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.

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.

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:

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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.)

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:

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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 THREE

History Begins at Babel

The restoration of history begins with this chapter. It has taken years of research to recover all the vital pieces of evidence needed to tell the full story. The assumptions of historians and archaeologists had first to be cleared away. The most difficult part, however, was the recovery of rejected evidence -- much of it published over 100 years ag.

At last the restoration of the framework of history was complete for Egypt, Babylonia, Assyria, Greece, Media. All the records went back to one momentous event.

The event? The building of the City and Tower of Babel! The beginning of the civilization of this world! It commenced as an act of rebellion against the Government of God. It began with the establishment of the Government of Man. And just as one might expect, all the ancient nations began to reckon their kings from this event.

History Corroborates the Bible

The Biblical account of the City and the Tower of Babel may be found in Genesis 11:1-9. In the Jewish Publication Society translation we read:

And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar: and they dwelt there. And they said one to another: 'Come, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly.' And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for mortar. And they said: 'Come, let us build us a city, and a tower, with its top in heaven, and let us make us a name: lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.' And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. And the Lord said: 'Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language: and this is what they begin to do: and now nothing will be withholden from them, which they purpose to do. Come, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.' So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth and they left off to build the city. Therefore was the name of it called Babel: because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

The most complete secular record is that found in the Acadian Creation Epic. It is reproduced in 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', by James B. Pritchard, pages 68-69. This account, like most from ancient pagan sources, is encrusted with myth. But that does not nullify the basic historical evidence contained in the epic. Following are extracts, freely translated, from the Epic of Creation concerning the building of the City and the Tower of Babel. A vague recollection of the Supreme God is discernable.

''Now, O lord, thou who hast caused our deliverance,

What shall be our homage to thee?

Let us build a shrine ....'

Brightly glowed his features, like the day:

'Like that of lofty Babylon, whose building you have requested,

Let its brickwork be fashioned. You shall name it 'The Sanctuary''

For one whole year they molded the bricks.

When the second year arrived,

They raised high the shrine equaling a great height.

Having built a stage-tower a great height,

They set up in it an abode for Marduk, Enlil, and Ea.

'This is Babylon, the place that is your home' ...''

The account in Genesis describes exactly what is given here -- the building of a Tower, or religious edifice, and of a City.

The epic then continues with the establishment of human government. At this point the document is fragmentary, but a father and a son are clearly spoken of:

'He set up a throne ....

Another in ....

'Verily, most exalted is the son ....

His sovereignty is surpassing ....

May he shepherd the human race.'

The Biblical account reveals who these two individuals were. Cush, the father, and Nimrod, the son. 'And Cush begat Nimrod: he began to be a mighty one in the earth .... And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel ...' (Genesis 10:8, 10).

With the reign of Cush and of Nimrod the history of civilization begins. At this point commences also the chronology of Egypt, of Assyria, of Babylonia and of the whole Near East.

The exact date of this event was preserved down to Roman times. For Velleius Paterculus cites from Aemilius Sura, in his 'Roman History', book I, section VI, the following: 'Between this time (when Rome conquered Philip, king of Macedonia) and the beginning of the reign of Ninus (Nimrod) king of the Assyrians, who was the first to hold world power, lies an interval of 1995 years.' Philip was conquered in 197. (All dates in this compendium which are not otherwise designated are understood to be before the present era, commonly, though mistakenly, written 'B.C.') Nimrod, therefore, began his sole reign in 2192. It followed a joint reign with his father Cush for 62 years, according to Julius Africanus. That places the overthrow of Babel 2254 years before the present era. The two previous years, according to the Epic of Creation, had been spent in erecting Babel. The building of the Tower may therefore be dated 2256-2254. The Bible does not specifically date this event. But it does confirm the general period: 'And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided ...' (Genesis 10:25).

Certainly the most spectacular confirmation of this date may be found in the history of China. For the Chinese begin their authentic history also 2254 years before the present era. This is no coincidence. China's first king was 'black.' His eyes shown with 'double brightness.' That is, theologically, 'demon possessed.' They called him Shun, and his father's name is spelled variously Chusou or Kusou -- that is, Cush. In his days lived a very famous woman whose name may be translated as either 'the mother of the king of the west,' or the 'queen mother of the west ' (See the 'Annals of the Bamboo Books,' 'The Chinese Classics', by James Legge, vol. III, part I, pages 114-115.)

Before presenting the chronological history of China -- which has been preserved without alteration since the Tower of Babel, let us trace in the West the story of these heroes who founded Babel. No story of history is so unusual, so filled with the unexpected.

On to Egypt

The tombs of all the famous heroes who founded Babel are located in Egypt. Egypt early became the second center of civilization. One can now easily understand why both Babylonians and Egyptians claimed to be the first people in the world -- claimed their civilization and their religious customs were the earliest. In Egypt we now trace the history of what occurred immediately after Babel.

Egyptian history opens with Dynasty I. Its capital was Thinis in Upper Egypt. The names of the first four rulers of Dynasty I are Menes, Athothis, Kenkenes and Uenephes. The spelling of the names is from the Greek of Manetho. The early Egyptian forms vary slightly. Who were these famous individuals?

Let the Egyptians themselves provide the answer. Athothis, Egypt's second king, was Osiris. The tomb of Athothis at Abydos was 'the sepulchre of the god Osiris, and, as such, became the shrine to which millions of pilgrims made their way,' declared Arthur Weigall in 'A History of the Pharaohs', vol. I, page 111. The Egyptian god Osiris was the Baal of the Phoenicians, the Marduk of the Babylonians, the Tammuz of the Semites, the Nimrod of the Bible.

The Cairo fragment of the Annals of Dynasties I-V preserves a name of the mother of Athothis. She is Hept, meaning 'the veiled one.' This is a designation of Isis, the mother and wife of Osiris. The Assyrians called Isis or Hept Ishtar or Semiramis. In Scripture she is called Ashtoreth. This woman was originally the queen of Meni. Egypt's first king. She became Athothis' queen and wife after the planned death of Meni. Here is confirmation of the age-old tradition that Nimrod married his own mother. Later. Athothis himself was slain in the 28th year of his reign, according to Plutarch.

The father of Athothis, and Egypt's first king, was Meni or Mena -- Menes in Greek. His name means 'The Establisher' ('History of Ancient Egypt', vol. II, p. 26, by George Rawlinson), or 'The Everlasting' (Waddell's 'Manetho', p. 215) Menes was the first to ESTABLISH himself as king in place of the Everlasting God. Since Menes was the father of Athothis (Nimrod), he is the Cush of the Bible. 'And Cush begot Nimrod, he began to be a mighty one in the earth' (Gen. 10:8).

The third name in the first dynasty is Kenkenes, a Greek form of Kenken, meaning 'The Terrible.' He was born, according to Egyptian tradition, after the death of Osiris. His mother placed him on the throne. She claimed he was the reincarnation of Osiris, or Athothis; hence he is at times called Athothis, or Itit in early fragments. (These various names may be found in Sir Alan Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs' and in Weigall's 'A History of the Pharaohs') He was also named Horus, the son of Isis.

