Volume 1 Chapter 7

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 SEVEN

The Era of Confusion

No period of Egyptian history is in greater confusion than the close of Dynasty
XVIII. To reconstruct this period scholars have limited themselves almost wholly
to the meagre finds of archaeology. without any proof whatsoever, they have
rejected or silently passed over the testimony of Africanus and Josephus, of
the book of Sothis and the Bible.

To fill up gaps in the commonly accepted interpretation of history, they
have written countless volumes on the unimportant king Tutankhamen — who reigned
only ten years. They have lauded Akhenaten, the father of King Tutankhamen,
as the world’s ‘first monotheist,’ when he was instead, a sexual deviate who
used the cloak of religion to beget children by his own mother and daughters
— not to speak of his attraction toward his son Smenkhkare.

There is a reason historians have painted the closing years of Dynasty XVIII
as one of religious idealism and philosophic wisdom. In some way they have to
erase the presence of monotheism in Israel, and the rise of proofrb literature.
Since the scholarly world has not been willing to attribute it to God, the origin
has been sought in Egypt. No such foolish deduction could have been possible
had historians properly placed Dynasty XVIII parallel with the kingdoms of Israel
and Judah.

Egypt As It Really Was

The history of Egypt for the late eighteenth and the nineteenth dynasties
is vividly described in the Bible. It is a picture quite unlike that of the
early Thutmoses. Changes were becoming noticeable in the reign of Thutmose IV.
But not until the accession of Amenhotpe III, the grandson of Amenhotpe II,
did the history of Egypt become one of utter religious confusion, political
division, folly. What happened is made clear in the book of Isaiah:
‘The princes of Zoan are utter fools;

‘The wisest counsellors of Pharaoh are a senseless counsel;

‘How can ye say unto Pharaoh:

‘ ‘I am the son of ancient kings’? …

‘The princes of Zoan are become fools,

‘The princes of Noph (Memphis) are deceived;

‘They have caused Egypt to go astray’ (Isaiah 20:11-13).

Who are these princes of Zoan — the descendants of ancient kings? Isaiah
again writes of the same period:
‘And I’ — God is speaking — ‘will spur Egypt against Egypt,

‘And they shall fight everyone against his brother,

‘And every one against his neighbor;

‘City against city, and kingdom against kingdom.

‘…. And I will give over the Egyptians

‘Into the hand of a cruel lord;

‘And a fierce king shall rule over them,

‘Saith the Lord, the Lord of hosts’ (Isa. 19:2-4).

For nearly 170 years following the expulsion of the Hyksos, Egypt was united
under one royal family. But here one sees an Egypt divided, not merely into
cities, but into kingdoms. What parallel dynasties ruled these feuding kingdoms?
Are the records of these internal wars found on the monuments?

Indeed! All these surprising Scriptures are made plain once the history of
Egypt is properly restored to its true chronological position.

The Later Eighteenth Dynasty

The records of Theban Dynasty XVIII have been restored through Thutmose IV.
Beginning with Amenhotpe III, historians are in great confusion. Most of the
controversy is suppressed in textbooks. It does not reach the ears of students.

The controversy is primarily due to the serious mistake of rejecting the
classical evidence from Manetho. As with the early dynasties, Manetho preserved
much that archaeology has not, and perhaps never will, discover. By; contrast,
much that Manetho’s transcribers thought unimportant has been rediscovered by
archaeology. The true picture of what really happened in the next four centuries
can be told only by utilizing both Manetho and archaeological finds.

So varied were the events surrounding the later years of Dynasty XVIII that
no one ancient writer preserves all the details from Manetho. Not even Manetho
appears to have recorded the whole account. Archaeology has unearthed many of
the missing pieces of the puzzle. What is needed is to combine both Manetho
and the finds of archaeology with the Bible.

Historians for years have been sharply divided over the events of the last
years of Amenhotpe III. Many hold that he associated his son Akhenaten with
him on the throne. Though other historians deny it, Manetho confirms the association.
See the chart from Africanus presented later in this chapter.

