the dawn of monotheism revisited

solami |  §1     In 1961, the Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner set the stage for a more enlightening reading of humanity's record - in as much as it relied on Egypt's history and its King List as relayed to us notably by the historian Manetho. In his book "Egypt of the Pharaohs" (p.170), he declared: "Manetho's narrative represents the last stage of a process of falsifications which started within a generation after the triumph of Amosis" over the vilified Hyksos (1575-1550 Old Chronology, henceforth OC).  In this critical analysis, Gardiner has been supported by a growing number of scholars, some thus coming up with remarkable - even if occasionally conflicting - new ideas, theories and insights (1).  One of them, the Islamic scholar and Egyptologist Ahmed Osman, in one of his latest books "Moses Pharaoh of Egypt - the Mystery of Akhenaten Resolved", thus commented our tampered records:

     "Like the accounts of the historian Manetho, the Talmudic stories contain many distortions and accretions arising from the fact that they were transmitted orally for a long time before finally being set down in writing. Yet one can sense that behind the myths there must have lain genuine historical events that had been suppressed from the official accounts of both Egypt and Israel, but had survived in the memories of the generations" (p.24). "The Alexandrian Jews were naturally interested in Manetho's account of their historic links with Egypt, although they found some aspects of it objectionable. His original work therefore did not survive for long before being tampered with [2/3 of Zarathushtra's Avesta reportedly was even deliberately destroyed]" (p.27). And: "Yoyotte ... became one of the few to see through the 'embellishments' of the biblical account and identify the historical core of the story ..." (p.48).

§2     Thus, it was time someone went beyond mere bickering over the confusing King Lists. With his book "A Test of Time", the Assyrologist and Egyptologist David Rohl has presented an archeologically and astronomically supported NewChronology (henceforth NC, with the reign of Ramses II thus placed in the 10th century BC, i.e. dated some 350 years later than traditionally recorded, and the reign of Akhenaton beginning some 3025 years ago and overlapping the ascendancy of David as the successor to King Saul).  If independently confirmed in its key elements by further research, we would find ourselves at the threshold of a new era, providing startling synchronologies of the past to which we were blinded through our own shortcomings and not necessarily by design.  Recognizing this could have vast implications for the future far beyond the bedeviled Middle Eastern craddle where our monotheistic beliefs appear to have their common roots. Osman's comments on the above-quoted koranic and biblical texts may help us to get there:

     "... the Koran presents the confrontation in such a precise way that one wonders if some of the details were left out of the biblical account deliberately. Here Moses sounds less like a magician, more like someone who presents evidence of his authority that convinces the wise men of Egypt, who throw themselves at his feet and thus earn the punishment of [an imposter] Pharaoh. One can only suspect that the biblical editor exercised care to avoid any Egyptian involvement with the Israelite Exodus, even to the extent of replacing Moses by Aaron in the performance of the rituals. ... [During] their sed festival celebrations, Egyptian kings performed rituals that correspond to the 'serpent rod' and 'hand' rituals performed by Moses - and, in performing them, Moses was not using magic but seeking to establish his royal authority.
     I think the correct interpretation of these accounts [of the Bible and the Koran] is that, when Akhenaten was forced to abdicate, he must have taken his royal sceptre to Sinai with him. On the death of Horemheb, the last king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, about a quarter of a century later, he must have seen an opportunity to restore himself to the throne. No heir to the Tuthmosside kings existed and it was Pa-Ramses, commander of Horemheb's army and governor of Zarw, who had claim to the throne. Akhenaten returned to Egypt and the wise men were gathered in order to decide between him and Pa-Ramses. Once they saw the sceptre of royal authority and Akhenaten had performed the sed festival rituals - secret from ordinary citizens - the wise men bowed the knee in front of him, confirming that his was the superior right to the throne, but Pa-Ramses used his army to crush the rebels. Moses was allowed to leave again for Sinai, however, accompanied by the Israelites, his mother's relatives, and the few Egyptians who had been converted to the new [monotheistic] religion that he had attempted to force upon Egypt a quarter of a century earlier. In Sinai the followers of Akhenaten were joined subsequently by some bedouin tribes (the Shasu), who are to be identified as the Midianites of the Bible. No magic was performed, or intended, by Moses. The true explanation of the biblical story could only be that it was relating the polical challenge for power in a mythological way - and all the plagues of which we read were natural, seasonal events in Egypt in the course of every year. ..." (p.178f)
     "This would explain how a new version of the Osiris-Horus myth came into existence from the time of the Nineteenth Dynasty. Osiris, the King of Egypt, was said to have had to leave the country for a long time. On his eventual return he was assassinated by Set, who had usurped the throne, but Horus, the son of Osiris, confronted Set at Zarw and slew him. According to my interpretation of events, it was in fact 'Set' who slew 'Horus'; but their roles were later reversed by those who wished to believe in an eternal life for Horus [alternatively, if their roles were not reversed, that might support the idea that Moses/Akhenaton had a role to play in Canaan/Palestine in the post-exodus period]. This new myth developed to the point where Osiris/Horus became the principal god worshipped in Egypt in later times while Set was looked upon as the evil one. This myth could have been a popular reflection of a real historical event - a confrontation between Moses and Seti I on top of the mountain in Moab." (p.187f)