Everyone of these famous men of old had many names. Of Nimrod, we read in the Epic of Creation:

'As for us, by however many names we call him, he is our god'

Let us then proclaim his fifty names ....'

Listed fourth in Dynasty I is Uenephes. This king was a woman! She called herself Henneit, meaning 'Neit is victorious.' Neit is the Egyptian form of the Greek Athena. She also called herself Hept, which means 'the veiled one,' as already noted. This evidence clearly means that the wife of Meni, or Cush, was the mother and later the wife of Nimrod, and later still the mother of Kenkenes or Horus.

Years later, she even propositioned her own son Horus, called Gilgamesh in Babylonian tradition, as we read in the following extracts from the Epic of Gilgamesh:

'When Gilgamesh had put on his tiara,

Glorious Ishtar raised an eye at the beauty of Gilgamesh:

'Come, Gilgamesh, be thou my lover!

Do but grant me of thy fruit.

Thou shalt be my husband and I will be thy wife'.

Gilgamesh opened his mouth to speak,

Thou art but a brazier which goes out in the cold;

A back door which does not keep out blast and .windstorm;

Pitch which soils its bearers; A waterskin which soaks through its bearer;

A shoe which pinches the foot of its owner!

Which lover didst thou love forever?

Come and I will name for thee thy lovers:

Of .... (the story of Cush is broken from the cuneiform tablet)

for Tammuz, the lover of thy youth,

Thou hast ordained wailing year after year.

them.'

(Consult Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', pages 83-84. Compare the account of Tammuz with Ezekiel 8:14.)

The Chronology of Dynasty I

Now we are ready to build the chronology of Egypt and of all ancient history from its beginning. Without a knowledge of who these rulers of Dynasty I are, it would be impossible to make sense of the following lengths of reign. The various pieces of information came originally from a full-length account by Manetho. The abstractors each told only part of the full story. No one list is complete in itself, but taken together -- in the same way the Bible ought to be studied -- every chronological fact makes sense.

Eratosthenes gives 62 for Menes and 59 for Athothis.

The immediate comment that all modern historians give, is that the list is corrupt. But they have no proof. They have never assembled these figures to tell the full story. Remember, the full account of what really occurred is lost in Manetho's original work. (A few facts have been reclaimed by archaeology.) Each of the abstractors of Manetho told only part of the story. Like the writers of the four gospels, each viewed what he saw in history from a different perspective. What was important to one, did not appear as important to another. It is time scholarship had a little more respect for the documents they purport to handle so judiciously.

The numbers in this list, as in almost all ancient history and also the Bible, are calendar years. That explains why they are whole figures. The immediate years after the building of Babel are assigned to Cush, although his son Nimrod reigned jointly with him.

The account begins with the reign of Cush or Menes. He began to reign in Shinar, not in Egypt. He came to Egypt where he spent his last 30 years. Cush or Menes ruled altogether 62 years, after which Nimrod began his sole rule of 25 years. Nimrod settled in Egypt 60 years after the building of Babel, and reigned two years jointly with his father. His total reign in Egypt was therefore 27 years. Plutarch records that Osiris (Nimrod) had to flee Egypt at the end of 27 years. He was executed in the summer in his 28th year by Shem, in the month of Tammuz, the 17th day according to ancient tradition.

These events may thus be clearly dated as follows:

-or-

Cush came to Egypt about 2222 and united Upper and Lower Egypt under his supreme authority for 30 years -- 2222-2192. This marks the beginning of Cushite, or Ethiopian, settlement in Africa. Cush, at the time of death, may have been nearly 170 years of age.

Josephus confirms this restoration of history in 'Antiquities' book VIII, chapter vi, sect. 2: 'All the kings from Menes, who built Memphis, ... until Solomon ... was more than one thousand three hundred years.'

In 2167 Nimrod (Athothis) fled to Italy and was slain there. At the flight of Nimrod, his mother-wife Uenephes also had to flee -- tradition states to the Delta. At this point some continued to reckon after the era of Nimrod or Athothis, since he had no male heir. Others reckoned time after his mother-wife who went into hiding. Thirty years passed. Now see how Manetho's figures fit!

It was about 57 years after Nimrod had come to Egypt. Suddenly his widow Uenephes or Isis reappears with a son -- Kenkenes or Horus. Four years later -- 59 years after the death of Menes or Cush, she associates the son with her on the throne of Egypt. Isis or Uenephes thus temporarily triumphs over those who were responsible for the execution of Nimrod.

Eight years later -- 42 years after the death of Nimrod -- the son Horus becomes supreme ruler as his mother turns over to him the reins of government. Horus or Kenkenes reigned altogether 39 years, alone for 31 years. Uenephes therefore reigned, after her return from exile, for 12 years (four years alone and eight years with her son). Afterward she returned to the throne again for 11 years following the departure of Horus for Babylonia, making a total of 23 years. (In Babylon Horus received the name Gilgamesh.) Thus every figure of Manetho, preserved from antiquity, fits.

This information may therefore be summarized as follows:

-or-

-or-

It is immediately noticeable that Horus or Gilgamesh left Egypt exactly 100 years after Nimrod left Babylonia to come to Egypt -- 2194-2094. This figure has important significance when we come to comparing Egyptian history with that of the land of Shinar or Sumer, in Mesopotamia.

Shem in Egypt

The first book of Manetho lists four more kings in Dynasty I. Among them is Shem. All classical records agree as to the length of reign. The reconstructed Cairo fragment of the Palermo stone gives different figures, but the same total -- indicating there were contemporary reigns, during which more than one ruler shared the throne. A Biblical parallel to this may be observed in the case of Jehoshaphat and Jehoram in Judah (II Kings 8:16).

The figures appear as follows:

The total length of Dynasty I is 261 years -- 2254-1993.

The seventh king is especially significant. His original name in the Egyptian records is Semsem -- meaning the Great Sem or Shem. In the New Testament Greek, Shem is spelled Sem (Luke 3:36). The hieroglyphics representing Shem depict him in Asiatic, not Egyptian, dress. He appears as an old man with a long beard in priestly garb. Old indeed he was. About 430 years old!

Shem left Egypt in 2019 or one year before the death of Noah in 2018 which was 350 years after the Flood Shem probably heard that Noah was approaching death in 2019.

Now consider Miebis, the sixth king, and predecessor of Semsem. His tomb was defaced by Semsem. A later section, in volume II, will reveal Miebis to be Osiris II. He was slain by Semsem. The Egyptians called him Typhon. He was the 'father' or ancestor of 'Judah and Jerusalem,' records Plutarch.

Dynasty II of Thinis

The kings of the second dynasty were comparatively insignificant. Other and more powerful rulers were dominating Egypt at this time -- ever since the days of Shem, but who they were will be disclosed only after the chronology of the first eight dynasties is firmly established. The change from Dynasty I to II at this point in history will also become apparent, once we begin to examine parallel dynasties who fought over the possession of Abydos and Thinis.

The first four rulers of Dynasty II:

The fragment of the Palermo Stone agrees with this total.