The archaeologists who recognize that the father associated the son on the
throne for a time have made the mistake, however, of interpreting the reign
of Akhenaten as commencing, in the documents and monuments, from the beginning
of his appointment. On his monuments, Akhenaten adopted the practice of dating
his reign from the death of his father Amenhotpe III. The evidence of the El-Amarna
correspondence absolutely proofs that Akhenaten was abroad during many years
of the coregency and did not return till the death of his father (‘The Journal
of Egyptian Archaeology’, vol. 43, 1957, pages 13-14). This fact misled the
opposing school of historians to deny the firmly documented coregency.

From archaeology the following chart may be constructed. (See ‘Journal of
Near Eastern Studies’, vol. xxv, April 1966, Pages 113-124, by Donald B. Redford.)

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Archaeology	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Thutmose IV	9	918-909
Amenhotpe III	38	909-871
Akhenaten (Orus)	17	871-854
Smenkhkare	3	854-851
Tutankhamen	10	851-841
Ay	4	841-837
Haremhab	59	837-778

The classical writers took no note of the short reigns of Orus’ sons Smenkhkare
and Tutankhamen. For them, the entire period was assigned to Orus. Similarly
archaeology knows little or nothing of the other children born to Akhenaten.

King Ay, whose name appears next to last, was not of royal descent. He gained
great influence in the latter years of the court of Amenhotpe III. He is mentioned
in documents as father-in-law of Akhenaten. His daughter was Nefertiti, the
king’s chief queen. Unfortunately Ay later became the brother-in-law of Akhenaten.
Ay’s sister Tiy, who was the mother of Akhenaten, became also his wife toward
the middle of his reign. What befell Nefertiti afterward is unrecorded in history.

Young Smenkhkare — for whom Akhenaten also had an unnatural attraction —
later returned to the old capital of Thebes while his father remained at El-Amarna.
After three short years on the throne, the youth was supplanted by his younger
brother Tutankhamen.

Ten years later, Tutankhamen died. Ay gave Tutankhamen a sumptuous burial,
then mounted the throne himself and apparently married Tutankhamen’s young widow,
his own granddaughter, to secure his claim to royalty. (See ‘Journal of Egyptian
Archaeology’, ‘King Ay, the successor of Tut-Ankh-amun,’ vol. XCIII (1932),
pages 50-52.)

Ay reigned 4 years. He died in 837.

Haremhab, who succeeded Ay, was a general who played no small part in the
drama that climaxed the El-Amarna period. General Haremhab controlled the army.
At his coronation in 837 he married the ‘Queen’s sister Mutnodjme’ (Aldred,
‘Journal of Egyptian Archaeology’, vol. 43. Page 39 and Breasted’s ‘Ancient
Records’, vol. III, Sections 22 and 28.) Haremhab thus became the king’s brother-in-law
and Ay’s son-in-law. A comparatively long reign is usually attributed to Haremhab.
The highest discovered date assigned to him is 59 years. None of the documents
bear a king’s name. This figure is in agreement, however, with Manetho’s transcribers.

Neither the mummy of Akhenaten nor of Haremhab has been found. A mummy, once
thought to be Akhenaten’s is undoubtedly that of Smenkhkare (Aldred, ‘The End
of the El-Amarna Period,’ in December 1957 ‘Journal of Egyptian Archaeology’).

Manetho’s Evidence

Now let’s consider what happened to the family of Akhenaten during the lifetime
of Haremhab.

Africanus has correctly preserved Dynasty XVIII from Thutmose IV to a king
named Ramesses. The variations of other writers will be considered later. Here
is Africanus’ record beginning with Thutmose IV:

Names of Rulers of Dynasty XVIII according to Julius Africanus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Tuthmosis (IV)	9	918-909
Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	37	878-841
Acherres	32	841-809
Rathos	6	809-803
Chebres	12	803-791
Acherres	12	791-779
Armesis	5	779-774
Ramesses (usually mislabeled ‘I’)	1	774-773

A break in the list occurs here. Now let’s examine Eusebius before proceeding
further with Africanus.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius’ Greek Text	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	36	878-842
Achencherses, his daughter	12 (joint)	837-825
Athoris, her brother	39	842-803
Chencheres	16	803-787
Acherres	8	787-779
Cherres	15 (joint)	794-779
Armais	5	779-774

Note the parallel reign of Cherres, beginning 794. This figure will be significant
for dating Dynasty XXIII of Tanis later. The dating of Akhenaton’s daughter.
Beginning in 837, will be proofd shortly.

