[b-hebrew] Re: [-] Hyksos Manetho et al - was Ark of the covenant

MarianneLuban at aol.com MarianneLuban at aol.com
Thu Aug 19 20:07:09 EDT 2004


In a message dated 8/19/2004 1:17:00 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
Banyai at t-online.de writes:


> No Mraianne,
> 
> 
> you are wrong, I am not calling Hatschepsut a liar (at least not in this 
> inscription) but she talks according to my opinion about two facts having 
> happened at different times:
> 
> "For I have raised up what was dismembered beginning (37) from the time when 
> the Asiatics were in the midst of the Delta, (in) Avaris, with vagrants in 
> their midst, (38) toppling what had been made."
> 
> The asiatics have been in Awaris and have toppled the temples and paid no 
> respect to Re (last fact is arguable). Awaris has been conquered by Ahmose but 
> the destroyed temples were re-erected just later by Hatschepsut. This is the 
> point made in this sentence.
> 
> "They ruled without the Sun, and he did not act by god's decree down to my 
> (own) uraeus-incarnation. (Now) I am set (39) on the Sun's thrones, having 
> been foretold from ages of years as one born to take possession. I am come as 
> Horus, the sole (40) uraeus spitting fire at my enemies. I have banished the 
> gods' abomination, the earth removing their footprints."

Banyai--this is not right.  You must give the entire pertinent part--not just 
the part that suits your own arguments. It goes like this:

"..> Hear ye, all people and folk as many as they may be, I have done these 
> things through the counsel of my heart. I have not slept forgetfully, (but) I 
> have restored that which had been ruined. I have raised up that which had 
> gone to pieces formerly, since the Asiatics were in the midst of Avaris of the 
> Northland, and vagabonds were in the midst of them, overthrowing that which 
> had been made. They ruled with Re, and he acted not with divine command down to 
> the time of My Majesty.
> From the Speos Artemidos Inscription
> Pritchard, James B. ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts, Princeton, 1969, p. 231.
> 
    
> 
> Following this she expelled the remaining Hyksos population from Egypt. Do 
> you see here any mention of a conquest of Awaris by herself? You are 
> interpreting to much into the text. There is none. I would doubt, should she have 
> conquered Awaris, that she would have omitted to boast with this achievement. 
> Furthermore it is unclear were the link Thuthomsis III at the time of the Speos 
> Artemidos inscription still a child should be.

Banyai, Manetho did not say which "Tethmosis".  It could have been TI, a 
great warrior or even TII, with whom Hatshepsut had a co-regency because the man 
was considered a leper--even if he really wasn't one.  The body of his mummy is 
covered with scabrous patches and scars and if he looked like that when 
alive, as pathologists believe, you know quite well he would have been considered a 
leper because the ancient could not distinguish between true leprosy and the 
skin ailments which might resemble it.


> 
> Don´t forget the garbled story attributed by Josephus to Manetho too 
> concerning Amenophis father of Sethos (here is Amenophis a confusion with Menreptah 
> because Manetho garbles the story of Menreptah with that of 
> Ekhnaton=Amenophis IV). In the following he speaks about Amenophis son of Paapis (Amenophis 
> son of Hapu a contemporary of Amenophis IV) having given the suggestion to 
> expell the Hyksos. Chairemon calls this one Phritiphrantes. Of a religious war 
> implicating the destruction of the temples (the monotheist reform of Ekhnaton). 
> Of the revolt of Moses a priest of Heliopolis(Amenmesse=Messui a 
> contemporary this time of Menreptah). Of his retreat to Awaris and his alliance with the 
> Hyksos (now your favorite subject). Than of the return of the Egyptian king 
> in the company of the Ethiopian king (Piankhy). Continuing with Lisymachos 
> and Apion: Moses was a priest of Heliopolis Moses (once more Messui=Amenmesse 
> the contemporary of Menreptah) is a contemporary of Bokhoris and thus of 
> Piankhy or at least has lived at the time of the 7-th Olympiad (which means 
> roughly the same). 


You are wrong about everything you say above, and below but I see there is 
little point in further discussion because you view it all as "fantasy"--so have 
it your way.

> 
> We could continue but it is already clear: this is all pure fantasy putting 
> in the same baskett the whole Egyptian history.
> 
> Once we know the story we are able to disentagle it and it is usefull but it 
> is otherwise entirely misleading. I have studied Manetho too, to know there 
> is no Manetho remnant here but a mere Eratosthenes made fake with the purpose 
> to align his imaginary date of Troy with Manetho´s mention of Tewosre as 
> contemporary of the fall of Troy (after a first attempt doing so with Amenophis 
> III imagined to have been Memnon, who fell in front of Troy). Erathostenes 
> has doubled and trippled the kings in the original list of Manetho in his 
> library to reach his invented Troy date (1184). He even sistematically added 10, 
> 20, 30 years to the reigns of the Egyptian kings. Than came Ephoros with 50 
> years lower date for Troy, because he set a lower date for the beginnign of the 
> Olympiads 737 instead of 777. He lowered the dates of the Saite dynasty 
> therefore at random to reach a date of 1135 for Tewosre. Do you beleave there was 
> anything still at his place after this Greek forgery?
> 
> Since the only emerging result of accepting Thuthmosis as the destroyer of 
> Awaris is mere conflict with the primary historical sources, the best we could 
> do would be to drop this possibility.
> 
> 




More information about the b-hebrew mailing list