COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

---

CHAPTER ELEVEN

Berossus and Babylonian History

The writings of Berossus, the contemporary of Manetho, are altogether lost. No valid dates of individual kings have been preserved by classic writers from Berossus.

Berossus' first post-flood dynasty is completely distorted. It is said to be composed of 86 Chaldean kings who supposedly reigned about 34,000 years! This dynasty includes Evechous and Kosmabelos -- Cush and Nimrod. The kings who composed the first dynasty were not successive but contemporary leaders who formed the first Democratic Council in history this side of the flood. Samuel Kramer, in his book 'History Begins at Sumer', draws attention to the fact that the earliest records of democratic government are found in references to Shinar and the city of Kish.

The other dynasties of Berossus strikingly confirm the Sumerian King List and Biblical history. The following chart is from Berossus' transcribers.

Dynasty II	8 Medes	224 years (the Armenian copy reads 234)
Dynasty III	11 Chaldeans	NO YEARS ASSIGNED, AS DYNASTY WAS CONTEMPORARY. (In margin of Armenian version 48 years is noted.)
Dynasty IV	49 Chaldeans	458 years
Dynasty V	9 Arabians	245 years (Semiramis II reigned during this period.)
Dynasty VI	45 Chaldeans	526 years to seizure of Babylonia by Pul.

The dates for these dynasties may easily be restored. Pul, in Babylonian history, is Tiglathpileser III. He seized the city of Babylon in 729, during the third year of the reign of Ukinzer. See the 'Babylonian Chronicle', Col I. Tiglathpileser considered this his first year; the Babylonians considered it his accession year assigning it to Ukinzer. Ptolemy coupled them together and designated the period as that of Chinziros and Poros.

Dynasty VI	continued 526 years	--	1255 to 729
Dynasty V	for 245 years	--	1500 to 1255
Dynasty IV	for 458 years	--	1958 to 1500
(Dynasty III	for 48 years	--	2006-1958)
Dynasty II	for 234 years	--	2192-1958
	or
	224 years	--	2192-1968

The year 2192 marks not only the beginning of Nimrod's rule in Egypt, but also the Median seizure of Babylonia at the time Nimrod usurped Supreme authority at the dethroning of his father cush. This confirms Greek traditions that even Japetus (Japheth) opposed the Titans -- the followers of Nimrod. The Medes, descendents of Japheth kept their power over Babylon for 224 years to 1968 -- the year of the death of Gilgamesh. In another ten years (1968-1958) the Chaldeans regained full power.

Those ten years and the previous 38 were times of great stress during which 11 Chaldean kings, including Gilgamesh, ruled contemporaneously as Berossus' Dynasty III -- 2006-1958. The date 2006 is confirmed by the Persian account of Gilgamesh. Persian historians assign him only 38 years -- 2006-1968 -- the exact duration of his rule as part of Dynasty III of Berossus. (See Al Biruni's 'Ancient Nations', page 99.) The remarkable agreement of all these figures, found among different nations, is proof that the historical data have never been totally lost.

Another Account of Earliest Dynasties

As generally recorded, Berossus' First Dynasty begins with Cush and Nimrod; the Second Dynasty was Median. But Alexander Polyhistor and Abydenus preserve, from the most ancient records of the Temple of Belus at Babylon, an account of parallel rulers -- five Chaldean kings who were in turn succeeded by no less than six Arabians (pre-Ishmaelites). The information may be obtained from Jackson's 'Chronological Antiquities', Pages 233-235. These much-misunderstood dynasties -- even Jackson did not understand their import -- perfectly correspond with the restoration of the Dynasty of Erech already presented.

First Kings of the Chaldeans after the Tower of Babel	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Porus	35	2254-2219
Nechubes	43	2219-2176
Abtus	48	2176-2128
Oniballus	40	2128-2088
Zinzirus	45 (or 46)	2088-2043 (2088-2042)

(Note that the 35 years -- 2254-2219 -- of Porus are also the same for Mizraim.)

Dynasty of Six Kings of the Arabians	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Mardocentes	45 (or 44)	(2042-1998)
Mardakos	40	1998-1958

(the year 1958 marks the final expulsion of the Medes from Babylonia.)

Sisimardacus	28	1958-1930
Nabius	37	1930-1893
Parannus	40	1893-1853
Nabonnabus	25	1853-1828

In 1828, 'the Assyrian kings succeeded in the Babylonian Empire, and thenceforth Babylonia and Chaldea became a part of the Assyrian Empire' -- Page 237, Jackson's 'Chronological Antiquities'. This is also the year of the defeat of Erech by Ur. Syncellus preserved a total of 190 years for the Chaldean kings, and not the above total of 211 -- though his separate figures add up to 211! It is exactly 190 years from 2233 to 2043. The year 2233 was famous in Babylonian history as the beginning of astronomical observation. The Babylonians began their observations 1903 years before Alexander came to Babylon in 330.

First Dynasty of Ur and Successors

The city of Ur in Babylonian history is not the Ur from which Abram came. Abram's Ur was Urfa in northern Mesopotamia, not on the fringes of Shinar.

According to the Sumerian King List, the First Dynasty of Ur came to power at the close of the First Dynasty of Erech.

Names of Kings of First Dynasty of Ur	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Mes-Anne-padda	80 (includes reign of son A-Anne-padda)	1828-1748
Mes-kiag-Nunna	30	1748-1718
	(or 36)	1748-1712
Elulu	25	1718-1693
Balulu	36	1693-1657

The significance of the 36 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna will be explained when the Dynasty of Akshak is restored. The proper dates of Dynasty I of Ur are those of the Nippur list, which gives the total as 171 -- 1828-1657. (The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 adds the parallel reign of six years of Mes-kiag-Nunna to the total.)

At the close of the First Dynasty of Ur the Sumerian King List carries the government to the city of Awan in Elam (see page 224 of Pallis' 'Chronology of the Shub-Ad Culture'). Reference to three kings is made, but only a cuneiform remnant of the last king's name is preserved: Kul ... 36 years. The total length of the Dynasty is 356 years -- 1657-1301. The date of the last king is therefore 1337-1301. A confirmation of these dates will be found in the succeeding history of the city of Isin and Dynasty III of Ur.

Historically the date 1657 marks Elamite prominence in Southern Mesopotamia and throws important light on the early history of India.

After Awan the Sumerian King List returns to Dynasty II of Kish. Though the names of the rulers of Kish during this period are preserved, the dates assigned to its rulers are extravagant -- over 3000 years being designated to 8 kings. Kish II begins about the time of the reigns of Gilgamesh and Mes-anne-padda, whose lives overlapped; for the last king of Kish I submitted to both (see the Sumerian poem 'Gilgamesh and Aqqa' in Pritchard's Texts). The true length of Dynasty II is confirmed by Kish III and IV which we will now establish.

Listed after Kish II, though in part contemporary with it, is the Dynasty of Hamazi. Only one name of this dynasty is preserved: Hadanish. The total length of the dynasty is sometimes given as 360 years, sometimes as 420. It cannot be dated until Dynasty II and Dynasty III of Uruk are determined.

The shattered list of Dynasty II of Uruk is in the prism given 60 years and 120 years. In other documents it ends a period of 480 years. There is a definite relationship between these figures and those of Hamazi. But Uruk II and Hamazi cannot be dated until Uruk III is established.

From archaeology it is known that Uruk II was followed immediately by Uruk III -- though the King List branches off into parallel dynasties. Uruk III is composed of one King Lugal-zaggisi, who reigned 25 years. Comparative archaeology establishes that he succeeded Ur I, 1828-1657. The date of king Lugal-zaggisi is therefore 1657-1632.

As Uruk II preceded Uruk III, the 480 years extend back from 1657 to 2137. That is, the year 1657 ended an era of 480 years which began in 2137. As Uruk I ended in 1828, Uruk II lasted only 171 years 1828-1657. The figure 480 is not the length of the dynasty but the dating of an era. What happened in the year 2137? Isis (Ishtar or Semiramis) came to power after the 57-year era (2194-2137) of Nimrod. It was commonplace to date reigns in the 'Era of Ishtar' (see Pritchard's 'Texts', page 266, in Sargon's 'Chronicle', and footnote 2). In chart form the figures for Uruk II are as follows.

480 years	--	2137-1657
120 years	--	1777-1657
60 years	--	1717-1657

Now the Dynasty of Hamazi may be dated:

360 years	--	2137-1777
420 years	--	2137-1717

Both these dynasties commenced with the Era of Ishtar. In another chart these two would appear as follows:

Hamazi	360 years	2137-1777
Uruk II	120 years	1777-1657

or

Hamazi	420 years	2137-1717
Uruk II	60 years	1717-1657

Skipping for the moment other parallel Dynasties, notice that Uruk III was succeeded by the Dynasty of Akkad. Uruk III -- composed of one king Lugal-zaggisi -- extended for 25 years to 1632.

Now Sargon of Akkad

The greatest name in Babylonian history in this period is undoubtedly that of Sargon 'the Great' -- first king of the Acadian Dynasty. The history of this dynasty has been confused by the Weld-Blundell Prism 444. The complete and correct record is that of the Nippur lists. Prism 444 is incomplete.

Names of Kings of Dynasty of Akkad	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Sargon	55	1632-1577
Rimush	15	1577-1562
Manish-tusu	7	1562-1555
Naram-Sin	56	1555-1499
Sharkalisharri	24 or	1499-1475
	25	1500-1475
Igigi, Nanum, Imi	3 years of confusion	1475-1472
Dudu	21	1472-1451
Shudurul	15	1451-1436

The reign of Sharkalisharri confirms Berossus, who dates the Arabian invasion in 1500. It toppled Naram-Sin from his power and brought his successor to a weakened throne. Naram-Sin died after one more year of reign. Rimush is the younger twin brother of Manish-tusu (Jacobsen, 'Sumerian King List', p. 113). He overthrew an otherwise unknown Kaku of Ur.

The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 is fractured in the middle of the history of this dynasty. However, its total indicates that Naram-Sin's reign is cut short and does not include part of the period of his subjection to the invading Guti hordes. It also gives different figures for the three early rulers as follows.

Sargon	56 years	1633-1577
Rimush	9	1577-1568
Manish-tusu	15	1568-1553

Year 1633 is the accession year of Sargon.

This document(W.-B. 444) by itself is not a proper standard for Babylonian history. It should be used in conjunction with the other lists rather than by itself as is customarily done by modern authors.

Dynasties IV and V of Erech

The collapse of the Dynasty of Akkad brought Erech again into prominence. In the Scheil Text the Fourth Dynasty of Uruk is listed as follows:

Names of Kings of Dynasty IV of Uruk	Lengths of Reign in Scheil Text	Dates
Ur-Niginak	3	1436-1433
Ur-Gigirak	6	1433-1427
Kudda	6	1427-1421
Puzur-ili	5	1421-1416
Ur-Utuk	6	1416-1410

The Weld-Blundell prism assigns 7 years to the first king -- 1440-1433.

