Grant
Proposal
The Hypothetical consideration of a shared
symmetry between ancient Egyptian history and the Biblical record
Brent Stone
Methodology
December 2021
The topic of my Grant proposal is as follows.
The possibility of a shared symmetry between specific events in ancient Egyptian history and the Biblical narrative.
This would involve primary and secondary sources regarding specific events in ancient Egyptian history and the Biblical narrative. I will be resting the weight my theories on Egyptian history in primary and secondary sources. I will be using the Biblical narrative as a corroboratory ghost source. When my fellow students and future colleagues shared their critique of my Grant Proposal, they of course thought of many things I did not. They made a lot of good suggestions and I have incorporated them in this final draft.
There is one specific and sensible point that was common in the three critiques of my rough draft and that was the understandable consideration of theology as part of the bundle so to speak. After all, it makes sense that if someone is going to write a grant proposal that includes the Biblical narrative as a corroboratory ghost source that theology will come into it sooner or later. This is a sensible yet inaccurate conclusion. I will make a few points here regarding the questions my future colleagues posed regarding the projects seeming connection with theology.
Their considerations are questions I would have asked if I was initially unfamiliar with the subject matter of this Grant Proposal. Therefore, at the beginning of this grant proposal, I must categorically lay to rest any conclusion that theology will come into it at any point besides this brief foray on the topic in relation to the project. I will be approaching this project from Egyptian history. If there is an event in the Biblical record that I theorize as being part of the same event in ancient Egyptian history, I will offer my reasons for believing it to be so before going on. I will be using the Biblical record in a historical manner rather an ethical, moral or spiritual manner. I will be utilizing the Biblical narrative as a historical ghost source.
The express purpose, primarily speaking, is not a direct attempt to convert anyone or demand faith from any individuals who may have issues with the existence of the metaphysical. It may end up affirming faith depending on the background and presuppositions of those who are reading this. The primary and secondary sources should not be the final or last word for those who embrace faith. If people of faith are looking for ancient discoveries related to the Bible, there is nothing wrong with that and it looks and sounds better with primary and secondary sources that are in harmony with what I call the corroboratory ghost source, the Bible. If people of faith choose to put more confidence in the founder of the faith with subsequent ancient, Bible based connections or discoveries as a sort bonus, then that is like putting the horse in front of the cart. This is the mindset I aspire to. If I am a person of faith but I choose to only use ancient discoveries, as viable as some have been, to validate my faith rather than the founder, it is like I am using a spoon in a canoe rather than a paddle.
As important as faith is, the point of this project is curiosity and a subsequent desire to know what happened rather than a specific intent to prove religious faith. In the realm of faith, if someone believes that the knowledge of discoveries (such as Noah’s ark, for example) will deepen their religious experience, then it is like supposing that an object that was a gift is more fulfilling than the relationship with the person who gave the gift. In religious faith, as in life, relationships should be the center focus. It is perhaps, sometimes the inadvertent tendency for some to put more stock into Bible based discoveries rather than loving their neighbor as they love themselves. We are all a work in progress and God is not done with us.
Many people of faith do that regarding Noah’s Ark or the Shroud of Turin or the Holy Grail. To a person of faith, those things, of course, hold great interest. But it should be pointed out to those people that their relationship with God is much more important, and if developments regarding those items arise, it would be considered a little bonus, but not the final reason for being a person of faith. It was claimed for years that the Biblical city of Nineveh was a myth. And then, Nineveh was discovered. By and large, some people of faith did not say, “oh, here is more evidence! Now we can believe with even greater confidence!” This is certainly not the point of this grant proposal. If this project is seen or misconstrued by people of faith or people of no faith as an attempt to validate faith, they will have missed the point entirely.
This is about truth. This is first about the accumulation of information and data. This is about putting the proverbial puzzle pieces together. When the puzzle pieces have come together, someone of faith should say, “This is what I have found, and these are my conclusions. Make what you will of it.” But sadly, some people of faith are likely to say, “See, it’s true!” and use it to beat someone else over the head. This is neither in the spirit of academia nor in the spirit of kindness nor in the spirit of sensibility. A true academic who is also a person of faith will say, “This is what I have found. These are my conclusions. Do with it what you will.”
It is understandable what Gandhi said about some people of faith. “I like your Christ; I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” If Christian academics or historians can make discoveries and not use it as a weapon but rather as a tool, it is a good first step. Historians require footnotes. This is a logical sentiment. Ancient Egyptian history has many footnotes, and I will be approaching this from ancient Egyptian history, with the primary weight of Egyptian history as a starting and ending point with some corroboratory ghost sources considered in between. I am a religion major, but I am not an expert. When the principles of faith have been misused, they have brought untold harm. On a personal level, when applied as intended, I have also observed that the principles of faith have also brought untold good to the world. This is not an attempt to bridge the gap between theology and history. I am working as a historian, not a theologian. I am approaching this project as a historian.
l. The historical topic will be a hypothetical shared symmetry between primary and secondary sources of ancient Egypt and specific incidents in the ghost source.
a. This endeavor will cover the time-span of about five hundred years from Senesuret III in the 12th dynasty until Tutankhamen in the 18th dynasty. It involves many different locations within Egypt. In the beginning my motives were personal. I was writing a book. Over time my motives expanded as I realized that I had a love of history, but I had no experience or adequate knowledge to enable an informed foray into some of the most basic areas of the discipline of history.
