Egypt’s so-called Sixth Dynasty as an example of kinglist repetitions

by Damien F. Mackey The effect of Dr. John Osgood’s revision of ancient Egypt will be to have Joseph’s Famine in Abram (Abraham’s) Famine era, and Joseph himself in the era of Moses. Consequently, Moses gets squeezed out. Revisionist historians, whilst being keenly aware of the fact that the biblical chronology cannot be fitted to the enlarged conventional chronology of ancient Egypt, on the one hand, are nonetheless falling into the trap of, on the other hand, imagining that they must account for each and every ruler in the over-inflated Egyptian king lists. Regarding my first point here, Dr. John Osgood has nicely summed up his view, and that of others – which would also be my view – in the Preliminary Comments to his article: exodus_egyptian-history_osgood_reply2.pdf “The Place of the Exodus in Egyptian History: Reply #2” (Answers Research Journal 15 (2022): p. 129): Let me point out that Porter, Habermehl, and myself hold that the scriptural chronology is basic to understanding the history of the ancient world. We all hold that the presently accepted secular history/chronology, based on a particular interpretation of Egyptian records in no way represents the real timeline of the ancient world. All of us hold to a sincere attempt to find a satisfactory correlation. But as with all such complex tasks, there will obviously be differences of opinion, which will be open for reasonable criticism. …. [End of quote] While Dr. Osgood will progress from there, basing himself upon the helpful research of Dr. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971), chronologically to fold – though not to merge – Egyptian kingdoms (Old and Middle), he will not, in his revision, take the less adventurous, but vitally necessary, step of merging dynasties and rulers. He continues on from those Preliminary Comments, with an explanation of his and Courville’s Old-Middle reform: One factor that has emerged, however, is the fact that quotes are made, I believe in sincerity, without adequately understanding the original author’s presentation. And this factor has clearly emerged in the foregoing presentations, both by Habermehl (2022) and Porter (2022). Both Courville (1971) and my own presentations have clearly not been fully grasped, as I will point out. First, Habermehl (2022) has suggested that my placement of the Exodus on the Egyptian secular timeline dates to 2150 BC. That is not so. On that timeline it fits at approximately 1750 BC, that is, just after the secular date for the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty. The correct date that I adhere to is the biblical one, reasoned at 1446 BC. Second, while I hold to, at least a partial parallel rule of the Sixth Dynasty with the Twelfth Dynasty, at no stage have I expressed the sentiments that the Exodus occurred at the fall of the Sixth Dynasty, but rather the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty, which was the dominant one of the period. Parallel Dynasties Habermehl (2022) appears to show some exasperation with Courville’s suggestion of parallel dynasties, but such is misplaced, as even at least one secular Egyptologist accepts that this was the case. I quote Olga Tufnell (1984, 155), re the Turin Canon: There is one point about the composition of the Turin Canon—indeed all ancient king-lists—which needs emphasizing since it plays a significant role in the present chapter. Dynasties or other groupings of kings are usually listed as if in a single chronological sequence so that exterior controls are required in order to define contemporary, competing or overlapping dynasties. Precisely this situation is evident in the Turin Canon in both the First and Second Intermediate periods. I have pointed out (Osgood 2020) that Manetho’s king-list is arranged sequentially on a geographic basis, so that widespread overlapping is still consistent with that author’s arrangement. Parallelisms should not surprise anyone. When Ethiopian Piye invaded Egypt he found at least 20 kings, as did Assurbanipal in 664 BC. Now it is clear that Habermehl (2022) has mistaken Courville’s arrangement of the Archaic period, having Courville (1971) claiming a parallel arrangement of Second and Third Dynasties. That is not correct. Courville’s arrangement is a parallelism of the Third Dynasty with the end period of the First Dynasty. Moreover, he devotes considerable space to detail that arrangement. Courville (1971) points to a king of the First Dynasty, that is only in Manetho’s king-list, and not the others, with a Greek name “Kenkenes”. He makes a considerable case for this person being Sekhem Ka, Kha-Sekhem and later Kha-Sekhemui, who he suggests is the founder of the Third Dynasty during the time just before Uadji (Uenephres) of the First Dynasty, after concluding the religious wars and setting up an administration in Memphis parallel with the First Dynasty. Such would make the famine of Uadji the same famine as that of Djoser, and the same as the famine of Abraham’s day. Moreover, it would bring Kha-Sekhemui into close timeline with Djoser. He therefore places Kha Sekhemui, not as the last of the Second Dynasty as suggested in the sequential arrangement, but the first of the kings of the Third Dynasty, parallel to the later First Dynasty. In contrast, these were arranged by Manetho sequentially. Habermehl (2022) rightly points to the idea that we both accept a contemporaneity of the Sixth Dynasty and Twelfth Dynasty but mistakes my arrangement. First, the Sixth Dynasty was not only in the south, as it was centred in Memphis. It almost certainly had a subordinate rule, but not necessarily without a degree of independence. Second, as a result of the findings at the heavily trade-related city of Byblos, it is clear that the reign of the last significant king of the Sixth Dynasty, Piopi II, was over by the time of Amenemhet III of the Twelfth Dynasty, and that the Sixth Dynasty thus almost certainly began slightly before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty. The next and following kings at Memphis were some distantly related kings to the Twelfth Dynasty. They represented the early Thirteenth Dynasty as a sub-administration at Memphis, during the last few years of the Twelfth Dynasty. I have a paper in preparation outlining this early Thirteenth Dynasty in some detail. [End of quotes] In the space of a few paragraphs here, Dr. Osgood has, unwittingly to be sure, managed (my opinion, only) to undo the force of the noble sentiments as expressed in his Preliminary Comments, “to … attempt to find a satisfactory correlation”, whilst wisely allowing that “there will obviously be differences of opinion, which will be open for reasonable criticism”. For, the effect of Dr. John Osgood’s revision of ancient Egypt will be to have Joseph’s Famine in Abram (Abraham’s) Famine era, and Joseph himself in the era of Moses. Consequently, Moses gets squeezed out. Chaldean lists set the pattern The much later Chaldean king lists can provide us with a working model of how I think one ought to proceed. In my article: Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences (2) Chaotic King Lists can conceal some sure historical sequences I argued that the Chaldean succession (I also discussed the Assyrian lists) can by no means be fitted to the clear biblical evidence, for example from the Book of Daniel. Daniel 5 has (i) Nebuchednezzar the Great (v. 18), followed by his ill-fated son (ii) Belshazzar (v. 22), followed by (iii) Darius the Mede (v. 31). Bang, bang, bang - no ifs and buts, no gaps! The over-inflated Chaldean lists will not allow for a meeting between “secular history” (Dr. John Osgood’s description) and the biblical facts. Here is the too lengthy version of the Chaldean list with which the text books ‘gift’ us: Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar [II] Evil-Merodach Neriglissar Labashi-Marduk Nabonidus Let us unpack this. Biblically, there should be, not six, but only three kings – and so, in actual fact, there are. Firstly, as pointed out in my article (above), there is the need for the merging – not just overlapping as Drs. Courville and Osgood would have it – of kingdoms (Middle and Neo in the case of Assyro-Babylonia). Thus, Nebuchednezzar so-called II was the same as Nebuchednezzar so called I (the same goes for Merodach-baladan I and II, and for the Elamite Shutrukids, and so on): The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar (3) The 1100 BC Nebuchednezzar Nebuchednezzar has been triplicated in the Chaldean list: Nabopolassar = Nebuchadnezzar [II] = Nabonidus The assassinated Belshazzar, who should follow in the list after Nabonidus, his father, has been duplicated: Evil-Merodach = Labashi-Marduk The one who succeeded him, Neriglissar, Nebuchednezzar’s long-serving high official, Nergal-sharezer (cf. Jeremiah 39:3), is the 62-year old Darius the Mede (Daniel 5:31). It is well known that Belshazzar was the son of Nabonidus. And Baruch 1:11, 12 reveals Belshazzar to have been the son, likewise, of Nebuchednezzar. Evidence that Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), prior to his rule – and exactly like Belshazzar – had to take control of Babylon while his father was indisposed/absent, can be read in my article: Book of Daniel sorts out Babylonian kings (7) Book of Daniel sorts out Babylonian kings Consequently, I have no doubts whatsoever that Evil-Merodach (Amēl-Marduk), the son of Nebuchednezzar, was the very same person as Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidus. Egyptian king lists must likewise be shortened Now our biblically compatible matrix as presented for the Chaldeans and Medo-Persia shows precisely what must be done with Egypt’s Sixth Dynasty, as well as the dynasty with which Drs. Courville and Osgood have approximately aligned it, the mighty Twelfth Dynasty. As radical, indeed, as is the revision of Dr. Courville, of Dr. Osgood, neither has gone far enough with it (my simple opinion). The reality is even more radical yet! As with the Chaldean (and Medo-Persian) lists, the names given in Egypt’s so-called Sixth Dynasty, in its so-called Twelfth Dynasty, need to be at least halved in number. But that is not all. Instead of the Sixth and the Twelfth being only partly over-lapping, as according to what Dr. Osgood has written above, referencing Olga Tufnell (“competing or overlapping dynasties”): “… the Sixth Dynasty thus almost certainly began slightly before the beginning of the Twelfth Dynasty”, the Sixth Dynasty needs to be actually recognised as the Twelfth Dynasty. This Sixth-Twelfth is the very dynasty of the Egyptianised Moses. {I am focussing only on these dynasties here, but a full revision of the life of Moses needs also to include the Fourth, Fifth, and, partly, the Thirteenth, dynasties}. If I am right in saying this – and I believe the evidence to be overwhelming – then, as in the case of the Book of Daniel for the Chaldeans, and following Dr. Osgood’s principle that “… the presently accepted secular history/chronology, based on a particular interpretation of Egyptian records in no way represents the real timeline of the ancient world”, the Exodus account of the life of Moses in Egypt and Midian will determine the number of major pharaohs involved. Biblically and traditionally there were