No, Teotihuacan is NOT the Gadianton Robbers of the Book of Mormon

Primary complex of Teotihuacán, built from about 0 AD to 300 AD

Some Book of Mormon geography researchers have suggested that the great Teotihuacan Empire of Central Mexico and possibly even the Zapotec’s of central Oaxaca were the “Gadianton Robbers” of Mormon 1:18 & Mormon 2:27–29 in the Book of Mormon.

This position however, is absolutely incongruent with what the Book of Mormon text describes of the Gadianton Robbers, which it consistently details as a gorilla rebel group who live in the mountains, “among the people”, just outside of civilization who occasionally participate with various “secret combinations” to take control of various government structures like the Colombian drug cartels and FARC guerrilleros of the 1990 to early 2000’s. (something we’ll detail in a minute from Hel 3-5 & 3 Ne 2-4).

Mormon 1:18 specifically clarifies that the location of the Gadianton robbers the Nephites were dealing with in both Mormon 1 & 2 were “among the Lamanites.”  It does NOT say these Gadianton Robbers lived in the Land Northward, and it does NOT say or imply these Gadianton’s had rebuilt the destroyed city of Jacoboth (3 Ne 9:9). It says specifically that these Gadianton robbers were just those, “WHO WERE AMONG THE LAMANITES”.  This is reiterated in Mormon 2:27 when he says “we made a treaty with the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton” [including the Gadianton’s because they were among the Lamanites–and had perhaps had taken over parts of their government as stated in 4 Ne.1:24]

Suggesting that the Gadianton robbers of the pre-Christian era of the Book of Mormon, morphed into a highly skilled and sophisticated empire like Teotihuacan, or that they took control of the Teotihuacan or Zapotec empires simply is NOT supported by the text of Mormon 1:18

One could perhaps make a case for the idea that the people of these empires were part of those that began to “be called Lamanites” in about 300 AD because they rejected the Gospel (see 4 Ne. 1:38). But to suggest that they were largely composed of or ruled by the “robbers of Gadianton” from 4 Ne 1:42–46 and Mormon 1& 2 or part of the “treaty” mentioned in Mormon 2:29  is, simply not supported by the text. 

Once you remember Mormon’s clarifying clause in Mormon 1:18, the words of Mormon 2:27–29 are far less ambiguous concerning the wars and treaty.

Read the three post time of Christ references in succession and you’ll see the picture they paint.

38 And it came to pass that they who rejected the gospel were called Lamanites… 42 And… that the wicked part of the people began again to build up the secret oaths and combinations of Gadianton… 46 And… that the robbers of Gadianton did spread over all the face of the land… (4 Nephi 42,46)

18 And these Gadianton robbers, who were among the Lamanites[!!], did infest the land, insomuch that the inhabitants thereof began to hide up their treasures in the earth; and they became slippery, because the Lord had cursed the land, that they could not hold them, nor retain them again. (Mormon 1:18)

27 …But behold, we did go forth against the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton [who were among the Lamanites], until we had again taken possession of the lands of our inheritance.

28 And the three hundred and forty and ninth year had passed away. And in the three hundred and fiftieth year we made a treaty with the Lamanites and the robbers of Gadianton [who were among the Lamanites], in which we did get the lands of our inheritance divided.

29 And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even [from the North down] to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites [and the Gadiantons among them] all the land southward. (Mormon 2:27–29)

With the clarifying clause we no longer can make the mistake of assuming that the Nephites were battling two separate entities.  Something that we should have assumed anyway, as there isn’t a single battle mentioned by Mormon with the Gadiantons after the time of Christ!  Nor can we assume that the Lamanites & Gadiantons occupied the land North of the narrow passage!  

Making Teotihuacan & the Zapotecs into Lamanites or Gadiantons is contrary to what the text says of the treaty. “And the Lamanites did give unto us the land northward, yea, even [from the North down] to the narrow passage which led into the land southward. And we did give unto the Lamanites [and the Gadiantons among them] all the land southward” (Mormon 2:29)

The only way to stay loyal to the above text, and make Teotihuacan & the Zapotecs (who lived north of the narrow pass of Sorenson) into anything other than Nephites, would be to assume that they were a neutral group of neither Nephites or Lamanites that for some reason simply were not part of the conflict mentioned in Mormon 2:29.  (A proposition riddled with its own logical and archaeological issues, because of the amount of archaeological influence seen from Teotihuacan in southern cities like Tikal & Kaminaljuyu by 300-350 AD.)