About a year ago when taking an MA in History was still a fairy tale, I
was writing a book that involved ancient Egypt, but I was not well versed in
Egyptian history. I can’t claim to be an expert now. However, my familiarity
with ancient Egypt (and reading Egyptian hieroglyphs) has since become
more detailed, specifically the history that stretches from the 12th to the
18th dynasty. A year ago, I had begun writing a book, and because of the plot,
a basic knowledge of ancient Egyptian history was necessary. It was a
development that pushed me closer to getting an MA. The more I read on ancient
Egyptian history as it related to the plot of my book, the deeper my intrigue
grew as to who certain people in ancient Egypt were and why they did certain
things that still baffle historians. So many mysteries. So many intangibles.
Why would anyone be interested in this
project? This project would be very interesting to many readers. First, it is
an attempt to try to understand the intangibles in the gaps of Egyptian history
in the first place. Also, it is in part an attempt to investigate whether
ancient Egyptian history and primary sources could shed light on certain
mysteries of the Biblical record. Additionally, could the Biblical record
perhaps explain certain sections of specific Egyptian history that are dark
from a lack of basic details? This would involve chronology and history. And,
in the process of using ancient Egyptian history (primary with secondary
sources) and the ghost source in the hypothetical attempt to throw light on
each other, there is the possibility that both, used together will uncover
details of both ancient Egypt and the Biblical record that neither one by
themselves could have done. This is one of my major goals and a key reason for
my applying for a research grant.
What could a search for a shared symmetry between ancient Egyptian history and the Biblical narrative uncover? What questions could be answered? What names could finally gain significance beyond the scant information we have on them? Names that have been given to certain groups and people, but names that have no power to inform beyond the mere mention of those names. The Hyksos. Who were they? Where did they come from? Where did they go? Thus far I have not found an overabundance of information on the Hyksos regarding these questions. The nobility of ancient Egypt is another question. Why did they disappear in the 12th dynasty during the reign of Amenemhet III? Where did they go and what caused their extinction? This is one area where ancient Egyptian history is dark from a lack of basic details. Ancient Egyptian history does not really inform us regarding where the Hyksos came from and where they went. It does not give us any information on how and why the nobility disappeared.
In the time of Tutankhamen in the 18th dynasty, it was not the nobility that had the power to make the young Pharaoh change his name. It was the priests. What possessed his father Akhenaten (known as the heretic Pharaoh) to throw caution to the wind and institute a widely unpopular switch from polytheism to monotheism? What about the three Pharaoh’s who bore the name Thutmose and in between them, Pharaoh Hatshepsut? Does the ghost source provide extenuating hints for why Hatshepsut took it upon herself to become Pharaoh? What was the precise political situation during that time that caused Hatshepsut to act in the ways she did, and does the ghost source have any significant light on this?
II. Historical topic defense
a. So far, I have not yet seen any
evidence that other historians or academics have attempted an academic foray
into the question of whether a shared symmetry between ancient Egyptian history
and the Biblical record, exists. My inclination has been to rely on guesswork
that, perhaps, such an attempt has been made, though of course, by whom and
when, I do not know. This is one area I would like to look at, but also,
finding an example of some other person’s work in this specific respect puts my
project on more of a precipitous ground because I want my work to be as
original as it can be. In so doing, I am much less likely to build on someone
else’s work and inadvertently acquire whatever biases they may have had. And I
will be able to say that I never intentionally plagiarized anyone’s work. I
have looked on the internet and read theories that are like mine, but in every
case, there were definite instances where what other people have written
deviated significantly from what and where I believe the road is bending.
Having said as much, I have not seen much evidence that an academic
analysis has been attempted regarding an investigation into a shared symmetry
between ancient Egyptian history and my corroboratory ghost source, the
Biblical narrative. My project will stand out for several reasons. An attempt
to look at ancient Egyptian historical sources, primary and secondary has not
to my knowledge included the consultation of the Biblical record when examining
events in ancient Egyptian history that could be the same event under a different
name in the Biblical record.
In a sense, this could be new
ground. It is natural for academics to be cautious or perhaps standoffish
regarding the Biblical record. Historians like footnotes and at the risk of
repeating myself, this is a logical sentiment. To my knowledge, a serious
academic endeavor at comparing primary sources in Egyptian history to people
and events in the Biblical record has not been undertaken on an academic level
and such an undertaking is worth considering. My serious inquiry into this idea
and my findings will be of interest since to my knowledge it is like the
overgrown untrodden trail that may lead somewhere and excites intrigue,
interest and adventure. Are academics in the habit of making a serious inquiry
regarding something that is related to the Biblical record? Well, historians
like footnotes and the Bible does not really provide any.
However, I am an aspiring historian and at the same time I am a cautious
detective. Academics are, I feel, unlikely to check this idea out even if it
had made it out of the mold stage. But to apply academic principles to this
venture, has, to my knowledge, been untried. In a sense, it is an adventure
waiting to happen!
III. Topic Interpretation.
a. My research questions will be the
intangibles in the history of ancient Egypt. Who were the Hyksos? Where did
they come from and where did they go? What do the steels and stone carvings
tell us about them? What artifacts linked with the Hyksos bear a striking
resemblance to artifacts linked with slaves in ancient Egypt? What happened to
the nobility of Egypt? What was the reason Pharaoh Hatshepsut was so ambitious?
