"The Aten Bomb: Cultural Fission and Conquest in Exodus"

[Richard Stanley]

Yes, and I have mentioned several times on the forum that the late Moses Hadas, author of the 'classic' Hellenistic Culture, Fusion and Diffusion, made a powerful argument as to why that claim in 1 Maccabees should be considered as true. This in addition to that no one should consider, as is common today, that the Hasmonean Maccabees should be considered as Jewish nationalist heroes, but rather happy collaborators with the Greeks and later Romans. They pretended to be nationalists whenever expedient, as do today the Trumps and Clintons and ... .

And thus one sees what the true role of Josephus Flavius was, who claimed, at least, to be of Hasmonean extraction.

 

[Seeker]

Seti I, Ramesses I’s son and also equated with the Biblical Joshua ben Nun, wrote a declaration that corresponds to the Biblical account of the Exodus.

Joshua/Seti I is also given a Biblical pedigree back to Ephraim, the favored son of Joseph. Two of Ephraim's sons were slain by the Philistines of Gath, because they tried to steal their cattle. Gath later became a refuge for the Anakim giants, (identified by the Israelites as the Nephilim), whom Joshua had committed genocide against, and was also the hometown of Goliath.

 

[Seeker]

Among the origin stories of the Sabines is that they were a Spartan colony in Italy, and there is the "document", mentioned in I Maccabees 12, "indicating" that the Spartans and Jews were "related", and "descended from Abraham".

Among the conjectures of Ralph Ellis, in his "Scota", is that Pharaoh Aye is Danaus (making him the "Danite" Spartan/Sabine/Caesar ancestor), brother-in-law of Pharaoh Akhenaton (Aaron), the brother of Tuthmoses (Moses), which would make them "Levite" ancestors of the Maccabees, and thus all three of them would be Biblical "children of Abraham".

 

[Sgt Pepper]

Archaeologists Debunk 3,000-year-old Fake News: The Hyksos Didn’t Invade Ancient Egypt

 

[Richard Stanley]

Thx again Sarge

I think this is good news, as it distinguishes between the common people, who immigrated to Lower Egypt for better economic conditions, and their leaders who emerged up out of .... where and whom?

And ... so what was the nature of this 'expulsion'? Just propaganda for Ahmose, who happened to link it to the phenomenon created by the volcano at There? Perhaps so. It sounds like our politicians today that demonize Central Americans mostly looking for the same.

Besides, we are most interested in who and what came later with the machinations of the later 18th and 19th Dynasties, and the even later pharaohs at Tanis / Avaris. The latter ones who match up to David and Solomon.

 

[Seeker]

This scientific article seems to agree with the hypothesis here that the Hyksos originated as Western Asiatics, migrated to Egypt peacefully, and also refers only to the dynastic rulers as the Hyksos, not their elite attendants or the ethnic group that they are associated with, creating a distinction between them, as Postflaviana does, between the "shepherds" and their subjects. It also suggests that an influx of women from this group had possibly come to Egypt to marry into powerful high status Egyptian families already there, reminding me of the story about Abraham's wife Sarah becoming a wife of the Pharaoh :

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0235414&fbclid=IwAR1_dyW-6iRvohd8Cmu-kYHlZQtya0l5gRCvqRjcCnJCyBSToXMkLEzv

Excerpt: "Utilizing the extensive burial areas to contribute one of the largest isotopic studies of ancient Egypt to date, this study is the first to use archaeological chemistry to directly address the origins of the enigmatic Hyksos Dynasty, the first instance in which Egypt is ruled by those of foreign origin. Although the Levantine origin of these rulers is not in question due to their rulers’ names, architecture, and material culture, these results challenge the classic narrative of the Hyksos as an invading force. Instead, this research supports the theory that the Hyksos rulers were not from a unified place of origin, but Western Asiatics whose ancestors moved into Egypt during the Middle Kingdom, lived there for centuries, and then rose to rule the north of Egypt."

 

[Richard Stanley]

What's your point, and with the big and bold?

"Western Asiatics" from various places seems to agree with Nicholas De Vere's claim, no? Like the Normans, they adopt others' names, architecture, and material cultures.

I remember seeing some shows about this site, and how secretive it was. At the end of each year's dig session the archaeologists had to completely bury the whole place. Somebody knew how sensitive this place is.

 

[Seeker]

Yes, I thought this scientific article seemed to confirm what you and the late Nicholas de Vere were claiming here. Sorry about the "big and bold", I had some trouble copy and pasting it, but at least it makes it easier for senior citizens to read (lol)!
I just tried to fix it, and I think it worked out better this time, "if at first you don't succeed, etc.".

 

[Richard Stanley]

I wrote a long email to Derek Lambert today after watching his show with Dr. Price about an odd theory about Ephraim and Paul's alleged interpretation of this. I will wait for Derek to reply, before posting my text, most of which is a reiteration of what I have already stated elsewhere.