This is why authors such as Sorenson, sloppily imagined that Teotihuacan must be part of Mormon 2:29’s  “Gadianton Robbers.”  Because the archaeology shows they were at best aligned with the Lamanite cities and lands of his models, and at worst (and more likely) the masters of those “Lamanite” regions.

However, this idea fits neigher the text of Mormon 1-2, nor the general explanation of what Mormon was referring to with “Gaddianton Robbers” throughout the Book of Mormon narrative.  Mormon explains clearly that the followers of Gaddianton were ROBBERS or bandits who lived of of plunder in the wilderness and when possible took over the governments of civilized society. They were not builders nor tradesmen, nor craftsmen, nor religious priests.  Nor were they separatists like the Amalakites or Zoramites which the Book is careful to separate from them.  Note the wording in the following verses:

The Gadianton Robbers where a “Band” of Robbers & Murderers.

“4 For there was one Gadianton, who was exceedingly expert in many words, and also in his craft, to carry on the secret work of murder and of robbery; therefore he became the leader of the band of Kishkumen…  8 and also that it was the object of all those who belonged to his band to murder, and to rob, and to gain power, (and this was their secret plan, and their combination)
10 And it came to pass that Helaman did send forth to take this band of robbers and secret murderers, that they might be executed according to the law.
11 But behold, when Gadianton had found that Kishkumen did not return he feared lest that he should be destroyed; therefore he caused that his band should follow him. And they took their flight out of the land, by a secret way, into the wilderness; and thus when Helaman sent forth to take them they could nowhere be found.
12 And more of this Gadianton shall be spoken hereafter…
13 And behold, in the end of this book ye shall see that this Gadianton did prove the overthrow, yea, almost the entire destruction of the people of Nephi. (Hel 2:4–13)

The band or Gang of Gadianton usually stay in the “more settled parts of the land”

23 And it came to pass in the forty and ninth year of the reign of the judges, there was continual peace established in the land, all save it were the secret combinations which Gadianton the robber had established in the more settled parts of the land, which at that time were not known unto those who were at the head of government; therefore they were not destroyed out of the land. (Hel 3:

They take over the Nephite government where possible. (About 30 BC in the Land of Zarahemla)

38 And it came to pass on the other hand, that the Nephites did build them up and support them, beginning at the more wicked part of them, until they had overspread all the land of the Nephites, and had seduced the more part of the righteous until they had come down to believe in their works and partake of their spoils, and to join with them in their secret murders and combinations.
39 And thus they did obtain the sole management of the government,

Hel 3:38–39

24 And it came to pass that in the eightieth year of the reign of the judges over the people of Nephi, there were a certain number of the dissenters from the people of Nephi, who … commenced a war with their brethren.
25 And they did commit murder and plunder; and then they would retreat back into the mountains, and into the wilderness and secret places, hiding themselves that they could not be discovered, receiving daily an addition to their numbers…
26 And thus in time, yea, even in the space of not many years, they became an exceedingly great band of robbers; and they did search out all the secret plans of Gadianton; and thus they became robbers of Gadianton.
27 Now behold, these robbers did make great havoc, yea, even great destruction among the people of Nephi, and also among the people of the Lamanites.
32 … And the robbers did still increase and wax strong, insomuch that they did defy the whole armies of the Nephites, and also of the Lamanites; and they did cause great fear to come unto the people upon all the face of the land.
33 Yea, for they did visit many parts of the land, and did do great destruction unto them; yea, did kill many, and did carry away others captive into the wilderness, yea, and more especially their women and their children. (Hel 11:24–27)

The Geologic Underworld of Jerusalem: The Caves, Tunnels & Tombs of Mount Zion & Israel’s Heritage


Jerusalem’s history is richly intertwined with the unique geology up on which in sits. From it’s spectacular abundance of limestone’s from which it is built, to its karst systems housing the spring water

Hezekiah’s Tunnel

The ancient water systems of Jerusalem have a complex history. The main water source of the original City of David was the Gihon Springs located at the base of the eastern slope of the city in the Kidron Valley. The Gihon Springs provided water year round by gushing forth several times a day. This water then naturally flowed into the Kidron Valley. In the earliest days of Jerusalem’s occupation, reservoirs where built to collect the water from the Gihon Springs. Three systems were eventually designed to use this water: The Warren’s Shaft, Siloam Channel (Tunnel) and Hezekiah’s Tunnel.