Fragment C of the Susa list of these kings follows (see 'Journal of Near Eastern Studies', Apr. 1960, p. 157).

Name of Kings of Dynasty IV of Uruk	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ur-Gigirak	15	1442-1427
Lugal-me-lam	7	1442-1435
Ur-Utuk	25	1435-1410

In this list the contemporary reigns of Kudda and Puzur-ili are incorporated in the long reign of Ur-Utuk. As in Egyptian history, numerous rulers shared the government at the same time. In another fragment of the Susa list the following information is preserved for the first three kings:

Ur-Niginak	30	1472-1442
Ur-Gigirak	15	1442-1427
Lugal-me-lam	7	1442-1435

What is the significance of the year 1472? It is the end of three years of confusion (1475-1472) under the Acadian Dynasty when four kings ruled. During that period it became proofrbial to ask: 'who was king? who was not?' Far from being bad scribal errors, these various figures for Dynasty IV of Uruk tell much of the story that is otherwise unpreserved. The real rise to power commenced in 1472, though the kings of Uruk did not replace the kings of Akkad until 1436.

The kingship over Uruk was obtained in 1410 by Utuhegal, who constitutes Dynasty V. All documents agree in giving full 7 years to this short-lived Dynasty -- 1410-1403. Utuhegal gained prominence at the beginning of his reign by overthrowing the Guti who had invaded Babylonia 125 years before, in 1535, and wrested complete control in a second attack in 1500 (see the dates from the W.-B. Prism 444).

The Guti Dynasty

Berossus designates 1500 as the year in which an Arabian dynasty of 9 kings wrested control of Babylonia from the Chaldeans. Coupled with this invasion from Arabia was one from the east under the Guti. The Guti Dynasty is not complete in any one document, but may be determined from a comparison of each of the documents. Its first King is nowhere preserved in the King Lists, but an otherwise unknown king of the Guti has been found. As he is the only Guti king known to have usurped the titles of Naram-Sin, it is quite clear that he -- Erridupizir -- should head the list as the leader in the initial attack on Akkad in 1535. (Jacobsen's , 'King List', p. 117, from Hilprecht's 'The Earliest Version of the Babylonian Deluge Story and The Temple Library of Nippur'. Pennsylvania Univ. Babylonian Expedition, Series D: Researches and Treatises V 1 (1910), chap. 4.)

The initials in brackets in the following list indicate the source of the different reading. Their significance will be explained afterward.

Kings of the Guti	Lengths of Reign	Dates
(Erridupizir)	(33 -- restored by subtraction from dynastic totals)	1535-1502
Imta	3	1502-1499
	5 (L1)	1504-1499
Inkishush	6 or	1499-1493
	7 (L1)	1500-1493
Sarlagab	6	1493-1487
Shulme (or Iarlagash in L1)	6	1487-1481
Elulumesh	7 (G)	1481-1474
	or 6	1481-1475
Inimabakesh	5	1474-1469
Igeshaush	6	1469-1463
Jarlagab	15	1463-1448
Ibate	3	1448-1445
Jarla(ngab)	3	1445-1442
Kurum	1	1442-1441
Habilkin	3	1441-1438
Laerabum	2	1438-1436
Irraum	2	1436-1434
Ibranum	1	1434-1433
Hablum	2	1433-1431
Puzur-Sin	7	1431-1424
Jarlaganda	7	1424-1417
Sium	7	1417-1410
Tirigan	40 days	1410

The second king is, in one tablet, assigned 5 years instead of 3. This indicates that Erridupizir may have reigned the last two years (1504-1502) jointly with Imta. The different lengths assigned to the reign of the third king -- Inkishush -- exactly fits the years 1500 and 1499 which overlap in the account of the Acadian Dynasty. The variation in the reign of Elulumesh, the sixth king, is again made plain by the struggle for power recorded in the Acadian Dynasty for 1475-1472. The king's total reign was 7 years, but only six to the year 1475, when the struggle for power in Babylonia commenced.

Three Other Dynasties

The coming of the Guti into Babylonia brought further division to the land. At the city of Ur a new Dynasty rose to power and lasted 108 years according to the Nippur List. The total for the Dynasty is missing from the document, but the total for Dynasties I, II and III is plainly given as 396. Dynasty I ruled 171 years; Dynasty III, 117, as will be noticed shortly. These two figures, subtracted from 396, leave 108.

The royal names of this dynasty are nearly illegible, and no internal dates are preserved. The Dynasty may be dismissed with the dates: 1535-1427.

In 1427 the Dynasty of Adab succeeded Ur II according to the Sumerian King List. It exercised authority in Babylonia for 90 years -- until 1337. The only name of a king of this Dynasty is that of Lugal-Annemundu. The collective verb -- 'they reigned' -- indicates other names are lost.

At the same time that Ur II lost control to the city of Adab, another city, far distant, on the Middle Euphrates, came into power. It was the city of Ma (e) ri. Mari later became famous as a town bordering on Israel's territory on the Euphrates. The Mari Dynasty, placed after Adab in the King Lists, was, in point of fact, contemporary. It lasted 136 years -- 1427-1291. All that has been thus far discovered of its rulers is a tattered document that looks like the following:

Fragmentary Names of Mari Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ansud	30	1427-1397

Total: six kings for 136 years.

The year 1291 will become significant in the study of Kish IV.

Dynasty III of Ur

Meanwhile the city of Ur revived and another powerful dynasty came to power -- the Third. This dynasty was made famous by Woolley's excavations at Ur. It succeeded Dynasty V of Erech, and reigned for 117 years according to the Nippur List. Its first king once was functionary of Utuhegal before Ur rebelled and seized political prominence. Utuhegal (Uruk V) ruled 1410-1403.

Kings of Dynasty III of Ur according to the Nippur List	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ur-Nammu	18	1403-1385
Shulgi (often spelled: Dungi)	58	1385-1327
Amar-Sin (often spelled: Bur-Sin)	9	1327-1318
Shu-Sin	7	1318-1311
Ibbi-Sin	25	1311-1286

Fragment C of the Susa List has a different account of this Dynasty. This account is usually rejected, merely because it is different from the preceding one.

But in it is a key to yet a third account of the same dynasty! The duration of Ur III was 117 years -- 1403-1286.

Kings of Dynasty III of Ur according to Susa List	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ur-Namme	18	1403-1385
Shulgi	48	1385-1337
Amar-Sin	25	1339-1314
Shu-Sin	16	1318-1302
Ibbi-Sin	15	1302-1287

This list does not include the last year of Ibbi-Sin, during which he was carried captive to Elam. But, as in the Nippur List, it does include that year in its dynastic total (123 years), which is one year more than the total assigned to all the kings (122 years).*

The 48-year reign of Shulgi assigned in the Susa List stops in 1337. This date is significant. It marks the end of the Adab Dynasty (already discussed). It also is the beginning of the reign of 'Kul scribe recording the Susa List does not give the last 10 years of Shulgi as it is incorporated in the long reign of Amar-Sin.

The Weld-Blundell Prism 444 differs from either preceding list in its length of the reign of Shulgi, which it gives as 46 -- 1385-1339. This dating provides the clue to the proper beginning of the 25-year reign of Amar-Sin as recorded in the Susa List. Also, W.-B 444 shortens the reign of Ibbi-Sin to 24 years -- 1311-1287, ending it in the same year as the Susa scribe does. That is, it does not include the last year in which the king was taken captive. It also assigns 9 years to Shu-Sin, probably the 9 years from 1311 (when Ibbi-Sin came to power) to the year 1302 (the last year of Shu-Sin in the Susa List).

(*Note: dynastic total of 123 years includes coregencies.)

Dynasty of Isin

During the reign of Ibbi-Sin of Ur the Elamites made inroads into the land of Shinar. This is the time that Elamite Awan dominated part of Babylonia under its last king.

The question of the corresponding years between Ibbi-Sin of Ur III and Ishbi-Irra, first king of Isin, has led to many learned articles in all the journals on Near Eastern Studies. The question cannot be determined by itself. Vital information is missing for the earliest years of Ishbi-Irra. The problem can be resolved, however, when combining the known facts with the information contained in Dynasty IV of Kish. Why no historian has ventured to correlate Kish with both dynasties is a mystery: If they had done so, they would have resolved the difficulties.

The following outline history of the Dynasty of Isin begins with the correlation of Ibbi-Sin's year 24 with Ishbi-Irra's year 14, and year 25 of Ibbi-Sin with year 15 of Ishbi-Irra. This correlation is one of several possibilities commonly espoused. It is, however, the only one which harmonizes with the history of Kish IV -- a fact to be proofd in a succeeding section.

Kings of Isin	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ishbi-Irra	33	1301-1268
Shu-ilishu	10	1268-1258
I(d)din-Dagan	21	1258-1237
Ishme-Dagan	20	1237-1217
Lipit-Ishtar	11	1217-1206
Ur-Ninurta	28	1206-1178
Bur-Sin	21	1178-1157
Lipit-Enlil	5	1157-1152
Irra-imitti	8	1152-1144
Enlil-bani	24	1144-1120
Zambia	3	1120-1117
Iter-pisha	4	1117-1113
Ur-Dukuga	4	1113-1109
Sin-magir	11	1109-1098
Damiq-ilishu	23	1098-1075

In 1075 Damiq-ilishu was overthrown by Rimsin of Larsa, who was in turn overthrown by Hammurabi.

The above list is the recognized standard for the Dynasty of Isin. Minor variations occur in two documents discussed in the 'Journal of Cuneiform Studies', VIII, 4, 'New Lists of the Kings of Ur and Isin.' In them the year in which Ishbi-Irra came to power is treated as the accession year -- only 32 are assigned him. Ishme-Dagan is given 19 instead of 20, but Bur-Sin is assigned 22 instead of 21. In other documents the last year of Irra-imitti is replaced by a ursurper.

Dynasty IV of Kish and the '400 Years'

The records of Dynasty IV of Kish are so divergent -- and unusual -- that no historian or archaeologist would accept them. 'Corrupt,' 'worthless,' are the common epithets applied. No one has tested the evidence to see if the accounts are, in fact, true'!

In the Scheil Text (left) and the Weld-Blundell Prism 444 (right) Dynasties III and IV of Kish appear as follows:

Names of Rulers	Scheil Text	W.-B 444
(Dynasty III) Ku-Baba, a queen	100 years	---
(Dynasty IV) Puzur-Sin	25 years	25 years
Ur-Zababa	6 years	400 years
Simudar	30 years	30 years
Usiwatar	6 years	7 years
Ishtarmuti	11 years	11 years
Ishme-Shamash	11 years	11 years
Nannia	3 years	7 years

Total 28 kings -- 586 years.

The 586 years of the Scheil Text includes the 400 not listed, minus the 6 which is listed: 100 plus 25 plus (400) plus 30 plus 6 plus 11 plus 11 plus 3 equals 586.

