Stephen was probably not a Samaritan

There is a claim out there that a lot of the odd things Stephen says in Acts 7 can be explained by him perhaps being a Samaritan or influenced by their traditions. While I found this idea interesting at first, I quickly came to realize that the specific pillars of the claim are faulty.

Stephen is Pro-David while the Samaritan Tradition is Anti-David. The way Stephen uses Psalm 132 even implies the location of David's Tabernacle not Solomon’s Temple is the true intended location of the Mishkan, not very compatible with the Samaritan Gerizim tradition. Stephen also quotes Prophets the Samaritan don’t recognize like Isaiah and Amos. 

The Samaritan Pentateuch reflects the Samaritan Custom of saying Shehmaa (THe Name) instead of Adonai (The Lord) as stand in for the Tetragrammaton. Stephen in Acts 7 is definitely following the Jewish custom here, in verses 30-37, 49 and 59-60. Saying The Name did also become a custom in Rabbinic Judaism, but it seems to have developed later, I’m aware of no example of it in the First Century CE or BCE. The New Testament certainly never does it, the word name is only ever a descriptor never used as a Name or Title for God. 

Some of the things alleged to be explained by textual differences between the Samaritan Pentateuch and the Masoretic Text, like saying 75 rather than 70 people went to Egypt, are just as easily explained by following the Septuagint which is what you’d expect from him being a leader in a Greek Speaking Jewish Community, but more than that so were his accusers which included Jews of Alexandria and Cyrene the specific communities most likely to be attached to the LXX. Stephen’s quote of Amos is another case of him using the LXX. 

As an enemy of LXX primacy and the popular claim that the NT consistently uses it I consider Stephen in Acts 7 the one case where the Septuagint likely is the source material being used.  I believe the overall message of Stpehen’s sermon is inspired by the Holy Spirit, but since he’s not an Apostle I wouldn't treat as infallible specific details unique to him or his choice of text. 

Saying Terah died right before Abraham leaves Harran at 75 is not a conclusion you need the Samaritan Pentateuch to come to.  In fact if you aren’t stopping to do the math then it is in all versions the natural conclusion since Genesis describes Terah dying and then Abraham being called out of Harran. Now sometimes Genesis does describe things like this out of order, especially when changing which generation is now the Main Character, so this alone isn’t proof Stephen was right on this matter but it does show you can jump to this assumption no matter which text you’re using. 

The apparent contradiction caused by the math that only the SP lacks is easily resolved by remembering that Genesis 5:32 and 6:10 and 7:13 and 9:18 and 10:1 all list Noah’s sons as Shem, Ham and Japheth while the rest of Genesis 10 clearly treated Japheth as the oldest and explicitly says he is in verse 21. Sometimes the sons are named not in birth order but in an order that lists the one the overall Biblical Genealogy goes through first. So Abraham being listed first in Genesis 11:26-27 repeats that pattern, Nachor seems to be Terah’s first born since he and his descendants inherited Terah’s land in Harran. 

It’s Acts 7:16 that really seems to a casual observer very Samaritan.  Except that the Samaritan Pentateuch doesn’t actually disagree with the Masoretic text on either issue Stephen is alleged to be contradicting the Masoretic Text on. In the SP the first three Patriarchs are buried at Kirath-Arba aka Hebron and Jacob not Abraham bought a field near Shechem from Hamor/Emmor the father of Shechem/Sychem. We also say in verses 8-9 that Stephen used the term Patriarch primarily of Jacob’s sons, not Jacob and his ancestors. And verse 15 explicitly distinguished the fathers who died in Egypt he’s talking about from Jacob.

Stephen is not directly saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried in Shechem, the intent to me is clearly to refer to people who died in Egypt and were at first laid to rest there until the Exodus. The actual Hebrew Bible Texts only directly refer to Joseph having his body moved and buried at Shechem on the land bought from Hamor in Joshua 24:32, but it's reasonable to infer others were with him. 

