Discussion:
Coordinating Manetho-Joseph-Apophis-Exodus
(too old to reply)
Lars Wilson
2006-06-08 14:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Okay, just for some technical comparison on the corrected timing and timline
for events in Egypt connected with Jewish historical reference that actually
seems coordinated. This would be the reference by Manetho that the pharoah
ruling Egypt at the time of Joseph when the Jews came to be residents in
Egypt was APOPHIS. The Jews were supposed to be in Egypt for exactly 215
years before the Exodus. Of course, the dating of Egyptian kingships vary
so the following simply compares that general interval of 215 years between
the reign of Apophis and the Exodus.

There are now three dating references for this timeline connected with
Amenophis III and Akhenaton. One timeline begins the rule of Akhenaton in
1351 BCE, another about 27 years earlier in 1378BCE. A third reference,
considered by me more specific because it is connected with an astronomical
text, the KTU 1.78 would date the beginning of Akhenaton's rule to 1386BCE
since that eclipse can only be dated to 1375BCE. This, of course, is not
far off from the general dating for Akhenaton since it only moves his rule
back from the earlier dating a mere 8 years. But since we are comparing
Jewish reference in connection with Egyptian, the Exodus is dated
specifically in 1386BCE based upon two critical references and thus the
eclipse dating for Akehnaton is compared here for the year of the Exodus.
The mummy of Amenophis III is said to be the most damaged of all mummies
including several broken bones, a crushed in chest cavity, decapitation, and
a new process employed for flesh restoration suggesting at the time of his
mummification his body was already quite damaged with injuries consistent
with crush and avulsion injuries that would be expected by a sudden flood,
in this case, a violent death in the Red Sea where large elements of debris
such as chariot wheels and chariots being violently tossed about in the
water would have resulted in a decapitated and manangled corpse with several
broken bones, etc. In addition the decline in miliary support throughout
Caanan during the time of Akhenaton and Akhenaton's conversion to an
invisible monotheistic religion are likewise consistent with the Exodus
immediately followed by the ten plagues. The reign of Akhenaton is arguably
the most drastic change in Egyptian policy and religious focus in Egyptian
history and has long been linked because of the monotheism to the Jews who
are otherwise basically the only other known motheists. Additionally, the
timing of the fall of Jericho after excavations by two archaeologists
(including Kathleen Kenyon) which confirm occupation of Jericho during or
shortly after the reign of Amenophis III based upon cartouches found in some
of the last graves there is consistently archaeologically with the Exodus
occurring at the beginning of the reign of Akhenaton.

Having noted the above, the reference by Manetho that Joseph and the Jews
advented specifically during the reign of Apophis is another coordinated
reference as far as Judeo-Egyptian history, generally speaking as well as
specifically.

That is, for those using the timeline that dates the beginning of the reign
of Akhenaton in 1351, the "relative" year of the Exodus, would date the
advent of the Jews into Egypt 215 years earlier to precisely 1556 BCE.
That same timeline dates the rule of the Hyksos king Apophis from
1590-1549BCE, which falls into that 215-year range. Thus the
Manetho-Joseph-Akhenaton-Exodus-Jericho history line is very good when the
Exodus is dated to the 1st of Akhenaton.

This contrasts to the most popular dating for the Exodus in 1446 BCE (based
upon the now challenged Assyrian eponym eclipse dated in 763BCE, which most
likely is better dated to 709BCE, 54 years later) which would date Joseph
and the arrival of the Jews in Egypt clear back to 1661 BCE, which falls
into the nonspecific and vague period of the "Thirteenth Dynasty (about 50
kings)" from 1794-1648BCE. Of course, this misses the specific Manetho
reference to this occurring during the reign of Apophis.