only two kings (plus a short-reigning female), after which dynastic termination there will emerge the Pharaoh of the Exodus. The first Pharaoh is the “new king” of Exodus 1:8, who began the Oppression of Israel - the infanticide king (vv. 15-18). The second Pharaoh is the one who sought the life of Moses, who thereupon escaped to the land of Midian (2:15). During that time the dynasty came to an end (4:19), with a female ruler concluding it. Let us unpack this. The Sixth Dynasty is given conventionally as: Teti Userkare Pepi I Merenre I Pepi II Merenre II Nitocris The Twelfth Dynasty is given conventionally as: Amenemes I Sesostris I Amenemes II Sesostris II Sesostris III Amenemes III Amenemes IV Sobekneferure The repetition of names in these two lists, especially the Twelfth Dynasty one, is far more apparent than was the case with the Chaldeans, in which we had a triplication. But let us begin with a strong link, that will enable us to span the conventional period from Teti (d. c. 2330 BC) to Amenemes (Amenemhat) I (c. 1990 BC) – approximately three and a half centuries apart. Teti was Amenemes, the first Oppressor king of Israel (Exodus 1:8), during whose reign Moses was born. Teti Sehetepibre was Amenemes Sehetepibre. Teti Sehetep-tawy was Amenemes Sehetep-tawy. Previously, I have written on this comparison, noting that Egyptologist Nicolas Grimal had also pointed it out (A History of Ancient Egypt, 1994): {Teti, I have tentatively proposed as being the same pharaoh as Amenemes/ Ammenemes I, based on (a) being a founder of a dynasty; (b) having same Horus name; (c) being assassinated. Now, Pepi I and Chephren were married to an Ankhesenmerire/Meresankh – I have taken Chephren to have been the foster father-in-law of Moses, with his wife Meresankh being Moses’ Egyptian ‘mother’, traditionally, Merris. Both Pepi I and Chephren had substantial reigns}. Grimal notes the likenesses: “[Teti’s] adoption of the Horus name Sehetep-tawy (‘He who pacifies the Two Lands’) was an indication of the political programme upon which he embarked. … this Horus name was to reappear in titulatures throughout subsequent Egyptian history, always in connection with such kings as Ammenemes I … [etc.]. Manetho says that Teti was assassinated, and it is this claim that has led to the idea of growing civil disorder, a second similarity with the reign of Ammenemes I”. Merenre is also thought to have been assassinated, which surely connects him to Teti/ Amenemes. He is to be found wandering through the king list, as Merenre I and II, just like Nebuchednezzar has been spread through the Chaldean list. In The Story of Sinuhe, the somewhat Moses-like hero has to flee Egypt after a possible assassination of Amenemes, Sinuhe now being in mortal fear of Sesostris I. In terms of the Twelfth Dynasty, this, the passing of Amenemes and the rise of Sesostris so-called I, is close to the very point of time when Moses flees to Midian. Dr. Osgood, though, by following Dr. Courville in identifying Joseph as the great Vizier of Sesostris I, Mentuhotep (see below) – and not as Imhotep of the Third Dynasty at the time of a seven-year Famine (Djoser’s), whom other revisionists, including I, firmly favour for Joseph – has effectively bundled out the historical Moses and has also situated the actual Joseph Famine right back at the time of Abram (Abraham). Thus he has written on Joseph’s Famine (“The Place of Dynasty VI and of the Exodus in Egyptian History: Further Comments”, Answers Research Journal 17 (2024), p. 413): “…. I have argued elsewhere (Osgood 2020, 153–190), in agreement with Courville (1971), that the Twelfth Dynasty was the Dynasty of Israel’s sojourn, and the collapse and Exodus occurred in the early Thirteenth Dynasty. No other collapse period in Egypt remotely resembles that event. Joseph’s famine on this revision then is the famine that lasted for many years starting in Sesostris I’s twenty-fifth year (1663 B.C.). It was prepared for in advance as mentioned under vizier Mentuhotep in Sesostris I’s eighteenth year, 7 years before (Grajetzki 2006, 42). This famine was also mentioned by the Upper Egyptian official/nomarch Ameny, known to be a contemporary, a famine which he also claimed to have prepared for in advance”. I fully agree with Dr. Osgood insofar as he writes: “… that the Twelfth Dynasty was the Dynasty of Israel’s sojourn, and the collapse and Exodus occurred in the early Thirteenth Dynasty. No other collapse period in Egypt remotely resembles that event”. He is able to reach this conclusion, quite amazingly, even though he has Joseph and the 7-year Famine pitched as late as the reign of Sesostris I, because he has taken the Twelfth Dynasty at its over-inflated face value. For, as I said right at the beginning: “Revisionist historians …. imagining that they must account for each and every ruler in the over-inflated Egyptian king lists”. There was nothing like a 7-year Famine at the time of the mighty Sesostris so-called I, who, in my scheme, that greatly shortens the Twelfth Dynasty, to: First Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 1:8) Amenemes I-IV Second Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 2:15) Sesostris I-III Female Pharaoh Sobekneferure equates to the second Pharaoh who oppressed Israel: Pharaoh Senusret I “Most records indicate Senusret’s [Sesostris’s] years as pharaoh as peaceful and prosperous for Egypt, despite indications of a possible famine during his rule. Trade flourished and provided Egyptians with cedar, ivory and other foreign goods. The many golden artifacts attributed to his reign reveal his rule to be one of wealth and affluence”. There is no compelling evidence to support any lengthy preparation for an impending disaster by the Twelfth Dynasty Vizier Mentuhotep. There is, on the other hand, massive evidence to show that Third Dynasty Egypt underwent enormous infrastructural development in preparation for the Famine: dams, waterways, canals, great grain enclosures such as Gisr el Mudir, etc., etc. Regarding all of this, see e.g. my article: Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine (10) Imhotep Enigma, his pharaoh was not Djoser, and proof for Egypt’s Third Dynasty Famine And it all becomes even more greatly amplified once the Third Dynasty is coupled with its so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom partner, the Eleventh Dynasty – Imhotep (Joseph’s) pharaoh, Horus Netjerikhet, being the same as Horus Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep II) of the Eleventh Dynasty. Nor does it stop there. The insignificant famine for Egypt (but not for Syro-Palestine) at the time of Abram (Abraham) cannot be the “great famine” (Manetho) at the time of Horus Uadji/Djet, as Dr. Osgood would have it. For the First Dynasty’s Horus Djet was the very same ruler as the Eleventh Dynasty’s Horus Netjerihed-djet at the time of Joseph’s long-enduring Famine: Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine (12) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine And, regarding Dr. Osgood’s Sixth and Twelfth correlation, while I would agree with his approximate date for the Exodus: “The correct date that I adhere to is the biblical one, reasoned at 1446 BC”, I would disagree with his follow-up to this: “Second, while I hold to, at least a partial parallel rule of the Sixth Dynasty with the Twelfth Dynasty, at no stage have I expressed the sentiments that the Exodus occurred at the fall of the Sixth Dynasty, but rather the fall of the Twelfth Dynasty, which was the dominant one of the period”. For, (so I believe) the Sixth and Twelfth were simply one and the same. Moses in the Sixth Dynasty Putting the Sixth Dynasty into its proper Mosaïc context, we have the founding Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus (1:8), Teti, who equates to Amenemes - and recurring in Merenre I and II. At the other end, we learned that this dynasty terminated, just like the Twelfth did, with a female ruler (Pharaoh). In between there is Pepi I and II, from whom Moses would flee. Thus the conventional arrangement: Teti Userkare Pepi I Merenre I Pepi II Merenre II Nitocris ought now to become: First Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 1:8) Teti (like Amenemes) = Merenre I and II Second Oppressor Pharaoh (Exodus 2:15) Pepi I and II Female Pharaoh Nitocris (= Sobekneferure) That leaves only the short-reigning Userkare. Well, this Userkare was Moses, who, as according to tradition, ruled, then abdicated. The jealous Pepi would later write Userkare out of history with a damnatio memoriae, assigning his kingship to the “desert” (Midian): Userkare - Wikipedia “Although Userkare is attested in some historical sources, he is completely absent from the tomb of the Egyptian officials who lived during his reign and who usually report the names of the kings whom they served. The figures of some high officials of the period have been deliberately chiselled out in their tombs and their titles altered, for instance the word "king" being replaced by that of "desert". Egyptologists thus suspect that Pepi might have tried to erase all memory of Userkare from official records, monuments, tombs and artefacts. The Egyptian priest Manetho, who wrote a history of Egypt nearly 1,700 years later in the 3rd century BC, stated that Userkare's predecessor Teti was murdered, but is otherwise silent concerning Userkare. Consequently, some Egyptologists consider Userkare to have been a short-lived usurper to the throne. Alternatively, he may have been a legitimate short-lived ruler, younger brother to a more ambitious Pepi I, or a regent who ruled during Pepi I's childhood before his accession to the throne”. Moses according to Tradition What gives power to this seemingly insane (some would more gently call it “fiction”) revision that I am proposing here – and it is something that I do not find interwoven into other revisions – is that two names handed down to us by the Jewish historian, Artapanus of Alexandria (C2nd BC), weave like golden threads through my revision. These names are “Merris”, the daughter of Pharaoh who drew baby Moses from the water (cf. Exodus 2:5-10), and “Chenephres”, who married her. He, who became hostile to Moses out of jealousy, can be found right through my revision for Moses (from the Fourth to the Thirteenth dynasties), under variations of the Greek name, “Chenephres” (including the inverted version of it, Neferkare). For example, we find him as the Fourth Dynasty pharaoh, Chephren (Khafre), who marries a Meresankh (= “Merris”). Yes, the Hebrew slaves played a big part in building the pyramids (as per Josephus), the Giza pyramids and other Old Kingdom and Twelfth Dynasty pyramids. Our “Chenephres” re-emerges again as the Sixth Dynasty pharaoh, Pepi Neferkare, who damned his predecessor, Userkare (Moses). Pepi married “Merris” (= Ankhesenmerire, an inversion of Meresankh). Again, “Chenephres” is the Sesostris I Neferkare from whom Sinuhe fled. {N. Grimal (op. cit., p. 164) gives Neferkare as his coronation name} And, in the Thirteenth Dynasty, “Chenephres” is probably the Sobek (Crocodile) ruler (like the female Sobek-neferure), Sobekhotep Khaneferre: Egyptian Pharaohs : Second Intermediate Period : Dynasty 13 : Sobekhotep IV “Neferkhare "The appearance of Re is beautiful", sometimes Khaneferre, "Beautiful is the Appearance of Re".”