Now compare this with the evidence of the Susa Text. Notice the changed order of kings.

Puzur-Sin	25 years
Ur-Zababa	400 years
Usiwatar	6 years
Ishtar-muti	11 years
Ishme-Shamash	11 years
Shu-ilishu	15 years
Simudar	30 years

Who is this Shu-ilishu?

'This king can be no other than the well known Shu-ilishu of Igin and, comparing the account of the Isin dynasty ... we may perhaps assume that the copyist had a loose, unplaced fragment ...' -- and thus Thorkild Jacobsen suggests that a King of Isin was misplaced by a stupid scribe into the Kish IV Dynasty! (See page 108 of his 'Sumerian King List', footnote 228.)

First, consider the mysterious 400 years. This period begins with the end of the reign of Puzur-Sin. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa (in the Schell Text) are a part of the 400 of the other texts. A break in the continuity of the dynasty is clearly indicated by this unusual figure.

Next, consider the close of the dynasty. One list ends with Nannia -- the other with Simudar. Now to assemble these divergent facts.

Shu-ilishu reigned 10 years after Ishbi-Irra according to the Isin dynastic list. His dates: 1268-1258. The W.-B Prism 444 states Shu-ilishu's total reign as 20 years, but does not count the first 10 in its total. In the Kish list from Susa his reign is given as 15 -- that is, 1273-1258. The following charts indicate how the remaining kings fit around the reign of Shu-ilishu.

Names of Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Usiwatar	7	1291-1284
Ishtarmuti	11	1284-1273
Ishme-Shamash	11	1273-1262
Nannia	7	1262-1255

or

Ishtar-muti	11	1284-1273
Shu-ilishu	15	1273-1258
Nannia	3	1258-1255

and

Usiwatar	6	1291-1285
Simudar	30	1285-1255

What is the significance of the dates 1291 and 1255? The year 1291 is the date of the overthrow of Mari and the return of the old royal family of Kish to power. And the year 1255 is the date of return of the Chaldeans to power according to Berossus!

Now place the end of the 400 years in 1255. The beginning of the 400 years brings us to 1655. The 6 years of Ur-Zababa therefore extend from 1655 to 1649. This is shortly before the reign of Sargon 'the Great' of Akkad. When Sargon was young he served as cupbearer to Ur-Zababa! (Pallis, 'Chronology of Shub-Ad Culture', p. 360). Thus the 400 years have significance after all!

The reign of Puzur-Sin covers the preceding 25 years: 1680-1655.

But why should Kish IV have ended abruptly in 1649 and Ur-Zababa been slain? Archaeology answers: Lugal-zaggisi of Erech III overthrew Kish. The inhabitants were sent into exile. Years later Sargon restored the inhabitants to their estates: 'Sargon, king of Agade, ... king of Kish .... restored Kish, he ordered them to take again possession of their city' (Pritchard's 'Texts', p. 267).

The year 1649 is also of unusual significance in the history of India. IN THE WINTER OF 1650-1649 THE ASSYRIANS WERE DEFEATED ON THE BORDERS OF INDIA, resulting in collapse of Assyrian confederates in Mesopotamia.

Dynasty of Akshak

At the time Kish was overthrown Akshak was defeated also. The Dynasty of Akshak appears next.

Kings of Akshak	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Unzi	30	1748-1718
Undalulu	12	1718-1706
	(or 6)	(1712-1706)
Ur-ur	6	1706-1700
Puzur-Sahan	20	1700-1680
Ishuil	24	1680-1656
Gimil-Sin	7	1656-1649
	(or 24)	(1656-1632)

Several of the dates are paralleled with others in contemporary dynasties. Year 1748 marks the end of the long reign of Mes-Anne-pada of Dynasty I or Ur. The short reign of 6 years for Uhdalulut second king of Akshak, explains the extra 6 years of Mes-kiag-Nunna of Ur I. In chart form the two kings' reigns appear thus:

Mes-kiag-Nunna	30	1748-1718 (Ur I)
Undalulu	12	1718-1706 (Akshak)

or

Mes-kiag-Nunna	36	1748-1712
Undalulu	6	1712-1706

But the relationship does not end here. Under Akshak's king Puzur-Sahan aging Queen Ku-Baba of Kish III gained unusual reputation for her 'pious deeds.' As a result her son Puzur-Sin came to royal estate upon the death of Puzur-Sahan in 1680. (See Pallis' 'Shub-Ad Culture', pp. 359-360.) Notice that in the restoration of Kish IV the year 1680 is already marked as the commencement of the reign of Puzur-Sin, the son of Queen Ku-Baba! Here again is harmony among contemporary dynasties. Though Akshak lost power in 1649 the last king, Gimil-Sin (1656-1649), is assigned in the Susa List a total reign of 24 years (1656-1632) to the reign of Sargon of Akkad.

Dates of Queen Ru-Baba

Only one more Dynasty needs to be firmly established -- Kish III. Kish III is famous for a one-time woman wine merchant who became Queen. Her son and grandson ruled during her late years as the first two Kings of Kish's Dynasty IV. Since Dynasty III of Kish is at times listed first and on occasion later than the Dynasty of Akshak, it must have begun at the same time as Akshak. The dates of Kish III are therefore 1748-1648. Who the husband or the father of Queen Ku-Baba may have been is not stated in the lists. That she continued one year after the death (in 1649) of Ur-Zababa, her grandson, is clear from the statement of Sargon. He claims that she adopted him as her own son in place of her own heir now dead (S. Lloyd, 'Mesopotamia', page 140).

It becomes clear with this restoration that Dynasties I and II of Kish are limited to the time between 2254 and 1748, with Kish I ending in the days of Gilgamesh.

With this account the clouded history of Babylonia to the era of Hammurabi closes. It is a period of nearly twelve centuries of strife division and wars.

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

---

CHAPTER TEN

It Began at Babel

Civilization began at Babel. But the thread of history first had to be traced through Egypt. Into Egypt journeyed the founders of civilization. Egypt kept the history of the past alive. The Greek and Roman historians and theologians and philosophers were universally interested in Egypt.

By contrast, Mesopotamia died. Its early inhabitants migrated into Eurasia. Its history was only meagerly preserved. Later, Arabs dwelt on its barren wastes. Yet in those barren wastes lay the buried cities of ancient times, with their fallen libraries and history texts waiting the archaeologists' keen sight.

Mesopotamia Rediscovered

In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries Europeans became aware of the treasures of the TELLS or mounds of the Mesopotamian flatlands. Archaeological expeditions cut into many of the most impressive ones. Hoards of private and public documents were discovered -- most of them lying to this day untranslated in the basements of European museums. A multitude of undreamed of facts were disclosed for the first time. But how were the archaeologists and historians to interpret these facts? How would they arrange the dynastic lists of hitherto unknown kings?

Unfortunately the key to a true knowledge of history was being discarded at the very time excavations began in Mesopotamia. That key is God in history. Without God -- and hence without the Bible -- there were no bounds to curb historical speculation. A deliberate conspiracy to interpret every possible fact in opposition to the Bible was summarily begun. The literary critics quickly seized the opportunity. The Babylonian accounts of creation and the Flood were interpreted as the originals of Genesis. Moses, they claimed, patterned the law after Hammurabi's Code.

No one questioned whether Hammurabi lived BEFORE or AFTER Moses. Or whether Genesis was written before rather than after the idolatrous Mesopotamian accounts of creation and the great Flood. Everyone assumed that the ancient arrangements of the dynastic lists of kings and city-states were in proper sequence. That the scribes might have deliberately arranged their history to make Babylonia appear older than any other part of the world did not dawn upon the first critics.

Then came the astounding discovery. Business documents, public monuments, literary classics were translated which made kings contemporaries who were separated by hundreds or thousands of years in the dynastic lists of kings. What were the historians to do?

Wrote Leon Legrain in 1922: 'The problem of parallel dynasties is one of the most troublesome for Babylonian chronologists' (Publication of Babylonian Section of University of Pennsylvania, XIII, 17). Weldner of Austria forced the historical world to recognize the problem despite themselves. His famous articles pointing out that several successive dynasties were in fact contemporary appeared in 1923 in 'Archiv fuer Keilschriftforschung' (I, 95), and in 1926 in 'Archiv fuer Orientforschung' (III, 198).

But the strongest evidence against the modern interpretation of history was discovered by the French at Mari on the Euphrates River. There it was discovered that during the lifetime of Hammurabi -- who was mistakenly dated by historians to the time of Abraham -- the Benjamites were in control of Palestine and men like David were famous! (See Werner Keller's 'The Bible as History', pages 49-52).

How were the historians and archaeologists to interpret these astounding discoveries? Were they to date Hammurabi properly to the time of Saul and David? Not at all! Rather, they cleverly assumed that Benjamites were in Palestine long before Benjamin was born -- that the name of David was famous for nearly a thousand years before David was born! They hoped thereby to keep their interpretations of the king lists and reject the history of the Bible.

It is time such nonsense were banished from history. It is time that the truth of history were made plain.

What Archaeologists Learned

In the ruins of the libraries of Assyria and Babylonia the archaeologists uncovered many fragmentary and broken records of ancient Mesopotamian city-states and royal houses. These records will now be examined and the history of Babylonia restored.

The scribes of Babylonia drew up their records of the past quite differently from those of Egypt. In Egypt the scribes told the entire history of each city before passing to the history of the next city. Thus the history of Memphis was completed before the history of Thebes was expounded. The Babylonian records present a striking contrast. Ancient Babylonian history may be best understood by presenting a sketch of the Sumerian account of the dynastic royal houses.

Name of Dynasty

First Dynasty of Kish

First Dynasty of Uruk (Erech)

First Dynasty of Ur

Dynasty of Awan

Second Dynasty of Kish

Dynasty of Hamazi

Second Dynasty of Uruk

Second Dynasty of Ur

Dynasty of Adab

Dynasty of Mari

Third Dynasty of Kish

Dynasty of Akshak

Fourth Dynasty of Kish

Third Dynasty of Uruk

Dynasty of Akkad, etc.

Certain lists vary the order slightly or add other dynasties (a significant fact to be explained later).

This list when officially drawn up by scribes, intended to convey the concept that each dynasty in turn had dominated all neighboring states. The result was the mistaken concept that Babylonia, unlike other areas, was always united under one ruler at a time, and that Babylonia, by reason of its extreme antiquity, had political and religious precedence over the world.

No restoration of Babylonian history can claim completeness until these dynasties, recovered by archaeology, are properly assigned their place in the chain of historical events.

Analyzing the Sumerian King List

The Sumerian King List opens the history of postflood civilization by the following account: 'After the Flood has swept over the earth and when kingship was lowered again from heaven, kingship was first in Kish. In Kish, Ga ... ur became king and ruled 1,200 years ....' The First Dynasty of Kish contains three kings who ruled, according to the scribes, for 24,510 years! (Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 265.)

