Which Pharaoh lived during the time of which Prophet?

[Sekhmet]

Oh, dear I perhaps have offended you, I am sorry.  See I am rather plain and direct.  You like to dress your work up IHMO.   

A good day to you LiaDee and again keep up the work. 

[Irishman]

I am struggling to remain calm here. You are not reading my posts. If you were, you'd know I already told you I expect that archaeology and the bible largely align, if applied properly.

Did you skip over that part?

Shoshenq doesn't align.  He lived a century later.  Did you skip that evidence?  Yes, you did.

You tell me Shishaq doesn't align, but you don't really discuss it. I get the feeling from your posts that you're very contrained by the NC bullet points. If something strays off that reservation, you don't know how to deal with it.

Come back when you're prepared to truly discuss and debate, not insult and talk past me.

[notalent]

I am struggling to remain calm here. You are not reading my posts. If you were, you'd know I already told you I expect that archaeology and the bible largely align, if applied properly.

Did you skip over that part?

Shoshenq doesn't align.  He lived a century later.  Did you skip that evidence?  Yes, you did.

You tell me Shishaq doesn't align, but you don't really discuss it. I get the feeling from your posts that you're very contrained by the NC bullet points. If something strays off that reservation, you don't know how to deal with it.

Come back when you're prepared to truly discuss and debate, not insult and talk past me.

I posted the evidence placing Shoshenq a century later.  You completely ignored it, refusing to discuss it.  I don't see how your refusal to discuss the evidence is my refusal, my fault and my insulting you and talking past you.  If your position was as strong as you claim, you wouldn't need use these ad hominem attacks.

[notalent]

Below is a post by David Rohl in the NC newsgroup (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewChronology/) from 3/4/2009:


Just thought I'd give you the same table of C14 samples – this time with the NC historical dates and the UN-CALIBRATED C14 dates (for simplicity without the sigma ranges). Just to point out that NC and C14 (without the suspect dendro calibration) match rather nicely.

Strange that. Must of course be pure coincidence. Fancy not having to calibrate anything! Must be wrong then. All just an illusion I suppose. Has to be another piece of NC nonsense. What was I thinking. Back to the dunce's corner I go.

Location...........Reign(s).............NC......Un-Calibrated....Details
1. Ramesseum...Ram II...........943-878.......990 BC….….Reed
2. Tjanefer.........Seti II...........877-872…....940 BC….....Reed
3. Tjanefer.........Seti II...........877-872......1130 BC…....Wood
4. Roma............Ram II............943-878......1080 BC........Wood
5. Tomb 3518...e/m D18…...1202-1082…...1022 BC….....Wood
6. Tomb of.........Tut..............1007-999.....1030 BC….....Wood
7. Tomb 12..Thut III/Am III...1134-1012....1161 BC......Charcoal
8. Tomb............Amen III.......1048-1012....1137 BC….....Charcoal
9. Tomb............end D18.............962.........1031 BC…......Wood
10. Causeway....Thut III.........1134-1082...1151 BC.........Roots
11. Touy.............Seti I.............961-944.....1130 BC….….Wood

[turanclancath]

  Notalent a question ?


Is there an typing error in the Rohl list you posted
in the posting before this.?

because nr  8 gives Amenofis 3  1048/1012.

And nr 6  gives king Tut  1007/999.

This would give Aknaton only    1012/ 1007.

I think its an typing error because Rohl gives in other publications  Akhnaton  1017/1008.

So perhaps Amenofis 3 should be 1048/1017 ( and not1012)I guess its an typing error ?

turanclancath:)

[notalent]

  Notalent a question ?


Is there an typing error in the Rohl list you posted
in the posting before this.?

because nr  8 gives Amenofis 3  1048/1012.

And nr 6  gives king Tut  1007/999.

This would give Aknaton only    1012/ 1007.

I think its an typing error because Rohl gives in other publications  Akhnaton  1017/1008.

So perhaps Amenofis 3 should be 1048/1017 ( and not1012)I guess its an typing error ?

turanclancath:)

Rohl holds that Amenhotep III and IV (Akhenaten) share a co-regency until III's death.  That's probably why IV's reign looks shorter in this list.