In the reign of Binothris 'it was decided that women might hold the kingly office,' wrote Manetho. This legal decision accounts for the bifurcation of the dynasty within two generations. Manetho's abstractors list both branches of the dynasty in successive order, giving the false impression that one followed the other. This is the very same technique Manetho employed in listing contemporary dynasties. The Turin Papyrus and the Palermo Stone provide the information missing from Manetho. Once again all the evidence must be considered, including Manetho.

The fifth king listed by Manetho and the monuments was Sethenes (Sendi in the King-lists). He reigned altogether for 41 years -- 1852-1811. The Palermo stone provides the added fact that he associated others with him after his 37th year. His sole reign was 37 years -- 1852-1815.

At this point he associated Chaires and Sesochris with him on the throne. Sesochris -- the eighth in Manetho's list -- was succeeded by Cheneres -- the ninth in Manetho. Their reigns:

Parallel with Sesochris was Chaires, who reigned for 17 years. His successor was Nephercheres (Neferkare in the King-lists). Manetho gives him a total reign of 25 years, but the Palermo Stone and the Turin Papyrus indicate he was removed from the kingship by Sesochris after a reign of only 15 years. The Turin Papyrus preserves the record that Sesochris replaced him for 8 years. Following the usurpation by Sesochris, Nephercheres returned to the throne for 10 more years completing 25 years of reign. He was succeeded by Necherophes, the first king listed by Manetho for Dynasty III of Memphis. In chart form this information appears thus:

The Turin Papyrus indicates that the return to power of Nephercheres was facilitated by another prince of royal blood who shared the throne. Though Manetho does not list him, he and his successor appear in the King-lists and in the Turin Papyrus as follows:

Thus every date from each document is accounted for. The total length of Dynasty II is 256 years -- 1993-1737, Altogether 517 years had elapsed since human government was established after the deluge.

Joseph and the Seven-Years' Famine

It has been necessary to name kings not associated with Biblical events in order to establish the proper date for Dynasty III. This dynasty is one of the most important in all Egyptian history. In it are the records of Joseph's rulership and of the seven years' famine. This dynasty is usually mistakenly placed over a thousand years too early! But before proceeding, we must examine the Turin Papyrus for a most significant summary date.

The Turin Papyrus contains the following entry after Dynasty VIII: 'Kings since Menes, their kingdoms and years: 949 years: kingless years: 6. Total, 955.' (See Gardiner's Royal Canon of Turin.) It also lists 181 years for Dynasty VI. The known length of Dynasty III is 74 years, of Dynasty IV, 123; of Dynasty V, 140; of Dynasty VIII, 140. And remember, Dynasty I and Dynasty II totaled 517 years. Yet the total for the entire period is only 955 years. There is no other possible explanation than that certain of these dynasties reigned parallel with each other. Joseph will be found listed in two of them!

To return to Dynasty III -- the first dynasty of the city of Memphis. The Turin Papyrus, together with the restored Palermo Stone, provides the complete regnal years of the five successive kings who dominated the dynasty. The name Zoser, the first ruler of the dynasty is also spelled Djoser.

The end of a seven-year's famine occurred at the close of year 18 of Zoser I (end of winter 1719). No other seven-years' famine is reported during the entire history of the Pharaohs. This is the Biblical seven-years' famine under Joseph. It is at the right time.

An account of the calamity is to be found on the rocks of the island of Sehel, at the First Cataract. A modern translation of it may be found in 'Biblical Archaeology' by G. Ernest Wright, page 56. The account reads:

'Year 18 .... I was in distress on the Great Throne, and those who are in the palace were in Heart's affliction from a very great evil, since the Nile had not come in my time for a space of seven years. Grain was scant, fruits were dried up, and everything which they eat was short .... The infant was wailing; the youth was waiting; the heart of the old man was in sorrow .... The courtiers were in need. The temples were shut up .... Everything was found empty.' (Translation by J. A. Wilson in 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', edited by J. B. Pritchard, page 31.)

But where does Joseph appear in this period? The answer is found in Dynasty III and Dynasty IV of Manetho. He appears under the name Suphis (or Souphis or Saophis) -- different Greek spellings from Manetho's abstractors. Joseph in Hebrew, it should be noted, is not pronounced with an English 'J' sound, but with a 'Y' sound. In Manetho's Egyptian transcription of the name only the consonents 's' and 'ph' appear -- hence the Greek Souphis or its variant forms. Eratosthenes wrote that the Egyptians had designated Suphis as a 'money-getter' or 'trafficker' (Fragment 17, 'Manetho', by W. G. Waddell, page 219).

Dynasty III in Manetho is made up of many rulers which do not appear in the Turin Papyrus. Only the two Djosers appear in each list, and in each case the full length of reign is preserved in Manetho. These otherwise unknown rulers are accounted fiction by modern historians. Had they only looked in the Bible they would have found one of them in the person of Joseph.

In Dynasty IV Suphis or Joseph is given 66 years by Manetho. This makes it clear that Dynasty IV -- a foreign dynasty -- parallels Dynasty III. The two records together tell the full story. Only the latter portion of Joseph's reign is preserved in the list of rulers in Dynasty III. The entire period of Joseph's public service is contained in the parallel account. The 66 years of Joseph's public service cover the years 1734-1668. Compare this date with Zoser's seven years of famine. The famine ended in 1719 after the rise in Upper Egypt of the new Nile during the summer of 1720 in Zoser's 18th year. The famine thus extends in Egypt from the spring of 1726 to the spring of 1719 (Jacob came to Egypt in the summer of 1725, after the harvest had failed two years in Palestine ) The seven harvests of great abundance were during the years 1733-1727. Joseph, according to the Bible, came to power in 1734, the year before the beginning of the seven years of prosperity. And 1734 is the very date for the commencement of Joseph's public office, as listed in the fourth dynasty! Joseph was 30 years of age upon entering his service (Gen. 41:46). He thus served till 96 years of age, and died at 110 (50:26).

But Manetho's account does not end here. There are yet four kings that complete the dynasty. These kings parallel, in part, those already mentioned, and whose reign is preserved in the Turin Papyrus.

In summary, the third dynasty is divided at times into two or three branches -- just as was the second dynasty. The government under this dynasty was centered at Memphis. Not every ruler was of the same rank, of course, but all exercised royal power (Genesis 41:39-44).

Although Dynasty IV, in which Joseph's and Job's long reigns are recorded, is parallel with these events, it is better to restore it after the fifth and sixth dynasties are presented.

The Exodus

In Manetho, Dynasty V is designated as from Elephantine -- far away to the south, in Upper Egypt on the borders of Nubia. Although Manetho lists nine kings in the dynasty, he plainly states that there were only 'eight kings from Elephantine.' This mystery has never been solved by historians. Their explanation is that the records are incorrect. Not so. There were only eight kings from Elephantine, because Sephres, the second in the list, was of the Memphis line and had already appeared as Sephuris in the third dynasty. He is the key to the proper dating of Dynasty V. Though from Elephantine, the government was usually centered near Memphis. The Turin Papyrus and the restored Palermo Stone give us the following summary:

With Unis the dynasty comes to a catastrophic end. (He was a contemporary of the Pharaoh who perished at the Red Sea.) The king died the night of the Passover. Unis was a firstborn' He was also a cannibal! After Moses left Egypt, he commenced the frightful practice of eating the firstborn of his enemies. That is one of the reasons God slew the firstborn of Egypt. From the pyramid-tomb of Unis one may read this horrible account of his life, his blasphemous claims, and his deeds.

