nobody complaining about not getting gold during this period? You could throw that up into my face, right? Well, just the opposite is the case. It doesn't PROVE anything, but it something that is noted.


    There are other plausible reasons for him not receiving them rather than jumping to Exodus happened. The constant stream of requests for assistance which comes from some of the vassal states has more recently been reinterpreted as Egyptian foreign policy continuing as normal rather than some failure within the Egyptian state. There may well have been no expectation of assistance, no letter mentions a breach of faith or broken promise on this, and so Egypt may well have intervened or not at the pharaoh's whim alone. (see Cohen and Westbrook's analysis of the letters for this).

    Yes, yes, yes. I know that. It's not about how many other logical reasons other than the Exodus there can be. It is simply that these details don't contradict the context whereas they could. But if you want to acknowledge a skeptical or anti-Exodus bias, that is perfectly okay. Since I'm certainly pushing for a proto-Exodus position for every little thing. I just wanted to share my take on this. That's sufficient for me. So thanks.


    And, yes, you are trying to hammer the Egyptian record to fit a story which is internally anachronistic for the time period it sets out to portray. You're taking the bible and trying to fit things into that. That's not really how it works outside of pseudo-history land.

    Okay. Yes, I might be hammering this story, but not the chronology. Not the archaeology. The hammering, if there is any, comes after the fact. The fact that you have to date the Exodus at the beginning of the reign of Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten, regardless. If it is found out that Akhenaten was a crack-head trying to be a rapper from Compton and they told him to be a monotheist and that's why he started worshipping Aten exclusively, then fine (Yes, Compton was in existence back then! I mean Compton, Egypt not Compton, California!!! gotcha!)

    After you date the Exodus to 1386 BCE, basically, you can hammer and pull and do whatever you wish to what we know about this kingship, because interpretation can be varied.

    But I appreciate your sharing this information. If you end up seeing that there is no evidence at all during the time of Akhenaten to support an Exodus or ten plagues, then I respect that. Totally. But if you think for one second you can date the Exodus to some other year than 1386 BCE at this point. Sorry. That is not a Biblical nor scientific option.

    Thanks again!

  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    marmot2 hours ago

    *cue Lars posting another 18 paragraphs of manic drivel, completely unfazed by the massive bitch-slapping he just got.*
    It's Lorenzo. Plus us intellectuals read books, we just don't watch TV. This is an academic discussion, so yes, sometimes it gets long and we post quotes and references. That's the way it is at any university. but by all means ignore the drivel. "They took no note... until the Larsmobile came and swept them all away!" (smile)
    Actually, this has been wonderful. I'm getting some great feedback, clarifying some misunderstanding and learning some new details. So I've been having a good time on this thread.

  • SimonSays
    SimonSays

    Spoken like a true Jew. Topix of 2012 Doug Mason flashback. It’s apparent that your conclusions are predicated to justify the Palestrina war of 1947/8. I’m assuming you can also correlate the six day war of 1967/8 to indicate some other assertion over the timeline of creation.

    1947 is the year the Jews are restored to their homeland to complete the final

    Covenant week of 49 years from 1947-1996. This is a jubilee period of 49

    Years following the "great tribulation" which was the HOLOCAUST. That being

    The case we can easily date the precise year of the Exodus, since the Exodus

    Occurs 49 years after the 70 jubilee weeks begin. So let's do the math:

    1947 + 49 = 1996

    70 jubilees is a period of 3430 years.

    70 x 49 = 3430 years

    3430 - 1996 = 1434 +1 (no Roman zero year) = 1435 BCE

    1435 BCE - 49 = 1386 BCE.

    Biblical time line is an essential part of the starting point for creation. To suggest that people are incorrect is an ambiguous assertion. The WTS holds its theory, creation date of 4026 BC. Under their understanding of decades of research brings the Exodus around 1513 BC. A more realistic view would see how secular time lines approximate biblical reckoning. By correctly looking at secular history, the closet Pharaoh would be either Thutmose I or II. The assertion of Amenhotep III would then fall under Amenhotep I since Amenhotep III was a more passive Pharaoh as described by Rogers Fund, 1956

    Amenhotep III, ninth king of Dynasty 18, was heir to the expansionist policies of his predecessors and ruled over an empire at the height of its political, economic, and cultural power. It was also an empire at peace, relying on diplomatic exchanges to ensure the stability and revenues of Egypt. During his long reign, Amenhotep III transformed the religious landscape at Thebes, building a great temple to Amun-Re at Luxor and making major additions to the Temple of Karnak. On the west bank at Thebes, he built an enormous palace complex with an artificial lake at Malqata, where he celebrated three sed or jubilee festivals. His mortuary temple was one of the largest ever built, but little remains today except the famous Colossi of Memnon, actually a pair of colossal statues of Amenhotep III that stood before its pylon.