In any case, as usual, the process of writing brings some 'revelations' to one. In this case it finally dawned on me why Jesus is of 'Judah' and not of Ephraim. And secondly, I think I understand more of the wrestling contest between Jacob and God.

First, because Ephraim, with the Blessing of Abraham and the blood of Egyptian nobility (at least), is thus over Judah, who sold father Joseph into slavery, the fictional Jesus, as with David, is subservient to the real and 'hidden' Ephraim, and now Esau, namely the elite Romans.

If 'Jacob' can be seen as representing the Hyksos pharaoh, Jacoba, and the wrestling contest is between the Hyksos and the Egyptians, then are we being told that the result is the setting up of shop in Canaan by 'Jacoba' cum 'Israel'? The wrestling contest is typically absurd, and so we are being clued in again that this is all symbolizing the larger underlying reality, which can't be communicated without more questions being raised. It's fake wrestling -- with a rigged outcome.

What is the larger reality? As I've pondered before, both the original Egyptian elites and the Hyksos/Saba/Ashina/Arya elites understood that climate change was occurring, e.g. desertification of northern Africa, and thus desired to move their power and control North. As such, one can't just tell people upfront that they are going to be taken over, so you create divine stories that Justify your future conquest that can be scripted from the divine 'past'.

John Bartram argues that it took 5 or more centuries to transition from an insider cult of Chrestianity to the exoteric religion of Christianity. And this would be for the same functional reason that I claim that such started with the 18th Dynasty and the cultural process of creating Judaism took roughly as long. The 18th Dynasty even starts by connecting to the Hyksos period.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

More Hyksos stuff. Not sure how this would affect anything… so take it for what it's worth…

From Wikipedia:
They [Hyksos] have been credited with introducing several technological innovations to Egypt, such as the horse and chariot, as well as the sickle sword and the composite bow, but this theory is disputed.[13]

Here's the source for that claim:
https://escholarship.org/uc/item/72q561r2

The transition from the Second Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom was the time when a number of advances were introduced in Egypt, particularly in the military sphere (including the horse and the chariot, the composite bow, the xpS-sickle-sword). To what extent the kingdom of Avaris should be credited for these innovations is debatable. Opinions range from the traditional view of Delta foreigners as Kulturträger (Labib 1936: 10; Stock 1942: 72-75) to the notion that the kingdom of Avaris and the Theban kingdom simultaneously acquired novelties coming from the Near East (Säve-Söderbergh 1951: 60, 71), and to the idea that the kingdom of Avaris was impeding Egyptian access to innovation and only its defeat introduced technological innovations to early Dynasty 18 Egypt (Shaw 2012: 108). There is evidence for the sickle-sword and the horse appearing at Tell el-Dabaa before the first attestation of their use by Egyptians at the beginning of Dynasty 18. A sickle-sword was found in a burial dating to phase F (Forstner-Müller 2008: 50-51, 180), and the single horse burial found at Tell el-Dabaa (whereas numerous burials of smaller equids are known from this and other sites associated with the kingdom of Avaris) dates to phase E/1 (yet its military use is questioned, see Raulwing and Clutton-Brock 2009: 66-78; and Shaw 2012: 102).

 

[Richard Stanley]

No doubt the same human dynamics of tit-for-tat arms development operated back then as well. Unless someone finds a letter revealing how the Thebans acquired chariots and such, we'll be left guessing. Better to focus on the people (e.g. mummies and such) and their narratives I guess.

 

[Sgt Pepper]

A resume in video format:

 

[Richard Stanley]

The OT somewhere employs the metaphor that the weeds (or wild brush?) of the field must first be cleared before what is desired to be growing in the field. Regardless of exactly when such happened, and we do known that the Canaanite city-states collapsed, such a general time would be perfect for what was detailed for the cuckolding use of the Levite tribe of priests in their Jesuitically 'administrative' roles over the other 10 land-based tribes and 2 half tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh). The Bible account admits that this was somewhat messy as there was a transitional time where non-Levitical legacy priests were allowed.

This is generally the practice that was followed by the Norman Conquest and then the colonial Conquest of the USA and its 13 sectarian tribal colonies (one in the middle being Catholic and Jesuit).

The following is a good discussion, narrated by Leonard Nimoy, of the Norman Mott and Bailey system of wooden castles:

One can clearly see the reason for the Norman need for such fortresses, as they did not have happy 'native's ' on their borders (like the Welsh) nor likely for the Anglo-Saxons under their feet. Also, as is made clear, these initial wooden structures were not 'temporary' structures for the most part. Many of them lasts for 2 or 3 centuries before being replaced by stone or moved away from altogether.

For more mentions of the Norman Conquest on Postflaviana: https://postflaviana.org/community/index.php?search/15116/&q=Norman+Conquest&o=date