Volume 1 Chapter 4

COMPENDIUM OF WORLD HISTORY

VOLUME 1

A Dissertation Presented to The Faculty of the Ambassador College Graduate
School of Theology In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor of Theology

by Herman L. Hoeh

1962(1963-1965, 1967 Edition)

CHAPTER FOUR

The Missing Half of Egypt’s History

Who was the daughter of Pharaoh who adopted Moses? Where is Moses mentioned
in the story of Egypt? Who was that Ramses whose land Jacob was given to dwell
in? Which Pharaoh took Sarai from Abram?

Thus far only half the story of Egypt before the Exodus has been told. The
first eight dynasties have told of the royal lines from Abydos or Thinis and
of Memphis and Elephantine. Memphis, as most are aware, was the ancient capital
of Lower Egypt. Who were the kings of Upper Egypt during this period? And of
the Delta and of Middle Egypt?

The Story Unfolds

The Bible is not a history textbook. It is a guide book. Without it nothing
important in ancient history can be rightly understood. But this does not mean
all ancient history is recorded in the Bible. Scripture is the starting point
of study. It opens up solutions to secular records that otherwise would be misunderstood.
This is especially true of Egypt’s history.

Josephus, the Jewish historian of the first century of our era, wrote in
his ‘Antiquities’ of the life of Moses before he fled Egypt at age 40. Just
prior to the flight of Moses, the Egyptians had been overrun by the Ethiopians
from the south. This is the famous period of the Ethiopian Wars. Josephus records
Moses’ part in them. ‘The Egyptians, under this sad oppression, betook themselves
to their oracles and prophecies; and when God had given them this counsel, to
make use of Moses the Hebrew, and take his assistance, the king commanded his
daughter to produce him, that he might be the general of their army.’ (Book
II, chapter x, part 2.)

Moses’ generalship is carefully recorded by Josephus in the entire chapter.
The final victory was gained at the city of Saba (later Meroe), where the daughter
of the Ethiopians — Tharbis — turned over the city as the price of her marriage
to Moses. (Is this the beginning of the story in Numbers 12:1?)

‘Now the Egyptians,’ continues Josephus in the next chapter, ‘after they
had been preserved by Moses … told the king he ought to be slain. The king
… also … was ready to undertake to kill Moses; but when he (Moses) had learned
beforehand what plots there were against him, he … took his flight through
the deserts, and where his enemies could not suspect he would travel.’

Moses, it must be remembered, was heir to a throne in Egypt. The ruling Pharaoh
had a daughter, but no grandchildren. Josephus explains Moses’ peculiar position
at the end of chapter ix of book II. ‘If Moses had been slain (after his adoption),
there was no one, either akin or adopted, that had any oracle on his side for
pretending to the crown of Egypt.’

Here are the needed clues. A dynasty in which Moses is General, and one which
was broken at the very point in history that Moses fled. Is there such a dynasty
— one which also exercised jurisdiction in the northeastern Delta where Israel
dwelt and Moses was found?

Indeed there is just such a dynasty — Dynasty XIII of Thebes!

The total length of this dynasty, according to Africanus’ and Eusebius’ epitomes
from Manetho, was 453 years, under 60 rulers. But the version of Barbarus provides
a missing detail from Manetho. It reveals that for a time the court was not
only at Thebes, but at Bubastis in the Delta for the first 153 years. (See Alfred
Schoene’s edition of ‘Eusebius’, page 214.)

Moses the General

In the Turin Canon catalogue of kings of the thirteenth dynasty, listed number
17, is ‘The General,’ with the throne name of Semenkhkare. (Gardiner’s ‘Egypt
of the Pharaohs’, page 440; and Weigall’s ‘History of the Pharaohs’, pages 136,
151-152.) The Egyptian word for ‘the General’ was Mermeshoi. Not in all dynastic
history does this title appear again as the personal name of a ruler of Egypt.
This General was Moses as will be demonstrated by a comparison with contemporary
history. Two beautiful large granite statues of Mermeshoi — the General —
have been found in the Delta at Tanis. They are of excellent workmanship.

When Moses was made General or Commander of the Troops, he automatically
inherited royal authority, as did Joseph before him. Only KINGS could have the
supreme command of the army. That explains his appearance in this list. Before
the rise to power of this famous General, the thirteenth dynasty was of Asiatic
blood. Its kings at times bore the epithet ‘the Asiatic.’ There was consequently
no basic prejudice in adopting the Hebrew child Moses into the family. (See
Volume II, chapter II of the revised ‘Cambridge Ancient History’, 1962)

The sixteenth king listed in the Turin Canon — just before ‘the General’
— was Userkare Khendjer — the latter being an un-Egyptian personal name. He
ruled over the Delta as well as Upper Egypt. A pyramid of his has been found
at South Saqqara. No descendant of his is known to have succeeded to the throne.
Though nothing more is known of this man’s family, every evidence points to
him as the Pharaoh whose daughter is mentioned in the book of Exodus. Within
a few years the influence of this dynasty in the eastern Delta ceased.