These three water systems continued to bring water to the city of Jerusalem until the days of the Hasmoneans and Herod. During the last century BC and the first century AD, aqueducts were built to transfer water into Jerusalem from the southern hill country of Judea from around Hebron and Bethlehem.

David’s city of Jerusalem as it would have appeared around 1000 BC. Gihon spring emerged from a limesone cave system charged by groundwater in the vicinity of Mount Moriah.

Hezekiah’s Tunnel

Hezekiah’s Tunnel, part of Jerusalem’s water system, is located under the City of David. It connects the Gihon Spring—Jerusalem’s fresh water supply—with the Siloam Pool. According to 2 Chronicles 32:2–4 and 2 Kings 20:20, this tunnel was dug during the reign of King Hezekiah of Judah to prepare Jerusalem for the imminent attack of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib. In the Bible, Hezekiah redirected the water through old and newly dug Jerusalem tunnels.

How Zedekiah’s Cave was Discovered

Zedekiah’s cave was possibly the biggest quarry of Jerusalem in antiquity, yet it was abandoned in the Middle ages, and eventually even its location was forgotten. It was rediscovered in 1854 by American missionary James Turner Barclay who followed the rumors of a cavern near Damascus gate. About 100 m east of the gate his dog fell into a pit. Barclay noticed the pit was quite large, but he did not want to draw any attention. At night he returned with his sons and torches. Sneaking in and operating the lights, they were the first to document the caves in modern history. They also recorded a human skeleton and batches of bats hanging from the ceiling, which kept much of the public from visiting the cave.

History of Zedekiah’s cave

zedekiah cave main hall

The cave was surveyed by several scholars and expeditions and is still under development. In fact, about a third of the cave is still filled with debris. Early researches suggested the Quarry dates to the time of King Solomon, and so it was called “Solomon’s Quarries”. Furthermore, the Free Masons order adopted the site claiming the founders of their order formed this quarry. To this day they conduct annual gatherings at the site. Current research suggests the quarry was not in use before Roman times, revoking its attribution to King Solomon or King Zedekiah.

Touring Zedekiah’s Cave

The cave is maintained by the Municipality of Jerusalem and it charges a humble admission fee. A wide flight of stairs and lights are installed in the main halls of the cave. At one of its lowest point a small flow of water is identified in Jewish tradition as “Zedekiah’s Tears”. By local tradition these are the tears of the ongoing cry of Zedekiah for the Babylonian conquest and destruction of Jerusalem.

Cave of the Patriarchs

The Cave of the Patriarchs or Tomb of the Patriarchs or Mosque of Abraham’), is a series of caves situated 30 kilometres (19 mi) south of Jerusalem in the heart of the Old City of Hebron in the West Bank. According to the Abrahamic religions, the cave and adjoining field were purchased by Abraham as a burial plot, although most historians believe the Abraham-Isaac-Jacob narrative to be primarily mythological. The site is considered a holy place in Judaism and Islam. (add pics and find story of group that explored this…)

Col. Richard Meinertzhagen, an officer under the command of General Allenby visited the tombs when the British captured Hebron in November 1917. He entered the subterranean caverns through an opening on the southwestern side of the famous above-ground structure to make sure there were no enemy forces hiding out there. Read about other visits to the tombs here

An aerial view of the Cave of the Patriarchs in Hebron

Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park

Beit Guvrin-Maresha National Park is a national park in central Israel, containing a large network of caves recognized by UNESCO as a World Heritage Site.

