Akhenaten (Box, Carter Archive 001K)

Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
And it should be remembered that the only reason that Josephus and some of the others were interested in what we call Dynasty 18 is that they
calculated that Moses was born in this era and conducted an exodus during it. Manetho seems to have had his own ideas about it, which he expressed
in "The Tale of the Polluted Ones" [lepers]. Only Africanus and his follower, Eusebius, supply the entire Egyptian Dynastic spectrum to Dynasty 31. But
they, also, believed Moses was contemporaneous with Dynasty 18.
 

Corvidius

Ad Honorem
Jul 2017
2,923
Crows nest
It doesn't depend on the Sothic count. Only the lengths of the reigns do at this period in question. I see no reason to place Ahmose at the beginning of a new dynasty when he is known to be the son of a Theban ruler of Dynasty 17. Isn't that what dynasties are--families? Moreover, I don't see an early church father like Africanus as being a greater authority than Manetho, an Egyptian historian who lived centuries before--and also centuries before the "authority" of Africanus--who was Ptolemy of Mendes.

All we get from Manetho and his follower, Theophilus, is a list of kings, some of them we know certainly belonging to Dynasty 18. These authors don't mention anything about "dynasty"--only Africanus starts that and Egyptology takes its cue from him--for better or for worse. Yes, modern Egyptology places Ay as part of Dynasty 18 because he was closely associated with it. But Ay was probably a foreigner. I have mentioned before that his name is written in a way used for foreign words and toponyms. Not one thing is known about his origins. On the other hand, Horemheb claimed Thutmose III as "the father of my fathers". I have read this several times over the years but do not know where it is asserted. If true, then Horemheb certainly does not belong to Dynasty 19. And who was Ramesses I other than the northern vizier of Tutankhamen? Manetho puts them all--through Seti II--on the same list as the 18th Dynasty rulers. But so does Africanus--through Merneptah. Then he evidently repeats them on his Dynasty 19.
Well I mostly agree, and yes, a dynasty is a series of monarchs sharing the same family origin, and it running against this to split the Theban 17th Dynasty between two dynasties. The issue is with the change from the Second Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom, a consideration for us of course, but not for them. So we have the 17th Dynasty straddling two eras, but as the change was such a major event, we like to clearly delineate between the two eras. It's perhaps more convenient to split the dynasty so that when we refer to the 17th we know we are talking about the Second Intermediate Period, and not a seeming grey area covering Ahmose and Amunhotep I at the start of the New KIngdom. I prefer a political division, for clarity in defining eras, than having the 17th Dynasty straddle two eras. There is an analogy here with Rome. We have Augustus, a relative of Julius Caesar, beginning his political career in the Rupublic, but, and though he himself did not acknowledge it, ended it as the first emperor of an empire, with another relative of Julius Caesar succeeding him, thus linking a family across two eras, but maintaining a separation between Republic and Empire. We make a clear cut dividing line within the lifetime of Augustus between one system and another, so I see no reason not to do so with Ahmose. But it's not something that needs pistols at dawn I think.
 
Likes: Tammuz
Nov 2016
892
Germany
There is a comparable case, namely Mentuhotep II (11th Dynasty), who like Ahmose I reunited Egypt and - for historiography - initiated the epoch of the Middle Kingdom, just as Ahmose I initiated the epoch of the New Kingdom. However, unlike Ahmose I, Mentuhotep II is not considered to have founded a new dynasty. The decisive difference must therefore be that Ahmose I liberated Egypt from the foreign rule of the Hyksos, while Mentuhotep II only overcome an inner-Egyptian division.
 
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
Well I mostly agree, and yes, a dynasty is a series of monarchs sharing the same family origin, and it running against this to split the Theban 17th Dynasty between two dynasties. The issue is with the change from the Second Intermediate Period to the New Kingdom, a consideration for us of course, but not for them.
That is so. According to Josephus "Thereafter he [Manetho] says there came a revolt of the kings of the Thebaid and the rest of Egypt against the Shepherds and a fierce and prolonged war broke out between them." So, Manetho seems to have considered it to be a process and doesn't give any special credit to Ahmose for his part in it. In fact. a king named "Tethmosis" was the one who defeated them. The Speos Artemidos text of Hatshepsut appears to agree with this, saying that the "Aamu" [shepherds] were in Avaris down to the time of her own majesty with vagabonds dwelling among them. This is probably because Hatshepsut counted her kingship retroactively to the reign of her father, Thutmose I, with whom she was a purported coregent.

Africanus mentions "Amos" as his head of Dynasty 18 but also is quiet about that king having routed the Hyksos. The most import thing about this reign for Africanus is that "Moses went forth from Egypt" during it. It doesn't mean he led an exodus--certainly not--because Moses was still young in the day of "Amos". All this was known, I feel positive, not from the Torah but Jewish folklore based on another book, the one called "Yasher", mentioned in the Bible, itself. That's another subject--but obviously Ahmose was not that famous in antiquity for being *the* man who broke apart the Hyksos hegemony once and for all.
 
Nov 2016
892
Germany
So, Manetho seems to have considered it to be a process and doesn't give any special credit to Ahmose for his part in it. In fact. a king named "Tethmosis" was the one who defeated them. (...) That's another subject--but obviously Ahmose was not that famous in antiquity for being *the* man who broke apart the Hyksos hegemony once and for all.
According to Chr.H. Bull, ´The Tradition of Hermes Trismestigos´, p. 66, the Byzantine historian Syncellus has made clear that Manetho used the name ´Thetmosis´ only as an alternative to ´Amosis´, because, according to Syncellus, it was standard practice in Egypt to give the kings different names. Bull refers to ´Sync. 70´. Unfortunately, my little Greek is not enough to fully grasp the passage, at least it is about Ahmose (Αμως).

