In The Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian Literature
A Reconstruction
|
In The Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian Literature
|
|
Introduction
|
Solving a puzzle requires certain orderliness.Solving common cardboard box picture puzzles requires following simple rules.First, find and separate all the edges of the puzzle pieces. Put the rest aside. Second, use color and/or picture clues to assemble the outside border. This step gives the size of the complete puzzle. Thirdly, try to use some obvious clues to assemble some of the items in the picture. Most puzzle solvers go for the faces and hands if any are portrayed. Others separate the blue sky pieces and put the other pieces aside until the sky part is finished. When a few people are working together, they usually choose the section closest to them on the table to work on. In the case of a blank puzzle, or some type of op-art or perhaps lace, or grass, a different approach seems better. When the image is a boring uniformity, the solver must work with a more tedious method. First, of course, the outside edges are finished. Then individual pieces must be fitted into the four borders, the edge or frame of the puzzle one at a time. After the original pile of pieces has gone thru the tryouts, hopefully, additional pieces are positioned. In other words the clues usually given in the picture have not been helpful. Then each piece may be tried all along the inside edges, one at a time. The entire pile of pieces must be handled again. And again. Finally, all the pieces should fit. Often a puzzle of a larger type appears unannounced and is recognized as such. Problems then emerge in assessing the discovery and whether if is worth solving. One such example involves archaeology in ancient Egypt. Some searchers working on a pylon, a part of a temple, discovered that the interior filler rubble had once been another structure. The broken disassembled bricks had an obvious mural on one side of the bricks. The bricks, called talatats, were each a size to be carried by one man. A lot of moving work compared to those little cardboard pieces. Not to worry, all the brick pieces were laid out on the ground, mural side face up. A photo-computer guy then made copies of each block, size and color uniform. Then indexers key worded the images on the blocks: two feet facing left, yellow garment above, flutes, long hair, faces facing right or horse legs facing left, a duck's wing in lower left, etc, etc. Using a uniform list of detailed descriptors, solvers could look at all the images with the same keywords. Each piece that matched another was noted, accession numbers linked. Then the larger assemblages could also be juggled (so to speak) on the computer, until a coherent image emerged. However, many missing pieces prevented a complete reassembly. The gaps noted and partly reconstructed, allowed the original building to be reconstructed. Modern mortar and cement filled the gaps. Problem solved. The result: an old building recovered. This small structure came from the reign of Sesostris I (Senusret I). This "White Chapel", reconstructed by Henri Chevrier in the Open Air Museum at Karnak, had helped celebrate the king's sed festival (Jubilee) in his 30th regnal year. The blocks had been reused in ancient times to build the third Pylon at Karnak. Perhaps the original chapel had been “temporary” for one-time use, or perhaps the memory of Sesostris I had been somehow deemed less important than the need for some useful rubble. However, a modern controversy shadowed the job. Archaeologists have different standards, ethics and motives. Some suggest that the broken items should not be repaired. Consider the large Abu Simbal set of four large statues that were moved up a cliff to avoid being covered by a dam flood. One of the statues of the seated king cracked off and fell down. The modern movers lifted the entire large ancient structure but chose to keep the broken statue broken. A very strange outcome. Is this based on ethics, or on some other occupational standard? Other scholars recover shattered items and reassemble them. They carefully fill in the missing gaps with modern parts so the viewer is not disturbed by the restoration. A third view offers a compromise. Reassemble, but leave the modern parts marked as modern. Usually, a different color or a dent showing the modern parts as being in the background. Enhancements only. No great elaborations allowed. A fourth way, very popular and much less work, uses modern computer graphic technology to completely reconstruct the broken buildings, statues and tombs. All the colors can be applied and the virtual images recovered to the thrill of the viewer. Actual reconstruction work does not have to be done. And arguments can be avoided. However, holding deterioration of the very ancient objects to a minimum causes more controversy. How much maintenance should be applied? How many 3000 year old items should be protected from further aging? Another controversial problem involving puzzle solutions is ownership. Who decides if a puzzle actually exists? Who owns the puzzle? Who owns the pieces? Who rules on which solutions are acceptable? In the case of ancient literature, who holds the copyright? Who is in charge of translations? Meanings? Luckily it is a free-for-all. Choose your own problem; work on your own solution. See if anyone salutes. See how many credentialed scholars who disagree, fall into apoplexy, or ignore the 800 pound gorilla in their small room. Notice if any scholars realize that their theories have been smashed. This becomes very interesting in the case of matching Biblical events with Egyptian literature. This problem/puzzle of Moses in Egyptian history has not yet been solved. Many scholars offer conflicting theories. None have been universally recognized as being the indisputable solution. Most modern theories reduce Moses and the Exodus to being minor or mythical. Or say that since Moses never actually existed, no solution is required. There is no puzzle to be solved, many announce. These scholars fall into the category called minimalists. They usually consider the maxima lists (usually literal fundamentalists) to be intellectually inferior and worthy of kindness and sympathy (at best). The superior group argues (discuss?) ancient language, translations, and true meanings ad infinitum. None seem to accept that the Bible offers discussions with God, horrendous disasters, prophecy, angels, spirits, miracles, rules for life involving paybacks, and life after death. These items must be explained away as poetic license (fiction) and exaggeration which had been written as a way to control the (dumb) believers, min scholars insist. The maxs go to the opposite position. No natural explanations accepted, no modern scientific explanations needed to "explain" those inexplicable events. Many writers love to "explain" the ten plagues with modern scientific explanations. No miracles here, either. Are there any scholars "in between" both extremes? What is the average reader to do? Is there any way to understand at least some of the historic events described in the Bible without going to extreme? Why hasn't anyone discovered an Egyptian verification for at least the existence of the great Egyptian Hebrew leader, Moses? Many (uncredentialed) researchers ignore the maxes and mins as irrelevant. They prefer the Indiana Jones approach (to the dismay of the "real" scholars). These renegades trudge on looking for Noah's ark, the Ark of the Covenant, Solomon's mines, the site of the Red Sea crossing, the drowned pharaoh’s chariot army, the real Mt. Sinai or any other objects. I like the guys who claim to have found Noah's Ark, and a recent book celebrates the work of those who snuck into Saudi Arabia to find the path of the Red Sea crossing. They provide beautiful underwater photos of sunken Egyptian chariots. (Both Indiana Jones types Ron Fasold and Ron Wyatt have recently died, but the internet keeps their controversial work alive.) Lots of stuff should be out there for the intrepid treasure hunters who ignore the hoots of the debunkers. Readers, TV viewers, producers all love those Biblical mysteries, those treasure hunts. This is great stuff. Mainstream magazines report circulation jumps of up to 35% when Biblical characters grace their covers. Likewise movies. "The Ten Commandments" seems to be the holiday favorite, the "most realistic" version of the Moses saga. Mel Gibson's "Passion of the Christ" dominated the media for some time. Dan Brown's "Da Vinci Code" also grabs quite a bit of attention. There is a public hunger for more finds, more actual discoveries, more results, despite the groans of ancient religion and/or history specialists. And Egypt also attracts fans. Any discovery usually makes the New York Times. History and religion seem to be the favorite topics. Popular modern New Age believers and (gasp) UFO buffs link their ideas to some of the Bible characters and powers. Are angels really space aliens? Can modern psychics call up the dead as did the ancient biblical witches? Can modern weirdos see the future as did the Biblical prophets? The real scholars shake their heads at the stupidity of the masses (usually women). Scholars have to draw the line somewhere. They cannot accept modern crackpots as being at least partly similar to the ancient Biblical crackpot (?) seers. The easiest way is to deny claims that dreams can be interpreted, that angels are real, that prayers work, that miracles have been given. Apparently modern camps divide into whackos and debunkers. Min and max, black and white, no gray at all. But even well-educated scientist scholars have endured the wrath of ensconced scholars. Despite the educational establishment's derision of dogma, many (most, all?) tenured scholars have hardened themselves into being dogmatists themselves. Consider the storm of derision that hit Velikovsky. Scholars still choke at the sound of his name. And just what did he do to so offend them? He flashed a few ideas that American readers loved. He bypassed the requirement of getting approval from whomever he should have gotten approval from. He offered ideas outside of the box (which is supposed to be a good thing nowadays). Velikovsky suggested quite a few radical ideas in his best sellers, "Worlds in Collision," "Earth in Upheaval," and "Ages in Chaos." He also wrote "Oedipus and Akhnaton" to counter Freud's "Moses and Monotheism" in which Moses was identified as Akhnaton. Among Velikovsky's shocking theories, the most notable, is that a comet came close to the earth, and is recorded in history as the Passover. He elaborated that the comet, almost the same size as the earth, had been predictable and recurrent. Later Mars knocked the comet into a non-threatening orbit and it became Venus. At the time, during the 1950s, comets that threaten the earth seemed totally unlikely, ridiculous in fact. Recently, however, a comet crater found near the Yucatan apparently caused the extermination of the dinosaurs 65 million years ago. No big deal to the scientists, (a much bigger deal to the dinosaurs). Was it the size of the comet, smaller than Velikovsky's comet, which allowed scientific acceptance? Or was it the time, 65 million years ago, rather than Velikovsky's historic era, about 4000 years ago? Millions of years seem less threatening than thousands of years? Smaller comets less threatening than disorder in the solar system? Or did Velikovsky just irritate the establishment with his overviews, his overexhuberant, discipline-crossing discoveries. Just who the hell did he think he was? Ordained chief debunker Carl Sagan became famous presenting the "true" scenario, the dogma of uniformitarianism on the earth and in space. This theory of uniformitarianism also keeps people calm with nature's orderliness. The same situation settles the minds with Darwin's theory of the survival of the fittest, (not the luckiest). Modern "high priests" of knowledge like to keep order, no unexplainable, no unexpected events, nothing outside the box. No unreasonable uproar, no major controversies. Damn outside theories with ridicule or with silence. Scholars just don't like catastrophes. Not even if the Bible lists a series of horrendous events. Those events must not have been so bad, they suggest. Or those ancients exaggerated. Or the disasters just covered a small minor territory. Not to worry, the earth is pretty safe, except for the polluters, of course. The Bible is just a bunch of myths, fictions anyway. One can really understand the establishment hatred showered on Velikovsky. He started it. He said they were wrong, asleep at the wheel. Who wants a loyal scholarly life's work thrown in the trash by some interloper? So sad. Not only did the scholars arrive at wrong conclusions (or no conclusions), but their methods also failed. Velikovsky said that many conventional theories, historic and/or scientific, are just plain wrong, wrong methods, wrong results. Many of Velikovsky's theories about Venus have slowly become acknowledged as scientific fact, with no attribution given to Velikovsky, not even a footnote. As for the Biblical theories, and why Moses has not yet been identified in Egyptian history, Velikovsky just said the Egyptian chronologies are just plain wrong. Recently, much speculation involves new theories "correcting" ancient chronologies. Google offers many versions. Dendrochronology, volcanic evidence, sediment in old lakes, spur (outside the box) research. Carbon dating and Sothic dating are on the run. New results continue. There seems to be a scrambling for better results, scientific results. Conventional chronologies indeed have been declared suspect. Velikovsky offered a methodology that historians seem to ignore. He suggested that historic events, both Biblical and Egyptian, should be matched one for one. He offered a puzzle solving system of orderliness. Unfortunately, he died before he could actually solve the matching of Moses' events with the events recorded in Egyptian history. Researcher, Donovan Courville, worked on the contradictory and confusing Egyptian chronologies and produced a 2 vol book: “The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications.” He offers a reconstruction of the chronologies allowing for parallel reigns in Egypt. His version puts the Exodus at the end of the Twelfth Egyptian Dynasty, somewhat upholding Velikovsky’s scenario. Historians seem to want scientific certainty. They rely on broken pottery found in layers of dirt. They assume similar pottery styles in similar layers gives all sorts of scientific (historic) information about the pottery makers. They construct chronologies based on these layers and try to connect them to other nearby lands and peoples. They try carbon 14 dating, which only gives a range of dates, and which can be wrong due to some contamination. Some now try archaeo astronomy looking for absolute dates. Sothic dating, however, seems to be falling into disfavor lately. Others link volcanoes, specifically the Thera/Santorini event, to a date for the Exodus Passover. Still others try tree ring counting, dendrochronology, looking for weak rings which suggest disasters with absolute dates. A few dates seem to offer promise: The five harshest environmental events showing in the dendrochronology records are events at 2354-2345 BC, 1628-1623 BC, 1159-1141 BC, 208-204 BC. Linking these dates to some of the Bible's catastrophes seems to offer some possible fruitful results. Conventional chronologies are now being reassessed. Hopefully some reasonable reconstructions will emerge. However science can provide very little help in the realm of literature. Possibly some computer programs can assist in translations, but will offer results only as good as the original program and/or programmer. God forbid!!: except for those "Bible Code" scholars! These searchers seem to have mathematical computer programs that provide "secret" or "hidden" messages in the text of the Torah, the first five books of the Bible. They arrange the individual letters of the Torah text in grids, no spaces between words, and count a suggested number between letters (called equidistant letter skips or ELS). They run certain names or words in thru the computer and come up with crossword style grouping of words about the original name that seem to offer relevant information. Freaky. Some debunkers claim the same power from perhaps "Moby Dick" ELS searches. However, the "Moby Dick" words seem much less elaborate, just random, no relevant meanings. Many scholars try to ignore the phenomena. Who composed the Torah? God? Moses? Or a space alien with a computer? What is the world of Biblical research coming too?) So using an apparent scientific computer method opens a can of worms that establishment scholars certainly groan about. Another nightmare for the scholars is the New Agers. Specifically, Edgar Cayce fans. Despite the entire Bible claiming to be the record of "prophets," modern scholars ignore, deny or try to explain away any non-rational stuff in the Bible. Horrors that a modern person, such as Cayce, has some of the powers that some of the Biblical ancients had. Calling the stuff modern "trash” indeed reflects their opinion of the ancient "trash" also. Certainly none of the rational scientific methods or approaches will ever lead to any proof that the ancients actually had spirituality, or any psychic or extraordinary abilities. The ancients were merely humble shepherds, bumpkins, superstitious to the extreme. Any modern "scholar" who even mentions the name Cayce earns more scorn than even the anathematized name, Velikovsky, brings. How much more so that both names be used in the same puzzle solution. Crap, no need to read any more. Any actual success coming from the use of any ideas from those two tainted sources will be total coincidence unworthy of any consideration or examination. If the solution proves to be actually correct, that is, Moses is found and identified, it will be only a fluke worthy of being ignored or debunked anyway. Who cares if the reconstruction withstands scrutiny? Attack the credentials of the scrutinizers! Consider a boiling pot of water. What is