The Sidonian burial caves were the family tomb of Apollophanes, the leader of the Sidonian community in Beit Guvrin. The Sidonian caves are the only ones that are painted inside. The caves were burial caves for the Greek, Sidonian and Edumite inhabitants of Beit Guvrin. The first and largest cave has paintings of animals, real and mythic, above the niches where the corpses were laid. A cock crows to scare away demons; the three-headed dog Cerberus guards the entrance to the underworld; a bright red phoenix symbolizes the life after death. The Tomb of the Musicians is decorated with a painting showing a man playing the flute and a woman playing the harp.

Sidonian Burial Caves: A series of impressive burial caves from the Hellenistic period (third–second centuries BCE), located at the foot of Tel Maresha and featuring reconstructed wall paintings. The paintings, proof of the presence of other cultures at Maresha, depict hunting scenes with wild and mythological creatures and shed light on ancient artistic techniques and crafts.
columbarium caves

The largest bell caves are in the east part of the park. They have been dug since prehistoric times, the excavations reaching their zenith in the Hellenistic period and during the Byzantine and Early Arab Period, when blocks of chalkstone extracted from the caves were used for construction work (buildings, etc.). The bell caves consist of limestone in their upper-layer (to a depth of about one to two meters), beneath which is rock consisting solely of a beige-colored, soft chalkstone, utilized by its early inhabits for carving caverns and dwellings. There are numerous bell caves within the park grounds and events are held in one of them. They are large (over 60 feet (18 m) high), airy and easily accessible

Add a section on the main aquaduct.

Olmec Epigraphic Ties to the Far East

by Bibhu Dev Misra

Olmec Ganesha 
Let us turn our attention to a curious Olmec clay figurine, which Zecharia Sitchin described as a “toy elephant”. It was spotted by Sitchin, when he had visited the Anthropology Museum in Jalapa, Veracruz.[7] However, when he had returned to the museum in 1999, the toy elephants were nowhere to be seen. Apparently, they had been removed for an “overseas exhibit”, never to be seen again. An elephant figurine in Mesoamerica raises uncomfortable questions, since elephants had disappeared from the Americas at the end of the last Ice Age at around 10,000 BCE.[8] How would the Olmecs, who flourished between c.1500 – 400 BCE, model a figure in its likeness?

Although Sitchin describes the artifact as a “toy elephant”, it is unusual for an elephant to stand upright comfortably on its hind legs. The artifact looks surprisingly similar to the portly, elephant-headed Hindu deity Ganesha. Ganesha is a pan-Asian deity, and one of the most popular gods of Hinduism. As the remover of obstacles and the patron of arts and sciences, he is honored at the beginning of any religious ceremony. Ganesha is also the son of Shiva. If the Olmecs were aware of Shiva, they could have been acquainted with Ganesha as well.

Ganesha in Olmec iconography

The presence of Ganesha in Mesoamerica is borne out by yet another figurine which was found in Campeche, Mexico, dated to c.600 – 900 CE.[9] It is that of a portly, elephant-headed person, dressed in ornaments and a crown, with his left hand raised in blessing, and holding a mace in his right hand. The figurine is certainly that of Ganesha, which establishes beyond doubt that the Mesoamericans were familiar with the deity by 600 – 900 CE. This makes it more likely that the Olmec figurine of the elephant-headed person is that of Ganesha.

Ganesha figurine found in Campeche, Mexico, c.600-900 CE. Source:

The Ganas 
Another Olmec sculpture suggestive of Hindu influence in Olmec culture is on display at the Museum of Anthropology in Jalapa, Mexico. It is an Olmec altar supported by a pair of dwarves with upraised hands. Scholars speculate that the altar may have been used for religious ceremonies, or it could have been a throne on which the ruler sat.

Exactly the same type of dwarf figures called “ganas” are often depicted below the cornices in Hindu-Buddhist temples! They are a portly bunch of merrymaking dwarves, who hold up and protect the temple. They are depicted with upraised hands supporting the temple, as well as in a variety of poses – singing, dancing, playing musical instruments, clapping etc. The ganas are dressed in loincloths, ornaments, and sometimes a head-dress as well. It is astonishing to see how much they resemble the dwarves on the Olmec altar. There is no doubt that the same concept was being put into execution by both cultures.

 Ganas in Olmec and Hindu iconography.