Here certainly is a chronological account that is neither historical nor Biblical. Yet several of the kings named have left behind incontestable evidences of their reality. That the original reigns are purposely lengthened far beyond actual duration is recognized by all historians. The cause of this Babylonian flight of fancy is the same as that which prompted evolutionists and geologists to stretch out the 'Ice Ages' to hundreds of thousands of years -- though in reality they occurred in historical times and are found described in Greek and Roman literature.

People want to believe in the extreme antiquity of Man's past. The ancient Babylonians were no exception. In his account of Babylon's first two kings, Cush and Nimrod, the priest Berossus assigned 2,400 years to Evechous (Cush) and 2,700 to Cosmaskelos (Nimrod). ('The Dawn of Civilization', by Maspero, p. 573.) These figures are significant. From Egyptian, Greek and Roman sources it has already been demonstrated in this Compendium that Cush ruled 60 years before he was succeeded by the 27-year reign of his son Nimrod. Thus Berossus multiplied the 60 years of Cush by 40 and arrived at the date 2,400. (In the Sumerian king list the figure for Ga ... ur, the first king, who is Cush, is 1,200 -- that is, 60 multiplied by 20.) Berossus multiplied the 27 years of Nimrod by 100 and obtained 2,700 years. The Babylonians used a clever mathematical trick to lengthen the reigns of the rulers of Kish. However, the device used by the priests has been solved. The dating for Dynasty I and II of Kish can be found in Appendix A of vol. II of the Compendium.

But what is the special significance of the city of Kish? Why should it be considered first to bear rule in Mesopotamia?

Kish is the city of Cush or Kush. It is situated near the site of ancient Babylon. It became a sacred site because people first dwelt there in the land of Shinar after the flood. From the area of Kish they commenced the erection of the city of Babel. But Babel turned out to be a failure -- 'they left off to build the city' (Genesis 11:8).

The government of Cush and Nimrod, begun at Babel, thus continued at Kish while the towns of Erech, Accad and Calneh were being built in the land of Shinar following the abortive attempt at Babel. The First Dynasty of Kish commenced 2256 -- the date of the beginning of the construction of the tower of Babel. The dynasty continued to 1809 at which point the Second Dynasty of Kish began (see vol. II of the 'Compendium' for proof

The Second Dynasty ruled from 1809 to 1748.

History Continues at Erech

The first city which Nimrod succeeded in building was Erech. The government of Cush and Nimrod extended over this city as well as over Kish, and its history is told in the surprising annals of the First Dynasty of Uruk or Erech.

From the 'Sumerian King List', published by Thorkild Jacobsen, and accessible in Pritchard's often-quoted work, the first Dynasty of Uruk may be summarized as follows:

Sumerian Names of Rulers (some in fragmentary form)	Lengths of Reigns in King List	Notations in King List
Mes-kiag-gasher	325 (in one text read as 32(4), see p. 85 of T. Jacobsen's 'Sumerian King List'.)	Son of Utu, became high priest and king. Journeyed into the Sea and reached the Mountains beyond.
En-me(r)-kar	420	Son of predecessor. He built Erech.*
Lugal-banda	1200	A god and shepherd.
Dumu-zi	100	A god and fisherman.
Gilgamesh	126	A divine man, begotten by a spirit. became a high priest
Ur-lugal	30	Son of Gilgamesh.
Udul-kalamma	15
Labasher	9
En-nun-dar-anna	8
Meshede	36	A smith.
Melam-anna	6
Lugal-ki-dul	36

*Some tablets read: Under him Erech was built.

Though these names may, at first sight, be meaningless, five of the rulers are mentioned by other names in the Bible and a sixth -- Gilgamesh -- has already been alluded to in Egyptian history in this Compendium.

To break down this list one must commence from the known facts. Dumu-zi is a variant spelling of Tammuz, a Mesopotamian name of Nimrod. Nimrod succeeded his father Cush in Babylonia after a 60-year reign. The 60 year reign of Cush has been established as 2254-2194 (see the Egyptian history of Dynasty I of Thinis). The 100 years assigned to Nimrod are, like the records of Egypt, based upon the Era of Nimrod to the coming of his successor. Though Nimrod was executed after a reign of 27 years, his Era continued to year 100, and is to be dated 2194-2094.

What occurred in 2094? Who left Egypt in 2094 to come to the land of Shinar to claim the throne of Nimrod? Horus!

Thus Horus of Egypt is Gilgamesh of Mesopotamia. Each claimed to be heir of Nimrod. Both were born of a Queen of Heaven -- Isis or Ishtar. Both had a 'spirit' as a father -- the supposed Nimrod alive as the impregnating sun.

Gilgamesh ruled in Mesopotamia, after he left Egypt, for another 126 years -- 2094-1968. This brings us down to the lifetime of Abram! Gilgamesh lived to be almost 200 years of age. This is in complete harmony with the genealogy of the Bible for the same period (Genesis 11:10-32).

Gilgamesh was succeeded by Ur-lugal -- a name which means 'Great King.' This Great King was ruler of Erech. Erech was in the land of Shinar. Whoever controlle Erech controlled Shinar. What was the personal name of this Great King who controlled Shinar in the days of Abram? Amraphel (Genesis 14:1).

Amraphel reigned 30 years before he was slain by Abram's army. The dates of Amraphel are 1968-1938. The struggle, recorded in Genesis 14 between Mesopotamian kings and the Canaanites therefore climaxed in 1938 with the death of four kings of Mesopotamia. When Assyrian history is studied this same year will be established for Arioch, king of Ellasar -- that is, king of the City of Asar or Asshur

To return to the Sumerian King List. The predecessor of Dumu-zi (or Tammuz, who is Nimrod), is named Lugal-banda -- a title meaning 'Little King.' He is Cush. Son Nimrod was, of course, the 'Great King.' The 1200 years assigned to Cush are a clever expansion (20 x 60) of the true figure of 60 years already established from other sources. The correct dates are 2254-2194.

But how are the two predecessors in the list -- Mes-kiag-gasher and En-mer-kar -- to be explained? Were they parallel rulers who also exercised authority in that world?

The mother of Gilgamesh -- Semiramis or Ishtar -- was at one time the wife of Lugal-banda -- that is, Cush (Jacobsen, 'Sumerian King List', page 91). She was also a wife and daughter-in-law of Asshur. The real grandfather of Gilgamesh, however, was not Cush, but En-mer-kar (Aelian in 'De natura Animalium', vii, 21, quoted in Jacobsen's work on page 87). From these facts it is clear that the Dynasty of Erech is composed of two blood lines -- that of Cush and that of Asshur.

In history there were three famous queens named Semiramis -- each one claiming to be a Queen of Heaven. The last Semiramis claimed to be thrice born. Each one of them was an Assyrian queen. Does this indicate that En-mer-kar is the Sumerian form of the Semitic name of Asshur? In the King List it is stated either that Erech was built under the rule of En-mer-kar, or that it was built by En-mer-kar. In the Bible the builder is Nimrod. But Nimrod did not build it alone! For 'out of that land' Shinar -- where Erech is located -- 'went forth Asshur, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah' (Genesis 10:11). This is the correct translation according to the vowel pointing of the Hebrew text. But the consonants, without the pointing, may be translated, 'he' -- that is, Nimrod, 'went forth, being strong, and build Nineveh and Calah.' The land of Assyria or Asshur is also the land of Nimrod (Micah 5:6). The original enterprise was a joint affair.

Cush was originally a prominant figure at Babel. But he was superseded by Nimrod, who gained the carnal affections of his own mother. Cush soon perished and the two dominant figures remaining were Asshur and Nimrod. Then Nimrod was driven from Mesopotamia to Egypt. Thus the entire history of the later world came to be dominated by the shadow of Asshur's children.

But if En-mer-kar is Asshur, the result is that Mes-kiag-gasher is the Sumerian name of Shem! Mes-kiag-gasher was in Sumerian parlance, the 'son of Utu' -- the God who warned Noah of the Flood. That is, he was a man who knew the God of creation.

Mes-kiag-gasher was also a high priest. From Egyptian records historians have discovered that Semsem -- the Great Shem -- of Dynasty I of Thinis was also pictured as a high priest! This famous man crossed from Asia over the water to the mountains of Europe. Shem travelled far and wide to put down the government of Nimrod.

Now consider the 325-year reign of Shem. When did it begin and when did it end?

In Egypt only a small part of his life story is revealed. But in the annals of Erech one sees Shem's great figure striding over three and a quarter centuries of history! Shem had no part in the government established at Babel in opposition to the rule of God. When the terror of Nimrod loomed great over the horizon, Shem acted. He exercised, after Nimrod's seizure of power, the administration of government beginning 2191 in Shinar as patriarch and priest of the Semitic world. His full 325 years of authority lasted from 2191 till his death in 1866.

This date -- 1866 -- is the exact year of the death of Shem in Scripture. According to Egyptian history the exodus occurred in 1486. This was exactly 430 years after the covenant God made with Abraham when he was 99 years old -- it was not made at the time Abram entered the land at 75. (See Genesis 17:1-8, Exodus 12:40-41 and Galatians 3:17.) The verb is not expressed in the original Hebrew of Exodus 12:40, which should properly be translated: 'Now the sojourning of the children of Israel, who dwelt in Egypt, completed four hundred and thirty years.'

Calculating back from 1486, year 99 of Abraham was 1918-1917 autumn to autumn reckoning -- for in the next spring, of 1916, Abraham was already 99 years old and in his hundredth year. Abraham was 75 when he departed from Haran following the death of his father in 1941 (Gen. 12:4). By adding the figures of the Genesis 11, from Terah to Arphaxad, the year 2367-2366 is reached (autumn to autumn). In that year -- two years after the Flood -- Arphaxad was begotten. Shem lived after he begot Arphaxad 500 years (Genesis 11:10-11). This 500 years extends from 2366 to 1866 -- the very year Shem's 325-year reign ended, according to the evidence of the Erech list!

(The broken reading of 32(4) years. proposed by Sumeriologists, if correct, probably merely excludes the calendar year in which Shem died.)

The 420 years of En-mer-kar are also datable. The figure probably represents the length of time between the death of Asshur in 1906 (see German history in vol. II of the 'Compendium') and his becoming a head of household in 2326, when age 40 (assuming he is a twin of Arphaxad who was born in 2366).

The First Dynasty of Uruk may now be restored as follows, beginning with Cush (Lugal-banda).

Names of Kings	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Lugal-banda (Cush)	(60)	2254-2194
Dumu-zi (Nimrod or Tammuz)	100	2194-2094
Gilgamesh (Horus or Ninyas)	126	2094-1968
Ur-lugal (Amraphel) dies in Abram's year 78)	30	1968-1938
Utul-kalamma	15	1938-1923
Labasher	9	1923-1914
En-nun-dara-anna	8	1914-1906
Meshede	36	1906-1870
Melam-anna	6	1870-1864
Lugal-ki-dul	36	1864-1828

After this dynasty the kings of Shinar do not reappear in the Bible until the reign of Merodach-baladan.