'Behold, Unas hath arrived at the height of heaven .... Ra is on one side and Horus is on the other, and Unas is between them .... Unas hath weighed his word with the hidden god who hath no name, on the day of hacking in pieces the firstborn .... Unas devoureth men .... He ... cutteth off hairy scalps ... the cordmaster hath bound them for slaughter. Khonsu the slayer of ... hath cut their throats and drawn out their inward parts, for it was he whom Unas sent to drive them in: and Shesem hath cut them in pieces and boiled their members in his blazing cauldrons. Unas hath eaten their words of power, and he hath swallowed their spirits; the great ones among them serve for his meal at daybreak, the lesser serve for his meal at eventide, and the least among them serve for his meal at night. The old gods and the old goddesses become fuel for his furnace. The mighty ones in heaven shoot out fire under the cauldrons which are heaped up with the haunches of the firstborn; and he that maketh those who live in heaven to revolve around Unas hath shot into the cauldrons the haunches of their women of the gods in visible form. UNAS IS THE FIRSTBORN OF THE FIRSTBORN existence is ... and the offerings made unto him are more than those made unto the gods ...' (from E. A. Wallis Budge's 'A History of Egypt', vol. II, pages 83-88.) Compare King Unis and his blasphemous claims with II Thessalonians 2:3-4. A remarkable analogy.

Name in Manetho Length of Reign Dates

Manetho adds details to this dynasty missing from the Turin Canon. His figures for length of reign clearly illustrate that several kings of Dynasty V reigned jointly as with almost every previous royal line. From Manetho's abstractors the following table may be drawn up:

(The reign of Usercheres in the Turin Papyrus does not begin until 1627, after the end of its Dynasty IV, though he had previously been reigning.)

At this point the line of Elephantine divides into two branches. After year 17 of Cheres, Rathures came to power for 44 years and was succeeded by Unis.

After the 20-year reign of Cheres, Tancheres came to power also for 44 years, with Unis as his successor as follows:

For a total period of 9 years Mencheres shared in the government, giving rise to three parallel reigns. Subdivisions of government as here illustrated were quite typical of the ancient world. An example that might be cited is the government of the later Roman Empire when subdivided into two parts, each under two emperors.

Pharaoh of the Exodus

Now for the sixth dynasty. To determine its chronological place in history, we must first establish the end of Dynasty VIII. Dynasty VIII, located at Memphis, was a very weak period -- under foreign dominion, as will later be established. It lasted a total of 140 years. Many of the names of its kings have been found, but no regnal dates for any individual kings can be determined. (Consult Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', page 437.) This dynasty concludes the 955 years from the beginning of the government of Menes or Cush at Babel, according to the Turin Canon. Its dates are therefore 1439-1299.

It was preceded by 6 kingless years, extending from 1445-1439. This period corresponds with Joshua's conquest of Goshen to the Nile (Joshua 10:41 and 11:16). Sometimes these six kingless years are attached to Dynasty VI; on other occasions the period is attached to Dynasty VIII. During this period of six kingless years occurs the ephemeral seventh dynasty. Africanus records that it comprised a kind of council with 70 kings exercising authority for 70 days. Eusebius declares there were 5 kings who ruled for 75 days. Little else is known of the period.

Dynasty VI of Memphis immediately preceded this period. It lasted 181 years -- 1626-1445. The following chart is determined from archaeological evidence and the Turin Canon.

Manetho assigns to Othoes 30 years, at the end of which time he was assassinated by his bodyguard, His total reign extended from 1643-1613. Manetho's second king Phios is assigned 53 years: 1613-1560. He reigned jointly during the early years of his young son Pepi the Great (Phiops Neferkare) Menthusuphis is assigned by Manetho 7 years, and archaeological finds indicate he reigned a year jointly with his young brother before he died (1581-1580).

Compare these dates with those of Dynasty V for the Exodus. Dynasty V ended at 1486 with the death of the magician-king (Unis is called Jannes in II Timothy 3:8.) In Dynasty VI king Merenre II also dies in 1486, after only one year's reign. He was succeeded by his wife Nitocris, then by his son Neferka 'the younger.' Neferka's older brother, the firstborn, died at the Passover. No trace of him has been found. Compare this with Exodus 2:23, 'And it came to pass in the course of those many days that the king of Egypt died.' This king is Neferkare -- more commonly called Pepi II -- who reigned the longest in all Egyptian history. He came to the throne at 6 years of age and died at 100. Then God calls Moses. To Moses he declared: 'Go, return into Egypt: for all the men are dead that sought thy life' (Exodus 4:19). Merenre II was now reigning -- the Pharaoh whom Moses and Aaron met and who perished in the Red Sea. At this juncture in history Egypt collapsed. Foreign invaders enter the land -- but who they were and where they came from must wait until all the previous dynasties before the Exodus are determined.

Dynasty IV -- the Pyramid Builders

To return to the story of Joseph. Parallel with Dynasty III of Memphis, was Dynasty IV, 'eight kings of Memphis belonging to a different line.' This dynasty includes such famous names as Cheops, Chephren and Mycerinus -- to use the names made familiar by Herodotus. The list of kings of the fourth dynasty in the Turin Canon and on the Palermo Stone differs from Manetho after Cheops. The result, no doubt, of the tragic plague that came upon Cheops (Job). The Palermo Stone and the Turin Canon begin Dynasty IV 123 years before Dynasty V. That means it commenced the 24-year reign of Snefru in 1750. The following dates are from Turin Canon and restored Palermo Stone.

(According to Herodotus, the Great Pyramid took 20 years to build, much of it during the time of the seven-years' famine when labor was available. The loss of authority after 23 years appears to correspond with the plague on Job. At this point the death of several of the sons of Cheops is recorded at the tombs near Gizeh) Continuing:

At this point this branch of the dynasty was succeeded by the kings of Dynasty V, from Elephantine.

The following is the information preserved by Manetho who begins the dynasty five years earlier than does the Turin Canon. (Note that Cheops is designated as Job. See May 1958 'Good News', p. 3.)

Parallel with Mycerinus were the following:

Herodotus tells us that according to Egyptian tradition there were 150 years between the beginning of the dynasty and the end of the life of Mycerinug, 1755-1605. Manetho's account appears senseless to historians because they have assumed there were no other kings than those whose records they have found through archaeology. It is often the men who were least important in their own age whose tombs or monuments have been recovered, while the individuals who loomed large at the time have vanished completely.

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 SIX

The Revival of Egypt

The return of Egypt to a great world power commenced with the overthrow of the Shepherd Kings in Upper Egypt. It opened the way for the most glamorous -- and the most incestuous -- of all Egyptian families -- Dynasty XVIII of Thebes.

