Wednesday, April 8, 2015

The Instruction of Ptah-hotep: Joseph in Egypt





Taken from: http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d040501.htm




“The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep”



This brings us to consider the author of an early Egyptian work called “The Instruction of the Vizier [the Prime Minister] Ptah-Hotep.” The man who wrote this document of proverbial teaching was so close to the Pharaoh that he was considered Pharaoh’s son — from his own body. This does not necessarily mean that the author was the actual son of the Pharaoh. It is a designation which means that both the author (the Prime Minister) and the Pharaoh were one in attitude, authority, and family. 6
Could this document be a composition of the patriarch Joseph? There are many parallels between what the document says and historical events in Joseph’s life. Indeed, the similarities are so remarkable, that I have the strong feeling that modern man has found an early Egyptian writing from the hand of Joseph himself. Though it is evident that the copies that have come into our possession are copies of a copy (and not the original), it still reflects what the autograph said; in almost every section it smacks of the attitude and temperament of Joseph as revealed to us in the Bible. Let us now look at some of the remarkable parallels.
This Egyptian document is often called “The Oldest Book in the World” and was originally written by the vizier in the Fifth (or Third) Dynasty. The Egyptian name of this vizier (i.e., the next in command to Pharaoh) was Ptah-Hotep. This man was, according to Breasted the “Chief of all Works of the King.” He was the busiest man in the kingdom, all-powerful (only the Pharaoh was over him). He was the chief judge and the most popular man in Pharaoh’s government. 7
The name Ptah-Hotep was a title rather than a proper name, and it was carried by successive viziers of the Memphite and Elephantine governments. The contents of this “Oldest Book” may direct us to Joseph and to the later teachings of Israel.
Notice what this Ptah-Hotep (the second in command in Egypt) had to say of his life on earth. How long did he live? The answer is given in the concluding statement in the document:
“The keeping of these laws have gained for me upon earth 110 years of life, with the gift of the favor of the King, among the first of those whose works have made them noble, doing the pleasure of the King in an honored position.”
  • “The Instruction of Ptah-Hotep,” Precept XLIV
This man, with the title Ptah-Hotep, was one who did great construction works. Joseph was supposed to have done mighty works — traditionally, even the Great Pyramid was built through the dole of grain during the seven years of low Niles. And remember, Joseph also lived 110 years (Genesis 50:26) just as did this Ptah-Hotep. He resembled Joseph in another way.
“If you would be held in esteem in the house wherein you enterest, whether it be that of a ruler, or of a brother, or of a friend, whatever you do enter, beware of approaching the wife, for it is not in any way a good thing to do. It is senseless. Thousands of men have destroyed themselves and gone to their deaths for the sake of the enjoyment of a pleasure which is as fleeting as the twinkling of an eye.”
  • Precept XVIII
Here again we have Joseph! Even though adultery was the common thing in Egypt (thousands of men were doing it), only one uncommon example shines out in its history — that of Joseph. This virtue of Joseph was so strong, that its inclusion into these “Precepts” again may indicate that Joseph had a hand in writing them.
Now look at the beginning of Precept XLIV. Ptah-Hotep says that if the laws of the master were kept, a person’s father will give him a “double good,” i.e., a double portion. Joseph did in fact receive the birthright and with it the “double good” (double blessing, Deuteronomy 21:15–17). This birthright blessing is repeated in Precept XXXIX.
“To hearken [to your father] is worth more than all else, for it produces love, the possession doubly blessed.”
  • Precept XXXIX