As early as 1810 the German historian Joseph Görres wrote in his ´Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt´ (History of the myths in the Asian world, p.555, footnote) that Thetmosis and Ahmose are identical in Manetho and Syncellus.

http://www.documentacatholicaomnia....ntinopolitanus,_Chronographiae_(CSHB),_GR.pdf

1563650725574.png
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
According to Chr.H. Bull, ´The Tradition of Hermes Trismestigos´, p. 66, the Byzantine historian Syncellus has made clear that Manetho used the name ´Thetmosis´ only as an alternative to ´Amosis´, because, according to Syncellus, it was standard practice in Egypt to give the kings different names. Bull refers to ´Sync. 70´. Unfortunately, my little Greek is not enough to fully grasp the passage, at least it is about Ahmose (Αμως).

As early as 1810 the German historian Joseph Görres wrote in his ´Mythengeschichte der asiatischen Welt´ (History of the myths in the Asian world, p.555, footnote) that Thetmosis and Ahmose are identical in Manetho and Syncellus.
Oh--now we're reverting to the early 19th Century for opinions! That's just fabulous. I have never seen this opinion from Syncellus but, if Manetho put 'Tethmosis" where he did, who could possibly say, centuries later, that he really meant to put another name? Josephuis has "Tethmosis" and he is by very far the earliest quoter and paraphraser of Manetho. And what better proof than the successor of "Tethmosis" being "Chebron" [Aakheperenre Thutmose Ii]? Then comes Amenhotep I, interposed and out of place, because the next ruler, "his sister, Amessis" [Hatshepsut] really was the sister of "Chebron". In order to forestall someone trying to claim it was another queen--Hatshepsut did last for 21 years and, because Manetho knew that Thutmose III was made king in the 9th month [from Karnak] he reasoned that was the last month of Hatshepsut. Manetho did not know what happened with "Chebron", obviously, had no idea in what month his reign ended--because he had no inkling that Thutmose III succeeded him and had a brief independent reign prior to Hatshepsut's takeover. If you wish to rely on scholarship from the early 19th Century and have no wish to catch up--that is up to you. But I am not replying to this obsolete stuff anymore.
 
Nov 2016
892
Germany
If you wish to rely on scholarship from the early 19th Century and have no wish to catch up--that is up to you.
Please check this source from 2018 that I´ve given in my previous post, but which you are ignoring in your reply:

According to Chr. H. Bull, ´The Tradition of Hermes Trismestigus´, p. 66, the Byzantine historian Syncellus has made clear that Manetho used the name ´Thetmosis´ only as an alternative to ´Amosis´, because, according to Syncellus, it was standard practice in Egypt to give the kings different names. Bull refers to ´Sync. 70´.

1563661260264.png

My reference to Görres was only an extra.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
Nothing but flights of fancy on that page, no matter when it was published. Like "Josephus does in fact list the father of
Amosis in his Against Apion". Not a chance. And "Tethmosis" being the same king as "Thoummosis" is a lot of Bull. Besides,
Syncellus makes it clear when he annotates the 18th Dynasty of Eusebius that he does not believe "Amosis" is the pharaoh of
the exodus because he wrote "in his time Moses was still young." So much for "Amosis" and "Tethmosis" being the same person
in his estimation! In fact, according to the math of the Bible, to which calculation Syncellus was referring, that would have been
absolutely correct--that Moses was born in the reign of Ahmose and was still young until its very end.

Manetho is complex because what is there is not straightforward. The years of duration given to "Tethmosis", who is no one but
Tuthmose I, are not his. His are the 13 assigned to Chebron [9 attested]. The years "after" driving out the Shepherds belong to another pharaoh
named Thutmose--the third one. It is a confusion between two great warrior reputations. According to the math inherent in the Torah, this
exodus must happen in either the reign of Thutmose III or Amenhotep II. It depends on how old Moses was when he left
Egypt. The Bible may have him as middle-aged then, but Jewish legend has him being much younger.
 
Last edited:
Nov 2016
892
Germany
Josephus has "Tethmosis" and he is by very far the earliest quoter and paraphraser of Manetho.
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Josephus knows only a "Thetmosis" without identifying him with Ahmose. I read in Josephus on page 43:

https://ia800105.us.archive.org/17/items/genuineworksoffl01jose_0/genuineworksoffl01jose_0.pdf

(...) and by the order of Tethmosis or Amosis, who was
the first of the Egyptian kings
, after the expulsion, of the
Phoenician shepherds. Now therefore, we are to inquire
when this Tethmosis, or Amosis lived, and compare his time
with the time of the sacrifice of Isaac.
 
Mar 2019
323
Ogden, Utah
I don't know how you came to the conclusion that Josephus knows only a "Thetmosis" without identifying him with Ahmose. I read in Josephus on page 43:

https://ia800105.us.archive.org/17/items/genuineworksoffl01jose_0/genuineworksoffl01jose_0.pdf

(...) and by the order of Tethmosis or Amosis, who was
the first of the Egyptian kings
, after the expulsion, of the
Phoenician shepherds. Now therefore, we are to inquire
when this Tethmosis, or Amosis lived, and compare his time
with the time of the sacrifice of Isaac.
WHAT does this have to do with Manetho? The kinglist that Josephus gives in Contra Apionem from MANETHO begins with "Tethmosis". And Josephus never wrote what you quoted. It was the author of a very OLD book, writing about Josephus. I think that your only purpose in being here is that of a troll. Not playing the game. Ignored from now on.
 

Similar History Discussions