ADJUSTING THE EXODUS VIA THE ASSYRIAN EPONYM ECLIPSE REDATING: Now this is
just a provision for technical reference of how to redate the 1446 BCE date
of the Exodus when the Assyrian Eponym Eclipse popularly dated to 763BCE is
moved to 709BCE. Not that involved. Both the 763BCE eclipse and the
709BCE fall in a rare series of eclipses that occurred in a geosynchronistic
pattern 54 years and 1 month apart, 15 degrees apart farther north. The
763BCE eclipse does not follow the normal dating pattern which begins the
year with the first month after the spring equinox, but it was known to
begin the year a bit early if the spring equinox occurred during the first
two weeks of 13th month of the year, that is, before the Full Moon of the
13th month. That is the circumstance with dating the Assyrian eponym
eclipse to 763BCE. To match the eclipse event to the third month, "Simanu"
the year must begin early. But since the series of eclipses occurs every 54
years and 1 month later, the 709BCE event also becomes optional since it is
the naturally occurring third-month eclipse dating and would have
customarily been dating in the Assyrian calendar to month three. For that
reason, the eponym eclipse reference is still considered a good reference
for dating the Assyrian Period, only 54 years later. This reference thus
dates key events 54 years later, including the battle of Karkar from 853BCE
to 799BCE and the invasion of Shishak from 925BCE down to 871BCE.

The Exodus is dated 480 years from the 4th year of Solomon based upon the
763BCE dating of this Eclipse. That is, Shishak's invasion in 925BCE dated
to year 5 of Rehoboam dates the end of Solomon's reign to 930BCE and his 4th
year 36 years earlier to 966BCE. To that date is added 480 years to arrive
at 1446BCE. That's where the popular Exodus date comes from that neither
mathes Manetho's Apophis reference nor the archaeology for the dating for
the fall of Jericho. But there is an error in this timing because both
Rehoboam and Jeroboam who begin their reigns at the same time begin counting
their rulership from the time of their divine appointments which occurred
before the end of Solomon's reign. This created a 6-year co-rulership
between Rehoboam and Solomon. Thus when Shishak invades Israel it is during
the 39th year of Solomon when Rehoboam was still in control over the entire
nation under the united kingdom. Rehoboam's continued interaction with the
"princes of Israel" at the time of the invasion confirms this (2 Chron.
12:1, 6). Noting that, therefore, it is not just a simple matter of
downdating the Exodus of 1446BCE 84 years down to 1392BCE, which is 6 years
too early by this dating method. The corrected date is 1386BCE, which as
noted, is the astronomical text date for the 1st of Akhenaton. Another
way to calculate this is simply to make the adjustment for Shishak first and
then calculate the Exodus. That is, downdate Shishak's invasion in 925BCE
to 871BCE, year 39 of Solomon, ending Solomon's rule in 870BCE. This dates
his 4th year 36 years earlier to 906BCE and the Exodus to 1386BCE, which
should match the beginning of the reign of Akhenaton and the year of the
death of Amenophis III.

Of course, since the 215-year interval between the reign of Apophis and
Akhenaton already overlapped based upon the already established "relative"
timeline, it still works for whatever dating is used for the first of
Akhenaton, either 1386BCE, 1378BCE or 1351BCE. Since two astronomical
texts coordinate to date the 1st of Akhenaton to 1386BCE, however, 1386BCE
is considered the more reliable dating since the only way we have to
establish any kind of "absolute" dating is via astronomical text reference,
all other dating is quite generalized.

PRECAUTIONARY DISCLAIMER: Now I know by experience that the news groups are
focussed and Egyptian history doesn't like talking about Babylon or Persia
unless they are connected. But the timeline affects all dating and Egyptian
history does follow the timeline all the way down to the Persian Period.
Therefore, without further detail, I simply note that the adjusted eclipse
timelines correct dating for all periods into the Persian Period but which
by 358BCE and the reign of Artaxerxes III, near the time of Plato and
Aristotle and Alexander the Great, the timeline is in sync again. That is,
all adjustments in the timeline from Apophis back are made by 358BCE as far
as Egyptian history. If I don't mention this, for some reason the
presumption is that this downdating carries over to Roman times, etc. which
completely confuses them. So the astro-corrected timeline has been
completely worked out for anyone interested but it does not affect dates
after 358BCE.

Thanks, have a nice day everybody!

SUMMARY: Based upon all the recent research now available, it would appear
that Manetho's reference to the advent of Joseph and the Jews during the
reign of Apophis, which must occur 215 years prior to the Exodus is a
reliable general interval reference, Biblically, archaeologically and
astrochronologically!

L.W.
j***@gmail.com
2006-06-09 03:09:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
There are now three dating references for this timeline
connected with Amenophis III and Akhenaton.
This is just a guess, but I think you'd have slightly more
credibility if you weren't a lying sack of shit who exposes
his rank dishonesty at every conceivable opportunity.