it? One could ask. One answer could be: a flame causing confined water to become heated. While another answer could be: someone is making some tea. Likewise many modern scholars apparently fall into the "flame causing water to be heated" group of the puzzled. The opposition view: Why… gives the apparent answer to so-called "believers in God." Choosing "What" or "Why" questions give the anticipated answers even before the evidence is even considered. The group looking at the boiling water, who ignore the tea answer, can go on infinitely (how hot? what is the fuel? Where did the water come from? Has there been other similar cases? What languages describe the phenomena? Have there been any records about the pot? How much did it cost? Who bought it?) Missing the boat chasing red herrings, this group seems pretty noisy. However, they do work hard, and often come up with interesting tidbits, but never any real answers. Moving right along, back to Moses, the Egyptian puzzle chosen to be solved (more or less) by this author. In my previous book, "Moses in the Twelfth Dynasty Egyptian Literature: a Reconstruction" I told the story. I claim the story/reconstruction to be a "discovery" NOT a fictional novel. Of course I have provided elaborate modern "mortar", so to speak, to reconstruct the "blocks" of Egyptian stories that I claim are historic. They tell of real people and real events, despite some being somewhat poetic, symbolic and subtle. The mortar that I provided, I hope, made the story connected, coherent, entertaining and readable. Most of the mortar I provided offered dialog and a bit of background color. I assume that any reasonable reader will be able to distinguish between flowery elaboration and actual events, such as murder. If the reader cannot distinguish easily, perhaps it is because the ancient literature is not as well known, or as popular as the Biblical stories are with modern readers. Literature and literary criticism causes all sorts of problems. The "puzzle" aspect comes to the fore. Biblical scholars, indeed any Bible reader, come upon many problems, most not about translation. What does the Bible say? What does it mean? Why are there apparent contradictions? Who is in charge of explanations? Again, it is a free-for-all. Choose your puzzle, come up with your own solution. Or read the books written by scholars of your choice. They really do a lot of work. However, with the Egyptian stories other problems emerge. These Twelfth Dynasty stories have only been discovered and translated within the last two hundred years. The Rosetta stone "puzzle" solved by Champollian, opened the way to read those hieroglyphs. So there is not a long history of interpretation and dissection, as is with the Bible. And those previously unread Egyptian stories are "pure" that is, they have not been "edited" and/or corrected by later revisionists. If they are propagandistic, they were originally written as propaganda. The fact that opposition versions describing some of the same events still both survive implies a relative "freedom of the press" back at the time. However, of course, much may have been destroyed such as that small chapel which was disassembled and used for filler for a later structure. We just can't assume that "all" the puzzle pieces have been located. But multiple copies of most of the Twelfth Dynasty tales have been recovered, which conveys a certain security that the documents were important enough to be copied many times. A good example, "The Story of Sinuhe" exists in multiple. Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner compiled some of the versions in his "Notes on The Story of Sinuhe." He copied the originals in parallel and then translated a composite quite elegant version into English (with a proper British accent). Some of the original versions differed slightly, were longer, or had minor variations (or a major variation by the “Scribe of B” which was important in my reconstruction.) Another security links all the Twelfth Dynasty texts by time period. They all basically cover the same period, which seems to link them together as being indeed puzzle pieces of a greater unified saga. Similar to those bricks found with parts of a mural from a single structure. Pieces found together probably belong together. Linking each story with the next story reveals an inner consistency and offers not only a coherent chronology about the individual characters, but also a precise match with events in the Moses saga. Matching each described event in both sources following the chronological path provides enough congruence that both the Bible and the Twelfth Dynasty stories can be said to be telling the same saga. Because the Egyptian tales have escaped the over-analysis given to the Bible since the beginning, they have not been seen as coherent and/or connected unless the connections are very obvious. Some of the tales seem to be partial, that is, the ending is missing. Some of the strange events in the stories have led many scholars to surmise that they are merely entertainment. (The same assumption calls the Genesis Joseph saga a "novella".) Indeed, the often extreme Egyptian stylization, puns, unknown language implications, and blatant and/or subtle omissions, defy most scholars. What do these tales tell? What are they talking about? Cautious to a fault, modern scholars fail to jump to any rash conclusions, unlike this author who provides a real jumpy jumping scenario. The reader can be the judge as to the accuracy of the reconstruction. The purpose of this book parallels that of the original book: finding Moses in ancient Egyptian history. However, this version will use each Egyptian tale and explain it's relation to the Bible, Moses and to other contemporary Egyptian tales. Because each tale is different, each offers different problems. Putting the tales in a sort of coherent chronology remains confusing because each may refer backwards and offer a "forward" prophecy. Others give individual significant events that have to be fitted into a sequence. Others give overviews that give a beginning to ending of a biography with a companion overview written in as a flowery apologia, which overlaps other stories. This effort is not to be confused with something simple. It is complex and offers dual Egyptian opposition views. Consider a grandiose opera with several voices competing for attention, but all singing parts of the same saga. [Back to Top] AuthorshipA major question/problem rises when addressing the Bible and the Egyptian tales: who wrote the stuff? Moses wrote the Bible tradition declares. But what about those four strains? Many scholars claim the pentateuch was written by four anonymous authors or groups of authors generally referred to as J, E, P and D, and later redacted perhaps by Ezra who lived at the time of Solomon. Again refer to an operatic version, duets, trios, harmony, disharmony. Perhaps troubadours, popular singers, sang the sagas, added enhancements, deleted (or forgot) some parts or learned from older or younger source singers. However, an original written version may have also been composed early on. This later "four authors," four versions perhaps from a "lost" older original does not pose a problem to this author who suspects an original coherent version existed. Was Moses the actual original author?, or perhaps only the executive editor who used the talents of his elite staff, notably his aide, Joshua who later became Moses' successor.Likewise the original Egyptian tales vary, but only slightly, as demonstrated in "Notes on the Story of Sinuhe." However, authors’ names are often given with the work. There seems to have been a thriving community of talented writers, editors for hire. One such writer brags about having an easy lush and lucrative job in the "Satire of the Trades." (This tale has differing titles.) In it, the author, a man of Tjel named Dua-Khety, wrote it for his son named Pepy. It may be humorous, or just a dad trying to convince his kid that learning this job in the best school will lead to a happy easy life linked to the royal Residence. In the case of "Sinuhe," the tale appears to be "first person" written by Sinuhe himself, who certainly was well educated. However, he may also have been a wealthy executive who could hire the most expensive talented scribe available. And perhaps that Dua-Khety fits the bill, as his bragging "satire" hints. Another named author, Khakheperre (or Khakheperre-sonbe), called a high-priest, a son of Seny, also called Anku, shares the same second name as Sesostris II. (Most kings had more than a few names, usually a short list of names.) This person's name and time period agree with the time period for the king. The text, "Lamentations of Khakheperreseneb" usually companions with "Debate Between a man and His Ba." Another text, "Eloquent Peasant", by a "Khun-Anup", also comes from the reign of Sesostris II. The author(s) are here identified as the same person, the king, Sesostris II himself. Furthermore this same individual is identifed here as Aaron, Moses' brother. He, being eloquent probably dictated his words, and a secretary wrote it down. I suspect he needed no editor. Another tale offers an opposition version to Sinuhe's version, "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son Sesostris I". The author may be the first "ghostwriter" in history. In it the dead king tells his son about his assassination. Obviously, the son hired a scribe to fabricate a piece of propaganda from his and his dead father's point of view. This tale counters the popular "Story of Sinuhe" which gave a politically different version of the murder. It is notable that in this opposition situation, both versions actually survived into modern times. Neither side succeeded in obliterating the opposition's recorded viewpoint. (Obliteration of stuff in disfavor seems to have been a constant activity in ancient times.) Another author gives his name in the title in "Admonitions of Ipuwer." This lament inspired Velikovsky to suggest that the Passover and destruction of Egypt had been recorded. However, Velikovsky ignored the Twelfth Dynasty date of the text and provided his own dating revisions. Unlike the excruciatingly examined Bible authorship, (Moses or not Moses?) the Egyptians seem to just name the authors. However, they do cause confusion by allowing individuals to have multiple names, some obvious, some not so obvious. For example, the dead king (in “Instructions of Amenemhet I…”) is obviously “speaking” words written his son’s hired author. Furthermore, the son enhances the tale by “discovering” another “ancient” tale that supports the glorification of his late father, “The Prophecy of Neferty.” Both of these “fictionalized” documents tell a real historic tale. The reader can immediately distinguish what both tales are telling. Both are propagandizing and praising the dead king. No big fraud intended. These are not pulled one hundred percent out of thin air to merely amuse readers. Perhaps the five percent fiction somehow makes the harsh polemic a bit more easily read. Matching those creative authors’ characters to Biblical characters gives portions of the Moses saga from a few different contemporary points of view. Each tale and “autobiographical” author/hero will be elaborated on later. It's pretty embarrassing to write a book describing and referring to (explaining) a previous book, especially knowing that the second book will be less exciting, perhaps even boring. (However, it appears that the Egyptians liked to match stories together, write them as companion pieces.) It's like the puzzle pieces. Knowing that the puzzle is solved seems satisfaction enough. Explaining how each piece fits into the other pieces seems tedious and unnecessary. However, sometimes the "jumping to conclusions" requires an explanation that the jumps and the conclusions are correct and in fact supported by the interlocking-ness with all the pieces. Not only do the colors and subjects fit, but the edges also interlock and support each other. However, this interlockingness causes a constant repetition when one tale is explained as supported by other not-yet-explained tales. Then when the next tale's turn comes for examination, it may already have been covered. The Egyptian tales to be "explained" sorta defy absolute chronology. Rather some give overviews, other give propagandistic responses. Still others give dreamlike "symbolic" explanations. In any case I will list them (with some variations) in this order: "The Story of Sinuhe", "Three Tales of Wonder", "Prophecy of Neferti", "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his Son, Sesostris I", "80 years Contendings", "Eloquent Peasant", "Ipuwer", "Destruction of Mankind by Ra", "Exploits of Sesostris", "Lamentations of Khakheperreseneb", "Debate of a Man with his Ba", "Shipwrecked Sailor." Note that Moses remains the main character in all these tales, either as hero or villain. [Back to Top] Tale One: The Story of SinuheThis tale, the most notable, the jewel in Twelfth Dynasty collection, tells a hero's partial biography. The hero Sinuhe, is identified as Moses who's other partial biography is given in the Book of Exodus. Both versions deliberately deny the reader many details. Each provides some details the other omits.Characters: Sinuhe is the authobiographical royal hero. Amenemhet I is the assassinated king. Sesostris I is the co-regent son of the slain king. The Midianite leader, Ammuneschi welcomes the fugitive hero exile, Sinuhe, gives him a home, commission and wife, his daughter. Amalek is a tribe Sinuhe conquered for the Midianites. Hathor is and Egyptian goddess who caused pestilence in Egypt. Summary: Sinuhe, a royal family member of some stature, also a representative of the crown among the Asiatics, accompanies the co-regent Sesostris I on a military expedition in Libya. There "shaking in his boots and hiding in the bushes" he overhears the co-regent get the secret message that his father, King Amenemhet I, had been assassinated. Sesostris I quickly and secretly left to get back to the palace to prevent a coup, which he did. Sinuhe in fear, flees to Asiatic lands, and lists his route. Because he is apparently well known, the tribes welcome him and provide for him. They inquire about the assassination, but also seem to prefer Sinuhe to the dead king. Sinuhe seems to have somewhat identified with "his" foreign Asiatics. He must have been a likeable foreign public relations ambassador among those tribes. Anyway, the dead king had been from the "south," his skin visibly darker, obviously an ethnic Nubian, a strange exotic man not so friendly to the northern Asiatics (as had been previous kings.) In other words, the Asiatics may have welcomed Sinuhe as the assassin because they disliked king Amenemhet I. But being a diplomatic group, they restrained their joy. A certain tribal leader, who asked Sinuhe about the situation at the palace, Ammuneschi, gave his daughter to Sinuhe to wed. The tribal leader accepted Sinuhe's version, despite the "half-truths" about the murder that Sinuhe provided. As a famous prominent military leader, Sinuhe accepted the daughter, and a commission to use his superior talents for the tribes. Sinuhe details his successes, his military victories for his new Midian family. He leads his Asiatics to prosperity to become a force of some note, certainly noticed by the Egyptians. Sinuhe details a victory over an "Amalek" by doing to him, what "he had wished to do to" Sinuhe. This victory may have cemented Sinuhe's stature as the strongest military power in the area. After a long time, Sinuhe longs for Egypt and his family there. Some of the original versions of "Sinuhe" found in parallel in Sir Alan Gardiner's "Notes on the Story of Sinuhe," say he tried to return during the reign of the assassinated king's son, Sesostris I, the one Sinuhe had been on expedition with in Libya so long ago. This king had ruled with his father ten years, and another 35 years afterward. Because of such a long reign, most scholars therefore assume that Sinuhe had to have returned to Egypt during this reign, not after this king, Sesostris I, died. This is incorrect. Those original versions are also incorrect (for whatever reasons). However, one of the versions, the oldest, written by the "Scribe of B", names Amenemhet as the king who welcomed Sinuhe back. Most scholars considered this to be a scribal error because they assume that this Amenemhet (with no numerical designation) refers to the slain king. Also because of the long reign mentioned above, scholars assume a shorter time period. However, Sesostris I, who knew Sinuhe, suspected that Sinuhe had led the plot that killed his father, and therefore wanted Sinuhe executed. The next king, grandson of the assassinated Amenemhet I, and named after him, Amenemhet II, would have no such personal knowledge. And perhaps also the prominence that Sinuhe gained among the tribes, made him a force certainly able to challenge Egypt. Welcoming the old plotter, who killed his grandfather, back to Egypt seemed politically expedient despite opposition. In other words, "The Scribe of B," the oldest version, is correct: Sinuhe returned about forty years later during the reign of Amenemhet II. Sinuhe returned to Egypt welcomed by his remaining royal family. They shrieked with delight and cleaned him up, removing his desert dirt. They restored his Egyptian appearance. They showered him with his former trappings of wealth, including the best architect to plan for his burial structure. This story is pointless unless the hero, Sinuhe, actually plotted the original assassination. This assumption does not seem so outrageous. Why scholars never seem to link Sinuhe to the plot escapes me. Sinuhe himself hints at his guilt. Why did he shake and hide? Why did he flee? Why did he speak in "half-truths" when talking about the king's murder? Why did he "explain" his previous situation "as if in a dream"? Sounds guilty to me. The question remains, however, why didn't Sinuhe kill the king's son also, and make it a complete coup? And why had the dead king preemptively install his son as co-king with him ten years previous to his own assassination? Amenemhet I instituted the