Saying Abrahm bought the field from Emmor is not quite as easy to explain. It could be it was land Abraham intended to buy but it wasn’t carried out till Jacob.  Like how Elisha fulfilled some missions first given to Elijah like anointing Jehu and Hazael. We do know that Abraham had spent time in the area of Shechem in Genesis 12:6 where he did build an Altar.

People just assumed off vibes that saying something unusual about Shechem sounds Samaritan.  I do see some people word this as about Samaritan Traditions not the SP text itself, but whether or not such a tradition exists, it’s not the only way to come to Stephen’s conclusion. The Samaritan tradition is that all of Jacob’s sons were buried at Shechem, not just Joseph, no contradiction on where Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were buried. Stephen could be referring to that, or he could be referring to sons and grandsons of Joseph.  The only Shechem based Samaritan disagreement about events involving Abraham is wanting the location of Isaac’s offering in Genesis 22 to be Moreh rather than Moriah, that too involved no textual difference it seems just interpreting them to be the same name, and is irrelevant to anything in Acts 7.

Stephen also doesn't have to be a Samaritan to see himself as a descendent of specifically the Joseph Tribes, Ephriam and Manesseh. I do believe the Samaritans descend from Ephraim and Manesseh into the gentiles settled in the region by the Assyrians as I talked about in a prior post. But they aren’t the only descendents of Ephraim and Manesseh, those who in 2 Chronicles 30 took part in Hezekiah’s Passover I believe became citizens of Judah and thus Jews. 

Another appeal to Samaritan tradition is the idea that God first called Abraham when he was still in Ur Kassidim.  Nothing in the actual Text of Genesis contradicts such a thing, I'm sure you can find plenty of purely Jewish fan fiction depicting God already calling Abraham at Ur Kassidim. 

Dan and the cities they renamed

I hold the view that Leshem in Joshua 19 and Laish in Judges 18 are not the same. But more importantly then that I doubt Tel-Dan is either.

Tel-Dan I think is Dan-Jaan in 2 Samuel 24:6 which is a Trans-Jordan location. 

In the context of Joshua 19:47 I think Leshem is a location outside the allotment just described but not as far from it as others.  And to help explain the context of the reference to Dan in the Son of Deborah is probably a coastal port city. 

So I lean toward Tel-Gabor which inhabited going back to the Early Bronze Age so there were people there before the Danites. It seem to be the only real Bonze Age settlement the Coat of Israel north of Joppa/Jaffa but south of Dor. Yet it's currently not believed to be mentioned in The Bible.

Laish introduced in Judges 18:7 and mentioned again in 14 and 27-29 is associated with a Beth-Rehob the only other reference to which is 2 Samuel 2:6 where it seems like close to Zobah/Homs leading me to conclude it's in the Dan used as an idiom for Israel's Northern border.  

A Rehob is also linked to the "entering in of Hamath" in Numbers 13:21 believed by scholars to be Labweh the source of the Orontes River in northern Lebanon north of Baalbek in the Baalbek District. But there is room for interpretation on that. 

A Rehob is also part of the allotment of Asher, possibly in it's north. 

I also think Laish was probably not a Coast city because given Sidon's sea faring nature it's hard to imagine Sidonians in a coastal city being this cut off.

If we take the entering in of Hamath being Labweh view, then Laish as Duris, Jdeide, Deir El Ahmar or Ras-Baalbek could all be plausible. Unless we interpret Beth-Rehob as part of Mount Lebanon and the Labweh is in the valley to it's East but Laish in a valley to it's West, in which case I'd look in the Kadisha Valley in the Bisharri District of the North Governorate. 

But in a the other model I'm looking in the Hula Valley, but west of the Joran, not in the Golan Heights, either within the pre 67 border of Israel or in the Marjayoun District of Lebanon.