Covenant between God and Abram wonderfully foreshadows the immolation of Jesus Christ

“When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking firepot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram”. Genesis 15:17-18 Ryan Leasure has brilliantly written (2020): https://ryanleasure.com/the-abrahamic-covenant-and-the-cross-of-christ/ The Abrahamic Covenant and the Cross of Christ …. Take a quick survey of Christians and you’ll discover that most of them don’t read the Old Testament. And who can blame them? One quick glance at Leviticus or Ezekiel, and it’s easy to see how readers get bogged down in all the obscure details. Readers ask themselves, “do we want to read details about Jewish dietary laws or the Sermon on the Mount? Sermon on the Mount please!” I understand the struggle. Reading through endless genealogies, detailed plans of the tabernacle, or the numerous ways to offer a sacrifice can be challenging. But this shouldn’t deter us. After all, the Old Testament was Jesus’ Bible that he quoted dozens of times in the Gospels. It’s also the Scripture Paul referred to when he said “all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable” (2 Tim. 3:16). You get that? The Old Testament is profitable. Contrary to what some think, the Old Testament is a gold mine. Not only does it tell us a great deal about the character of God, it anticipates his rescue plan. That is, the entire Old Testament points to the coming of the Messiah. Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for missing this very point. He declares, “You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me” (Jn. 5:39). In the remaining space, I want to highlight an Old Testament text that anticipates the coming of Jesus, but, because of its unusual nature, we often gloss over it. My hope is that in looking at this passage, you will see one small example of the immense value of the Old Testament. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT The opening portion of the Bible describes God’s creation, human’s rejection of him, and the subsequent curse on the world. As a result, the human population, as a whole, rejected God and pursued their own way of living. Instead of leaving them to their own destruction, God mercifully reached out to a pagan worshipper named Abraham in Genesis 12 and promised to establish his rescue plan through his family line. The only problem was that Abraham and his wife Sarah were childless and already beyond the conventional child-rearing years. If God was going to keep his promise, he would have to perform a miracle. As you read the story of Abraham, you find that his trust in God was a bit of a mixed bag — sometimes he trusted, and sometimes he wavered. In Genesis 15, God reaffirms his commitment to Abraham despite the fact that Abraham and Sarah still remained childless. We can imagine that after several years of infertility, Abraham and Sarah had their doubts and questions about God’s faithfulness surfaced in their minds. So Abraham asks God for another show of good faith. He asks, how is this going to happen since we’re only getting older and we still haven’t had a son? God responds with a vision — an obscure one at that. In Genesis 15 we read: So the LORD said to him, “Bring me a heifer, a goat and a ram, each three years old, along with a dove and a young pigeon.” Abram brought all these to him, cut them in two and arranged the halves opposite each other… When the sun had set and darkness had fallen, a smoking fire pot with a blazing torch appeared and passed between the pieces. On that day the LORD made a covenant with Abram and said, “To your descendants I give this land.” What is going on here? Cutting up animals? Smoking fire pots floating between the animals? This is bizarre stuff. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND SMOKING FIRE POT EXPLAINED I must confess, I missed the significance of this vision the first several times I read this text. In my mind, God had given a vision to Abraham, and that was enough to confirm God was going to keep his promises. But I discovered that much more was going on here. What I failed to realize initially was that cutting animals in half and walking between the two parts was a common way ancients performed covenantal ceremonies. And the symbolism is hard to miss too. If either of the contractual partners didn’t hold up their end of the covenant, they would meet the same fate as the animals. We see an example of this type of covenant in Jeremiah 34:18. It states, “Those who have violated my covenant and have not fulfilled the terms of the covenant they made before me, I will treat like the calf they cut in two and then walked between its pieces.” Did you get that? Those who violate the covenant will be treated like those torn-apart animals. THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT AND THE CROSS OF CHRIST If you know the story, God fulfilled his covenant to Abraham. He gave him a son which ultimately led to the nation of Israel. But while God was faithful to keep up his end of the agreement, Abraham’s descendants weren’t faithful keep up their end. Instead, they rejected God and pursued idols repeatedly. Under normal circumstances, this would result in their death. But the Abrahamic Covenant wasn’t normal. You see, it was customary for both parties to walk through the animals indicating that they both were going to hold up their end of the agreement. In Abraham’s vision, however, only God — in the form of a smoking pot — passed through the animals. It’s as if God was saying, “I will be responsible to make this covenant happen for the both of us. So even if you don’t hold up your end of the agreement, I will suffer the consequences.” I hope you’re beginning to see the significance of the Abrahamic Covenant by now. Even though God remained faithful to Israel, they were unfaithful to him and, therefore, deserved to die. But, since God was the only one to pass through the animals, he would die in their place. In other words, by making this covenant with Abraham, God was pronouncing a death sentence on his Son. What an incredible act of love! THE ABRAHAMIC COVENANT FOR TODAY At first glance, this text is a bit obscure. Apart from cultural understanding of ancient covenants, we might miss its point. But once the point is clear, we see how significant the Abrahamic Covenant is for today. God made a promise that he would rescue the world through the line of Abraham. And ultimately, this is precisely what he did. One of Abraham’s descendants — Jesus of Nazareth — rescued the world from their sin and death while at the same time suffering the consequences for Abraham’s descendants’ unfaithfulness. What a beautiful story. But sadly, if you never read the Old Testament, you’ll miss it and so many more just like it that point to the promised Christ. So the next time you’re tempted to skip over the Old Testament because you think it’s too difficult to read or irrelevant, I hope you’ll be reminded of the smoking fire pot. Because it was that fire pot that ensured that Jesus would die on the cross instead of you.

Findings at Göbekli Tepe doing no favours to evolutionary theory

by Damien F. Mackey “But the idea that agricultural amenities spawned religion is making an about-face in light of the fully constructed temple complexes discovered at Gobekli Tepe … in southern Turkey”. Brian Thomas Another insightful article (2012) on the most intriguing of sites, Göbekli Tepe: https://www.icr.org/content/oldest-temple-topples-evolutionists-history-religion Oldest Temple Topples Evolutionists' History of Religion BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. …. "Anthropologists have assumed that organized religion began as a way of salving the tensions that inevitably arose when hunter-gatherers settled down, became farmers, and developed large societies," according to a National Geographic feature in June 2011.1 But the exquisitely carved pillars of the world's oldest known temple, Gobekli Tepe, contradict that evolutionary version of ancient human history.2 Standard evolutionary anthropology—the study of ancient man—insists that humans invented religious worship as they emerged from an ape-like ancestry. Religion supposedly emerged after the development of agriculture provided people with enough free time and close proximity to bicker, thus also providing them with an incentive to invent God and religion. Evolutionary storytellers such as H. G. Wells provided possible reasons why early humans developed religion. In 1939, Wells speculated about Neolithic peoples: Tabu, that is to say primitive moral control, and magic, which is primitive science, are now grouped about the directive priesthood, and an elaborate astronomy fraught with worship, links the plough and the labouring beast and the sacrifice upon the altar with then constellations.3 Similarly speculative, the National Geographic's report on Gobekli Tepe asserted that "those who rose to power were seen as having a special connection with the gods."2 But the idea that agricultural amenities spawned religion is making an about-face in light of the fully constructed temple complexes discovered at Gobekli Tepe (pronounced Guh-behk-lee Teh-peh and roughly translated "potbelly hill") in southern Turkey. The remarkable findings there show that mankind was able to worship from the beginning of the human race. Many mysteries surround the temple site. Nobody knows why the pillars at the complex were buried on purpose, perhaps centuries after their careful construction, or why they depict stylized ornamental patterns, as well as images of birds, snakes, a scorpion, bulls, foxes, reptiles, a man, and even possibly dinosaurs. And no one knows why the pillars were arranged in the four stone circles that excavators have uncovered so far, or why they were built at all. "In fact, nobody really knows how Neolithic man managed to hew these pillars," according to Elif Batuman, who described his visit to Gobekli Tepe in the December 2011 issue of The New Yorker.4 These general questions may never find answers, but these fascinating ruins have clearly rebutted certain evolution-inspired claims about ancient humans. Batuman wrote, "The idea of a religious monument built by hunter-gatherers contradicts most of what we thought we knew about religious monuments and about hunter-gatherers."4 Archaeologist Klaus Schmidt, lead researcher of the excavations, has suggested that perhaps religious worship evolved first, and this development triggered the need for agriculture. But this reversal of the standard evolutionary story only shows that man-made histories are subjective, plastic, and unreliable. Biblical history places the cradle of civilization geographically close to where Noah's Ark landed, near the Middle East's Fertile Crescent that includes parts of Turkey. So, it makes sense that Gobekli Tepe was one of the first building sites of post-Flood peoples. This amazing find vindicates what the Bible has said about mankind all along. The earliest humans were every bit as smart and able as modern ones—perhaps even more so. And according to Scripture, people were made on one day by God and in His image—with all the faculties necessary to imagine, build, farm, and worship. References 1. Mann, C. C. The Birth of Religion. National Geographic. Posted on ngm.nathionalgeographic.com June 2011. 2. Cosner, L. and R. Carter. How does Göbekli Tepe fit with biblical history? Creation Ministries International. Posted on creation.com July 26, 2011, accessed January 3, 2012. 3. Wells, H. G., J. E. Huxley and G. P. Wells. 1939. The Science of Life. New York: Garden City Publishing Company, 1458-1459. 4. Batuman, E. The Sanctuary. The New Yorker. December 19 and 26, 2011: 72-83. ….