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

---

CHAPTER NINE

The Eclipse of Egypt

For the first 2000 years of human history, Africa -- and Egypt in particular -- was the vortex of world politics. Today Africa is militarily a void. Its native population borders on savagery in many areas. Its culture is universally primitive. Egypt and Ethiopia -- once the world's leaders -- are today backward, unprogressive nations.

Why?

Numerous answers have been offered. None of them is the key to the sudden decline of Egypt and of Africa.

Answer in Ezekiel

The answer to the riddle of the Dark Continent lies in the book of Ezekiel, in a little-understood prophecy. Before revealing its significance, one primary fact of geography and history must be noted. The contact of Africa with the ancient Near East always passed through Egygt, or its domains. The valley of the Nile led to the heart of Africa. To cut off Africa from the influences of civilization, only one land had to be destroyed -- Egypt

Now to consider the prophecy of Ezekiel -- and its historical import for today. It is found in Ezekiel 29, specifically verses 8-16:

'Therefore thus saith the Lord God: Behold, I will bring a sword upon thee, and will cut off from thee man and beast. And the land of Egypt shall be desolate and waste, and they shall know that I am the Lord: because he hath said: The river is mine, and I have made it. Therefore, behold, I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from Migdol to Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia. No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years. And I will make the land of Egypt desolate in the midst of the countries that are desolate, and her cities among the cities that are laid waste shall be desolate forty years: and I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations, and will disperse them through the countries. For thus saith the Lord God: At the end of forty years will I gather the Egyptians from the peoples whither they were scattered and I will turn the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their origin: and they shall be there a lowly kingdom. It shall be the lowliest of the kingdoms, neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations; and I will diminish them, that they shall no more rule over the nations. And it shall be no more the confidence of the house of Israel, bringing iniquity to remembrance, when they turn after them and they shall know that I am the Lord God.'

Historians insist this prophecy was never fulfilled. They find no monumental evidence in Egypt that the country was without inhabitant forty long years. Of course not! There was not a single human being living in Egypt to record it -- nor any wild animal: And what Egyptian would want to record it upon return from forty years' exile?

When was this prophecy fulfilled? and by whom? About the year 570 a message from God was sent to Ezekiel. It is found in Ezekiel chapters 29 and 30. In this divine message the frightful events to befall Egypt are further amplified:

'Behold, I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall carry off her abundance, and take her spoil, and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army. I have given him the land of Egypt ...' (Ezek. 29:19-20).

Chapter 30:10-12 makes it even more emphatic.

'Thus saith the Lord God: I will also make the multitude of Egypt to cease, By the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. He and his people with him, the terrible of the nations, Shall be brought in to destroy the land; And they shall draw their swords against Egypt, And fill the land with the slain. And I will make the rivers dry, And will give the land over into the hand of evil men; And I will make the land desolate, And all that is therein, by the hand of strangers: I the Lord have spoken it.'

The military power that overthrew Egypt was from Babylon. Its king, Nebuchadnezzar, carried the Egyptians captive. But man's power alone could not have wrought what befell Africa. Forty long years following the enslavement of the Egyptians God sent a terrible drought on East Africa. Normal rains ceased. No water flowed in the Nile. The land dried up. Wild beasts could not even survive in the parched soil of Egypt.

All this occurred at the time the remainder of the world was enjoying the Golden Age of human civilization. Cut off from direct contact with Europe and Asia, the native populations stagnated, then degenerated. Never again was Africa able to catch up with the world. It was the eclipse of Africa.

To cover up the humiliating defeat at the hands of Babylon, the Egyptian priests later invented the story that Egypt was never more prosperous than during these 40 years! Yet archaeologically the period in Egypt is a total blank. A few remains have been attributed to this period -- a dated grave here and there. But they were only late reburials of those who died abroad in captivity and whose families could afford the expense.

Historians have mistakenly taken the Egyptian priests at their word. They think they find supporting evidence in the rule of Pharaoh Amasis on the Isle of Cyprus. Without exception every ancient history text portrays Egypt militarily strong during this period. Amasis is acclaimed as the builder of an empire that included Cyprus, while Nebuchadnezzar was limited to the mainland. No one, it seems, has ever noticed that Amasis was sent into exile to Cyprus by Nebuchadnezzar's command!

The only document to record the total destruction of Egypt was discovered in 1878. In that year a mutilated cuneiform cylinder was discovered, disclosing an event of Nebuchadnezzar's thirty-seventh year. It was purchased by the British Museum. The fragmentary remains are difficult to translate. The record is cast in the form of a plaintive prayer from Nebuchadnezzar to Merodach, god of Babylon.

'My enemies thou usedst to destroy; thou causedst my heart to rejoice ... in those days thou madest my hands to capture; thou gavest me rest; ... thou causedst me to construct; my kingdom thou madest to increase ...'

Clearly something is wrong with Nebuchadnezzar. Though he began the Egyptian campaign with brilliant success, he did not continue on the throne to see it completed. He became insane. His generals continued the efforts as the document proofs:

'... the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king tof Bab- ... Egypt to deliver a battle .... -sis of Egypt called up his army .... distant regions which are amidst the sea ... many ... who are in Egypt ... carrying weapons, horses and ... he called up to assist him' (Compare 'Egypt and Babylon' by George Rawlinson, pages 90-91 with Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 308). The remainder of the cylinder is unintelligible.

The 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar was 568-567. The campaign in Egypt thus occupied the space of three full years -- 570-567. In the calendar year 567-566 the destruction of Egypt was complete. Amasis was sent into exile in Cyprus. Forty years later he returned to Egypt with his people, under the scrutiny of the Persians. Amasis was succeeded by Psamtik II. His attempted rebellion brought the Persian king Cambyses to Egypt. Psamtik II offered his daughter in marriage to the Persian. The request was rebuffed. The royal dynasty of Egypt was overthrown. In 525 the Egyptian royal blood perished.

Persian Kings of Egypt

Very little of the history of Egypt is known for the next century and a quarter. Most of what has been preserved comes from Greek sources. The chronology of the period is correctly preserved by Manetho. It is in full agreement with the Persian records. Minor controversial details that do not pertain to Egypt, but to Persia, will be treated there.

Manetho's history of Persian dominion begins thus: 'Cambyses in the fifth year of his kingship over the Persians became king of Egypt.' The fifth year was 525-524, spring-to-spring reckoning in Persian annals. Cambyses reigned over Egypt three years, according to Eusebius' extract, 525-522, EXCLUSIVE reckoning. He was followed by the Magi who seized the throne and reigned for 7 months in 522.

The account of Africanus differs considerably and has never been understood by historians. He records that Cambyses reigned over Egypt 6 years, INCLUSIVE reckoning, 527-522. The 8-year reign of Cambyses in Persia extentled from 529-521. Africanus reckons to the end of Cambyses' eighth year (December 31, 522 according to Egyptian reckoning) even though the Persian monarch died early in the eighth year, March 522. But what of the date 527 for the beginning of his reign in Egypt? The only possible answer is that Africanus -- and Manetho -- considered the dominion of the Persian king in Egypt as beginning in the year that the Egyptian exiles returned. Africanus thus is a witness to the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy of the 40-years' exile -- 567-527! The kings of Persia, including illegitimate rulers (in parentheses), are now listed in chart form in the traditional Greek spelling. The dates are according to the Egyptian calendar, which regularly preceded the Persian by three to four months.

Dynasty XXVII -- Kings of Persia	Lengths of Reign	Dates (Egyptian reckoning)
Cambyses	6 (A)	Jan. 2, 527-Dec. 31, 522
	3 (E)	525-522 (Conquest to Magian revolt)
(Magi	7 months (E only)	522)
Darius	36	Jan. 1, 521-Dec. 22, 486
Xerxes 'the Great'	21	Dec. 23, 486-Dec. 16, 465
(Artabanus	7 months (A only)	465)
Artaxerxes	41 (A)	Dec. 17, 465-Dec. 6, 424
	40 (E)	465-425
(Xerxes (II)	2 months	424)
(Sogdianus	7 months	424)
Darius (II)	19	Dec. 7, 424-Dec. 1, 405

The specific dates for the commencement of the Egyptian years may be found in 'Manuel d'Histoire de Genealogie et de Chronologie de tous les Etats du Globe', by A.-M.-H.-J. Stokvis, vol 1.

Egypt Rebels

Over 120 years elapsed since Persian armies marched into Egypt. Darius was now dead. Smoldering revolt suddenly flared into the open. Though Persian authority was tacitly acknowledged for a few years, Egypt became virtually independent. Persian and mercenary armies were sent against the land of the Nile. Unsuccessful attempts followed one another until 343, when Egyptian forces collapsed before a determined Persian onslaught.

The history of this fast-moving period begins with Dynasty XXVIII of Sais. This dynasty -- if it even deserved that designation -- consisted of one king, Amyrteos. His reign lasted only 6 years, 405-399. He was overthrown by pretenders from the city of Mendes, whose rulers constituted Dynasty XXIX.

None of these dynasties were of ancient royalty. They were largely of prominent families, often of foreign descent.

The duration of Dynasty XXIX was only 20 years, after which it, too, was overthrown. The evidence of Manetho, as preserved by Africanus, Eusebius and Syncellus is as follows.

Dynasty XXIX of Mendes according to Africanus	Lengths of Reign	Eusebius	Lengths of Reign
Nepherites	6	Nepherites	6
Achoris	13	Achoris	13 or 12 (in the Canon)
Psammuthls	1	Psammuthis	1
Nepherltes (II)	4 months	Nepherites (II)	4 months
		Muthis	1

In the Armenian version of Eusebius Muthes precedes Nepherites. Eusebius also assigns 13 years to Achoris in the Armeinan, which is the total length of his reign.

The real puzzle that has confounded historians of this period is found in the Demotic Chronicle. The Chronicle places the name Psammuthis before Achoris, in apparent opposition to Manetho. The apparent contradiction would vanish if each writer were to be carefully compared with the other. Manetho and the Chronicle both preserve part of the facts: neither preserves all the details. But how could Achoris precede Psammuthis and yet have Psammuthis precede Achoris?

The key is found in Eusebius' Canon, which contains one version of Manetho not found elsewhere. The Canon notes that Achoris reigned 12 years before Psammuthis. As Achoris reigned 13 years altogether, the final year must have succeeded the one-year reign of Psammuthis. That is, Achoris was deposed, and returned to the throne a year later.