We should now consider other variants from Manetho, illustrated by this fragmentary
copy.

Names of Kings of Dynasty XVIII from Eusebius’ Armenian Version	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (III)	31	909-878
Orus (Akhenaten)	28	871-843
Achencherses, his daughter	—
—	16	803-787
Acherres	8	787-779
Cherres	15	794-779
Armais	5	779-774

Eusebius’ account of Orus supports the archaeological record of 38 years
for Amenhotpe III mentioned earlier:

Amenhotpe III	38 (from archaeology)	909-871
Orus (Akhenaten)	28 (Armenian version)	871-843

Eusebius’ Greek Manuscript B of the king list differs from the others. It
has been misunderstood by some modern editors who have inserted, mistakenly,
the figure 12 in place of 16 (that is, 841-825) for the reign of Achencherses,
Akhenaten’s daughter. They assumed that Eusebius has been incorrectly copied.
But manuscript B of Eusebius plainly has 16. Because Cencheres also reigned
16 years, certain manuscript copies of Eusebius’ original work have deleted
his name and that of Athoris. (Compare Eusebius Werke, edited by Rudolph Helm,
vol. I, pages 40-45 with Manetho, by W.G. Waddell, Fr. 53.)

What do these variants mean? They indicate that Manetho originally gave in
detail the events surrounding the reigns of Akhenaten, Tutankhamen, Smenkhkare
and Ay! Now see how the year 837 — the end of Ay’s reign — can be established
from Josephus and the Book of Sothis.

Names of Josephus and Theophilus	Lengths of Reign	Dates
Amenophis (Amenhotpe III)	30	909-879
Orus (Akhenaten)	36 (or 38 in Eusebius)	879-843 (879-841)
Acencheres (daughter of Orus)	12 (or 16 in Eusebius)	837-825 (841-825)
Rathotis (her brother)	9	825-816 (14 missing years)
Acencheres I	12	802-790
Acencheres II	12	790-778
Harmais	4	778-774
Ramesses	1	774-773

It must first be remembered that Manetho, in his original work, presented
to the world three vast tomes. These have been lost to the world. But before
they perished many writers extracted material that, to them, appeared vital.
Different writers viewed the multitude of Manetho’s facts differently. Josephus
considered certain events more important than did Africanus, for example; his
dates for the reign of a king consequently might differ somewhat from Africanus.
On occasion, whole reigns might be deleted as unimportant — a fact already
noted for the first half of Dynasty XVIII.

Josephus’ abstract contains several unusual features. First, it is not consecutive.
There is a significant break between Orus and his daughter Acencheres.

The second divergency is the dating of Amenhotpe III. Africanus assigns him
31 years and ends his reign in 878. Josephus and Theophilus follow the Book
of Sothis and end it in 879. There is no scribal carelessness here, only a difference
in evaluating events. Amenhotpe III associated his son Orus on the throne toward
the end of his 31st year — after 30 years and 10 months, to use Josephus’ account.
The question naturally arose, should the 31st year of Amenhotpe III be assigned
to him, or to the son now that he had come to coregency? Africanus adopted the
former method, dating it 878. Josephus, as well as Syncellus in the Book of
Sothis, adopted the latter method, dating it 879.

The same variation may be noticed for the reigns of the kings Acencheres
I and II and Harmais. Africanus, in these instances, began their regnal years
one year earlier than Josephus; but assigned five to Armais. The total in each
instance is the same.

Now see the Book of Sothis confirm the unusual dates 837-816 for Akhenaten’s
daughter and son — and consequently 837 for the end of Ay’s reign.