Göbekli Tepe is “just down the road” from where Noah’s Ark came to rest

by Damien F. Mackey “Göbkeli Tepe is in southeast Turkey, about 30 km from Karacadağ”. Asle Rønning Thanks to the wonderful research of Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K. White, we can now say, so I think, that Karaca Dağ, in the region of the spectacular Göbekli Tepe, is: Noah’s Ark Mountain (9) Noah's Ark Mountain In that article acknowledging their find, I wrote: The combined research of Ken Griffith and Darrell White has caused me … to move away from my former acceptance of Judi Dagh for the Mountain of Noah’s Ark Landing in preference for their choice of Karaca Dagh in SE Turkey. The pair have strongly argued for the validity of this latter site in their excellent new article: A Candidate Site for Noah’s Ark, Altar, and Tomb. (2) (PDF) A Candidate Site for Noah's Ark, Altar, and Tomb. | Kenneth Griffith and Darrell K White - Academia.edu My main reason for entertaining this switch is that the latter site appears to have been the place, unlikely as it may look, for the world’s first agriculture, including grapes, and for the domestication of what we know as farmland animals. For example, Ken Griffith and Darrell White write: This mountain, Karaca Dag, is where the genetic ancestor of all domesticated Einkorn wheat was found by the Max Planck Institute.1 The other seven founder crops of the Neolithic Revolution all have this mountain near the centre of their wild range.2 This was so exciting that even the LA Times remarked how unusual it is that all of the early agriculture crops appear to have been domesticated in the same location: “The researchers reported that the wheat was first cultivated near the Karacadag Mountains in southeastern Turkey, where chickpeas and bitter vetch also originated. Bread wheat—the most valuable single crop in the modern world—grapes and olives were domesticated nearby, as were sheep, pigs, goats and cattle.”3 …. Manfred Heun was the botanist who followed the DNA of domesticated wheat back to its source on Karaca Dag: “We believe that the idea is so good—the idea of cultivating wild plants—that we think it might be one tribe of people, and that is fascinating,” said Manfred Heun at the University of Norway’s department of biotechnological sciences, who led the research team. “I cannot prove it, but it is a possibility that one tribe or one family had the idea [emphasis added].”3 A 2004 DNA study of wild and cultivated grapevine genetics by McGovern and Vouillamoz found the region where grapevines were first domesticated. Vouillamoz reports: “Analysis of morphological similarities between the wild and cultivated grapes from all Eurasia generally support a geographical origin of grape domestication in the Near East. In 2004, I collaborated with Patrick McGovern to focus on the ‘Grape’s Fertile Triangle’ and our results showed that the closest genetic relationship between local wild grapevines and traditional cultivated grape varieties from southern Anatolia, Armenia and Georgia was observed in southern Anatolia. This suggests that the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in the Taurus Mountains is the most likely place where the grapevine was first domesticated! ... . This area also includes the Karacadağ region in the northern part of the Fertile Crescent.” …. [End of quotes] Another fascinating article on virtually the same subject is this one, entitled: https://www.sciencenorway.no/agriculture--fisheries-archaeology-forskningno/on-the-track-of-the-worlds-first-farmer/1448265 On the track of the world’s first farmer Agriculture may have originated in this landscape in the southeastern corner of Turkey. This view of the highlands is from the archaeological site Göbekli Tepe. (Photo: Manfred Heun) The very first farmer may have lived in a barren mountain landscape in Turkey over 10,000 years ago. Asle Rønningjournalist __________________________________________________________ PUBLISHED 31 JANUARY 2012 - 05:00 When and where did humankind first start cultivating the soil? The experts haven’t formed a single chorus on that issue, but a very good candidate for the site is found near the Mountain Karacadağ in Anatolia − in southeastern Turkey. This is where the first humanly modified grain was developed − einkorn [literally: single grain] wheat. The grain is now being more closely linked to one of archaeology’s major puzzles – the mysterious and ancient site Göbekli Tepe with its limestone megaliths decorated with bas-reliefs of animals. Nobody has been able to satisfactorily interpret their full significance. Göbkeli Tepe is in southeast Turkey, about 30 km from Karacadağ. T-shaped pillars with carved bas-relief animals at Göbekli Tepe. (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) Could hunter-gatherers have been the people who constructed this site 7,000 years before Stonehenge and the Great Pyramids of Egypt, and also become the first people to start cultivating the soil? Plant genetics can help answer that question. Damien Mackey’s comment: I do not accept the over-inflated dating for Göbekli Tepe at 10,000-12,000 BC. The article continues: A significant find Professor Manfred Heun at the Norwegian University of Life Sciences (UMB) is an expert on cereals. Along with Italian and Turkish colleagues in 1997 he determined that Karacadağ could be the original home of the cultivated form of einkorn. He’s returned time and again ever since. “It feels great being there. This is a mountainous area − Karacadağ has an elevation of over 1,900 metres. But it doesn’t look like a high mountain, it’s more like a Norwegian mountain plateau,” says Heun. The people who currently dwell in the region are stationary Kurds and Turks as well as nomadic Arabs who making a living off herding sheep, cows and goats. The primal wheat View of site and excavation at Göbekli Tepe (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) Evidence indicates that einkorn is our first cereal. It’s a kind of wheat which is much older than spelt, the grain so many health-conscious people now swear by. Einkorn was essential for humanity for several millennia but is now only commercially grown a few places in the world. The cultivated or domesticated variety of einkorn stems from a wild einkorn that still grows in mountain areas of the Middle East. We say a species of grain has been domesticated when it has undergone changes due to human influence. Domestication is a key term that unites archaeologists and geneticists who are striving to find the origin of agriculture. Professor Manfred Heun at UMB thinks he located the site where human beings initially cultivated einkorn wheat in 1997. Now he has pioneered his own einkorn beer, probably being drunk for the first time in Norway since the Bronze Age. (Photo: Asle Rønning) Just as the dog evolved from the wolf, and pigs evolved from boars, our cereals have been significantly altered by human cultivation. Silent witnesses These changes can be detected and read in the genes of modern crops as tales linked to the first farmers’ experiments. They are witnesses that speak to us nonverbally. In addition to einkorn, emmer wheat and barley are two major cereals that were domesticated very early in the Middle East. They share a primitive and natural trait: when mature the grain of the wild varieties falls to the ground so it can be spread with the winds. Those who wish to harvest these grains either have to tediously pick up the grains one by one after they fall to the ground or cut the stem with a scythe before it ripens. Mutations However, in wild populations now and then a natural mutation occurs in individual plants: the straw that supports the cereal doesn’t bend and break when the grain is mature. The cradle of agriculture could be placed in southeastern Turkey, 10,000 years ago (Map: Per Byrhing) Damien Mackey’s comment: The cradle of agriculture after the Flood, that is. The original cradle of agriculture was in the Garden of Eden (site of Old Jerusalem), a good millennium and a half earlier than the SE Turkey initiatives. The article continues: If someone is careful to only use these specimens as seed grain they can pass this genetic trait on to new generations of the plant. This is exactly what the first farmers have done. Other preferable traits were large grains, an evenly distributed ripening period and a reduction of the inedible chaff that protects the seed kernels. Any set of these and other preferable traits tells us that we are dealing with a domesticated variety of cereal. Archaeologists look for these indications of domestication when they find cereals during excavations of Stone Age settlements in the region. Like CSI The task that Heun and his colleagues assigned themselves was to find out where einkorn was originally domesticated. The region where wild einkorn wheat grows is large, covering parts of Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Wild einkorn is also genetically diverse. The challenge was to make a genetic match between different varieties of einkorn and today’s domesticated variety. Heun says this is somewhat akin to the work of forensic medical experts on CSI. Wild einkorn, Karadag, central Turkey (Photo: Wikimedia Commons) The difference is that they weren’t looking for a murderer, but rather a “crime scene” that was 10,000 years old. Help received from immigrants The results were achieved after cultivating an einkorn from seed samples and investigating the DNA from no less than 1,362 wild varieties that came from large areas of the Middle East and Europe. At this point Heun was working at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Cologne and the team hung up a giant map of Turkey and the Middle East with the origins of the enormous number of einkorn varieties marked off. Many of the cleaners at the institute were immigrants from the region and they enjoyed finding their home birthplaces on the map. They also helped the scientists now and then when they were having trouble figuring out where to pin the grain types to spots on the map. “They often helped us by locating their towns,” says Heun. The grain varieties seemed to home in on the area around Karacadağ. This conclusion prevails today even though arguments can be made that einkorn developed at more than one spot; so the debate continues in international research circles. Three grains of rye After the einkorn study was published the origin of emmer wheat has also been traced to the same area. The lab results from geneticists are confirmed by archaeologists, who have found the oldest specimens of domesticated einkorn and emmer wheat from this very area, dated at 10,200 – 10,500 years ago. These can be traces of the earliest cultivation of cereals in the world. A settlement site at Abu Hureyra in Syria previously gained plenty of attention because of a discovery of a domesticated rye, dated at 12,000 to 13,000 years old. But the archaeological evidence for this site is rather skimpy – just three grains of rye – and in any case there is no proof that a tradition of rye cultivation occurred here. Might disappear When Heun visited Karacadağ the first time he found wild einkorn plants. The last time he was there he found none. He thinks overgrazing of sheep could be the problem and fears that precious stocks of wild grains might disappear forever because nomads run their livestock there. “The nomads are poor – nobody can blame them. But the Turkish State ought to do something to preserve the area,” says the UMB professor. Karacadağ is near Diyarbakir, which is the largest city in the Kurdish dominated southeastern region of Anatolia in Turkey. It’s close to the borders of Syria and Iraq. …. Mystical figures But the area has a much older history. In 1994 Göbekli Tepe was discovered. Its multi-tonne T-shaped pillars and megaliths decorated with mystical animal figures including, lions, hyenas and spiders are still being excavated from the sands. The oldest finds there are estimated to be 11,000 years old, from the time just prior to the Neolithic Revolution – the start of agriculture. This baffles the researchers, who cannot explain exactly what kind of place this was. But it’s believed that it was a large religious temple complex in use for hundreds of years, before it for reasons unknown were deliberately buried. However, new discoveries, which haven’t been published yet, link the cultivation of einkorn at Karacadağ more closely to the puzzling place. Maybe there is a common denominator between why the stone pillars were built and why the cultivation of einkorn commenced. Perhaps the answer is beer. Come on over for some beer? Erecting the Göbekli Tepe megaliths demanded an enormous amount of work. But what do you do if you want to get several hundred people to work together for weeks and months at a time, cutting, carving, dragging and lifting tonnes of rock? But of course, you offer them beer! Beer would probably have been a prestigious and rare commodity, both nutritious and healthy. In one of the archaeological layers at Göbekli Tepe, from a period designated as PPNB, tubs have been found that could have been used for making malt and brewing beer. “Tubs have been found that could have held 150 litres of water. These probably weren’t used for storing grain,” says Heun. Beer can only be made from grain and to be ensured access to such cereal it’s a good idea to plant a field of it. This could have been a motivation for growing cereals instead of finding them in the wild. These new findings correspond in time to domesticated grain species. But no discoveries of cultivated grain have been made in the oldest and best known parts of Göbekli Tepe. So hunter-gatherers are still thought to have first built and used the site. Garden of Eden? Whatever their initial impulse, the first farmers in the Middle East developed a package of plant species and domesticated animals that had an enormous impact and formed the basis of agriculture in Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Indus Valley in Pakistan. The gift of agriculture was passed on to the great civilizations in the fertile river valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Nile and the Indus from barren areas of the same region. The most important plant species were einkorn and emmer wheat, barley, chickpeas (garbanzos), peas and lentils. Tubers were also domesticated just like the cereals. If one were to search for a single spot where all the wild varieties of all these domesticated plant species grew, the place to go would be just here – in southeastern Turkey and northern Syria. …. Fastest changes in genetic traits Now we have a lot more data from excavations further north. We cannot be certain that agriculture in the Middle East originated in just one place. Some propose that people in settlements all over the region tried out local plant species and hence, there were multiple cradles of agriculture in this part of the world. Some scientists stress that a lot of time would pass from the initial cultivation of wild grains until noticeable genetic changes start turning up. Manfred Heun disagrees. He points out that einkorn is self-pollinating. This makes it much easier for new genetic traits to pass from one generation to the next. On the other hand it is less likely to regress back to the initial wild traits than it is for species that are cross-pollinating. Found edible plants in nature Heun thinks that 20-30 years of cultivation could have been enough to establish the essential trait of stems that don’t break when the grain is ripe. So the first farmer could have experienced the results of his or her genetic selection efforts in the course of a lifetime. Damien Mackey’s comment: Especially if that “first farmer” was, who the first farmer actually was, the long-lived Noah! With all of the incessant rain-flooding in Sydney at present (around 21st August, 2025), BOM declaring a La Nina alert, it is not hard to harken back to the great Deluge in the days of Noah. Now, turning our attention to Karaca Dağ’s near neighbour, Göbekli Tepe, we read the following by Christoper Eames: https://armstronginstitute.org/304-g-ouml-bekli-tepe-stone-age-zoo-in-the-book-of-genesis somewhat similar to what Jim Corsetti has been on about: Could Gobekli Tepe Be Noah’s Altar? The Hidden Link to the Flood Myth - Joe Rogan & Jimmy Corsetti Göbekli Tepe, ‘Stone Age Zoo,’ in the Book of Genesis A ‘Stone Age zoo,’ Aboriginal Australians, booze and worldwide calamity at the earliest temple ever found—discoveries at this fantastical Turkish site parallel a peculiar early biblical setting. By Christopher Eames • January 2, 2021 Sumer is often noted as man’s “first civilization,” situated on the Mesopotamian plains at the edge of the Persian Gulf. This location, and the cities that emerged from it, are a perfect match for the biblical Shinar (a parallel name), described in the biblical account as the first civilization to emerge following the Flood. Genesis 11:1-2 state: And the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. Damien Mackey’s comment: No, no, no. The sooner we dismiss Sumer: “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia (9) “The Sumerian Problem” – Sumer not in Mesopotamia Christoper Eames now gets rather more interesting: Göbekli Tepe In the early 1960s, peculiar stone circles were noted in an archaeological survey in the southeastern Anatolia region of Turkey. They were initially dismissed as unimportant, until German archaeologist Klaus Schmidt began excavating the site, known as Göbekli Tepe (“Potbelly Hill”) in 1995. What he uncovered was utterly unexpected. …. The circular, 20-acre site was evidently of a religious nature. It was made up of several layers, the earliest of which were carbon-dated as far back as circa 10,000 b.c.e. (more on this dating further down). This shocking date put the creation of the site during the so-called Paleolithic, hunter-gatherer era—long before mankind was supposed to have settled into established, pastoral communities. Mankind wasn’t supposed to have been united and able to construct such monuments for thousands of years. Indeed, no evidence was discovered of a settled community. Yet this giant cultic area, sporting the world’s oldest-known megaliths (up to 60 tons in weight), had been built by the region’s inhabitants. What’s more, the builders of Göbekli Tepe exhibited an understanding of geometry—three of the main stone circles at the site were arranged in a precise equilateral triangle (a stunning discovery to scientists—a “grand geometric plan” that was only realized earlier this year). One of the standout things about Göbekli Tepe has to be the animals. It boasts numerous carvings of different animals. It also has the remains of multiple dozens of different species. Animals depicted on the stone pillars include snakes, foxes, boars, cranes, aurochs, sheep, donkeys, gazelles, leopards, lions, bears, spiders, scorpions, various insects, vultures and numerous other bird species—to name a few. Nearly 100 animals are depicted on the largest of the monoliths alone. And among the identifiable animals, there were numerous other unidentifiable creatures. The animal remains include the bones of various deer species, sheep, cattle, goats, donkeys, boars, wolves, foxes, leopards and various other wildcats, weasels, badgers, hamsters, hedgehogs, numerous gerbils and various other rodents, and dozens of bird species including geese, owls, magpies, eagles, quails, ducks and thrushes. One study examined some 40,000 animal remains. As Schmidt described it, this truly was a “Stone Age zoo.” Conversely, among the thousands of animal remains and depictions, only two fish were discovered. Not two sets of species—just two fish (a catfish and an unidentifiable cyprinid). And bizarrely, adorning some of the megaliths were a number of peculiar designs closely matching those found among the Aboriginal Australian community, as well as parallel objects at the site and depictions of Australian animals—leading to a flurry of articles speculating on some kind of Aboriginal connection to this location. Finally (as if the site couldn’t be any more odd), certain carvings at Göbekli Tepe apparently depict “massive global climate shifts,” according to a paper by University of Edinburgh researchers. They described a “cataclysmic event” related to the end of the Ice Age period. Among some of the carvings appeared to be observations of comets. What on Earth was this site? What were humans doing here? …. The Bible describes Noah, after leaving the ark, building “an altar” and sacrificing “of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl” on the altar. Göbekli Tepe stands testament to a form of ritual worship in relation to a multitude of animals. “First came the temple, then the city,” quipped Schmidt. Such is the account presented by archaeology—and such is the account presented in the Bible. …. Of Predators and Men As for the specific cultic function of Göbekli Tepe, scientists are left to speculate. A high proportion of the animals carved into the megalithic stones are predatory—as such, it has been wondered if these were some kind of religious talisman-gargoyle equivalent to ward off predators. A peculiar predator hunts his prey, as carved onto one of the Göbekli Tepe megaliths. Here again is a match for the pre-Shinar account. Nimrod is the infamous early leader and tyrant of the Bible, who brought together the early post-Flood civilization in Shinar. “He was a mighty hunter before [in place of] the Lord” (Genesis 10:9). Extra-biblical traditions assert that before gathering together in Shinar, mankind had been scattered and vulnerable among the wild animals—at the mercy of vicious predators. Among them, Nimrod became a “savior”—a “mighty hunter” who defended the population and rose up as a “mighty one in the earth” (verse 8), eventually gathering mankind together as one civilization in the plains of Shinar. This assessment, then, of an early mankind especially plagued by wild animals (a prevalence of different creatures that had survived aboard the ark) would fit the picture of Göbekli Tepe—a religious effort by the earliest, scattered communal generations to ward off wild animals. Another Parallel Another parallel between ancient Göbekli Tepe and the post-Flood-yet-pre-Shinar biblical account is that the earliest traces of an alcoholic beverage have been discovered at the site. Researchers in 2012 discovered what appeared to be chemical traces of beer being produced in limestone basins—demonstrating just how far back our thirst for grog goes. The same is also described in the Bible: The earliest account of alcohol is found in Genesis 9, which describes wine-making and overindulgence, and an ensuing incident related to drunkenness. …. Karaca Dağ and Göbekli Tepe provide us with a perfect landscape for the Ark landing, the earliest worship, the menagerie of animals, the first agriculture and viniculture, this being the very cradle of post-Flood civilisation from whence humankind would set forth to fill the entire world. There are many more biblical riches to be uncovered in the region if the WEF gets right out of the way.