Even in the context of a modern southern identification for Laish, I still The Bible hints at the Danites in time migrated further north. DNA evidence shows the Christian Population of Lebaon (Majority Maronite but with some notable Melkite Communties) are closely related to the Jews, even more so then the Arabs are. So I my theory is they descend from the Danites while the Muslims descend of Lebanon from the Canaaites.

And that's why I'm also looking at cities and regions that are still majority Christian rather then Muslim. 

I've bene willing to consider that the traditional identification of Biblical Hazor is wrong and that the archeological site currently known as Tel-Hazor which was destroyed by Fire about 1200 BC could be Laish. A Chronology that places Judges 18 about 1200 BC is not implausible. 

I haven't come to a final conclusion yet. 

The Coffin of The Covenant

I want to engage in some speculation about the full Symbolism of The Ark of The Covenant. 

The Hebrew word translated Ark in reference to The Ark of The Covenant is not the same as for Noah’s Ark, for Noah’s Ark it’s a word that means barge or ship. The word used of The Ark of The Covenant however of Arown which is a bit more mysterious. 

The word is only ever used to describe two other things.  One is a collection box that was once attached to the Brazen Altar, I don’t think that is too significant.

However the first time the word Arown appears in Scripture, the first association it ever has, is also the last verse of the first book of The Bible.  Where it is translated “Coffin” when describing the burial of Joseph.

I find that interesting, especially because while Christians rarely talked about the idea of The Ark being symbolically a Coffin the idea has subconsciously always been there.  Every ancient large Church that is a Martyrium, a giant Mausoleum enshrining someone's burial place, its set follows the tendency to echo the layout of The Temple/Tabernacle in a way that places where the Body rests right where The Ark would be. From The Church of The Holy Sepulcher to St Peter’s Basilica to the ancient Martyrium of Philip at Heiropolis. 

How would the contents of The Ark fit this idea though?

I Believe in Soul Sleep, The Body and Soul and not separated during physical death, they rest together awaiting The Resurrection. 

The Soul and Spirit are also separate things in The Bible as seen in verses like Hebrews 4:12. The Spirit leaving The Body at Death is Biblically supportable if you take a certain verse in Ecclesiastes at face value, but there are issues with taking Ecclesiastes verses at face value.

Human Beings are Triune entities, Spirit and Soul and Body 1 Thessalonians 5:23. And in Hebrews 9:4 The Ark contained three things. The Jar of Manna (Exodus 16:33-34), The Rod of Aaron (Numbers 17:8-10) and the Tablets of The Law (Exodus 25:16-21). 

Exodus 16 refers to the Manna as Bread from Heaven, and in New Testament theology Bread represents The Body. 

I don’t believe Paul is saying the Jar/Pot was actually made of Gold, Exodus 16 would have mentioned that if it was, he’s saying “Pot of Gold” as an idiom for a Pot continuing something valuable which Paul then reveals to be the Manna. This word for Pot is Stamnos which the New Testament only uses here and the LXX only used in Exodus 16:33, the Hebrew word used is also unique to this one verse, but the root it comes from is the Hebrew word for “thorn” used in Job 5:5 and Proverbs 22:5 which is also the root of the word used in Numbers 33:55 and Joshua 23:13. 

Aaron’s Rod in Numbers 17 miraculously sprouted life, and is a Symbol of Aaron’s Priestly Authority. It represents the Spirit, the animating force. 

The Greek word for Soul is Psyche, The Soul Biblically is your Personhood and Personality, your Self in a sense. What the Heart and Mind represent Biblically are parts of that. 

Jeremiah 31:33 says “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people”.  Paul quoted that in Hebrews 8:10  “For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people” and Again in Hebrews 10:16 “This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them”.

So The Tablets of The Law are symbolically The Heart and Mind, The Soul. 

When The Ark was placed in Solomon’s Temple we’re told only The Tablets of The Law were still in it, meaning the Jar and the Rod may have been removed by the Philistines when they had it, or some other point. 

In the context of this Symbolism it further strengthens my Soul Sleep view, The Soul Remains in The Grave even if the Body and Spirit have withered away. The Soul is immortal in a sense, but not in the sense Platonists think. 