innovation of co-regency. Why? He had enemies that he could not eliminate? So he named his chosen son as heir in order to prevent a different family line from taking over. A pretty good idea. Many parallels between Sinuhe and Moses appear. Characters: Sinuhe is Moses. Both are authors (patron editors?) of the Sinuhe tale, and the first five books of the Bible. Amenemhet I is "the Egyptian who was killed by Moses." Sesostris I is the "pharaoh who sought Moses life" for that killing. The Midianite leader, Ammuneschi, is Moses' father-in-law, Jethro/Reuel/Hobab. Those Midianites are the same tribe related to Abraham, Joseph and the Magi. Sinuhe's unnamed Midian wife is Sepphora/Zipporah. Amalek, who Sinuhe prevailed over, is the same Amalek (a person or a tribe?) who Moses and Joshua fought. Hathor is the Passover angel of death who destroyed Egypt. Both heroes come from royalty, each famous among the Egyptians. Moses born to "Hebrews" seems to be adopted into the royal family of Egypt by a princess. The strange little description of the baby, Moses, being put into an "ark" to be discovered and adopted into the royal family offers a clue that Moses actually WAS born royal. The word ark appears at least two other times in the Bible. Ark means boat/ship or box or both. In the case of Noah's Ark, not only is ark a boat, but the captain is the king. The Ark represents the leader’s government/political plan, which would bring some salvation from a disaster, a flood. Recall the French Sun King who said, "After me, the flood!" In other words Louis XIV indeed foretold the French revolution. He could see the excesses of wealth, and the horror of poverty heading for a clash and chaos. This meaning does not deny that the Biblical flood actually happened and involved water. Both meanings apply. Another historic and symbolic meaning regarding ark as boat requires that the captain of the boat is actually king. Recall the Walt Whitman poem about the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, "O Captain, My Captain!" which elaborates on the Ship of State losing it's leader. Unlike the French king's vision of a subsequent flood/revolution, the American country was already in a battle, the Civil War. The flood image in both cases could easily be a flood of blood. Lack of a leader leads to horror and chaos, indeed a danger that could cause the sinking/wreck of the Ship of State. In the case of baby Moses in a small ark, the ark likewise symbolizes his royalty. Born to rule, as captain of his (little ark) ship of state. The birth symbolism also, however, seems to divide Moses' heritage. The "adoption" aspect seems to contradict the "born to rule" birthright. He belongs essentially to two nations. Each nation vies to claim the hero. The Bible claims Moses was adopted, therefore not "really" Egyptian, but primarily Hebrew. This explains his Egyptian royal status as being of merely minor note in the Bible. Later, after Moses "takes over" as leader (read king/pope) he built an "Ark of the Covenant." This box as a talisman conveys to the king the "Divine Right" to rule. Moses put the "Law" given by God (divinely) on tablets inside the ark. The ark converted to a seat or a chair on which the king sat in judgment, the seat of power. On carrying poles the ark traveled with the written "law" also inside. The ark also housed oracle objects, the urim and thummin which gave yes or no answers somehow. It also housed the rods of Aaron and Moses which also served as not only magic wands, but as the rod/flail of kings used to beat/punish criminals, or as a shepherd's crook to protect the herd (the stick could be used to beat off wolves so to speak symbolically). As "magic wands" those rods gave the ruler religious power. In the Biblical version, when the rods turned into snakes/serpents, and ate the Egyptian king's snakes, the power over that king became obvious. The victorious rods displayed that a greater ruler than the king, had come to oppose him. Another "meaning" for serpents is wise holy priests/astrologers. The king's headpiece often depicted one or two rising serpents on the forehead. Why? (Another "New Age" symbolism links the serpent rising up the spine to pose on the forehead to the kundalini forces rising thru the "charkas" to claim spiritual knowledge and power over the physical lower body. Holy persons seem to be able to control themselves in meditation; the silence allows the spirit of God to speak internally.) It's unclear exactly which powers the priests Aaron and Moses called upon concerning these serpent/rods. I suspect the superior serpents/high priests "won" because they had superior astrological knowledge, prescience of coming astral events (specifically the Passover angel of death event.) Misuse of the ark caused the rod/serpents to protect the ark by killing non-approved usurpers (inferior astrologer/high priests). The serpents gave off fiery bites. In the case of Aaron's two priest sons being killed in a "strange fire" involving the ark, suspect a plan to interfere in the royal succession controlled by Moses (who intended to captain the ship through the foreseen storm, and save the passengers/citizens.) Moses eliminated Aaron's descendants from the royal succession line. Indeed later when Sinuhe finally becomes king Sesostris III, a great funerary boat (ark, yacht, ship) discovered in the 1950s, proclaims that he also ruled as captain of the royal Ship of State. The wonderful wooden ship now has it’s own museum. Perhaps this is actually a version of Moses’ own "Ark of the Covenant." (Nobel Prize winner, Willard Libby tried to date the wood from this boat with an "atomic clock" or the new Carbon 14 dating method in the 1950s. The results offer an inexact range of hundreds of years near 1500BC.) In the case of Sinuhe, he also came from the royal family, and therefore was as famous as was Moses. However, he also was adopted. If he was born royal, why would he have to also be adopted? This "adoption" does not appear in the Sinuhe story, but has to be selected from two other tales which have heroes also identified as Sinuhe/Moses. This problem shows the interconnectedness of the puzzle pieces, but deranges an orderly prose outline. The two tales are "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son, Sesostris I", and "Triplet kings." These will be covered later. Why on earth did that king allow Sinuhe to remain in the House? The answer appears in "Triplet kings." This tale will be covered next, after the Sinuhe tale. Both heroes, Moses and Sinuhe, murdered an Egyptian for abusing a kinsperson, feared capture and execution, and therefore fled to a friendly Midian. The Bible says very little about the “killing incident.” It does not name the Egyptian, nor does it name the abused victim. It does not detail what type of abuse angered Moses to the point of murder. It does not give the familial relationship between Moses and the abuse victim. Pretty terse. Why the lack of detail? The Bible goes on that Moses buried the murder victim in the sand, heard some fighters blaming him for the murder, and therefore, his identity as murderer known, he fled to Midian. Sinuhe, on the other hand, evades admitting to the murder of Amenemhet I. In his "dissembling" explanation, he claims "It was as if in a dream." In other words he pleads temporary insanity. He was so angered at whatever the king did that he murdered him in the throes of emotion. However, he did not actually do the deed with his own hand. As the great general he was, he plotted an assassination, and probably being royal, may have considered a coup while he was at it. Sinuhe being a royal military leader could have easily stepped up to the throne. However, in deception, he accompanied the co-regent son, Sesostris I, who had ruled ten years with his father, to Libya. Certainly Sinuhe led the co-regent on a military expedition as a diversion, and to have the best alibi to vouch where he was during the assassination. Or else he was supposed to kill the co-regent at the same time that his plotters killed the old king. Why he did not kill this young co-regent remains problematic. Maybe he missed his chance. Maybe he changed his mind because he loved his innocent half-brother, the co-regent with whom he shared childhood memories. In any case this king became the Biblical "pharoah who sought his death" (for killing his father, who was also Moses/Sinuhe's step/adoptive father.) The king even married Sinuhe's mother to have a son with her, Sesostris I, to continue his heredity line in the kingship of Egypt. Sinuhe/Moses' mother evidently carried more royal blood than the ethnic Nubian king, Amenemhet I. The strategy worked, however for a short time only. The half-brother relationship between Sinuhe/Moses with Sesostris I may also explain why the assassin did not choose to kill the co-regent. Sinuhe chose not to kill his mother's other son, also a king. Details of the plot come out in two other tales. In "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son, Sesostris I" the dead king tells about how a large group of killers came to him in his bed chamber "unfairly." "Had it been a one-on-one fight” the old king certainly would have defended himself and emerged triumphantly. (More details come later with this tale, including the "adoption") The number of the plotters and their status comes out in "Shipwrecked Sailor." (Again this tale is out of turn and will be the last tale addressed here.) Both heroes fled to Midian. The Bible names the tribal leader (general/priest/linked to a serpent cult?) as Jethro/Reuel/Raguel/Hobab (how many guys or one guy with a few names/titles for various purposes?). The Bible also names the tribal leader's daughter who Moses wed, Seppora/Zipporah and their two sons, Gershom and Eliezer. These tribal Midianites have long been involved with the major Hebrew heros (if that name "Hebrew" was used during those early days). Abraham's third wife, Keturah, bore him a son, Midian. Later some Midianites rescued Genesis Joseph from his jealous brothers. Here Joseph is identified as the Old Kingdom hero, Imhotep. Joseph later emerged as virtual leader, savior of Egypt during a seven year famine as did Imhotep. The Midians also may be the Magi who visited Jesus at his birth. This same tribe welcomed Moses. Evidently they knew him well and offered to use the Egyptian language to make him comfortable. However, the hero probably knew more than a few languages because he had been a foreign relations official. Sinuhe had been the Egyptian representative of the crown among the Asiatics and undoubtedly knew them well. After the notorious assassination, those tribal leaders welcomed him. They certainly knew his value. He was worth more than any monetary rewards that the Egyptian king would offer for the severed head of the assassin. Indeed both Moses and Sinuhe became leaders of the tribe and caused it to prosper. Evidently their prosperity rivaled Egyptian prosperity. Both heroes return to Egypt in controversy after a long notable exile. Moses returns to Egypt to free his Hebrews from slavery in Egypt. God, in the burning bush, had appeared to Moses on Midian holy soil. God ordered Moses to return to Egypt to evacuate the Hebrews from slavery. Moses, however, begged off complaining of his speech problem. Some scholars assume that therefore Moses stuttered. However, Moses being a murder fugitive realized that as he was a general, not a lawyer, he chose rather to have legal representation. Handily his brother, Aaron, as a High Priest, certainly had the powers of persuasion, eloquence and legal knowledge. And Aaron had remained in Egypt keeping his high-priestly status. Evidently the Egyptians did not punish the brother of the assassin of the king. A pretty fair-minded law-based group, they certainly had lawyers. So Moses prevailed upon Aaron to make his presentations to the king in order to allow the return of the "wretched" exile, Moses. In such a touchy situation, verbal rehabilitation of an assassin of an Egyptian king, certainly propagandistic skills and subtlety were needed. Despite the hero's military skills, superior predictive astronomical knowledge, and good intentions, he still remained a murder fugitive in Egypt, a hated notorious assassin. Aaron took on the difficult job of transforming public opinion. This situation must have been very difficult. Consider attorney Alan Dershowich who persuaded the jury to "acquit because OJ Simpson's glove didn't fit." The actual murder became secondary to the political/racial/athletic/celebrity/media factors. Perhaps the jury favored the defendant more than a different jury would have, but again perhaps not. The innocent verdict did not hold in a civil court. The distinction was the difference "beyond a shadow of a doubt" and "preponderance of evidence" and a different jury. However, a third court, "public opinion" still has its own verdict. Certain factions loved the guy, others hated him, but the letter of the law prevailed in the OJ case. Compound the controversial OJ Simpson situation by adding a JFK assassination scenario. What if the president had been black? What if Marilyn Monroe had been involved, scorned, murdered? What if some prominent political individual had worked with the Russians to get rid of JFK? What if Castro and the Mafia had paid for a plot? What if the Vietnamese had been involved? Lots of plausible speculation can make any citizen suspicious and confused? Plotters everywhere. Who to believe? Many books became best sellers on such detailed speculations. The murder of the president in such a spectacular way still grips Americans. Another speculation: what if the British royal family is implicated in the car death of the popular Princess, Lady Diana? Rehabilitation of a famous royal assassin back to the family, and to favorable public opinion, seems an impossible task. Aaron really had to be eloquent and persuasive to get Moses back into the Egyptians hearts. Or else several other factors worked in Moses favor. (Aaron is the Egyptian hero, "The Eloquent Peasant" to be detailed later.) Moses spoke thru Aaron from the position of military/prophetic/astronomic power. Aaron and Moses' rod-serpents ate the king's magicians' rod-serpents. This means that the superior knowledge of Aaron and Moses prevailed over Egyptian magic. Moses' Midian priests' astronomical knowledge proved superior. The biblical threats/plagues presented to the king nine different times gave the situation: the Passover would come and kill many. The nine presentations listed disasters/plagues as previews of the great disaster: the Passover. So heed the general who was willing to return (as leader/king) and save the crowd. The predictions/threats of the plagues proved his foreknowledge to be trustworthy. Apparently a plan for avoiding the last plague, darkness and the destroyer angel of death, coming to hit Egypt, seems to have gotten the king's attention. But perhaps it was too late for him. Moses and Aaron left during the fourth plague. The king followed, perhaps to recapture his "slaves" or perhaps to try to join them in escaping the last plague. This interpretation for Moses' return to Egypt to save the crowd requires accepting the Velikovsky scenario that the Passover angel was visible and it’s destructive power known to the astronomers. A large comet had regularly approached the earth several times, and kept getting closer, causing more damages. The astronomers and any sky gazer could see the thing. Predicting the date and closeness of the "Passover" of that heavenly destroyer angel became earth-saving information. The heavenliness of the goddess implies that she was in the heavens/skies. (A certain medieval painting by Fra Fillipo Lippe depicts the lively cow/golden calf as prancing in the sky, not merely a molten golden statue. How did that artist decide to depict the calf as flying, while the Hebrews danced in idolatry?) A short Egyptian "Tale of the Herdsman" may be a version of Moses getting his mission from God at the "burning bush." In the tale, the cow goddess, Hathor appears to a terrified shepherd in a Sycamore tree (bush?). The goddess reveals herself naked causing horror. (?) Does this nakedness mean that she and her path/mission to kill are visible? The sycamore symbol of the goddess appears in the name of Sinuhe. Does this mean that Sinuhe is essentially tied to her existence? To her as he saw her? That she was a threatening destroyer? That Sinuhe would have to somehow try to save people from her destructions? Could this be the astronomical vision of the coming threat of the Veliskovian comet, Venus? This heavenly being, a flying something, which looks like the golden calf, shares a description with Hathor, who is called the "Golden One." She appears as a cow with horns. She takes on the visage of a fiery lioness for her mission of devastation. Certain statues depict the lioness with hair of (neat orderly looking) fiery serpents (These hair-serpents recall Medusa, who caused those who looked as her to turn to stone). This vision similar to the one given to Moses, gives the hero the "understanding," the "mission" from God to go back to Egypt to rescue/evacuate/exodus those in the endangered area, the target of the comet/goddess. God told Moses to go warn and save Hebrews (including Egyptians). God, in the burning bush, at Mt. Sinai, on Midian soil, said this is "holy ground, remove your sandals." God appeared using the Midian astronomer/priests’ knowledge given to Moses thru his father-in-law, Jethro. The location of Mt.Sinai, in Midian, gives the source of Moses' information. The command by God came thru the superior Midian astrologers who told Moses to go back to Egypt to rescue the people. Many theories offer different suggestions for routes that the Exodus multitude took. It seems that Moses had been quite comfortable with his family in Midian. Logically his first choice to evacuate the crowd would have been to take the crowd back "home" to Midian and his in-laws. They took the usual direct route right to the Gulf of Aquaba/Red Sea and crossed over to his estate there. It also seems obvious that the Mt Sinai is in Midian/Saudi Arabia not in the Sinai Peninsula despite having similar names. Perhaps