What was it that in part allowed Thutmose III to be so successful in his
military campaigns? How did Thutmose III die? What clues does his mummy give
us? Why did Akhenaten abandon polytheism and what were the implications for
this son Tutankhamen? Do the treasures of Tutankhamun provide clues or primary
sources in the chronology of this project? Where there really chariots and the
bones of horses and men found in the upper part of the Red Sea (known today
as the Sea of Aqua bah)?
b. My tentative conclusions are these. A study of ancient Egyptian historical sources with a ghost source will uncover details that the primary sources alone could not. The primary sources can also uncover details about the ghost source that the ghost source in question does not. Some primary sources are as follows. There are many intriguing artifacts relating to the group that is known as the Hyksos. What about the mummy of Thutmose III? Archeological artifacts and seeming historical irregularities fitting in with the ghost source like a jigsaw puzzle is to me, an admirable consideration. Regarding the Hyksos, they are specifically mentioned as living in the area of Avaris, or Hutwaret (meaning great palace) or the modern name Tell el-Daba. In the ghost source this place would be known as the land of Goshen or Piramses.
How strange for the Israelites to have lived so close to where the Hyksos lived. Were the Israelites in fact the Hyksos? In the place known as Avaris are the ruins of a large Canaanite palace that is currently beneath the surface of what is currently farmland. In the back where the gardens would have been there was an empty tomb with a small pyramid on top. Inside the empty tomb was a tomb statue of someone with a mushroom shaped hairstyle...someone who was not Egyptian. And yet, this statue which was vandalized in antiquity was reassembled and the person it represented had red hair and a robe that had several colors. And yet, this statue is not the only one which has a mushroom shaped hairstyle. The busts of such people who have very similar mushroom shaped hairstyles have been found in Avaris. A recent publication and one of my secondary sources written by Michael S Bar-Ron delves into specifics with respect to some of the items actualy discovered at Tell Ed Daba, Hutwaret or Avaris. There are an intriguing number of indicators that the Hyksos were in fact the Israelites. There are other indicators as well such as burial items in the area of Avaris that are distinctly Canaanite. This would have been during the reign of Amenemhet III. Most of Avaris was Egyptian but there is a section where the architecture is distinctly Canaanite. The pottery in the burial pits is not in the style of Egyptian pottery from that point in time. The weapons were also not in the style of Egyptian weapons from that time. The palace itself is not like anything else in Egypt. In the annuls of Egyptian history, there is no explanation I have come across as to where the Hyksos went, where they came from or what happened to them. Ahmose, the founder of the 18th dynasty is reputed to have defeated the Hyksos, but any information beyond this seems to be fragmented and vague at best. The Egyptian relationship with the Nubians to the South had always been a tenuous one and regarding the Hyksos to the North, being in the middle may have created an inaccurate rational in the reasoning of Ahmose that the two groups could unite against Egypt. However, the pictures, or carvings of the Hyksos that have survived do not render them as war like, but peaceful nomad immigrants whose occupation seemed to be the keeping of flocks. The ghost source tells us that the Hebrews became slaves, and if the primary sources show that the Israelites really were the Hyksos, the mystery of where the Hyksos went and where they came from would be solved. This is another instance that illustrates why firsthand research in the country of Egypt is necessary. These are primary sources that need to be examined, some of which, if possible, should be examined in person.
The disappearance of the nobility is not what could be called a primary source, but it is a fact that they disappeared. The Biblical record offers a sensible explanation, but corroboratory research in Egypt should be undertaken regarding the reading of steles, trips to museums and the observation of depictions on stone and tomb walls if possible. The ghost source offers an explanation as to the disappearance of the nobility that ancient Egyptian history does not, and it is an example and a precedent of how ancient Egyptian history, and the corroboratory ghost source can throw light on each other. The Biblical narrative mentions in Genesis 47:15-26 that all the people of Egypt sold their land, their animals and finally themselves for grain which belonged to Pharaoh. It is my theory, at present, that Amenemhet III was the Pharaoh who elevated the Biblical character Joseph, and it was after or during the time of Amenemhet III that historians place the Hyksos in Egyptian history.
Before we get to Thutmose III, let’s zero in on a curious observation. That would be the significant detail that the name Thutmose and Moses are so similar and that in the Biblical narrative or ghost source, Pharaoh’s daughter was the one who gave Moses his name. Moses was an Egyptian name, not a Hebrew one. The Biblical narrative is very brief, but regarding the Egyptian mother of Moses, it does give us some interesting bits of information that has been lost to the intangibles of Egyptian history. One of my theories is that Hatshepsut was the Egyptian mother of Moses mentioned in the Biblical narrative.
This makes sense for several reasons. First, in the Biblical record, the daughter of Pharaoh gives the baby she found in the reeds of the Nile a name that is much like her father’s name, Thutmose. If we look at Egyptian history, we can say, looking at what Hatshepsut did, in later becoming Pharaoh, that she had always been preoccupied with the desire for power, and for reasons that might not seem obvious at first. As a young teen, one can imagine the grim situation or future that was to be Hatshepsut’s lot. She would be married to Thutmose II, her half-brother, whether she liked it or not. In ancient Egyptian culture, there was no taboo or horror against marrying people off when they were children or to their half siblings. It is probable that she desperately wanted an alternative, an alternative that would give her power rather than being the pawn of the politics of succession simply because she was the only surviving child Thutmose I and his great royal wife. An heir would have done that for her. But how was she to get an heir if she was not married? She was stuck.