No, wait. I'm serious.
Lars Wilson
2006-06-10 15:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Post by Lars Wilson
There are now three dating references for this timeline
connected with Amenophis III and Akhenaton.
This is just a guess, but I think you'd have slightly more
credibility if you weren't a lying sack of shit who exposes
his rank dishonesty at every conceivable opportunity.
No, wait. I'm serious.
Hello JTEM!

ROFL! I'm glad somebody is keeping me at bay! I enjoy your posts.
They are funny and make me laugh. And that's not because I consider
you an Egyptian "joke"! I do, but.... You're posts aside from that are
entertaining.

On this one, since I see no counter references, I'm afraid there is nothing
to be said. This is just INFORMATIONAL. A point that had been discussed
here before and noted. Manetho dates Joseph and the advent of Jacob during
the reign of Apophis which fits into the 215-year range of dates that would
include
Akhenaton. I was just making a note of that since I do associate the Exodus
with
the end of the rule of Amenophis III and the first of Akhenaton. So this is
a credible
Egyptian (Manetho was Egyptian, right?) extra-Biblical/non-Biblical, Jewish
reference.

That is, Manetho agrees/confirms that the advent of Jacob 215 years before
the
Exodus, if that occurred during the reign of Amenophis III, would place that
event
during the reign of Apophis. Some contradict and challenge Manetho on this
point,
though, I'll note.

I was just noting for discussion that those dating Moses and Akhenaton and
the Exodus
together (like Freud) that Manetho jumps right into the back seat of the RV
trying to
outrun those Egyptian chariots across the Red Sea!

L.W.
j***@gmail.com
2006-06-11 06:15:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
ROFL! I'm glad somebody is keeping me at bay!
You miss that straight jacket. Don't you? I can tell.
Post by Lars Wilson
I enjoy your posts. They are funny and make me
laugh.
the stereotypical lunatic is associated with laughter,
yes.
Post by Lars Wilson
And that's not because I consider you an Egyptian
"joke"!
Great. I'm not Egyptian.
Post by Lars Wilson
I do, but....
And not just with farm animals...
Post by Lars Wilson
You're posts aside from that are entertaining.
I wish I could return the favor, but your posts lack
any redeeming qualities.
Post by Lars Wilson
On this one, since I see no counter references,
Counter references?

you haven't even had the balls to say that you're
spewing David Rohl's bullshit (though if anyone
else is giving you the time of day they certainly
recognize the origins of your religious-based
crap).

Saying I haven't effectively countered David Rohl
is like claiming I haven't effectively countered
the notion that Hitler was a nice guy.

That's been done. Period. It's been done, done
again & then done some more.

It's been done ad nauseum.
Lars Wilson
2006-06-13 23:56:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by j***@gmail.com
Saying I haven't effectively countered David Rohl
is like claiming I haven't effectively countered
the notion that Hitler was a nice guy.
That's been done. Period. It's been done, done
again & then done some more.
It's been done ad nauseum.
I'm starting to get a complex for being a poor communicator
or you need a speedreading refresher course. The significance
of David Rohl is "incidental" but he put the connection with this
text together with the 12th year of Akhenaton and then proceeded
to use it to date the Amarna Period all the way down to the time of
David to 1012 BCE. But he discusses the interpretation of the eclipse
references, the options, etc. and then presents his position.

MY position was only that based upon my research in ancient
astronomy that Reshep would have been a first choice for a zodiac house
not Mars. Since Reshep is associated with the "Lord of Heaven" in
Egyptian pantheon and is graphically depicted as a bull, since the dating
for the 1375 BCE eclipse occurs in Taurus, naturally we look at the
practical and possible connections/associations of Reshep as a reference
to Taurus.

Otherwise the translation has problems with btt is not "sixth" and tgrh "her
gate"
suddenly become "gatekeeper."

That's because the reference to translating btt as "put to shame" in
relation to
an ecilpse is understood when its specific, but it is indirect here. That
is, it is
not the SUN being put to shame but the entire "day of the new moon" being
put to shame. If the concept of an eclipse would be associated with shame
then
it would have been specific to reference the sun here was being put to shame
and
not the entire day/date of the new moon. So the connection is weak at best
and
doesn't work at all.