Nimrod and Babel theory.

Exactly 1903 years elapsed from the founding of Babylon to the capture of Babylon by Alexander the Great. This calculation and number of years was made according to astronomical observations by Porphyry, as we find in Simplicius, in his second book "de Coelo". This he affirms to have been transmitted into Greece from Babylon by Chalisthenes at Aristotle's request.  Since Alexander captured Babylon in 331 BC that places it's founding in 2234 BC.  The so-called Weidner Chronicle (also known as ABC 19) states that Sargon of Akkad had built Babylon "in front of Akkad" (ABC 19:51).  The short chronology has Sargon reigning in 2234 BC, so these sources line up. The Babylon of Hammurabi and Nebuchadnezzar is not old enough to be the first Post-Flood city.  And if there is indeed evidence of some settlement around there prior to Sargon, maybe that is the still unidentified city of Akkad? 

On the subject of Babel's name.  Ignace Gelb argued in 1995 that original name was Babilla, of unknown meaning and origin, as there were other similarly named places in Sumer, and there are no other examples of Sumerian place-names being replaced with Akkadian translations. He deduced that it later transformed into Akkadian Bāb-ili(m), and that the Sumerian name Kan-dig̃irak was a loan translation of the Semitic folk etymology rather than the original name. So some this fits the already implied implication from what's said about Sargon, that some other place had this name first.

I used agree with David Rohl on both Enmerkar king of Uruk as Nimrod and Eridu as Babel, and I still agree that all the attempts to make Nimrod anyone more recent then Enmerkar on the Kings list are silly, including Gilgamesh who reigned later in the same dynasty with two kings between them.

When I look at the Sumerian King's List another candidate for Nimrod would be Etanna of the first Dynasty of Kish, he's defined as the first Conquer, at least in the Post-Flood world. The ten names preceding Etanna on Kish's list are names of Animals so that feels artificial inflation.  And before that is Kullassina-bel which is a phrase that means "all of them were lord" so that's clearly a memory of when Kish was a Democracy.  Kish is a name that is very arguably Cognate with Cush, even within Hebrew The Davidic Psalm 7:1 refers to a Benjamite Cush who I believe is the same person as the Kish who was the father of Saul in 1 Samuel 9:1.

However it could be possible that Etanna and Enmerkar are different names the same King was remembered by in different cities.  

Enmebaragesi of Kish a contemporary of Gilgamesh in the 17th century BC is called the first builder of Enlil's Temple at Nippur in one text. So Nippur's House of Heaven is also to young though it too had this significance transposed onto it and so maybe was also called Babel.

The Emerkar and the Lord of Aratta poem is why those two are seen as going together as it attributed the building of the Temple in Eridu to Enmerkar. But I disagree with the popular assumption that Nimrod was involved in building the Tower of Babel, Genesis doesn't describe The Tower of Babel as built by a King at all but as an act of Democracy.  A Babel was simply part of Nimrod's empire later. 

Meanwhile within the context of Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta poem Eridu's Temple is not the first ever built, the Temple of Inanna is Uruk itself has been there for awhile. Eridu's Temple is looking in the wrong direction, Abzu refers to the Abyss, while Babel's tower should be a House of Heaven. 

When Berosrus swaps out Eirdu for Babylon as the very first city it's because he is serves records form the time when Nabuchadnezzar's Babylon was the Capital, so the official propaganda inflated that city's antiquity. 

Eridu's importance in Sumerian Mythology was as the first Pre-Flood City, it was never where important things happened after The Flood. Meaning if it's in Genesis it's in chapter 4 not 10 or 11. Genesis 4:17 I believe should be translated "And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch: and he (Enoch) builded a city, and called the name of the city, after the name of his son."  The common view that Cain founded the city is contradicted by the fact he was curses to be a vagabond till he died. The next verse tells us the name of Enoch's son was Irad, a name that could become Eridu. 