Names in Book of Sothis	Lengths of Reign	Dates
39 Tuthmosis (IV)	39	952-913
40 Amenophthis (III)	34	913-879
41 Orus (Akhenaten)	48	879-831
42 Achencheres (a daughter)	25	841-816
43 Athoris	29	831-802
44 Chencheres	26 (note — 14 missing years in Josephus found!)	816-790
45 Acherres	30 (or 8)	809-779 (or 787-779)
46 Armais	9	779-770

Very little is known of the family of Akhenaten in later years. What is known
is that Acencheres, the daughter of Akhenaten. had a brother Rathotis (or Rathos).
His son is Achencheres I, the Chebres of Africanus. The next generation is Achencheres
II, the Acherres II of Africanus. None of these names have been found as yet
by archaeologists in Egypt. Yet they are important for their chronological value.
If archaeologists had not been led astray they would have recognized the six
successors of Orus as the six immediate predecessors of Piankhi, king of Nubia,
of Dynasty XXV.

Now consider the literary evidence for this restoration of Dynasty XVIII.

The El-Amarna Letters

Amenhotpe III was an effeminate individual who purchased his pleasures by
bestowing power on his friends. In his senile years he was sculptured ‘wearing
a type of gown usually worn by women’ (Cyril Aldred, ‘Bulletin of Metropolitan
Museum of Art’, Feb. 1957). Quite an about face since the days of the Queen
of Sheba! The result of this personal aberration was the rise to prominence
of non-royalty — the family of Ay, for example.

The reigns of Amenophis III and Akhenaten have become famous for the El-Amarna
letters. The letters are official foreign correspondence. Some date from the
time of Amenhotpe III, or before, though most pertain to the government of his
son.

It is the common assumption of the majority of historians that these letters
reveal internal events in Palestine at the time Joshua was invading the Holy
Land. To make the Biblical account of the conquest chronologically correspond
to the time of Akhenaten, historians had to displace the history of the book
of Joshua. Some went so far as to assume that Joshua lived before Moses — since
they had previously misdated the exodus in the later reign of Ramesses ‘the
Great’ or his son. Such foolish interpretations of history stand self-condemned.
What the letters really indicate is an altogether different set of events.

The letters reveal that many of the coastal towns of Syria and Palestine,
which had owed allegiance to Egypt, were torn asunder by internal strife or
were being overrun. Local princes and Egyptian officials usually sought in vain
for Egyptian assistance. What power expanded in Syria and Palestine during this
period?

The Bible makes the answer plain. The Arameans.

The El-Amarna letters were written mainly in the days of Athaliah and Joash
of Judah, and of Jehu and Jehoahaz of Israel. A few are from the earlier period
of the Jehorams or before. The time setting is made clear in the Bible. Asa,
in whose fifteenth year (937-936) Zerah invaded the land, died after a reign
of 41 years. That brings history to 910. Jehoshaphat, his son succeeded him
and reigned 25 years — to 885. This was the 24th year of Amenhotpe III.

After the death of Jehoshaphat ‘Edom revolted from under the hand of Judah
…, then did Libnah revolt at the same time’ (II Chronicles 21:10). The events
move rapidly: ‘And the Lord stirred up against Jehoram the spirit of the Philistines,
and of the Arabians that are beside the Ethiopians and they came up against
Judah, and broke into it up against him’ — Joash — ‘and they came to Judah
and Jerusalem, and destroyed all the princes of the people’ (II Chr. 24:23).

During these years Israel was being devastated by the Arameans, ‘Then Hazael
king of Aram went up, and fought against Gath, and took it; and Hazael set his
face to go to Jerusalem’ (II Kings 12:18). Later, in the reign of Jehoahaz of
Israel, ‘the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel, and He delivered
them into the hand of Hazael king of Aram and into the hand of Ben-Hadad, the
son of Hazael, continually …. For there was not left to Jehoahaz of the people
save fifty horsemen, and ten chariots, and ten thousand footmen; for the king
of Aram destroyed them, and made them like the dust of threshing’ (II Kings
13:3, 7).

Later, Israel was delivered from the power of Aram during the time of Jeroboam
II.