Ptah-Hotep Was a Great Man

There is much more that is like Joseph in the document of Ptah-Hotep. Notice Precept XXX:
“If you have become a great man having once been of no account, and if you have become rich having once been poor, and having become the Governor of the City [this exactly fits Joseph’s experience], take heed that you do not act haughtily because you have attained unto a high rank. Harden not your heart because you have become exalted, for you are only the guardian of the goods which God has given to you. Set not in the background your neighbor who is as you were, but make yourself as if he were your equal.”
  • Precept XXX
The instruction above almost sounds as if it came from the Bible itself! The parallel to such high ethical teaching could be an indication that Joseph wrote it. There is also, in these Precepts, an emphasis on obedience, especially to one’s father(s).
“Let no man make changes in the laws of his father; let the same laws be his own lessons to his children. Surely his children will say to him ‘doing your word works wonders.’”
  • Precept XLII
“Surely a good son is one of the gifts of God, a son doing better than he has been told”
  • Precept XLIV
“When a son hearkens to his father, it is a double joy to both, for when these things are told to him, the son is gentle toward his father. Hearkening to him who has hearkened while this was told him, he engraves on his heart what is approved by his father, and thus the memory of it is preserved in the mouth of the living, who are upon earth.”
  • Precept XXXIX
“When a son receives the word of his father, there is no error in all his plans. So instruct your son that he shall be a teachable man whose wisdom will be pleasant to the great men. Let him direct his mouth according to that which has been told him [by his father]; in the teachableness of a son is seen his wisdom. His conduct is perfect, while error carries away him who will not be taught; in the future, knowledge will uphold him, while the ignorant will be crushed.”
  • Precept XL
The emphasis of Ptah-Hotep is that his own greatness depended upon his attendance to the laws of his fathers. He encouraged all others to do the same. This gave him the reason for recording for posterity these basic laws, and he says that these words of his fathers “shall he born without alteration, eternally upon the earth” (Precept XXXVIII).
“To put an obstacle in the way of the laws, is to open the way before violence”
  • Precept V
“The limits of justice are unchangeable; this is a law which everyman receives from his father.
  • Precept V
Some of those teachings are so biblical and right! It could well be a fact that these principles and good teachings came from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are here recorded by Joseph, the one respecting the teachings of his fathers. Notice this Precept:
“The son who receives the word of his father shall live long on account of it.’
  • Precept XXXIX
Compare this with the Fifth Commandment:
“Honor thy father and mother: that the days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God gives you.”
  • Exodus 20:12
Could it be that many of the laws that became a part of the Old Covenant which God made with Israel at the Exodus were known long before — in the times of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? We are told that the early patriarchs knew some of God’s laws (Genesis 26:5).
The biblical agreements, however, do not stop with this reference. They are throughout the work.
“When you are sitting at meat at the house of a person greater than you, ... look at what is before you.”
  • Precept VII
And now, notice Proverbs 23:1. The agreement with the above of Ptah-Hotep is exact.
“When you sit to eat with a ruler, consider diligently what is before you.
  • Proverbs 23:1
Professor Howard Osgood, who translated into English these “Precepts of Ptah-Hotep,” has a note to the one precept mentioned above.
“This passage is found in the Proverbs of Solomon, chapter 23. The Hebrews knew then, if not the whole of the maxims of Ptah-Hotep, at least several of them which have passed into proverbs.”
  • Howard Osgood, Records of the Past 8
Why of course. Many of Solomon’s proverbs were those of ancient men. Solomon nowhere claimed to have originated all his proverbs. On the contrary, he clearly states that many of them were “words of the wise men, and their dark sayings” (Proverbs 1:6). Look at another precept of Ptah-Hotep:
“If you are a wise man, train a son who will be well pleasing to God.”
  • Precept XII
Compare this with Proverbs 22:6:
“Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it.”
  • Proverbs 22:6
Solomon merely recorded many of the proverbs and laws, which were handed down in Israel generation after generation. He, of course, augmented the proverbs but he did not originate them all. In fact, it seems certain that many of them were from Joseph who further recorded for us the teachings of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
But let us go on with the Precepts of this second in command to Pharaoh.
“In doing homage before a greater man than yourself you are doing what is most pleasing unto God.”
  • Precept X
“Labor diligently while you have life, and do even more than you have been commanded to do.”
  • Precept XI
“Neglect not to add to your possessions daily, for diligence increases wealth, but without diligence riches disappear.”
  • Precept XI
“None should intimidate men, for this is the will of God.”
  • Precept VI
“Terrify not men, or God will terrify you.”
  • Precept VI
“If you would be wise, rule your house, and love thy wife wholly and constantly. Fill her stomach and clothe her body [i.e., support her], for these are her necessities; love her tenderly and fulfill all her desire for she is one who confers great reward upon her lord. Be not harsh to her, for she will be more easily moved by persuasion than by force.”
  • Precept XXI
This type of teaching for the husband to his wife seems almost like that of the New Testament. It is very different from the normal beliefs of ancient times.
“Take care of those who are faithful to you, when your affairs are of low estate. Your merit then is worth more than those who have done you honor.”
  • Precept XXXV
“The man who hurries all the day long has not one good moment; but he who amuses himself all day long does not retain his house.”
  • Precept XXV
In other words, work hard but learn to relax as well, do not amuse yourself all the time.
“Treat well your people as it behooves you; this is the duty of those God has favored.”
  • Precept XXII
Continuing, he says that if you have been given a job to do, “never go away, even when thy weariness makes itself felt” (Precept XIII).
“If you are accustomed to an excess of flattery and it becomes an obstacle to your desires, then your feeling is to obey your passions.”
  • Precept XIV
“A man is naturally annoyed by having authority above himself, and he passes his life in being weary of it ... but a man must reflect, when he is fettered by it, that the annoyance of authority is also felt by his neighbor.”
  • Precept XXXI
Or, since authority is necessary, learn to put up with it.
“If you desire that your conduct be good and kept from all evil, beware of all fits of bad temper. This is a sad malady which leads to discord, and there is no more life at all for the one who falls into it. For it brings quarrels between fathers and mothers, as between brothers and sisters; it makes the husband and wife to abhor each other, it contains all wickedness, it encloses all injuries. When a man takes justice for his rule, walks in her ways, and dwells with her, there is no room left for bad temper.”
  • Precept XIX