Merging a Kassite and a Hittite king

by Damien F. Mackey Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Tukulti-Ninurta I (c. 1243–1207 BC, conventional dating) was, in my scheme of things, the same neo-Assyrian king as Sargon II-Sennacherib: Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib (3) Tukulti-Ninurta I and Sargon II-Sennacherib And, again in my scheme of things, Babylon was the same as Carchemish. Now, in a recent article of mine on the subject: Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish (4) Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish I drew an historical parallel between Tukulti-Ninurta’s defeat of the Kassite king, Kashtiliash, of Babylon, and Sargon II’s defeat of the Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), of Carchemish (Karkemish, Karkamis). Here is the gist of it: UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS JOURNALS—In “A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish,” published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Gianni Marchesi translates a recently discovered inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon II found at the ruins of the ancient city of Karkemish. The inscription, which dates to around 713 B.C., details Sargon’s conquest, occupation, and reorganization of Karkemish, including his rebuilding the city with ritual ceremonies usually reserved for royal palaces in capital cities. The text implies that Sargon may have been planning to make Karkemish a western capital of Assyria, from which he could administer and control his empire’s western territories. The cuneiform inscription was found on fragments from three different clay cylinders in 2015 as part of the Nicolò Marchetti-led Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Karkemish. Now in ruins, the site is located on the Euphrates river on the border between present day Syria and Turkey. Marchesi analyzed and translated the total of thirty-eight lines of partially broken Akkadian text, using reference material, academic literature and other inscribed Assyrian artifacts as reference points for filling in the gaps. The lines of text ranged from two-thirds complete to much less, and no line of text was completely intact. “Even so, we can grasp much of the original text, which turns out to be very informative,” Marchesi writes. “In fact, unlike other Sargon cylinders, which contain relatively standard ‘summary’ inscriptions or annalistic accounts of the events of Sargon’s reign, the Karkemish Cylinder provides us with a completely new inscription, dealing almost exclusively with the newly conquered city on the Euphrates in a highly-elaborated, literary style.” In the inscription, Sargon tells of the “betrayal” of … [Pisiri], the Hittite King of Karkemish who exchanged hostile words about Assyria with its enemy, King Midas of Phrygia. Sargon invades Karkemish, deports Pisiri and his supporters, destroys his palace, seizes his riches as booty and incorporates Pisiri’s army into his own. He resettles the city with Assyrians. Mackey’s comment: A vital connection can be made between Carchemish and Babylon, I believe, if one first accepts my thesis that Sargon II (Sennacherib) was the same as Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I: Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib (2) Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib Tukulti-Ninurta had fought and defeated Kashtiliash so-called IV, king of Babylon. Kaštiliašu was captured, single-handed by Tukulti-Ninurta according to his account, who “trod with my feet upon his lordly neck as though it were a footstool”. And we have just read - what I would consider to be the parallel version to this - where Sargon II defeats and deports Pisiri[s], king of Carchemish. Previously, in my article: Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon (2) Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon I spelled out the striking parallels between the two scenarios:  Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing, its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Spelt out, Tukulti-ninurta/Sargon II attacks and takes the city of Babylon/ Carchemish and captures the Kassite/Hittite king, Kashtiliash/Piyasili, taking him in chains to Assyria.

