Was Akhenaten Moses ... and even more?

Discussion in 'Old Testament - False Dialectic' started by Richard Stanley, Jul 7, 2016.

  1. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    In an attempt to get back to writing the OT analysis series, picking up with where we left off with Joseph at the end of the Isaac post, I am going to post some research material here that in some cases appears to stray considerably far afield, and sometimes appears contradictory to what we've already looked at. This is an inherent problem in trying to integrate the viewpoints of many others that have looked over this area from their different perspectives.

    This first material is from the Sabbah brothers' 2002 book, Secrets of the Exodus, which is part of a wider trend in examining the central role that the 18th and 19th Egyptian Dynasties played in founding the Abrahamic religions. In the case of this first material, I had forgotten that the authors compress most all of the Genesis and Exodus narratives from Creation till Moses and Joshua into this period centered upon the monotheist period of Akhenaton at Amarna ( aka Akhet-Aten, aka Eden to such as Ralph Ellis).

    BTW, these brothers are Jewish rabbis, and are thus also part of a most helpful trend of numerous Jews (Freud, Velikovsky, Shahak, Feather, Sand, etc.), besides others (Osman, Ellis, etc.), in getting to the actual Egyptian tap root historical foundation of today's Western Civilization. Interestingly, there are many Jews who do not like such honest examinations of their CULTURE, and thus people like these run the risk of being labeled self-hating Jews by their own kind. And, of course, there are many goyim (both the gentil variety and uppity Collectivist peasants alike) who are scared witless by such examinations that also threaten the artificial 'Gentile' cultural Identity, spoon fed to them from cradle to grave. Truth can be a double edged sword.

    Such as the Secrets of the Exodus should have gotten much more notice, but for the above petulant and neurotic cultural insecurity factors. But, as well, we should acknowledge once more what Martin Bernal exposed in great detail (Black Athena Vol. 1) about the massive, top down, institutional academic effort (via the 1730's formulation of Romanticism) to deny the massive input to Western Civilization from Egypt, and claim instead that the Classical Greeks developed it all, despite the Classical Greeks' denial of same.

    To set the tone, let's first go astray with the Sabbahs' proposed real meanings of Elohim and Nefilim as they pertain the Jerry's and my thesis that we should really be concerned with the average human's relationship with the elites, rather than being distracted by the cultural distinctions and foibles of the other human sheep. Here, with the notion of societal elites going by the honorific titles of ba'al, lord, elohim, yah (as in yarl > jarl > earl).

    Mentioned is Ay, the father-in-law of Akhenaton, father of Nefertiti. In some senses he can be seen as Joseph, in others as God the Father himself as the later bible stories were politically redacted over time. Rashi was a famous rabbi of yore.

    From Chapter 10, The Elohim page 74-76:

    The scribes of both the Aramaic and Hebrew Bibles often use the first person plural to describe God, as in Genesis 1:26: "Let us make man in our own image, in our own likeness." Rashi explains this plural form for God by saying that God speaks in the name of his "family," the celestial beings (the elohim). "Man, being in the image of the celestial beings, could make the Elohim jealous. God took care to consult them. And when God judges the kings of the earth, He, in the same way, takes counsel with his 'family.'"

    According to Rashi, the "upper" world is made up of a celestial host, the angels, sitting on the right and the left hand of God, who is seated on His throne. The divine family is a mirror image of Pharaoh and his assembly. The expression "on the right (or the left) hand of the king" was included in the titles of the nobility of ancient Egypt. Ay held the title of "fan bearer seated at the right hand of the king, responsible for all his majesty's horses, true scribe of the king, father of God." For important decisions Pharaoh had to seek the counsel of the nobles seated around him. He also had to consult the gods, those celestial beings with whom he communicated. The upper world was multiple, in the image of ancient Egypt.

    In the expression "as one among us," the Bible reveals Ay's (Adonay's) membership in the Elohim, the pharaohs of Egypt
    [apparently preceding him in ascending to the heavens -RS].

    Once Adam and Eve were driven from the Garden of Eden, earth's population began to increase. By the time of Noah, there were many attractive human women. "When mankind began to increase in population on earth and daughters were born to them, the sons of the Elohim saw that the women were beautiful. And they married those of them that they wanted" (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:1-2).

    Rashi offers this explanation about the beings that appear in these verses:

    The sons of the Elohim: children of princes and judges. Another explanation of the Midrash [Hebrew commentary on the Bible]. They were heavenly beings, accomplishing a divine mission. They were also mixing with the women. In any case, the word Elohim always carries with it the sense of supremacy. It is thus that God said to Moses: "Thou shalt be for Aaron one of the Elohim" (Exodus 4:16), Or again, "Behold, I shall cause you to be one of the Elohim for Pharaoh." (Exodus 7:1)
    The commentary gives us a better glimpse of the priests of ancient Egypt. The pharaohs succeeded one another in the course of the different dynasties, and each one had numerous wives and children. They assured the futures of the princes by assigning them functions in government, the army, and above all, the priesthood. The priests of Akhet-Aten and the prominent citizens and functionaries formed the people of the Elohim (sons of the gods). These were the children of all the pharaohs of the past, who were seen as the gods of Egypt. They belonged to the secular pharaonic royalty (the heavenly beings). Describing the Egyptian nobility in general, and of Akhet-Aten in particular, Cyril Aldred states:

    In Egypt, the aristocrats often had direct ties with the sovereign. They were the "children of the court," descendants and relatives more or less close to the pharaohs, through the pharaohs' secondary wives. And they played an important role in the government, as for example, Yuya, the commandant of chariots under Thutmose IV, or Ay, chief of cavalry under Akhenaten.
    The true meaning, then, of the word Elohim is the pharaohs of Egypt. It is thus that the first verse of the Bible meets the Pyramid Texts, proclaiming loud and clear that the king of Egypt is a cosmic being, called upon to mount the celestial ladder or stairs, to sit on a shining throne, nourished by heavenly fruit and reigning over a celestial world.