But then, one day, she happens to find a baby in a basket floating in the Nile where she was going to bathe. And not just any baby, but according to the ghost source, a beautiful baby. She took the baby from the Nile which the Egyptians worshipped, and named him Moses, a name that is much like her father’s name! Her first reaction, according to the ghost source is compassion, and while it is not stated in the ghost record, Egyptian history tells us that Hatshepsut was very ambitious, so she had other motives as well. Finding a baby in the Nile, naming it Moses and then adopting him would have made sense in every way. She was the only legitimate child of her parents, and with an heir of her own, given to her from the gods on the Nile River, she now had a path to power even if she had to marry her half-brother. It made political sense because she needed an heir that was not connected with her half-brother Thutmose II who was illegitimate. What could Thutmose II do against such an heir? He would later have a son, Thutmose III, with a wife who was not Hatshepsut, thus the balance of power would only be in his favor if the heir of Hatshepsut made some grave mistake. No pun intended.
The Biblical narrative tells us in Exodus 2:11-12 that Moses, when he was forty, killed an Egyptian in defense of one of his fellow Hebrews. He thought no one was looking and supposed that all was well. But in some way or other, the incident was repeated to Pharaoh who was likely Thutmose II. In verse 15 of chapter 2, we find that Pharaoh tries to kill Moses for this crime, but Moses manages to flee to Midian which is around two hundred kilometers or a hundred and fifty miles east of Egypt in the present-day country of Saudi Arabia. It is also likely that there were people in the government of Egypt at that time, along with Thutmose II who were desirous of ridding Egypt of the heir of Hatshepsut. Of course, in later years Hatshepsut, became Pharaoh herself. That she was able to do this suggests that Thutmose II was no longer around to stop her, and that Thutmose III was not old enough to prevent it. But her reign in many respects was considered a golden age of Egypt. Many of the monuments and edifices she constructed are still around, most notably her mortuary complex at Del Bar Hari. What is especially curious is how many of the works of Hatshepsut were chiseled out. Is it possible that any of the chiseled-out monuments had anything to do with Moses? This is another reason to do more research in Egypt.
At this point, I have used real names and used the primary sources to throw light on the corroboratory ghost source. And the corroboratory ghost source has thrown...unproven but logical light on Egyptian history as well. But what I have related here is not what I can call a legitimate primary source without going there to investigate further, and this is another instance of why this grant proposal to spend some time in Egypt is important. A year ago when I was writing my book, which I am still writing, the hypothetical symmetry began to come together as I considered for the first time that Hatshepsut really could have been the daughter of Pharaoh mentioned in the Bible. This is another instance where inspection of the sites and mortuary temple of Hatshepsut in Del Bar Hari needs to be undertaken as well as examining artifacts in museums that have such primary sources.
It is my theory that the Pharaoh of the Exodus was Thutmose III. The mummy of Thutmose III suggests that he died from drowning and mutilation. In the case of Thutmose III, usually, only the well-preserved head of Thutmose III (except for his nose) is shown in photos because his mummy is so badly damaged. The limbs are broken off and his mummy is in very bad shape. His feet are missing entirely. A brief forensic look into what happens when people die in water goes along with my theory that Thutmose III died in part from drowning and in part from mutilation caused by repeated impacts of the body with rocky surfaces. When someone dies in water, usually the backside is exposed while the face, chest and lower extremities are submerged. Why is it that his nose is in bad shape, but his head is in good shape? In every relief, carving, hieroglyph, steel and tomb wall I have seen, never once is Thutmose III not wearing a hat or crown of some kind. A helmet would have prevented harm to the head of Thutmose III, but if he had a long or large nose, it would not have been protected. If Thutmose III had been drowned and if the water had beaten him against the rocks or sand, then that would explain why his mummy was in such bad shape. He would have floated in the water and the first thing to come into contact with the any rocks would have been his nose. In every picture I have seen of Thutmose III, he is always wearing a hat, and what soldier, king or commoner goes to war without a helmet? Thus far, in the number of pictures on tomb walls, pylons, steles and in pictures of Karnack temple, I have not seen a Pharaoh on a chariot that did not have a crown-like helmet on. It seems likely that the Helmet of Thutmose III stayed on after his death, weighing his head down further than normal in the water, as the rock or sand, over a day or so would have repeatedly worn against his nose, and looking at the pictures of the head of Thutmose III, it certainly seems plausible that this happened.
In the embalming process, if a Pharaoh came back from the battle field as a corpse who had been lying around for a day before he was found, rigor mortis would have rendered the limbs as unbendable. This may be the reason that Thutmose III’s limbs were broken, but the embalming priests certainly would not have broken the jaw of Thutmose III. The mouth of the mummy of Thutmose III is partly open, which was very uncharacteristic of how Pharaoh’s were embalmed. If you look at the mummy of Rameses II, which is well preserved, his mouth is shut. Most Pharaoh’s who were embalmed had their mouths shut also. The odd thing is that what is reputed as the mummy of Thutmose II also has his mouth slightly open, but it is not obvious compared to Thutmose III. Also, there are websites and pictures that claim that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus, and not to knock their efforts or sincerity, they do not seem to be of an academic nature. One more interesting detail is that Thutmose III's first born son, Amenemhat (different from Amenemhet) died before he did. Once again, Egyptian history tells us that Thutmose III's first born son died before he did, but gives no further details. But the Biblical record, or corroboratory ghost source does!