Ptah-Hotep Was a Great Ruler

There are a great many laws found in this “Oldest Book” which echo over and over the rule of Joseph in Egypt. This man was the chief judge except for Pharaoh throughout the land. Notice Precept XVII:
“If you have the position of a Judge listen to the discourse of the petitioner. Do not ill-treat him; that would discourage him. The way to obtain a true explanation is to listen with kindness.”
  • Precept XVII
“If you have the position of leader prosecuting plans according to your will, do the best things which posterity will remember; so that the word which multiplies flatteries, excites pride and produces vanity shall not succeed with you.”
  • Precept XVI
The next Precept could certainly come from the experiences of Joseph. Notice it:
“Be not puffed up because of the knowledge which you have acquired, and hold converse with unlettered men as with the scholar; for the barriers of art are never closed, no artist has ever possessed the full limit of the knowledge of his art.”
  • Precept II
In other words, no one knows it all, even of his own profession. Even the unlettered may instruct at times.
“If you are in the position of leader, to decide the condition of a large number of men, seek the best way, that your own position may be without reproach.”
  • Precept V
“Do not speak to the great man more than he asks, for one does not know what might displease him. Speak when he invites you to do so, and your word will please.”
  • Precept VII
And finally:
“As to the great man [i.e., the ruler, master or Pharaoh] who has behind him the means of existence, his line of conduct is as he wishes. But as this means of existence is under the will of God, nothing [not even the great man] can revolt against that.”
  • Precept VII