Uruk can be argued to be the first City depending on exactly how you define a city, settlements like Eridu are older, but the true fullness of what a city is was arguable was achieved by Uruk first.

https://youtu.be/7jQUwWtbFjE

https://youtu.be/4AGK0YteOE0

Uruk is also arguably a twin city. It's oldest area is the Anu District centered around it's oldest Temple to Anu the god whose name mean Heaven, then it expanded to the Eanna district built around the Temple to Inanna. Maybe when Genesis 10:10 says "the beginnings of his Kingdom were Babel and Erech" it's referring to these two separate districts of Uruk. And then after that Genesis 10 is describing the Uruk expansion which did extend as far north as Nineveh in the 4th Millennium BC. And that expansion I believe happened under Enmerkar. 

The Anu Ziggurat in Uruk was the tallest building in the world from when it was built (around 4000 BC according to mainstream archeology) till the Pyramid of Djoser was built in the 27th century BC.  I suspect it was originally just built to be the Temple of Heaven and the idea of a specific god named Anu came later. The ancient name for the Anu district was Kullaba or Kulab, and a district was also given that name in the later classical Babylon. 

David and Middle Assyria

In a prior post I defended Ussher’s timeline of the Divided Kingdom, putting the death of Solomon in 975 rather than 930 BC.. 

I have now observed that Middle Assyrian history synchronizes well with that. 

First for context, prior to the Omrid period, I do think one thing the Assyrians could have called the Israelites is Aramean.  The Israelites called themselves Arameans in certain contexts as seen in Deuteronomy 26:5, and I think the Assyrians may have used it for all Semites of the Western Levant. 

Tigaleth-Pileser I from 1114-1076 BC had secured control as far south-west as Phoenicia, and it’s noted that new polities were forming among the Arameans, these could be Zobah, Hamath, Damascus and Israel under Saul.

Asshur-bel-kala was King of Assyria from 1073-1056 BC, during his reign Assyria lost a lot of that territory to Arameans.  

These Arameans could be David himself if you take a Maximalist interpretation of how far David conquered, if you believe the Euphrates mentioned in 2 Samuel 8:3/2 Chronicles 18:3 is the Mesopotamian Euphrates.  I have argued for maybe that but definitely every Euphrates reference from the time of Abraham through Joshua being either the Litani or the Orontes, but in order for this Davidic reference to be the Litani it’d have be referring to David conquering all the way north to the source of the Litani and further since Berothai is identified with a city just south of Baalbek.  

It is perhaps more likely these are displaced Arameans migrating into Mesopotamia after David conquered Hadadezer of Zobah. These Aramean Hordes would continue to be noted under the following Assyrian Kings l their contemporaries in Babylon. 

Asshur-rabi II alone refers to a singular King of the Aram, he would be contemporary with Solomon who built Tadmor(Palmyra) and Baalath in Syria. But the King he referred to could have been Rezon of 1 Kings 11:23. 

This weakness of Assyria in dealing with Arameans would continue until Tigaleth-PIleser II 966-935 BC contemporary with the last yeas of Solomon, the reigns of Rehoboam and Jeroboam into the time of Asa. 

His successor Ashur-dan II from 955-914 BC made the real first success in pushing back the Arameans. He was contemporary with Asa down to the second year of Jehoshaphat. During Asa’s later reign when Benhadad of Damascus first became a problem for Israel and Judah, he could be looking to claim Israelite territory because of what’s lost to the Northeast to Assyria. 

Ussher’s dates for Omri are 920-918 BC. So this makes it plausible the first contact between Assyria and Northern Israel was under Omri explaining why Assyria identified that kingdom with Omri consistently going forward. Though Omri founding Samaria as the primary capital city going forward may also be enough reason to explain why he’d be viewed as the founder. 

Adad-nirari III reigned from 911-891 BC. His reign corresponds to a rise in prominence of the Phoenician sea trading empires. That fits him being a contemporary of Ahab in Ussher's chronology who was married to Jezebel the daughter of one of Tyre’s most powerful kings.