    "The Nephilim were on the Earth in those days and afterward too, when the sons of the Elohim mixed with the daughters of men. And those daughters bore children to them. They were the ancient heroes and men of renown" (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 6:4).

    Although the Hellenists translated nephilim as "giants," the sense of the verse was contested by Fabre d'Olivet:

    The simplest things are always those the scholars see least. They go searching into the beyond, with infinite pains, neglecting the truth right under their noses. The savants had the Latin word nobilis, under their eyes, which carries the same root as the Hebrew Nephilim ... and which has to be seen in the Nephilians of Moses, not as giants of men of colossal height, but the grandees, distinguished, illustrious men, In short, the nobles.
    This explanation, based on semantics, permits us to reinforce the sense of "sons of the Elohim" as those belonging to the pharaonic nobility, ambitious and proud of the past [and their culture -RS]. The new nobility, mentioned by those Egyptologists who are specialists in the Amarna reform, represented the majority of the population of Akhet-Aten, both in the government and the clergy. The power, thus constituted, rapidly disquieted the old Theban nobility, which had to find an ally in the person of the Divine Father Ay.

    Note in the last paragraph the creation of an (epic) culture war, even before the mention and equation of Moses with Akhenaten and the ~600 Mosaic laws of (epic) cultural inversion. Note the equation of the terms Nephilim with nobilis via the common root. Is this similar to the 'Roman' Livy making laws for the Romans? If the Roman poet Horace, had Jewish parents, would that make Horace a Jew?

    When we get more into Akhenaton and his family, we'll discuss some reasons to consider that this particular elite schism carried forward onto Rome, and the rest of so-called 'Gentile' Europe. Jerry and I assert that this represents Ephraim and Manassah (Joseph per the papal assertion of John XXIII), while, the Sabbah brothers lay out the case that the Yehud (Judah) and Levi were the lower court senechals of Amarna, who left the city in an organized and peaceful fashion, for the 'wilderness'. Like Disestablished Jesuits ... who will pop up time and again carrying the illuminated torch of the Aten - and Adonay.

    Enough for now.

     
    Last edited: Jul 7, 2016
  2. A new day

    A new day Member

    I like where you are going with this. While giants and ancient-aliens are more entertaining, a more accurate history may be more informative.
     
  3. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    In our analysis of Abraham, Jacob and Joseph, we basically left these characters floating in an indeterminate time; indeed we tend to view them as fictional, legendary or as avatars for entire peoples and/or their lord rulers. Other authors have attempted to place them as real historical characters; for example, Ralph Ellis has Abraham = pharaoh Maaebra Sheshi, first of the Hyksos pharaohs, ~1650 BC, and Rohl thinks he's found archaeological evidence for Joseph, Jacob and the twelve tribes, at Avaris during the time of Amenemhet III, dated by Rohl to 1678-1634 BC (conventionally 1860-1814 BC). Rohl says that the Exodus occurred during the time of Dudimose, which he dates to ~1430 BC.

    Old testament chronological dead reckoning puts the time of Moses' Exodus at about 1490 BC. According to conventional chronology, this is about the time of Thutmose II. Wiki says Thutmose II is a leading candidate for pharaoh of the Exodus:

    By this standard chronology, Akhenaten is a bit late to have been Moses. But, he is conventionally dated to about 1360 BC, which I suppose is not too far off. A chronological bonus for this theory is that Jericho was apparently burned to the ground about this time. This chronology would still allow plenty of time for the period of the Judges and the time of Saul, David and Solomon, albeit a bit compressed compared to the Biblical chronicle.

    The identity of the pharaoh Shishak, who plundered the Jerusalem temple shortly after Solomon's death, is generally thought to be the key to aligning the Biblical chronology of the Divided Kingdom, to Egyptian chronology. The conventional view is that Shishak = Sheshonq I, about 930 BC. Rohl argues for Sishak = Ramses II, which is about a 350 year realignment of Egyptian chronology relative to the Biblical story. This puts Akhenaten and the Amarna letters during the time of Saul. Velikovsky and Sweeney argue that Sishak = Thutmose III, which is about a 550 year realignment, making Akhenaten contemporary with Ahab and Jehoram.

    If Rohl or Velikovsky & Sweeney are correct, this isn't necessary fatal to the theory that Akhenaten was Moses, but it does say that the event was heavily fictionalized and thrown far back into ancient times, relative to its actual invention and promulgation as a nationalist meme for the Israelites.
     
  4. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Thx A new day.

    One of the things I have discovered over the years is that figuring out real history is a lot more interesting than either what was taught in school, or the fantasms.
     
  5. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    The Sabbah brothers provide pharaonic funeral imagery that evokes the 12 sons of Jacob carrying him back home, and as well, the wealth of graphic images that they provide demonstrate pretty conclusively the intimate connection between royal Egypt and the foundations of pre-Exilic Judaism. This, no matter what one wants to make of the later respective political relationships of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians with respect to the Egyptians over centuries, and the vagaries of competing chronologies.

    We need to figure out how to collect equivalent images, and/or scan some from the book as well. Once you combine this with Feather's Copper Scroll analysis I think it is rather definitive IMO.