[LiaDee]

Re: Notalent's quote- Rohl holds that Amenhotep III and IV (Akhenaten) share   a co-regency until III's death.  That's probably why IV's reign looks shorter in this list.


Absolutely, Notalent! (Although I have some problems with those dates) I agree: the 5 years on that list, which are accredited to Amenhotep IV, reflects the co-regency he held with his father at Thebes...before Akhenaten and Nefertari moved north to Akhetaton, where they lived for another 12 years; equaling Akhenaten's (sometimes accredited) 17-year total.

Aside from that,
Just wondering if anyone might wish to explore some similarities I found in Josephus... (re: the story of Manetho's "ficticious Amenophis")... as it relates to their story.     
Assuming, of course, that those two historians from ancient history actually knew some history (although they may not have known who they described because these details are still coming to light).
Thus, Manetho knew the story of an Amenophis, but many years later Josephus called him "Manetho's ficticious Amenophis" because, by then, all that remained were fragmented pieces of Manetho's work and a few (seemingly unrelated) blocks used by Horemheb!
The Armana regime might still be hidden, if not for the "recent re-find" (obviously Manetho knew something about it).   
I wonder how many other things of historic value are revealed, lost, recovered, lost again and then "re-found"? Kind-of like the Sphinx: Carved, covered, uncovered, covered, fixed...and with a light-show to boot!
Or the NC...which was really the OC before the OC became the accepted one, but now the NC has come back again!

[turanclancath]

http://www.geocities.com/~alyza/Jewish/exodus.htm

The traditional ( orthodox ) Jewish date for the Exodus seems to be 1313,
See the link above.

So we have a whole bouquet of Exodus dates and with it pharaos.

1447  Most Common

1313 Traditional Orthodox Jewish

circa 1406  Professor Collins
see:

http://www.biblicalresearchbulletin.com/uploads/BRB-2005-8-Collins-Pharaoh_of_Exodus.pdf

1513  Elijah

1551 As i remember   advocated by Brianroy  ?
see
« Reply #11 on: Mar 17, 2008, 09:19 PM »   

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote from: Brianroy on Dec 27, 2007, 03:48 PM
In my redating of the Old Testament and Greek History via ancient Greek historians and patristics, I stand by the 1551 B.C date as the Exodus of the Hebrews from Egypt and the expulsion of the Hyksos soon after

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dont know wich date is preferred by Lia D or  other Forum posters?

perhaps they have another Exodus  date  ??

And a bunch of other data   there are.
see
http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodusdate.htm

And then wich Chronology ?

Interesting  multitude of possibilitys.

Turanclancath

[Irishman]

My Exodus date is ca 1375-1360, while Amenhotep III and Akhenaten were still co-regents and before the former died.

[LiaDee]

Hello again!
So, someone wants to know my Exodus date?
Forward: I follow the 'begats' of Scripture and not any OC or NC chronology. I didn't even know the OC, NC existed when I began this search in 92. All I knew (in my heart) was that Rameses II and his son had nothing to do with the Exodus...they were post-Exodus. So, I went 'in search of'.

That said, the Exodus equated to 1464 BC; during the reign of Aahkheperenre-Thutmose II (and his sister/wife Maatkare-Hatshepsut)--who reigned concurrently with their 'non-royal' father (thus, the co-regency to appease the people, who had lived under the 'royal-blooded' Tao II, then Ahmose then Amenhotep I, then Amesses. This was a mind-set since the beginning of the dynasty.)
Hatsahepsut's mother died early-on, so someone 'royal' had to be named as a quick successor. First-born, Aakheperenre (Thutmose II) fit the bill. (Lia: Kinglist 'Memphres, 12 yrs.'). However, TII died in the plague of the first born, forcing Aahkheperkare-Thutmose I (born-of Thoth; the ibis shaped god), to: 1- name Hatshepsut as his sucessor in an inscription @ Karnak and 2- pursue the Israelite group. (But, HE is NOT the Manetho-through-Josephus "Tethmosis who drove the Hyksos out"; see below)...
So, the confusion: Two separate instances of foreigners 'being driven out' but two separate men who had "born-of-Thoth" titles: 1- Ahmose (Tethmosis) and the Hyksos. 2- Aahkheperkare-Thutmose I and the Hebrew Exodus group.
(Aside from that, in my opinion one might also closely examine those 'born-of-Re'; Ra-Meosses, Saa-Re 'son-of-Re', a titles which appear with many Kings-- long before Ramesses II.)
Anyway, Thutmose I drowned in the Reed Sea when he pursued the Hebrew group 'and others who went out with them'. Therefore, I would place money (and I don't even gamble) that his mummy's skin contains a large amount of sea salt rather than just Natrum. It's definately more 'weathered' than the others, in my opinion.