Capital importance that Sargon II attached to the city of Carchemish

by Damien F. Mackey “Because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the empire.” Gianni Marchesi I, in light of the new geographical revolution as set out by Richard (Royce) Erickson, radically moving Elam and Chaldea far to the NW: More geographical ‘tsunamis’: lands of Elam and Chaldea https://www.academia.edu/104403646/More_geographical_tsunamis_lands_of_Elam_and_Chaldea?f_ri=32226 and hence being forced to consider a new location for Babylon - known to have been situated relatively close to Elam and Chaldea - first toyed with the idea of ancient Byblos for Babylon, before settling, instead, on Carchemish for Babylon (Karduniash): Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos (2) Correction for Babylon (Babel). Carchemish preferable to Byblos Carchemish (Karkemish) was, unlike Byblos, situated by “rivers” (Psalm 137:1), the Euphrates, but, most significantly, it lay not too far distant from the Khabur (Chabur) (cf. Ezekiel 1:3; 3:15): “I came to the exiles at Tel-abib, who lived by the River Chebar”. This river is unidentifiable in the conventional ‘Babylon’ of southern Iraq: https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/encyclopedia-of-the-bible/Chebar “Chebar. An unidentified stream of water “in the land of the Chaldeans” (Ezek 1:3), i.e., in ancient Babylonia”. My further suggestion has been that the enigmatic name for Babylon, “Karduniash”, has been derived from “Karkemish” (with its variants). The strategic and economic importance of the site of Carchemish is clear from what we read at: https://www.britannica.com/place/Carchemish “It commanded a strategic crossing of the Euphrates River for caravans engaged in Syrian, Mesopotamian, and Anatolian trade”. No wonder, then, that the great neo-Assyrian king, Sargon II, might have eyed off Carchemish for his western capital as according to Gianni Marchesi: https://popular-archaeology.com/article/mesopotamian-king-sargon-ii-envisioned-ancient-city-karkemish-as-western-assyrian-capital/#google_vignette Mesopotamian King Sargon II envisioned ancient city Karkemish as western Assyrian capital By No Author Sat, Apr 20, 2019 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO PRESS JOURNALS—In “A New Historical Inscription of Sargon II from Karkemish,” published in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Gianni Marchesi translates a recently discovered inscription of the Assyrian King Sargon II found at the ruins of the ancient city of Karkemish. The inscription, which dates to around 713 B.C., details Sargon’s conquest, occupation, and reorganization of Karkemish, including his rebuilding the city with ritual ceremonies usually reserved for royal palaces in capital cities. The text implies that Sargon may have been planning to make Karkemish a western capital of Assyria, from which he could administer and control his empire’s western territories. The cuneiform inscription was found on fragments from three different clay cylinders in 2015 as part of the Nicolò Marchetti-led Turco-Italian Archaeological Expedition at Karkemish. Now in ruins, the site is located on the Euphrates river on the border between present day Syria and Turkey. Marchesi analyzed and translated the total of thirty-eight lines of partially broken Akkadian text, using reference material, academic literature and other inscribed Assyrian artifacts as reference points for filling in the gaps. The lines of text ranged from two-thirds complete to much less, and no line of text was completely intact. “Even so, we can grasp much of the original text, which turns out to be very informative,” Marchesi writes. “In fact, unlike other Sargon cylinders, which contain relatively standard ‘summary’ inscriptions or annalistic accounts of the events of Sargon’s reign, the Karkemish Cylinder provides us with a completely new inscription, dealing almost exclusively with the newly conquered city on the Euphrates in a highly-elaborated, literary style.” In the inscription, Sargon tells of the “betrayal” of Pirisi [Pisiri], the Hittite King of Karkemish who exchanged hostile words about Assyria with its enemy, King Midas of Phrygia. Sargon invades Karkemish, deports Pisiri and his supporters, destroys his palace, seizes his riches as booty and incorporates Pisiri’s army into his own. He resettles the city with Assyrians. Mackey’s comment: A vital connection can be made between Carchemish and Babylon, I believe, if one first accepts my thesis that Sargon II (Sennacherib) was the same as Tukulti-Ninurta so-called I: Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib (2) Tukulti-Ninurta I folds well into Sargon II-Sennacherib Tukulti-Ninurta had fought and defeated Kashtiliash so-called IV, king of Babylon. Kaštiliašu was captured, single-handed by Tukulti-Ninurta according to his account, who “trod with my feet upon his lordly neck as though it were a footstool”. And we have just read - what I would consider to be the parallel version to this - where Sargon II defeats and deports Pisiri[s], king of Carchemish. Previously, in my article: Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon (2) Borsippa may strengthen the case for Carchemish as mighty Babel-Babylon I spelled out the striking parallels between the two scenarios:  Historical parallel – which I regard as being just the one historical event – we have Tukulti-ninurta attacking Babylon and removing its Kassite king, Kastiliash so-called IV, in chains to Assyria; and we have Sargon II attacking Carchemish and removing, its Hittite king, Piyashili (Pisiri), in chains to Assyria. Spelt out, Tukulti-ninurta/Sargon II attacks and takes the city of Babylon/ Carchemish and captures the Kassite/Hittite king, Kashtiliash/Piyasili, taking him in chains to Assyria. Kasht ili ash Piy ash ili[s] The article continues: Having previously blocked the water supply to Karkemish, the meadows “let go fallow, like a wasteland,” Marchesi translates, he now reactivates the irrigation system, planting orchards and botanical gardens. “I made the scent of the city sweeter than the scent of a cedar forest.” He also details an inauguration ceremony where he received gifts from Assyrian provinces and sacrifices them to deities. “My lords the gods Karhuha and Kubaba, who dwell in Karkemish, I invited them into my palace,” Marchesi translates. “Strong rams of the stable, geese, ducks and flying birds of the sky I offered before them.” Marchesi was struck by the attention that Sargon paid to Karkemish, in particular the elaborate inauguration ceremony and construction of botanical gardens, both indicative not of a typical provincial capital but of a royal palace. “Because of its glorious past and strategic position, Karkemish was fully entitled to become a sort of western capital of the Assyrian Empire: a perfect place in which to display the grandeur of Assyria, and from which to control the western and north-western territories of the empire,” Marchesi writes. This vision of Karkemish was short-lived, however. Though much care was taken to detail the city’s rise in these texts, the city is not mentioned in any known inscriptions of Sargon’s successors. “The unthinkable, ominous death of Sargon on the battlefield in Tabal [sic] probably prevented this project from being accomplished, and negatively marked the destiny of Karkemish itself, which no longer attracted the interest of Assyrian kings who followed after him,” Marchesi writes. But, if Carchemish were Babylon, as I am proposing, then the city would have plenty more “destiny” under Sargon II-Sennacherib’s mighty successor, the Chaldean, Esarhaddon, who was none other than Nebuchednezzar ‘the Great’: Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar (4) Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar the re-builder of the city of Babylon (Daniel 4:30): ‘Is not this the great Babylon I have built as the royal residence, by my mighty power and for the glory of my majesty?’

Famine Ankhtifi as Antef (Intef)

by Damien F. Mackey Now, given the likeness of the name Antef, to Ankhtifi, my Joseph … and the likeness of Antef’s variants, Intef/Inyotef, to Imhotep (Joseph), plus the fact that a great Famine occurred during the time of Intef, I may have been somewhat remiss to date for not including Antef/Intef in my list … of potential candidates for the biblical Joseph. Ankhtifi is the name closest to Joseph’s given Egyptian name, Zaphenath paneah (Genesis 41:45) amongst the names of all of my many proposed historical identifications for the biblical Joseph in ancient Egypt - for instance all of these names (below) as listed in my article: Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’? (7) Was this the original 'Famine Stela'? The multi-named Joseph From what we have just read, Joseph’s names may include Imhotep; Khasekhemwy-Imhotep; Hetep-Khasekhemwy; Khasekhem; Sekhemkhet; Den (Dewen, Udimu); Khasti; Uenephes; Usaphais (Yusef); Zaphenath paneah; Ankhtifi; Bebi and perhaps also: Hemaka; Kheti From stark obscurity, the historical Joseph now abounds! And I suspect that this will not exhaust the potential list of Egyptian (also including some Greek) names for the biblical Joseph. …. By now I could potentially add to this list the names Semerkhet, “… in his reign a very great calamity befell Egypt" (Eusebius following Manetho), Henuka and Peribsen. Now, given the likeness of the name Antef, to Ankhtifi, my Joseph (see above), and the likeness of Antef’s variants, Intef/Inyotef, to Imhotep (Joseph), plus the fact that a great Famine occurred during the time of Intef, I may have been somewhat remiss to date for not including Antef/Intef in my list above of potential candidates for the biblical Joseph. It was in my article: Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine (8) Ankhtifi a Joseph type saving Egypt in an extensive Famine that I provided the following explanation of: Joseph’s new name Genesis 44:45: “Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On, to be his wife. And Joseph went throughout the land of Egypt”. Can the name Ankhtifi be found in Joseph’s given Egyptian name, Zaphenath-Paneah? This is a difficult matter since no two commentators seem to be able to reach a consensus on the meaning of Joseph’s new name. Here I turn to professor A. S. Yahuda who has proven in the past to be a trustworthy guide in matters pertaining to Egyptian linguistics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaphnath-Paaneah “Abraham Yahuda suggested for Zapheath-paneah, ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pꜣ ꜥnḫ, "the living one is the sustenance of (the) land", or ḏfꜣ n tꜣ pw ꜥnḫ "the sustenance of the land is he, the living one." (Yahuda, A. S. (1930). Eine Erwiderung auf Wilhelm Spiegelbergs "Ägyptologische Bemerkungen" zu meinem Buche "Die Sprache des Pentateuch". Leipzig. p. 7., cited by Vergote, p. 144)”. In professor Yahuda’s explanation of this Egyptian name I think that we can basically find, in hypocoristicon form, the three elements that constitute the name, Ankhtifi: viz., Ankh (ꜥnḫ); ti (tꜣ); fi (fꜣ). …. Egyptology currently proposes about eight (I-VIII) Antefs/Intefs. I suspect that a large degree of duplication may have occurred here, as with the similar amount (I-IX) of Sobekhoteps. On this last, see e.g. my articles: Abydos and Saqqara lists exclude Sobekhotep I-IX (9) Abydos and Saqqara lists exclude Sobekhotep I-IX and: Too many pharaohs named Sobekhotep (9) Too many pharaohs named Sobekhotep Sobekhotep Khaneferre was, in fact, the traditional “Chenephres” who married “Merris”, Egyptian Meresankh, the Egyptian foster-mother of Moses, and who gave Moses a hard time while the latter was officiating in Egypt during Israel’s Oppression: King “Chenephres” of Egypt - an ancient type of King Saul https://www.academia.edu/87167524/King_Chenephres_of_Egypt_an_ancient_type_of_King_Saul King “Chenephres” recurs in various dynasties, as e.g. Khafre/Chephren (Fourth); Pepi Neferkare (Sixth); Sesostris Neferkare (Twelfth); and Sobekhotep Khaneferre (Thirteenth). Like “Chenephres”, his wife, “Merris”, Meresankh/Ankhenesmerire, is like a golden thread weaving together parts of ancient Egyptian history that have become separated. In “Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’?” article (above), I wrote regarding the Famine at the time of Intef (perhaps duplicated here as, now Wahankh, now Nakht-Nebtepnefer): Arkadiy Demidchik, member of Saint-Petersburg State University, Oriental Faculty, has picked up what he calls “a fairly similar story” between the famous Ptolemaïc Famine Stela on Sehel Island and a far more ancient document of Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef of Egypt’s so-called Eleventh Dynasty (wrongly dated here): A ‘Famine Stela’ Episode under the Early XIth Dynasty https://www.academia.edu/36620751/A_Famine_Stela_Episode_under_the_Early_XIth_Dynasty This is what Arkadiy Demidchik has written about it: On the orders of the early XIth dynasty kings Wahankh Intef and Nakht-Nebtepnefer Intef, the chapels for the gods Satet and Khnum on Elep[h]antine were constructed with stone doorjambs, lintels, columns, etc. This is the oldest example of pharaohs’ monumental stone building for gods in provincial temples. What was the incentive for this grand and labor-intensive innovation in the troubled times when the young Theban monarchy controlled only a smaller part of Egypt? Careful scrutiny of the inscriptions from the chapels shows that Khnum was invoked there first and foremost as the lord of the sources of the Upper Egyptian inundation, believed to be situated at the First Cataract. Together with a good number of other texts examined in the paper, this indicates that the Intefs’ stone building project on Elephantine was undertaken in order to deliver their Theban kingdom from too low or unseasonable Nile floods which resulted in poor harvests. Almost two millennia later, a fairly similar story would be told on the famous “Famine Stela” about the pharaoh Djoser’s making lavish donations to the temple of Khnum on Elephantine in order to terminate the seven years’ famine. The idea of K[h]num’s revelation to a king in a dream, which is said to have happened to Djoser, is also attested as early as in the XXth century BC. [End of quote] But this is not all. The same Arkadiy Demidchik has also been able to point to what he has called: A Northern Version of the “Famine Stela” Narrative? https://www.academia.edu/36620738/A_Northern_Version_of_the_Famine_Stela_Narrative Here he writes: According to the “historical” introduction to the royal decree to the “Famine Stela” on the island of Sehel, the king Djoser managed to cease the seven years’ famine only due to the discovery of the source of the Upper Egyptian inundation and its gods by the sage Imhotep. However, since the Egyptians usually distinguished also Lower Egyptian inundation, with its own source near Heliopolis, there must have existed a kind of “northern” version of the “Famine Stela” story with Imhotep’s discovering the Heliopolitan source, regulated by Atum with his entourage. As early as 1999 this was pointed out by O.D. Berlev. There are mentions of “7 years” when the inundation-Hapi did not come, of the “temple of Atum of Heliopolis” and its high priest Imhotep on British Museum hieratic papyrus fragment 1065, first read by J. Quack. Could this not be scraps of that “northern” version of the “Famine Stela” narrative? [End of quote] Clearly, we are in the time of the highly famed Imhotep (Third Dynasty) - replicated in the so-called Eleventh Dynasty – the biblical Joseph, son of Jacob, when there occurred a seven-year Famine (Genesis 41-47).