Conclusion

The foregoing has been a selection of the remarkable precepts of this vizier. And, amazingly, throughout this document there is complete agreement to Bible principles. No paganism is found within it. The name Osiris is found once when Ptah-Hotep said that no laws had been changed since the time of Osiris. See Precept V. 9 There is hardly anything wrong with that passage.
The only possible objection is found in Precept XLII where we find: “A son who hearkens, is like a follower of Horus; he is happy because he has hearkened.” The fact is, the name Horus became a general title for all kings of Egypt. The Horus-name was applied to Pharaohs. Even Joseph possessed it! The name Horus in this passage is not necessarily a reference to the personal Horus of the First Dynasty. The monotheistic contents of these Precepts of Ptah-Hotep predominate. The Horus name is merely a title and does not reflect paganistic tendencies. Even names like “Ptah-Hotep” or like “Im-Hotep” were normally titles that could refer to people like Joseph. Note (in the comparison below) the remarkable literary agreements. 10
All indications are that the narrative about Ptah-Hotep appears to be referring to the biblical character we know as Joseph. Understand that non-biblical works may have had mistaken or untrue elements added to the narrative. Thus, they may not 100% correspond to the biblical narrative. However, that does not seem to be the case with Ptah-Hotep. Below are some side-by-side comparisons between Ptah-Hotep and Joseph.
Ptah-Hotep Precepts
:
Joseph’s History 
(1)    He lived to be 110 years old (XLIV). (1)     He lived to be 110 years old (Genesis 50:26).
(2)    He lived in the Third Dynasty. 11 (2)     The Third Dynasty saw seven years of low Niles.
(3)    The name Ptah-Hotep was a title of all Memphite viziers, those second in command to Pharaoh himself. 12 (3)     Joseph was second in command to Pharaoh. He was the vizier, as all scholars admit (Genesis 41).
(4)    Ptah-Hotep was the chief judge in ancient Egypt but had been raised to the highest office (XXX).  (4)     Pharaoh required all Egyptians to submit to the judgeship of Joseph (Genesis 41:41–44).
(5)    Ptah-Hotep was once of no account in Egypt but had been elevated to the Prime Ministership (XXX). (5)     Joseph was raised from the dungeon to sit on the very throne of Pharaoh (Genesis 41:14, 41–44).
(6)    Out of thousands who went into their neighbor’s wives, Ptah-Hotep did not, and taught people not to do so (XVIII). (6)     Joseph refused to submit to the advances of his master’s wife (Genesis 39).
(7)    Ptah-Hotep received from his father divine laws; even one of the Ten Commandments was quoted (XXXIX). (7)     Joseph was taught the divine laws from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Genesis 26:5).
(8)    Ptah-Hotep was a monotheist. No idolatry is mentioned. (8)     Joseph believed only in the God of Israel, not idols.
(9)    Many of Ptah-Hotep’s teachings went directly into the Bible especially Proverbs. 13 (9)     Solomon quoted from the ancient wise men of Israel and copied their teachings and proverbs (Proverbs 1:6).
(10)  Ptah-Hotep received a double possession from his father because of his obedience (XXXIX and XLIV). (10)   Joseph likewise received the birthright the double possession (1 Chronicles 5:2).
(11)  Ptah-Hotep warns those of advanced knowledge, such as he had, to shun being puffed up (II). (11)   There was none considered wiser in all the land of Egypt than Joseph (Genesis 41:39), but he was also humble (Genesis 45:15).
(12)  Ptah-Hotep was the first in Egypt whose great public works made him famous. (XLIV) (12)   Joseph, traditionally, built the Great Pyramid, the Labyrinth, the canal system of Egypt, and many other great public works.

Wednesday, December 17, 2014

Part Three: (Narmer) Naram Sin as Amraphel








by


Damien F. Mackey


 


 


When Amraphel was king of Shinar, Arioch king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer king of Elam and Tidal king of Goyim, these kings went to war against Bera king of Sodom, Birsha king of Gomorrah, Shinab king of Admah, Shemeber king of Zeboyim, and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar). All these latter kings joined forces in the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea).
 


[Genesis 14:1-3]


 


 


Introduction


 


So far in this series I have - after having rejected a long-held view that equated the biblical “Amraphel” with the famous Hammurabi:


 


Amraphel King of Shinar” Was Not King Hammurabi



 




 


been able, in:


 


Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham


 




 


and in:


 


Narmer a Contemporary of Patriarch Abraham.


Part Two: Narmer as Naram Sin.


 




 


to set the Patriarch Abram archaeologically in relation to the early dynastic period of Egypt - {very likely the era of Hor-Aha, “Menes”} - that also controlled southern Canaan, and that existed very close to the time of the enigmatic Narmer. The latter I have tentatively identified with the world-conquering Naram Sin of Akkad. And this synchronisation of early dynastic Egypt with Akkad accords very well with Dr. Albright’s insistence that the mighty lord of Magan, “Manium”, whom Naram Sin boasted of having conquered, was the legendary pharaoh Menes of Egypt himself.