    Thutmose I (sometimes read as Thothmes, Thutmosis or Tuthmosis I, meaning Thoth-Born) was the third Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty of Egypt. He was given the throne after the death of the previous king Amenhotep I. During his reign, he campaigned deep into the Levant and Nubia, pushing the borders of Egypt further than ever before. He also built many temples in Egypt and built a tomb for himself in the Valley of the Kings; he is the first king confirmed to have done this (though Amenhotep I may have preceded him). He was succeeded by his son Thutmose II, who in turn was succeeded by Thutmose II's sister, Hatshepsut. His reign is generally dated from 1506 to 1493 BC, but a minority of scholars, who think that astrological observations used to calculate the timeline of ancient Egyptian records and thus the reign of Thutmose I, were taken from the city of Memphis rather than from Thebes, would date his reign from 1526 BC to 1513 BC.

    Reference: · Grimal, Nicolas. A History of Ancient Egypt. p.202. Librairie Arthéme Fayard, 1988.

    · Ancient Egyptian Chronology, chapter 10, Egyptian Sirius/Sothic Dates and the Question of the Sirius based Lunar Calendar, 2006 Rolf Krauss pgs. 439-457

    You might consider the book by Riaan Booysen 2013 Thera and the Exodus: The Exodus Explained in Terms of Natural Phenomena and the Human Response to It.

    Under that assertion, since Aaron was the first born in that family yet harm didn’t come to him, then the understanding would suggest an earlier ruler of Egypt such as Ahmose I for Aaron and Amenhotep I for Moses. Now science has proven that Amenhotep I and Thutmose I were not related bringing in harmony the first born killed by the 10 plague of God in the biblical account.


    • - The pharaoh of the Exodus begun his reign shortly before 1513 B.C.E.
    • - Connected to two Egyptians "Jannes and Jambres" (Ieneni and Puimre?)
    • - The pharaoh of the Exodus' contemporaries mummies might show signs of plague. (See: Thutmose II)
    • - The pharaoh is predeceased by his firstborn. (Amenmose)
    • - The pharaoh of the Exodus dies at during the spring of 1513 B.C.E.
    • - Possibly no mummy left. (Dr. Hawass' statement in 2007)
    • - Possibly named Thutmoses, based on Josephus' writings.

    Independent study of scripture and science would help to understand the difficulties time lines can be to a novice. However to be sure, in general, all historians do agree on the 18 Dynasty to be the most probable.

    Another problem with timeline is the legitimacy both Arabs and Jews fight over. Both sides obscure ancient history to show just cause to their claim of being the rightful owners of disputed lands. Such fallacies can be seen through archeological expertise driven by both sides. Hiding or destroying evidence that would be in support or against historical facts make it much more difficult to arrive to a definitive conclusion to those of us that truly seek only the facts thus making modern historians and archeologist more suspicious as to their intent of seeking fame verses facts. A handicap that past historians and archeologist didn’t endure.

  • Mephis
    Mephis

    I'll be blunt, the giant book of Jewish fairytales shouldn't be seen as a reliable historical guide so attempting to harmonise it with archaeology has consistently caused problems such as the ones you have. Whether that's because it's very likely a much later compilation of foundation myths which draws heavily on the mythology of the place where it was composed... well...

    Aten is the sun disk and appears on the coffin texts (c.2100) as that. It's first attested to as god c.1800 BC in a story which likely comes from c.2000 BC. Later, it becomes a god in its own right. It doesn't fit your attempt to force the chronology with Judaism. It certainly doesn't fit with the idea of a new god suddenly appearing - rather it's an evolution of an old idea. If anything, the monotheism seems to be about power and control rather than religion per se. Henry VIII formed a new religion just to get a divorce and made out well from the dissolution of the monasteries. It's not unknown for things to be a little more mundane in origin.

    The nation with no brick making slaves has just built a brand new capital city. There is no conflict for Egypt to fight (there's one Nubian expedition I believe early in his reign?) until after the death of Akhenaten. The Hittite sources (plague prayer of Mursilis II) give the cause of this conflict being the Egyptians murdering a Hittite prince sent to be the husband of the reigning queen. That shift alone indicates why the Mitanni may have been not flavour of the month as their power declines under Hittite and Assyrian attacks. Otherwise, what gold rationing? The Mitanni are begging for gold statues they aren't getting. There's the Assyrians resurgent again and saying precisely what they need to be on good terms. The Assyrians send a letter (EA16) bluntly saying "if you want to be friends with us, send us gold." And a decade or so later, there's sufficiently good relations between the existing royal family and the Hittites for a request to be made for a husband to be sent. Gold rationing or gold as a tool of diplomacy?

    There are no city walls at Amarna. The boundary of the city is marked by stelae. There are enclosure walls around the palace and some of the temples as would be expected. Perhaps those confused you?

    The problem really is that you have to demonstrate evidence for Exodus in the period of history you want to have it in. And there just isn't any in any period. It's bald men fighting over a comb territory to debate the dating without that external evidence to prop up the assumption that Exodus is true in the first place...