The Ruins of AI

I want to start by clarifying that I am not willing to question the archaeological consensus on the dating of Et-Tell. But that doesn’t mean I don’t think it plays a role in the history of AI that confirms The Bible as reliable history. 

Ai is first mentioned when Abraham comes there, and it seems to be already called Ai which means Heap or Ruin. That’s uncertain because Genesis does use anachronistic place names, but when the newer name is because of something The Israelites or Patriarchs of some Biblical protagonist did we are told what the older name is in the account of the renaming, Dan was originally Laish or Leshem and Bethel was originally Luz.  If Ai was only ever called a Heap because of Joshua 7-8 then Joshua 7-8 would record the older name. But it isn’t, it’s the valley not the city that is given a new name, Achor, no older name is given for it, but I can believe a valley went unnamed for a long time, not a city.

The destruction of Et-Tell and creation of that Heap of stones so many jumped to wanting to identify with Joshua 7-8 is actually dated to around 2400 BC.  I have a post arguing for an early Isin-Larsa period for Genesis 14 which would be around 2100-1950 BC, but even with the older chronologies I’ve considered with a Maxmailist view of when to start the 430 years with the oldest theoretical date for The Exodus, since there was only 330 years from the bright of Abraham to the death of Joseph in my understanding of Genesis chronology, Abraham was still born after 2400 BC. 

So that Heap was already there to be called a Heap when Abraham first came there at 75 in Genesis 12. 

This is where the fact that other sites for AI have been proposed comes in. It’s possible the name does in fact refer to more than one Tell in this general area. In Genesis Ai is never called a City, just Ai. In Joshua it’s possible that just as Bethel refers to both the Altar that Jacob built and the nearby city, that Ai too refers to both the Heap and a city near the Heap.

After Joshua destroyed the city of Ai in chapter 7 and 8 another Heap of Stones was created. There were now two Heaps. 

Ai/Hai does not appear as a city or place name anywhere during the descriptions of the tribal allotment in chapters 15-21. But in chapter 21:22 when listing cities given to the Kohathite clans of the Levites in the territory allotted to Ephraim there is one called Kibzaim, which means Double heap.

I have another post proving the Shiloh Tabernacle wasn’t in the city currently traditionally identified with Shiloh but is the site of Abraham and Jacob’s Altars between Luz and Ai, Bethel. And that included arguing one of these Kohathite cities should be East of that Tabernacle since the children of Korah were Kohathies and they’re supposed to be keepers of the Gate of The Tabernacle which means they should be East of it. 

This also means a third city area could have been founded. Making at least three of the proposed Tells identified with Ai relevant. 

What I’m undecided on is which of the other potential Ai candidates play which roles in my hypothesis. 

Only Et-Tell has its own Wikipedia page. So it’s hard for a lay person to research what Archeologists think about any of these independent of their Biblical Identifications. 

As someone who is an Inherentist and even a Literalist on a lot of things it’s controversial to be literalist about, I still consider Biblical Dates to be flexible.  To me Kathleen Kenyon’s date for the Destruction of Jericho is perfectly compatible with a Biblical timeline that trusts what Paul said in Acts 13. So I’m looking for an AI candidate destroyed at the same time as Jericho Archeologically for the city of Joshua 7-8.

Khirbet Haiyan is interesting as a very early candidate before Et-Tell was settled on. But it seems neither it nor Khirbet el-Khudra had any Middle or Late Bronze occupation. Some have argued Haiyan is specifically the much later Benjamite Ai from around the time of the Captivity. 

Khirbet Nisya has a heap of stones that look right. But I then learned it’s tied to an alternate Bethel location. 

As of my beginning to write this it is only really Khirbet el-Maqatir I have an idea of where it is relevant to Et-Tell and Bethel since it’s laid out in Expedition Bible’s sloppy video on the Problem of Ai..For some reason they think Maqatir is located too far south to qualify as still East of Bethel yet their own depiction of the layout looks to me like it perfectly is still East of Bethel and closer to it. 

