History Forum / General / Ancient History / January 2006

Please.

Whether you're smart enough, brave enough or honest
enough to admit it, when you introduce religion to
history & science you are introducing an agenda.

You are.

Faith is in the heart. You can't dig it up, you can't find
it in a book and you certainly can't touch it. And anyone
who needs to do those things most certainly doesn't
have any faith to speak of.

Israelites and modern European Jews are not the same.  The Jews have
hijacked an ancient culture and ideal.  Teaching their people to speak
Hebrew and naming 'some' people with Hebrew names does not change the facts.
However, I do see too many Jews with negroid characteristics.  Such as:

Kinky hair, full lips, curly hair, wide mouth, a permanent tan, flared
nostrils, flat noses(combined with European nose types, which are not of the
so-called Semitic type) and sometimes wide noses (combined with European
types).  This 'mysterious' mixture could explain why Europeans have always
asserted Jews to be of another race.

Now, if Jews are related to Israelites or Hebrews, then do they have a right
to claim to be white?  How can they be mostly European but claim (so-called)
middle-eastern ancestry?  In America, how can they be the victims and the
victimizers?  That is, the majority AND the minority?  Lastly, if they are
the Hebrews and god(!) promised them the land, maybe they are correct (with
their new found power, they exaggerate their history quite a bit.  Hardly
talking about themselves as Europeans) because - they have the land.

Hello Longfellow, I've recently been researching this period.  My previous
area of research has been the Neo-Babylonian and Persian Periods especially
as related to the Bible and astronomical texts.  You might find the
following historically pertinent as far as the Hebrews.

1)  The KTU 1.78 text has been linked to the 12th of Akhenaton dated to 1375
BCE quite specifically.  That would begin his rule 9 years earlier than some
popular estimates in 1386BCE.  This is the critical date of the Exodus.
Whether Egypt was on its way to "monotheism" or not for whatever reason, it
crystallized with Akhenaton in a big way, so much so he was later called a
"heretic" king.  Of note, though, this wasn't simplistic monotheism.  All
God's in Egypt were represented by some image, Aten specifically had no
image.  Second, Akhenaton seemed intolerant of the old gods.  These are
strong tenents in the Ten Commandments.   Thus some believe that
experiencing the ten plagues, particularly the 9th plague of darkness is
what caused Akhenaton his focus on this new God with all these great powers.

2.  This is the Amarna Period and from this we find much activity and
development confirmed in Caanan, the people whom the Jews would later
conquer and establish Israel, who does show up soon enough on the
international map as much as is expected, keeping in mind that usually wars
are what are memorialized so those peoples who were at peace or who didn't
keep their own records in stone about their conquests seem not to have
existed.  But at least the state of Caanan as described in the Amarna texts
is consistent with that of the Jews (the Bible).

3.  Egypt went into decline during the reign of Akhenaton, especially with
Akhenaton not providing military assistance.  This might be due to the
strength of the Egyptian army as far as chariots being lost in the Red Sea.
Thus a recent blow to the military at the beginning of Akhenaton's reign is
also consistent with this Biblical account.

4.  As far as direct records are concerned about the Jews in Egypt, there
could be several explanations.  One being that, obviously, if Akhenaton was
pro-Jewish, records regarding this were obliterated later. In fact, what we
know of Akhenaton is from re-used stones in the foundations of other
temples.  Another factor is that the Jews were always the very intellectual
influence in a lot of these cultures, though often submissive (i.e. Joseph,
Daniel and Nehemiah  rose to the position of Prime Minister equivalents in
the dominant cultures of Egypt, Babylon and Persia, respectively).   During
the time of Xerxes after his invasion of Greece there was great
counterintelligence against Greece in Persia to convince them that Xerxes
had died and a new king "Artaxerxes" had taken the throne.  Indeed,
Artaxerxes was on the throne but that was because per Persian custom the
kings took on a special throne name when they became king:  Xerxes and
Artaxerxes were the same king.  Later, records and chronology were revised
to make this look more accurate and the Jews cooperated by adjusting their
histories as well (i.e. Ezra/Nehemia was revised in Esdras II and Esther).
But this also affected Egyptian history and precisely when the Jews left
Egypt would have been effectied because of the Jewish timeline going back to
Egypt.  So as part of the campaign to destroy chronological records,
suppressing the year the Jews left Egypt would be important to destroy
and/or revise as well.   That is, besides the incredible political fallout
for being associated with Akhenaton.   Akhenaton's worship was of Yahweh,
the Jewish god he called "Aten" (perhaps related to "A-DON-ay").   Since
Akhenaton was targeted for obliteration, then mention of the Jews in a
favorable way might as well also.