both the peninsula and the mountain assumed the name of the famous general after his mission, Sinuhe/Sinai? Moses had balked, claimed a speech problem. In reality his problem was that he was a murder fugitive with a reward out for his capture. However, the astro-situation appeared so dire that Moses' murder situation fell into the background. Who cares about an old assassination when the whole country faces impending destruction? Any savior becomes acceptable. The crowd certainly knew of the threat and feared greatly. Who could lead them to safety? (How many athletes have been forgiven for this or that crime, because the team needed them?) Sinuhe became forgiven and attractive to those who believed his knowledge and leadership to be superior to the home team. Many chose to follow him. The Sinuhe tale ignores most of the plagues and Passover destructions, except for a mention of a rampage of the goddess Hathor/Sekhmet in a year of pestilence. The tale seems to concentrate mainly on the hero's rehabilitation, exoneration and restoration to royalty. The Sinuhe tale also ignores the Moses and Aaron section concerning the ten plagues. The Sinuhe tale merely cites the "persuasion" as a "letter to the king." This "letter" may be understood as covered in another tale, the "Eloquent Peasant." Aaron is the eloquent guy speaking for a wronged "wretch" who wants "justice" and his "lands, estate" in Egypt restored." This tale will be covered later. Another tale, about the "destruction of mankind" will also be covered later. These contemporary Twelfth Dynasty tales interlock essentially, and match Moses saga events. And finally, both heroes die and have secret burials. The Bible says that Moses did something wrong involving water at Meribah for which God, as punishment, forbid him from entering the promised land. Moses however came close enough to view the land. Moses had delivered the mummy of Joseph to Sekkim/Nablus where he reburied the old hero. The cemetery evidently had some hereditary importance as the land where their ancestors had been buried. Moses died nearby to the promised land, at Mt. Nebo (Later Jeremiah later hid the recovered Ark of the Covenant there). Then God buried Moses in a hidden place at Beth-Phogar (Beth-Peor) in Moab. Moses had gone up from the plains of Moab to Mount Nebo, to the top of Pisgah, that is, over against Jericho. Yahweh showed Moses all the land of Gilead for the tribe of Dan (Dt:34), a place in the valley of the Jordan which, in Josh. XIII 20, was apportioned to the Reubenites. In other words Moses had a pretty good view of the Holy Land. And he died soon after. (Jewish legend tells about a battle between God and Satan over Moses' body. God won and buried Moses in a secret place in Moab.) The Bible and tradition divide Moses' life into three parts: murder at age 40; return for Exodus at age 80; and his own death at age 120. The 40 year period between the murder and Exodus seem to bring an old man back to a big job. However, he hangs on another 40 years for an almost unbelievable age of 120. This seems to divide the mins and maxs. The mins just dismiss that long lifespan as fiction. Not too many people live that long, so therefore Moses didn't. Likewise, Aaron who lived to be 123, died in the same year but previous to Moses. Scholars just assume those numbers are symbolic (of what?). Maxs just take the numbers at face value, as does this author. In any case God "punished" Moses by banning him from the promised land, which seems to be delineated by tribes. And Moses seems to have died at least near Jericho, which seems near to that area. And the "secret" burial seems notable. The Egyptians aimed for secret burials for their leaders to apparently hide the wealth, protect the body from desecration by disgruntled enemies, protect the body intact so that the soul (ba) could return (?) and just because of tradition. When Sinuhe returned after a long exile, to Egypt, he wallows in gratitude that he has returned to his birthplace, the clean civilized and wealthy Egypt. Most scholars downgrade the time span between when Sinuhe fled and when he returned. Even perhaps some of the ancient Egyptian scribes also cut the time to put the return during the reign of the co-regent of the assassinated Amenemhet I. The co-regent son of that king ruled alone another 35 years after his ten-year co regency with his father. Assuming that he was elevated to co-regent at about age 20, adding 45 years would make him age 65. Sinuhe had been about ten to fifteen years older when the two boys played together as children. It is not impossible that the older Moses/Sinuhe could outlive the younger king. The next king, son of Sesostris I, was Amenemhet II. This young king welcomed Sinuhe back to Egypt, and was the "pharaoh of the Exodus". Sinuhe's joy at his return contrasts to the Bible's version of Moses being "banned" by God from the joy of entering the Promised Land. Sinuhe seems to have enjoyed his reunion with his old Egyptian royal family members in Egypt, but his main joy seems related to having the best architect assigned to build his tomb. Burial seems paramount to both Moses and Sinuhe. Sinuhe will later be identified as king Sesostris III, a great military hero. Among his conquered lands, Sekkim (Shechem/Nablus), the place Moses buried Joseph, appears. In other words, Moses and Sesostris III, can both be located at Shechem. Locals claim the burial place of Joseph, and even display his ancient coffin. No mummy of Imhotep has been found despite excavations at Saqqara, in Egypt where Imhotep built a pyramid. Likewise, no bodies of any of the Twelfth Dynasty kings have been located, despite many monuments being associated with those kings. Moab, an ancient country in Jordan and Shechem, an ancient city in Palestine share notable Biblical history. It was Abram's first destination in the land (Gn 12:6). It was also first for his grandson Jacob (Gn 33:18 ). Moses has a first ceremony after the Israelites cross the Jordan (Dt 11: 29-31). Here Joshua renews the covenant, and here Joseph's bones are buried (Joshua 24: 1, 25, 32). Recently some archaeological digs there have found evidence of ancient Egyptian presence. Local Nablus/Schchem Palestinian lore not only offers a building/shrine with the "body" of Joseph, but there is a "tomb of Moses" at Jebel Musa in the Sinai. The Joseph tomb has suffered some fighting damages in recent years. Moses died on Mt. Nebo, was buried by God in a secret place in Beth Phogar in Moab. (Another aside: Japan also claims to have not only the tombs of Jesus, but of Moses. Freaky.) [Back to Top] Tale Two: A trilogy: "Three Tales of Wonder." (Another name is “The Tale of King Cheops’ Court.”)Proportedly during the Old Kingdom, King Khufu/Cheops (who is actually Amenemhet I) listens to stories told by his three sons. The first two tell tales of the past, the third makes a prediction. Also a preliminary tale given before the “Boating Party” tale could be counted as a fourth or first of four tales, a quartet, rather than a trio of tales. The next tale tells about a commoner having sex with a housemaid. A crocodile of some note gets involved, having been summons by priests. Apparently the commoner then dies by crocodile, the housemaid gets burned and treated like refuse. This tale certainly gives a spin to the inappropriate sex, rape or seduction and the related murder/execution/assassination, that forms the crux of this reconstruction. Of course, the crocodile represents some sort of justice wielding symbolism to the Egyptians who understood the story clearly. However, the next parts of the tales give more details after the sex/murder scenario. None of this stuff is pure fiction. It is elaborate enhanced poetic symbolic veiled propagandistic but actually true history. The writers just did not conform to the New York Times method of journalism/history. Select the individuals and the events and the tale will reveal what momentous events took place involving the royal family."Three Tales of Wonder: first mini-tale: The Boating Party." Characters: King Senefru, twenty lovely young girls with a leading lady on a boat and a magician. Summary: "The Boating Party." A beautiful girl captains a small rowing boat carrying some young girls in front of a viewing stand in order to entertain the king. The leading lady, the cox who calls the beat, drops a new turquoise fish pendant into the water. She stops the boat and pouts to the king that she wants the jewel retrieved. The king offers to replace it. She refuses and whines for her original ornament. The king orders a magician to remove a great chunk of water and retrieve the item, and return the water back into place. The king rewards the magician with gifts. King Senefru is actually Amenemhet I in this reconstruction. The group of women are harem lovelies. The young female captain of the little boat is actually the "abused kinsperson victim" whose abuse enraged Moses to murder "The Egyptian" abuser. The lost jewel is the girl's virginity. Egyptian girls wore fish pendants in their hair to proclaim their status. In this reconstruction, the girl (named Sidiptu in a (gasp! New Age!) Cayce psychic reading), had wanted to rule as "boat captain"/queen. She had wanted to marry her half-brother Sesostris I and become mother of the next king and thus be the "power behind the throne" as most royal mothers were. Sesostris I declined her offer. So she went to his father, Amenemhet I, to ask him to order his son to marry her. She thought she was qualified being a high-born royal half-sister. The king fearing that a previous plan by her other brother to wed her to their oldest brother, a high-priest (Aaron), would be a threat to the king's own succession plans. So old King Amenemhet I "despoiled" the girl making it impossible for her to become a queen, unless she wed him, of course. The king had temporarily married her mother who produced Sesostris I for him. The king had feared that step family faction and preemptively installed Sesostris I as his co-regent to avoid a succession problem with “them.” In any case, the despoilment enraged her brother Sinuhe/Moses, who then ordered the assassination of the king. The girl also died branded a "whore." In the last sentence of the third tale of this trilogy her mother laments the death of "the little girl who grew up in the House...snatched by a crocodile" which was the Egyptian punishment for whores. The word "despoilment" implies a non-judgmental tone. Was it rape? Or was the girl attempting seduction in a bid to obtain the role of queen? Was it adultery on either or both sides? That is perhaps the girl was engaged to marry another? Perhaps both were married to others. Was the girl deceived, that she mistook thee man for her fiancée? Was the man deceived, that the girl (as member of the harem) was his because the harem was his? Jewish legend offers a long interesting tale about the "abused Hebrew kinsperson" for whom Moses killed the abuser. The tale involves named individuals. After Moses killed "the Egyptian," two Hebrews fighting told Moses "will you kill us as you killed that Egyptian?" This caused Moses, his crime known, to flee to Madian. Those two Moses caught fighting were Datan and Aviram, who are also named in the Bible. Datan was the husband of Shlomit, the daughter of Dibri. Shlomit had been described as too talkative and outgoing, a flirt. When Datan saw an Egyptian emerging from his house, he asked Shlomit if the man had touched her. "Yes, for I thought it was you," she replied. Was she guilty of adultery? Both adulteress and adulterer "shall surely be put to death" according to law. Therefore, Moses killed the adulterer justifiably; he did not "murder" the abuser. And depending on the perception of the wife, she either was allowed to live, or was also killed. It is not known if Datan took her back after the incident. The legend version seems to exonerate Moses, show that he justifiably killed a person. They offer the information that the "abuse" between two men "fighting" involved inappropriate sexual activity. (The two men are the “Egyptian” and the kinsperson/ husband? Of the girl who was “abused”. They may be those two fighters who knew of the murder by Moses which caused him to flee to Midian.) This reconstruction refers to a Cayce reading, (355-1) which names the girl Sidiptu. Her mother is Hatherpsut (Hatshepsut?). Sidiptu is the abused kinsperson, not a man, as most bible readers assume. Although some abuse between fighters may has also been part of the scenario. That is, the "husband" or the "despoiler" may have been interrupted in an altercation, in which Moses killed the despoiler who blamed the girl. The Cayce reading continues that Moses killed the abuser which caused a "new pharaoh" to be enthroned. This reconstruction jumps to the conclusion that the murdered/assassinated/executed abuser was the "old pharaoh" Amenemhet I. The Cayce reading says that Sidiptu had been engaged to a priest, and Moses had been the marriage arranger. Sidiptu seems not to have survived the outcome. The two versions agree that something occurred, involving "despoilment" of a girl/wife/fiancé. Both imply justification for the killing. But the Cayce reading continues that the country was "almost divided." This implies a civil war because the king was killed. But since the co-regent kept the throne, the "plot" was quashed by the old king’s son and that co-regent, Sesostris I. Back to the original fish pendant tale, part of another famous Egyptian tale gives a clue to what happened to the one who took the girl's virginity (fish pendant). The pendant tale mocks the girl who wanted to go back in time, have her original pendant (virgin status) restored. However refer to the tale of Osiris and Horus, Osiris means a king who died. Horus means the living ruling king. A certain Osiris (Amenemhet I) is killed by Seth (Moses) and cut to pieces. The 14 (?) pieces are scattered along the Nile (where monuments mark each part as found). Isis (wife of Osiris) had gone on a parts retrieval mission and found all those body parts, (which are needed for resurrection) except for the phallus. A certain fish had eaten it. (How did they know that? Did the assassins feed it to a fish? Or is this an obvious clue and well-known symbolism?) Could that fish who ate the phallus BE the virgin's lost fish pendant? Sounds like poetic justice to me. (An aside about that missing phallus: Isis wanted to retrieve it also so that she could impregnate herself. This obviously caused scorn, and Seth to call her offspring illegitimate. A pretty far out, but good try, by Isis to keep control of the royal succession.) The famous original tale of Osirus and Horus goes back to the Old Kingdom, but has never been found complete in written form. The Middle Kingdom (Twelfth Dynasty) version updates the tale in "Eighty years contending of Horus and Seth." The eighty years began when Moses at age 40 killed the king, Amenemhet I. It went on continuingly until Moses died at age 120. During those 80 years the dead king's grandson, Amenemhet II and Aaron/Sesostris II and Moses/Sesostris III tried to rule Egypt in competition. The country divided in a sort of familial Civil War which seems less important than the Passover disaster which raged and put the place in total disaster chaos mode. Somehow maat and unified order returned after Moses died and Josuha/Amenemhet III took over. The eighty years contendings ended. (Again, this tale defies this author's attempt at an orderly chronological order. It will also be covered later.) [Back to Top] Tale Two (continued): A trilogy: "Three Tales of Wonder: second mini-tale: The Magician Djedi"Characters: Prince Hardedef, his father King Khufu, and a magician named Djedi.Summary: Prince Hardedef tells his father King Khufu, about a magician named Djedi who rejoins severed heads. The magician refuses to show his power on a prisoner. ..."not to a human being...it is not permitted to do such a thing to the noble cattle!" Djedi restores the heads to a goose and to a long-legged bird instead. Impressed, the king asks the magician to find some secrets of Thoth. Some scholars suggest that the king wanted the magician to reveal the secret chambers in the great pyramid in which the documents covered the very ancient history of the previous world (gasp! Atlantis?). (Even way back then, those "secrets" seem to have tantalized whoever looked at the pyramid. Evidently the “Secrets of Thoth” were hidden in the chambers inside.) Djedi says "not me, but one of triplets who will be born later will (tell you about Thoth's secrets). The eldest of the trio will have the secrets, Djedi continued, in a building in the city of On/Heliopolis. He will be a high priest of On (Aaron), and hold the highest office in the land also," predicted the magician. (This author assumes that those "secrets" are astronomical and predictive. Lots of New Age moderns also seem to think there is an ancient "Hall of Records" either in the pyramid or the Sphinx.) In this reconstruction both Hardedef and Khufu are fictional usurpations of Old Kingdom character's names. (Consider a similar situation in which American author Dominic Dunne's fictional novel caused an old murder case involving the Kennedy family member to be reopened, and which resulted in a conviction.) King Khufu is actually King Amenemhet I of the Twelfth Dynasty, and is "The Egyptian" killed by Moses. This tale (written after the assassination) purports to predict the births of the three Sesostris kings who rule after Khufu/Amenemhet I. [Back to Top] Tale Two (continued): of "Three Tales of Wonder: third mini-tale: Births of royal triplets."Characters: A prophet magician Djedi tells the King Khufu about the future of his royal line. Ruddedet and Rawoser are parents of the royal trio named "Mighty," "Tread of Ra," and "Dark."Summary: A prophet, Djedi, as if telling a story, details a purported prediction of future births of three babies born to the same mother who were each destined to become king. Conventional scholars speculate that the trio represent kings from the Old Kingdom (because of course, the tale seems to follow a Third Dynasty King Khufu. The first three pharaohs of the 5th dynasty