    Once we link the above and more into the 1177 BCE business of the Sea Peoples with Ramses II(?) and the odd circumstances surrounding the collapse of the Late Bronze Age, and the red headed business, that appears to dovetail with Ashe's "Seven Mystique" in Dawn Behind the Dawn then we'll have provided a pretty clear overall picture.

    It's also very fascinating to to re-read (which made little to no impact at the time) Secrets of the Exodus about Akhenaten using the lure of such as beautiful women to pull the priests of Amun and other elites of the old way to the new culture at Amarna. But his father, Amenhotep III had already started a process of cultural alienation before his son did, and I have to think this is no coincidence.
     
  6. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

  7. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Last edited: May 28, 2017
  8. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    On p. 212 of Sabbah bros., they claim to have an image of 12 priests carrying an ark. I only see 8 priests and their boss. A photograph of the artifact that appears to be the basis of the line drawing is found at fig. 17.4 of this pdf:

    http://faculty.washington.edu/snoegel/PDFs/articles/noegel-ark-2015.pdf

    Rick, are there other images in "Secrets of the Exodus" that you feel are necessary to make the point?
     
  9. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Very funny Jerry.

    2 times 6 = 12 , or 4 times 3 = 12

    Look at the picture once more, and read the text. Look at the apparel. Think of what happens when pallbearers have to carry a coffin on only either the right side, or the left side. I have seen this go very bad every time they try this.
     
  10. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Far too many to mention here.
     
  11. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    I just discovered that it was a Jesuit, in 1714, who rediscovered Akhet-Aten. One Claude Sicard. (From pg. 18)

    Hilarious
     
  12. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    In Chapter 4, Pharaoh Ay, the Sabbahs discuss him as essentially being the pharaoh of the Exodus, as Tutenkhamun was essentially too young to make such a critical decision regarding his father's creation, and Ay became the pharaoh after Tut's death. However, it was Ay, Akhenaton's father-in-law, who was more than witness to the creation of the Aten religion and the city of Akhet-Aten. Ay had been Akhenaten's very active vizier, as Joseph had been to his pharaoh (obviously here displaced far in time). In the case of Joseph, he had conspired with pharaoh to manipulate the markets and end up enslaving all the people of Egypt (Genesis 47). All the people of Egypt, but not Hebrews ... because as the Sabbah brother rabbis conclude, there was no such people ... as the extensive lack of evidence shows.

    That Ay was an active witness to the Rise and Fall of Akhenaten is just one of the aspects of this business that should indicate that this was all orchestrated, and that it should also be what guides our typological interpretation of what is going on in the world today. Especially as to the popular focus here regarding Cultural Degeneration, and that it has so much Masonic symbology attached to numerous aspects. But we can extend this to such as the massive manipulation of markets and other aspects. Ironically, the archaeologists, the Sabbahs and other researchers cannot find any Jews in their ancient focus, but the researchers of current affairs seem to find them all over the place today, as with the masons. The common denominator is the source of both, that being Egypt and the pharaohs, or at least the 18th and 19th Dynasty pharaohs.

    One can see where the Sabbahs may have went wrong IMHO in superficially assuming, like the archaeologists, that the Aten experience was to be taken at face value, rather than a massive ruse. In this case on both the old culture and the new culture of fanatics converted to monotheism. Ay and Akhenaten had not only defiled the old gods, but had bled the old culture to near death so as to make Akhet-aten a virtual Garden of Eden, filled with luxuries and beautiful women.

    From pg. 36:
    Ay found himself confronted with the most difficult decision of his life. [Unless this was the plan all along. RS] He would have to blame the population of Akhet-aten for the woes of the country. The cosmopolitan life created by Akhenaten became a pretext for the accusation of corruption, adultery, and exhibitionism against the city. Akhet-aten had to be destroyed, and its monotheistic priests had to be exiled or killed. They had, after all, been guilty of corruption and fraternization with foreign women.

    Killing priests was certainly not an Egyptian custom. Such an act was considered the crime of crimes. Besides, Ay himself had been venerate and deified by the monotheistic priests [who had just prior been polytheistic priests of such as Amun - RS].​

    So what was a good [or bad?] vizier to do? The city of Akhet-aten (Amarna > America?) was abandoned after the death of Akhenaton's son Smenkhkare. And it was done so quickly and systematically with no sign of violence as discovered by the archaeologists. As recorded by the accounts, and as mentioned above, the city was very wealthy having scraped the rest of the country clean. Little was left, except as what hidden treasure appears to have been recorded on a copper scroll and was later found in the Dead Sea Scroll caves (i.e. the Copper Scroll as discussed by Robert Feather in his book of the same name).

    As such, where would these thousands of Aten priests and other court officials go, if not into an approved exile, a Promised Land of sorts? If these had gone to nearby Canaan as hated exiles, one might think that later Egyptians would have had no compunction in eliminating them, but this did not happen. Exodus 12:35-36 concurs that the Hebrews were allowed to take all the booty of Egypt along with them. Hmmm

    Furthermore, the Sabbahs discuss that the so-called Restoration Stele, erected in the time of Tutankhkamen, by Ay, records that the old religions had to be reformed via the recruited sons of such as the bureaucrats, and not from the traditional sons of the priests. Why? Because the old priesthood was gone to Disneyland. The Levites were even set up as the effective rulers of the 48 largest cities in Canaan, as recorded in Leviticus. From here, their sons would become the future Levites of Judea and Israel, such as the ancestors of Josephus Flavius.

