[b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?

Peter Kirk peterkirk at qaya.org
Sun Aug 29 17:52:31 EDT 2004

On 29/08/2004 22:17, MarianneLuban at aol.com wrote:

>In a message dated 8/29/2004 1:58:01 PM Pacific Daylight Time, 
>peterkirk at qaya.org writes:
>>Rameses II 943-877
>>Merenptah 888(co-regent)-877 (forced to flee to Kush soon after his 
>>father's death)
>>Amenmesse 877-873 (= Osarsiph, usurper backed by Asiatics)
>>Seti II ??-873 (co-regent with or rival of Amenmesse, died about the 
>>same time as Amenmesse)
>>Siptah 873-868
>>Tausert 868-865 (regent from 873)
>>Setnakht 865-859
>>Rameses II 863-832 (initially as co-regent)
>>In this version, Setnakht (son of Merenptah) does not die before the 
>>reign of Tausert. In fact he returns from exile in Kush and overthrows 
>>Tausert and her Asiatic backers.
>The problem with that is that Setnakht was the beginner of the 20th 
>Dynasty--while Merneptah belonged to the 19th.  There is no evidence anywhere that 
>Setnakht was the son of Merneptah.  In fact there is evidence to the contrary--and 
>that Setnakht was a commoner.  I have in front of me the Elephantine Stela of 
>Setnakht, on which it says "He was chosen, His Majesty as "the One in a 
>Million", regardless of countless others being more significant than he".  One 
>would scarcely think that Setnakht would have written this about himself had he 
>been a son of the former pharaoh, Merneptah and been in the direct line of 
>succession. ...

I must say I had already wondered about that. Rohl's scenario would make 
more sense if Setnakht were a commoner who had gone into exile with 
Merenptah and took over as leader of the group of exiles. I think Rohl 
gets the idea of him being a son from Manetho's "Sethos son of 
Amenophis", but I guess Manetho could well have confused Seti II son of 
Merenptah with the similarly named but unrelated Setnakht, or could 
simply have meant "son" as "successor".

>... For further remarks on Setnakht in the Classic memory, see

Interesting. In the same chapter Rohl dates the Trojan War 872-863 (so 
agreeing with Diodorus Siculus that this was in the time of Setnakht), 
and Menelaus visiting Setnakht (= Thouris = Polybus) soon afterwards. I 
am sure Rohl's chronology could be adjusted sufficiently to have 
Menelaus visiting Tausert instead with your identification, but wouldn't 
the Greeks have realised that it was a woman he visited? But your visit 
to Egypt by Helen would have to be earlier. Indeed, your synchronisms of 
Helen visiting Setnakht before the Trojan War and Menelaus visiting 
Tausert after the Trojan war both work only if Setnakht precedes 
Tausert, and that is what Joe said is impossible. I wonder if Rohl tried 
to bring both of these synchronisms into an earlier version of his 
chronology but was forced to make adjustments by the evidence from 
Tausert's tomb.

Peter Kirk
peter at qaya.org (personal)
peterkirk at qaya.org (work)

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list