 


The question now becomes: Can my composite Narmer = Naram Sin also be identified with the biblical “Amraphel … king of Shinar” of Genesis 14:1?   


 


Location of Akkad


 


Creationist Anne Habermehl has set things in a completely new direction in her:


 


Where in the World Is the Tower of Babel?


 




 


by convincingly re-identifying the biblical ‘land of Shinar’, generally considered to have been the same as ‘Sumer’ (southern Mesopotamia), with the Sinjar region of NE Syria. This important geographical revision of hers has provided researchers with a new opportunity to identify the as yet un-located capital city of Akkad.


Habermehl’s own suggestion for Akkad is the most ancient site of Tell Brak, which was certainly of great significance for the Akkad dynasty, and for Naram Sin. M. van de Mieroop for example, who assumes the general view that the modern site, Tell Brak, is ancient Nagar, tells (A History of the Ancient Near east. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, pp. 63-64):


 


In Syria the Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At Nagar (modern Tell Brak), a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin. Its character - military or administrative - cannot be established, however.


 


[End of quote]


 


Such a location, rather than Sumer, would have given Naram Sin at least a geographically more central and proximate base for his foray against Egypt – whether or not (probably the latter) he had actually succeeded in completely subduing that land.


The geography of the kingdom Amraphel, too, as a ruler of “Shinar”, would likewise be thus affected.


 


Connection with Elam


 


The country of Elam is most important in any consideration of the biblical Amraphel, because of the predominance in the Genesis 14 coalition of “Chedorlaomer king of Elam”. For, after the introduction to the coalition in Genesis 14:1, in which Amraphel of Shinar seems to be given predominance, Chedorlaomer of Elam, after that, apparently takes centre stage (vv. 5-9):


 


For twelve years they had been subject to Kedorlaomer, but in the thirteenth year they rebelled.


In the fourteenth year, Kedorlaomer and the kings allied with him went out and defeated the Rephaites in Ashteroth Karnaim, the Zuzites in Ham, the Emites in Shaveh Kiriathaim and the Horites in the hill country of Seir, as far as El Paran near the desert. Then they turned back and went to En Mishpat (that is, Kadesh), and they conquered the whole territory of the Amalekites, as well as the Amorites who were living in Hazezon Tamar.


Then the king of Sodom, the king of Gomorrah, the king of Admah, the king of Zeboyim and the king of Bela (that is, Zoar) marched out and drew up their battle lines in the Valley of Siddim against Kedorlaomer king of Elam, Tidal king of Goyim, Amraphel king of Shinar and Arioch king of Ellasar—four kings against five.


 


The ‘Battle of Siddim’, as it is called, between these two coalitions of powerful kings took place, of course, in the fertile Valley of Siddim. But then we find this quite differently rendered topographically, in brackets, as the Dead Sea “(that is, the Dead Sea)”.


The explanation for this seeming anomaly is provided in


 


The "Toledoths" of Genesis


 




 


according to which editor Moses later geographically updated for his people the various patriarchal toledôt. In this particular case: “the Valley of Siddim (that is, the Dead Sea)”, the toledôt is that of Ishmael (Genesis 25:12): “These are the generations of Ishmael”.


Now, continuing with Elam, we find that it was of such singular importance at the time of the Akkadian, Naram Sin, for van de Mieroop to say  of it (op. cit., p. 63, emphasis added):


 


… the local rulers were referred to with Sumerian titles, such as governor (ensi) or general (shagina), which imply a full dependence on the kings of Akkad. On the other hand, the rulers of Susa retained some degree of authority. Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin's enemies as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated.


[End of quote]


 


Powerful Elam at this time, far from being subservient to the Akkadian rulers, like most were, was ‘autonomous’ - but fighting alongside Akkad against the latter’s enemies. And this is exactly the situation that we encounter with the strong king Chedorlaomer (a name probably equating to Elamite Kudur-Lagmur) in his association with Amraphel.


