Abram and Egypt

by

Damien F. Mackey

The Patriarchs Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and Moses, span the entire period

of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom

to, in the case of Moses, the last (woman) ruler king of the so-called Middle Kingdom.

Egyptologists have created too many Egyptian kingdoms and dynasties.

Likewise, regarding the early history of the earth, we are presented with a vast succession of Geological Ages reaching back, say, 4 billion years ago, give or take.

Palaeontology takes us back through the supposedly successive Stone Ages a far more modest 2-3 million years.

Archaeological Ages then follow these earlier ages, all nicely set out in linear, or “Indian file”, fashion. This system, however, is quite artificial, not according with reality. Hence, the already challenging task of trying to marry, particularly the Archaeological Ages, with the historical kingdoms and their dynasties, might seem to have become well-nigh impossible.

Thankfully, though, Dr. John Osgood has already made the task far more manageable, at least, with his “A Better Model for the Stone Ages” series, in which the linear model is rejected on the basis of hard evidence.  

And, regarding the conventional arrangement of the Egyptian Kingdoms (Old, Middle, New), which, too, is linear, Dr. Donovan Courville has argued for the Old and Middle Kingdoms, conventionally separated as to beginnings by (2600-2040 =) about 560 years, to be recognised as being (in part) synchronous.

Here, embracing Dr. Courville’s general thesis (though with quite a different application of it), I would like to attempt to fill out that first ruler of the Old (or Archaïc) Kingdom era of Egypt - the contemporary of Abraham and Isaac - by enfleshing him with a so-called Middle Kingdom aspect or dimension as well.

EXPANDING MENES

Just as I had earlier suggested that the Noachic Flood, when properly deciphered, might serve to bring into some sort of coherent synthesis those unwieldy and vast Geological Ages, so, too, do I believe that the Patriarchs of Genesis (Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph), in company with Moses of the Pentateuch, may serve to tidy up the early Egyptian Kingdoms and dynasties. 

And here is a preview of how I think it may be done.

In the course of this book I shall be proposing that those aforementioned Patriarchs and Moses span the entire period of Egyptian history from the very first king of the First Dynasty of the Old Kingdom (as we have already learned) to (and even slightly beyond), in the case of Moses, the last king (actually a woman) of the so-called Middle Kingdom.

Here is the schematic outline of it, with consideration of a possible Second/Tenth Dynasty connection to Abraham and Isaac to follow after it:

Abraham and Isaac (1, 2, 10 dynasties);

Joseph (3, 11 dynasties);

Moses (4-6, 12-13 dynasties).

Dynasties 7-9, which are thought to have followed the collapse of Egypt’s Old Kingdom as a First Intermediate Period (c. 2181-2055 BC), are omitted here.

Dr. Courville identified this period of confusion with the so-called Second Intermediate Period (c. 1782-1570 BC), and I would basically accept this parallel revision of his.

The implications of the drastic revision that I have outlined above are that a period of Egyptian history Sothically calculated as spanning, very roughly, (3100-1780 =) 1320 years, was actually the same 430-year period that we had calculated from the arrival of Abram in Canaan, aged 75, down to the Exodus under Moses.

This is a time discrepancy between Egypt and the Bible of a whacking (1320-430 =) 890 years!

In terms of the Early Bronze Ages (I-IV), these can neatly be set out (to be elaborated on) as:

Abraham and Isaac (EBI);

Jacob and Joseph (EBII);

Moses (EBIII/IV).

Now, in fashion similar to my condensing of the Akkadian dynasty by identifying alter egos, or duplicate rulers, so here do I intend to shorten the early Egyptian history which, I think, fits so poorly against the biblical record. 

The king of Egypt at the time of Abram (Abraham) I have identified as the first ruler of the First Dynasty, the very long-reigning Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’).

And I have been able - following the structure of the Book of Genesis (toledôt and chiasmus) - to link that ruler with the Abimelech known to Abram (Genesis 20:2) and to Isaac (26:1).

Whilst Abimelech (אֲבִימֶ֙לֶךְ֙) is a Hebrew name, meaning “My Father is King”, I noted that it had a structure and meaning rather similar to that of the supposedly Second Dynasty Egyptian king, Raneb (or Nebra): that is, “Father Ra is King”.