Remarkably, the unnamed king who follows Nepherites and precedes Psammuthis in the Demotic Chronicle is said to have been 'deposed.' Psammuthis usurped his throne one year. Then Achoris appears followed by Nepherites II. These details may be placed in chart form as follows:

Names of Kings of Dynasty XXIX of Mendes	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nepherites	6	399-393
Achoris	12	393-381
Psammuthis	1	381-380
Achoris (again)	1 (the 13th year)	380-379
Muthis (jointly with Achoris)	1	380-379
Nepherites (II), son of Achoris	4 months	379-378 (winter)

It is to be noted that Muthis succeeds Psammuthis and reigns during the same calendar year that Achoris returns to the throne. This is made clear by the fact that his name is left out in Africanus' account in which Achoris is assigned 13 years. Eusebius, in one case, adds Muthis to his list in which Achoris is assigned only 12 years.

Why the years commencing in 381 suddenly became politically unstable will become apparent when unveiling the mystery of Dynasty XX of Thebes!

But to continue the history of Egypt with Africanus' epitome of Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus. (The monumental names are in parentheses.)

Kings of Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nectanebes (Nekhtnebef)	18	379-361
Teos (Takhos)	2	361-359
Nectanebos (Nekhtharehbe)	18	359-341

The Demotic Chronicle (IV, 14) assigns to Nekhtnebef a reign of 19 years -- 380-361. This begins with the year that Achoris returned to power. In the previous line in the Demotic Chronicle a length of only 16 years is assigned -- 377-361. What event occurred in the calendar year beginning 377 will be clarified by the history of Dynasty XX of Thebes!

The account of Dynasty XXX found in Eusebius' Canon is the same as Africanus'. But in the Armenian Version of Eusebius and in Syncellus' account of Eusebius the following differences should be noticed.

Dynasty XXX of Sebennytus According to Eusebius	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Nectanebis	10	371-361
Teos	2	361-359
Nectanebos	8	359-351

This epitome of Manetho is chronologically abridged. But it does indicate major military or political events for the calendar years beginning in 371 and 351. The significance of the year beginning 371 again lies in the history of Dynasty XX of Thebes. In the calendar year beginning 351 an important invasion of Egypt was unsuccessfully attempted by the Persians ('Diodorus Siculus', XV, 40, 3) See also A. T. Olmstead's 'History of the Persian Empire', revised edition -- one of the most accurate texts covering this century of Egyptian quasi-independence.

In 343 -- in the sixteenth year of Nectanebos -- a great Persian campaign against Egypt was mounted. The Delta soon fell. The Egyptian king fled to Ethiopia where he continued to exercise authority over Upper Egypt for another two years -- to 341.

In 341 the last vestige of Egyptian independence vanished. The short-lived Persian dominion which followed constituted Dynasty XXXI.

Persian Kings of Dynasty XXXI	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Ochus	2	341-339
Arses	3	339-336
Darius	4	336-332

The conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great occurred in 332.

And Now Dynasty XX of Thebes

The authority of Thebes over Egypt disappeared about 663 with the Assyrian conquest. For almost three centuries no native dynasty is known to have been centered in the ancient capital of Upper Egypt. Yet, according to Manetho and the archaeological record, Thebes was again to become the capital of Upper Egypt! Its rulers -- including the famous Ramessids III to XI -- constitute Dynasty XX.

The famous Papyrus Harris contains a historical record of the period immediately prior to the rise of Dynasty XX. It reads:

'The land of Egypt was cast aside with every man a law unto himself. They had no chief spokesman for many years previously up to other times. The land of Egypt consisted of officials and heads of villages, one slaying his fellows both high and low. Then other times came afterwards in the empty years, and a Syrian with them made himself prince. He set the entire land tributary under his sway. He united his companions and plundered their possessions. They made the gods like the people, and no offerings were presented in the temples.' The king then claims: 'He brought to order the entire land, which had been rebellious. He slew the disaffected of heart who had been in Egypt. He cleansed the great throne of Egypt .... He established the temples Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 260).

Here is an era of many 'empty years' -- with no native kings. Only officials and village headsmen. Foreign princes had Egypt in tribute. The religion of Egypt was suppressed; its temples bare. Not in all the history of Egypt had such a time occurred from the days of Nimrod to the Persian conquest! Even the Hyksos period had its own native kings ruling under the foreign Shepherd Princes. But here is a time when no native kings ruled.

Only one period in Egyptian annals corresponds to this tragic era -- the time of the Persian conquest and dominion. Dynasty XX of Thebes therefore rose to power during the period of rebellion against Persia in the fourth century before the present era. Yet historians would place the dynasty nearly eight centuries earlier -- in the time of the prophet Samuel and of king Saul!

The most famous king of Dynasty XX was Ramesses III. In his 8th year he fought a tremendous battle against invaders from Asia. These invaders are usually assumed to be Philistines. History texts claim that Ramesses' victory over the 'Philistines' forced them to withdraw from Egypt and settle in Palestine, where they commenced their attacks against Israel in the time of Saul. This reconstruction of history is an utter fiction! Historians have willingly forgotten that the Philistines were already dwelling in Palestine in the days of Abram -- over eight centuries before the kingship of Saul. 'And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days' (Genesis 21:34, also verse 32).

The invaders whom Ramesses III repelled in his eighth year were 'sea peoples' -- from the isles and coastlands of the northern Mediterranean. They were mercenary troops of a vast empire that ruled in Asia Minor and over Palestine. That was the Persian Empire -- and its mercenaries were Greeks and their allies! The Egyptian word Haunebu, applied by Ramesses III to the northern sea peoples, is the very same word found on Egyptian monuments in reference to Greeks! (See E. Naville's 'The Shrine of Saft el Henneh and the Land of Goshen' (1887), pages 6 ff.)

Ramesses III's invaders were crested soldiers. The Greeks were famous for their crested troops. Ramesses' enemies moved through Palestine. So did the Persian and Greek troops in 373. By contrast, there was no land invasion from Asia Minor through Palestine in the days of Samuel or Saul!

Ramesses defeated his enemies at the time of the rising Nile. The Persians and Greeks were defeated in 373 at the time of the Nile floods ('Diodorus Siculus', XV, 41-43). Ramesses III speaks of natural calamity and unrest in the isles of the sea peoples. In 373 the Greek isles were devastated with frightful earthquakes and floods, according to Diodorus and other ancient writers.

The dates of Ramesses III may now be established as follows:

Ramesses III -- 31 years -- 381-350.

His 8th year was 374-373, the year of his great victory. Ramesses also records victories in his 5th and 11th years over Libyan and other invaders. His 5th year began in 377, his 11th year in 371. Now turn to the account of Dynasty XXX. The year 377 marked the beginning of the 16 years assigned by the Demotic Chronicle to Nectanebes. The year 371 begins his 10-year reign according to Eusebius. Thus the reign of Ramesses III, with its records of major wars in Egypt, provides the clues for the unusual dates sometimes assigned to Dynasty XXX.

The father of Ramesses III is known to historians as Setnakhte. His highest regnal date found on the monuments is Year 2. His reign, of little historical significance, was at least extended over the years 383-381. It is highly probable that he reigned no longer than these two years. A war between the Persians and Egyptians was fought about years 385-383. As Setnakhte was famous as a general, it appears that he arose in power in Thebes following the repulse of the Persian armies. The ancestry of Setnakhte is unknown, though the family was probably Ethiopian in origin. Everywhere they mimicked the ways of the famous Ethiopian king Ramesses II -- the Tarhakah of the Bible.

Manetho's transcribers provide no names for these kings, nor any individual lengths of reign. The only source of evidence is from the monuments and papyri. The unusual abundance of well-preserved papyri and monuments is another strong indication of the lateness of Dynasty XX. ('Egypt of the Pharaohs', Gardiner, page 299.) From these records the following information may be deduced.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XX of Thebes	Known Lengths of Reign	Resultant Dates
Setnakhte	2	383-381
Ramesse-hekaon (III)	31	381-350
Ramesse-hekamae (IV)	6	350-344
Ramesse-Amenhikhopshef (v)	4	344-340
Nebmare Ramesse (VI)	7	340-333
Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (VII)	---	---
Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII)	7	333-326

The records of Ramesses VII and VIII are very obscure. There are no known dates for Usimare-akhenamun Ramesse (designated Ramesses VII in Bibl. Or., xiv, 138). A badly tattered document indicates that Ramesse-itamun-nutehekaon (VIII) reigned possibly 7 years. That his reign was PARALLEL with Ramesse IX is indicated by a papyrus discussed in 'The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology', xi, 72-75 and xiv, 60.

Of far greater interest are the three succeeding Ramessides, listed and dated in the next chart. (A discussion of the dates follows.)

Neferkare Ramesse (IX)	17	343-326
Khepermare Ramesse (X)	3	326-323
Menmare Ramesse (XI)	27 --	323-296 --

The Persian conquest of Egypt in 343 brought to power a collateral branch of the Ramessid family. Ramesses V was deprived of most royal prerogatives. (See page 297 of Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs'.) In his place ascended Neferkare Ramesse, in whose latter years foreigners and sea peoples -- Greeks! -- were found in Thebes. The years of Ramesses IX disclose great unrest and serious unemployment -- a result of the Persian conquest and the later penetration of the Greeks.

Ramesses XI is famous for the controversial 'Renaissance' -- or rebirth of Egyptian influence -- which commenced in his 19th year. The 19th year is 305-304 -- the very year that Egypt became independent under Ptolemy I. The Renaissance or 'renewal of birth' is the independence of Egypt under the Ptolemies'

Further, after year 17 of Ramesses XI there was a rebellion of Pinhasi in Upper Egypt coupled with a 'war in the Northern District' (Lower Egypt). This struggle occurred before the Renaissance, hence in year 18. Year 18 of Ramesses XI was 306-305 -- the year that Egypt was invaded -- unsuccessfully -- by Antigonus of Syria.

The remaining history of the petty rulers under the Ptolemies is exceedingly obscure -- and historically of little value. Theban and Tanite royalty are known for several generations following the Ramessides. They are mistakenly labeled by historians as Dynasty XXI -- but have nothing in common with the Tanite Dynasty XXI as found in Manetho. Most of their time was spent in rewraping the mummies of the ancient pharaohs. A much misunderstood monument is the Bubastite Portal at Karnak. Containing material pertaining to Dynasty XXII and built after the reign of Ramesses III, it is at times called upon to support a false early dating of Dynasty XX. The answer is quite simple. The inscriptions are late reproductions inscribed by Bubastite officials in honor of their early and famous kings -- the Soshenks and the Osorkons. It was commonplace during the Persian and Greek period to revive the past.

With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history is complete.

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

---

CHAPTER SEVEN

The Era of Confusion

No period of Egyptian history is in greater confusion than the close of Dynasty XVIII. To reconstruct this period scholars have limited themselves almost wholly to the meagre finds of archaeology. without any proof whatsoever, they have rejected or silently passed over the testimony of Africanus and Josephus, of the book of Sothis and the Bible.