From what I can gather, the pottery evidence as el-Maqatir is the same as at Jericho, meaning its destruction was at the same time as Jericho’s whenever that was. It’s just that unlike Jericho no one but proponents who disagree with the mainstream view of Jericho’s Archeology are talking about it. So Google’s AI overview is going to wind up quoting a website saying Maqatir has a Late Bronze rather than Middle Bronze destruction layer. 

The alternate Bethel site linked to Nisya is also supported by some Maqatir supporters. And what I learned I didn’t even realize before is that the Expedition Bible guy’s really strict definition of what it means to be East of some other place doesn’t line up perfectly for Et-Tell and Beiten either. 

The arguments made about the Roman Mile Stones better fitting Al-Bireh as where Eusebisu and Jerome said Bethel was are compelling. Also since Bethel is supposed to mark the North-South border of Benjamin and Ephraim I am starting to think Beitin is too far north. And it looks too far east to be west of the main road going from Jerusalem to Shechem.

Part of that debate is whether Bethel and Beth-Aven are separate locations, they seem to be Joshua 7-8, in which the name of Beitin works as coming from Beth-Aven way better then Beth-El. 

But let’s leave that aside and return to el-Maqatir.

Expedition Bible’s attempt to refute it being Ai include comparing its proposed Western Gate to the Solomonic Gates at Hazor, Gezer and Megiddo, not very honest. 

Cheremon's Amenophis could be who you think.

This is a follow-up to my post about Amenophis in Manehto as Quoted by Josephus. 

After dealing with Manetho in Against Apion Book 1 section 32 Josephus recounts a certain Cheremon’s version of the Exodus, which Josephus then critiques in the following two sections. 

As someone who believes Manetho as received by Jospehus was already corrupted from the original in part by these Alexandrian Judeophobes, it’s possible that this story in Cheremon predates and references to Moses ever being added to Manetho, but it would probably have to be older then Cheremon himself for that to be the case. 

This account also has a Pharaoh named Amemenophis and he also has a son named Rameses.  One thing I glossed over in the prior post is Josephus saying Seti II was also called Ramses, in fact he winds up calling him Rameses more than he does Seti/Sethos.  There are to my knowledge no Egyptians records of Set II having Rameses among his names. But in the version where Seti II is the one identified with Aegyptos, Rameses is the name of his brother he had a civil war with, and since the New Kingdom loved Synchronizing Amun with Ra it’s easy to imagine Amenmese being also called Rameses. 

This version does not mention the name Osarshiph or refer to anyone as a Priest of Heliopolis. 

If we look at Cheremon’s account without Manetho based preconceptions then the only thing that might lead one to looking at the 19th Dynasty is the use of the name Rameses.  But the name Rameses was already being used in the 18th Dynasty, one just hadn’t been the King yet.  Wikipedia pages use Ramose when talking about the 18th Dynasty ones but it’s the same name in Egyptian just with arbitrary differences in transliteration. 

However there is currently no known correlation with a Pharoah named Amenhotep with a son named Ramose. The only Ramose who was the son of a Pharoah was the son of Ahmose the first 18th Dynasty Pharoah. Then there is the father of Senenmut who likely lived during the reigns of Amenhotep I through maybe the early years of Hatshepsut. Then there is one who was a Vizier under Amenhotep III and Akhenaton, and a general during the Amarna period, and possibly another general.

Of course there is also the matter that the Meneptah discrepancy is not the only time when Manetho called Amenophis doesn’t line up with who we call Amenhotep.  And Manetho could still be who the creator of this story got the name from.