were: Userkaf, Sahure, and Neferirkare.) However, this reconstructed version disagrees with that erroneous speculation. Khufu is actually Amenemhet I, listening to a purported prediction. The tale, written after the events happened, slightly disguises the heros by using Khufu/Cheops' name from the Old Kingdom. This reconstruction names the three Sesostris kings as the triplet brothers. This theory also throws off the conventional succession and chronology of the Twelfth Dynasty's three Sesostris kings. If the brothers each became king, and were brothers (not born on the same day, merely to the same parents), the length of the reigns are compressed to allow the three to be in a very tight time frame. Usually scholars assume a conventional version of an old king being followed by a young successor, a son, a least three times in a regular order. Disrupting this father-to-son sequence by having older sons follow a younger king, that is a younger half-brother followed by two older half-brother/half-uncles, also compresses the dynasty's time span. Ruddedet is the mother of the trio, she is Moses' mother, Jocabed. Rawoser is the father, Amram, Moses' father. The three babies are: "Mighty" who is Moses, and also Sinuhe and Sesostris III. His name, Werserkef, means "strong," "mighty" or "mighty is his Ka." Moses also has been called mighty, probably because of not only his personal spiritual strength, but also his military record. The second baby, "Tread of Ra" is Aaron and Sesostris II. He is named "Sahu-Ra, One whom Ra has well endowed," "To kick," and “Tread of Ra" which refers to his status as High Priest of On, the equivalent of Pope/chief magician/astrologer. The third triplet, "Dark" is Sesostris I, the youngest and first to become king. His names "Keku, Neuserre Kakai" both mean "darkness." He is dark skinned, Nubian, because his grandmother, Amenemhet I's mother, was a Nubian queen/princess. Amenemhet took his white stepmother as wife and she bore him a dark son, Sesostris I. However, "Dark's" grandfather, Rawoser (a highpriest named Seni or Sesostris O), is the father of the other two triplets. The trio share the same king name, Sesostris (Senwosret) named after their father/grandfather, Rawoser/Seny/Senwosret/Sesostris. (Worsen, "Woser," part of Rawoser's name, is another name for Hathor, the cow goddess.) Allow a biblical explanation of this triplet family tale, with names included. Moses' father, a royal Egyptian, Amram/Seni, married a Nubian queen/princess, Neferet I, in some sort of political move. They produced a son, Amenemhet I, who became first king of the Twelfth Dynasty. Then Amram married his royal aunt, Jocabed/Neferu and they had Miriam, Aaron and Moses. A time later, Amenemhet I took Jocabed/Nefru, from his father, Seny. Amenemhet I took his step-mother as wife. Her husband Seny/Amram was not dead. She agreed to give Amenemhet I a son if he publicly adopted her three older children (Miriam, Aaron, and Moses/Sinuhe) to protect them. The wedding deal between Jocabed/Neferu and Amenemhet I produced Sesostris I, his first son, her third, and Seny/Amram's grandson. This son, having a Nubian grandmother, was her "dark" triplet. One can certainly understand the ethnic and incestuous situation as causing ambivalent emotions, if not a bit of jealousy and fear, especially with succession considered. No wonder Amenemhet I installed his son as coregent early on. He evidently took his stepmother as wife to produce his heir and integrate her Egyptian bloodline into his son. He thus tried to hold the succession by his power and her heritage. A pretty good plan. He undercut familial rivals. However, he had to agree to his stepmother's demands that he adopt her previous children publicly, thus protecting their royal status (and their lives). I suspect that she threatened him with her suicide if the king did not adopt her kids. He did, which proved fatal to him. It's difficult to surmise who had the upper hand. I suspect she did. A tough beloved lady. The Triplet tale goes on and gives the end of Amehemhet I's Nubian bloodline in that royal Egyptian succession. "Said Djedi: to King Khufu (who is actually Amenemhet I), "What is this mood, O King, my lord? Is it because of those three children? I say: first your son, then his son, then one of them." In other words Djedi predicted: "First your son" (Sesostris I, the dark triplet would rule), "then his son" (Amenemhet II), "then one of them": Sesostris II (Aaron) who ended the Nubian bloodline in the succession. Sesostris III/Moses followed after and during Aaron/Sesostris II, and Amenemhet III/Joshua next. Another short ruling king, Amenemhet IV, is followed by Sobeknefru/Deborah who ended the Dynasty. (End of Tale Two: Three Tales of Wonder) [Back to Top] Tale Three: "Prophecy of Neferti."Characters: An Old Kingdom prophet, Neferti, foretells the coming of a great king, Ameny (Amenemhet) who would come to rule Egypt wisely.Summary: The purported 4th Dynasty prophet, Neferti, seems to give a detailed glorification of the "future King Savior" Ameny, who is obviously Amenemhet I. This blatant piece of propaganda partners with "Instructions of King Amenemhet I to his son, Sesostris I." Both require some suspension of belief in the source of the tales. However, neither of the tales are pure fiction. Consider the source. The son of the king certainly wants to deify his beloved father, so he chose the common method. He hires the best scribe and asks for a flattering, "enhanced," entertaining "explanation" of what really happened at the assassination, and how great his father had been for the welfare of Egypt. The details and "enhancements" never really hid the identity of the actual patron who paid for the tales to be written. The people weren't fools. If the stuff is clearly propaganda to moderns, it was also clear to the Egyptian citizens. However, propaganda should not be considered as "bad" or evil or misleading. Today Americans suffer the constant flap between the Republicans and Democrats. Neither side is actually "evil." Charitably, one could suspect that opposing sides hope to improve the lot of their faction members. They all mean well (?). Each former president writes a book (with hired proven authors) to detail how he tried his best to serve the American people. He gives his version, how he saw the events, how he made his decisions. He hopes that "history" will treat him kindly. Likewise, our ancient Egyptian fellows hoped their versions told future readers the "real story." In the "Prophecy of Neferti," Neferti purportedly looks ahead and reveals all the great things the king would do. Neferti dislikes the influx of Asiatics into Egypt. These people, (the relatives of Joseph/Imhotep), had immigrated and evidently their numbers and prosperity increased to the annoyance of such people as would be annoyed at foreigners. These foreigners, the "strange bird breeding in the delta marsh" seems somehow to be a threat to the native Egyptians. The natives evidently had ignored the foreigners. But Neferti apparently links them to "perishing those delightful things" that they seem to have been using. They will cause civil disturbances, Neferti warns. Neferty then moves on to the assassination situation. "A man sits with back turned...while one slays another." This man is the high-priest, Aaron who evidently knew of the plot but did nothing to stop it. The priesthood along with the harem had been implicated. Somehow Aaron escaped execution by not participating, or by his awesome eloquence. Neferty points to the chief plotter of the assassination: "I show you the son as enemy...the brother as foe...a man slaying father." Sinuhe/Moses is that son, a son adopted by Amenemhet I, because of the deal made by the royal mother of the triplets. (A repetition: Amenemhet I married his step-mother who required that he publicly adopt her older children, Sinuhe/Moses included. She then agreed to produce a son for Amenemhet I. The son, her youngest, became Sesostris I.) The "brother as foe" elaborates the murderer's relation to the co-regent kings. Moses/Sinuhe is also half-brother to his adoptive father, the slain king. They share the same father. Moses/Sinuhe is also half-brother to the remaining king, the co-regent who was not assassinated, Sesostris I. They share the same mother. (Another repetition: But Sinuhe/Moses' father is Sesostris I's grandfather, Seni/Sesostris 0. Seni's first wife, the Nubian queen, is how the Nubian blood made the youngest Sesostris "dark.") "A man slaying his father", repeats and confirms that only one guy fits the profile: Moses/Sinuhe. This also elevates the crime from regicide and fratracide to patricide. Neferty then foresees the expulsion of those ethniclly related (to Sinuhe/Moses') foreigner Asiatics. The hero, "Ameny will come from the South" (Nubia) and cause those hated Asiatics to "fall by the sword." Ameny will build the "Wall of the Ruler" to keep those feeders out. "They shall beg water as supplicants for their cattle..." and order will return (with those inferiors put in their place, instead of allowing them continue to prosper causing irritation to the natives, and to the Nubian faction.) Neferty links the Asiatics to the assassin. The Nubian heritage, he says, should be seen as the rightful Egyptians, not those who cause disruption to the state. Between the Asiatics and the Nubians, the "native Egyptians" must have looked askance at both the northern Asiatic and the southern Nubian foreign immigrants who saw no problem with rising to try to rule over that attractive comfortable wealthy place. Neferty seems to ignore the ethnic relations in the royal family itself. Amenemhet I's father, Seny/Sesostris O, is not Nubian, but part of the royal family and the priesthood. Seny married a Nubian queen. Their son must have favored, identified with his mother, Neferet I, over his father. Perhaps Neferet I's status as a queen seemed higher than Seny's royal blood. It is not clear if Seny ever was a king. Or perhaps, Amenemhet I, was hurt because his father took a second wife, a non-Nubian woman, and probably hurt his mother. Despite those ancient royals allowing themselves multiple wives, broken hearts cannot always be avoided. (Moses himself also married a Nubian woman, Tharbis, according to Josephus, and probably left their sons to rule in Nubia. Moses/Sinuhe later became Sesostris III who had extensive dealings with Nubia. Nubia, Cush and Ethiopia are here considered the same African area south of Egypt, more or less. None are Midian which is across the Red Sea in what is now Saudi Arabia.) And favoritism in a step-family always causes pain. The father usually favors the children of his favorite wife, it seems. Also the very ancient tradition of the primacy of the first-born seems so unfair to those second and third-born. "An heir and a spare," the British say about their two young princes. However the Bible seems to harp on second-borns prevailing over firstborns. (Moses, the author himself was also a “second-born.”) The biblical author seems to lean toward "ability" as a better way to choose a king. Especially if the old king has perhaps fifty sons. Or perhaps a later political merger/marriage with a foreign queen produces a better trade/foreign relations situation, which puts that pair's younger (than the father’s previous first-born sons by his multiple wives) son to the head of the pack. Finally, the "Prophecy of Neferty" (and "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son, Sesostris I") seem to be obviously commissioned by Sesostris I to glorify his slain father. This blatant propagandistic glorification of the slain king, Amenemhet I, aimed to keep his name, his memory, alive forever as a "good king" who served his country well. Not unlike the American president's autobiographies. And of course, the son, Sesostris I, who commissioned the tale, implies that he will continue his father's policies. [Back to Top] Tale Four: "Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son, Sesostris I"Characters: The dead King Amenemhet I talks from the grave to his co-regent son, Sesostris I.Summary: Apparently the dead king Amenemhet I is giving advice on how to rule the kingdom, to his co-regent son, Sesostris I. However, the real purpose of the "advice" is to explain "what happened" in the assassination plot. The killer is not mentioned by name, but described with a string of detailed negatives. In "Instructions" the dead king complains about the unnamed murderer, assassin: "Beware of subjects who are nobodies, of who’s plotting one is not aware". In other words the plotter is being insulted as “a nobody”, a lesser ethnic. He evidently had co-plotters with some access and ability. In the next sentence: "Trust not a brother...." In other words, that plotter "nobody" WAS Sesostris I's brother, actually half-brother with some of that inferior ethnic blood. Then he goes on: "I gave to the beggar, I raised the orphan." In other words, the king had adopted that ethnically inferior ethnic step-brother. The dead king (actually his son's hired ghost-writer propagandist) goes on insulting that parasite. Everyone certainly knew it was Sinuhe. But they did not name him fearing that naming him would invite defacement of the tale, or else conversely, allow his name to live forever. The tale goes on implicating the harem henchmen who were involved, "Had women ever marshaled troops?" It gets a dig in for Sinuhe's high-priest brother and the whole damn family: "A man sits with his back turned while one slays another. I show you the son as enemy, the brother as foe, a man slaying his father." The guy who turned his back is the high-priest who knew of the plot but did not stop it (Aaron). The "son as enemy" is Sinuhe, King Amenemhet I's adopted step-son (Sesostris’s half-brother). That "son as enemy" is the "man slaying his father." That makes plain to the people that Sinuhe is the guy. Who else fits all those details? Not only is he a fratricide, a regicide, but also an ingrate parricide. The parallels between the previously covered "Prophecy of Neferty" are clear and obvious. The two tales are like bookends. They form a duet of praise for the slain king, and they batter the killer. They both say that a man killed his own father. Scholars label this tale as didactic, an old king advising the new king on how to govern. However, the tone immediately starts with bitterness against the king's killer. "Beware of subjects who are nobodies!" Of course this refers to Sinuhe/Moses. The king denigrates this guy's royal status. The propagandistic aspect is as blatant as the "Neferty" tale. It is almost a courtroom drama with the criminal being tried in absentia, with no legal defense. "Of whose plotting one is not aware," means that the young king did not suspect anything before the plot, he was sucker-punched by his beloved half-brother. The horrific betrayal reverberates in the tale. "Trust not a brother, know not a friend." Indeed the shock and sadness overwhelms the king (whose recorded voice is coming from his sad son's hired scribe's words). His sadness assails having any intimates, trusting anyone, loving anyone. "I gave to the beggar, raised the orphan." Again Sinuhe/Moses is insulted as a parasite. "I gave success to the poor." More insults to the adopted royal betrayer who lived under the generous protection of the king (and his co-regent, Sesostris I). The tone continues as an attack on the assassin by the miserable, sad, hurt young king. He lost not only his dear father, but his beloved brother, his most favored intimate, who murdered his dad. The king lost both his father and his brother. The shock and horror of his situation resounds in his lament. The king goes on bemoaning how lavishly the bad guy lived in the palace, with fine linen, perfume, everything the king had. Then (the young king he attacks himself as if speaking through his father), "Success will elude him who ignores what he should know." He should have suspected something. His remorse causes him great distress. Everyone can see what a fool he was, so trusting of his brother. (Here I suspect, the younger king did not realize how the despoilment of the "girl," Sinuhe/Moses' full blood sister, affected him. The king probably ignored his father's rape (?) of the girl, as a minor incident, no big deal, and no effect on him. Or else the young king was unaware of the rape. He did not suspect the rage and horror that consumed the assassin to murderous revenge, justifiable punishment/execution of the perpetrator for the illegal despoilment, which also was an arrogant attack on the priesthood, as the girl was set to marry a priest (according to the Cayce reading.) Then the slain king details the assassination, "It was after supper, night had come...I was...lying in bed...weary...awoke...fighting...combat of the guard..." Then he got killed, my "bloodshed occurred ...without you" nearby. "Before I sat with you...I had not prepared...nor expected...a failing of the servants." This part seems so true, so immediate, it's is almost a video version. The king was surprised, and he should have seen it coming. He early on had reservations about that branch of the family; he had made the deal with Sinuhe/Moses mother to adopt them. She knew of the tensions and intrigue among the family. He had anticipated some palace intrigue, but again, it did not stop him from spoiling the girl, and the priestly wedding plan. His arrogance perhaps allowed bad judgment, and he let his guard down. Then the (young king, using his dead father's voice) attacks the harem as the hotbed of the plotters, those sympathetic to the plot, helpers. They actually did the deed, because the chief plotter was in Libya with the co-regent. Many men belonged to the harem as associates, henchmen, bodyguards. The powerful group compares to a large corporation. Despite the executions of those suspected in the assassination, the harem (and the women despite their possible approval of the plot) survived. (These executions are noted in a later tale, "Shipwrecked Sailor.") Then the king attacks those Delta immigrant feeders as supportive of the assassin, they shared the same ethnic blood. The House had allowed them to prosper at the