To fill up gaps in the commonly accepted interpretation of history, they have written countless volumes on the unimportant king Tutankhamen -- who reigned only ten years. They have lauded Akhenaten, the father of King Tutankhamen, as the world's 'first monotheist,' when he was instead, a sexual deviate who used the cloak of religion to beget children by his own mother and daughters -- not to speak of his attraction toward his son Smenkhkare.

There is a reason historians have painted the closing years of Dynasty XVIII as one of religious idealism and philosophic wisdom. In some way they have to erase the presence of monotheism in Israel, and the rise of proofrb literature. Since the scholarly world has not been willing to attribute it to God, the origin has been sought in Egypt. No such foolish deduction could have been possible had historians properly placed Dynasty XVIII parallel with the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.

Egypt As It Really Was

The history of Egypt for the late eighteenth and the nineteenth dynasties is vividly described in the Bible. It is a picture quite unlike that of the early Thutmoses. Changes were becoming noticeable in the reign of Thutmose IV. But not until the accession of Amenhotpe III, the grandson of Amenhotpe II, did the history of Egypt become one of utter religious confusion, political division, folly. What happened is made clear in the book of Isaiah:
'The princes of Zoan are utter fools;

'The wisest counsellors of Pharaoh are a senseless counsel;

'How can ye say unto Pharaoh:

' 'I am the son of ancient kings'? ...

'The princes of Zoan are become fools,

'The princes of Noph (Memphis) are deceived;

'They have caused Egypt to go astray' (Isaiah 20:11-13).

Who are these princes of Zoan -- the descendants of ancient kings? Isaiah again writes of the same period:
'And I' -- God is speaking -- 'will spur Egypt against Egypt,

'And they shall fight everyone against his brother,

'And every one against his neighbor;

'City against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

'.... And I will give over the Egyptians

'Into the hand of a cruel lord;

'And a fierce king shall rule over them,

'Saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts' (Isa. 19:2-4).

For nearly 170 years following the expulsion of the Hyksos, Egypt was united under one royal family. But here one sees an Egypt divided, not merely into cities, but into kingdoms. What parallel dynasties ruled these feuding kingdoms? Are the records of these internal wars found on the monuments?

Indeed! All these surprising Scriptures are made plain once the history of Egypt is properly restored to its true chronological position.

The Later Eighteenth Dynasty

The records of Theban Dynasty XVIII have been restored through Thutmose IV. Beginning with Amenhotpe III, historians are in great confusion. Most of the controversy is suppressed in textbooks. It does not reach the ears of students.

The controversy is primarily due to the serious mistake of rejecting the classical evidence from Manetho. As with the early dynasties, Manetho preserved much that archaeology has not, and perhaps never will, discover. By; contrast, much that Manetho's transcribers thought unimportant has been rediscovered by archaeology. The true picture of what really happened in the next four centuries can be told only by utilizing both Manetho and archaeological finds.

So varied were the events surrounding the later years of Dynasty XVIII that no one ancient writer preserves all the details from Manetho. Not even Manetho appears to have recorded the whole account. Archaeology has unearthed many of the missing pieces of the puzzle. What is needed is to combine both Manetho and the finds of archaeology with the Bible.

Historians for years have been sharply divided over the events of the last years of Amenhotpe III. Many hold that he associated his son Akhenaten with him on the throne. Though other historians deny it, Manetho confirms the association. See the chart from Africanus presented later in this chapter.

The archaeologists who recognize that the father associated the son on the throne for a time have made the mistake, however, of interpreting the reign of Akhenaten as commencing, in the documents and monuments, from the beginning of his appointment. On his monuments, Akhenaten adopted the practice of dating his reign from the death of his father Amenhotpe III. The evidence of the El-Amarna correspondence absolutely proofs that Akhenaten was abroad during many years of the coregency and did not return till the death of his father ('The Journal of Egyptian Archaeology', vol. 43, 1957, pages 13-14). This fact misled the opposing school of historians to deny the firmly documented coregency.

From archaeology the following chart may be constructed. (See 'Journal of Near Eastern Studies', vol. xxv, April 1966, Pages 113-124, by Donald B. Redford.)

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Archaeology	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Thutmose IV	9	918-909
Amenhotpe III	38	909-871
Akhenaten (Orus)	17	871-854
Smenkhkare	3	854-851
Tutankhamen	10	851-841
Ay	4	841-837
Haremhab	59	837-778

The classical writers took no note of the short reigns of Orus' sons Smenkhkare and Tutankhamen. For them, the entire period was assigned to Orus. Similarly archaeology knows little or nothing of the other children born to Akhenaten.

King Ay, whose name appears next to last, was not of royal descent. He gained great influence in the latter years of the court of Amenhotpe III. He is mentioned in documents as father-in-law of Akhenaten. His daughter was Nefertiti, the king's chief queen. Unfortunately Ay later became the brother-in-law of Akhenaten. Ay's sister Tiy, who was the mother of Akhenaten, became also his wife toward the middle of his reign. What befell Nefertiti afterward is unrecorded in history.

Young Smenkhkare -- for whom Akhenaten also had an unnatural attraction -- later returned to the old capital of Thebes while his father remained at El-Amarna. After three short years on the throne, the youth was supplanted by his younger brother Tutankhamen.

Ten years later, Tutankhamen died. Ay gave Tutankhamen a sumptuous burial, then mounted the throne himself and apparently married Tutankhamen's young widow, his own granddaughter, to secure his claim to royalty. (See 'Journal of Egyptian Archaeology', 'King Ay, the successor of Tut-Ankh-amun,' vol. XCIII (1932), pages 50-52.)

Ay reigned 4 years. He died in 837.

Haremhab, who succeeded Ay, was a general who played no small part in the drama that climaxed the El-Amarna period. General Haremhab controlled the army. At his coronation in 837 he married the 'Queen's sister Mutnodjme' (Aldred, 'Journal of Egyptian Archaeology', vol. 43. Page 39 and Breasted's 'Ancient Records', vol. III, Sections 22 and 28.) Haremhab thus became the king's brother-in-law and Ay's son-in-law. A comparatively long reign is usually attributed to Haremhab. The highest discovered date assigned to him is 59 years. None of the documents bear a king's name. This figure is in agreement, however, with Manetho's transcribers.

Neither the mummy of Akhenaten nor of Haremhab has been found. A mummy, once thought to be Akhenaten's is undoubtedly that of Smenkhkare (Aldred, 'The End of the El-Amarna Period,' in December 1957 'Journal of Egyptian Archaeology').

Manetho's Evidence

Now let's consider what happened to the family of Akhenaten during the lifetime of Haremhab.

Africanus has correctly preserved Dynasty XVIII from Thutmose IV to a king named Ramesses. The variations of other writers will be considered later. Here is Africanus' record beginning with Thutmose IV:

Names of Rulers of Dynasty XVIII according to Julius Africanus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Tuthmosis (IV)	9	918-909
Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	37	878-841
Acherres	32	841-809
Rathos	6	809-803
Chebres	12	803-791
Acherres	12	791-779
Armesis	5	779-774
Ramesses (usually mislabeled 'I')	1	774-773

A break in the list occurs here. Now let's examine Eusebius before proceeding further with Africanus.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius' Greek Text	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	36	878-842
Achencherses, his daughter	12 (joint)	837-825
Athoris, her brother	39	842-803
Chencheres	16	803-787
Acherres	8	787-779
Cherres	15 (joint)	794-779
Armais	5	779-774

Note the parallel reign of Cherres, beginning 794. This figure will be significant for dating Dynasty XXIII of Tanis later. The dating of Akhenaton's daughter. Beginning in 837, will be proofd shortly.

We should now consider other variants from Manetho, illustrated by this fragmentary copy.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius' Armenian Version	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	28	871-843
Achencherses, his daughter	---
---	16	803-787
Acherres	8	787-779
Cherres	15	794-779
Armais	5	779-774

Eusebius' account of Orus supports the archaeological record of 38 years for Amenhotpe III mentioned earlier:

Amenhotpe III	38 (from archaeology)	909-871
Orus (Akhenaten)	28 (Armenian version)	871-843

Eusebius' Greek Manuscript B of the king list differs from the others. It has been misunderstood by some modern editors who have inserted, mistakenly, the figure 12 in place of 16 (that is, 841-825) for the reign of Achencherses, Akhenaten's daughter. They assumed that Eusebius has been incorrectly copied. But manuscript B of Eusebius plainly has 16. Because Cencheres also reigned 16 years, certain manuscript copies of Eusebius' original work have deleted his name and that of Athoris. (Compare Eusebius Werke, edited by Rudolph Helm, vol. I, pages 40-45 with Manetho, by W.G. Waddell, Fr. 53.)

What do these variants mean? They indicate that Manetho originally gave in detail the events surrounding the reigns of Akhenaten, Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare and Ay! Now see how the year 837 -- the end of Ay's reign -- can be established from Josephus and the Book of Sothis.

Names of Josephus and Theophilus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)	30	909-879
Orus (Akhenaten)	36 (or 38 in Eusebius)	879-843 (879-841)
Acencheres (daughter of Orus)	12 (or 16 in Eusebius)	837-825 (841-825)
Rathotis (her brother)	9	825-816 (14 missing years)
Acencheres I	12	802-790
Acencheres II	12	790-778
Harmais	4	778-774
Ramesses	1	774-773

It must first be remembered that Manetho, in his original work, presented to the world three vast tomes. These have been lost to the world. But before they perished many writers extracted material that, to them, appeared vital. Different writers viewed the multitude of Manetho's facts differently. Josephus considered certain events more important than did Africanus, for example; his dates for the reign of a king consequently might differ somewhat from Africanus. On occasion, whole reigns might be deleted as unimportant -- a fact already noted for the first half of Dynasty XVIII.

Josephus' abstract contains several unusual features. First, it is not consecutive. There is a significant break between Orus and his daughter Acencheres.

The second divergency is the dating of Amenhotpe III. Africanus assigns him 31 years and ends his reign in 878. Josephus and Theophilus follow the Book of Sothis and end it in 879. There is no scribal carelessness here, only a difference in evaluating events. Amenhotpe III associated his son Orus on the throne toward the end of his 31st year -- after 30 years and 10 months, to use Josephus' account. The question naturally arose, should the 31st year of Amenhotpe III be assigned to him, or to the son now that he had come to coregency? Africanus adopted the former method, dating it 878. Josephus, as well as Syncellus in the Book of Sothis, adopted the latter method, dating it 879.

The same variation may be noticed for the reigns of the kings Acencheres I and II and Harmais. Africanus, in these instances, began their regnal years one year earlier than Josephus; but assigned five to Armais. The total in each instance is the same.

Now see the Book of Sothis confirm the unusual dates 837-816 for Akhenaten's daughter and son -- and consequently 837 for the end of Ay's reign.