Manetho’s first Amenophis has the right reign length to be Amenhotep I but is placed too late in the sequence The scholars Wikipedia cites use reign length to decide who is who in Manetho which for the Amenhoteps works here and here alone. The first Amenophis’s placement in the sequence is as the brother and predecessor of Hatshepsut (called Amesses but this is the least disputable identification, the 18th Dynasty had only two ruling Queens and only she reigned between 21 and 22 years, the name Amesses probably comes from her mother Ahmose) telling me he’s supposed to be Tuthmosis II with an exaggerated reign length.

The second and last 18th Dynasty Amenophis in Manetho has a reign length that lines up perfectly with none of the Amenhotep, but the same scholars cited by Wikipedia say he is Amenhotep II. He is in the placement of Amenhotep II however, being the 4th King after Hatshepsut. Orus has the reign length of Amenhotep III but is in the placement Akhetnaten as the father and predecessor of the other ruling Queen called Achenres by Manetho, among her known Egyptian names was Ankheperure, she didn't rule 12 years but isn’t the only one Manetho gives way too long a reign length to.

In Manetho as quoted by Josephus the Pharaoh in the place of Amenhotep II is Mephramuthosis who also has a pretty close reign length, 25 years and 10 months. He’s followed by a Tuthmosis who reigned about a decade, a rare case of Manetho using the right name in the right position and the right reign length. 

So could the popular Exodus Pharoah choice Amenhotep II have had a son also known as Ramose? Well there is an Ahmose who was High Priest of Ra at Heliopolis and is presumed to be Amenhotep II’s son. 

Let’s step back a moment.  Remember the Ramose I referred to before as a son of Ahmose?  Well it’s actually who his father was, our source for him is a much later 2oth Dynasty Tombs depicting various Pharaohs and Princes where the order seems to be random. 

My using Hatshepsut as the main anchor in how I deciphered Manetho’s account of the 18th Dynasty has the issue of there being only 3 Pharoah’s before her not 4. There is ambiguity on when to distinguish Dynasty 17 from 18, they are technically the same Dynasty by the same Royal Family definition. Dynasty 17 as we know it isn’t in Manetho at all, his later transcribers just mirror the Hyksos account there.  Cheremon’s account of Amenophis kind of sounds like the entire Hyksos period condensed to the reign of one Theban King. 

But the reason this still isn't a final gotcha for Amenhotep II theorists is how this narrative makes the Pharoah of The Oppression the same as the Pharoah of the Exodus. And if it's possible to deduce a separation from it it's that Amenophis was The Oppression Pharoah and his son the Exodus Pharaoh.

The reason why we call the Pharaoh from whom Moses fled the Pharoah of the Oppression traditionally is because a casual reading of Exodus with no attempt to synchronize with known Egyptians history it's natural to assume the Pharoah who "knew not Joseph" and Oppressed the Israelites and when Moses born and from whom Moses fled were all the same Pharoah. These hostile retelling are oddly more faithful to that assumption then any modern theories informed by actual Egyptology. 

In addition to all the things Josephus should be taking issue with in these hostile versions of The Exodus, he also objects even to the suggestion that the Jews are of partly Egyptian stock. But that is consistent with what The Pentateuch says, it was a Mixed Multitude (Exodus 12:38 and Nehemiah 13:3), probably mostly made up of other slaves, but slavery in Ancient Egypt wasn’t categorially race based the way the Trans Atlantic Slave Trade was, those slaves would have included Egyptians who were outcasts, some perhaps exactly the way these accounts are describing. “Leprosy” in ancient text usually doesn't mean the exact disease we today associate it with, even Albinos were included in it. Leviticus 24 refers to a person whose mother was a Danite and father was an Egyptian, they probably weren’t the only one. Deuteronomy 23:7-8 makes clear Egyptians in the congregation are to be Nationalized. 

The overarching theme of these hostile retellings of The Exodus is to change it from a story of slaves escaping a tyrant who wouldn't let them go to outcasts being forced out of a country that didn’t want them, and blaming them for everything that was going wrong.  To us moderners neither version makes The Jews look like the bad guys or the Egyptians look good. And the tragic irony is that kind of thing would become the origin story of Modern Israel.