    Now, just as Jerry and I have proposed before, we have a contrived False Dialectic established, and transported off to a contrive exile. The likes of which will get transported to Rome, sooner or later, depending upon the correct chronology. In either case, Rome, as we understand it will start in the general time frame as the kings of Judea and their travails with the Mesopotamians and Persians. By the time of the Persians however, these people have adopted a monotheism of their own, Zoroastrianism. Their own customized version of Atenism, spread and assisted by fleeing members of Akhenaton's court?

    The Sabbah brothers introduce an interesting and compelling idea that Ay got the additional benefit of placing the exiles in Canaan so as to create a buffer zone in the region that had been wracked by turmoil of various sorts. The Canaanite king, Rib-Hadda, and others had frequently complained to Akhenaten about being attacked by such as the Apiru, and at this time the Hittites were still a nearby power. Here they quote the one of the Targums (an Aramaic translation of the older non-extant Hebrew Bible): "On exactly that day, all of the armies of Ay left the land of Egypt." (Exodus 12:41) In other words the Egyptian army actually escorted the exiles into their new promised land, rather than chasing them.

    The Sabbah brothers discuss that Akhet-Aten was built mostly with bricks, which was unique for Egypt. The Bible story of the Hebrew slaves having to make bricks is famous, yet there is no evidence of such slaves, albeit that bricks were used later on in delta cities like Avaris.

    If the chronology can be revised such that the 'exile' comes out to the accepted (or some other revised) time for David, then we have an interesting scenario of how the Solomonic temple became associated with so much esoteric pagan rites that mostly seem to originate in pharaonic Egypt. The OT texts even record that the Israelites hated David and Solomon for such as being pressed into labor gangs to build it. Ironically, this was the complaint for those of the supposed escapees from Egypt, that they had been force to build Egyptian constructions. Mentioned also is the massive consecrations of sacrificial animals at Aten temples, of which the Solomonic temple would also become famous for.


     
    Last edited: Jul 8, 2016
  13. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    In this next post, we have so far been unable to locate the Targum text to verify what the Sabbah brothers critically claim that it says (here and just above) as to strongly confirming their narrative. In the following excerpt is the claim that the Targum states that the name of God is Ay instead of Yahweh. This site, supposedly working on parallel translations stops two chapters short of what we need for verse Gen 15:2 (and those in Exodus). It is interesting to note that the Secrets of the Exodus French edition came out in 2000, and the Hebrew Union College Aramaic project states that it is in some kind of financial distress since ... 2000. Whatever the case, I can not figure out how to navigate this site.

    In any case, we'll post the following excerpt with a caveat, under the assumption that it is true, because it fits so well with all the other data, including commentary by the sage rabbi Rashi. This includes not only about the name Ay, but the identity of the Yahud. But even if we assume that the Sabbah brothers are correct about what the Targum says, this could all still be a fabrication from the first century BCE, right? Well if so, then it would be passing strange that the god name Ay would indeed be identical to the vizier and pharaoh of the 18th Dynasty, central to the Sabbah's story.

    From Chapter 6, The Bible of Ay, pp. 46-48:

    A study of the Aramaic translation of the Bible reveals that the Hebrews were the Yehud priests, the Judahites, the followers of Pharaoh Ay. Following their exile from Akhet-aton, the "Judahites" (the Yehudim or Yahuds) settled in Judah and the "Hebrews" (the Children of Israel, the "multitude") were relegated to the northern territories.

    I'm going to interject at this point that the most recent archaeology indicates that much, if not all, of the Hebrew component were indigenous Canaanites (that may have been subsequently converted ... or not). Also, I might venture that the Levites were the priestly caste within or associated with the Yehud polity who may have been secular elites in my opinion, so as to be consistent with the tribal relationship structure we've examined before.

    The Aramaic Bible, called the Targum, is a prime reference source because of its precedence in time. It is a translation of a Hebrew Bible into the Aramaic language. All extant copies of the Books of Genesis and Exodus in Hebrew [such as the Masoretic - RS] were written after the Aramaic Bible. Aramaic is an ancient Semitic language very close to Hebrew and Arabic; it was the spoken and written language of Jesus of Nazareth. By Jesus' time, Hebrew had been a dead language for centuries. The Aramaic Bible is the one that Jesus would have read.

    The Aramaic Bible states the name of God as "Ay." When the Divine Father Ay granted the Land of Canaan (the Promised Land) to the monotheistic priests, they deified his name, and used it as one of the names of the One God. The Aramaic Bible also reveals Ay as a "warrior" or "a man of war." "Ay is a warrior. Ay is is name" (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 15:3). "Yahwe is a warrior" (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 15:3). This verse illustrates the anthropomorphism of the God of the Bible. The concept of an abstract god was a later development.

    Ay was the god of the Yahuds. It was probably after Akhenaton's and Smenkhkare's death that Ay's name became Adon-ay - Lord Ay. With this continuing tradition, much later during the Babylonian exile, God was referred to as "Adonay," even though the name was written on the page as "Yahwe"; in this way the holy name was avoided, the name "which was never to be spoken."

    A clever reverse psychology ploy, such that later people would figure that Yahwe was the valuable sacred name when in reality it was the approved and commonly used name, Adonay.

    The Aramaic Bible reveals the history of the Yahuds, worshipers of Pharaoh Ay and, by deduction, the other pharaohs. The Yahuds were deported by Ay, but they revered him. Back in Egypt, the Amunian scribes and population saw the Divine FatherAy as a god of the Egyptian pantheon. As such, he was worshiped in the subject province of Canaan. A comparison of the Hebrew and Aramaic Bibles demonstrates that relationship: "And Abram answered, 'Adonay-Yahwe'" (Adonay is Yahweh) (Hebrew Bible, Genesis 15:2); "And Abram answered, 'Ay Elohim (Ay is "the gods") (Aramaic Bible Genesis 15:2).

    Egypt returned to the polytheistic religion of Amun during and after the time when Ay was Pharaoh [albeit with some streamlining reforms though - RS]. The Amunian artisans engraved Ay's name on temple walls within many cities in the Kingdom of Judah, which testifies to the persistent vitality of the worship of Pharaoh Ay, as well as of the Egyptian symbol "Yod-Yod, " one of the more important symbols of "the Creative God" in the ancient Pyramid Texts. For the Yahud people, Ay's divinity integrated all the gods (Elohim), including Jehovah (Yahwe). Monotheism still lived within that concept.

    A reading of both versions of the Bible reveals that there were two classes of people who were involve with the Exodus. There were the Yahuds, the priestly class, and there were the Children of Israel, the commoners, the "multitudes." Taking into account these texts as well as a study of the African monotheists, we can deduct that there was another class, the Meses-Ay, the police of Akhet-Aten, who went south and whose descendants live today in Kenya and Tanzania. This last group of Masai monotheists took the route south and will be discussed at a later point in this book (see chapter 19).

    Researcher and author Ralph Ellis also details the clearly 'Judaic' practices of the Masai tribe in one of his books. It is better known about the Judaic practices of some Ethiopian tribes however, such as ended up immigrating to Israel in recent decades.

    The Aramaic Bible makes a clear distinction between the Hebrews (Children of Israel) and the Yahuds. The Hebrew Bible does not make such a distinction. The Aramaic version related that it was the Yahuds who went out of Egypt under the aegis of their god Ay. The Hebrews were assimilated into the Children of Israel, the Egyptian commoners, the "multitude." "Then they [Moses and Aaron] said, 'The God of the Hebrews has met with us'" (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 5:3); "Then they [Moses and Aaron] said, 'The God of the Yahuds has met with us'" (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 5:3).

    The Moses of the Bible was a Yahud, a son of Levi. The two Bibles deal with this fact differently. "At that time, Moses had grown up. He went out among his people and saw them toiling at hard labor. He saw and Egyptian beating a Hebrew, one of his own people" (Hebrew Bible, Exodus 2:11); "At that time, Moses had grown up. He went out among his people and saw them toiling at hard labor. He saw an Egyptian beating a Yahud, one of his people" (Aramaic Bible, Exodus 2:11).


    ...
    The Aramaic Bible reveals that the Yahuds were priests of Egypt, of a different caste from the Hebrews, the "multitude," in ancient Egypt. "Yahud" (or "Yahut") is a heiroglyph meaning official or civil servant, an hereditary position of one charged with serving pharaoh. Hebrews as a distinct and separate people simply are not to be found in the ancient land. They were an invention of scribes who wrote centuries later, in a far-off, foreign land.

    The authors then go on a discourse about the contextual meaning of the word slave, as in that everyone, from the vizier on down could be considered a slave ... except see later. So this must be taken into account when the Bible refers to the Hebrews being slaves in Egypt. They then mention, from the Hagada Exodus account (and commented on in the Treatise of the Fathers) the Tribe of Levi, in relation to the Yahuds, but this is left ambiguous and I think that this needs some clarification as I touched on above.

    Then Rashi's comments on Genesis 18 states that the Midrash has it that the Tribe of Levi "had never been Pharaoh's slave." Hmmm

    Next some comments about Jeremiah complaining about the Jewish scribes changing the original words (Jer 8:8). Jeremiah had to flee to Egypt when the Babylonians conquered Israel.

    Just as our previous textual analysis of the relationship between subservient Judah and exalted Joseph (Ephraim) puts the Jewish construct in a different light, consistent with our False Dialectic Model and SSM (Shepherd Sheepdog Model), the Sabbah brothers have delivered a detailed account that dovetails very, very well with ours.
     
  14. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    A concern I had with the Sabbah book was that it was difficult to tell the difference between those aspects which could be supported by archaeological evidence, as described by mainstream Egyptologists, vs. those aspects which were primarily speculation on their part. Also, they have a tendency to downplay or overlook serious discrepancies between the historical or conjectural events that they narrate, vs. the biblical account.

    Our primary position is that the Torah is fiction, typology and/or a heavily fictionalized revision of historical events, retold from a hagiographical perspective. As such, perhaps we should not endorse claims such as "Ay was the Pharaoh of the Exodus". Our argument is that the Egyptians under Ay sent a colony of priests to Canaan, and that those priests wrote a self-serving narrative of their mission, which then was re-hashed, re-contextualized and incorporated into the Torah when it was finally redacted under the Persians.

    In this framework, there could easily be more than one wave of colonization from Egypt into Canaan -- such as the eviction of the Hyksos from Egypt under Ahmose, which Josephus suggested was the origin of the Hebrews. Ellis argued for this two-event model of the Exodus.

    Ahmed Osman just recently (2014) published this new book, "The Lost City of the Exodus". According to the blurb, Osman identifies Ramses I as Pharaoh of the Exodus. It also seems that he is continuing to identify Moses = Akhenaton. From a mainstream perspective, this doesn't make any sense, as Akhenaton is thought to have been dead for 40 years when Ramesses I became Pharaoh.

    A mainstream speculation holds that Ay is the son of Yuya, who may have been from the Mitanni. Wiki says:

    Osman identifies this Yuya with biblical Joseph. That would certainly be a major chronological compression, to put Joseph one generation before Moses. But by the magic of typological fictionalization, perhaps this is no problem.
     
  15. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    I see your point, but next you'll be telling us that Horus really had two eyes.
     
  16. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    No, I was really trying to tell you that I have never seen anyone try to carry a coffin from only one side. Or similarly a precessional Egyptian ark in the same manner. Only from both sides. ;)

    Plenty of people get by just fine with one functioning eye ball, some even with none.
     
  17. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    If I appeared to endorse or did endorse their specific claim about Ay, then I apologize. I should have added that as a caveat as well. In all of this I am most concerned about the dependencies of the formation of Judah/Israel (or perhaps Judah in Canaanite Israel) and the synthetic nature of the Judaic narrative, with its origins found in royal Egypt .. in furtherance of the global ambitions explicitly stated in the foundational narratives (including that of Rome's ... and thx to gilius, we can see the Jesuits' own most recent historiography in being at the center of globalism since their foundation ... which they claim is mere divine coincidence - their symbol being Aten's radiating solar disc).

    In any case, if the Aramaic Targum does indeed seem to indicate 'Ay' as being the 'ay' in Adonay, then perhaps this might just be a typical theophoric honorific, as in saying Lord so and so.

    However, it seems to also be the Sabbah brothers' general position that the Torah is a heavily redacted and scrambled, hagiographical depiction of actual accounts. In this regard, they appear to me to conform with the accepted narrative that Akhenaton and Ay, at least, were poking a stick in the eye(s) (to put it mildly) of the powerful Amun and other priesthoods. And Ay was there to pick up the pieces when it all collapsed, the Restoration Stele issued when he was supervising young Tut. It was Ay who married Tut's young widow, who had written the Hittite's to send a prince for her to marry and become pharaoh. The prince was assassinated and the Hittites launched a military campaign, from which they had thousands of elite Hittite deaths from a plague spread by Egyptian war prisoners, BTW.

    So in this case, the Sabbah brothers claim about the new colonists (aka exiles) becoming a buffer for Egypt is bolstered by the fact that the Hittites were severely damaged by what might have been a ruse, of which the Hittite king even questioned the sincerity of. Because Egyptians supposedly don't marry off their princesses and thus accept foreign pharaohs. Albeit the case of Akhenaton's father, Amenhotep III, is curious because of his supposedly foreign mother, and the pharaoh's are supposed to have matrilineal lineage (ostensibly like the Jews).

    Absolutely. It was the Hyksos that introduced such as chariots into Egypt and Mesopotamia as a lasting legacy. I suspect that there were other deeper legacies as well.

    Perhaps it might be better to say that, like many say for Jesus Christ, that he is a composite, that the Pharaoh of the Exodus is also a literary composite of several Egyptian 'kings'?

    If Akhenaton had gone to the Hidden Resort, let's say in what we think of as Media (or just plain ol' Midian), instead of dying suddenly for some unknown reason, then perhaps he could have been alive longer to have played such a role. Later Media would be where the political impetus came from that launched Cyrus onto his role as the founder of the monotheistic Zoroastrian Persian empire. The Magi, an odd religious 'clan' end up mucking around in Babylon, while the Judeans are 'exiled' there. Later the magi come to visit the baby Jesus. Hmmm

    No wonder we can't trust the Media.

    Chariots had been introduced centuries before by the Hyksos, so these association seems rather tenuous, albeit plausible.

    Osman identifies this Yuya with biblical Joseph. That would certainly be a major chronological compression, to put Joseph one generation before Moses. But by the magic of typological fictionalization, perhaps this is no problem.[/QUOTE]

    Well, the bible account does say 4 generations (and 430 years). Through the magic of literary contrivances both can be true.

    If Yuya is Joseph, then this should make Ay Ephraim. The half tribe of Ephraim (the other half being Manassah) was also supposedly settled into Israel, adjacent to Jerusalem and Judea. According to the accounts then the Ephraimites, those still holding the eternal blessing of Abraham's were sent off to other parts. Some say to 'Scythia'. And here there are old family accounts of subsequent migrations and imigrations of such getting as far west as the British Isles, hence such as the stag iconography via places like Hungary.
     
  18. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Finally moving onto Joseph, the next focus of the OT series, we come to a key element of the Sabbahs' equating the Biblical Joseph with Ay, not forgetting Jerry's fine points about Yuya, Ay's father.

    From pp. 116-117:

    Joseph's age -- 30 -- corresponds to the approximate age of Ay when he was decorated by Pharaoh I [must be before Akhenaton - rs]. During Akhenaton's reign Ay traveled all over the land of Egypt, and the wealth and produce of the country flowed toward Akhet-Aton, the holy capital.

    When all of the country was famished, the people cried out to Pharaoh for bread. And Pharaoh answered the people, "Go to Joseph. Do whatever he tells you." As the famine reigned over the whole face of the earth, Joseph opened all the warehouses, and sold the wheat to the Egyptians. From every country, they came to Egypt to purchase wheat from Joseph, because the famine was severe everywhere. (Genesis 41:55-57)
    These verses indicate that the Egyptian economy was centralized in the capital, as during Akhenaton's reign. Having become governor of Egypt, Ay visited the country ceaselessly, taking account of the miserable state of the population. Ay could scarcely recognize his country, afflicted by the monotheistic megalomania and consequent catastrophe. The dramatic situation of the rest of Egypt contrasted with the enormous wealth of Akhet-Aton and Akehenaton's passivity concerning the distress of his vassals (highlighted in the Amarna Letters). These were the factors that influenced the Divine Father in the actions he took to save Egypt. According to Claire Lalouette, "Ay possessed a complete authority which is notably figured on a stele mentioning a gift of real estate, discovered near the pyramid of Cheops (Khufu). Then Ay stayed at Memphis." The divine Father crisscrossed Egypt, redistributing lands and property, and relocating the population, in actions similar to Joseph's. "Joseph, having left Pharaoh, traveled throughout Egypt. During the seven abundant years, the land produced plentifully" (Genesis 41:45). "And he [Joseph] moved the peoples of the cities from one end to the other of the borders of the land of Egypt" (Genesis 47:21).

    The degree of power exercised by Joseph is exemplified in Genesis 47:23-26:

    And Joseph said unto the people, "Behold! This day I have bought you and your land for Pharaoh. Here is grain for you. Sow the land with it. After the harvest, you will give 0ne-fifth to Pharaoh. The other four-fifths will serve you for re-seeding the fields and for your nourishment, and for that of your homes and for the nourishment of your children."
    The people of Egypt thanked Joseph for his compassion, and offered themselves as slaves for Pharaoh. This troubling verse shows the extent to which they had elevated him, since they called him, Adon-Ay [apparently according to the Aramaic Targum - rs], identifying Joseph with Pharaoh. Gratefully, they proclaimed, "We offer ourselves as Pharaoh's slaves."

    The common people of Egypt who were not part of the new religion were sorely afflicted, as the story of Joseph demonstrates. The story agrees with the historical facts about Ay and with the Stele of Restoration
    [which I mentioned in a post on this thread before - rs]. Joseph wearing Pharaoh's ring, was considered as Father of the King in the territories outside the sacred capital, which was most of the country of Egypt, In exactly the same way, Ay was welcomed as liberating the people from their afflictions. Joseph and Ay are one and the same person.
    As I have discussed before, the last half of Genesis 47 is the part of the famous story of Joseph dealing with Pharaoh's dream (of 7 years of plenty and 7 years of famine) that we never get told. Here, Joseph colludes with Pharaoh to corner the markets, in pretty much everything needed to survive, i.e. crops, livestock, land, and finally the freedom of the 'citizens'. Citizens who have now been converted into serfs, and we wonder where the later Romans got the idea from to create feudal Europe and serfdom from?

    In addition we find out that Joseph and Ay have been moving people from one end of the country to the other. For what possible reason would this be than to affect local politics in relation to the central authority? This is exactly what we find happens later on with the Israelites and Judeans viz-a-viz Assyria and Babylon.

    Elsewhere in the book, the Sabbahs' discuss that it was not possible for the Pharaoh of the day to not have already understood what his own supposed dream was about. This means that these characters, the pharaoh and his vizier, were both in on this plan from the beginning, and as such Ay, was never motivated to halt the Amarna 'experience' from a position of compassion for either the people of the gods, but from his need to launch a long term pan and to carry out his role in it.

    Later on we'll discuss some reasons to believe that Akhenaton's father, Amenhotep III was part of the program, one of which is the archaeological evidence of an unusual trip (a rare state visit?) from Egypt to Mycenaean Greece. This predating the curious collapse of the Late Bronze Age in a manner that curiously left Egypt as the sole surviving civilization of the larger region. The sole surviving civilization. And in doing so the pharaoh du jour just happened to let one of the mysterious tribes commonly known as the Sea Peoples camp out in the delta of Egypt (among other crazy circumstances). All of this then leads one way or the other (no matter what chronological scheme) into the odd period of the extremely brief Judaic zenith of Solomon, whose behavior and characteristics appear more to be of a typical pharaoh than some mere Jewish wise guy.
     
    Last edited: Jul 14, 2016
    A new day likes this.
  19. Jerry Russell

    Jerry Russell Administrator Staff Member

    Going back to one of the primary sources, I've been reading Book 1 of Against Apion by Josephus. His perspective is pretty interesting. The purpose of the book is to defend Josephus' work in the Antiquities of the Jews, against certain unnamed critics who say that the Greeks know nothing of the ancient origins of the Jews. (Apion isn't mentioned until book 2.) Josephus' introductory remarks say that the Greeks aren't so ancient themselves, and furthermore that it's no wonder they never heard of the Jews because they are not a maritime people.

    Then, Josephus gets into presenting his evidence. First he tells Manetho's story of the Hyksos, very approvingly, as a true story of the great antiquity of the Jews. According to Manetho, the Hyksos came to Egypt as ruffians from the East, and conquered the country, governing from Memphis while setting up Avaris as a frontier fortress. After 511 years, the Hyksos were finally driven out, and they went first to Avaris, and then on to Judea, where they built the city of Jerusalem. Josephus notes several similarities between Manetho's account and the Hebrew bible, including the idea that the Hyksos were called "shepherds", and also "captives". He mentions that at the same time as the Hyksos were driven out by the Egyptians, that Danaus left for Argos, and comments that this was a thousand years before the Trojan war.

    Next, Josephus claims that the Phoenicians had records in their annals about the construction of Solomon's temple, aided by Hiram. This is also said to be discussed by Menander the Ephesian, who gave a chronicle of kings of Tyre.

    Next up is Berosus the Chaldean, who gives a chronicle of Assyria from Noah's flood, up until Cyrus the Persian returns the Jews to Jerusalem. Josephus says these records agree exactly with the Old Testament, as "indisputable and undeniable proof of the antiquity of our nation."

    The section on Greek authors is very confusing, with Josephus seemingly attempting to make much out of any minimal mention of anything that could be somehow construed as relating to Jews. Cherilus mentions "a remarkable people from whose mouths came the Phoenician tongue though they lived in the Solymean mountains, near a broad lake. Their heads were shaggy though shorn in a circle, and over them they carried hides like horse-heads, hardened in the smoke" and Josephus thinks these must be Jews. There is also an amusing story in which a Greek seer is conducting an augury, and a Jew named Mosollamus kills the bird with his bow and arrow. Mosollamus says the bird couldn't have foretold the future, because if it had been able to, it would have known not to go anywhere near a Jew such as himself.

    Finally, Josephus returns to the story of the origin of the Jewish people as lepers. Josephus says the story comes from three different sources: Manetho, Chaeremon and Lysimachus, and Josephus seeks to prove that they are all lying, by showing up the contradictions in their various stories. But as readers, we must suspect that there must be some kernel of truth in the various stories, which overall seem pretty compatible with each other.

    The most complete version of the story is from Manetho, who says that Pharaoh Amenophis expels 80,000 lepers from Egypt to work in quarries. These lepers chose themselves a ruler named Osarsiph, who makes an alliance with the Hyksos from Jerusalem. They conquer Egypt, while Amenophis takes refuge in Ethiopia. Osarsiph changes his name to Moses. Finally, Amenophis and his son Rampses return from Ethiopia and drive the lepers and Judaeans back to Syria. Josephus contends that the whole story is absurd on multiple levels.

    But, Chaeremon tells more or less the same story, except that there are 250,000 lepers instead of only 80,000, and Chaeremon is confused about where the lepers found their allies, who seem to have come out of nowhere. Chaeremon has Joseph as a contemporary of Moses.

    Lysimachus' version is the most spare on details, gives the Pharaoh's name as Bocchorus, and says that the lepers were about to be thrown in the ocean wrapped in lead sheets when Moses saved them.
     
  20. Richard Stanley

    Richard Stanley Administrator

    Josephus does indeed have some interesting things to say in this regard, albeit we have to realize that he also has an elite agenda of his own. He seems to be correct about several things, such as the relative youth of the Classical Greeks, as they were centuries isolated from the earlier Mycenaeans, of whom these latter see, to have had some special relationship with Amenhotep III, of whom the Greeks knew as Amenophis III, father of Amenhotep IV, aka Akhenaton.

    In my new reading of the Sabbah brothers' reinterpreted Exodus account I am now convinced that this is the best match to what happened during the 18th and 19th Dynasties. However, in this regard, because they have compressed most everything from Creation to the Conquest into this period, they give short shrift to the prior Hyksos period. It was Ahmose I, the founder of the 18th Dynasty who expelled the Hyksos. Or so we are led to believe. What if the story is slightly different, and thus, like as with chariots, this is where royal red hair enters the Egyptian story, and thus the entire Western elite narrative till today?

    If this is the case, then we yet have a good reason why Ellis's pharaoh birth (not crown) names match so well with the Biblical patriarch's, and we also have a good reason for the radically incompatible dual Exodus chronologies. That we have dual chronologies provided in the Bible should give us pause to consider that further chron distortion has indeed been introduced later on as we have been discussing elsewhere. In any case, the longer list of names and longer chronology would stand as an homage to the Hyksos, while the compressed chronology covering 4 generations seems to well cover the Sabbah scenario.

    In the latter case, the Sabbah account is so rich in detail, from a number of perspectives that I now consider it to be the most definitive comparison of the Exodus account to the Amarna period. From my first reading some years ago, I wasn't able to see as many connections and their relevance as I can today. As such, I have decided in talking with Jerry that we now must launch a detailed spreadsheet comparison of all the re-interpretations. This will also be useful to see how they might mesh with others' alternate chronologies.

    To answer the question of the thread though, the Sabbah's do not claim Akhenaton as being Moses. Rather they claim Ramses I as being Moses, and Horemheb as being Aaron. The vizier (and pharaoh himself) Ay plays several roles in the Bible, Abraham and Joseph. Ramses son, Sety I plays the role of Joshua. I am going to lay out the Sabbah's reinterpretation of the confrontation of Moses and Aaron with 'pharaoh' next, in summary form.

    But first, to answer one confusion is to answer the question of how could such as Ramses I could be Moses. Here, the Sabbahs explicitly answered one of my confusions that I've mentioned in prior posts on this thread, namely, how could they be portraying such as Ay taking the Amarna monotheism sincerely on its face? In the subsequent reading they clearly state that Ay is playing both sides of the issue. And in this regard, Ramses and Horemheb were doing exactly the same. In the case of these latter, they were acting as Moses and Aaron, from the Hebrew perspective, in escorting the Amarna community out into the 'Wilderness', but from the Egyptian perspective, they were generals (future pharaohs) expelling the Amarna heretics (figurative lepers). As that old saw goes, "one's perspective is formed based upon where they stand at the time."

    As such, the dynamic detail of the interactions of these individuals and how it compares so well to the Biblical narrative, once one understands who is who and motivations, etc., that it simply cannot be ignored or dismissed.

    With 'heated' discussion ongoing on another thread about the eye of Providence, the all seeing eye, and the eye of Horus, I was struck by the solar symbol of Re (Ra) is Ay's cartouche, which immediately evoked an eye's iris and dark pupil at the center. The Sabbahs go into examining the cartouches of all these pharaohs and here with the Biblical Joshua, son of Nun, it is really amusing to see the symbol for Nun in Sety I's cartouche along with other relevant details. And then to realize that Sety I conquered all the same lands and cities said for Joshua.
     

Share This Page