Secondly, there are problems with HER gate. This is a fem. possessive form
for
gate. Is Mars feminine or the sun? Mars is a moving body, gates are
stationary
concepts. The sun is moving through "her" stationary gate.

Now this might seem confusing and complex perhaps until you consider Ugarit
at
this time was under Egyptian influence and likely had Egyptian magistrates
present who
would have expressed this text in Egyptian terms and would have had the
advanced
concept of the hour. They had water clocks back then. Further, the
Egyptians already
had the concept of the sun associated with a female gate when the sun rises
through the
gate of Hathor every morning. So there is no need to make "her gate" a
"gatekeeper" nor
make the sun a feminine god. It's simple and direct. The sun enters her
gate in Reshep.
The sun rises in Taurus.

The zodiac house the sun rises in was always significant but quite common.
It was just
part of the reference to the sun and the year. Every morning the sun rose
in a certain zodiac
house and that was part of that day's uniqueness. Since there is a LIVER
READING associated
with this text, there is no reason to think the eclipse reference was
anything but technically
indicental to this event beyond its astrological meaning. Therefore only
the very basic reference
to the eclipse need be noted, which are the TIME, DAY AND MONTH and what
zodiac house
the sun rose in.

But then you have the DATING circumstance as well. It had already been
dated to 1375BCE
associated with the Amarna period becuase of a fire reported in the 12th of
Akhenaton at the palace
at Ugarit. We can see the context of this text could clearly be of Egyptian
influence, also pointing to
the Amarna Period. But there is a very critical test here. For btt to
mean "sixth hour" the 1375BCE
has one chance in 24 hours to be astronomically correct. In other words,
just a general reference in
vague terms of the sun being "put to shame" during the month of Hiyarru
works for those other three
days *including* 1375BCE because it is general. But once you specific the
HOUR of the eclipse then
it becomes extremely technical to match. So the question is, did the
1375BCE eclipse occur between
5am and 6 am in the morning? Otherwise, it would be disqualified along with
the other eclipses. Of course,
the answer is YES and it is the only eclipse out of four possibles that
occur at this time.

Okay, so what does this reference do for the reign of Akhenaton? Nothing
other than suggest that his rule
began in 1386BCE rather than 1378BCE, 8 years earlier. That's all!

Since there are no other eclipse records in Ugarit and this text was in a
fire, you have the realistic
circumstance of thinking that perhaps these liver readings were not kept but
discarded after a while.
Since there are no other eclipse records found with this one, we can't
assume it had been filed away
at the time, and if it had, we would reasonably expect to see lots of other
similar texts. But we don't.
But if the eclipse had just happened and ws being considered at the time and
then a fire broke out, it
would explain why this is the only astronomical text found at Ugarit, but it
would also mean it was
_current_, allowing us to date the fire, ANY FIRE, close to the timing of
this eclipse. Now there
might have been many fires at Ugarit but we know a major one was reported in
the 12th of
Akhenaton for sure. We can't say this was not the same fire that charred
this eclipse record.

But, if we actually get to that point of reasonably accepting that likely
this text was preserved because
the eclipse had recently occurred and it got preserved because of the fire,
then we have a rare
chance to date the 12th of Akhenaton to 1375BCE and _only_ 1375BCE since it
is the only eclipse
which occurs during the "sixth hour" of the day. This is as close as we
can get so far to any absolute
dating for the entire Egyptian Period, though it is ironic it doesn't really
change it that much from
conventional dating. Rohl, of course, wants to use it as an excuse to move
the Amarna Period over
300 years later. But in that case I totally agree with _you_ and many
others that his chronology is
quite dismissible. Only it is all the less credible now that he can't
really compete with the translation
of this text in an Egyptian context, something no one can do since Ugarit
was under Egyptian influence
at the time of Akhenaton.

But, since per the Bible's chronology we would have been forced to date the
death of Amenhotep III
to 1386BCE, the absolute date for the Exodus, I think it is beyond
coincidental that this eclipse event
dated as current to year 12 of Akhenaton gives us the identical same year to
begin his reign in 1386BCE.
So it basically confirms that, indeed, the eclipse was under consideration
at the time of this fire that got
reported to Akhenaton in his 12th year and because it got caught in a fire,
it's the only surviving
astronomical text we have from Ugarit.