In the El-Amarna letters ‘Aziru’ is a king of ‘Amurru’, with his capital
at ‘Dumasqa’. All historians recognize that Dumasqa is Damascus, the capital
of Aram or Syria. ‘Amurru’ is the common name for Aram. But who is Aziru in
these cuneiform documents? Hazael! The ‘l’ and the ‘r’ are often linguistically
interchanged. The ‘H’ has been dropped, just as it has in Josephus’ spelling
of Hazael — ‘Azaelos.’ Compare the Biblical dropping of the ‘H’ in Hadoram
to Adoram (II Chron. 10:18 and I Kings 12:18).

Hazael posed as Pharaoh’s obedient ally — as did most of the quarreling
princes of the eastern Mediterranean coast. But he refused to render any act
of submission. The king of Egypt had received many reports that Aram was not
remaining loyal. In letter 162, addressed to Aziru or Hazael, the king of Egypt
warns: ‘If thou for any object desirest to do evil, or if thou layest up evil
words of hatred in thy heart, then wilt thou die by the axe of the king together
with thy whole family. Render submission then to the king, thy lord, (and) thou
shalt live. Thou knowest, indeed, that the king does not desire to go heavily
against the whole land of Kinahhi’ — Canaan. (‘The Tell El-Amarna Tablets’,
by Samuel A.B. Mercer, vol. II, page 523.)

The letter was filled with empty words. Egypt had too many troubles of her
own to afford costly expeditions to Syria.

Are the ‘Habiru’ Hebrews?

The letters to the Egyptian court also speak of the habiru — sometimes spelled
khabiru. It was at first commonly assumed that it meant ‘Hebrew,’ and was indicative
of Joshua’s invasion of Palestine. But not one king or Canaan in Joshua’s day
has ever been found in the El-Amarna letters. Nor is there one word of the fall
of Jericho. The conquest of Palestine recorded in the book of Joshua contrasts
at every fundamental point with the world of the El-Amarna letters. Egypt was
an important power in the eastern Mediterranean in the days of the kings of
Israel and in the El-Amarna world, but ‘Joshua did not find any such Egyptian
hold during his conquest’ (Sir W.M. Flinders Petrie, ‘Palestine and Israel’,
page 56).

Scholars have long disputed over the import of the word ‘habiru’, or ‘khabiru’.
From the letters it was known to be equivalent to the word ‘sa-qaz’ which means
‘brigands,’ ‘plunderers,’ ‘bandits,’ and ‘cutthroats.’ On occasion the word
‘khabiru’ ‘is also written with an ideogram signifying ‘cutthroats,’ ‘ declared
C.J. Gadd in ‘The Fall of Nineveh’. The Hebrew root of ‘khabiru’ is ‘khaber’
(spelled ‘chaber’ in ‘Young’s Concordance’). It means a ‘companion,’ ‘member
of a band,’ hence, in a derogatory sense, ‘bandit.’ The word appears in Isaiah
1:23 as ‘companions of thieves’: and in proofrbs 28:24 as ‘companion of a destroyer.’

The ‘khabiru’ or ‘habiru’ were the Aramean, Philistine, Moabite, Arabian
bands of plunderers who were overrunning Phoenicia, Syria and Palestine in the
days of Jehoram and Jehoahaz.

Much also has been written of the person of Abdi-hibba. Scholars assume he
was the king of ‘Urusalim’. That the name ‘Urusalim’ is the cuneiform transcription
of the name Jerusalem is plausible. But Abdi-hibba was no king of Jerusalem.
In addressing the Egyptian court he wrote: ‘Verily, I am not a regent; I am
an officer of the king, my lord. Behold I am a shepherd of the king, and I am
one who bears the tribute of the king. Neither my father nor my mother, but
the mighty hand of the king has set me in the house of my father’ (Letter 288).
The king is Pharaoh, king of Egypt. Again in Letter 287 he repeats: ‘Verily,
this land of the city of Urusalim, neither my father nor my mother has given
it to me.’ And in Letter 285: ‘Behold, I am not a regent, I am an officer of
the king, my lord.’ Abdi-hibba was a Palestinian adventurer who had himself
appointed an officer of Pharaoh to administer Egyptian affairs over a portion
of the land that belonged to the city of ‘Urusalim’. ‘Take silver and follow
me,’ he was accused of saying (Letter 280).