If Pharaoh and his army did perish in the Red Sea, shouldn't there be some indicators? The ghost source tells us in Exodus 14:27-31 that everyone, Pharaoh included, perished in the Red Sea. This piece of information is repeated in the next chapter of Exodus 15:4-6&9.
“Pharaoh’s chariots and his army He has cast into the sea; His chosen captains also are drowned in the Red Sea. The depths have covered them; They sank to the bottom like a stone. 9.The enemy said, ‘I will pursue, I will overtake, I will divide the spoil; My desire shall be satisfied on them. I will draw my sword; my hand shall destroy them.”
The ghost source here is consistent with the shape that Thutmose III’s mummy is in. I am not going to declare absolutely that Thutmose III was the Pharaoh of the Exodus and that he certainly died from drowning and mutilation. I am going to say that traveling to Egypt to view his mummy in person in the Cairo museum, and to intently observe and take notes of the artifacts that were taken from his tomb, and hopefully the tomb itself would be a good idea. The possibility of his drowning brings us to a repeated question.
If Pharaoh and his army did perish in the Red Sea, shouldn’t there be some indicators? Shouldn’t there have been any discovery of bones, chariots and weapons in the Red sea? And how would we even know where such a passing was? An odd story has come out of the gulf war of 1991. At that time, Saddam Hussain was burying his tanks with just the turrets out of the sand. This was so that they would not attract attention and so that he could have a line of defense that was not visible to his enemies. So, at that time, the United States began to rely on Satellites that had heat seeking capabilities. But they discovered more than tanks. They began to see a thin red line leading from the Nile delta in Egypt to a mountain that is in present day Saudi Arabia. This is a rather odd mountain that has a black cone as if it had been seared with super intense heat. Does the ghost source offer an explanation as to why the mountain has a blackened cone? It does. In Exodus 19, 1-15 and specifically verse 16, 17 and 18 the Biblical record tells us the following.
“ Now Mount Sinai was completely in smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire. Its smoke ascended like the smoke of a furnace, and the whole mountain quaked greatly.”
When the thin red line which went from the Nile Delta to Jabel El Laws was seen from the satellite imagery, there was a lot of head scratching at first as to where the lines came from. Yet again, the ghost source sheds light on this. There were more than a million people who left Egypt. The idea is that a million people, not counting cattle, would have formed a very long line and the ground beneath would have become solidly packed and it would, being so packed absorb more heat than the surrounding area even if there was sand that blew over its surface. The lines lead through an upper part of the Sea of Aqua bah.
Was it here that Thutmose III perished? A comparison of the mummy of Thutmose II and Thutmose III is worth considering. Side by side, the respective mummies look like they could have had the same set of teeth. The mummy of Thutmose II is in much better condition than the mummy of Thutmose III. The mummy of Thutmose II does not bear any signs of decomposition, but there are minimal signs of decomposition when looking at the mummy of Thutmose III. How long was he floating in the sea of Aqua bah before he was taken back to Egypt for embalming? But this is somewhat premature. Have the bones of horses and men as well as chariots been found in the sea of Aqua bah? From what I have read on this, faith based persons who were, as far as I know, not academics, affirm that there were indeed the bones of horses, men and chariots found in the sea of Aqua bah, and there are numerous pictures on some of their websites, which are not academic in nature and as such should be considered carefully.
As an aspiring academic and historian, I have respect for Rankean thought in the accumulation of information being the first step, and at the same time I am approaching this as a historian while my personal convictions are definably faith based. In the end, I tend to walk a little closer on the academic side as I attempt to walk on middle ground between the two. On the one hand, I know that religious excitement may spur some faith based people to make certain assumptions before there is enough information to draw an informed conclusion. In the picture on some websites, what is seen under water are some straight lines and round shapes and figures that look vaguely like chariot wheels. Other pictures look like locomotives that have been scraped and then submerged for who knows how long. Seeking validation from physical items for spiritual faith seems out of place. And yet, the allure of ancient artifacts that could be connected with the ghost source is hard to turn from. And on the other hand, when someone claims that there are chariot wheels in deep water and one of the pictures looks uncannily like an antique locomotive that was scrapped before it was sunk, you can’t say with any ease that those are sources you could deem primary sources with any feeling of legitimacy. And of course, these are artifacts, (if they are still there) that I cannot visit. The logistics are too involved. I included one website with these pictures because other websites were too biased to really consider. What about the wheels at the bottom? There were two wheels on the website I included that were specifically interesting. Two wheels with six spokes that suggested a tid-bit of credibility. But I would not have known this if something unusual had not happened here in Seoul South Korea, and oddly enough it had to do with Tutankhamun’s treasures. However, I will be using the six spoked chariot wheels I saw in the Tutankhamun exhibit in the Korean War memorial museum as a primary source since the ones I saw are exact copies of the real ones, and similar in appearance (without the coral, perhaps identical) to the wheels that were photographed on the seabed of the sea of Aqua bah.