Yes, it is CIRCUMSTANTIAL, for sure, but based upon everything, you cannot
_exclude_ Akhenaton's
rule beginning in 1386BCE. That has to begin the range of the variuous
dates used for him which now join
1378BCE and 1351BCE. Not a big change in Egyptian chronology or timeline
but certainly interesting,
astronomically speaking.

Of course, one more factor that involves specific years is the coordination
with the Assyrian eponym eclipse.
That eclipse occurs in 709BCE and is used to redate SHISHAK (yes! and
Egyptian pharoah!). Shishak's
invasion of northern Palestine in 925BCE is directly connected to the
eclipse from the eponym list. The
eclipse is currently misdated to 763BCE but corrected to 709BCE. That moves
the invasion by Shishak
down to 871BCE, a much more consistent match to what was going on in
Palestine at the time. But
871BCE has to be during the reign of Solomon and during the 6-year
co-rulership between Rehoboam
and Solomon! So you don't have much leeway. When the Exodus occurs
precisely in 1378BCE,
the 4th of Solomon falls in 906BCE, 480 years later and thus 371BCE is his
39th year!

So working forward from 1386BCE eclipse and backwards from the 709BCE
eclipse, the reigns of
Rehoboam and Solomon are forced to overlap by 6 years, but even so,
Shishak's invasion occurs
during the very end of the reign of Solomon. That little detail makes a big
difference in interpreting
the focus of that invasion since he has been criticized for focussing his
attack in the north against
his own friend, Jeroboam. That would not be the case if the northern cities
were still under
Judean rule. It would mean just the opposite! That Shishak was
dispossessing Rehoboam in
the north to make it easier for Jeroboam to take over. The reigns of
Jeroboam and Rehoboam
are parallel and it is not uncommon that they would have begun to count
their rulerships from
the time of their divine appointment, which did occur near the end of
Solomon's reign, forcing
Jeroboam to flee to Egypt.

So as a result, you've got great coordination astronomically bewteen the
Assyrian eponym and
the KTU 1.78, great archaeological dating for the fall of Jericho 50 years
after the reign of
Amenhotep III, and great archaeology when we downdate Shishak to 871BCE
rather than
925BCE to a time when Palestine was more developed, perfectly consistent
with the background
history of the state of Palestine found in the Bible.

So CHRONOLOGY changes a lot of things and if you can apply absolute
chronology via
astronomical references, then as you can see, everything else falls into
place quite nicely.

L.W.

j***@gmail.com
2006-06-11 07:04:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lars Wilson
Okay, just for some technical comparison on the
corrected timing and timline for events in Egypt
connected with Jewish historical reference that
actually seems [---bullshit snipped---]
If anyone doubts for a moment that this psycho isn't
posting snot, or that they're the least bit honest
when they pretend they don't have a fundy religious
agenda, just check out the origins of this crap:

| One of Rohl's methods includes the use of
| archaeo-astronomy, which he uses to fix the date of
| a solar eclipse which happened during the reign of
| Amenhotep IV and was observed in the town of Ugarit.
| He used computer to calculate the exact time; the
| only possible time where such eclipse could be
| visible in Ugarit during the whole second millennium
| BC was 9th May 1012 BCE. According to
| conventional chronology, Ugarit was already destroyed
| in the 12th century BC and Amenothep IV (Akhenaton)
| 1353-1334 BC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl

Here on our planet -- the Earth (you may have heard of
it) -- I easily found reference to no less than FOUR
different potential dates for this eclipse, which I posted
here.

NOTE: It is by no means undisputed that the Ugarit
text in question records an eclipse, and it certainly is
not established as fact.

ALSO NOTE: In the above David Rolm is claiming
to be an authority in Egyptology, proto-Semitic
languages, computer programing/modeling & astronomy.
Clearly, if he lacks authority within ANY of these
fields he has no basis for his claims.

"As someone who doesn't know jack about computers,
I insist that my computer model demostrates that my
agenda....errr.... preconceived notions are all 100%
factually true & stuff."

It doesn't work.

Anyhow, Rolm's redating of *Everything* was about as
well received as his nurse at pill-time, but that never
stopped him. What the hell does a date mean to him?
It was never about specific dates, it was always about
a childish fundy need for a literally true bible.

Not a "Christian" need, not a "Protestant" need --
no Catholic or non-fundamentalist Protestant church
requires a literally true bible -- but his personal
fundamentalist need.
Loading...