Since I date the Exodus at 1464 BC, there is a 16 difference between that and the 1448 BC, as accepted by King James Bible advocates. That appears (to me) to reflect the exact 16 year discrepancy that appears in the Book of Jubilees (when they date the difference between Moses' birth and his age, following his return from Midian. The BJ date equates to Moses being 96 years old at the Exodus).
So, I dismissed 1448 as the date simply because it disagreed with the Scriptures, which said Moses was 80 years old at the time of the Exodus...and that is what the timeline also says.
Figuring backwards from his 80th year, then, Moses was born 1544 BC, meaning the Princess who found him was Ahmose-Nefertari (wife of Nebpetyre-Ahmose). 'Thermosis'--and there is much to her name that relates to the uraeus; cobras, protector, Taweret (hippo-shaped goddess), etc. Recall one of the final remarks made by the Hyksos king Apopi to the Pharaoh. Isn't it illogical that he could actually hear the Pharaoh's 'hippos snoring' (from Avaris)...or is it that he was taunting the king since his daughter, Nefertari was living in Memphis with an uncle twice her age. (Lia: Kamose, 'Thummosis', maker of the treaty)!!
They never had any children and he was assumed killed in the Hyksos wars, leaving A-N widowed at a very young age. What would she do? She'd head to Thebes, where her father Tao II, was...along with the Hebrew baby she had found. Would she have brought a Hyksos to him? No. Scripture said she knew she had found a Hebrew baby. How? Circumcision. The Hyksos and ancient Egyptians didn't have that practice on a baby!
Aside from that, by this time, A-N had a younger brother, Ahmose, who was too young to rule at first, remember? (A near same scenario occurs with Hatshepsut, but she did not find Moses; see later).
As princess and heir to the throne, Ahmose-Nefertari felt she could approach her father and ask that Moses, 'her son', be made the king. Josephus puts a political slant to the story, however: (Moses threw the crown to the ground)-- Nonetheless, Moses remained a royal household member.

The new king, Ahmose, had a secondary title 'Tethmose' (also: born-of-Thoth; the ibis shaped god). And that is where many people also get confused, re: the king list in Josephus, as he relates Manetho ('Against Apion' 1.15.94). I believe this confusion occurs because Thutmose I is not listed at all (at least not by that title)...and because Josephus believed the Hyksos were Hebrews (of the Exodus).
Yes, a large # of Hyksos went to Jerusalem according to the story; but the Hyksos are not the Hebrews beause we know from their detailed accounts in Scripture that the Hebrews did not immediately go to Jerusalem.

In short, Kamose ('Thummosis') had driven the Hyksos rulers to Avaris (this would be the 1550 date) and placed them under treaty but it was Ahmose (Tethmosis) who drove the 'remaining' Hyksos out of the country. As we all know, Avaris was the last strong-hold from which Ahmose drove the Hyksos from)...
Again, Avaris and those details do not match the Hebrews, for they were not foreign rulers of Egypt, as the Hyksos were...so this has nothing to do with the Exodus.

'Tethmosis' reigned 25 years (total), which matches Ahmose, if one considers that he was considered a 'ruler since a very early age'.
Next listed is: C-Hebron for thirteen years (Lia: Moses, overlapped Ahmose for 12, and 1 solely with Djeserkare-Amenhotep I- whose one title included a taunting play-on-words:'Wah-renput'= One year) .