What about Tutankhamun’s treasures? A very strange thing happened recently. I live in South Korea at present because I am an ESL teacher and this country is a place where I can easly find work. On Sunday I usually go shopping for food, or I study or something else. On November 14th, I took the subway to a station called Samgakji which is not far from Itaewon where a lot of foreigners go to buy foreign food. I always take the subway to Itaewon. I have never once walked there. But, on November 14th as I was at Samgakji and transferring to the subway line that would take me two stops over to Itaewon. I was talking with my wife and a recent subject had been exercise. She suggested I walk from Samgakji to Itaewon. I had some good audio books with me so I thought it was a good idea. So, I started walking to Itaewon. Near Samgakji is the Korean war memorial museum, an impressive, grand and aesthetic building that would not look out of place next to any of the Smithsonian museums in Washington DC. A common consideration during this time happened to be primary sources. I was frequently thinking about primary sources. At this point, I was walking parallel to the Korean war memorial museum when I happened to glance to my left at the museum. When I did, it was like I could hear the music from the twilight zone. There, on the Korean War Memorial was the largest stamp shaped advertisement I had ever seen. It was as tall as a three story building. It was the mask of Tutankhamun and there was, in Seoul, South Korea, an exhibit, in the Korean War Memorial museum of Tutankhamun’s treasures! What??? What!!! This sort of thing happens in dreams, not reality! What was going on! Well, I was not dreaming. I spent about two hours ogling everything in that exhibit and taking pictures until my camera was almost dead. Of course, everything there was an exact replica of the real thing. But I did get a lot of pictures, and this does not translate to proof regarding the bones and wheels in the sea of Aqua bah. The tid-bit of credibility was that the pictures I took of the six spoked chariot wheels in the Korean War Memorial museum were of the same style as the six spoked wheels I saw in some pictures in the website I have included at the bottom of this Grant proposal. It is a hint that the chariots, along with the bones could well have belonged to the 18th dynasty of Egypt. This is what I call a weak link, but not a boring one or one with zero substance.
In less than a month it will be 2022, a hundred years since the discovery of Tutankhamun’s tomb discovery by Howard Carter. Tutankhamun’s father was Akhenaten, the heretic pharaoh. He was initially known as Amenhotep IV, but for reasons that are lost to Egyptian history; his motives for switching all of Egypt from poly-theism to monotheism are unknown. However, the ghost source might be able to offer a theory for why he did this. If, what I have gone through so far has a semblance of logic, then this next theory might make sense. From the time of Thutmose III until Akhenaten is about seventy years. The time span from when the Israelites left Egypt until they had conquered most of Canaan was about sixty years. His father would have been the Pharaoh Amenhotep III. There was a very fine article written recently by people of faith, yet people who are academics. The authors get a lot of things right and it was a very good article.
It is interesting to note that in the time of Amenhotep III, the Egyptians had a name for the people to the North. “Their records specifically state “Land of Shasu of Yahweh’ — an actual reference to Jehovah.” The article goes on to state a little further in the article, “But it is clear that Yahweh was in a category of His own. They (the Egyptians) did not build a temple to this God as they did for other foreign deities.” According to Charles Aling, who specializes in Egyptology and is chairman of the History department at Northwestern College, “the oldest reference is found on the Merneptah Stele dated to around 1208 BC that refers to a group of people called the Shasu. To say the least, this is very strange for the syncretistic Egyptians. A possible explanation is that Yahweh was seen by the Egyptians as an enemy God, of an enemy tribal group which was a part of the hated Shasu peoples who lived north of Egypt.” Aling points out when Moses led Israel out of Egypt the Pharaoh of the Exodus initially had no idea who Yahweh was:
2 But Pharaoh said, “Who is the Lord that I should obey His voice to let Israel go? I do not know the Lord, and besides, I will not let Israel go.” (Exodus 5:2 NASV).”
It is worth noting here that the Hebrews escaping Egypt without help would have been all but impossible. Thutmose III was arguably the mightiest Pharaoh in Egyptian history. While the Israelites were building his monuments, the free Egyptians were probably free to be part of his army rather than his slave force. He could go to war easily since there was a labor force to build his projects and Egyptian citizens could join his armed forces more easily and in greater numbers than before since a slave workforce was already occupied on tasks Egyptians might normally have been a part of. Historians call Thutmose III the Napoleon of Egypt. He had 17 major battle in a row and he was the victor every time. Naturally, such a person would be rather arrogant and conceited. The Israelites were not armed. They had no training in war. It was impossible in of their own strength to free themselves of such a powerful ruler and his army. It makes sense that Thutmose III would have been so proud and stubborn and with such a hard heart. So much so that it ended up costing him his life. Did his life really end in the Sea of Aqua bah? Of course, except for probing the depths of the Sea of Aqua bah, verifying what we know of Thutmose III is a major reason for observing the data firsthand in Egypt. The article I mentioned earlier, according to ancient Egyptian records, had further input regarding how the Egyptians viewed Yahweh.
“Though this Pharaoh claimed ignorance of Yahweh, by the time God was done all of Egypt would know who the God of Israel was:” Since they knew who Yahweh was under Amenhotep III, then the Exodus obviously took place earlier than Ramses II (1279-1213 BC) who many traditionally believe was the Pharaoh of the Exodus.”
