Biblical Hebrew Forum

[JimStinehart AT aol.com]

Stephen Shead:
 
You wrote:  “Are you suggesting both the articles George cited are 
inaccurate reporting?” 
 
Yes, in the sense that they are presenting only Scenario #1, whereas 
Scenario #2 is more likely.  I have not had time to look at this closely.  
But 
based on what I have seen so far, it seems to me that the DNA evidence would 
fit either of the following two scenarios.
 
Scenario #1.  Akhenaten married his own full-sister, for example Sitamen.  
They gave birth to Tut.  The KV55 mummy is Akhenaten.
 
Scenario #2.  From Amenhotep III’s known marriage to his daughter Sitamen 
came Tut.  The KV55 mummy is Smenkhkare, who is Akhenaten’s younger 
full-brother.
 
I do not think that paternal DNA can distinguish between Tut’s biological 
father being Akhenaten or Akhenaten’s father, Amenhotep III.  Nor can DNA 
distinguish between Akhenaten and Smenkhkare, if they were full-brothers.
 
Scenario #1 does not fit history.  There is not an inkling of an indication 
that Akhenaten married Sitamen or any other full-sister.  A full-sister 
would be an important princess, so such a marriage could not be kept in the 
closet.  Pharaohs rarely married full-sisters, and when they did, it was to 
keep all the property in the small royal family, keeping out all in-laws.  
Akhenaten is super-famous for his in-laws, especially Ay, who got more riches 
at 
Amarna than anyone else.
 
Scenario #2 fits everything we know.  Amenhotep III not only married his 
daughter (by Queen Tiye), Sitamen, but Sitamen and Queen Tiye simultaneously 
had the same grand title:  Queen of Egypt!  Tut often called Amenhotep III “
father”.  But although Tut liked Akhenaten, being buried wearing his Aten 
skullcap, Tut never once called Akhenaten “father”.  Tut is probably the 
half-brother, and also the nephew by blood, of Akhenaten.  The only “problem” 
with Scenario #2 is that then the long, 11-year co-regency theory would need 
to be adopted, which is controversial (but I think it’s right).
 
I myself do not see the new evidence as undercutting Scenario #2 in any way.
 
The  b-i-g  news is that now we know that Kiya was not Tut’s mother.  (We 
also know that Nefertiti was not Tut’s mother, but that was very unlikely 
anyway.)
 
If Tut’s mother was a daughter of Amenhotep III and Queen Tiye, being a 
full-sister of Akhenaten, which is what the new maternal DNA evidence 
suggests, 
then the only two possibilities are now Scenarios #1 and #2, I believe.  As 
I said, Scenario #1 simply does not fit history.  Scenario #2 fits history 
perfectly.  I think that both Scenarios fit the biological evidence.
 
That’s the way I see it at this point.  If more evidence comes out, and I 
am wrong about what the DNA testing showed, then I will retract the above 
views.
 
For purposes of the b-hebrew list, Scenario #1 would put a big dent in my 
theory of the Patriarchal narratives.  By contrast, Scenario #2 fits my 
theory of the Patriarchal narratives perfectly.  So although I have not had 
time 
to follow up on this yet, this is a big deal for me.
 
Jim Stinehart
Evanston, Illinois