Names in Book of Sothis	Lengths of Reign	Dates
39 Tuthmosis (IV)	39	952-913
40 Amenophthis (III)	34	913-879
41 Orus (Akhenaten)	48	879-831
42 Achencheres (a daughter)	25	841-816
43 Athoris	29	831-802
44 Chencheres	26 (note -- 14 missing years in Josephus found!)	816-790
45 Acherres	30 (or 8)	809-779 (or 787-779)
46 Armais	9	779-770

Very little is known of the family of Akhenaten in later years. What is known is that Acencheres, the daughter of Akhenaten. had a brother Rathotis (or Rathos). His son is Achencheres I, the Chebres of Africanus. The next generation is Achencheres II, the Acherres II of Africanus. None of these names have been found as yet by archaeologists in Egypt. Yet they are important for their chronological value. If archaeologists had not been led astray they would have recognized the six successors of Orus as the six immediate predecessors of Piankhi, king of Nubia, of Dynasty XXV.

Now consider the literary evidence for this restoration of Dynasty XVIII.

The El-Amarna Letters

Amenhotpe III was an effeminate individual who purchased his pleasures by bestowing power on his friends. In his senile years he was sculptured 'wearing a type of gown usually worn by women' (Cyril Aldred, 'Bulletin of Metropolitan Museum of Art', Feb. 1957). Quite an about face since the days of the Queen of Sheba! The result of this personal aberration was the rise to prominence of non-royalty -- the family of Ay, for example.

The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten have become famous for the El-Amarna letters. The letters are official foreign correspondence. Some date from the time of Amenhotpe III, or before, though most pertain to the government of his son.

It is the common assumption of the majority of historians that these letters reveal internal events in Palestine at the time Joshua was invading the Holy Land. To make the Biblical account of the conquest chronologically correspond to the time of Akhenaten, historians had to displace the history of the book of Joshua. Some went so far as to assume that Joshua lived before Moses -- since they had previously misdated the exodus in the later reign of Ramesses 'the Great' or his son. Such foolish interpretations of history stand self-condemned. What the letters really indicate is an altogether different set of events.

The letters reveal that many of the coastal towns of Syria and Palestine, which had owed allegiance to Egypt, were torn asunder by internal strife or were being overrun. Local princes and Egyptian officials usually sought in vain for Egyptian assistance. What power expanded in Syria and Palestine during this period?

The Bible makes the answer plain. The Arameans.

The El-Amarna letters were written mainly in the days of Athaliah and Joash of Judah, and of Jehu and Jehoahaz of Israel. A few are from the earlier period of the Jehorams or before. The time setting is made clear in the Bible. Asa, in whose fifteenth year (937-936) Zerah invaded the land, died after a reign of 41 years. That brings history to 910. Jehoshaphat, his son succeeded him and reigned 25 years -- to 885. This was the 24th year of Amenhotpe III.

After the death of Jehoshaphat 'Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah ..., then did Libnah revolt at the same time' (II Chronicles 21:10). The events move rapidly: 'And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines, and of the Arabians that are beside the Ethiopians and they came up against Judah, and broke into it up against him' -- Joash -- 'and they came to Judah and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people' (II Chr. 24:23).

During these years Israel was being devastated by the Arameans, 'Then Hazael king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it; and Hazael set his face to go to Jerusalem' (II Kings 12:18). Later, in the reign of Jehoahaz of Israel, 'the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He delivered them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad, the son of Hazael, continually .... For there was not left to Jehoahaz of the people save fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king of Aram destroyed them, and made them like the dust of threshing' (II Kings 13:3, 7).

Later, Israel was delivered from the power of Aram during the time of Jeroboam II.

In the El-Amarna letters 'Aziru' is a king of 'Amurru', with his capital at 'Dumasqa'. All historians recognize that Dumasqa is Damascus, the capital of Aram or Syria. 'Amurru' is the common name for Aram. But who is Aziru in these cuneiform documents? Hazael! The 'l' and the 'r' are often linguistically interchanged. The 'H' has been dropped, just as it has in Josephus' spelling of Hazael -- 'Azaelos.' Compare the Biblical dropping of the 'H' in Hadoram to Adoram (II Chron. 10:18 and I Kings 12:18).

Hazael posed as Pharaoh's obedient ally -- as did most of the quarreling princes of the eastern Mediterranean coast. But he refused to render any act of submission. The king of Egypt had received many reports that Aram was not remaining loyal. In letter 162, addressed to Aziru or Hazael, the king of Egypt warns: 'If thou for any object desirest to do evil, or if thou layest up evil words of hatred in thy heart, then wilt thou die by the axe of the king together with thy whole family. Render submission then to the king, thy lord, (and) thou shalt live. Thou knowest, indeed, that the king does not desire to go heavily against the whole land of Kinahhi' -- Canaan. ('The Tell El-Amarna Tablets', by Samuel A.B. Mercer, vol. II, page 523.)

The letter was filled with empty words. Egypt had too many troubles of her own to afford costly expeditions to Syria.

Are the 'Habiru' Hebrews?

The letters to the Egyptian court also speak of the habiru -- sometimes spelled khabiru. It was at first commonly assumed that it meant 'Hebrew,' and was indicative of Joshua's invasion of Palestine. But not one king or Canaan in Joshua's day has ever been found in the El-Amarna letters. Nor is there one word of the fall of Jericho. The conquest of Palestine recorded in the book of Joshua contrasts at every fundamental point with the world of the El-Amarna letters. Egypt was an important power in the eastern Mediterranean in the days of the kings of Israel and in the El-Amarna world, but 'Joshua did not find any such Egyptian hold during his conquest' (Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie, 'Palestine and Israel', page 56).

Scholars have long disputed over the import of the word 'habiru', or 'khabiru'. From the letters it was known to be equivalent to the word 'sa-qaz' which means 'brigands,' 'plunderers,' 'bandits,' and 'cutthroats.' On occasion the word 'khabiru' 'is also written with an ideogram signifying 'cutthroats,' ' declared C.J. Gadd in 'The Fall of Nineveh'. The Hebrew root of 'khabiru' is 'khaber' (spelled 'chaber' in 'Young's Concordance'). It means a 'companion,' 'member of a band,' hence, in a derogatory sense, 'bandit.' The word appears in Isaiah 1:23 as 'companions of thieves': and in proofrbs 28:24 as 'companion of a destroyer.'

The 'khabiru' or 'habiru' were the Aramean, Philistine, Moabite, Arabian bands of plunderers who were overrunning Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine in the days of Jehoram and Jehoahaz.

Much also has been written of the person of Abdi-hibba. Scholars assume he was the king of 'Urusalim'. That the name 'Urusalim' is the cuneiform transcription of the name Jerusalem is plausible. But Abdi-hibba was no king of Jerusalem. In addressing the Egyptian court he wrote: 'Verily, I am not a regent; I am an officer of the king, my lord. Behold I am a shepherd of the king, and I am one who bears the tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, but the mighty hand of the king has set me in the house of my father' (Letter 288). The king is Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Again in Letter 287 he repeats: 'Verily, this land of the city of Urusalim, neither my father nor my mother has given it to me.' And in Letter 285: 'Behold, I am not a regent, I am an officer of the king, my lord.' Abdi-hibba was a Palestinian adventurer who had himself appointed an officer of Pharaoh to administer Egyptian affairs over a portion of the land that belonged to the city of 'Urusalim'. 'Take silver and follow me,' he was accused of saying (Letter 280).

It was commonplace for the petty kingdoms of Syria and Palestine to seek Egyptian 'foreign aid' in their quarrels. Isaiah reveals what God thought of it:
'Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, That take counsel, but not of Me: And that form projects, but not of My spirit, That they may add sin to sin; That walk to go down into Egypt, And have not asked at My mouth; To take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh, And to take shelter in the shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the stronghold of Pharaoh turn to your shame, And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your confusion. For his princes are at Zoan, And his ambassadors are come to Hanes. They shall all be ashamed of a people that cannot profit them, That are not a help nor profit

But a shame, and also a reproach' (Isaiah 30:1-5, 'Jewish Pub. Soc.' trans.).

And verse 7: 'For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have I called her 'Arrogancy that sitteth still.' '

Dissension and jealousy sundered Egypt's government during the El-Amarna period. It was, in part, the result of infiltration of foreign influence during the reign of Amenhotpe III. The book of Sothis records of his day: 'The Ethiopians, removing from the River Indus, settled near Egypt.'

They brought with them not only the concept of marriages between uterine brothers and sisters, a practice already established in Egypt by the royalty of Sheba, but of the marriage of parents with children. Children of the union of a mother and son were deemed especially well born. Akhenaten inherited this concept through his father's marriage relationships. But the practice was revolting to many Egyptians of high rank. No known ruler among them since the time of the Ethiopian Nimrod had dared marry his own mother and beget children of her.

Akhenaten did it because he regarded himself as a new incarnation of Nimrod, the sun-god. Hence the name Orus applied to the king. Orus is another spelling of Horus, third king of Egypt, who was anciently assumed to be the first incarnation of Nimrod.

The claims of Akhenaten were so widely known that in El-Amarna letter 41 the Hittite king addresses Akhenaten by the name of 'Huria' -- the cuneiform of Horus.

Akhenaten made religion the cloak for his perversions. He pictured himself as the solar disk, and from his nude body eminated the beams of light that were to illuminate the world. The claims of the 'heretic king' threatened the power of the Theban pontiffs. To retain their influence they first supported one, then another, or a third member of the royal family. Each change was presented to especially constructed idols which moved their heads -- through secret manipulation -- in approval or disapproval of the rival royal candidates.

After El-Amarna

The climax to the El-Amarna age is usually thought to be the early death of Akhenaten and the return to Thebes of young king Tut, supported by the Theban priesthood. What is not understood by historians or archaeologists is the sundering of Egyptian political unity.

In the next chapter it shall be proofd that Libyans penetrated Lower Egypt and after the death of Ay set up a dynasty of their own. Two generations later the political center of gravity shifted to Tanis in the Delta. Egypt consequently became a significant sea power in the eighth century before the present era. Greek classical records provide numerous references to Egyptian trade, settlement and warfare in the Mediterranean during this century.

Upper Egypt meanwhile saw the last kings of Dynasty XVIII retire to their homeland in Nubia. Dynasty XVIII arose in Ethiopian Nubia to oust the Hyksos. Its king Zera is called 'Ethiopian,' and its queen, 'Queen of Sheba.' (Sheba was a son of Cush, father of the Ethiopians.) When the religious controversy under Akhenaten developed, the religious and political pressures of the Upper Egyptians forced a withdrawal of the later members of the Dynasty to Napata in Nubia. Here, as we shall presently see, a branch of the family arose to new power in Nubia and Egypt in the person of Piankhi and reestablished the famous Ethiopian era in Egypt. But this Ethiopian period was not centered any longer in Thebes, but in Napata, Nubia.

Historians have never understood the connection between the early Ethiopian influence in Egypt and the later Ethiopian period, because they have separated them by over five centuries. This restoration of Egyptian history makes plain the connection.