It was commonplace for the petty kingdoms of Syria and Palestine to seek
Egyptian ‘foreign aid’ in their quarrels. Isaiah reveals what God thought of
it:
‘Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord, That take counsel, but
not of Me: And that form projects, but not of My spirit, That they may add
sin to sin; That walk to go down into Egypt, And have not asked at My mouth;
To take refuge in the stronghold of Pharaoh, And to take shelter in the
shadow of Egypt! Therefore shall the stronghold of Pharaoh turn to your
shame, And the shelter in the shadow of Egypt to your confusion. For his
princes are at Zoan, And his ambassadors are come to Hanes. They shall all
be ashamed of a people that cannot profit them, That are not a help nor
profit

But a shame, and also a reproach’ (Isaiah 30:1-5, ‘Jewish Pub. Soc.’
trans.).

And verse 7: ‘For Egypt helpeth in vain, and to no purpose: therefore have
I called her ‘Arrogancy that sitteth still.’ ‘

Dissension and jealousy sundered Egypt’s government during the El-Amarna
period. It was, in part, the result of infiltration of foreign influence during
the reign of Amenhotpe III. The book of Sothis records of his day: ‘The Ethiopians,
removing from the River Indus, settled near Egypt.’

They brought with them not only the concept of marriages between uterine
brothers and sisters, a practice already established in Egypt by the royalty
of Sheba, but of the marriage of parents with children. Children of the union
of a mother and son were deemed especially well born. Akhenaten inherited this
concept through his father’s marriage relationships. But the practice was revolting
to many Egyptians of high rank. No known ruler among them since the time of
the Ethiopian Nimrod had dared marry his own mother and beget children of her.

Akhenaten did it because he regarded himself as a new incarnation of Nimrod,
the sun-god. Hence the name Orus applied to the king. Orus is another spelling
of Horus, third king of Egypt, who was anciently assumed to be the first incarnation
of Nimrod.

The claims of Akhenaten were so widely known that in El-Amarna letter 41
the Hittite king addresses Akhenaten by the name of ‘Huria’ — the cuneiform
of Horus.

Akhenaten made religion the cloak for his perversions. He pictured himself
as the solar disk, and from his nude body eminated the beams of light that were
to illuminate the world. The claims of the ‘heretic king’ threatened the power
of the Theban pontiffs. To retain their influence they first supported one,
then another, or a third member of the royal family. Each change was presented
to especially constructed idols which moved their heads — through secret manipulation
— in approval or disapproval of the rival royal candidates.

After El-Amarna

The climax to the El-Amarna age is usually thought to be the early death
of Akhenaten and the return to Thebes of young king Tut, supported by the Theban
priesthood. What is not understood by historians or archaeologists is the sundering
of Egyptian political unity.

In the next chapter it shall be proofd that Libyans penetrated Lower Egypt
and after the death of Ay set up a dynasty of their own. Two generations later
the political center of gravity shifted to Tanis in the Delta. Egypt consequently
became a significant sea power in the eighth century before the present era.
Greek classical records provide numerous references to Egyptian trade, settlement
and warfare in the Mediterranean during this century.

Upper Egypt meanwhile saw the last kings of Dynasty XVIII retire to their
homeland in Nubia. Dynasty XVIII arose in Ethiopian Nubia to oust the Hyksos.
Its king Zera is called ‘Ethiopian,’ and its queen, ‘Queen of Sheba.’ (Sheba
was a son of Cush, father of the Ethiopians.) When the religious controversy
under Akhenaten developed, the religious and political pressures of the Upper
Egyptians forced a withdrawal of the later members of the Dynasty to Napata
in Nubia. Here, as we shall presently see, a branch of the family arose to new
power in Nubia and Egypt in the person of Piankhi and reestablished the famous
Ethiopian era in Egypt. But this Ethiopian period was not centered any longer
in Thebes, but in Napata, Nubia.

Historians have never understood the connection between the early Ethiopian
influence in Egypt and the later Ethiopian period, because they have separated
them by over five centuries. This restoration of Egyptian history makes plain
the connection.