expense of the natives. Now, after the situation stabilized, "I made the Asiatics to the dog walk." He beat them down, cut off their water supply, and made them beg, as all foreigners should. Then the dead king turns positive. He had a great tomb prepared, "gold...lapis...silver...acacia wood...made for eternity." But he also notes the "hatred" in the street, probably referring to the hatred for the killer or conversely for the rapist king. "The wise say yes...fools say no." (This quote repeats in “Ipuwer.”) Depending on which faction is favored, the king knows that many citizens loved the popular general Sinuhe/Moses. He acknowledges the controversy, but sticks to his version, no allowances for what had enraged that popular, royal confidant, famous, successful general, Sinuhe. However, the dead king had planned well. His son, a product of a "happy hour" father had with Sesostris I's popular royal mother, ruled easily now because the dead king had installed him ten years previously as co-regent. Sesostris I had no problems keeping the throne and a large faction of loyalists. (And of course, Sinuhe/Moses did not kill him when he killed the old king, which would have led to a complete coup and certainly more chaos. Sinuhe/Moses loved the young king himself and certainly hated causing him such sorrow. But it had to be done. Justice had to be served. The old king had to die.) Anyway Sesostris I survived, and reigned another 35 years alone. Sinuhe/Moses continued his career in Midian and areas near Egypt. They certainly kept tabs on each other. However, common assumptions that “victors write history,” seem not to apply in this dynasty because both opposition versions seem to have survived. In fact, the Egyptian tales seem to be written in retaliation to each others’ versions. The hired scribes seem to be no more than talented hired guns. After the gun smoke cleared, which scribe (cowboy) remained standing, (converted the readers)? Maybe they both missed each other, or merely shot each other with many literary bullets. Or perhaps despite the abilities of the scribes, the actual events can be seen without choosing the "better king" or the more talented scribe. The reader can appreciate the situation from both points of view. Or, a better simile, perhaps more akin to the "debates" on television between presidential candidates over plans for the country, applies. Only as an "after the facts" debate, trying to decide on which previous president did the better job. The Egyptians seemed to prefer another format, the "recently discovered ancient prophecy" purportedly seeing the future in which their hero stars. Sorta an indirect or backward way of presenting an entertaining "debate." This author does not suspect that any of those ancient readers were fooled by such theatrical presentations. They knew what was happening. The scribes knew that the readers knew what really happened. They just followed their own literary conventions which followed similar visual artistic "rules". However, like today's voters, the ancient Egyptians, made up their own minds. Of course the Egyptians did not vote as democracies do, but nevertheless, public opinion carried a great deal of weight. Today we have recently within the last 200 years discovered and translated both versions of those controversial Twelfth Dynasty events. [Back to Top] Tale Five (a long one): "80 years contending of Horus and Seth"Characters: Osiris, an ancient god, refers to a king who recently died. Any king who dies becomes Osiris. Here this Osiris is Amenemhet I. Horus is the reigning god/king/pharaoh, here three kings fit the long controversial 80 year period: Horus A is Sesostris I, Horus B is Amenemhet II, and Horus C is Sesostris II. The eighty year contending began when Osiris/Amenemhet I was killed, and the period ends when Amenemhet III takes over. Where is Sesostris III? Sesostris III is Seth for this Middle Kingdom period.Chronology comment: This reconstruction requires that Sesostris I is the youngest of the three Sesostris kings. He ruled before the later older pair. Sesostris I's son, Amenemhet II is the half-nephew of the older Sesostris II & III. In other words both Sesostris II & III are half-uncles who follow their much younger nephew to the throne. Sesostris II (Aaron) becomes co-regent in his old age, with the young king of the Exodus, Amenemhet II. (A family tree chart in the first book makes this a bit easier, clearer.) Compounding the situation, Sesostris III/Moses came into the situation also as "de facto leader/king" during the reign of his younger half-nephew, Amenemhet II. (The Exodus occurs in 1922 BC, using conventional dating of the assassination as 1962 BC, which puts Moses at age 80 in 1922 BC, the date of Moses becoming leader for the Exodus. This compresses the regnal length of the entire Twelfth Dynasty. And, of course, the entire Egyptian chronology is suspect, including the 1962 BC assassination date. Lots of shifting needed with these dates. Conventional Exodus dating is 1440 or 1290 BC. Merger of the two chronologies presents another puzzle to be solved. Sothic dating identifies year seven of Sesostris III and puts his reign as 1878-1843. Sothic dating is now in disfavor. Carbon dating for an approximate date of 1671 BC for the Seostris III boat.However, note that the wood may have been “older” than the boat, or that the tree may have been up to 300 years old, and the sample taken may have been more or less older or more recent according to the tree ring chosen to carbon date. Dendrochronology gives a “destructive” (volcanic?) dating of 1628-1623 BC not far from the 1671 BC carbon date. And reducing the Twelfth Dynasty reigns to being mostly contemporary, not successive, compresses the dynasty by about 100 years, giving some interesting suggestive dating to chew on. In other words, Sesostris III/Moses assumed the kingship DURING the reign(s) of Amenemhet II (who may have died in the Red Sea incident) and the reign of his heretic (for worship of the Golden Calf) brother, Aaron/Sesostris II. These were NOT co-regencies, rather opposition controversial reigns. Imagine John Kerry claiming victory over George Bush in the controversial election, and his setting up a Democratic government in exile, perhaps Canada. What chaos could occur? Perhaps some of the Congress and Supreme Court and Military joined him. Compound the situation with NASA complaining that some comet was coming soon to hit the globe and leadership was needed quickly. Add some recent evidence that links one of the presidents to the assignation of JFK. Nice plot for a movie? This can be a terrible situation for real life. Further imagine the dual leadership lasting for a long time before the situation resolves to only one leader. Certainly death(s) of either or both "leaders" could speed the recovery for the nation. Civil War may also occur. That is, whoever remains standing inherits the office of presidency. After the smoke clears and the pundits feel comfortable, the Monday quarterbacking begins. Consider this modern scenario, as similar to the ancient "80 Years contending of Horus and Seth": the arguments after a time period. Who was in the right? Who was the "real" king(s)? Summary (Of the “80 years Contendings of Horus and Seth): These characters engage in a long period of controversy over the rightful succession for the throne. Seth/Sinuhe/Moses/Sesostris III (one man) dominates the saga. The tale is a riot. All sorts of gods argue in court over the merits of the candidates as the rightful heir(s) to the throne. Animals get involved, a strange boat fight, some sexual intrigue and deception occur. Indecipherable details fog the simple plot: Who is/should is, declared legitimate king by the squabbling gods. Here the tale is reduced and partly excerpted from the approximately 15 pages. (The reader is advised to actually read the entire elaborate and entertaining tales presented here. Complete translations appear in Miriam Lichtheim's "Ancient Egyptian Literature" and in William Kelly Simpson's "Literature of Ancient Egypt" and in many other sources.) Seth (in this reconstruction) is Moses/Sinuhe/Sesostris III. The scene involves a group of gods in the Ennead trying to decide who the true king was during those times. Evidently a few courts ruled for Horus A/Amenemhet II (the one who died in the Red Sea). Evidently his blood heirs seek to restore his line to the throne. Wise goddess Neith says "give the office to Horus A (Amenemhet II) and give Seth wealth and two royal (goddess?) daughters, Anath and Astarte." In other words, buy him out. Thoth sides with her causing an outcry by Seth. Then Goddess Hathor gives her opinion and defends the virility of Seth. This causes another outcry: "While the bodily son is still living, should the office be given to the maternal uncle?" (This quote upholds the reconstruction family tree.) The counter claim by a Banebdjede: "Is it while Seth, his elder brother is still living that the office is to be awarded to the mere lad?" (Again a relationship confirmed in the reconstruction family tree. Seth is a foreigner, an uncle and a brother to Horus A, B, and C.) The site of judgment is moved to the "Island in the Middle." The ferryman, Nemty, is ordered not to bring any woman to the island. Isis bribes the ferryman with a golden ring. She transforms herself to a beautiful maiden who evokes a most lecherous response from Seth who goes to her with his own intentions. She whines to him that her husband died but left her a son who tended their cattle. But a stranger threatened the family, and took over while the son still lived. Seth, smitten by the sad tale said, "Is it while the son is still living that the cattle are taken by the stranger?" Aha! Isis flew up as a kite and accused Seth saying, "Be ashamed of yourself. It is your own mouth...that has accused you." (Sounds like the accusation given to biblical David for taking Uriah's only wife, a lone lamb, not a whole herd, as David had.) "You condemned yourself!" Seth complains that the wicked woman tricked him again. He wants Nemty the ferryman punished for bringing her across to the island. They ordered his toes to be cut off. (It keeps the tale from getting boring I guess.) The Ennead tries to award the office again to Horus. Seth shrieks: "...shall the office be awarded to the younger brother?" Then the pair agrees to transform themselves to hippopotamuses (hippopotami?) and fight in the sea for three months. Horus' mother, Isis harpoons her son (fearing he had been killed by Seth). He yells for her to release him. She does. Then Isis harpoons Seth who shrieks at his maternal sister to free him. She does. (I suspect that Miriam was Isis. I suspect that she had married her half-brother, Sesostris I, and produced their son Amenemhet II.) Furious that she freed her brother, Seth, her son, Horus A/Amenemhet II, cut off her head, (Miriam's head) and carried it up a mountain. Outraged, the Ennead seeks to punish him. Seth, alone, found him, removed his eyes, planted them to enlighten the earth. The eyes grew into lotuses. Then Hathor found Horus and restored his eyes and brought him back to the Ennead (dead?). (Here I suspect Horus B/Sesostris II/Aaron takes over the Horus antagonist job against Seth. And Amenemhet II died somehow at the hand of Seth/Sesostris III). Next follows a semen scenario. Seth homosexually dominates his brother, Horus B/Sesostris II/Aaron. (This is pretty graphic which seems unusual for the Egyptians. I suspect some literary device here that merely means that somehow Seth just plain dominated Horus B.) Now Isis (somehow restored to life, or actually the very old mother, Isis 2, of both Sesostris II & III) steps up to favor Horus B/Sesostris II/Aaron. They concoct some weird plot to get Seth's semen, which Horus B, touches, grosses out his mother who cuts off his hands and then restores them, gives him some replacement, clean hands. (I hope they restored that other guy's toes also.) Thoth steps in also to follow the semen trail. (More succession debate, whose son, will be the next Horus?). Thoth calls forth the semen out of Seth's ear (?) (No wonder this is considered a satire. Seems more like a cartoon. Those body parts must have some sort of puns attached.) Thoth called the semen out of the top of Seth's head in the form of a golden solar disk, which infuriated him. Seth tried to grab the disk but Thoth took it and put it on his own head. (Why? You might well ask.) Seth shrieked again as both Thoth and the Ennead claimed Horus to be right, Seth wrong. Ever unstoppable, Seth requires two stone boats be built to continue the fight over the succession. (Stone boats?)Could these boats be the "Ship of State" or some sort of laws, "written on stone tablets?" which differed from each other?) Seth's boat sank, so he turned into a hippo again, and sank Horus' boat. Exasperated, Neith lists the number of courts that had ruled in her favor (Horus's favor) over the 80 years. So finally the Ennead writes a letter to Osiris (who is dead) and asks what they should do. Of course Osiris rules in favor of his son (Apparently Osiris/Amenemhet I chooses a new Horus, Amenemhet III) and appoints him the new Horus, his heir, named after him. They make Seth a prisoner and a high god, Pre-Harakhti says, "Let Seth...dwell with me (die) ...as my son...and he shall thunder and be feared." And there was great rejoicing because the true heir, the new Horus took the office and ruled, and the eighty years contending ended. I suspect that the reigns of Sesostris II and III ended in the same year (Aaron and Moses died in the same year, Aaron previous to Moses). Amenemhet III became the new legitimate king. He probably was born after a merger in the two factions. The fact that he took the name of the original Amenemhet I means that he perhaps was born to a (Cushite/Nubian?) female family member down the line from Amenemhet I. This choice of name is conciliatory, pleasing both factions. But I also suspect that he had served under Sesostris III and may have been his son also. If one considers the stone portraits of Sesostris III/Moses and Amenemhet III/Joshua the faces resemble each other remarkably. (Sesostris II/Aaron's two sons died in a fire detailed in another Egyptian tale, "Exploits of Sesostris," and therefore his sons did not become part of the royal line. He may have had other sons that continued his high-priestly hereditary line, however.) (Aaron is here also named as the author of two other Egyptian tales, "Lamentations of Khakheperreseneb", "Debate of a Man with his Ba," which will be covered later.) The Bible basically ignores any Egyptian royal succession intrigue, except to mention the strange fire deaths of Aaron's two sons. And it mentions some disagreement between Aaron and Miriam and Moses. The older pair resent Moses' leadership. Moses declares Aaron a "Golden Calf" heretic (therefore unfit to rule) and Miriam dies in Kadesh. Miriam had been inflicted with the whiteness of leprosy after complaining about Moses' (dark) Cushite wife (Joshua's mother?). Perhaps Moses' Cushite wife Tharbis, bore Amenemhet III/Joshua and sent him to his father, Moses/Sesostris III, to succeed him. This restoration of another Nubian blood line may also have satisfied both ethnic factions. And, indeed perhaps Amenemhet III was totally charming and loveable himself, and converted all who knew him to his side. He also proved to be a good military general in the footsteps of his famous mentor/father. [Back to Top] Tale Six (Another long one): "The Eloquent Peasant"Characters: The Peasant Khun Anup, (who is Aaron), is wronged by an evil Nemty, (Amenemhet II, also known as, Nebkaura/nbw-kAw-ra who also is the pharaoh. This is confusing.) The Nemty is a nick-name for AmeNEMHET, and the "Neb" part of the other name may be "Nub" referring to the Nubian heritage of the king. Nub/Neb also means gold, for Nubia, the country of gold.) Amenemhet II (the pharaoh of the Exodus) is the king who listens to the peasant. In other words, the peasant is complaining to the king himself about the king's own evil actions. Pretty bold. The peasant appears to be referring to himself when he talks about the "wretch" who suffers by the king's actions. He actually is speaking for another: exiled murder fugitive Sinuhe/Moses who wants to return to Egypt.The Bible tells a similar situation but puts different spin on the nine eloquent presentations to the king. The Bible's nine "pleadings" appear as requests to the king to free the Hebrew slaves. Each pleading companions with a threat/punishment: the plagues/natural disasters. The Egyptian peasant, in contrast, appears to be attacking the king and his policies on many different levels. Veiled threats link the king’s actions/lack of actions as imperiling the country. I suspect that 1) The peasant speaks for the exiled murder fugitive Sinuhe/Moses who wants to return justified, forgiven for the murder of that old (rapist) king; 2) Sinuhe/Moses wants to give Egypt the benefit of his great leadership to protect the people from that "lady of Pestilence/Hathor"(read Passover angel) when she attacks. He wants to "rule," to takeover as king. This aspect is subtle; the threat of Sinuhe/Moses, with his military leadership over the foreigners poses a threat of invasion and victory. Moses speaking from a superior position makes the king an offer he cannot refuse. The speeches are just for gaining public approval for his return, his rehabilitation; 3) the peasant speaks for the Hebrew delta folks who suffered retaliation after the assassination: their property, wealth was seized. Perhaps their life became miserable by some brutal government crackdown, enforced labor, slavery; 4) the peasant wants crown permission to exit, to invade and "recover" the holy land, a land previously "theirs" by inheritance from Abraham and Joseph. Evidently Egypt controlled the foreign lands by its might. Crown permission seems to be needed to "legally" recover their previous foreign homeland, militarily. 