Tuesday, July 25, 2006
A major consequence of this new trend in history to take legends more seriously has been that even secular historians have been willing to take the Bible more seriously. As a Christian, the Pendragon believes the Bible to be true and would never advocate abandoning it for the latest historical "discovery." Yet there is much to be gained and nothing to be lost for Christians to dig deep into history to find out more. One place to start might be the figure of Moses. I recently read a book by British historian Graham Phillips entitled "The Templars and the Ark of the Covenant." Mr. Phillips is, I believe, an unbeliever but his work shows a desire to take the Biblical accounts seriously. He places the Exodus around 1360 BC during the reign in Egypt of Amenhotep III. During this time apparently early Egyptian historians tell of a certain group of "undesirables" that rebelled against their enslavement in Egypt but were unsuccessful until they were joined by a priest from the Temple of Ra at Heliopolis. This priest was Thutmose, the eldest son of Pharaoh, who was exiled for abandoning the traditional gods of Egypt in favor of one God. Under his tutelage the rebellion was successful and the slaves won their way back to their homeland. Interestingly, if Thutmose had indeed turned away from the gods of Egypt, he might have dropped the name Thut (or Toth) and become known as simply Mose, or Moses.
Phillips does not believe Moses could then have been an adopted Israelite but must have been an actual Egyptian with the story of his parentage changed to cover that fact. It's possible, I suppose, but it requires one to buy into the tortured interpretation of Exodus being written long after the fact by someone else when strong tradition declares it was written by Moses himself. Phillips' reasoning is that the Egyptians controlled their royal bloodline so strictly a non-Egyptian could never have been adopted. But I do not think we know enough about the particular Pharaoh to be sure of this. For one thing, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not the one whose daughter adopted Moses. The compassionate princess would have been that Pharaoh's sister. Maybe this is why Thutmose was chosen to be a military leader and priest rather than to succeed to the throne like his brother Amenhotep. I think it is likely that Thutmose was Moses--the similarities are very great--but I think Phillips should not assume that the Bible is wrong here. He could well have been a Semite saved by the Pharaoh's daughter. If his nationality was hidden but it was known he was not of the royal bloodline, he could have been bypassed for succession to the throne and become instead a military leader (according to Jewish historians Moses led an army against the Ethiopians) and a priest (there is no Biblical indication that Moses believed in the one, true God before the burning bush incident). Around this same time, an Egyptian version of the Israelite religion arose--perhaps fueled by Moses and the plagues--and the successor to Amenhotep III was Akhenaten, the father of King Tut and known to history as "the monotheistic Pharaoh." Akhenaten also is famous because he was the younger son of Amenhotep yet he succeeded to the throne. Why? Can anyone think of a reason why the eldest son may have been unavailable? There are intriguing possibilities in historical research and kudos to Graham Phillips for not rejecting the Bible outright but looking for the possible correlations. Still, there is much to be done.
Phillips does not believe Moses could then have been an adopted Israelite but must have been an actual Egyptian with the story of his parentage changed to cover that fact. It's possible, I suppose, but it requires one to buy into the tortured interpretation of Exodus being written long after the fact by someone else when strong tradition declares it was written by Moses himself. Phillips' reasoning is that the Egyptians controlled their royal bloodline so strictly a non-Egyptian could never have been adopted. But I do not think we know enough about the particular Pharaoh to be sure of this. For one thing, the Pharaoh of the Exodus was not the one whose daughter adopted Moses. The compassionate princess would have been that Pharaoh's sister. Maybe this is why Thutmose was chosen to be a military leader and priest rather than to succeed to the throne like his brother Amenhotep. I think it is likely that Thutmose was Moses--the similarities are very great--but I think Phillips should not assume that the Bible is wrong here. He could well have been a Semite saved by the Pharaoh's daughter. If his nationality was hidden but it was known he was not of the royal bloodline, he could have been bypassed for succession to the throne and become instead a military leader (according to Jewish historians Moses led an army against the Ethiopians) and a priest (there is no Biblical indication that Moses believed in the one, true God before the burning bush incident). Around this same time, an Egyptian version of the Israelite religion arose--perhaps fueled by Moses and the plagues--and the successor to Amenhotep III was Akhenaten, the father of King Tut and known to history as "the monotheistic Pharaoh." Akhenaten also is famous because he was the younger son of Amenhotep yet he succeeded to the throne. Why? Can anyone think of a reason why the eldest son may have been unavailable? There are intriguing possibilities in historical research and kudos to Graham Phillips for not rejecting the Bible outright but looking for the possible correlations. Still, there is much to be done.
// posted by The Pendragon @ 9:42 AM 