The kings of this period often have their names associated with King Neferkare
on royal seals. This name is that of Pepi the Great. Here is the final proof
that these rulers of Dynasty XIII were contemporary with the last great Pharaoh
of the sixth dynasty of Memphis! More than one name on a scarab has puzzled
many historians, who view Egypt as ruled generally by only one king at a time.
But literally hundreds of such seals have been found. They are generally treated
with discreet silence, for the implication of these seals would revolutionize
the history of Egypt! (See ‘The Sceptre of Egypt’, by William C. Hayes, Volume
I, page 342.)

About 40 years after the reign of the General, Egypt collapsed. With the
reign of the 25th king of the dynasty, nearly all contemporary evidence ceases.
Foreigners invade the country. This period is summarized by Sir Alan Gardiner
by the dismal words: ‘… darkness descends upon the historical scene, leaving
discernible in the twilight little beyond royal names …’ (page 155 of ‘Egypt
of the Pharaohs’).

No internal dates for this dynasty are now available. But the history of
this and preceding dynasties of Thebes can be restored Take the evidence of
Barbarus, which gives the dynasty, while centered in the Delta, 153 years. Place
this date in the 41st year before the collapse of Egypt in 1486. The 41st year
before 1486 brings us to 1527. (This is when Moses is nearly 40 years old during
the war with Ethiopia. When Moses is forty, in 1526 he flees Egypt.) The beginning
of the dynasty was then 153 years before this, or in 1680. There were only two
dynasties of Thebes before this time — the eleventh and the twelfth. Dynasty
XI ruled 143 years; the famous Dynasty XII for 212 calendar years. Add these
figures up and one reaches 2035 — the reign of Shem!

Now the story of Shem is clear. Shem came into Egypt to divide the country
up into various kingships, in order to prevent the rise to power of one unified
kingdom over the entire world.

But Shem did more than found a new kingship at Thebes — he also established
a kingship at Heracleopolis, south of Memphis. Manetho’s Dynasty IX — the first
of two dynasties to be established in Heracleopolis — ruled 409 years. It is
exactly 409 years from 2035 to 1626, the date at which Dynasty VI of Memphis
began.

The historians’ fiction of an Old and a Middle Kingdom — under Memphis,
and then Thebes — is completely demolished by these facts of history. It is,
rather, the story of the kings of Memphis in Lower Egypt and the kings of Thebes
in Upper Egypt ruling in a great confederacy.

History of Upper Egypt

Now, to tell the history of the kingships of Thebes and Heracleopolis which
paralleled the dynasties of Thinis and Memphis and, later Elephantine. The city
of Thebes, like Thinis during the second dynasty, was a small semi-independent
kingdom that steadily rose to power. From archaeology the Turin Canon and monuments,
the entire 143 years of the Dynasty XI can be restored as follows.

In the days of Wahankh Inyotef a tragic war broke out in Egypt between the
rulers of Heracleopolis and Thebes over control of the city of Thinis (Abydos).
In this struggle the first dynasty of Thinis collapsed, and a new dynasty arose
in 1993. It is interesting to note that Wahankh came to power in the year (2019)
that Shem ceased to reign in Thinis. It appears that with his departure war
convulsed Egypt. Once these dynasties are properly placed the whole of Egypt’s
ancient history makes sense — to the very year! Since the restoration, in this
compendium, must proceed solidly step by step, the events cannot be told here
in logical order until the chronological position of the dynasties is positively
determined. It is advisable that the lists of dynasties already given be continuously
consulted.

Before we can proceed further with the story, a chart of the two dynasties
of Heracleopolis and of Dynasty XI of Thebes is needed. The meaning of this
chart will become apparent with the development of the story of Thebes. The
figures for the length of the Heracleopolitan dynasties are falsely labeled
spurious — by historians. Now consider Dynasty XI of Thebes.

The preceding outline is explained by these facts. Three dynasties contended
for the control of Egypt after Thebes obtained control of Thinis and subordinated
its second dynasty.