If this was written under Amenhotep III who was the father of Akhenaten (Amenhotep IV) and if by this time the Israelites had conquered Canaan and were settled for the most part, then Akhenaten’s rationale and motive in creating an Egypt with monotheistic tendencies rather than polytheistic is perhaps easy to see. In switching from many deities to one, perhaps he rationalized that he was increasing his chances of success as a monarch and ruler. If it had worked in the case of the slaves who were now a nations north of Egypt, perhaps trying it out was not a bad idea. This is a little more than speculation perhaps, but I would not have arrived at this speculative consideration without consulting the ghost source in conjunction with ancient Egyptian historical sources. Would clues from research in Egypt could verify and perhaps expand on this? What could be learned from artifacts connected with Akhenaten and Tutankhamun?
There are so many things to research. Researching artifacts related to and linking the Hyksos and the Hebrews. What about the findings at the Canaanite palace in Avaris? What could that uncover? What number and manner of artifacts could turn up? What about the disappearance of the nobility? What could be learned on this topic by further research in Egypt? What about Hatshepsut? What could archeology tell us about her? How could it confirm the jigsaw rational regarding how the primary sources fit with the ghost source? What more could be learned? What about Thutmose III? What could a further exploration of his tomb and artifacts uncover? The truth is that all of these items and considerations are in Egypt, or perhaps the British Museum and to be able to truly take the suppositions I have outlined and verify them by going to museums, looking at steles and hieroglyphics, observing archeological sites, and taking notes of so many different artifacts in different parts of Egypt would require time, and it would require funds. It would not require funds in excess since this would be a highly documented (digitally and traditionally) research project involving one person over perhaps a few months' time. It would not require a lot of professionals, equipment, time and resources. It would be straightforward, highly documented and goal oriented.
I have deliberately chosen to exclude any secondary sources from either
Mantheo or Josephus. The reason for excluding sources on Mantheo is because in
what I have read, he had some obvious biases and he made claims about the
Hyksos that have been dubious and cross-examined by professionals. The pictures
that come down to us and that have survived portray them as peaceful nomads,
shepherd immigrants, not warriors. And yet Mantheo described the Hyksos as
ruthless and warlike conquerors. Ever since his time, the perhaps mistaken idea
proliferated by his pen has given an inaccurate portrayal of them. In Nicolaus
Grimal’s book, ‘A history of Ancient History,’ Grimal explores the writing
inside the tomb of a minor official, also named Ahmose, who gave numerous
accounts of the Theban’s besieging Avaris and taking slaves and hands,
signifying the slaying of some who resisted. The only reason Mantheo’s writing exists
is because they are found in the writings of Josephus, who notwithstanding his
status as a historian, would have approached Egyptian history with some biases
which is what I specifically want to avoid. Honestly, I wanted to include
Josephus as a secondary source, but as I stated in the beginning, I am not
trying to bridge the gap between history and theology. I am approaching, or
concluding, at this point, this project as a historian. I could hardly decide
how to include Josephus as a secondary source without inheriting any religious
or cultural bias he may have had.
c. I have no doubts that my theories will
be challenged, and even if the primary and secondary sources in concert with my
ghost source do hint at legitimacy, I would be very surprised if the very
nature and goal of my project was not met with surprise, or incredulity or
perhaps consternation. My intent has to do with knowing what happened and when
my research has been concluded at some dubious and ambiguous point, I still
expect that it will be challenged. My response will be openness regarding all
my sources, notes, considerations, research, conclusions and precise details
that have been rigidly recorded in which I have conducted my research which
will be in the tradition of Rankean methodology. My conclusion may change, but
I have not seen any bend in the road as far as I can see that seriously
suggests this.
d. My research will be professional for the
following reasons. Ever since I read about Ranke, his methods and rationality
have rubbed me in a manner to encourage curiosity, exactness for historical
sources, and integrity in regard to a very rigid, open and specific plan of
action in the accumulation of data. At the conclusion of my research, nothing
will be hidden. I will be strictly honest about what I have discovered in
retrospect of my stated goals beforehand. My primary sources will be described
in detail with no seeming contradiction to my theory hidden or unaddressed. My
research will be professional in regard to honest, transparent descriptions and
research that can be judged later as far as their accuracy.
Research Methods IV
This project in some
ways involves uncharted waters. From what I understand, and I am undertaking
some cautious research in this respect, I don't know of any historians who have
ever even considered applying any research methods to this topic at all, and
again, that phrase about historians requiring footnotes is a very logical
sentiment. My research methods will be first and foremost to accumulate
information. And to me, it is a very legitimate concatenation of events and
links from a shared hypothetical symmetry of ancient Egyptian history and the
Biblical record that recommends a search into the possibility that such symmetry
could in fact approach consideration for legitimacy.
d.
And to further such consideration, research is needed. And that of course is
what this research proposal hinges on. My research methodology will first rely
on accumulation of facts. That is the best place to start, and another very
good place to start in this respect is the country of Egypt.