§3     These conclusions could go a long way to explain not only the developments which took place following the 18^thDynasty but many of the undercurrents still gripping the Middle East. Particularly the relations between the descendents of the competitors to the Throne of Pharaoh,Ramses I and Akhenaton (Moses if, for this study, we were to follow Osman'sanalysis: 2); i.e. the Egyptians on the one side and the "Children of Israel" on the other who, both, would appear to be victims of imaginative falsifiers of history. And they would clear up many mysteries, if it were not for the uncertainties which persist on what happened at the end and after Akhenaton's 17 year reign, particularly whether, how and where Akhenaton lived on. So far, no archeological or historical evidence has become known which would undisputably attest to Akhenaton's death at a certain time and place.

 

§4     Until recently, most scholars tended to interprete the fragmentary archeological data as pointing to a violent death of what many describe as the "heretic Pharaoh" at his regnal year 17. And they mostly associated that end of the first monotheistic reign with the subsequent resurgence of the Amon cult all over Egypt. Initially, this seemed to be supported by esoteric sources, i.e. by currently living persons who, on the basis of personal reincarnation experiences, are said to have been contemporaries of Akhenaton (3). By their very nature, these subjective accounts are just that. They cannot be relied upon without corroberating data. Nevertheless, in the absence of more conclusive information - like contributions from other disciplines - they may constitute imaginative and sometimes helpful hints and pointers for further research and more enlightened analysis.

 

§5     Pointing notably to the striking parallels between Akhenaton's Great Hymn to Aton (Gardiner, p.225f) and Psalm 104, scholars suspect the authors of these texts to be identical. Moreover, the Encyclopaedia Judaica (vol.12, pp. 378, 388, 389, 390, 400) recorded :

     "No primary source of information on Moses exists outside the Bible. ... [In] the Haggadah's hymnic confession Dayyeinu, ... Israel's career from Egypt to the settlement is rehearsed in 13 stages without a reference to Moses. ... According to Artapanos, Moses ... was the first pilosopher, and invented a variety of machines for peace and war. He was also responsible for the political organization of Egypt (having divided the land into 36 nomes) ... According to Josephus, Moses was the most ancient of all legislators in the records of the world. Indeed, he maintains that the very word 'law' was unknown in ancient Greece (Jos., Apion 2:154). ...
     Hecataeus of Abdera presented Moses as the founder of the Jewish state, ascribing to him the conquest of Palestine and the building of Jerusalem and the Temple. He explained, in the Platonic manner, that Moses divided his people into 12 tribes, because 12 is a perfect number, corresponding to the number of months in the year (cf. Plato, Laws, 745b-d; Republic, 546b). ... Very curious is the legend recorded by Israel Lipschuetz b. Gedaliah (Tiferet Yisrael to Kid. end, n.77).  A certain King, having heard of Moses' fame, sent a renowned painter to portray Moses' features.
On the painter's return with the portrait the king showed it to his sages, who unanimously proclaimed that the features portrayed were those of a degenerate [4]. The astonished king journeyed to the camp of Moses and observed for himself that the portrait did not lie. Moses admitted that the sages were right and that he had been given from birth many evil traits of character but that he had held them under control and succeeded in conquering them. This, the narrative concludes, was Moses' greatness, that, in spite of his tremendous handicaps, he managed to become the man of God. Various attempts have, in fact, been made by some rabbis to ban the further publication of this legend as a denigration of Moses' character."

§6     Together, these and other ancient voices are seen to support the view that the name Moses - incidently like that of Salomon - may be less the real name and more one which was adopted post-festum for the biblical editors' or their taskmasters' purposes. Could it be then that the person hidden behind the name-of-convenience of Moses is in fact Akhenaton? In that event, he would have lived beyond his reign in Egypt (similarities come to mind with Jesus’ alleged post-crucification life in Kashmir (India) and elswhere and how that persistently recurring story has been treated by the powers that be, i.e. by those who consider themselves as the gardiens of the Holy Grail).

 

§7     Sigmund Freud concluded in his 1939 book "Moses and Monotheism" that Moses was not an Israelite but an Egyptian whose teachings derived from Akhenaton's pure monotheism (which he had imposed for apparently imperative economic reasons). That, of course, would require rewriting those stories which ante-date the "exodus of the Israelites" - if that ever happened as such and was not in fact an exodus of monotheistic Egyptians - rather than one of slaves - to what may have been their Palestinian exile (essentially brought about by deseases and power struggles between factions associated with the legitimate, and on the other side with the illegitimate contender to the Throne of Pharaoh?).