Archaeology has provided a wealth of information for this period. Yet no standard textbook has ever restored Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history. Because Manetho presented his history of Egypt's thirty dynasties in successive order, it was early assumed that the exodus occurred under this dynasty. Modern historians have long recognized that not one shred of evidence supports this preposterous traditional conception inherited from Catholic scholars. As a solution, they have proposed an even more preposterous theory -- that the exodus -- if it took place at all! -- was under the succeeding nineteenth dynasty. There is indeed a reference to Israel during the nineteenth dynasty of Egypt, but it is to the captivity of Israel -- not to the exodus, as will be demonstrated when restoring the Ramesside period.

Dynasty XVIII

Archaeological and classical materials are sufficient to restore in detail the dynastic sequence and relationship of the kings and queens of Dynasty XVIII. Ahmose commenced the dynasty and expelled the foreign Shepherd Kings. His queen, Ahmose-Nofreteroi, is 'depicted for some unaccountable reason with a black countenance,' declared Sir Alan Gardiner in 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', page 175. The second king, Amenhotpe (Amenophis I), was pictured, black (I. Rosellini, 'I Monumenti dell' Egitto e della Nubia', Pisa, 1832-44). Foucart in an article in the 'Bulletin de, l'Institut Egyptien', 5 serie, II (1917), pages 268-269), presented evidence that in the Egyptian royal family of this period was Ethiopian blood.

But first, to restore Dynasty XVIII to its rightful place in history. From archaeological research and the classical writers the following chronological chart may be constructed.

*Joint with Thutmose III.

At this point the dynasty should be interrupted to recount the major events in Egypt which synchronize with the history of neighhoring nations and with the Bible.

The Biblical Parallel

The synchronism of Biblical and Egyptian history begins in the reign of Solomon, king of Israel. 'Solomon became allied to Pharaoh king of Egypt by marriage, and took Pharoah's daughter, and brought her into the city of David ...' (I Kings 3:1, Jewish Pub. Soc. trans.). (Who was the Pharaoh who became Solomon's father-in-law?

The answer may be established by determining the time of Solomon's reign. It is stated in I Kings 6:1, 'And it came to pass in the four hundred and eightieth year after the children of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month Ziv, which is the second month, that he began to build the house of the Lord' (JPS trans.).

From Egyptian history the exodus may be dated Nisan (March-April) 1486. The 480th year thus extended from 1007-1006 (spring to spring). The fourth year of the reign of Solomon (1008-1007, reckoning autumn to autumn according to the civil calendar) thus corresponds to the time of Pharaoh Thutmose II. His chief wife and queen was Hashepsowe (Hatshepsut in earlier authors). As the mother of the Egyptian princess whom Solomon married is unrecorded it is presently impossible to determine from history whether Hashepsowe was Solomon's mother-in-law or step-mother-in-law. In either case she could learn firsthand of the riches and fame of Israel's king.

Solomon commenced the building of the Temple in his fourth year. In the eleventh year of his reign it was completed (I Kings 6:37-38). Thereupon Solomon devoted his time to the erection of his palace. 'And Solomon was building his own house thirteen years ...' (I Kings 7:1). It was now the twenty-fourth year of Solomon's reign.

'And it came to pass at the end of twenty years (7 plus 13), wherein Solomon had build the two houses ...' that Hiram the king of Tyre came to visit Solomon (I Kings 9:10). But Hiram was not the only royal visitor who came about this time. 'And when the queen of Sheba heard of the fame of Solomon because of the name of the Lord, she came to proof him with hard questions' (I Kings 10:1). Jesus called the queen of Sheba 'the queen of the south' (Matthew 12:42 and Luke 11:31). In the book of Daniel, chapter 11, the king of the south is the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Jesus' designation of the queen of Sheba as the 'queen of the south' therefore means that she was the ruler of Egypt and Ethiopia. Was a woman -- a queen -- ruling Egypt in the twenty-fourth year of Solomon? Indeed -- Maekaure Hashepsowe!

Josephus, the Jewish historian, preserves an account of this famous visitor. 'There was then a woman, queen of Egypt and Ethiopia book VIII, chapter vi, part 5).

Many modern historians have assumed that both Jesus and Josephus were incorrect. They limit the land of Sheba exclusively to southern Arabia. It is at this point that they seem to forget their history. Ethiopia anciently extended to southern Arabia. The land of Sheba -- the leading Ethiopian tribe -- included both southern Arabia and Ethiopia. Under Dynasty XVIII of Thebes Ethiopia and Egypt were united. The queen of the south was therefore also queen of Egypt -- the Hashepsowe of history.

Josephus preserves the name of the Queen of Sheba. He quotes from Herodotus and calls her 'Nicaule' ('Antiquities', book VIII, chapter vi, part 2). Any philologist would immediately recognize in the name Nicaule (Nikaule in Greek) only a dialectic form of the Egyptian Maekaure, the 'prenomen' of Hashepsowe.

Perhaps the most striking proof that Hashepsowe visited Palestine may be found recorded in the temple at Deir el Bahari. The walls of this temple enshrine the visit of the Queen to 'God's Land.' The event occurred in her ninth year -- 988-987 -- the year Solomon completed his great palace. In 'Ancient Records of Egypt', by Breasted, volume II, may be found the English translation of the inscriptions of the expedition. Here are extracts from this most famous of all Egyptian voyages:

'Sailing in the sea, beginning the goodly way towards God's-Land, journeying in peace to the land of Punt ...' (section 253).

God's Land is described in detail in section 288: 'I have led them on water and on land, to explore the waters of inaccessible channels, and I have reached the Myrrh-terraces.'

Queen Hashepsowe explored in God's Land 'waters of inaccessible channels' -- an awkward modern translation meaning 'spring-fed pools.' Solomon built many spring-fed pools to supply the lovely artificial wooded terraces. 'I made me gardens and parks,' wrote Solomon, 'and I planted trees in them of all kinds of fruit; I made me pools of water, to water therefrom the wood springing up with trees' (Ecclesiastes 2:5-7).

'It is a glorious region of God's-Land; it is indeed my place of delight .... They took myrrh as they wished, they loaded the vessels to their hearts' content, with fresh myrrh trees, every good gift of this country, Puntites whom the people know not, Southerns of God's-Land.' 'Trees were taken up in God's-Land, and set in the ground in Egypt' (sect. 294). The vessels of the Queen, on the return trip up the Nile to Thebes were heavily loaded with 'all goodly fragrant woods of God's-Land' and many other rarities which previously had been imported from around the world by the people of God's-Land. 'Never was brought the like of this for any king who has been since the beginning' (sect. 265).

Scholars have foolishly puzzled for decades over the location of 'God's-Land' -- 'Toneter' in Egyptian. It is really no puzzle. The word in Egyptian signifies 'Divine Land' or 'Holy Land.' The 'Holy Land' is Palestine!

Egyptian inscriptions precisely define the location of God's-Land as Palestine. It lies between Egypt and Syria. In the Papyrus Harris one reads of 'the products of Egypt, God's-Land, Syria and Kush' (Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 313). Again: 'products of Egypt, products of God's-Land, products of Syria' (sects. 341, 387).