5) And besides, the Egyptians, according to Nemty, hate those "strange bird delta feeders". So allow their "exodus." Of course the Egyptians are ambilivant about those immigrant Asiatics. On the one hand, they hate them. On the other hand, they make Egypt wealthy by their efforts. What is the king to do? Both the Bible and the Egyptian version lead up to the Passover destruction of Egypt. The tenth plague of the Bible occurs during the days of darkness when the Passover of the angel destroys Egypt. In the Egyptian tales, "The Tale of the Destruction of Mankind by Ra" tells of the same situation. (This tale will be covered later.) Summary: A peasant Khun Anup, who tries to take a trip, becomes obstructed by a landowner who puts a piece of cloth in the path. The peasant cannot go on either side without causing some minor damage. His donkey snacks on a wisp of the evil landowner’s barley. The landowner demands some outrageous payment. So the peasant goes above to complain to superiors, finally to the king. (The king is actually the evil landowner who harasses the peasant and the one who listen to the nine harangues.) The peasant goes to the royal court to detail his complaints. Secretly, the king orders kindness and provisions to be provided for the peasant and his wife Maryet (Who I suspect is Miriam. I believe Miriam married not only Sesostris I, her younger half-brother, but also later wed her full brother, Sesostris II/Aaron.) The king apparently allows the long series of tirades because perhaps he had previously agreed to the favorable outcome for the peasant. The speeches assailing the king provide propaganda favoring the "wretched exile fugitive" Sinuhe/Moses. The grandson of the assassinated Amenemhet I, had for whatever reasons, agreed to the ruse. He wanted to welcome the old murderer exonerated, forgiven and restored to his former station. Evidently, Sinuhe had reached a notable position of foreign power and had made his tribes strong and wealthy. The king wanted his services, positive resumes, and charisma back. And certainly an approaching astronomical firestorm required some of the astronomical secrets from the Sinuhe's foreigners, the Midians. In the first petition the peasant praised the king because he was "father to the orphan, husband to the widow, brother to the divorced woman, and garment to the motherless." Perhaps the king kindly allowed Sinuhe's family to remain in the House; they were also the king's relatives too. The king listening is named Nebkaure which is another of the names of Amenemhet II. (Some scholars say the name refers to an Old Kingdom king, however.) In the second petition the images of the "ship of state" begin. The king as the "Rudder of Heaven..." is advised not to "drift." Sinuhe is not named but mentioned: "How miserable is the wretch you have destroyed...You surpass the Lady of Pestilence! (In destruction). The peasant advises "Be a shelter...See I have a course without a ship...Rescue the drowning..." In other words, bring the exile back. You will need him to help guide you soon. The third petition elaborates on the nautical captain theme, the wise king theme. The peasant insults the king as "Like a ship without a captain...a model for the evil-doer!" (How eloquent these insults are, I guess is in the ears of the listener. I would have been more subtle and constructive.) The fourth: "Goodness is destroyed...the ferry is grounded..." "Be patient," he advises, "so as to learn justice." "Be not harsh in your power lest trouble befall you." (Is this a veiled threat?) "FOOL, you are attacked! Ignorant man you are questioned!" The peasant rails on, even boring himself: "The fourth time I petition you! Shall I go on all day?" (I admire the king's patience with this rude dude.) The fifth: "Rob not a poor man of his possessions, a humble man you know!" (Moses was also called humble.) The sixth: More insults, "your affairs are crooked...cheats the whole land...your estate flows with crimes!" The seventh: Now the peasant tries praise "You are the whole land's rudder, the land sails by your bidding; you are the peer of Thoth, The judge who is not partial...be patient...don't be angry...Will you find another peasant like me?" (Indeed?) The peasant refers to magicians and "joiners of the severed head!" (Are these the magicians in the Bible who Aaron and Moses upstaged? Or Djedi?) The eighth: A few more insults "greed...belly full...steal." Then "No fear of you makes me petition you...a humble man who comes to reproach you is not afraid of him with whom he pleads!" (I think not, after the long string of insults to the most powerful man in the world!) More advice, "Speak justice...for it is mighty...it is great, it endures...Crime does not attain its goal; he who is helpful reaches land." (Moses was also called mighty, and the ship captain image returns. Reaching land means the king captains successfully to the intended dock.) The ninth: The peasant continues: "Do not avert your face from one you know..." (The peasant/Aaron is the half uncle of the young king Amenemhet II, as is his brother, that old wretch, Moses/Sinuhe/Sesostris III.) Conclusion: The king Amenemhet II/Nebkaure rules in the peasants favor. (And the peasant/Aaron becomes co-regent with his young nephew. Aaron becomes Sesostris II during this Exodus period.) [Back to Top] Tale seven: "Destruction of Mankind by Ra" (taken from the longer "Cow of Heaven.")Characters: Ra is the main sun god. Eye of Ra is Hathor, the cow goddess, sent by Ra to destroy mankind. Sekhmet is the fiery lioness goddess whose appearance Hathor took on for her mission of death. King Ra seems to be a human king named after the creator god Ra. Nun is the original watery chaos from which the self-created Ra sprang.Summary: Ra is irritated with mankind (meaning Egyptians) for their sins, their plans for revolt. He decides to send his fiery eye goddess Hathor/Sekhmet to destroy them. The human king/god Ra, named after the creator God, knowing of the death threat, sends messengers to get some red ochre. They get it. They mix it with beer in a very large quantity. They flood the fields’ three palms high with the blood red liquid hoping to tempt the destroyer to get drunk and forget about destruction. She came in the morning and saw the red stuff and was pleased by it. She drank, got drunk and wandered off leaving her murderous plans unfinished. Here, this tale describes not only the Passover angel of death sent by God to destroy the Egyptians, but it also describes the disguised abomination of human sacrifice. The tale sanitizes human sacrifice to the cow goddess by the almost laughable red-colored beer. The cow goddess Hathor is also Aaron's "Golden Calf." Hathor is also called the "Golden one." The first and last plagues of the bible tell of blood. The first plague has all the water turn to blood. It does not take much of a jump to assume that the blood came from dead bodies, perhaps human bodies sacrificed before the Passover angel struck, sacrificed in order to deflect her. The "blood of the lamb" put on the door lintels of the Hebrews protected the rest of the family from Passover deaths. And the blood of the "lamb" may be the oldest son who offered his life, in sacrifice, to protect his family. Perhaps this is the religious activities done by the Hebrews after they went three days travel to the mountains, that the Egyptians considered being "abominations." However, the Egyptians certainly, not exempt from fear themselves, ran off and got some "fake" blood to get their cow goddess drunk to distract her from causing more deaths. That fake blood/beer covered a field "three palms high" or "to the knees." The size of the field is not given but the amount of the red stuff certainly is notable. Sounds like some human sacrifice on both sides, driven by fear and terror caused by the visible impending astro events coming to destroy them. (Also Aaron led the Hebrews in worshiping the "Golden Calf." Aaron as high priest and pharaoh Sesostris II, served as co-regent with the younger Amenemhet II, the pharaoh of the Exodus who may have died during the chaos.) Another short Egyptian tale “Astarte and the Insatiable Sea," seems to be describing some event involving the goddess and the Sky, and the Sea. It may parallel the "Ugartic Poem of Baal." Here the goddesses Hathor, Astarte and Baal seem to be the same character. Excerpts: "...after seven days the Sky...descended...upon the Sea...Tribute is brought to him...otherwise he will take us away captive...treasure in boxes...fearful...take tribute to the Sea..." (tribute of sacrificed blood?) Then Astarte sat on the shore, the Sea spoke to her, "Where have you come from, O daughter of Ptah, you furious and tempestuous goddess? Did you wear through your sandals...tear your garments...when you were moving about between the sky and the earth? (Imagine how terrible the vision of some rogue comet hanging above, running amuck!) Next she appears before the Ennead and gets some tribute, jewel beads, something about the Sea and seven. The very damaged and partial tale offers just a few tidbits. This short "Astarte" tale also recalls the short "Tale of the herdsman." In this tale the goddess also appears on the shore and terrifies a nearby herdsman. These two tales seem to offer a similar tale, but much shorter than the "Destruction of Mankind" tale. All three seem to position the goddess in the sky with terror. All three tales seem to fit very well in confirming the biblical version of the Passover angel of death killing Egyptians. The longer "Destruction" tale confirms that some Egyptians survived. [Back to Top] Tale eight: "Ipuwer" (also "Admonitions of Ipuwer" or "Lamentations" or some other variation)Characters: Ipuwer, an Egyptian scribe, historian, a person who saw the horrible devastation, upheaval, and chaos after the "Destruction of Mankind by Ra"/the Passover. He obviously preferred the previous situation, the status quo, the good old days. However, the events evidently killed the "firstborn" the rich land owners (usually the estate passed to the firstborn). The destruction must have hit the wealthy pretty bad. The looters, the poor evidently took advantage of the situation and usurped whatever they could find. They assumed the status of those who died in the chaos. Politically, three kings vied for control of the dire situation: Amenemhet II, who probably died in some military skirmish (at the Red Sea, a sea turned red by blood?), trying to regain some order; Sesostris II, the high priest, who assumed the co-regency and led some weird religion worshiping the comet/cow goddess/golden calf; and Sesostris III, who just plain took over, prevailed and installed his own supporters in all the estates, and offices. These probably were those delta "strange bird" foreigner Asiatic feeders (Hebrews? Hyksos?).Summary: Woe! Woe! Woe! Maat is gone! What a mess. (Some scholars consider this to be fiction because they suspect that there is no evidence of such chaos. They ignore the companion tale, "Destruction of Mankind by Ra" as related to this lamentation. Both are historic, despite having some "fictional" characters: Ra and Hathor and Sekhmet. Here those gods are astro solar cometary destructions most notable and horrendous. They are merely astro events anthropomorphized. Ipuwer begins: "plunder...battle...shields...hostility...mourning on account of the state of the land...foreigners ...everywhere." Then a real (not purported) past prediction acknowledged: "What the ancestors foretold has happened." (I suspect he means that the astronomers warned of the destructive event. (Joseph, in the last paragraph of Genesis, on his deathbed warned, "God will visit!" and when he does "get my bones outta here (Egypt)." He wanted his mummy preserved from the coming destruction. Moses took the mummy and reburied it in Nablus/Schechem with some of the old ancestors. Moses saved Joseph’s body from the destructive Passover angel he had predicted.) Lamentations describe farmers having to carry shields, gangs roving, robbers everywhere, servants stealing, farmers ignoring the Nile flood, women become barren, blood everywhere, no shortage of dead, many dead in the river, every town revolts, no white garments, robbers rich, nobles become thieves. "Lo, the river is blood." Many battle sites have rivers, streams called "Bloody Run" or "Red River" or some such variation usually referring to some terrible battle in which the soldiers fall and lie bleeding in the flowing streams causing the cleanup crew to note that the river runs red with blood. Likewise, in the Bible the first and last plagues cite the blood. The First plague caused all the water to turn to blood. Most scholars ignore the obviousness that the blood comes from dead bodies. This common literary convention assumes that the reader knows where the blood came from. Even the Red Sea may have itself become horrendously colored by the blood, thus being named by the bloody horror. Then the tenth plague of darkness, the Passover angel of death, caused the Egyptian "firstborn" to die. (The word firstborn here, means the “best,” the wealthiest landed nobility, the elite military, likened to the “first string” of football players or best military fighters, the royal army, not composed of peasants, who would be called the last-borns.) Certainly the first and last plagues could be merged into the same event. All the plagues and the Passover should be combined to include the entire horrendous astro-caused disaster that hit Egypt. Ipuwer then describes fires, the ship of state foundering, ravaged towns, crocodiles gorging on the bodies, dying people flap like fish. Children are gone, food is gone, the animals suffer, the cattle (Egyptians) bemoan, noble children are dashed against the wall. And "A man strikes his maternal brother..." (This refers to Moses going after his two brothers Amenemhet II, and Sesostris II/Aaron, as has been elaborated in the "80 Years Contentings.") More grief listed, yesterday's comforts recalled, no more births, no fresh salads, people take from the mouths of pigs, hunger everywhere, storehouse is bare, official land titles stolen, files destroyed, magic spells stolen, writings stolen, books destroyed, laws tossed, beggars take over mansions. Then the repetition of a previous quote from “Instructions of Amenemhet I to his son Sesostris I”: “The wise says, ‘Yes,’ the fool says, ‘No.’” (Like todays’readers?) More fires, the king robbed by beggars, the secrets of the pyramid gone, one buried as the hawk, no king, men rebel against the Serpent (priesthood). "The Serpent is dead," (this would be Aaron, the high priest/pope.) Problems with royal tombs. The main problems as seen by Ipuwer seem to be the rise of the wretched survivors because the wealthy, wise upper-class is gone, leaving a vacuum into which the poor beggars swarm unworthily. Worst of all the surviving royal women and noblewomen are driven to unite with those interlopers. They give up their wealth and become servants to those scavenging looter gangs. "See, a man is slain by the side of his brother, who abandons him to save himself." A comment about Aaron who evidently did not speak up to stop the assassination in fear of retaliation from the assassin? Total chaos, free-for-all at the storehouses, looters takes the luxury items which they don't deserve. Ipuwer wants all those interlopers killed. (And with whom would he replace them if all those deserving nobles are all dead anyway?) Then he pines for the good old days. Incense, libations, fat geese offerings, natron, white bread, flags, temples clean and shining like milk, fragrances, observing the rules, adjusting of dates (astronomically?), slaughtering of oxen (humans?). All the children are missing, the true estate heirs dead, lack of births, misery everywhere. Murders everywhere. No order. However, he still hopes for some return to order "when good ships sail upstream." When fishing and fowling return, when roads are repaired, ponds dug, tombs built, when people can get drunk and shout for joy, wearing clean clothes, belly full, sleeping in the shade, fine linen and robes ready. Now he blames the Asiatics, wonders about the Nubians, bowmen from Libya. The Medjai are content with Egypt. Again, "How does everyman kill his brother? (Sinuhe/Moses/Sesostris III having killed his brothers Amenemhet I and Sesostris II/Aaron?) Then the last sentence, "There was an old man who was about to die, while his son was a child without knowledge." Here again the old man is Amenemhet I, who was assassinated, leaving his co-regent son, Sesostris I, deceived by the assassin. The whole horrific situation is blamed on the assassin Moses/Sinuhe/Sesostris III. Obviously, Ipuwer sees the hero from a differing viewpoint than the Biblical version. Evidently, also because Moses could foresee the Passover destroyer angel coming, and tried to evacuate the people, Ipuwer blames the messenger. The messenger who tried to be a savior despite serious disbelief and opposition. It is almost as if Ipuwer credits Moses from with calling the destroyer angel to punish Egyptians, rather than to warn them and evacuate them. [Back to Top] Tale nine: "Exploits of Sesostris” (or some variation of this title. The entire short tale is given in Herodotus but is not found in the original Egyptian tales.)Characters: Sesostris is here Sesostris II/Aaron. Some scholars conflate the hero with Sesostris III and also with the much later Ramesses II. The "brother left in charge of Egypt" is Sesostris II/Aaron. The "two sons" are Aaron's two sons, Nadav and Avihu, who died in a "strange fire (Lv 16:1)."In the Biblical version, the two sons die somehow by fire involving the Ark of the Covenant. Short text about an Egyptian king, Sesostris (no Roman numeral designation) who fought with his “brother left in charge” of Egypt. This brother tried to dispatch this king in a fake welcome-home party that he torched. Two of the king’s sons heroically threw themselves down over the fire to allow the king and his wife and the rest of the family to escape. One version used is in Maspero’s “Popular Tales of Ancient Egypt.” Here this king is identified as Sesostris II and as Aaron who lost his sons to a strange fire (Lv 10:1-2). Aaron is the “brother left in charge” of Egypt. Moses, the military hero returning from Palestine, later became Sesostris III, a conquering warrior. This short tale comes from Herodotus Book 2. It is