I would be an independent scholar seeking support for my research that might involve a summer stipend or what would be closer to an ethnographic field research project than an archaeological project. For example, I would not spend much if any time digging, but more time reading, comparing and analyzing steles and ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs. In some circles it might be known as international residencies that would not involve teaching but would necessitate travel and research, specifically in Egypt. These would involve going to archaeological sites as an observer, viewing artifacts, going to and from places like Avaris, Del bar hari, the Valley of the Kings and other places. It would involve going to multiple museums. The purposes and aims of my research proposal have not changed though I have realized more than before in my research that it must be approached from ancient Egyptian history and primary sources. I do not relish the idea of spending a summer in a tropical country. I grew up in Alaska and I like cold places more than very hot places, but the appeal of researching for the sake of truth and discovery is very strong. I am treating this whole venture like a familiar recipe that I am very carefully and cautiously making experimental alterations to.
Steady and slow, methodical and careful. I have not decided for certain whether I will make this my capstone project, but regarding my initial reasons for a foray into researching Egyptian history, which in part precipitated my shooting for an MA, it has helped me to write a more informed book that regarding Egyptian history, will be accurate.
As a word of caution, some of these sources or pictures of sources contain graphic images of the mummies of different Pharaohs. In a sense none of the following are primary sources in that secondary sources have reported on them, but these primary sources do exist and portraying them is sequential to the chances of being able to be successful in my Grant Proposal.
Primary Sources
1. https://www.ancientpsychedelia.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/egypt_artifact_18.jpg
This is bust of a person who is not Egyptian but who has a mushroom shaped haircut. If they had a bust of themselves, they were probably very important people. There is a possibility that this could be a bust of the character Joseph in the Biblical record.
Another bust, or perhaps the same one under different lighting.
3. https://mummipedia.fandom.com/wiki/Thutmose_III http://www.perankhgroup.com/Thutmose_III_Head.jpg
These of course are not primary sources, but they are the best photos of Thutmose III that enable one to look at the mummy and observe the condition as well as this project’s explanation as to how the mummy ended up in this condition.
4. http://www.narmer.pl/mum/ima/totmes2_1.jpg
A frontward and profile view of Thutmose II.
5. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2021/08/145_313084.html
This is a Korean newspaper that displays in the article, in the corner of one of the pictures the chariot wheels that are exact copies of the one’s when Tutankhamun's tomb was discovered in 1922 by Howard Carter.
6. -https://www.thoughtco.com/queen-hatshepsut-female-pharaoh-of-egypt-4123102 - https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/article/hatshepsut
I have identified Hatshepsut as a primary source in relation to my theory of her being the Egyptian mother of Moses, and the interlocking details I outlined.
Secondary sources.
1. Nicolaus Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt.
In chapter eight of part II in this book, Nicolaus Grimal recounts the discovery of the tomb of an Egyptian, a minor noble (Ahmose of Ibana) who on his tomb walls had detailed inscriptions of the invasion of Avaris and the violence meted out on those who lived there.
2. https://www.detailshere.com/exoduspath.htm (Satellite imagery)
This website provides satellite imagery that initially was meant to reveal tanks which Saddam Hussein had buried in a formation to protect his border in a covert manner. It inadvertently, with as I understand, heat seeking technology discovered a bizarre line stretching from the Nile Delta to a mountain in present day Saudi Arabia known as Jabel El Laws.
3. https://i.pinimg.com/originals/0d/0d/d1/0d0dd1a29e9cf23430a9f38b78bcff83.png
A website showing what is known today as Jabel El Laws in present day Saudi Arabia. The top of this mountain is colored like a burnt marshmallow.
4. https://nationalgeographyc.blogspot.com/2021/08/chariots-found-in-bottom-of-red-sea.html
This is what I will call an academically ambiguous website. Some of the pictures only portray two of the six spoked chariot wheels found in the gulf of Aqua bah.
5. https://opentheword.org/2016/09/14/egypt-meets-yahweh-another-confirmation-of-the-exodus/
This is the article that mentions the first instance of the Egyptians mentioning or recording the name of Yahweh.
Whether there was a cover up is not the point. My purpose here is to establish the presence Hebrew artifacts in an area where many and some of the same artifacts are also reputed to be Hyksos artifacts.
7. http://www.simchajtv.com/statue-of-biblical-joseph-found-story-covered-up/
This is yet another website regarding the tomb statue found behind the large Canaanite palace in Avaris.
8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6474513/
This is a very graphic and disturbing webpage (The US library of medicine) that I highly discourage anyone from viewing. This article details what typically happens to the body when people die in water by drowning. I used forensic information from this website in my conclusions on how Thutmose III died and the implications for referring to his mummy as a primary source, or artifact. This is not a pretty website. The images towards the bottom, after the descriptions are very graphic and disturbing.
9. https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/culture/2021/08/145_313084.html
This is a newspaper article regarding the museum I happened to chance across on my way from Samgakji in Seoul Korea, to Itaewon.
10. https://ancientegyptonline.co.uk/ahmoseebana/
This webpage, like the account in chapter 8 of ‘A history of Ancient Egypt,’ by Nicolaus Grimal. I have included this due to my assertion that Mantheo was a source I preferred not to use. This account is in many respects at odds with what Mantheo claimed.
10. http://www.torathmoshe.com/wp-content/uploads/The-Seal-of-Yosef.pdf
This is another webpage/document that goes into a number of intriguing archeological discoveries made at Avaris that have an irrefutable connection with the Hebrews.
Corroboratory Ghost Source
The book of Exodus in the Biblical narrative.
No comments:
Post a Comment