 


Arioch and Tidal


 


As for the two other coalitional kings listed in Genesis 14:1, “Arioch king of Ellasar”, and “Tidal king of Goyim”, these were likely of secondary status by comparison with Amraphel and Chedorlaomer, and may thus have been only local rulers, e.g., ensi-governors.


H. Storck has made some potentially important observations regarding these two characters, Erioch and Tidal, in his article, “The Early Assyrian King List, The Genealogy of the Hammurapi Dynasty, and the ‘Greater Amorite’ Tradition” (C and AH Proceedings 3, 1986). Here I reproduce a summary I made of the relevant parts of this article back in 2002:


 


Storck’s identification of the name 16 [in Assyrian King List: AKL], Ushpia (Ishbak), with the “Ushpia ... known to have built at Ashur, according to a later tradition by Shalmaneser”, and his dating of this Ushpia “as a later contemporary of Abraham ... [to] the later part of Ur III dynasty” now encourages me to try to identify members of the Mesopotamian coalition of Genesis 14 during Ur III, at the time of Abraham. Since Storck has already dealt with these four kings in part, I shall begin where he does, with Arioch of Ellasar [p. 45. Storck had already noted, with reference to Poebel, that the name Azarah might be composed of a Western Semitic (WS) form, “to come forth” and WHR “moon” (month)]:


 


A certain Arioch of Ellasar, furthermore, is cited as one of the four kings against five. This Arioch may provisionally be identified with Azarah if “WRH” moon (month) is closer to the original etymology. Ellasar has received various treatments over the years: Larsa al sarri or “city of the King”, Til Assuri, “the country of Assyria” and/or “the city of Assur ....The connection between Ellasar is explained as a derived form of A LA-SAR, an ideogram denoting the city of Assyria” .... That “Assur” is meant here may receive further support if the connection with Arioch-Azarah is defensible. However, to the best of our knowledge A LA SAR is not an attested reading for Assur. We therefore suggest that it was heard as “alu Assur” and “Ellasar” is an attempt to render this, based on oral transmission.


 


Now in the later part of the Ur III dynasty era - the era for Abraham according to Storck’s view - at the time of Amar-Sin of Ur (c. 2046-2038 BC, conventional dating), we read of an official of Ashur who may well be this Arioch/Azarah. He is Zariqum. I quote regarding him from the Cambridge Ancient History [Vol. I, pt. 2 (3rd ed.), p. 602]:


 


From Ashur itself comes a stone tablet dedicated by Zariqum, calling himself governor of Ashur, 'for the life of Amar-Sin the mighty, king of Ur, king of the four regions', whereby it is certain that Ashur was a vassal-city of Ur under its next king.


 


The name Zariqum contains the main elements of both Arioch (ariq) and Azarah (zari), thus supporting Storck’s view that these are the same names, and further linking the king lists and the Bible.


But this quotation may tell us more with regard to the coalition. It in fact gives us the name of the Sumerian ruler whom Zariqum served: Amar-Sin (var. Amar-Su’en).


 


When I wrote this, with Storck’s research well in mind, I was working along the lines that Amraphel the biblical king of Shinar was actually one of the Ur III potentates, not an Akkadian ruler.


And I also considered then that the best candidate for Abram’s “Pharaoh” was one Khety III of the 10th Egyptian dynasty, and not Hor-Aha. (More on this below, see section “Khety III”).


And so I concluded in relation to Amraphel:


 


Now Amar-Sin would make an excellent candidate for Amraphel of Shinar of Genesis 14. Basically the names are the same with a different theophoric, the god El in the biblical name replaced by the moon god, Sin. Amar-Sin was a mighty king of Shinar, belonging to the very era in which Storck has placed Abraham in relation to Mesopotamia. And I happily note that the conventional Mesopotamian dates for Amar-Sin (c. 2000 BC) correspond adequately enough to those usually estimated for Abram’s early dwelling in Canaan.