In the ninth year of Nebhepetre Mentuhotpe — the Pharaoh to whose harem
Sarah was brought — a great war was fought over the city of Heracleopolis.
So small was Egypt’s population in those days that only 60 men were lost by
the Thebans in their attack. This and many other evidences clearly indicate
that the eleventh dynasty was one of the earliest in Egypt. This ninth year
was 1954-53. This date is very significant. Barbarus, the Latin writer, designated
Dynasty X of Heracleopolis as lasting 204 years. (In this account a note of
caution should be observed. As Manetho listed the dynasties of Egypt, the only
two dynasties of Heracleopolis were labeled Dynasty IX and Dynasty X. In any
final history textbook Manetho’s numbering should be discarded. and each city’s
dynasties should be renumbered from the beginning. Thus these two dynasties
were not IX and X of Heracleopolis, but I and II of Heracleopolis.) There were
exactly 204 years between 1954, when the dynasty was founded, and 1750 when
Snefru brought the fourth dynasty to power at Memphis.

Thus every major event in the history of the Theban kings is reflected in
the history of Heracleopolis.

This does not mean that Dynasty IX ceased. It continued 409 years to the
beginning of Dynasty VI, as already mentioned. The war with Heracleopolis continued
intermittently until the 100th year of the Theban dynasty 1935. In that year
Egypt was completely united under Mentuhotpe. This date, too, is significant.
Although Africanus gives the length of Dynasty IX as 409 years, Eusebius gives
it only 100 years. Since it was founded in 2035, its hundred years extended
to 1935 as did that of Thebes. Thus one may see that instead of these figures
being corrupt and unhistorical records, each tells only part of the whole story.

Already it has been noted that Dynasty X of Heracleopolis lasted 204 years.
But Africanus and Eusebius state that its period of dominion was 185. It was
exactly 185 years also from 1935 to 1750. The difference between these figures
is 19 — the same as between the years 1954 and 1935 in the reign of Mentuhotpe.
Also Africanus and Eusebius both state that Dynasty XI of Thebes extended its
rule over Egypt 43 years. From 1935 to the end of the dynasty in 1892 is exactly
43 years. All this is simple arithmetic that historians have not solved in 2000
years!

Few of the names of the Heracleopolitan dynasties have been preserved. Nor
has any internal dating been preserved in any records. With the addition of
the twelfth dynasty at Thebes, the following chart illustrates the order of
dynasties in this early period.

The Great Theban Dynasty XII

With the restoration of Dynasty XII of Thebes — the second dynasty to rule
in Thebes — the history of early Egypt to the Exodus will be nearly complete.

The lengths of reigns of Dynasty XII are firmly established, though they
have come down in several forms due to the practice of associating successors
on the throne prior to death of predecessor, or of dating from designation as
heir to the throne. In each case the total is 212 calendar years — 1892-1680.

(Dynasty XIII of Thebes follows.)

The Canon of Turin reckoned the first three kings’ reigns differently, but
the total again is the same. Amenemhe I is given 29 years (1892-1863). Senwosre
I is given 45 years (1863-1818). Amenemhe II is given 20 years (1818-1798).
These various datings, when taken together, illustrate the full tenure of public
office.

Manetho’s figures, as they have come down to us, tell another part of the
story not contained in these records. His account deletes one king and adds
another, beside referring to a rule of twelve. Manetho records that Amenemhe
ruled 16 years during the close of the eleventh dynasty. His 30 years of rule
after the close of seven years’ anarchy is not recorded by Manethos abstractors.

In late Ptolemaic times a document was written on the temple wall at Edfu
concerning a great war that occurred in the 363rd year of the era of Menes.
Menes was crowned in 2254. The 363rd year is 1892. It was in this year that
the climax of seven years of near anarchy was ended and the power or hegemony
of Thebes was re-established over all Egypt. This same event is also recorded
on the Palermo stone in the 363rd year of the kingdom.

Sesostris III was one of the greatest conquerors in early Egyptian history.
Manetho records that ‘in nine years he subdued the whole of Asia, and Europe
as far as Thrace …’ Asia, of course, refers to Asia Minor and the Near East
only. But our interest in this dynasty centers rather on Amenemhe III, the Pharaoh
who dominated all Egypt in Joseph’s day. Egyptian history rarely records a man
who exerted so much energy in a positive direction. Under him Lake Moeris was
developed in the Fayyum for the storage of water. He was responsible for the
construction of a long canal, a kind of secondary river, along the Nile to Lake
Moeris. It is named to this day the Bahr Yusuf — the River of Joseph! The famed
Labyrinth was also erected under his rule. He associated, during the middle
of his reign twelve rulers with him, called the Dodecarchy. Were these the brothers
of Joseph? Amenemhe III took special efforts to measure the rise of the Nile.
(Volume II of ‘A History of the Pharaohs’, by Weigall.)