From the Piankhi Stela comes the same evidence: 'Then the ships were laden with silver, gold, copper, clothing, and everything of the Northland, every product of Syria, and all sweet woods of God's-Land. His majesty sailed up-stream ...' from the Mediterranean coast southward up the Nile to Upper Egypt (Breasted, op. cit., vol. IV, sect. 883).

En route from Egypt to Upper Syria, Thutmose III passed by God's Land. 'All plants that grow, all flowers that are in God's-Land which were found by his majesty when his majesty proceeded to Upper Retenu (Syria)' (Breasted, op. cit., vol. II, sect. 451).

Amenhotpe III cut cedar in God's Land for his sacred barge: ' was dragged over the mountains of Retenu (Lebanon) by the princes of all countries' (section 888). No mistaking this reference. God's Land could refer to no other region than Palestine, the Holy Land.

In God's Land, or Palestine, Hashepsowe found more than one people. Inhabiting the southern portion, where the Queen first landed, were native 'Puntites,' presented to her as servants by the ruling people of the land. In her monuments at Deir el Bahari these 'Puntites' are pictured as a short, round-headed, dark-skinned, thick-lipped people, whereas the dominant people were white men (Naville's 'Deir el Bahari', Pt. III, page 12).

The two peoples of the Holy Land were Israelites and Canaanites. A remnant of Canaanites -- the 'Puntites' of the inscriptions -- long lived in the mountains of Seir bordering on the Gulf of Aqaba. The words 'Punt' and 'Puntite' came to be pronounced in Egyptian without the 't.' A better spelling of the Egyptian word would be 'Puoni' or 'Pwene', the latter most commonly used today by scholars. (See Gardiner's 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', page 37, note 1.) When referring to wars with the Canaanite Carthaginians, the Romans spoke of Punic wars -- Punic being a synonym for Canaanite. The chief Canaanite people were the Sidonians. The father of Sidon, in classical literature, was named Pontus (Eusebius, 'Preparation for the Gospel', I, x, 27). In Scripture he is Canaan.

The land of Punt or Pwene was the land wherever Canaanites settled. Originally the land of 'Punt' was limited to Palestine -- in Scripture 'the land of Canaan' -- but in later times signified any land to which Phoenicians or Canaanites migrated. 'Afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad' (Genesis 10:18). Hence in Egyptian literature Punt included lands outside of Palestine or God's Land.

God's Land is Palestine. The Queen of Sheba is Hashepsowe. But who is 'Shishak' the king of Egypt at the close of Solomon's reign?

Shishak Captures Jerusalem

In the later years of Solomon's reign, Egypt was ruled by a king named Shishak. He is introduced in I Kings 11:40, in an account of the strife between Solomon and Jeroboam. 'Solomon sought therefore to kill Jeroboam; but Jeroboam arose, and fled to Egypt, unto Shishak king of Egypt, and was there in Egypt until the death of Solomon.' Archaeology has as yet not found this name in Egypt, but it has appeared on tablets excavated at Ras Shamra in northern Syria. (See Dhorme's article in 'Revue Biblique', XL, Jan. 1931, page 55.) The Pharaohs of Egypt usually had many names, many of which have not yet been recovered by the archaeologists. Which king of Dynasty XVIII was Shishak?

The chronological chart at the beginning of this chapter indicates he was Thutmose III, often designated 'the Great.' He reigned not only in the later years of Solomon, but in the time of Rehoboam.

The Biblical record states that Shishak invaded Judah shortly after Solomon's death. 'And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem; and he took away the treasures of the house of the Lord, and the treasures of the king's house: he even took away all; and he took away all the shields of gold which Solomon had made' (I Kings 14:25-26).

A parallel and richer account is preserved in II Chronicles 12:1-8:

And it came to pass, when the kingdom of Rehoboam was established, and he was strong, that he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him. And it came to pass in the fifth year of king Rehoboam, that Shishak king of Egypt came up against Jerusalem, because they had dealt treacherously with the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots, and three- score thousand horsemen; and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt; the Lubim, the Sukkiim, and the Ethiopians. And he took the fortified cities which pertained to Judah, and came unto Jerusalem. Now Shemaiah the prophet came to Rehoboam, and to the princes of Judah, that were gathered together to Jerusalem because of Shishak, and said unto them: 'Thus saith the Lord: Ye have forsaken Me, therefore have I also left you in the hand of Shishak.' Then the princes of Israel and the king humbled themselves; and they said: 'The Lord is righteous.'

And when the Lord saw that they humbled themselves, the word of the Lord came to Shemaiah, saying: 'They have humbled themselves; I will not destroy them: but I will grant them some deliverance, and My wrath shall not be poured out upon Jerusalem by the hand of Shishak. Nevertheless they shall be his servants; that they may know My service, and the service of the kingdoms of the countries.' '

This momentous event in the history of Judah is dated to the fifth year of king Rehoboam. Reckoning from the fourth year of Solomon, 1008-1007 (autumn to autumn according to the civil calendar). the fifth year of Rehoboam would be 967-966. Now the thirty-first year of Thutmose III is 967-966 (spring to spring). The two regnal years overlap six months in the autumn and winter of the year 967-966.

In his thirtieth year Thutmose campaigned in Judah. He did not capture Jerusalem in this year (Breasted's 'Ancient Records of Egypt', vol. II, sect. 465, footnote a). However he did harvest their grain and take hostages.

Year thirty-one of Thutmose corresponds to Rehoboam's fifth. In this year Rehoboam humbled himself. Nevertheless, God allowed Thutmose to take Jerusalem. (For best Bible rendering see the Jewish Publication Society translation of II Chronicles 12:1-8.) For the list of spoils and tribute taken see Breasted, sections 471 and 473.

The first Egyptian to pierce the walls of Kadesh was Amenemhab He records in his biography: 'His majesty sent forth every valiant man of his army, in order to pierce the wall for the first time, which Kadesh had made. I was the one who pierced it, being the first of all the valiant: no other before me did it' (section 590).

Archaeologists have spent years guessing the whereabouts of the city of Kadesh. No one, it seems, has suspected that it is Jerusalem!

All scholars recognize that the word Kadesh means 'Holy.' When used in reference to a city, it means a Holy City. Jerusalem is many times called the Holy City in Scripture. In Daniel 9:24 Jerusalem is referred to as 'the holy city.' In the original Hebrew, the root word for 'holy' is KADESH. Nehemiah 11:1 speaks of 'Jerusalem the holy city.' Again the Hebrew root for 'holy' is KADESH, sometimes spelled KODESH. See also Isaiah 48:2 and numerous other passages.

In all, Thutmose mentions one hundred and nineteen captured cities of Palestine. Kadesh is listed first, Megiddo second (A. Jirku, 'Die aegyptischen Listen der Palaestinensischen und Syrischen Ortsnamen,' 'Klio Beihefte', XXXVIII, Leipzig, 1937). The wealth plundered from the Palace and the Temple in Jerusalem was engraved on the walls of the great Amon temple at Karnak and may be seen to this day.

Thutmose received continuous tribute from Judaea during the succeeding years of his reign, confirming the Biblical statement that the Jews became the 'servants' of Shishak (II Chronicles 12:8).