Before I had come to the conclusion that Abram’s ruler of Egypt belonged to the First Dynasty, I had thought - the same as David Rohl, although quite independently of him - that that ruler must have been the Tenth Dynasty’s Khety.

Rohl numbers him as Khety IV Nebkaure, whereas I had numbered the same ruler as Khety III (N. Grimal, I note, has a Khety II Nebkaure, A History of Egypt, pp. 144, 148).

If the so-called Tenth Dynasty were really to be located this early in time, I had thought, then this would have had major ramifications for any attempted reconstruction of Egyptian history. Having Abram’s Egyptian ruler situated in the Tenth Dynasty did fit well with my view then, at least, that Joseph, who arrived on the scene about two centuries after Abraham, had belonged to the Eleventh Dynasty (as well as to the Third, as Imhotep).

Although I would later drop from my revision the notion of Khety (be he II, III or IV) as Abraham’s king of Egypt - not being able to connect him securely to the Old Kingdom era - I am now inclined to return to it.

Previously I had written on this:

So far, however, I have not been able to establish any compelling link between the 1st and 10th Egyptian dynasties (perhaps Aha “Athothis” in 1 can connect with “Akhthoes” in 10). Nevertheless, that pharaoh Khety appears to have possessed certain striking likenesses to Abram’s [king] has not been lost on David Rohl as well, who, in From Eden to Exile: The Epic History of the People of the Bible (Arrow Books, 2003), identified the “Pharaoh” with Khety (Rohl actually numbers him as Khety IV). And he will further incorporate the view of the Roman author, Pliny, that Abram’s “Pharaoh” had a name that Rohl considers to be akin to Khety’s prenomen: Nebkaure.  

Here, for what it is worth, is what I have written about pharaoh Khety III:

  

There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with … Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of “Pharaoh” and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139].

Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt):

Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time:

The nome of This was ravaged;

Though it happened through my doing,

I learned it after it was done.

[Emphasis added].

Cf. Genesis 12:17-19:

But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with great plagues because of Sarai ....

So Pharaoh called Abram, and said,

‘What is this you have done to me?

Why did you not tell me that she was your wife?

Why did you say, ‘She is my sister’? so that I took her for my wife?

Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone’.

It may now be possible to propose some (albeit tenuous) links between the era of Khety and what is considered to be the far earlier Old Kingdom period to which I would assign Abraham. N. Grimal refers to another Aha (that being the name of Abraham’s proposed contemporary, Hor-Aha) as living at the same time as Khety II.

Another tentative suggestion would be that the legendary Nebka, ruler of Egypt, whom Grimal and the likes find difficult to locate precisely in early Egyptian history, was Nebkaure, Nebkare, Pliny’s traditional ruler of Egypt at the time of Abraham – and Khety Nebkaure according to David Rohl.

This name, in turn, Nebka, may then allow for a link also to be made with Raneb, whose name we have found to be like Abimelech.

There may be yet more to this king, since “Egyptologist Jochem Kahl argues that Weneg was the same person as king Raneb …”: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weneg_(pharaoh)

If Menes Hor-Aha (‘Min’) had really reigned for more than sixty years (Manetho-Africanus), then he is likely to have accumulated many other names and titles.

We may need to start investigating First, Second and Tenth Dynasty inter-connections.

The ancient Egyptians are not renowned for their sea-faring abilities.

Author-mariner Gavin Menzies might dispute this. 

The Akkadian-Assyrian name for Egypt was “Magan”, and we learn that: “… the ships from Magan … [Sargon] made tie-up alongside the quay of Akkad”.

The era of Sargon of Akkad I have synchronised with the First Dynasty of Egypt, and N. Grimal tells of “boats” being referred to in the Palermo Stone in connection with the ruler, Aha.

Biblically affirming Ebla (Tell Mardikh) data hampered and censored by authorities

The first kingdom at its greatest extent,

It is sad to see Truth brushed aside for the sake of political agenda.
That is exactly what has happened at the important site of Tell Mardikh: Ebla,

Thus in an article written in 1979, Boyce Rensberger wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/1979/04/17/archives/syria-accused-of-sealing-archeology-data-syria-accused-of.html

Syria Accused of Sealing Archeology Data

A leading archeology journal has charged that Syrian authorities are trying to suppress the findings of scholars who are deciphering the huge cache of inscribed clay tablets discovered amid the ruins of the 4,500‐year‐old Kingdom of Ebla.

