Is Joseph = Imhotep Still Defensible? · So, Starting to Answer ... 1 & 5, 2, 3a ... · 3b) they think the Egyptian defense was too good for a people to invade them + compression
This one actually brings in the already mentioned 3a) argument as well, and is one of the articles linked to.
Did the Exodus lead to the Hyksos Invasion?
Was Egypt completely destroyed by the events of the Exodus?
by Gary Bates, 28.X.2020
https://creation.com/exodus-hyksos-invasion
It states two things on the issue of 3b, namely:
First:
After the Hebrews left it seems that Pharaoh made a hasty decision to chase them. If so, there is no way that there was time to assemble all the garrisons encamped elsewhere from all over Egypt. Anyone should be able to reasonably understand the implausibility of being able to gather ‘the whole army’ from ‘the whole country’ to pursue them. What country keeps its entire army in one location? Rather it was the chariots and horsemen at his disposal who were able to do this. Chariots were very expensive to make. Egypt had limited resources of wood and some of the chariots preserved in museums today show they were made of elm wood from the eastern and northern Mediterranean. Given that the Egyptian chariots formed part of Pharaoh’s elite forces (perhaps due to their expense), it might be plausible that the entirety of his chariots were located near Pharaoh’s palace at the time. Exodus 14:7 does seem to indicate it was all of his chariots which were 600 in total.
Gary Bates' Conclusion:
Egypt was not sufficiently weakened for a wholesale Hyksos invasion over all of the country.
Second:
The Hyksos did not take over the whole country of Egypt. If the whole of Egypt was decimated and defenceless due to the Exodus, why did they limit themselves to just the northern part of the country ruling from what was called Avaris (which was later built upon and called Pi-Rameses)? Native Egyptian rule continued over large parts of the country, although it was mainly confined to central Egypt with their capital at Thebes (modern day Luxor). So, ‘Egypt’ was never destroyed or completely subjugated by the Hyksos.
Well, what if these two match and cancel out?
Hyksos did not invade all of the country because the land was not sufficiently weakened, but they did invade the North because:
- a) an élite force was knocked out
- b) the Pharao was dead
- c) and the Pharao's oldest son was also dead.
We are not just speaking of the impact of an eliminated élite force. We are speaking of other fortresses in the North being swept along with the Hyksos because they had neither the recent pharao nor any successor for him.
Meanwhile, other parts of Egypt were not subdued and as Gary Bates himself states:
During the Hyksos occupation of mainly northern Egypt (lower Nile) Ahmose, the first Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty (New Kingdom) ran them out of the country and subsequent pharaohs even ruled and resided there.
It can be mentioned that, the Abydos King List, which really does go clearly into New Kingdom:
- 1) has cartouches 62 to 65 where I would place pharaos before the Exodus (ending with 65 = Amenemhat IV = Moses)
- 2) has cartouches 66 to 74 as 18th Dynasty (starting with Ahmosi I, the one who expelled the Hyksos.
The Saqqara Tablet omitted "rulers from the Second Intermediate Period, the Hyksos, and those rulers... who had been close to the heretic Akhenaten". Quoted from: Gerald Verbrugghe, John Moore Wickersham. Berossos and Manetho, Introduced and Translated. University of Michigan Press, 2001. Page 104.
The Turin King List ends before the 18th Dynasty - or continues beside it. No Ahmose I in sight.
The Medinet Habu king list and the Ramesseum king list are internal to the New Kingdom only.
And this means, a point raised in response to David Down and accepted by him need not be valid, see previous with linked to pdf:
- JDA
- Secondly, if you move the 12th dynasty forward 350 years, you have to move the rest of them forward by the same increment as well. This would place the New Kingdom (the 18th and 19th Dynasties) existing from roughly 1200 BC to 950 BC.
- DD
- Yes, it does mean that other dates have to be reduced and that includes the 18th dynasty, but that is a bonus because it brings Thutmosis III down to the time of Solomon and Rehoboam and identifies him as the Shishak of 1 Kings 14:25.
It is assumed by Gary Bates too:
Per the previous point, to accommodate the VIC, one has to compress the entire New Kingdom period and the 3rd IP down by some 500 years. We believe this is simply not possible. See my article on Egyptian Chronology, where I highlight how we have more information about the New Kingdom period of Egypt than any other period, for two reasons. (1) It was the wealthiest period of Egyptian history. The whole country was unified under a single rule during this time with Thebes as the capital. (2) It was the most recent period of native Egyptian rule so we have more artifacts to go on. There are no missing pharaohs so we have a complete lineage and their details are exquisitely preserved in places like the Valley of the Kings, where the underground tombs have preserved the hieroglyphs from the harsh climate.
The statement is not substantiated by the referred to King Lists and also not by what wikipedians have had to say on the tombs of the Valley of Kings with 23 tombs or tomb like structures having unknown burials if any at all, and not all of the rest being pharaos, in King's Valley.
So, no, the "compression impossible" argument does not hold.
Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Day after Sts Simon and Jude
29.X.2022
PS As time compression argument was 4 on my list, I think my answer is here : yes, Joseph = Imhotep is still defensible. I do not need to revise my new tables./HGL
