b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum
List archive
Fwd: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?
- From: MarianneLuban AT aol.com
- To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Fwd: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2004 19:39:43 EDT
In a message dated 8/29/2004 4:38:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time, MarianneLuban
writes:
> In a message dated 8/29/2004 2:52:39 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".>>
>
> See this, then. I just put it up now, although it is part of my next book.
>
> http://www.geocities.com/scribelist/Lepers.html
>
>
> >... 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?>>
>
> They did--and called her Polydamna. She was the one who introduced the
> Greeks to a drug--nepenthe--which made people forget their woes. What the
> Greeks
> didn't realize that this Polydamna was the same as Thouris.
>
> >>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.>>
>
> But I didn't say anything about "before" or "after" the Trojan War. It is
> only said that Proteios, which I equate with Setnakt, ruled around the time
> of
> the Trojan War.
>
> >>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.>>
>
> I wouldn't know anything about that. But I do know this: Tawosret was a
> female regent for a young king named Siptah, a puppet of Bey, the
> "kingmaker".
> Bey was obviously allied with Tawosret. My conclusion is that, at some
> point, this Siptah became troublesome and Tawosret usurped his
> prerogative--in a
> Hatshepsut-like maneuver. But it also looks like Siptah killed Bey.
> Siptah
> was the son of an unknown pharaoh but his mother had a foreign name,
> shortened to Tiaa. Sorry, but the tomb of Tawosret, where she is at first
> shown with
> Siptah, was usurped by Setnakht. The tomb of Tawosret appears to depict
> some stages. As I said, at first she is shown with Siptah--as his regent.
> Then
> she is shown with her husband, Seti II, his names being written over those
> of Siptah. Then Setnakht takes over the tomb--his images replacing the
> earlier ones of Tawosret. It is the sarcophagus of Setnakht that was found
> in the
> tomb--not that of Tawosret. Hers was taken out in ancient times and later
> reused to hold the body of a Ramesside prince. So Tawosret was never
> buried in
> that tomb.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?
, (continued)
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?,
RGmyrken, 08/29/2004
-
[b-hebrew] Re: The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?,
Joe Baker, 08/30/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] Re: The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, Peter Kirk, 08/30/2004
-
[b-hebrew] Re: The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?,
Joe Baker, 08/30/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?,
MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, Peter Kirk, 08/29/2004
-
Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?,
MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, Peter Kirk, 08/30/2004
- Fwd: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, MarianneLuban, 08/29/2004
- Re: [b-hebrew] The Exodus' mention in Egyptian Annals ?, MarianneLuban, 08/30/2004
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.