short enough to copy hereand implies that Herodotus had access to some original Egyptian information not now available. Chapter 106 [1] As to the pillars that Sesostris, king of Egypt, set up in the countries, most of them are no longer to be seen. But I myself saw them in the Palestine district of Syria, with the aforesaid writing and the women's private parts on them…. [5] Some of those who have seen these figures guess they are Memnon, but they are far indeed from the truth. Chapter 107 [1] Now when this Egyptian Sesostris (so the priests said) reached Daphnae of Pelusium on his way home, leading many captives from the peoples whose lands he had subjugated, his brother, whom he had left in charge in Egypt, invited him and his sons to a banquet and then piled wood around the house and set it on fire. [2] When Sesostris was aware of this, he at once consulted his wife, whom (it was said) he had with him; and she advised him to lay two of his six sons on the fire and make a bridge over the burning so that they could walk over the bodies of the two and escape. This Sesostris did; two of his sons were thus burnt but the rest escaped alive with their father. Chapter 108 [1] After returning to Egypt, and avenging himself on his brother, Sesostris found work for the multitude which he brought with him from the countries which he had subdued. [2] It was these who dragged the great and long blocks of stone which were brought in this king's reign to the temple of Hephaestus; and it was they who were compelled to dig all the canals which are now in Egypt, and involuntarily made what had been a land of horses and carts empty of these. [3] For from this time Egypt, although a level land, could use no horses or carts, because there were so many canals going every which way. The reason why the king thus intersected the country was this: [4] those Egyptians whose towns were not on the Nile, but inland from it, lacked water whenever the flood left their land, and drank only brackish water from wells. Chapter 109 [1] For this reason Egypt was intersected. This king also (they said) divided the country among all the Egyptians by giving each an equal parcel of land, and made this his source of revenue, assessing the payment of a yearly tax. [2] And any man who was robbed by the river of part of his land could come to Sesostris and declare what had happened; then the king would send men to look into it and calculate the part by which the land was diminished, so that thereafter it should pay in proportion to the tax originally imposed…. Chapter 110 [1] Sesostris was the only Egyptian king who also ruled Ethiopia. To commemorate his name, he set before the temple of Hephaestus two stone statues, of himself and of his wife, each fifty feet high, and statues of his four sons, each thirty-three feet…. (End of Herodotus excerpt) Herodotus seems to have merged Sesostris II & III by mistake. Chapter 106 tells where the king had traveled, to Palestine/Syria and had returned to Daphne/Pelusium in the eastern delta area of Egypt. Here, perhaps Moses/Sesostris III had returned from the holy land and found Aaron "ruling" (making decisions) against Moses' wishes. The above chapter 107 describes the "strange fire deaths of Aaron/Sesostris II's two sons." The Bible (Lv 10) denies the reader any details about that fatal fire, except to say that those two sons had tried to do some unapproved something, "unfit fire," involving the Ark of the Covenant. Moses rules the scene and is angered at Aaron and the dead sons. He orders no mourning for them. Moses also is angered at two other sons over some religious rules involving rituals. There is no question that Moses rules over the situation, over Aaron and his family, and over the rules. YHWH supports Moses. Chapter 108 tells of the king dominating his brother. This situation matches Moses dominance over Aaron. (And it appears to match that offensive "sexual domination" of Seth over Horus in "80 Years Contending". To put it another way, Moses really screwed Aaron out of the heredity royal succession family battle. Moses would choose the next leader/king.) Chapter 109 tells of the political reorganization Sesostris III/Moses imposed on Egypt. He replaced the nomarchs with his Asiatics, Midian family in-laws, which perhaps began a Hyksos/Asiatics/Semites dynastic system. Recall in the Bible that Jethro/Hobab blew in Moses' ear that he needed to make appointments, put favorites in judicial positions, in order to save his strength. And who would the Midian tribal leader/priest suggest? He certainly had a long list of favorites who came into power in Egypt. Chapter 110 agrees with Josephus that Moses had reigned as king over Ethiopia, and had married Tharbis, and certainly had sons by her. Moses had made a name for himself as a conquering hero over Ethiopia before he had killed Amenemhet I. Amenemhet I had been the son of Moses' father with a Nubian (Cushite, Ethiopian?) queen Nefru. Foreign peace making mergers, no doubt. (This author considers Herodotus and Josephus to be "secondary" sources. "Primary" sources are the Bible and those Twelfth Dynasty tales.) [Back to Top] Tale ten: "Lamentaions of Khakheperreseneb"Characters: Khakheperre seneb who has the same second name as Sesostris II/Aaron. He is also Khun Anup, the "Eloquent Peasant." He is also the "Man who has a debate with his Ba." Another unnamed person, "his heart"(?), seems to be addressed. That would be the new king, Sesostris III who took over after requiring the abdication of his brother. This tale may be his abdication speech.Summary: This three page lament starts with the author's complaint that his eloquence fails him. He laments the usual literary formats, the repetitions, the phrases, those the forefathers used. He needs new stuff, new words. He wants to give himself free rein. He complains about other literature from former times, and what their descendants discovered. (Which certainly refers to those after-the-fact prophetic discoveries, such as the “Prophecy of Neferty?" He continues, "Not a tale of telling after the fact: they did it before. Nor yet a story for future telling." Sounds like a literary critic. "It is falsehood." Or perhaps, just propaganda. He really is trying to choose a way to convey his reality, he enormous suffering during a spate of other literary competition for attention. He tells about the changes in the land. The dire situation with mourning everywhere. "Would that I had a heart that knew how to suffer." He laments for the land. Everyone is suffering, no one free from wrong. "No champion to rescue one from a stronger man." (Khakheperre/Sesostris II/Aaron falls under the domination of Sesostris III/Moses.) "Precision in speech is abandoned." He really does appear to complain about how his words fail to convey how bad it is. "The needs of a servant are like those of a master. Plentiful are the things which weigh upon you." (This comment may be an acknowledgement that the master (Moses) has his share of problems, perhaps more than the servant (Aaron) had. Apparently a conciliatory remark to the new king, Sesostris III/Moses. Sesostris III "took over" for his failed brother king Sesostris II/Aaron. The new king allowed the replaced king to lament his situation to the public in the short tale, the abdication. Sesostris III/Moses allowed the second Sesostris kingship to remain on the king lists, perhaps because he loved his full brother, perhaps he knew that he owed him for the "Eloquent Peasant" speeches that won the exoneration of the old fugitive. The new king did not have a much longer reign himself. The translator seems to think that this "Lamentation" is only a portion, an introduction to a lost longer tale. The next, however, "Debate" tale seems, according to the translators, to have the first portion missing. This author puts both these tales as "bookends" by the same author. Both tell of the same dire situation, and the author's personal grief, his abdication and perhaps anticipated ordered suicide, or execution. It also hopes that history will treat him kindly, and that his soul will rest justified. Both authors are Sesostris II/Aaron writing from the perspective of defeat. It has been pretty grim. [Back to Top] Tale eleven: "Debate/Dispute of a Man and his Ba," or "The Man who was tired of Life."Characters: The man is Sesostris II/Aaron. His Ba is his soul, soon to fly. An "intimate" is his former friend who abandons him now. The "intimate" is his brother, King Sesostris III/Moses (who had also “betrayed” another “intimate” brother a long time ago.)The author feels terrible. His life, his sins, his misfortune weigh very heavily on him. He is close to death which looks good to him compared to his miserable life. He tells his Ba to listen to him without malice, make accord with him, and they will be happy in the next world. There seems to be the possibility that he knows that an unhappy outcome after death is possible. He fears the ba leading him to a place in the West. He wants an heir to tend his tomb. "It is taking a man from his house, casting him on high ground." (The situation: the new king dispossessed him, kicked him out of the palace, and ordered him to his tomb. Sessostris III/Moses took over as king, ordered him to abdicate and take his own life.) Then the Man laments his family tragedy. He had loaded his harvest into a boat (as captain of the Ship of State). The boat foundered (his regime failed.) He grieves for his mother (who he assumes preferred his keeping the throne rather than his younger brother.) He grieves for her/his children broken in the egg (killed before they could assume the throne) who have seem the face of the Crocodile before they have lived. (Maybe even referring to his dead sister, thrown to the crocodiles, punished as a whore.) She would have been an ideal queen, their children doubly royal. (Evidently he believed in reincarnation, because he says "There is no weeping for that mother, for whom there is no coming from the West (death) for another being-on-earth." Her bad death prohibits her return from death to earth to live again (?). Then the Man switches to a three part poetic litany: (Eight times he lists bad odors about him.) "Lo, my name reeks" as stinky as carrion, fish in the sun, ducks, fishermen, crocodiles..." Then he switches to "My name reeks more than a wife, about whom lies are told to the husband." (Who is this? Miriam or Sidiptu?) "My name reeks more than that of a sturdy child who is said to belong to one who rejects him" (an illegitimate child?) (Who could this be? Perhaps that kid that Isis tried to foist on the throne, born after the dissembled king had died and his phallus remained missing?) "My name reeks more than a king's town that utters sedition behind his back." (I guess they upheld his abdication, and supported his foe.) Then he list's sixteen three liners beginning with "To whom shall I speak today?" He mainly targets his brother: "Brothers are mean; friends of today do not love." Then he laments greed, insolence, those content with evil, criminal comedians, plunderers. Back to that brother: "The criminal is one's intimate, the brother with whom one dealt is a foe." (Aaron calls his intimate friend brother, Moses, a foe. That ingrate does not remember the past, and how he helped him as the Eloquent Peasant, who pled and won his case.) "Brothers are mean...Everyone turns his face from his brothers." (Recall how he turned his back to the assassination plot against a different brother, Amenemhet I.) "Greedy...evildoers...no intimates...none cheerful...I am burdened with grief for lack on an intimate (that brother again)...wrong roams and ends not." Then he switches a third time to six three-liners beginning with "Death is before me today" and it smells real good! "Like...going outdoors...myrrh...sailing...lotus...drinking to drunkenness...coming home from war...a clear sky...going home after a long captivity." (Nothing like putting a positive spin on dying.) Then the fourth poetic switch: four three-liners addressed to (his mean brother?) "He who is yonder." (or to himself in the after-life?) This person will "be a living god (king/pharaoh) punishing evil...will stand in the sun-bark (ship of state) making bounty return to the temples...will be wise...appealing to Ra when he speaks." He finishes with his ba speaking to him "Now throw complaint on the woodpile...the brazier...love me...when you go to the West! When your body joins the earth, I will alight after you have become weary, and we will dwell together!" (A ba flies like a bird, the soul flies from the body.) The ending is noted: "It is finished from beginning to end, as it was found in writing." And this eloquent dying author is also finished, but perhaps still lives on in his farewell address. (Sesostris II's reign ends, he dies. Sesostris III, takes over, and also dies within the same year, having chosen the next king, his son Amenemhet III/Joshua, the new Horus, approved by all.) [Back to Top] Tale twelve: "Shipwrecked Sailor"Characters: A sailor (Sinuhe/Sesostris III/Moses). A novice sailor (Sesostris II/Aaron). A great serpent (Sinuhe's high priest late father.) A dear daughter (Sidiptu). Several fellows lost in the wreck.Summary: An old sailor is telling a novice of his adventure. He tells of being in a shipwreck which killed all his ship mates. He finds himself on a mysterious island in the presence of an enormous snake that treats him kindly and questions him. The snake also tells a sad tale. Then the sailor returns to his land blessed with gifts, and the island disappears. The tale ends with a comment about the uselessness of giving water to a goose about to die. The tale begins "We have reached home...the mooring-post staked, the prow-rope placed." (In other words the Ship of State, the reign of a king has ended.) The sailor advises the novice on how to talk to the king about his failed mission "with presence of mind...without stammering. A man's mouth can save him. His speech makes one forgive him. But do as you like. It is tiresome to talk to you." The old sailor, Sinuhe/Sesostris III/Moses, is talking to his novice, but failed, brother about how to explain himself. The old sailor then tells of his mission to the mines in a large ship with 120 brave shipmates, no fools among them. An enormous wave came and destroyed the ship and all the mates. He alone survived. He found himself cast on an island in the waves. He lit a fire as a burnt offering to the gods. Then, he continued, a 30 cubit snake approached, overlaid with gold and lapis lazuli, and questioned the sailor. "Who brought you here?" The sailor repeated the shipwreck tale. The serpent replied, "Don't be afraid...It is god who has...saved and brought you to this wonderful island of the ka..." The snake then predicted, "You will spend four months here...then go home on a ship with sailors you know...and you will die in your town. (The shipwreck is the assassination and failed coup plot in which Sinuhe/Mosews killed the Amenemhet I. The 120 mates who died in the wreck actually were caught and executed by Sesostris II for their part in the failed coup plot that killed Amenemhet I. The mysterious island represents a spiritual place. The fabulous serpent is a holy priest, the sailor's late father. The four months may actually be four decades of exile, which Sinuhe/Moses endured.) The serpent then shares a similar tale with the sailor. He details about his family and 75 fellow serpents on the island and a dear little daughter for whom he had obtained through prayer. He tells that a "star fell" and he found them all in a "heap of corpses." (The "star" that fell is not only the slain king, Amenemhet I, but also the angry comet goddess Hathor who came at the same time as the failed coup, to cause other misery. The priest serpent and his priests had participated in the plot. Seventy-five priests were caught and executed by Sesostris II, the slain king's co-regent son, who quashed the failed plot. In other words the harem henchmen and the priesthood both participated in that assassination plot. It is unclear if the serpent/priest/father died in the executions. However, the "dear daughter" is Cayce's Sidiptu, who died by crocodiles as detailed in the last part of the "Triplet Kings" tale. She is the "little girl who grew up in the House" (from the “Triplet Tale”) and who was lamented by her mother. The father and mother's grief is recorded in two different tales, who supports and interlocks these tales as being part of a unified saga. Then the sailor's four months on the wealthy island end and his fellows come to claim him. He loads the ship with treasures and gifts from the generous serpent. The serpent again predicts, "You will reach home in two months...will embrace your children...will flourish at home...and be buried." The sailor returns, takes the treasures to the king who welcomed him (Amenemhet II). He says, "I was made an attendant and endowed with serfs of his." Then he tells his tale, "Listen to me! It is good for people to listen." Back to that pitiful novice (Sesostris II/Aaron) "Don't make an effort...who would give water to a goose that will be slaughtered in the morning?" (In other words, Sinuhe became Sesostris III and ordered the execution of Sesostris II/Aaron for heresy which probably included failure as a king, or perhaps for killing the young Amenemhet II. This left Sinuhe/Sesostris III/Moses in charge. He also died shortly after his brother. But he had appointed his son, Amenemhet III/Joshua to take over, who ruled wisely for a long time.) The tale ends with the Colophon: "It is done from beginning to end as it was found in writing, by the scribe with skilled fingers, Imenaa, son of Imeny--life, prosperity, health!" (This hired scribe either took dictation from the "Shipwrecked Sailor" for composing the tale, or else the patron asked for an artistic version, an apologia to match the other "bookend", the companion partial autobiography, the "Story of Sinuhe." Afterward: Note that Moses remains the main character in all these tales, either as hero or villain. |
|
Amenemhet I: Biblical “Egyptian killed by Moses”
Seni/Seny/Sesostris O: Biblical Amram, father of Moses
|
[Main]
[Order]
[Contact] |
 |
 |
|