The recent discovery of Ebla in Syria, with the thousands of tablets in its palace archive, is regarded as one of the great archeological finds of the century. Research at Ebla is shedding light on the political and economic nature of humanity's earliest large cities.

The current controversy stems, however, not from such secular matters but from the religious and ethnic affinities of the Eblaite people. Preliminary reports from the scholars suggested that the tablets contained numerous references linking Ebla to the world of the biblical Hebrews.

The tablets reportedly contain references to persons with names resembling those of the ancient Hebrew patriarchs and to cities, prominent cities Bible stories, that heretofore were thought to have been mostly allegorical. Speculation has even gone so far as to suggest that the ancient Eblaites may have been early Hebrews or, at least, that Ebla was stronghold of Hebrew cultural influence.

Syria, whose recent policies have been strongly anti‐Zionist, has reportedly exerted pressure on ar cheologists and linguists working at the Ebla ruins to stop speculation on biblical links and to emphasize instead Ebla's role in “proto‐Syrian history.” The Ebla research is being conducted by an Italian team whose continued access to the site depends on permission from the Syrian Government.

The charges of improper political interference were made by Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archeology Review, the journal of the Washingtonbased Biblical Archeology Society.

In a lengthy article in the current issue, Mr. Shanks also calls for prompt publication of some key tablets that, at least until recently, were said to contain important biblical references. Not one of the 15,000 or more tablets has been made available, even in a readable photograph, to the scholarly community.

Word of the tablets’ content has come almost entirely from the linguist who first deciphered their Semitic language. That linguist, Giovanni Pettinato of the University of Rome, has since issued a subtly worded “declaration” saying that news media have exaggerated the biblical implications of EbIa. “We are not authorized,” he wrote, “to make the inhabitants of Ebla ‘predecessors of Israel.’ ”

The statement was issued at the request of the Syrian Antiquities Department and was published in a Syrian Government magazine called Flash of Damascus Although the statement does not flatly deny an Ebla‐Israel link, the English‐language magazine commented that the statement “refutes all Zionist allegations aimed at defacing Syrian Arab history and emphasizes the antiquity of the Syrian civilization and its wide fame.”

Before issuing the statement, Professor Pettinato had described, in articles and speeches. a number of connections between Ebla and the Bible. These include an Eblaite creation and Flood story resembling those of Genesis; personal names such as Abram, Esau. Israel, Michael, Saul, Ishmael and David, all of which figure prominently in the Bible; the names of several cities otherwise known only from the Bible; and references to deities named El and Ya, biblical names for the god of the Hebrews.

None of the documentation for these statements — the actual tablets — has been made publicly available. Although long delays in publishing archeological discoveries are common, Mr. Shanks suggested in an interview that Syria's political pressure may also be playing a role in keeping the Ebla tablets under wraps.

Biblical Significance

“I can't think of any other finds that are as directly significant for helping us understand the Bible as these tablets would be.” Mr. Shanks said.

The director of the Italian team at Ebla, Paolo Matthiae, has also now repudiated the biblical connections. In the same issue of Flash of Damascus, Professor Matthiae is quoted as calling the biblical links “antiscientific and antihistorical speculation that I vigorously deplore.”

Since writing his declaration. Professor Pettinato has resigned his position with the Ebla research team. He and Professor Matthiae had long been feuding over a number of matters, and at one point, Professor Pettinato was removed from his position as sole translator of the tablets and made one of 10 members of a new international committee of linguists that was to do the translations.

According to Biblical Archeology Review, Professor Pettinato resigned because he was dissatisfied with the way Professor Matthiae was running the committee. Paraphrasing Professor Pettinato's remarks, the magazine said, “The way Matthiae is organizing things, the Ebla tablets won't be published for 300 years.”

In his call for the Ebla researchers to publish some of the tablets, Mr. Shanks singled out one. known as TM‐75‐1860, that has been said to bear on the historical accuracy of Genesis 14.

Mr. Shanks said the accuracy of this chapter could help establish whether there really was an Age of Patriarchs, such as Abraham. Genesis 14 speaks of a military campaign led by Abraham and mentions five Dead Sea city‐states, including Sodom ane. Gomorrah. Scholors have had no other evidence that the city‐states existed.