Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

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

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Peter Kirk <peterkirk AT qaya.org>
  • To: MarianneLuban AT aol.com
  • Cc: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?
  • Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 22:52:31 +0100

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

http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/setnakht.html


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)
http://www.qaya.org/






Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page