Before closing this period of history, it is important that one take notice
of two facts that are at times misunderstood about this dynasty. Most historians
date this dynasty to specific years ‘B.C.’ by astronomical methods. To do so
they have recourse to altering certain readings in the documents they use. Further,
historians neglect the fact that even the Egyptians state in their records that
the courses of the heavens have on occasion changed. The Egyptian calendar does
not determine the chronology of the time, but the proper historical restoration
of the dynasties will instead enable the honest historian to determine the changes
that have taken place in the Egyptian calendar.

The second problem is the stated length of the Dynasty XII in the Turin Canon.
The figure is ‘213 years, 1 month, 17 days.’ The total length of the dynasty
was only 212 calendar years. The last ruler — Sebeknofru reigned for ‘3 years
10 months, 24 days.’ The last 10 months, together with about 3 months of the
last year of Dynasty XI, when Amenemhe obtained control of Egypt prior to New
Year, are added to 212 years to make 213. But the last 10 months of Sebeknofru’s
reign became the first year of Dynasty XIII. Hence it is not counted to Dynasty
XII when calculated in sequence. (See page 71 of Gardiner’s ‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’.)

Who Was Rameses?

Perhaps the greatest difficulty in reconciling the Bible has been the reference
in Genesis to the land of Rameses (Genesis 47:11). It has been assumed either
that the book of Genesis was a late document which inserted the name of Rameses
in place of some lost original name, or that the name is original and the account
of the Exodus took place after Rameses and not in the manner described in the
Bible. Neither of these explanations is correct.

Long before Rameses the Great was born, there were several kings, not known
by modern historians, with some form of the name Rameses. The record of these
kings of the Delta, foolishly rejected by all historians today, is the key to
this enigma in the Bible. The names are preserved by Syncellus in the Book of
Sothis. A list of them may be found in Waddell’s ‘Manetho’, page 235.

This line of kings begins with ‘Mestraim’ — the Mizraim of the Bible, from
whom the Egyptians descended. Many early commentators thought this Mestraim
was the same person as Menes, and have therefore inserted Menes’ name as an
explanation of Mestraim. But this is not so. Mestraim founded a dynasty at Zoan
in the Delta entirely separate from that of Cush and Nimrod. Among these rulers
is a Rameses who lived in the days of Joseph and the fourth dynasty. Many historians
have been puzzled by the fact that the name of Rameses should appear on so many
of the building blocks that went into the early buildings of the third and fourth
dynasties. Their mistaken explanation is that the later Rameses had his servants
take time out to carve his name on all these stones. It never occurred to them
that there might actually have been a Rameses who assisted in the erection of
these fabulous monuments of a by-gone era.

As the history of Egypt is gradually reconstructed, the Book of Sothis will
play an ever more prominent part in it. Syncellus believed the book to be a
genuine list of kings from Manetho. It names many otherwise unknown kings, and
places the known dynasties in the correct order. For this reason the book has
been rejected for centuries as a fictitious account of Pharaonic Egypt. The
Book of Sothis is one of the most important proofs of the true order of kings
as presented in this restoration of Egyptian history.

The kings in the Book of Sothis continue to the coming of the Persians in
525, but they will not all be listed in this compendium until their proper place
in history. Following are the kings from the book of Sothis to the year 1299.

The fifth year of Concharis is the 700th year from Mestraim. Because of this
statement, most commentators alter the length of reign of Concharis from 6 to
5. (‘Chronological Antiquities’, by John Jackson, Vol. II, page 150.) The correct
figure is 6. Following Concharis were four other kings of Tanis, names not preserved,
who reigned during the succeeding 254 years. Add to the 700 the last year of
Concharis, plus 254 and the total is 955. This is exactly the same figure which
the Turin Papyrus gives for the end of the eighth dynasty of Memphis. Both these
lists are historical. They come from the same original sources. Such a figure
as 955 to end an era is preposterous on the basis of coincidence. This list
of Tanite (Zoan) kings is historical.

Only one dynasty remains to be discussed before the coming of the Shepherd
Kings. That is Dynasty XIV of Xois in the Delta. Its 76 kings lasted 484 years.
It is known to be parallel with Dynasty XIII of Thebes. It commenced at the
end of Dynasty III of Memphis, in 1663, following the reign of Huny and the
departure of Job or Cheops in the same year, and ended in 1179. Africanus states
that the dynasty exercised power for 184 years, but this covers only the time
to the usurpation of power by the Shepherd kings. Few names have been preserved
complete, and no regnal years are available. A complete list of the fragmentary
names is printed in Gardiner’s ‘Egypt of the Pharaohs’, pages 441-442.

With this chapter the restoration of Egyptian history to the Exodus closes.