  • LorenzoSmithXVII
    LorenzoSmithXVII

    Simon. Thanks for your information. But from an academic point of view, before we go guessing, we have to deal with the actual historical references in existence for the Exodus. That focus is on Syncellus who was very specific about the year Joseph came into Egypt, which was the 4th year of Apophis. Jospeph was 17 years old and when he was 30 interpreted the dream that began the 7 years of plenty, followed by 7 years of famine. Jacob likely came into Egypt in the 1st or second year of that famine and became a resident in that land exactly 215 years until the Exodus.

    So, just to be thorough and because we love math so much, what happens when we check out 215 years from the 25th year of Apophis? What pharaoh is ruling? Let's see: I looked up Apophis and his rule was from 1590-1550. Year 25 would fall in 1565 BC. This is when Jacob came to Egypt to dwell. The Exodus was 215 years later so 1565-215 = 1350. Using this same timeline 1350 is the 1st of Akhenaten!

    Apophisc. 1590? BC-1550 BC
    Amenhoteop IV/Akhenatenc. 1351–1334 BC

    So a secular reference does exist that links Amenhotep III as the pharaoh of the Exodus. Other references also call the pharaoh of the Exodus "Amenophis" (Amenhotep). So all those other theories about the Exodus have to be considered only if there is no historical pharaoh of the Exodus to consider or if after considering Amenhotep III and Akhenaten, we conclusively dismiss that reference as spurious or false or whatever, and then we replace it with a more solid reference. But you can't replace a direct historical reference with conjecture and theory, as if it didn't exist.

    Thus when Kathleen Kenyon comes up with dating from Jericho also pointing to Amenhotep III, then it is very relevant. You have a historical reference matching archaeology. So the bible is being confirmed as long as the Bible's timeline also dates the Exodus at the time of Akhenaten, which it does.

    That's why I'm hot about these archaeologists who come up with a straw man's argument from the beginning, pretending they don't know who the pharaoh of the Exodus is. Or at least if there is more than one theory, ignoring the historical pharaoh of the Exodus as Amenhotep III. There's no excuse. But now more archaeology has blocked this in.

    You now have secular historical references (Syncellus, et al), archaeology including radiocarbon-14 dating, and astronomical text dating confirming the Exodus now to 1386 BCE at the beginning of the reign of Akhenaten. So why are we still pretending we don't know when the Exodus was supposed to happen? Maybe it didn't happen, but it was supposed to happen in 1386 BCE. Discussing whether or not it happened is one thing. Discussing when it happened is a closed issue at this point.

    That's all we're doing here. Establishing the archaeological, historical and biblical dating of the Exodus. Then we can go from there.

    Thanks!

  • SimonSays
    SimonSays

    While I understand your academic point of view, and you’re high regards to the now deceased Kathleen Kenyon. Her results on Jericho were published some 6-7 years after her death. Her Fable conclusion of the time frame given by her, reflected in one principle. Her findings were based on a false premise of not finding certain artifacts presented for that era. The archeological community praised her for debunking a biblical story. However that community was unaware that her conclusions came from not finding those certain artifacts verses establishing a true historical event with carbon dating as you suggest. It wasn’t until Bryant Wood analyzed her findings that it came to light. Her entire revelation was predicated on the lack of imported pottery for that time period that lead her to suggest Jericho must have been unoccupied. Dr Wood concluded that Kenyon had excavated on a poor side of town that people could not have afforded experience pottery.

    Furthermore Dr Wood also found evidence that Kathleen Kenyon actually had found indigenous pottery that dated precisely to the time of the biblical account but inexplicably ignored it. Confirmed by her predecessor John Garstang.

    Once again to extrapolate to hide evidence for fame. To become sure of oneself, it’s best not to rely on other peoples findings but your own. Therefore you cannot be dismissive of other theories just because you have your facts however disputable.

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Lars, you can't use the Bible to say you are "archaeologically dating" anything. The exodus did not happen, there was no mass number of Hebrew slaves in Egypt, so they didn't have to exodus. Any fall of Jericho did not happen as the Bible described it, and any building project of Solomon was insignificant in archaeology compared to what the Bible says.

    Saying differently does not change the evidence from archaeology.

    It is interesting that oldies are quickly identified on here. I still don't know what names AGuest or Rick Fearon or a few others are going by, as they seem to be quiet enough.

  • Viviane
    Viviane
    Right. That's what I said. I've already won this argument. The argument was won before I started.

    You've just agreed that all you've done is proved you're an impotent buffoon.

    Claiming you win over and over while never actually doing anything is the act of a child. It's mentally lazy, someone just seeking att....

    Wait. I get it. You're just seeking attention. You don't care what kind it is, good, bad or otherwise. You just want, need, in fact, attention of any kind. You are not whole, not self sufficient, you're incomplete as a human, so much so that you crave, to the point of need, other humans to fill the giant hole inside of you.

    I'm sorry. Previously I laughed at you. Now that I know what you are, broken and incomplete, having never fully graduated to a complete adult, I pity you.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit