Searching for the true Chronology of Egypt PDF Print E-mail
User Rating: / 0
Written by Administrator   
Saturday, 01 May 2010 07:21

Pharaoh of the Oppression

(Josephus & Bible)

Some time after the death of Joseph, the Israelites were forced to work as slaves for their Egyptian overlords in a state of bondage. The goodness of the pharaoh(s) during Joseph's tenure as Seal Bearer of the King changed as the Egyptians grew jealous and suspicious of Israel's prosperity. It appears that a new dynasty came to power and Israel suffered greatly under the kings of this dynasty.

"Now there arose up a new king over Egypt, which knew not Joseph. And he said unto his people, Behold, the people of the children of Israel are more mightier than we:  Come on, let us deal wisely with them; lest they multiply, and it come to pass, that, when, there falleth out any war, they join also unto our enemies, and fight against us, and so get them up (northward) out of the land."   Ex 1:9,10

The Bible accounts for "a new king over Egypt" yet Josephus takes it one step further and says, "the crown now came into another family", which suggests dynastic changes in the annals of Egyptian history. This dynasty which Josephus referred to included kings who built pyramids!   The historian described the slave labor of the Hebrews which includes: "to cut a great number of channels for the river, and to build walls for their cities and ramparts, that they might restrain the river, and hinder its waters from stagnating, upon its running over its own banks: they set them also to build pyramids." Josephus Book 2, 9:1

Since pyramid building stopped after the Middle Kingdom which was hundreds of years before Ramesses of the New Kingdom, we must look to a much more earlier date than traditional chronology would allow.  It was Ramesses the Great who built his new city over the original city built by the Hebrews.  The Biblical scribes of late gave him a write up in the Bible because that was the current name of the place where the Hebrews built.

According to Josephus:

One of the king's scribes predicted that an Israelite prophet was about to be born.

The king ordered that all Israelite male babies be cast into the river.

Baby Moses is set a drift on the river being followed by his sister and is rescued by princess Thermuthis (Greek for Taweret), the hippopotamus goddess known for bringing babies to childless woman.

Thermuthis adopts Moses for her own son as she has no other children.

Thermuthis presents Moses to her father with the intent to make him her successor and she told the king, "I thought proper to adopt him for my son, and the heir of your kingdom."

The king holds Moses as Thermuthis places the royal diadem upon Moses.

The king's scribe who foretold the birth of Moses tried to kill Moses.

Moses was spared and the Egyptians feared concerning  Moses being educated. There was no one, either akin or adopted that could rightly claim the throne if the king were to die.

The Ethiopians invade Upper Egypt and continue on as far as Memphis, and the sea itself, while not one of the cities was able to oppose them.  According to Artanpanus via Eusebius the war lasted 10 years and Hermopolis was besieged.

The king commanded Thermuthis to produce Moses (about age 30) and  made him general of the army.   Moses went out to fight the Ethiopian invaders and conquered Ethiopia too.

Moses returns in glory but the Egyptians entertained a hatred for him and the king was jealous of his glorious expedition at the head of his army and with envy sought to have Moses killed.

Moses learned of the plots against his life and fled Egypt and set out for Midian. After many years Moses hurried into Egypt upon understanding that the pharaoh, in whose reign he fled away, was dead.

When Moses returned to Egypt he came to the king, who had indeed but lately received the government. It now appears that the king (father of Thermuthis) lived during almost all of Moses' exile from Egypt.

The new king became the pharaoh of the Exodus. (Josephus Book 2, chapters 10-13)

According to the Bible:

Moses was forty years old when he killed the Egyptian and fled out of Egypt.   And it came to pass in the process of time, that the king of Egypt died.

When forty years were expired Moses was called by God on Sinai to deliver Israel.

Moses, now eighty years old returned to Egypt and haggled with the new pharaoh. (Acts 7:23; Ex 2:23; Acts 7:30; Ex 7:7)



The king of the oppression reigned along with his daughter Thermuthis.

Thermuthis adopted Moses who became prince of Egypt for forty years.

Moses fled Egypt during the reign of the king.

The king of the oppression died shortly before Moses (age eighty) returns to Egypt.

We plainly see that the king reigned before the birth of Moses and had an adult daughter. Josephus makes it known that there were no other royal sons at the time when Moses was adopted which means Moses was the only potential heir to the throne. Although we are not told the age of the king, or how many years he had already reigned when Moses was adopted, we may safely assume that the king had reigned for a number of years prior to the birth of Moses.

All of this evidence seems to point to a king who lived well over 40 years.




(by Paul Osborne)

Egyptologists and historians have produced a mountain of books based on professional research from educated scholars with the proper credentials. However, in spite of the academic authority of the great professors who have contributed to the studies of Egyptology and who have rebuilt the structural history of ancient Egypt based on a huge collective of research; there are in my humble opinion, colossal errors! These mistakes have corrupted the whole chronological framework of the history of ancient Egypt.  I believe the dating methods employed and especially the links generated between Egypt and Israel are wrong. These false links contradict the scriptures that are a divine source of truth and history.  I personally  prefer to believe the historical accounts provided in the Bible more than any ancient inscription or document found in Egypt. With regard to the latter, every Egyptologist will admit that the Egyptians, at times, fabricated stories or exaggerated about the accomplishments of kings and magistrates throughout Egyptian history.  Can their every word be trusted?  Can we believe every word from the officials of our own day?  I think not for that would be utter recklessness.

Egyptologists have constructed a chronology based on faulty methods; three of them are radiocarbon dating, Sothic star cycling and ancient lists of kings. I argue that these methods are not reliable formulas to plug into an equation in order to come up with the correct answer. To dispute these methods and formulas, I refer to the explanations given in Egyptologist David Rhol’s book entitled, "Pharaohs and Kings a Biblical Quest" or also entitled "A Test of Time". This Egyptologist has seriously challenged the established conventional chronology of ancient Egypt as reconstructed by modern man.  The book is astounding in that it raises significant questions which contradict conventional thinking with the dating system. It provides alternative solutions within the dating framework of the scriptures to better harmonize a contemporary relationship between  Israel and Egypt. However, his work seriously falls short in completely harmonizing the earliest Bible dates with Egyptian chronology.

One of the major problems with conventional chronology is that the list of ancient kings has generally been interpreted as running in series, or that one king reigned after another according to the list. There are certain points in the history when Egyptologists affirm that parallel reigns did in fact exist, but this too is open to speculation, as problems in chronology can become quite complex.  A true list of the succession of kings cannot be accurately compiled in modern times because there is no way of knowing which kings reigned simultaneously in different regions of the same period, for the kings reigned geographically in Upper, Lower, and Middle Egypt.  The Egyptian history is fragmentary and by no means complete.

Egyptology is built within the framework of a chronology that was originally reported by ancient historians of different eras.   In modern times, this information has been scientifically, or rather very methodically dissected by modern thinkers who dangerously stray from Biblical dates that were set in stone by God long ago. Egyptologists in their own wisdom pick and choose what they think is right, sifting through data, they create a sorted history and present it to the world as if it were the real story.  Some of the holes in their conclusions are quite large and create enormous problems in solving the difficulties within the royal epigraphy; others are nicely patched due to the fine detective work of Egyptologists. Modern Egyptology certainly does deserve a lot of credit, for example: The Abydos royal king list chiseled on the wall inside the temple of Seti is lacking several kings who reigned during different periods of Egyptian history.  Understandably, the kings associated with the Amarna heresy are not found, they having been expunged from any acknowledgment, but have since been reinstated through modern research.

A much larger hole found within the Abydos king list is the enormous absence of the 13th Dynasty.  Why was this dynasty not included as part of the record? The fragmented papyrus of the Royal Canon of Turin contains many names not found on Seti’s wall, which definitely substantiates a history in which the New Kingdom did not choose to endorse. Nevertheless, it was assumed that the 13th Dynasty did not occur concurrently with any other dynasty(s) and was therefore slotted in-between the time periods of the 12th and 15th dynasties causing the epic of Egyptian history to swell.

More seriously, perhaps it is the interpretation of Manetho’s dynastic structure that has swelled the history of Egypt into something it never was. Egyptologists have carefully picked apart the facts presented by Manetho, the Greek historian.  They adopt his basic skeletal structure of the 30 dynasties but deny a lot of the numerical information within, as they reason through the facts, or perhaps assume that the dynasties must have run in consecutive order. This approach must be questioned; for how do we know that the dynasties ran consecutively?

A spiritual approach in revolutionizing Egyptian history so that it conforms to the scriptures will shake the traditional Egyptian chronology from off its very foundation! The building blocks that make up the established history of Egypt as presently constituted have yet to be fitted and stacked in their proper places within the correct times.

Although accepted Biblical chronologies within the time line have been known to vary, it is shown by the records that Adam and Eve left the garden of Eden some 6,000 years ago and that according to Biblical chronology the flood occurred at about 2300 BC.  Shortly after the flood the nation of Mizraim, which is also called Egypt, was established by the direct descendants of Ham who lived in the "black land" where the skins of the Hamite people as well as the soil under their feet were black.

In agreement with the apocalyptic theme of the Bible, the prophet Joseph Smith who was the founder of the Mormon religion claimed that he was given a revelation that the temporal existence of the world would last for 7,000 years, after which planet earth would be transformed into a sea of glass within the heavens.  A much earlier statement to this effect is given in the Apocryphal writings of Barnabas which attest that 6000 years would pass prior to the second coming of Christ and his millennial reign. To summarize the prophecy, we see that from the time Adam left the garden of Eden, up until the prophetic end of the glorious last millennium spoken of in the Bible when Christ will have reigned on earth for 1000 years, the 7,000 years of the earth’s temporal economy will have been finished.

It is apparent that these prophetic sources are in harmony with the Biblical time line, for Adam was expelled from the garden nearly 6,000 years ago which is a sign that the second coming of Jesus Christ is very nigh at hand and that the last millennium is about to dawn. With these signs clearly given there is no room for scientists to pre-date Biblical beginnings or fabricate historical time spans that exceed the 7,000 year limit.

The Bible accounts that Abraham was born 292 years after the flood and that he went to Egypt some 75 years later.  More than 300 years of Egyptian history had expired when Abraham visited Egypt.  This period of Egyptian history includes the pre-dynastic epic and a portion of the Old Kingdom Period. Notice that I said a "portion", for every Egyptologist and historian believes that Abraham sojourned long after the close of the Old Kingdom Dynasties and in doing so they cram well over 1,000 years of so-called Egyptian history into the allotted 300 years given by the Bible.  This is one of the major contradictions between modern conventional chronology and Biblical chronology, but has been ignored, if not dismissed by scholars of both disciplines.

The ancient Jewish historian known as Josephus was very knowledgeable about Biblical chronology and had access to many literary works that are long since lost. Josephus gave an indication that when Abraham went down to Egypt to work as "an auditor of their priests" and it seems that the great pyramids could not yet have been built because the Egyptians lacked the mathematical knowledge necessary to undertake such an enormous task.  This means that Abraham sojourned in Egypt before the pyramids of the 4th Dynasty, which in modern thinking is unthinkable! Josephus states that Abraham conferred knowledge of mathematics and astronomy, which was absorbed into the schools of Egyptian learning:

"He communicated to them arithmetic, and delivered to them the science of astronomy; for, before Abraham came into Egypt, they were unacquainted with those parts of learning; for that science came from the Chaldeans into Egypt."  (New Complete Works of Josephus; chapter 8)

Thanks to Abraham the science of mathematics made it possible for the Egyptians to advance from constructing simple mastaba tombs and build pyramids which require a working knowledge of geometry. Pyramid building began with Snefru who was the first king of the 4th Dynasty. Egyptologists have incorrectly dated the beginning of his reign to be 2613 BC which is hundreds of years too ancient and inappropriately predates the flood.  It now seems apparent that Snefru must have lived closer to the days of Abraham who lived in the 1900’s BC.

Considering that Abraham is seriously misplaced in Egyptian history it must also follow that Joseph and Moses have been misplaced too.

Herodotus 1, Book 2

(Egyptian Chronology & 12th Dynasty Theory)

MIN ~ First king of Egypt according to the priests of Hephaestus (Ptah) at the temple of Memphis. He founded Memphis by diverting the Nile by way of a dam and this was maintained even in the days of the Persians.   If the river were to burst the dykes all of Memphis would be in danger of flooding. Min also built a great temple to Ptah in Memphis. The Delta was a marsh covered with water north of Lake Moeris (Faiyum).

MANEROS ~ The only son of Min died an untimely death and a national song was made in his honor. According to the scrolls there were 330 kings after Min. These include 18 Ethiopian kings, one queen (Nitocris), and the rest were native Egyptian men.

NITOCRIS ~ At the end of Manetho's 6th dynasty Queen Nitocris avenged the death of her husband (who was also her brother) by drowning the conspirators in a flood at a banquet in as underground chamber, after which she committed suicide.

MOERIS ~ After Nitocris, the priests who conversed with Herodotus "related no achievement or deed of great note, save of Moeris, who was the last of them." Moeris is Greek for the Egyptian mer-wer that means Great Lake and is currently called Lake Birket Qarun within the Faiyum (she-resy, meaning southern lake).  He apparently died less than 900 years before Herodotus visited Egypt in about 450 BC and therefore reigned sometime around 1350 BC.  Is Moeris actually Amenemhat III who was one of the last kings of Manetho's 12th dynasty?  Although Herodotus' date seriously contradicts conventional chronology by well over 450 years, the setting is unmistakably that of Amenemhat III.  Another possible interpretation for identifying the name Moeris may be that it refers to multiple kings who reigned during the 12th dynasty in the Faiyum area. King Moeris was specially remembered for the following massive construction projects:

"dug a lake"

"and built there pyramids also"  (two pyramids of Amenemhat III at Dashur and Hawara)

"built the northern forecourt of the temple of Ptah" or in other words"created as his memorial the propylaea" (roofed gateway)

"All this was Moeris' work, they said; of none of the rest had they any thing to record. Passing over these, therefore I will now speak of the king who came after them, Sesostris ."

SESOSTRIS ~ The identity of  Sesostris is open to debate but the name is definitely associated with the powerful Sesostris III of the 12th dynasty. Some have suggested that this mythical king of Herodotus refers to the combined achievements of multiple kings including Sesostris, Tuthmosis, and Ramesses, but this idea seems very unlikely.  A popular belief is that Sesostris only refers to one king, namely that of Ramesses the Great, yet this idea is not feasible because the historians who informed Herodotus did not credit any "achievement or deed of great note" to the kings that followed, hence leaving no place for the glorious 18th Dynasty.

Sesostris sailed in long ships of war and subdued all the dwellers of the Red Sea after which he gathered a large army and marched over the mainland and subdued nations including the people in Scythians and Thracians. He set up pillars in foreign lands that attest to his power and also included images of the female anatomy to symbolize the cowardice of some of the foreign enemies. Other events that occurred during the reign of Sesostris are as follows:

Took vengeance on his brother who betrayed him while on campaigns

Forced slaves to dig canals

The canals halted the use of horses and carts in Egypt

Provided land grants for every one and assessed property taxes

The only king to have ruled Ethiopia

Set up statues of himself, his wife, and his four sons in the temple of Ptah

"When Sesostris died, he was succeeded in the kingship (so said the priests) by his son Pheros."  What to make of the next three kings is a mystery in conventional chronology as opinions on these may differ widely.

PHEROS ~ (Greek rendition of pharaoh); Son and successor of Sesostris. He was temporarily made blind for 10 years. He set up 2 obelisks in the temple of the Sun and had no wars during his reign.

PROTEUS ~ A man of Memphis built a temple precinct to the south of the temple of Ptah in Memphis. He was a contemporary of Helen of Sparta from the story of Greek mythology.

RHAMPSINITUS ~ A memorial to him is at the western forecourt of the temple of Ptah where he set up two statues and had a large treasury of silver in a stone chamber at his palace.  (Egyptologists have suggested that this king may be Ramesses III or even a king from the 3rd dynasty.)

CHEOPS ~ (Khufu); Builder of the Great Pyramid and reigned for 50 years. "But Cheops, who was the next king, brought the people to utter misery."   Why is Cheops, a 4th Dynasty king of Manetho suddenly brought unto the chronology at such a late time?   Did the historians of Egypt inform Herodotus that the builder of the great pyramid followed Nitocris, Moeris, and Sesostris; or was this just a good spot to talk about another dynasty?

CHEFREN ~ (Khafra); Brother of Cheops, pyramid builder, and reigned 56 years.

MYCERINUS ~ (Menkaure); Son of Cheops, pyramid builder. (It is inconceivable that Mycernius could be a son of Cheops and yet begin to reign 106 years from the beginning of Cheop's reign unless he reigned simultaneously with his uncle Chefren.)


First and last king of Old Kingdom:

1st Dynasty Min & son Maneros

6th Dynasty Nitocris

Fayum Kings:

Moeris & company

Ramesside kings:




Old Kingdom Pyramid kings

Rhampsinitus (Snefru)




ASUCHIS ~ Built the eastern outer court of the temple of Ptah and built a pyramid of brick. (It now seems as if we are jumping ahead to another dynasty when economical brick pyramids were constructed.)

ANYSIS ~ A blind king who was invaded by Sabacos king of Ethiopia. Anysis was exiled on a lost island in the marshes while Ethiopia ruled for 50 years.

SABACOS ~ Ethiopian king reigns over Egypt for 50 years. (Is this the Nubian king called Shabaka from 716 - 702 BC of the 25th dynasty?)

ANYSIS ~ Returns from exile and reigns again as king of Egypt. His place of exile was lost from the knowledge of the kings for more than 700 years before the days of one called Amyrtaeus.

SETHOS ~ A priest of the temple of Ptah during the Assyrian threat of Sennacherib (704 - 681 BC).

"After the reign of the priest (Sethos) of Hephaestus (Ptah) the Egyptians were made free. But they could never live without a king, so they divided Egypt into twelve portions and set up twelve kings."

Herodotus described how these 12 kings in a joint enterprise made a gigantic labyrinth at Lake Moeris and that its greatness even surpassed the pyramids of Giza. Herodotus illustrates how two pyramids rose up out of the middle of the lake as a marvelous wonder to behold.

Herodotus maintains that the 12 kings who built the labyrinth followed Sethos the priest-king and that one of these kings was Psammetichus I of the 26th dynasty. Psammetichus deposed the 11 kings and reigned over all Egypt.

PSAMMETICHUS I ~ 664 - 610 BC; Son of Necos who was killed by Sabacos and reigned for 54 years.

NECHO ~ 610 - 595 BC;   Son of Psammetichus I and reigned for 16 years. Necho killed righteous king Josiah of Judah in battle.

PSAMMIS ~ 595 - 589 BC; Son of Necho and reigned for 6 years.

APRIES ~ 589 - 570? BC; Son of Psammis reigned for  25 years and defeated by his rival Amasis in battle.

AMASIS ~ 570 -526 BC; Reigns in Egypt during a state of prosperity.


How much of  this historic account is true?  Did Herodotus receive accurate information from the priests of Egypt?  One thing is for sure, Herodotus himself must have felt a sense of satisfaction in what knowledge he gleaned from the keepers of the sacred records and left Egypt feeling confident in what he had learned.  He must have been quite content to pen this information with the idea that this history was a true account.  There is nothing in his story that leaves us to suspect that he doubted the record was correct or that the priests of Egypt were lacking in historical knowledge.  In spite of what seems to be correct to the ancient historian, there are conflicts with what modern Egyptologists have concluded in several areas of chronological order and length and these contradictions must be dealt with rather than blatantly disregarded. Should we automatically believe modern Egyptologists who dig through rubble to be more knowledgeable than their ancient counter parts that lived on site in an earlier age?

Herodotus 12th Dynasty Theory

Herodotus is believed to have visited Egypt around 450 BC. King Moeris may well be identified as Amenemhat III who died less than 900 years from the time Herodotus visited Egypt.  We will assume 850 years to be incorporated into the theory which provides a fixed date of 1300 BC for the death of Amenemhat III.

The span and length of reigns used for the theory is based on Regine Schultz (according to Jurgen von Beckerath), however, the dates are not conventional but speculative. There were 7 kings according to Manetho and the Abydos Record.



1470-1441 29 Amenemhat I

1441-1405 36 Senusret I

1405-1376 29 Amenemhat II

1376-1366 10 Senusret II

1366-1347 19 Senusret III

1347-1300 47 Amenemhat III

1300-1292 8 Amenemhat IV

"Pharaohs & Kings"

(Based on information from David Rohl's Book)

(by Paul Osborne)


FACT: The last absolute secure date in conventional chronology is 664 BC when the Syrians sacked Thebes. This is a proven date set in stone. All agree.

CHALLENGE:  David Rohl challenges conventional chronology for the 3rd Intermediate Period of Egyptian history.  For instance, the 1069 BC date which begins the 3rd Intermediate Period and Dynasty 21 is deemed incorrect wherein archaeologists have improperly added hundreds of years to history.

SOLUTION:  The New Chronology by David Rohl gives ample evidence to suggest that the 3rd Intermediate Period actually occurred hundreds of years later than conventional chronology.  This of course changes the traditional dating of other dynasties including Ramesses II who is removed from the 1200's and inserted into the 900's.  Hence the conventional dating system is off by hundreds of years!


Jean Francois Champollion of the 1800's was the first scholar to seriously decipher hieroglyphic writings engraved on the Rosetta Stone.  However, David Rohl now proves the link that he made between the Bible and Egypt wrong.

The link was made based on Champollion's translation of some hieroglyphs in Karnak on the war wall of Shoshenk the founder of the 22 Dynasty.  This wall depicts his battles and lists the cities he captured. Champollion's link is based on the interpretation of the words Udahamekuf which he translated as Judah the Kingdom. Therefore, he identified Shoshenk to be the Shishak of the Bible who plundered Jerusalem in 925 BC.   This link was forged because of the likeness of the names and the implications of relating it with Judah.

Consequently it was assumed that Shoshenk and Shishak were one in the same person and the one who sacked Jerusalem and plundered Solomon's gold.  This belief is generally accepted by scholars today but contrary to this traditional assumption, David Rohl has presented evidence that attests that Shoshenk was not the Biblical Shishak.


The inscriptions on the war wall of Shoshenk contain a list of each city in Palestine that was captured, but it does NOT list Jerusalem!  Champollion's translation of Udahamekuf should have been properly translated as Hand of the King.  According to the list of cities, Shoshenk skirted Jerusalem and campaigned north into the cities of Israel and not Judah. The Bible mentions that Shishak plundered the Kingdom of Judah including Jerusalem. Therefore, Champollion's link was wrong and Shoshenk is not the Biblical Shishak as everyone has been lead to believe.

Conventional chronology gives Shoshenk a date of 925 BC when Jerusalem was plundered. However, new evidence will show that he really campaigned in the 700's long after the Egyptian conquest of Judah.

What evidence is there to suggest that archaeologists have added too many years to the history of the 3rd Intermediate Period?


Underground catacombs in Lower Egypt contain the sacred Apis bulls.  These catacombs contain a series of massive stone coffins for the bulls that lived during the lives of the pharaohs of the period in question.  These coffins and accompanying stela provide valuable information for dating the chronology of the pharaohs.

There was only one sacred Apis bull alive at any one time and each bull received a burial fit for a king. According to conventional chronology the Apis bull time period should have lasted for some 600 years yet there are only 22 bull burials and the average life span of a bull is just 18 years.  The numbers don't add up because 22 bulls averaging 18 years each totals only 400 years.

Two hundred years of conventional chronology is missing and there is no trace of evidence for Apis bulls for either the 21st or 22nd Dynasties.


After the death of Ramesses the III, the tombs within the Valley of the Kings were no longer safe. Officials secretly removed several royal mummies and placed them into a long and narrow tomb that was previously occupied by some mummies of a priestly family.  Here these pharaohs slept uninterrupted for thousands of years.  The royal mummies were at last discovered in the 1870's.

The long and narrow tomb was packed with coffins of many of the great pharaohs.  At the inner entrance of the tomb laid the coffin of Seti I who was the father of Ramesses II.   On Seti's coffin there is an inscription that tells when the body was placed into the priestly tomb, being year 10 of king Siamun who reigned in the middle of the 21st Dynasty.  The coffins of Seti, Ramesses, and others were merely placed inside the long narrow tomb and not in any chronological order. Therefore, according to conventional chronology the tomb was again sealed in the year 968 BC.

At the end of the tomb was the coffin of Djedptahefankh (a minor official of Karnak) who had dated bandages of year 11 of Shoshenk I of the 22nd Dynasty.  This is a 34-year discrepancy! How can this be?

Seti's coffin was found at the tomb entrance and blocked the passageway whereby another coffin could not have passed.   The coffins had to be placed in the tomb one by one in series. But, according to the dated inscriptions on Seti's coffin and Djedptahefankh's bandages it would have been impossible to place the coffins in the tomb in the order according to conventional chronology.


Seti I is a 19th Dynasty king

Placed at tomb entrance (coffin date) year 10 of Siamun a 21st Dynasty king

Conventional dating of reburial is 968 BC


Djedptahefankh was a priest of the 22nd Dynasty of Shoshenk I

Placed at the inner end of the tomb (bandage date) year 11 of Shoshenk I

Conventional date of original burial of Djedptahefankh is 934 BC

QUESTION:  According to conventional chronology, how could a 22nd Dynasty priest lay at the end of his tomb when a 19th Dynasty king was reburied in the front of the tomb during the 21st Dynasty?

ANSWER:  The conventional chronology is wrong!  Remember the missing Apis bulls?  Scholars assigned too many years to this period and it must be reduced.  The 21st and 22nd Dynasties must have overlapped whereby kings reigned simultaneously from different capital.


Questions regarding the construction of two tombs in Tanis cast doubt on the conventional chronological order of Dynasties 21 & 22.  These two tombs were constructed in a manner where they are physically joined together.  A wall runs down the center dividing the structure into two separate tombs wherein the two kings of different dynasties are buried.

Pharaoh Psusennes I of the 21st Dynasty was buried in a slant-angled rectangular shaped tomb on the conventional date of 991 BC.

Pharaoh Osorkan II of the 22nd Dynasty was buried in a rectangular shaped tomb that was adjoined to Psusennes' tomb.  An inscription inside the tomb says that the mother of Osorkan built the tomb for her son that proves that this was the king's original virgin tomb.   The conventional date of burial was 850 BC.

As mentioned earlier there are serious questions that arise concerning the construction of these two adjoined tombs whereby the order of the dynasties is proven wrong.  The tomb of Psusennes cuts in at an angle inside the tomb of Osorkan's.  This discrepancy proves that the historians who dated the dynastic system made crucial errors.

QUESTION:  How can a 21st Dynasty tomb cut into the tomb of a 22nd Dynasty king?

ANSWER:  Again, the 21st & 22nd Dynasties overlapped during the same period as the two kings reigned in different capitals


Rock quarries in Wadi Hammamat contain a list of royal architects and their genealogy which was carved by a royal architect named Khenebra who served under Darius in the definite year of 496 BC.  This genealogy of royal architects goes back 22 generations.   The typical Egyptian generation is 20 years; therefore the listed genealogy of Khenebra goes back about 440 years.

The name of the royal architect for the 14th generation is Haremsaf.  Who was Haremsaf and what king did he serve under some 280 years prior?  If his name and the king he served under can be found somewhere in Egypt this would allow a new date to be established in the New Chronology as 776 BC.

On a rock quarry along the Nile the name of the royal architect Haremsaf was found and reveals that the king he served under was Shoshenk I which now reassigns the conventional date of 945-924 to 776 BC respectively.

Further, the pharaoh of the 22nd generation of Knenebra's genealogy is Ramesses II. Hence, 20 years for each generation totals 440 years and when added to the year 496 BC a new date is generated for the reign of Ramesses II as 936 BC.  This shatters the conventional chronology of Ramesses II and also means that Ramesses II lived after Solomon and was a contemporary of the kings of Israel!  Also, it was Ramesses II (Shishak) who sacked Jerusalem and plundered Solomon's gold.


Admittedly the name Shoshenk sounds similar to the name Shishak and perhaps this influenced Champollion to create a false link between the two nations of Egypt and Judah.  But now with the New Chronology it is shown that Shoshenk and Ramesses were two kings who campaigned against the nations of Israel and Judah.

How can Ramesses be equated with Shishak of the Bible when the names are so different? The answer is a simple play on words, for example: On the temple of Ramesses III there is an inscription of his daughters speaking to their father in the familiar name of "SS".  This actually is an abbreviated version of the name of Ramesses bearing in mind that in the Egyptian language as well as the Hebrew there are no written vowels so the pronunciation may be simply SES.

The familiar name for Ramesses II is SYSA that is pronounced SEESA and translated in Hebrew as SHYSHA.  This is remarkably similar to the Biblical Shishak except for the missing K. So, what of the missing K?

First, recall the story as told in the Bible how Shishak attacked Jerusalem without meeting any resistance. King Rehoboam the son of Solomon handed over the treasures and begged for mercy from the destructive power of the Egyptian army. How would the Jews describe such a mighty pharaoh who was able to march into Jerusalem, overpower the defenses, and plunder at will?

The Hebrew word SH-SH-K means ONE WHO ASSAULTS!  Therein lies the missing K and this is why the Jews referred to Ramesses the Great as SHISHAK because it described the actions of the mighty king of Egypt.

With this in mind there is more evidence to fully support this New Chronology.  The mortuary temple of Ramesses II depicts captives of Palestine and his campaigns within that region.  Year 8 of his reign is listed as having taken the city Shalem that is a variation of Salem the ancient name for Jerusalem.  Note that conventional chronology dates Shishak's campaign as 925 BC and the New Chronology places this same event as 928 BC.  This is about perfect for the tying of Shishak is Ramesses knot and conveniently reduces the excessive years given to the 21st and 22nd Dynasties.

The famous Israeli stele recorded by Merneptah who is the son and successor of Ramesses II is the only known Egyptian artifact that specifically mentions the nation Israel.  Merneptah listed the victories over the Hittites, Libyans, Canaanites, etc., of his grandfather, father, and himself. Within the list of victories are the ever enduring words of "Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more".

In the pictorial relief at Abu Simbel, Ramesses II is shown attacking a walled city on top of a steep hill within the Hill Country.  The citizens are begging for mercy on bended knees and what appears to be a king (Rehoboam) on the top of the highest building is pleading for mercy and offering gifts to the attacking pharaoh.   Although the city is not specifically named on the relief the answer seems obvious given all the evidence shown thus far. Further, there are only two major cities in the Hill Country and Jerusalem is one of them. This depiction sounds exactly like the story of the Bible when Shishak attacked Jerusalem and plundered the treasures.

Recently a precious ivory slab portraying a king and his court was rediscovered from a private collection in Jerusalem.  It is of rare art form which uses both Israeli and Egyptian styles and symbols.  It has every appearance of an ancient king of Israel and his queen who is obviously Egyptian.  Sound familiar?  The Bible tells how Solomon made affinity with pharaoh and took one of his daughters to wife.

Within Jerusalem there is a tomb with measurements made in the Egyptian cubit. Near the tomb there is a large stone which was the capital for a large pillar.  This capital is carved in the pattern of the Egyptian lotus flower having dimensions in the Egyptian cubit. Could this have been part of a palace for Solomon's Egyptian queen?


The conventional chronology places pharaoh Akhenaten of the 18th Dynasty in 1350 BC. However, the New Chronology places Akhenaten in 1000 BC and makes him a contemporary of King Saul of Israel.

In the 1890's AD a large volume of clay tablets called the Amarna letters were discovered. One such letter was sent from a chieftain named Labayu of the Habaru people in the Hill Country of Palestine to pharaoh Akhenaten of Egypt.  The word Habaru is another form of the word Hebrew and the name Labayu means the Lion in Hebrew.  Tie it all together and you come up with King Saul of the Israelites!

The Bible tells how the people asked the Lord for a king and that Samuel the prophet called and anointed Saul to become the first king of Israel.  Saul's former given name must have been Labayu (the Lion) before he was renamed Saul which means asked for in Hebrew.

Labayu sent Akhenaten a letter and asked for help in fighting an enemy and recapturing his hometown.  He said, "The city along with my God was seized, I am slandered before the King my Lord.  Moreover when an ant is struck does it not fight back and bite the hand of the man that struck it".

This dramatic account sounds very much like a Biblical proverb and is similar to the story of King Saul who recovered his hometown of Jabbah from the Philistines. Further evidence will show how Labayu and Saul are one in the same person as further comparisons are made with the Bible and the Armana letters.

An Amarna letter says that Labayu died in battle in the vicinity of Mount Gilboa.  The citizens of Gilboa betrayed their king with treachery and allowed the Philistine archers to come up from the rear and kill Labayu. The Biblical story tells how David laments and cursed the battlefield where Saul was killed and called it the "field of treachery". After Saul died the Philistines defeated the Israelites in battle, David became the new king, and the rest is history.

The Bible tells how David became king of Israel and laid siege to Jerusalem.  The Armana letter mentions a king named Adaheba (David) of Jerusalem who wrote pharaoh and pleaded for assistance and to rescue him from his enemies.  The Bible tells the rest of the story and David goes on to recapture Jerusalem.


Both the birth of Moses and the Exodus occurred during the 13th Dynasty

Pharaoh of the oppression was Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV

Pharaoh of the Exodus was Dedimose

Joseph and the Israelites sojourned in Egypt during the late 12th Dynasty

Pharaoh Amenemhat III was king during the 7 year famine

Artapanus via Eusebius

Artapanus  Late 3rd century BC Jewish historian.

Eusebius  Early Christian historian

Palmanothes ~ The Pharaoh of the Hebrew oppression and builder of the city of Kessan (Goshen).

Merris ~ Daughter of Palanothes and the princess who raised Mousos (Moses).

Princess Merris married a pharaoh called Khenephres "who was king over the regions beyond Memphis, for at that time there were many kings of Egypt".

Prince Moses served under Khenephres after a period when the masses would expel kings and set up new ones.

Moses led a campaign against the Ethiopians as substantiated by Josephus. The war lasted 10 years.

Pharaoh Khenephres was jealous of Moses and sought to kill him. Moses fled to Arabia.

Raguel (Jethro) and the Arabs wanted to attack the Egyptians, but Moses held them back.

Raguel (Jethro) and the Arabs wanted to attack the Egyptians, but Moses held them back.

Pharaoh Khenephres died and a new king became pharaoh of the Exodus.

Immanuel Velikovsky's

(Theory) SUMMARY:

The pharaoh of the Exodus was Thom of the 14th Dynasty.

The Exodus occurred just prior to the Hyksos invasion.

The Hyksos were actually the Amalekites who battled Israel when they left Egypt.

The Hyksos ruled Egypt for over 440 years.

King Saul under Samuel's direction destroyed the Hyksos in Egypt and king Agag was really Apop of the Hyksos.  The Egyptians were liberated with Israel's help.

Hatshepsut was the queen of Sheba who visited Solomon.

Thutmose III was really Shishak who sacked the temple in Jerusalem

Seti I of the 19th Dynasty was really Psamtek I of the 26th Dynasty.

Ramesses II of the 19th Dynasty was really Neko II of the 26th Dynasty.

Ramesses III of the 20th Dynasty was really Nectanebo I of the 30th Dynasty.

6th Dynasty Exodus Theory

Pepi II reigned for 94 years as the King of the Oppression

Merenre II reigned for about a year as the King of the Exodus

Moses was age 80 in the Bible during the Exodus

1577 BC  Moses is born during Pepi II 15th year

1547 BC Moses age 30 campaigned in Ethiopia during Pepi II reign (approx. time)

1537 BC  Moses age 40 leaves Egypt during Pepi II 55th year

1498 BC  Moses age 79 at Sinai when Pepi II died in 94th year of reign

1497 BC  Moses age 80 during Exodus; Merenre II died in Red Sea in 1st    year of reign

1496 BC  Post Exodus; Queen Nitocris begins to reign

This theory isn't likely when considering that Josephus stated that Moses was "at the age of maturity" when he campaigned against Ethiopia and was appointed as General of the Army by the same king who was alive at his birth. Further, Pepi II at age 15 was not old enough to have a daughter which could raise Moses.

But, the theory will work if we allow pharaoh's daughter to be the actual daughter of another king who ruled previously or from another region within Egypt. It is entirely possible according to Egyptian custom that the daughter of pharaoh who raised Moses was the wife of Pepi II and/or perhaps his sister too, by a previous king. With this scenario, suddenly, the theory is very plausible in effort to put Moses back far enough into Egyptian chronology where he belongs.


1. I would like to pose a question that ATTACKS the 6th Dynasty Exodus theory and see what we can gather and perhaps concoct a way to make it work, or at least strengthen the theory.


Since Josephus stated that Moses was "at the age of maturity" (about age 30) when he campaigned against Ethiopia and was appointed as General of the Army by the SAME KING WHO WAS ALIVE AT HIS BIRTH, and who lived just previous to the Exodus before the new king came to power; How could Pepi II be old enough (about age 15) to have a daughter which could raise Moses?

2. The title, "king's daughter" is a great royal name that connects a direct lineage to the Horus God. She can also be a king's sister and wife. There are problems, though, when trying to tie the 15 year old Pepi II with Moses' birth. First, it seems really garish that such a young boy would order the cruel death of Hebrew babies. Uuugh. Or could it be that the young Pepi II was really being controlled by a yonder senior king or maybe his wicked priests?

Second, the Josephus account does seem to indicate that the pharaoh whose lap Moses sat on when the babe tossed the crown, was a mature man. Thus, it seems too early for a boy king and his daughter (wife?) to be concerned about a successor.

Pepi II had several WIVES. Some of which were:

1) Queen Nit, the widow of king Nemtyemzaf (son and successor of Pepi I)

2) Ipuit, the daughter of Nemtyemzaf (son and successor of Pepi I)

3) Queen Anknes-Pepi (her son or grandson founded the 8th Dynasty)

4) Queen Wedjebten

I suppose any of these could have been "pharaoh's daughter" who scooped Moses out of the river. We tend to think that she was probably a younger princess to the existing king; but maybe she was somewhat older and barren, a daughter of the previous king!

3. OK then; what about Artapanus via Eusebius? He mentions a king "Palmanothes" as a pharaoh of the oppression. Here we learn that MERRIS who was the daughter of Palmanothes was the same who raised Moses! The princess had married a king called Khenephres who was king beyond the regions of Memphis. We learn that there were multiple kings during this time in that they were easily dispelled and set up by the masses. I guess this fits well with the so-called loss of central control in the 6th Dynasty.

Examine the name Khenephres (Khe-nefer-es), the supposed pharaoh of the oppression. Of course we all know that Egyptologist David Rhol insists that Khaneferre Sobekhotep IV of the 13th Dynasty was the pharaoh of the oppression. But wait! Doesn't the name posted by Artapanus provide a better alternative for a 6th Dynasty Exodus theory?

The throne name for Pepi II is Neferkare (Re's soul is beautiful), and this is a good match for the Khe-nefer-es, less the Greek "s" and word order. Therefore it seems that Artapanus named the king who was involved in the Moses scandal. Needles to say, the successor of Pepi II (Nefer-ka-re) was a looser by the name of Merenre II, a good candidate for the pharaoh of the Exodus.

4. The hieroglyphs within Pepi II's cartouche throne name of Nefer-ka-re are definitely read as "Re's soul is beautiful" as the three signs bear this out:


1. heart and windpipe (used for beautiful, good, happy, etc.)

2. uplifted ka arms (soul, spirit, double)

3. sun determinative (used for Re or sun)

So, how do we go about comparing the name Khe-nefer-es given by Artapanus; or what alternatives are there if they aren't the same? Clearly the name given by Artapanus bears forth the two words "beauty of Re" in the nefer-es. No doubt about that. But what about the "khe"?

Let's thumb through Faulker's Middle Egyptian Dictionary and look for possible alternatives that would adapt to the "khe" sound without paying any regard to the "beautiful Re" content that already exists in the name:

1. thousand; p. 183

2. hill; p. 185

3. rise, appear; p. 185

4. tall, high, exalted; p.275

5. soul; p.283

6. bull; p 283

Which one fits best?  I think "soul" does to form the name Nefer-ka-re = Khe-nefer-es as used by Pepi II of the 6th Dynasty, Kaneferre of the 9th Dynasty, and Sobekhotep IV of the 13th Dynasty. There is every reason to believe the "khe" stands for "ka", as the alternatives are limited and the "ka" has been used in other royal names.

5. I first learned about this royal name (Khenephres) from David Rohl's book "Pharaohs & Kings" on page 252. The rendition is in full Greek as "Khenephres". It is obvious that "nephre" = nefer and the "res" tagged on is referring to Re, the Sun god.

Artapanus was a late 3rd century BC Jewish historian. His account has come to us via Eusebius, an early Christian historian.

I stated earlier that I thought the "Khe" was alluding to Ka, the soul. But, we do see also that the Greek name for Khafra (He appears, Re) is given as Chefren or sometimes Khefren in Greek. That might relate to "Chi" or "Khe". Josephus listed some New Kingdom kings that have this sound including: Chebron & Acencheres. Here are some good articles if you are interested in Manetho's kings via Josephus:

It may well be that the name "Khenephres" really means "beautiful appearing of Re" but I am inclined to go with "beautiful soul of Re" in spite of the "h", but as always, my opinions are subject to change pending further data.

6. Well, let's take a deeper look at this thing. You might like to check out this list about the Manetho via Julius Afracanus Greek king list when you have time.

Let's examine comparisons to the Greek particle "res" in the name: khenephres (I propose that the "nephres" is a compound for "beautiful Re".  Let's look at some comparison names with the "res"

Men-che-res = Men-kau-re = "established souls of Re". This shows that "che" = kau = souls. The "res" stands independent and is definitely "Re" the sun God. Let's now turn our attention to other names.

Greek names for 5th Dynasty include: Ousercheres, Sephres, Nepherchres, Sisires, Cheres, Rathoures, Mencheres.

I think it is sensible to assume that the "res" is associated with Re, especially since we know that most of the 5th Dynasty kings had Re in their Egyptian names. With this said, I think we may indeed be able to do something with Artapanus' name of Khenephres (possibly a corrupted form) with a compound "nephre-re" in comparing it to mean old Pepi II's throne name of Nefer-ka-re. But then again, I could be wrong.

7. It is really a strange thing that a Hebrew name was given by the Israelites to pharaoh's daughter. The name Bithiah means "daughter of Jehovah".  It seems to imply that she must have turned from the royal house and denounced the gods of Egypt! Else why would she be given such a title? Such an act on her part is a sure sign of great courage and tenacity towards Moses.

8. It is quite clear by the narrative in the Exodus account that the pharaoh of the Exodus resided in the Delta, near perhaps, the upper tip of the 13th Nome. The geographic details in the scriptures are so precise concerning the king's Royal Residence (palace) that we can be sure that he lived in CLOSE PROXIMITY to the Hebrew slaves, perhaps even in Heliopolis. Rumor has it that there were several kings reigning at the same time. What do we make of the CLOSE PROXIMITY issue between the Israelite settlements and the king's palace?

Further, the book of Exodus let's us know that three ingredients were within the same vicinity:


1)  "And the king of Egypt called for the midwives, and said unto them..."  Ex 1:18

Here we see that the midwives came into the presence of pharaoh for the second time. Had the king been living a great distance from Shiphrah and Puah, it might seem more likely that the king would have sent an ambassador to command the midwives in their own locality, rather than transport the midwives across the Delta and neglect their business.

2)  "And Pharaoh charged all his people, saying, Every son that is born ye shall cast into the river..."  Ex 1:22

This makes it quite clear that the Hebrews abounded close to a branch of the Nile river which of course fanned out all over the Delta.  The handling of the babies would have required a wagon ride of a few miles, at most, before the bodies were dumped into the river. This in itself is a major clue because such bodies would not been thrown into Hapi's mouth further south, thus corrupting the river. There can be little doubt that the river of death was located far upstream from Egyptian settlements. Typically, believed to be Tanis.

3)  "...and she laid it in by the flags by the river's brink."  Ex 2:3  Jochebed, the mother of Moses, made her way to the river and placed the infant in a water tight basket on the Nile among the reeds. The basket was soon recovered by the daughter of pharaoh as she bathed along the banks of the river (2:1-5). Obviously, the king's daughter was bathing close to the royal palace because, "she came down to wash herself." The narrative continues with how Miriam (a slave sister of Moses) found her way along the Nile even to the edge of the river where the king's daughter was bathing! Further, Jochebed was given privilege to nurse the baby Moses. All of this points to CLOSE PROXIMITY of the king's daughter, Moses, the Hebrews, and possibly the king himself.

4)  "...they met Moses and Aaron, who stood in the way, as they came forth from Pharaoh" 5:20. The several conversations that took place between Moses and pharaoh during the 10 plagues allows us to see that the king had a Royal Residence among the Hebrew people. Moses going in and out of the king's court and having conversation with the Hebrew leaders amongst the slaves, is absolute proof that the CLOSE PROXIMITY setting was factual.

9. I would have to guestimate that the 10 plagues happened over a time period of many months as the seasons brought about the climactic events and disasters. The sequence of events is given only in fast increments; for example: In one moment we are told how baby Moses floated on the Nile and was scooped up out of the water. In the next moment of sequence we are told how Moses was a man. We see a similar parallel in the New Testament account of the 12 year old Christ who suddenly becomes a man, at age 30. Sometimes there just ain't much between the lines!

Close proximity with the king of the oppression and Israel can be well assumed, if for no other reason, to hang out with the lovely king's daughter for a good time!! <grin>

Now what about close proximity between the pharaoh of the Exodus and the Hebrews? I think the royal palace was still, quite functional. God commanded Moses to return to Egypt and with his companions, boldly approach the throne of the new pharaoh. What resulted from this little meeting? The king continued to enforce the quota of daily bricks but ordered the slaves to gather their own straw.

Again, let's keep in mind proximity; Memphis or Goshen? The evidence insists that we opt for Goshen because on the way out of the king's court, Moses and Aaron met with the elders of Israel who stood by the way being discouraged with the unhappy report. Moses and Aaron appeared before the king's court several times as the course of the 10 plaques ensued. We can even read how Moses met pharaoh at the river bank to seek yet again, Israel's freedom. The worst plague was when Moses warned pharaoh that the first born would be killed, ON THAT VERY NIGHT (Ex 11:4).

Was Moses in Memphis or Goshen when he gave that prophecy to the king on the night of passover?

From the time that Aaron smote the river with his staff until the pharaoh relented; Moses had entered the king's court a total of 10 times! Bear in mind that a river boat from Memphis to Tanis (supposed site of Hebrews) was roughly a 100 mile cruise, one way. I think the account shows that the pharaoh of the Exodus was in close proximity to the Hebrews as the ultimate Overseer of Works. Otherwise, we might have to actually confess that Moses journeyed 2,000 miles just to talk to the king, assuming of course that he talked to his own people in between time.

It is important to realize that the king's palace was among the Hebrews. The political exchanges between Moses and Pharaoh take on new ramifications, thus opening the way for more questions about the political affairs of Lower Egypt. The 10th plague proves that the king was in fact among the Hebrews, where Moses was presiding over his people. The king in his moment of desperation, "called for Moses and Aaron by night, and said, Rise up, and get you forth among my people". See Ex 12:29-31.

I find it very interesting that royal family was living so close to the Hebrews at the time of Moses' birth and prior to the Exodus. Hmmm. This breeds a lot of questions.

10. Well, Artapanus makes these points:

1. Princess Merris married a pharaoh called Khenephres "who was king over the regions beyond Memphis, for at that time there were many kings of Egypt".

2. Prince Moses served under Khenephres after a period when the masses would expel kings and set up new ones.

It certainly is feasible that there were multiple kings in the Delta at this time, but with all probability Memphis would have been the most important center with perhaps the most dominant king and palace. Could it be that a father-king ruled Memphis and that royal family was scattered about? Could it be that the king overseeing the building projects under Hebrew slaves was a minor king who possessed that portion of the Delta as if he were a spoke on a hub?

11. First, had there been only one king in the Delta it seems very unreasonable to me that pharaoh would have been supervising the Hebrew slave project. He would have sent his chief deputy, the vizier. The vizier's responsibility is to maintain everything in the kingdom and report regularly to the king as the overseers report to the vizier. That was the order of things. The kings responsibility, especially in the Old Kingdom when the priesthood was far less powerful than in later days, was to perform the necessary rites and rituals in the temple. The temple of Ptah in Memphis would have been the kings main concern, unlike the 18th Dynasty kings who galloped away on foreign conquest leaving the temple work for the priests. This is one reason why I formulate in my mind that pharaoh was living in his proper place while other kings were round about. But--I could be wrong.

We learn little about this office until Djoser's time and the 4th Dynasty. One thing I am confident you will agree with is that there were major changes in the mode of administration and governance in this high office after the fall of the Old Kingdom. Again, after the Middle Kingdom, and by the time Vizier Rekhmire was holding position for Tutmose III, the office becomes well understood thanks to the information we get from the so-called "Duties of the Vizier" and other sources. In the Old kingdom the viziers were almost always members of the royal family (with the exception of Imhotep) and their power was not only wide but their personal being was almost godlike, as they were blood kin to the king. After the Old Kingdom the office could be held more readily by those who were not direct kin to the king. The powers of the vizier were vast as he represented the king to all the chief overseers and magistrates in the land. The vizier was the man who separated the king from the people. Egyptologist Rosalie David said, "As head of the judiciary and with responsibility for the whole administration, his powers were extensive". For those interested in great details about the office of vizier, I highly recommend "The Duties of the Vizier" by G.P.F. van den Boorn (available in English!).

12. Aside from the fact that during the long reign of Pepi II the kingdom as thought of in conventional terms was breaking down and the old ways of doing business were changing. The Nobility were picking up power fast and it seems that provincial Nomarchs were popping up all over the place as they built their own necropolises on a grand scale unheard of in early times. Thus, these guys acted like petty kings; did they not?

There is no proof that I know of that any of the powers that existed during Pepi II's time claimed kingship but we know for sure that the king's power was slipping while others lapped it up like hungry hogs in the barnyard. The king had given up a lot of land and estates to please the powers that hungered for more. Conventional thinking shows that the 6th Dynasty was a period of decline well before the supposed fall of the kingdom itself caused by the Exodus.

Further, I consider the transition of dynastic change between the 5th and 6th Dynasties to be a big question mark. Unis left no heir to the throne and we don't even know whether Teti inherited the throne or usurped it. I wonder if the 5th and 6th Dynasties ran somewhat simultaneously. This idea would certainly help me to shave off all that unwanted history to better accommodate my 2300 BC flood.

13. I have been attempting to make a case for Merenre Nemtiemsaf II who followed Pepi II with a reign of 1 year and 1 month according to the Canon of Turin. If this really was the pharaoh of the Exodus he was only a minor king with little to show for in the archeological record, but rather, only a name. He was a dud compared to his predecessors. Could it be that Jewish tradition exaggerated about the greatness of this pharaoh to further boost the glory of their victory? The Egyptians exaggerated about some of their victories; so why not the Jews? Heck, we are all guilty of that in some form or fashion. The bottom line is that if this king was truly a "mighty king", he would have been firmly established having perpetuated himself by his monuments and temples like other mighty kings in Egyptian history. But them again, what evidence do we really have in Memphis of any of the kings? Perhaps it is all buried in mud or carried off long ago.

14. Decentralization was a critical factor as control was slipping in Memphis and the concept for eternal life apart form the king's own necropolis was just beginning to emerge but later flowered in the 12th Dynasty. The kings treasury did see a decrease in revenue as the power base was shrinking but I suppose there was still plenty of loot for Moses and the Tribes to spoil. I am coming to the conclusion that there simply is no other feasible place to stick the Exodus.



Were the Hyksos the Midianites?

(a NEW Romantic Theory by Paul Osborne)


I am pleased to stick my little neck out and introduce a new theory that might link Egypt with the Bible. As we contemplate the real identity of the Hyksos peoples who came forth out of the Delta, being expelled by the angry Egyptian army from Thebes, we desperately want to read about it in the Bible. It is simply too big of a story for the Bible to pass up seeing that the Hyksos camped out in Palestine in search of food and a new homeland!

According to Manetho (via Josephus) an ancient Greek historian and a native of Egypt during the Ptolemaic Dynasty; the Hyksos were called Shepherd-kings or simply Arabians. They left Egypt as one great horde-- lock, stock, and barrel, as if it were a whole nation on the move. I propose that the account of the Hyksos expulsion may indeed be recorded in the Bible, but under a different alias. They were a severe scourge to Israel, who first settled into Palestine long before the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt, according to new alternative chronologies that place Moses before the Hyksos. Before we examine this new Biblical link it behooves us to examine the flight of the Hyksos as discussed in antiquity, although long after the fact.


The ancient Jewish historian provides us with valuable information about the expulsion of the Hyksos as described by the long lost writings of Manetho:

"That the shepherds built a wall around all this place, which was a large and strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their spoils within a place of strength" (The New Complete Works of Josephus; Against Apion, Book 1, 14:87)

"But that Thummosis the son of Alisphragmuthis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with 480,000 men to lie around them, but that, upon his despair of taking the place by that siege, they came to a composition with them, that they should leave Egypt, and go, without any harm to be done to them, wherever they would." (The New Complete Works of Josephus; Against Apion, Book 1, 14:88)

"And that, after this composition was made, they went away with their whole families and effects, not fewer in number than 240,000, and took their journey from Egypt through the wilderness, for Syria." (The New Complete Works of Josephus; Against Apion, Book 1, 14:89)

"But that as they were in fear of the Assyrians, who had then the dominion over Asia, they built a city in that country called Judea, and that large enough to contain this great number of men, and called it Jerusalem." (The New Complete Works of Josephus; Against Apion, Book 1, 14:90)


The information supplied by Josephus about the expulsion of the Hyksos from Egypt is sufficient enough to recognize the same story as told in the Bible. This of course involves looking for the right story at the right time in history. Apparently world scholars have simply been digging in the wrong time because of false links steeped in an undying tradition of false ideas. Because of this, they have never been able to make the connection between Israel and the Hyksos. Well, at last we have a connection that provides a fixed time in chronology between Egypt and Israel. Let us examine some verses in the Bible that create this new link. It is the story of the Midianites who invaded Israel during the time of the Judges. Yes, you guessed it; the Midianites were the Hyksos!

The introduction of the Midianites who attacked Israel does not reveal that the Midianites came out of Egypt as the Shepherd-kings. But why should it? The absence of such vital information as we would think, was simply not relevant to the story. Whether the Israelites were aware of the Midianite origins is not a matter of importance or it would have been written down in the record. Perhaps the Israelites didn't know that the Midianites were from Egypt, but I find this to be unlikely because word does get around, although at a camels pace, the messages gets through eventually.

The Bible is a large book but it certainly is not big enough to tell all. Just because the record fails to tell us that the Midianites were the Hyksos from Egypt is no reason to discount the workmanship of the account. Heaven knows that if the Bible contained every scrap of information it would no doubt take more than a lifetime to read it once through. Thank God it is much shorter than it could be. Let us now take a look at the Hyksos whom after leaving Egypt attacked and plundered the Israelites. The account is given in the Book of Judges.

"And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the LORD: and the LORD delivered them into the hand of Midian seven years."  6:1

The Hyksos left Egypt as whole families with all of their personal effects, supposedly without any harm done to them by the Egyptians because of a compositional agreement made between the Egyptians and the Hyksos. The Midianites made their abode in Judea for seven years as they had the upper hand over Israel.

"And the hand of Midian prevailed against Israel: and because of the Midianites the children of Israel made them the dens which are in the mountains, and caves and strong holds."  6:2

The coming horde of the Hyksos from Egypt was too much for the Israelites who yet once again fell into wickedness as a covenant people of the Lord. The Israelites were unable to stop the floodgates of the hungry Hyksos who loved to plunder and having dominion over others. This mentality was certainly well established as the Hyksos ruled Egypt for a good long time, which of course shaped attitudes, expectations, and ideas, of a people that were overlords in the midst of another nation. Plunder had to have been the main objective for the survival of the Hyksos and there can be no doubt that this was in fact their plan from the get go, before they left Egypt. A plan had to have been in place to ensure a chance to survive with such a large group of people. The idea of returning that many people directly to their homeland in Midian (or wherever) may have been part of the original plan, but this course would have led them up towards Canaan before they would veer off to the east. Naturally it seemed enticing to conquer more territory for the well being of Media. The army was already in place. The scene was set for expansionism and spoils. Hence, the desire for war.

It would have been foolish had the Hyksos fled to the desert of south Sinai, as did Moses because the needed staples such as water, food, and supplies, would not have been readily available to them. The Hyksos were not under the divine blessings as were the Israelites who left Egypt being showered with divine miracles that sustained their very lives. The Hyksos had other plans, the only way they could survive the circumstances was to invade the fertile land of Judea. Upon doing so the existing inhabitants took to the mountains and made dens, caves, and strongholds, to shelter themselves from the new invaders who swept through like a new plague on the land.

"And so it was, when Israel had sown, that the Midianites came up, and the Amalekites, and the children of the east, even they came up against them." 6:3

Now we learn that the Midianites got a little help from their friends to accomplish their invasion. The Amalekites were dreaded enemies of Israel since the days of Moses and now they were in league with the Midianites to plunder and divide the spoils. What an awful situation!

"And they encamped against them, and destroyed the increase of the earth, till thou come unto Gaza, and left no sustenance for Israel, neither sheep, nor ox, nor ass." 6:4

The obvious track between Avaris (Zoan) in Egypt to Gaza is the "Way of the Sea" that runs along the Mediterranean coast of northern Sinai. The hungry Midianites ate everything in sight and snatched up the livestock for their own use. The marauding invaders encamped about Israel reaching Gaza, which is southwest of Jerusalem and due west of Hebron. It appears that the capital of Israel was about to be overrun and as we saw earlier many had already fled to the mountains.

"For they came up with their cattle and their tents, and they came as grasshoppers for multitude; for both they and their camels were without number: and they entered into the land to destroy it." 6:5

Clearly this is a nation on the move and is more than just a large band of marauding Arabians; but rather a whole people emerging out of an abandoned land in search of a new home. They brought with them all that they had including their cattle, tents, and camels. Like hungry grasshoppers that invade the crops of the field, these invaders threatened the very existence of Israel. In a sense it became a deadly match between the  survival of the fittest; although unknown to the Midianites, the Israelites still had a secret weapon that was capable of overthrowing an entire nation; Jehovah.

"And Israel was greatly impoverished because of the Midianites; and the children of Israel cried unto the Lord." 6:6

The situation was extremely grave in that Israel was being hit by the impact of war on the front lines of their territory as well as an invasion leading directly into the heart of the country. The Tribes of Israel were threatened with utter destruction or at least displacement because the Midianites wanted the land for themselves. The supposed conquerers were enticed to overrun and establish themselves in Canaan which would have broadened the general horizons of the Midianite peoples and allies abroad.

The account in Judges tells us that the children of the Tribes of Israel began to cry unto the Lord for help. The Lord sent a prophet among the people reminding them how they were brought up out of Egypt from their bondage and that the Lord was able to deliver them again from their troubles and secure the land of Canaan for their posterity. The story of how Gideon from the tribe of Manasseh fought against the Midianites and won the victory with the Lord's divine intervention is a classic Biblical story that should be known by every lover of the Bible.

At present however, let us return again to the strategic happenstance of the oppression of war that lasted for 7 years.

"Then all the Midianites and the Amalekites and the children of the east were gathered together, and went over, and pitched in the valley of Jezreel."  6:33

This is interesting because it shows that the Midianites had traversed the land of Canaan, which includes Jerusalem, and that a great military fort and settlement was established some 70 miles north of Jerusalem. In these current conditions there was obviously a tremendous amount of scattering of the tribes of Israel as they regrouped and positioned themselves in defensive positions.

"Then Jerubbaal, who is Gideon, and all the people that were with him, rose up early, and pitched beside the well of Harod: so that the host of the Midianites were on the north side of them, by the hill of Moreh, in the valley."  7:1

The battle lines were now defined and both camps were in definitive positions. The Midianites to the north were stationed along the valley of the Hill of Moreh, the northern flank of the valley of Jezreel. To the south of the same valley were Gideon and his troops, being positioned at the foot of Mount Gilboa at a large spring called the Well of Harod. The Lord instructed Gideon on how to reduce the size of the army because it was not necessary for the Lord of Hosts to have a large army to defeat the Midianites and neither did the Lord want to give them the opportunity of supposing they defeated their enemies by their own strength, and not the Lord's. In a display of what would be considered foolish military operations in the eyes of the world, the Lord dismissed 32,000 soldiers and settled for a chosen band of only 300 brave warriors to bring to flight the armies of the aliens which consisted of the Midianites, Amalekites, and children of the east. This was exactly the kind of miracle that the Lord wanted to demonstrate as a sign to the children of Israel that the God of Moses yet lived and that he speaks yet again to prophets amongst the people. Hence, the need for continuous revelation among God's people is required in all generations of time.

"And the Midianites and the Amalekites and all the children of the east lay along in the valley like grasshoppers for multitude; and their camels were without number, as the sand by the seaside for multitude." 7:12

What an awesome sight! This was what the 300 chosen warriors of Gideon were up against. Truly it would require a miracle to destroy such a large body of people. Without divine intervention it would have been suicide for 300 soldiers to take on such a large host. Needless to say, the Lord was on their side and by the power of God the enemies were made to flee in confusion before the sight of Gideon's 300 warriors bearing lamps and trumpets. But how could this be?

The setting for God's miracle took place at night when the 300 men divided into three companies. Each man took an empty clay pitcher with a lamp inside it and a trumpet by their sides. By night, Gideon's men managed to sneak close to the camp of the enemy and take their positions. At the sound of Gideon's trumpet, every man sounded their trumpet into the still of the night, which must have scared the hell out of the enemies sleeping camp! Imagine 300 trumpets blasting all at once into the quite valley at night where the tents of the sleeping Midianites and their allies were awakened from their dreams to jump out of their skins at the sound of the surprise attack of an approaching army!

Imagine the terror of the night guards who suddenly out of nowhere saw 300 glowing lamps of fire burning in the near distance! Who can describe the fear that went through their hearts and the panic that followed? Not to forget the sound of 300 clay pitchers being broken all at once which must have made a disturbing noise, and therewith their lamps were suddenly revealed in the blackness of night before the very camp of their enemies.

Who can describe the fear that went through the dazed minds of the people as they jumped out of their beds at the blast of enemies trumpets, followed by the shout of 300 men proclaiming, "The sword of the Lord, and of Gideon"?

Apparently the confusion and panic was so intense within the camp of the Midianites, Amalekites, and children of the east, that they began to "set every man's sword against his fellow, even throughout all the host" and by this much of the enemies camp was severely weakened before they could take flight, which is exactly what they did next.

After the armies of the terrified Midianites and their allies began to turn on themselves in confusion they fled from Gideon's 300 standing men bearing lamps in their hands. The Midianites must have assumed that this was the front line of the armies of Israel standing posed on their doorstep, ready to strike and destroy the unprepared sleeping inhabitants of the valley of Jezreel, in the dead of night. With these thoughts the choice for the Midianites was very simple; flee or be destroyed. After fighting among them the Midianites managed to assemble themselves in hast and flee for their lives in a retreat that would not prove safe in the end.

The Tribes of Israel were called to assemble, pursue, and destroy the armies of the aliens in which they did ensue and destroy 120,000 people. Afterward another 15,000 Midianites were killed along with two of the kings of Midian. Along with victory come the spoils of war. These spoils were very rich, including gold.

"And the weight of the golden earrings that he requested was a thousand and seven hundred shekels of gold; beside ornaments, and collars, and purple raiment that was on the kings of Midian, and beside the chains that were about their camels' necks." 8:26

It seems readily apparent that this kind of wealth (gold earrings, collars, and chains) first came from the land of Egypt, the original source of spoils, had by the Hyksos, Shepherd-kings.


Paul, do you not think it possible that the Hyksos overran Israel/Canaan on their way TO Egypt, not from? Well, possibly some from? One school of thought is that it was standard practice to convert conquered people to slave labor. There is another idea that says the Hyksos and the Egyptians had a friendly understanding that the Hyksos could leave, supposedly with all their possessions. That may be true, but that does not sound like the behavior of the Egyptians who despised foreign invaders to the core. Maybe a few got away, with the clothes on their back and the remaining "Midianites" were the ancestors of the Semitic slaves that Moses rescued. Possible? That would leave Moses in the traditional time frame, if he existed at all.

I find agreement with a section of David Rhol's time line which places the Hyksos at the chronological period of the Midianites--The days of Judges. The Biblical account and external sources describe an aggressor appearing from the south and ravishing Palestine. The Hyksos did not leave on friendly terms from what I have been able to read about the subject. It was simply a matter of not fighting a war that would end in much misery and death. The Hyksos knew that their lives were not going to be pleasant so they opted to settle a peace term and take off into Palestine. The Israelites were growing wicked and deserved what they got.

Our understanding of history is fragmentary and I am open to a lot of possibilities. It seems to me that the Old Kingdom fell because of the Exodus of Israel. After that tribes from northern areas came in and settled and we sure do know that the Middle Kingdom had plenty of extra quests— including Asiatics.

I think that the accumulation of the Hyksos in Lower Egypt was gradual until their numbers were sufficient enough to overrun the petty kings that operated in the Delta and Middle Egypt. Notice that I implied that multiple kings reigned throughout the land--Egypt was not the same after the 6th Dynasty and never was reunited until the 11th.

I suspect that the Israelites were cousins to the unwanted Hyksos.

Last Updated on Monday, 17 May 2010 13:33