According to the timeline I've outlined from Scripture in comparison to the Pharaohs, Chebron's (placement) would have begun following the combined military effort of Ahmose (naval/infantry) and the "recently graduated from military-aged" Moses, as they went to Kush. At this point one can read about this war effort, Book 2 chapter 10  in Josephus' Antiquity of the Jews'.   But, first ask yourself: How is it that Kush could have proceeded as far north as Memphis (unless the majority of the troops were in the Levant- as was the case with Ahmose and Amose-Ibana for those 6 years, following the final Hyksos wars). It fits.
During Ahmose's predecessor's time the Hyksos had requested Ku****e aid; they obviously knew when the country was most vulnerable- thus, they attacked. According to the story, Moses (Lia: Chebron) used IBIS to assist taking his infantry south; he entered into the ever-so-popular practice of the 18th dynasty: marrying into foreign royalty (Josephus: Ku****e princess, Tharbis; Numbers 12:1; et al)...
-Lia

[Sekhmet]

Oh, dear

[Sekhmet]

So nice to see you back Lia Dee I hope all is well.

Aakheperenre (Thutmose II) died in the plague of the first born.

edited by Sekhmet

I am sorry Lia according to my The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt by Aidan Dodson and Dyan Hilton, pages 130-132.  From page 130 " A fragment of a shrine names bother Thutmose I and his eldest son, Amenmose is depicted with a brother, Wadjmose in the tomb of the royal tutor, Paheri, at El-Kab.  This would make Thutmose II death as the first born impossible.

I do and almost forever have agreed on a co-regency between Amenophis III and his son Amenophis IV aka Akhenaten.

I maintain my Exodus date is at the end of the Old Kingdom.

My best for you and yours and hope your weekend is wonderful.

[turanclancath]

Thanks LLS ( learned lady Sekhmet ( )
and Lia Dee(also verylearned ) .

For your learned answers.
The wood of Exodus dates is really becoming a
magnificent great Forrest.

A quote from Lia D  and a question about it

Quote :

Anyway, Thutmose I drowned in the Reed Sea when he pursued the Hebrew group 'and others who went out with them'. Therefore, I would place money (and I don't even gamble) that his mummy's skin contains a large amount of sea salt rather than just Natrum. It's definately more 'weathered' than the others, in my opinion.

Since I date the Exodus at 1464 BC

____________________________________

Question?  Wich Chronology You use in dating the Death of Tutmoses I and the exodus in 1464.?
High, Low or other Chronology.
See this list

http://www.bibarch.com/Chronology/Exodus/Chron-18EgyptDyn.htm


All have a nice Weekend.

Turanclancath:)

[LiaDee]

Hi Sekhmet,
Re: Your quote: "I am sorry Lia according to my The Complete Royal Families of Ancient Egypt by Aidan Dodson" "and Dyan Hilton, pages 130-132.  From page 130 " A fragment of a shrine names bother Thutmose I and his eldest son, Amenmose is depicted with a brother, Wadjmose in the tomb of the royal tutor, Paheri, at El-Kab.  This would make Thutmose II death as the first born impossible."
--(BTW, I like Aiden's work, also; in fact, many non-Egyptians certainly do fantastic work on ancient Egyptian history)--

As far as I know they haven't determined the paternity of Amenmose and Wadjmose beyond that.  (Were they depicted as the sons of Thutmose I- or did you mean to write TII)?
Either way, I will not contest they certainly fit during this royal household: TI, TII and HAtshepsut.
They may have been the sons of TII or his half-brothers. Many sources believe they were the full-brothers of Hatshepsut (sharing Amesses as their mother) http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty18a.html 8/22/04 3:23PM; phouka.com/ 4/10/05; et al.
Mutnofret (the concubine) is most often named as the mother of Thutmose II; meaning he was Hatshepsut's half-brother; so yes, he may have had elder brothers...but who married THE princess? TII.
As you well know, the prince was usually born of the concubine but it was the maternal line--the princess-- "who made any son of the king a legitimate contender for the throne"...this was typically the case and so goes-it for TII's own son, Menkheperre', who was born by the concubine, as well. (However, he was obviously a second-born son, as he survived!)

It has never been proven that Thutmose II was NOT a firstborn; maybe not TI's first-born son, but has it been proven he was not the firstborn son of Mutnofret? 

Scripture says (Ex. 11:5; 12:29): "Every firstborn son of Egypt will die from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on the throne"--(note the co-regency implication of a grown son in those two verses)-- "to the firstborn son of the slave girl..." and (12:30):"...for there was NOT A HOUSE without someone dead." 

Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the tomb of El-Kalb mean that it is "impossible" that Thutmose (II) died as the firstborn (of the concubine) during that time?  Number one- age had nothing to do with the death of the firstborn. In fact, Scripture seems to support the co-regency. HOLLYWOOD depicts the firstborn of Pharaoh dying as an infant!
Why is it so far-fetched to believe that TII was "a first born son of Egypt, who died in the plague"? Likewise, believing Wadjmose and/or Amenmose were TII elder brothers (or even his sons) wouldn't  take anything away from the tomb of El-Kalb or from history.
...Again, all I'm saying is this is where Scripture's timeline fell and until I see proof against it, I'm sticking with it.

Dear Turaclanclath,
I'm going to take a look at that chronology now, as I don't even know where mine falls...probably nowhere (that's my middle name)! Thanks for the link.
OK- I looked at it; I guess I am closest to 'Silverman's (near-'low chronology'). However, mine starts to vary at Akhenaten's reign since it doesn't look like the co-regency was accounted for.
                                    ***
I must say, this group is an interesting group of people. We all have much in common-- we have a heart toward ancient peoples or we wouldn't even care to know what we've made an effort to learn; and by examining the way they thought and the way they lived, we can learn from them. Because we're not so unlike them...despite the disagreements and occasional hard-headedness as we walk the forest of chronologies.
...If only we could see the forest for the trees...

[Sekhmet]

Hi Sekhmet,
Re: Your quote:
As far as I know they haven't determined the paternity of Amenmose and Wadjmose beyond that.  (Were they depicted as the sons of Thutmose I- or did you mean to write TII)?
Either way, I will not contest they certainly fit during this royal household: TI, TII and HAtshepsut.
They may have been the sons of TII or his half-brothers. Many sources believe they were the full-brothers of Hatshepsut (sharing Amesses as their mother) http://www.crystalinks.com/dynasty18a.html 8/22/04 3:23PM; phouka.com/ 4/10/05; et al.
Mutnofret (the concubine) is most often named as the mother of Thutmose II; meaning he was Hatshepsut's half-brother; so yes, he may have had elder brothers...but who married THE princess? TII.
As you well know, the prince was usually born of the concubine but it was the maternal line--the princess-- "who made any son of the king a legitimate contender for the throne"...this was typically the case and so goes-it for TII's own son, Menkheperre', who was born by the concubine, as well. (However, he was obviously a second-born son, as he survived!)

It has never been proven that Thutmose II was NOT a firstborn; maybe not TI's first-born son, but has it been proven he was not the firstborn son of Mutnofret? 

Scripture says (Ex. 11:5; 12:29): "Every firstborn son of Egypt will die from the firstborn of Pharaoh who sits on the throne"--(note the co-regency implication of a grown son in those two verses)-- "to the firstborn son of the slave girl..." and (12:30):"...for there was NOT A HOUSE without someone dead." 

Maybe I'm missing something, but why does the tomb of El-Kalb mean that it is "impossible" that Thutmose (II) died as the firstborn (of the concubine) during that time?  Number one- age had nothing to do with the death of the firstborn. In fact, Scripture seems to support the co-regency. HOLLYWOOD depicts the firstborn of Pharaoh dying as an infant!
Why is it so far-fetched to believe that TII was "a first born son of Egypt, who died in the plague"? Likewise, believing Wadjmose and/or Amenmose were TII elder brothers (or even his sons) wouldn't  take anything away from the tomb of El-Kalb or from history.
...Again, all I'm saying is this is where Scripture's timeline fell and until I see proof against it, I'm sticking with it.

I must say, this group is an interesting group of people. We all have much in common-- we have a heart toward ancient peoples or we wouldn't even care to know what we've made an effort to learn; and by examining the way they thought and the way they lived, we can learn from them. Because we're not so unlike them...despite the disagreements and occasional hard-headedness as we walk the forest of chronologies.
...If only we could see the forest for the trees...

 I agree with you on your assessment of us and the ancients 100% thank you.  Regretfully, I disagree completely with your theory.  Again, scripture, physical evidence, modern technology, new understanding based upon better controlled investigations are my supports.  Oh, dear, one of my favorite childhood story heroes was Paul Bunyan.

Thankyou and a good day LiaDee, to yours and to all.