The Famine Pharaoh, Joseph and his wife, in Archaïc Egypt

by Damien F. Mackey “Traces of other such enclosures have also been found: one to the immediate west of Netjerikhet’s complex and one apparently between Sekhemkhet’s pyramid and the ‘Great Enclosure’. It has been suggested that these enclosures bear a striking resemblance to similar structures found near Umm el-Qa’ab. The largest of these enclosures, named Shunet ez-Zebib, has been identified as having belonged to Khasekhemwi. It is believed that this structure was intended as a simulacrum of the royal palace, a copy that the king would take with him to the hereafter”. ancient-egypt.org 2025 Introduction The Third Dynasty of ancient Egypt’s Old Kingdom has proven to be something of a rich goldmine for discovering historical proof of the reality of Joseph and the Famine, as recorded late in the Book of Genesis (esp. Chapters 41-43). Joseph as the celebrated vizier, Imhotep, the pious sage serving Horus Netjerikhet, had saved Egypt from a seven-year Famine. This is famously recorded in a late (Ptolemaïc) document, the Sehel Famine Stela. But there may now have been identified much earlier, apparent originals, of this Ptolemaïc inscription. On this, see my article: Was this the original ‘Famine Stela’? (6) Was this the original 'Famine Stela'? Imhotep was the quasi-pharaonic Khasekhemwy-Hetep-Imef (= Im-hotep), who built huge enclosures (storage facilities) at Nekhen, at Abydos (known as Shunet ez Zebib), and the massive Gisr el-Mudir at Saqqara. He was also the like-named (to Khasekhemwy) Sekhemkhet-Djoser-ti (see below). Thus Imhotep was Djoser (Zoser), and Netjerikhet, thought to have been him, was not. https://www.ancient-egypt.org/history/early-dynastic-period/2nd-dynasty/horus-seth-khasekhemwi/great-enclosure-at-saqqara.html Great Enclosure at Saqqara To the west of the unfinished pyramid of Sekhemkhet, a large rectangular structure was discovered composed mainly of a gigantic enclosure wall. With its 600 by 300 metres, this enclosure encompasses an area that is even considerably larger than Netjerikhet’s neighbouring complex. It as long been assumed -without any substantial examination of this structure- that this wall, known as the ‘Great Enclosure‘ or by its Arab name ‘Gisr el-Mudir‘ (wall of the director), was part of an unfinished mortuary complex of an unidentified 3rd Dynasty king. There is, however, no trace of a step pyramid inside this wall. Furthermore, this wall seems to have been completed, which would make the building of a pyramid within its compounds quite impossible. Recent research by the EES has shown that Gisr el-Mudir may at least be one generation older than the Horus Netjerikhet, thus dating to the 2nd Dynasty. Traces of other such enclosures have also been found: one to the immediate west of Netjerikhet’s complex and one apparently between Sekhemkhet’s pyramid and the ‘Great Enclosure’. It has been suggested that these enclosures bear a striking resemblance to similar structures found near Umm el-Qa’ab. The largest of these enclosures, named Shunet ez-Zebib, has been identified as having belonged to Khasekhemwi. It is believed that this structure was intended as a simulacrum of the royal palace, a copy that the king would take with him to the hereafter. If indeed these palace-copies are similar to the Saqqara enclosures, then it is likely that the Saqqara enclosures were related to the 2nd Dynasty tombs which were located in the vicinity. If the enclosures at Saqqara are indeed of 2nd Dynasty date and not, as was assumed in the past, of the 3rd Dynasty, then the ‘Great Enclosure’ is to be considered the oldest known building constructed, at least partially, in stone! These were ‘gigantic enclosures’ built for storing vast quantities of grain. They were not, as wrongly thought, mortuary complexes, or copies of palaces. This was all Joseph-Imhotep’s divinely inspired work. Absolutely amazing to think that all of this infrastructure was built in anticipation of a great and protracted Famine, as foretold to Pharaoh by the prescient Joseph. Whenever, before, or even after, has the like of this been done! “No one like Joseph has ever been born …”. (Sirach 49:15) Waterways and canals were also constructed by Joseph the water bringer, along with large dams. One immediately thinks of the Bahr Yusef canal, named after Joseph. Much of this was erected hastily, without the usual Egyptian decoration, purpose-built to serve for only a specified period of time. Then it fell into disuse – or was appropriated and enhanced by the mighty Pyramid building oppressor-pharaohs of the subsequent Fourth Dynasty: the era of Moses. With a necessary folding of Egypt’s Old Kingdom into its so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom, which simply duplicates the Old Kingdom, we encounter all over again the Famine era, including, among other things, mention of “seven empty years” (Heqanakht papyri). For Horus Netjerikhet of Egypt’s Third Dynasty was the same king as the powerful Netjerihedjet (Mentuhotep II) of the Eleventh Dynasty – the Famine Pharaoh. Having come to these twin conclusions some time ago now, that the biblical Famine belonged historically to the Old Kingdom, but is duplicated with the ‘Middle’ Kingdom, I never expected to find a ‘third’ manifestation of it all, back in Egypt’s Archaïc Period. Archaic Period: Dynasties 1-2; Old Kingdom: Dynasties 3-6; First Intermediate Period: Dynasties 7-11 (part of); Middle Kingdom: Dynasties 11-12. First Dynasty biblical scenario Although Egypt’s First Dynasty is conventionally set out like this: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/dyn01.html Menes Djer Merneith Djet Den Anedjib Semerkhet Qa'a Sneferka the listing, I would strongly suggest, is in need of a major overhaul. While the famous Menes, the first mentioned king in this list, traditionally belongs to the time of Abram (Abraham), with which syncretism I would agree (see my article): Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift (7) Dr. W.F. Albright's game-changing chronological shift the next four listed personages, Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, all belong to - as we are going to find out - the era of Joseph (c. 1700 BC), which era is, roughly speaking, two centuries later than that of Abram (Abraham) (c. 1900 BC). Perhaps that yawning gap in the First Dynasty list is filled out by the Second Dynasty: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn02/dyn02.html Hetepsekhemwy Reneb (Nebre) Weneg Ninetjer Sened Nubnefer Neferkare Neferkaseker Hudjefa I Peribsen-Sekhemib Khasekhemwy But, then again, perhaps not! There immediately appear to be some obstacles to such a suggestion, with the first listed ruler, Hetepsekhemwy, being, yet once again, I would suggest, Joseph-Imhotep himself, as Hotep-Im (= Hetep-Imef) Khasekhemwy, who, it needs to be noted, emerges again at the end of this Second Dynasty list. And, while I do not want to become bogged down here with the Second Dynasty, which, to date, I have not studied at great length, I think that a case could be mounted also for Ninetjer (Nynetjer) in this list to be the same ruler as Djer (Nine-tjer) in the First Dynasty list, a contemporary of Joseph as I shall be arguing – for Ninetjer, too, may have experienced a great famine (see 1. below). And, intriguingly, Peribsen in the list was once thought (the idea is not popular today) to have introduced monotheism to Egypt (as could perhaps be expected from Joseph) along the lines of Akhnaton at a much later date. On this last, see e.g. my article: Akhnaton’s Theophany (11) Akhnaton's Theophany Whilst, in the lengthy Phouka king list above, a full five regal names separate Ninetjer (potential Famine Pharaoh) from Seth-Peribsen (tentatively, Joseph), Peribsen immediately follows Ninetjer in the (roughly) half as long list here at Higher Intellect: https://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/dynasty2.html Hotepsekhemwy - 'Pleasing in Powers' Reneb - Re is the Lord Ninetjer - Godlike Peribsen - Sekhemib - 'Powerful in Heart' Khasekhemwy - "The Two Powerful Ones Appear" Could it be that more than half (8 out of 14) of the names listed for these supposedly two distinct dynasties – {here following the shortened version of the Second Dynasty} - pertain to the era of the biblical Joseph? There could well be much more to be said about all of this! 1. Famine Pharaoh: Archaïc Period Returning to the First Dynasty list, to Djer, Merneith, Djet and Den, about all of whom I wrote above that they belonged to the era of the biblical Joseph, we can put aside Merneith, a female, who obviously could not have been Joseph’s Pharaoh. Den (Udimu) was, I have already concluded most emphatically, Joseph himself: Joseph also as Den, ‘he who brings water’ (6) Joseph also as Den, 'he who brings water' Djer and Djet I would consider to be two manifestations of just the one Pharaoh - paralleling the already discussed Third Dynasty and Eleventh Dynasty syncretism - respectively, Horus Netjerikhet as Djer, and Mentuhotep Netjerihedjet as Djet. Above, I tentatively included the long-reigning Second Dynasty ruler, Ninetjer (-djer). Djet and Ninetjer had in common long reigns and celebration of the Heb Sed festival, which (supposedly occurring every 30 years) was probably far less common in those early times as may be thought, but which may have become duplicated (or more) due to an inaccurate, repetitive Egyptology. Not only did Djet and Ninetjer, in common, enjoy a Heb Sed festival, however, but Djet, certainly, and Ninetjer, potentially, experienced a severe Famine. Regarding pharaoh Djet and the Famine, see e.g. my article (revised, with Imhotep now intended as Djoser): Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine (6) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine And, regarding a possible lengthy famine at the time of Ninetjer, we read as follows: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nynetjer “Egyptologists such as Barbara Bell believe that an economic catastrophe such as a famine or a long lasting drought affected Egypt around this time. Therefore, to address the problem of feeding the Egyptian population, Nynetjer split the realm into two and his successors ruled two independent states until the famine came to an end. Bell points to the inscriptions of the Palermo stone, where, in her opinion, the records of the annual Nile floods show constantly low levels during this period”. Likewise, Miroslav Bárta has written in his article: Journey to the West The world of the Old Kingdom tombs in Ancient Egypt. Prague 2012 https://www.academia.edu/23316703/Journey_to_the_West_The_world_of_the_Old_Kingdom_tombs_in_Ancient_Egypt_Prague_2012 that: “… probably at the end of the First and start of the Second Dynasty, a time marked by internal conflicts connected with low levels of flooding and failed harvests …”: “… low levels of flooding and failed harvests …” the perfect mix of ingredients for Famine in ancient Egypt. 2. Joseph and Asenath: Archaïc Period No need to repeat here what I have already written (in my “Joseph also as Den …” article above) about Den (Udimu) as Joseph-Imhotep. While the name Den, “he who brings water”, so fitting of Joseph, may have been posthumously assigned, it, and his other names, especially Usafais (Manetho) - clearly Joseph (Usaf-) - and Khasti, “the one of the desert”, or “foreigner”, mark him as: JOSEPH; FOREIGNER FROM THE DESERT; THE ONE WHO BRINGS WATER. I have further identified Joseph with the famous Chancellor of this time: Joseph as Chancellor of Egypt, Hemaka https://www.academia.edu/121954546/Joseph_as_Chancellor_of_Egypt_Hemaka Most recently of all, I believe that I may have found evidence for Joseph’s wife, Asenath: A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph (4) A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph The name is obviously an Egyptian one, whose later element, - nath, pertains to the goddess Neith. The woman in question is the highly important, Ahaneith (wikipedia.org): “Ahaneith was an ancient Egyptian woman, who lived during the First Dynasty of Egypt. She was named after the goddess Neith”. The name Ahaneith is essentially the same name as Asenath, bar one consonantal variation. And she lived at the right Archaïc period for my revised Asenath. Whether or not Merneith of the First Dynasty was also Joseph’s wife, Asenath, under a variant name form I am not able to determine at this stage. What is apparent is that scholars cannot decide between whether she was the wife of Djet or the mother of Den (impossible if Den was Joseph as I am claiming him to have been): https://www.livius.org/articles/person/merneith/ “Queen Merneith lived during Egypt’s Early Dynastic Period and was presumably the great wife of King Djet and mother of King Den. She is named in one of Egypt’s earliest known King Lists, which has led scholars to believe that Merneith may have been a pharaoh in her own right”.