A third coalitional king was Tidal. Storck identifies this with name 1, Tudija, in AKL [op. cit., pp. 45-46]:


 


... Tid’al. This name is intended to represent the form Tudkhalia ... a Hittite name, although specific identity with one of the four Hittite kings by this name cannot be suggested. That Tid’al is but a contracted form of Tudkhalia is almost universally accepted and offers no major linguistic problems. Tudija is also a contraction or hypocoristicon of some longer name .... As such it would probably constitute the Vorlage/(pattern) of Tudkhalia.


 


Ebla seems also to refer to this name, as if belonging to a real historical person [Collier’s Encyclopedia Vol. 8, “Ebla”, Collier Inc. NY, p. 501]:


 


The tablets, for example, refer to a treaty between Ebla and King Dudiya of Ashur, or Assyria. A nearly identical name, Tudiya, is the first name on the Assyrian king lists .... Most likely both sources refer to the same person. Therefore, it appears that Tudiya ... and the other early Assyrian kings were real figures, a fact that scholars had previously doubted.


[End of quotes]


 


Khety III


 


Though I have, in this present series, opted for Hor-Aha (Menes) as the “Pharaoh” of Abram, I have nevertheless persevered, too, with the possibility of my earlier view, that that “Pharaoh” may have been Khety III (c. 2100 BC, conventional dating). See my:


 


Connecting the Biblical Patriarchs to Ancient Egypt


 




 


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


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


  


There is a somewhat obscure incident in 10th dynasty history, associated with pharaoh Wahkare Khety III and the nome of Thinis, that may possibly relate to the biblical incident [of Pharaoh and Abram’s wife]. It should be noted firstly that Khety III is considered to have had to restore order in Egypt after a general era of violence and food shortage, brought on says N. Grimal by “the onset of a Sahelian climate, particularly in eastern Africa” [A History of Ancient Egypt, Blackwell, 1994, p. 139]. Moreover, Khety III’s “real preoccupation was with northern Egypt, which he succeeded in liberating from the occupying populations of Bedouin and Asiatics” [ibid., p. 145]. Could these eastern nomads have been the famine-starved Syro-Palestinians of Abram’s era - including the Hebrews themselves - who had been forced to flee to Egypt for sustenance? And was Khety III referring to the Sarai incident when, in his famous Instruction addressed to his son, Merikare, he recalled, in regard to Thinis (ancient seat of power in Egypt):


 


Lo, a shameful deed occurred in my time:


The nome of This was ravaged;


Though it happened through my doing,


I learned it after it was done.


[Emphasis added].


 


Cf. Genesis 12:17-19:


 


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


So Pharaoh called Abram, and said,


‘What is this you have done to me?


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


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


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





As for any possible connection between Abram, Amraphel, and the Ur III dynasty, I had gone right away from my earlier enthusiasm for it, having become convinced that both the Ur III dynasty, and the Akkadian one, had need of being brought well down the time scale beyond the era of Abra[ha]m. It was only recently, with D. Petrovich’s interesting connection of the biblical Nimrod (ostensibly a much older contemporary of Abraham) with Sargon of Akkad:


 


Identifying Nimrod of Genesis 10 with Sargon of Akkad by Exegetical and Archaeological Means


 




 


that I had cause to apply my revisionist brakes, enabling for a return to the possibility of contemporaneity between this approximate period of history and Abram. And from there I proceeded tentatively to identify Narmer with Naram Sin, and then the latter’s Egyptian foe, “Manium”, as Hor-Aha “Menes” (following Dr. Albright).





Ur III Dynasty


 


Now, with the central focus of the Akkad dynasty moved right away from Sumer, to the Sinjar region of NE Syria (thanks to Habermehl), can there be any potential for identifying the significant, but largely unheralded (by later Mesopotamians), Ur III dynasty, with that of the most celebrated dynasty of Akkad – with, say, Amar Sin, who I had previously estimated to be “an excellent candidate for Amraphel of Shinar of Genesis 14”, now to be identified with my already composite Naram Sin (= Narmer) /Amraphel?


 


That intriguing consideration of a possible merging of Akkad and Ur III will be the subject of my next article.