5.  But for the sake of historical reference, with the improved timeline,
one would not expect to find more than casual references to them as a labor
force in Goshen except during the reigns of the kings leading up to the
Exodus.   Moses was born during the reign of Thuthmoses III and thrived
during that reign and the reign of Thutmosis IV where at 40 he fled,
returning 40 years later during the reign of Amenophis III.  So the history
of the Jews as an enslaved people should be sought perhaps in the casual
artwork of these kings, particularly Amenophis III.  Any artwork of Asiatics
could be considered as repersenting or including the Jewish people.   Of
course, since pharoah died in the Red Sea presumably, he would hardly have
been around to commemorate that blow in their records.  The succeeding king,
Akhenaton might have given reference to them but his records were
deliberately destroyed.

6.  Finally, there's the issue of the mummy itself of Amenhotep III.  Once
the astrochronology gives us the kings involved at the Exodus and
immediately therefore, we can take a closer look at the circumstantial
evidence as far as the mummy of Amenhotep III since it seems clear that
Akhenaton's rule began the same year as the Exodus and the Bible suggests
that Amenhotep III was killed along with his chariot army in the Red Sea.
On that note, his mummy is said to be the most damage off all.  He beheaded.
His chest was fractured and he had many fractured bones, and a new technique
of restoration was used on him at the time of mummification to try to
restore lost flesh.  This would be consistent with his body being mangled,
beheaded and traumatized with fractures and much avulsed flesh as he tossed
around in the sea with all those chariots.

The above is the extent of any "local" confirmation of the Jews having been
in Egypt and influencing them, other than the very obvious Ten Plagues
causing Akhenaton to begin worshipping Yahweh whom he called "Aten" and in
trying to please him refusing to make any image of him as commanded directly
by the ten plagues, and suppressing state-supported sanction for any other
gods whom he now considered "worthless."  During his entire reign, however,
the Jews were wandering in the wilderness with no king.

But please note, the Jews soon show up in precisely the context the Bible
represents them at the time of Shishak's invasion.   That invasion confirms
how developed the Isrealites were at the time since it lists the cities that
were conquered.  There is further no conflict with this account and with the
Bible as some thought because this invasion was during the 39th year of
Solomon, which corresponds to the 5th year of Rehoboam, his co-ruler.   This
is clear that the de-facto division of the kingdoms had not taken place as
yet when Rehoboam is still over the princes of Israel when they repent from
his folly which caused the invasion.   Therefore, the friendship between
Shishak and Jeroboam is not challenged since it was not Jeroboam that was
attacked in the north but cities still under Solomon and Rehoboam.  So
essentially Shishak weakened the hold of Rehoboam in the north, obviously
turning over those cities to Jeroboam when Solomon died the year later.
Critics have thought the Biblical account seemed inaccurate as it seems
contradictory that Shishak would focus his campaign in the north against his
own friend.  It makes a difference when you have the critical facts
straight, though.

In addition, archaeologically speaking, the rule of Solomon and what he
built has been challenged because of the revised Jewish timeline from the
Persian Period, pushing the reign of Solomon some 60 years too early.  With
the KTU 1.78 dating the 1st of Akhenaton in 1378BCE and the Exodus the same
year, Solomon's rule ends in 870BCE which is far more consistent
archaelogically that his current rule ending in 930BCE.    Thus the improved
and corrected Biblical and historical ancient timeline from Persia (358BCE)
back to Akhenaton (1386BCE) makes a lot of previous acharological questions
simply disappear.   We know why Akhenaton went monotheistic because of the
ten plagues, Solomon is archaeologically correct and we know why Shishak
focussed his attack in the north, not against his friend Jeroboam but
against Jeroboam's rivals,  King Solomon and Rehoboam.

Oh, one last thing.  The Jews were employed to make bricks and the city of
Akheteton employed bricks to build it.   That's consistent with the Bible as
far as matching this time up with Akhenaton.

RAMESES NOTE:  Also, some have thought since the Exodus began at Pi-Rameses
that Ramses must have been ruling at that time.  But Rameses apparently was
the name of the wealthy family who had extensive land holdings in Goshen and
so the cities and region named after Rameses reflected on that family.
Large lang owners in the delta were known of other families in Egypt as well
(i.e. Tuya/Yuya) and the land of Goshen was called the "land of Rameses"
when the Jews first were given a place to settle in Egypt during the reign
of Apophis, the Hyksos king.  So don't let the name throw you.  Rameses I
was a general in the Egyptian army as a result of the prominence of this
family and he simply began a new line of pharoahs called Rameses.  After
becoming pharaoh he simply continued to develop in his own homestead as
elsewhere.

Hope this was a help.

Larry