In the forty-second year of Thutmose's reign he again 'arrived at the district of Kadesh, captured the cities therein.' (Sections 529, 531 ) This was in 955 or one year before Rehoboam died. Rehoboam reigned seventeen years in all (II Chronicles 12:13) In 954 Abijah succeeded his father -- twelve years after the capture of Jerusalem (966) Thutmose's intention was to perpetuate Egyptian rule on the kingdom of Judah. Rehoboam was old and weak after continual wars with Jeroboam.

Before completing the life of Thutmose, it is important to consider two other campaigns which preceded the attack on Jerusalem. In his twenty-third year, 975 exactly 511 years after the Exodus and the coming of the Hyksos into Egypt, Thutmose commenced 'the first victorious expedition to extend the boundaries of Egypt with might ... Now, at that period the Asiatics had fallen into disagreement, each man fighting against his neighbor .' (Breasted, op cit., vol II, sections 415-416).

This campaign proceeded no farther north than Tripolis of the southern Lebanon. It marks the termination of the 511 years assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus and the classical writers. Southern Phoenicia, from whence came some of the Shepherd Kings, was now subject to the Egyptians. Seven years later, 518 years after the Exodus in the thirtieth year of Thutmose III, a major campaign was carried on along the eastern Mediterranean coast to the city of Arvad (sect. 461). All of Phoenicia now passed under Egyptian sway. With this campaign the 518 years also assigned to the Hyksos period by Josephus were completed.

These momentous shifts in world politics at the close of Solomon's reign were the direct result of Solomon' sin, described in I Kings 11:1-13. Historians, interpreting history without God and the Bible, have mistakenly assumed that the spectacular growth in Egyptian power was due solely to Thutmose's political astuteness. Neglected is the military situation. Thutmose could never have accomplished his extended campaigns apart from revolts against Solomon. I Kings 11 14-40 unveils what the trip-hammer blows were that cracked Israel's power. The Edomites became restive, the Arameans in Damascus independent, and ten out of the twelve tribes of Israel were anticipating the death of Solomon as a quick remedy for excessive taxation. Thutmose merely seized the spoils of a nation which had grown soft spiritually because it set its mind on physical greatness alone.

Who Was Zerah the Ethiopian?

Time moves on to another generation. Thutmose is dead. In his stead reigns Amenhotpe II. In Jerusalem king Rehoboam was succeeded first by Abijah (for 3 years), then by his grandson Asa. The record is found in II Chronicles 14 and 15.

Important military changes were disturbing the eastern Mediterranean seaboard. Fortified cities had to be hastily constructed throughout Judah (II Chr 14:5). An efficient army was trained during ten years of quiet. Suddenly in the fifteenth year of Asa (937-936) 'there came out against them Zerah the Ethiopian with an army of a thousand thousand (one million troops), and three hundred chariots; and he came unto Mareshah. Then Asa went out to meet him ....' Judah earnestly sought divine intervention against the great host of Lubim and the Ethiopiens (II Chr. 16:8) that had come out of Egypt. 'So the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah; and the Ethiopians fled. And Asa and the people that were with him pursued them unto Gerar; and there fell of the Ethiopians so that none remained alive: for they were scattered before the Lord, and before His host: and they (Judah) carried away much booty' (Jewish translation), After the battle and the spoiling of the region of Gerar, the Jews 'gathered themselves to Jerusalem in the third month, in the fifteenth year of the reign of Asa. And they sacrificed unto the Lord in that day (Pentecost), of the spoil which they had brought ...' (II Chr. 15:10-11). Who was the Zerah whose army was totally annihilated in Asa's reign?

One would hardly expect to discover the full truth of such a catastrophic defeat engraven on the monuments of the vanquished. Perchance the defeat is glossed over and made to appear a victory.

No monument to our knowledge tells the story of the defeat. However, there certainly is an historical Zerah. He appears in the king lists of Ethiopia at the very time the battle occurred. Through the centuries the Ethiopians preserved the name of this man who played no small role in the history of Judah.

Zerah belonged to the Dynasty of Menelik I. The dynasty began with the death of Hashepsowe in 975 B.C. Menelik, the first ruler, was the son of Solomon and an Egyptian princess. The complete king list can be found in C.F. Rey's book: 'In the Country of the Blue Nile', 1927.

Dynasty of Menelik I

The king list continues down to the present and can be referred to in the Compendium, vol. II, appendix B.

In Egypt Amenhotpe II was reigning. His authority extended south beyond Napata in Ethiopia (Breasted, 'Ancient Records', vol. II, sect. 797). He succeeded his father Thutmose III in 943. Amenhotpe's first documented campaign into Palestine occurred in his year 3 (941). This was near the close of the 10th year of Asa, king of Judah. Asa had ten years of peace at the beginning of his reign (951-941). (See II Chronicles 14:1, 5, 6). A later Egyptian campaign occurred in the beginning of Amenhotpe's seventh year (937). The king set out on a grand expedition into Palestine. His seventh year corresponds to Asa's fourteenth. This date -- 937 -- is one year before Zerah's invasion. Amenhotpe's campaign, recorded on the Memphis stela, should not be confused with the Ethiopian invasion of Palestine in the spring of 936.

(NOTE: To view the figure placed here, see the file CMPDM1B.TIF in the Images\OtherWCG directory.)

The Memphis stela reads: 'Year 7, 1st month of the third season. day 25 .... His majesty proceeded to Retenu (Palestine) .... His majesty reached Shamesh-Edom.' On the Karnak stela the next move is also dated: '1st month of the third season. day 26. His majesty's crossing the ford of the Orontes on this day.' He was north of Palestine.

The prince of Kadesh surrendered the city to the armies of Amenhotpe. He swore fealty to the Egyptians rather than undergo a siege. But this Kadesh -- a holy city -- was Carchemish in Syria. (Consult Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 245, and footnotes 8 and 9; also Breasted's translation of the Karnak stela, section 784.)

Dynasty XVIII in Manetho

Manetho's transcribers -- Josephus, Africanus, Eusebius -- are usually charged with totally corrupting this Theban dynasty. Had the archaeologists and historians spent as much time understanding Manetho's extractors. instead of condemning them, they would have recovered the full account of Amenhotpe II. The chart which follows is based solely on Manetho's transcribers. It should be compared with the first one given in this chapter which is based on archaeological evidence and on Manetho. (The abbreviations -- 'J', 'A', 'E', 'T' -- following either names, or lengths of reign stand for variations in Josephus Africanus, Eusebius, or Theophilus. -- The figures of Josephus have been reduced to whole calendar years.)

The insignificant differences of spelling in the Greek are due naturally to the changes in pronunciation of Egyptian sounds over many centuries -- and to abbreviations. Several of these names have never been discovered by archaeologists. This does not mean the Greek or Hebrew writers imagined names, but rather that archaeology is limited in what it can recover from the past.

Of greater historic significance are the variations in regnal years. Far from being mere scribal errors, each contributes additional information not preserved by the other epitomes of Manetho. If Manetho is to be fully understood, all the evidence must be taken together.