A possible identification of Asenath, the wife of Joseph

by Damien F. Mackey “Ahaneith was an ancient Egyptian woman, who lived during the First Dynasty of Egypt. She was named after the goddess Neith”. wikipedia.org By an enlargement of the Famine Era of the biblical Joseph - as having occurred in the popularly considered (in part due to the Famine Stela) Third Dynasty (Old Kingdom) reign of Horus Netjerikhet, assisted by his sage, Imhotep (Joseph himself) - I have also included Netjerihedjet (known as Mentuhotep II) of the so-called ‘Middle’ Kingdom’s Eleventh Dynasty, he being favoured by some scholars as being Joseph’s Pharaoh. But the Horus name, Netjerihedjet, with its -djet ending, would lead me further to conclude, in my rather fancifully named article: Taking a Djet to Djoser’s Famine (4) Taking a Djet to Djoser's Famine that my composite pharaoh was also king Djet of the Archaïc period’s First Dynasty, apparently, too, a time of “great famine”: “Manetho states that during the reign of [King Djet], there was a great famine but the Palermo Stone, which reports the flood levels of the Nile … is broken precisely in correspondence with the reign of Djet”. Cairo Top Tours Now, during the reign of this pharaoh, Djet (c. 2980 BC, conventional dating), there existed an important woman, Ahaneith, thought to have been either the king’s wife, or the wife of one of his high officials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahaneith “Ahaneith was an ancient Egyptian woman, who lived during the First Dynasty of Egypt. She was named after the goddess Neith. The First Dynasty pharaoh Djet was buried in tomb Z in Umm el-Qa'ab and there is a stele bearing Ahaneith's name in that tomb.[1] The stele is named UC 14268.[2] Whether Ahaneith was the wife of the king, a royal official or a relative of the king, is not known”. I tentatively suggest that Ahaneith was the same woman as Asenath, the wife of Joseph (Genesis 41:45): “Pharaoh gave Joseph the name Zaphenath-Paneah and gave him Asenath daughter of Potiphera, priest of On [Heliopolis], to be his wife”. There may be much more to know about all of this. What would be fitting, though, is the Jewish tradition that Asenath, of Egyptian name, was the daughter of Dinah, the raped daughter of Jacob – for one would expect that the pious Hebrew, Joseph, would have followed his ancestors in marrying a woman of his own race. Here follows the Jewish account of the most intriguing Asenath: https://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/asenath-midrash-and-aggadah Asenath: Midrash and Aggadah by Tamar Kadari …. In Brief There are two approaches to the issue of Asenath’s descent in the Rabbinic texts. One view presents her as an ethnic Egyptian who converted in order to be married to Joseph, joining a series of positive examples of women converts in the Bible. The second approach argues that Asenath was not an Egyptian by descent, but was from the family of Jacob, directed by God to end up in Egypt so that Joseph would find a suitable wife from among the members of his own family. In either case, Asenath is accepted as part of the family and her sons are accepted as worthy descendants by Jacob. …. Asenath as Part of the Family Asenath is mentioned in the Torah as “the daughter of Poti-phera” (Gen. 41:45), who was married to Joseph in Egypt. The Rabbis found it difficult to accept that Joseph, who withstood the wiles of Potiphar’s wife and proclaimed his loyalty to the Lord in the palace of Pharaoh, would marry a non-Israelite woman. The question of Asenath’s origins has significant consequences for the standing within the Israelite tribes of Manasseh and Ephraim, the two sons born to Asenath and Joseph. There are two Rabbinic approaches to the issue of Asenath’s descent. One view presents her as an ethnic Egyptian who converted in order to be married to Joseph. She accepted the belief in the Lord before she was married and raised her children in accordance with the tenets of Judaism. The second approach argues that Asenath was not an Egyptian by descent, but was from the family of Jacob. God directed matters so that she would end up in Egypt, so that Joseph would find a suitable wife from among the members of his own family. Accordingly, Ephraim and Manasseh are worthy descendents, who continue the way of Jacob. Asenath the Convert The traditions that maintain that Asenath was a convert present her as a positive example of conversion, and include her among the devout women converts: Hagar, Zipporah, Shiphrah, Puah, the Daughter Of Pharaoh, Rahab, Ruth and Jael (Midrash Tadshe, Ozar ha-Midrashim [ed. Eisenstein], p. 474). Mackey’s comment: But see my article: Bible critics can overstate idea of ‘enlightened pagan’ (4) Bible critics can overstate idea of 'enlightened pagan' The Rabbis learn from Joseph’s marriage to Asenath that a favorable attitude is to be exhibited to converts, who are to be drawn closer. Thus, Joseph married Asenath daughter of Poti-phera, and Joshua son of Nun, who was a chieftain of the tribe of Ephraim (Num. 13:8), would be descended from this union. The midrash adds that Joseph’s behavior served as an example for both Joshua and David, when they acted charitably with the Gibeonites and drew them closer to Israel (Midrash Samuel [ed. Buber], 28:5, based on Josh. 9 and II Sam. 21:1–9). An additional midrashic dictum notes a number of converts who became members of the families of the righteous leaders of Israel. Thus, Joseph married Asenath, Joshua wed Rahab, Boaz took Ruth for a wife, and Moses married the daughter of Hobab (= Jethro) (Eccl. Rabbah 8:10:1). Asenath the Daughter of Dinah The traditions that trace Asenath to the family of Jacob relate that she was the daughter born to Dinah following her rape by Shechem son of Hamor. Jacob’s sons wanted to kill the infant, lest it be said that there was harlotry in the tents of Jacob. Jacob brought a gold plate and wrote God’s name on it; according to another tradition, he wrote on it the episode with Shechem. Jacob hung the plate around Asenath’s neck and sent her away. God dispatched the angel Michael to bring her to the house of Poti-phera in Egypt; according to yet another tradition, Dinah left Asenath on the wall of Egypt. That day Poti-phera went out for a walk near the wall with his young men, and he heard the infant’s crying. When they brought the baby to him, he saw the plate and the record of the episode. Poti-phera told his servants, “This girl is the daughter of great ones.” He brought her to his home and gave her a wet nurse. Poti-phera’s wife was barren, and she raised Asenath as her own daughter. Consequently, she was called “Asenath daughter of Poti-phera,” for she was raised in the home of Poti-phera and his wife, as if she were their own daughter. This narrative teaches that all is foreseen by God. Each of Jacob’s sons was born together with his future spouse, except for Joseph, who was not born together with his mate, since Asenath daughter of Dinah was fit to be his wife. God directed matters so that Joseph would find a wife when he went down to Egypt, and Asenath was suitable for him (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer [ed. Higger], chaps. 35, 37; Midrash Aggadah [ed. Buber], Gen. 41:45). ….