Consider the minor variations in the reign of Thutmose II and Hashepsowe. Josephus preserves the fact that he reigned only twenty full calendar years when succeeded by his son Thutmose III. But both Africanus and Eusebius bring out the detail that one more year elapsed before his sister and queen, Hashepsowe, assumed supreme rule as Queen of Egypt. Again, Africanus assigns 22 years to Hashepsowe to indicate that she was associated with her stepson for 22 calendar years after the death of her brother. Her dominant role in government as senior co-regent for 21 years is preserved only by Josephus, who is confirmed by archaeology and monumental finds.

The length of reign of Thutmose III as preserved by Manetho's abstractors has been rejected in toto. Though it appears on the surface to be irreconcilable with archaeological finds, it is nevertheless correct. Thutmose III reigned solely for only 12 years after the death of Hashepsowe. At that time he associated his son Amenhotpe II with him on the throne. Archaeology confirms a period of joint reign, but has not yet discovered its duration. Had the archaeologists opened their eyes, they would have long ago found its duration in Manetho. (See Pritchard's 'Ancient Near Eastern Texts', page 245, footnote 1.)

The figure of 13 calendar years for the reign of Thutmose III, preserved by Africanus, does not commence with the death of his step-mother, but with his assumption of power in 976 -- the beginning of his 22nd year. In the year following 976 he began his military campaign into southern Phoenicia, 511 years after the Exodus. Next the reign of Amenhotpe II -- the son of Thutmose III. His frightfully long name is not what has confounded historians. It is his length of reign that no one, it seems, has made sense of. Compare the information from archaeology, in the first chart, with these figures from Manetho. It is immediately evident that Theophilus has preserved the length of the joint reign -- 20 years -- 963-943. In 943 Thutmose III died. Josephus, by contrast, has preserved Amenhotpe II's length of reign -- 25 years -- after the death of his father. But Africanus and Eusebius give yet a different length -- 26 years. They measure the length of Amenhotpe's reign from the time he held full power during the last year of his father's reign -- that is 944-943. The emphasis upon this date in Amenhotpe's reign has been corroborated by archaeology. Again the figures of the transcribers can be explained.

It should be noted that none of the transcribers of Manetho has preserved all his facts. Each, however, complements the other. Why is Amenhotpe I missing as the second king in the dynasty? Tethmosis or Amose is correctly stated to be the first king. His 25 years are also confirmed by archaeology. He is plainly declared by Manetho's transcribers to be the father of Thutmose I or Chebron who was the third king of Dynasty XVIII. How are these apparent discrepancies to be resolved?

It has been commonly assumed by moderns that Thutmose I was a son of the first Amenhotpe by a secondary wife. But there is absolutely no evidence from archaeology to support this hypothesis (Drioton and Vandier, 'L'Egypte' (1952), page 336).

Manetho's statement that he was a son of Ahmose explains, in part, why the classical writers passed over Amenhotpe I. The story of Dynasty XVIII is the story of a family through blood descent. Apparently Amenhotpe I was not in that line of descent. He may have been a younger brother of Amosis. The following list of kings, beginning from the expulsion of the Hyksos rulers in 1076, is preserved by Syncellus from the book of Sothis. Take special note of the dates of Amose.

The Book of Sothis

This list also placed Amosis immediately before Chebron (Thutmose I). Ahmose (Amosis) reigned into his 26th year. Syncellus therefore assigned the last incomplete year as a whole calendar year and gave him 26 -- from 1076 to 1050. In 1030 his son Chebron assumed the throne under the name of Thutmose. Manetho's other transcribers gave only the length of reign from 1076 to 1051 using the non-accession year method of reckoning. By contrast Syncellus used the accession year method of reckoning for Amosis, whereby the last incomplete year is assigned to the predecessor, not to the successor. Since Syncellus also did not include Amenhotpe I, he overlooked 20 years and proceeded to name Chebron next.

To fully understand Manetho, one must combine the evidence from his transcribers with archaeological discoveries. Neither Manetho nor archaeological evidence is sufficiently complete to be used alone for the beginning reigns of this dynasty.

The Book of Sothis' dates of the reigns of the first several rulers of the Theban dynasty are not necessarily indicative of the year of death. They may designate political changes. Recall the case of Joseph in the third dynasty, who lived another 14 years after completing his term in public office.

In the book of Sothis king Thutmose II, the husband and brother of Amenses-Hashepsowe, is given only 15 years. This dating is confirmed by rock inscriptions at Assuan. Hashepsowe ordered Senmut, an important public officer, to prepare two great obelisks to commemorate her co-regency 'in year 16' of her brother Thutmose II. It has been commonly assumed that 'year 16' refers to a time in her own reign. This conclusion is totally unwarranted, for 'in year 16' Hashepsowe was still 'King's Sister, Divine Consort, Great King's Wife.' Thutmose II was still living. The inscription is in honor of 'the Divine Consort, Sovereign of the entire Two Lands' -- that is, in honor of the assumption of royal power by Hashepsowe in her brother's sixteenth year. The obelisks were not finally erected and inscribed until her joint reign with her stepson Thutmose III. (See Breasted's 'Ancient Records', vol. II, sections 359-362; also Weigall's 'History of the Pharaohs', vol. II, pages 288-289.)

Thus for five years prior to his death, Thutmose II associated his sister-wife with him on the throne as queen consort. She became senior co-regent with her stepson in 996, one year after the death of her brother. She continued in public office until 975.

Why then does her reign appear to cease in 991 according to the book of Sothis? Who is the 'king' named Misphragmuthosis who ceased to reign the very year that Hashepsowe died?

The answer is unique in Egyptian history. The masculine name Misphragmuthosis is Hashepsowe's! Under Thutmose II she was originally only queen consort. In the year after his death she began to rule as Queen. At length -- in 991 -- she assumed masculine titles, appeared as a man and took a man's name. The monuments of Egypt picture her in her later life as a male, though they at times refer to the king as 'her.'

Writes Sir Alan Gardiner in 'Egypt of the Pharaohs', page 183: ' man. The change did not come about without some hesitation, because there is at least one relief where she appears as King of Upper and Lower Egypt, and yet is clad in woman's attire.'

The inscriptions recovered by archaeologists indicate she commenced the idea of becoming a king as early as her second year. ('Nachrichten von der Koeniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Goettingen,' 1955, page 212.) But it was not until her sixth year that it is officially recognized in the Book of Sothis.

One other hitherto unnoticed fact appears in the book of Sothis. The reign of Misphres (Thutmose III) continues 23 years after the reign of 'King' Hashepsowe. At that point his grandson Thutmose IV is associated with him on the throne. The book of Sothis takes no notice of Amenhotpe II. These records indicate that the practice of Theban Dynasty XII, of associating sons and grandsons on the throne. was also a practice of Theban Dynasty XVIII. For the last nine years of Thutmose III or Shishak's life, he was associated on the throne with both son and grandson.

With the reign of Thutmose IV, the first half of Dynasty XVIII is completed. The succeeding rulers of the dynasty lead into the much-misunderstood period of the Ramessides, to be unravelled in the next chapter, or two.