Interestingly, the ganas are regarded as attendants of Shiva and the leader of the ganas is Ganesha (who is called ganapati i.e. “Lord of the Ganas”). Thus, a set of closely linked religious constructs of Hinduism – Shiva (the Lord of Yoga), Ganesha (the son of Shiva), and the ganas, who are the attendants of Shiva and the followers of Ganesha – appear to have been known to the Olmecs.

The ancient Egyptians also worshipped a dwarf deity called Bes, who was the protector of the household and of childbirth. He is depicted below a cornice at the Denderah Temple complex, which suggests that he played a similar function of supporting the temple in Egypt. However, stylistically the dwarf figures in the Olmec altar most closely resemble those seen in Hindu-Buddhist temples.

The dwarf deity Bes depicted below a cornice in the Denderah Temple complex. Source: Wikimedia Commons

Kalamukha: The Face of Time 
One of the most significant pieces of monumental Olmec sculpture is the Altar 4 at La Venta. The altar shows a figure seated at the entrance of a central niche which symbolizes a cave. The Olmecs and other Mesoamerica cultures regarded caves as sacred places. Human beings were fashioned inside a cave at the center of the world from where they emerged to serve their patron deities. Caves also provided a pathway to the underworld – the land of the ancestors. Given the sacred connotations associated with a cave, it appears that the figure seated at the entrance is that of a deity or a revered ancestor (although some scholars think of it as a ruler).

On the cornice above the deity is a depiction of a fearsome face with sharp fangs. The deity appears to be seated in the mouth of this monster. All around the cave entrance there is a serpentine foliage pattern terminating in what appear to be “flower buds”. The same design motif can be seen carved on the lintel stone above the entrance to many Hindu-Buddhist temples of India and South-east Asia, where it is called Kalamukha (Face of Time) or Kirtimukha (Face of Glory).

Kalamukha (the Face of Time) in Olmec and Hindu-Buddhist architecture

The Kalamukha is a fearsome monster face, with large bulging eyes, and a gaping mouth with huge fangs. From its mouth, it spews forth a serpent body, wreathed in foliage, which runs downward to frame the entrance on either side. Generally, the lower jaw of the monster is absent, which creates the impression of being devoured by the Kalamukha as one enters the temple. The Kalamukha is also used as a decorative motif above niches on the temple walls.[10]

In the Indian tradition, Time is synonymous with Death, so the Face of Time is also the Face of Death or the Face of Yama – the God of Death and the Lord of the Underworld. The jaws reject what is toxic and undesirable, and allows only the pure soul to come in the presence of the Great Spirit. It controls the passage from the multiform world of senses to the state of primordial unity, from the cycle of birth and death to the realm beyond time and death. In Buddhist art, the Kalamukha represents Shinje (the Tibetan equivalent of Yama), who holds the Wheel of Life in his mouth and devours all beings figured there, signaling his control over the cycles of birth and death.

It is likely that the symbol carried an analogous meaning amongst the Olmecs. The face above the La Venta altar resembles the Kalamukha, and even the “foliage pattern with flower buds” depicted on either side of the seated deity looks similar to that seen in Hindu-Buddhist temples. So, not only is there an overlap of a complex religious concept, but even the stylistic execution is similar. 
The subsequent cultures of Mesoamerica, including the Mayans, adopted the Kalamukha motif, which was depicted above the entrances to their temples and cave sanctuaries. Mayan deities were depicted seated below the Kalamukha with the serpentine foliage coming out of the mouth and framing the sculpture.

Kalamukha in Mayan and Hindu-Buddhist Temples and cave sanctuaries.
The Kalamukha in Mayan and Hindu-Buddhist art

The Lion Guardians 
While the Kalamukha protects the temple entrance, a pair of “lion guardian” statues flanks the temple gate of most Hindu-Buddhist temples. Sometimes multiple lion statues are positioned along the access road or stairway leading to the temple entrance, and all around the temple walls. The lions are typically in a seated position, having bulging eyes and a gaping mouth exposing sharp fangs. In Olmec art, and that of the subsequent cultures of Mesoamerica, it was the jaguar that was depicted in a very similar pose.

Olmec Jaguars and Lion Guardians of Hindu-Buddhist Temples

At San Lorenzo, a pair of jaguar statues was found at the entrance to the southern plateau, which suggests that they may have served a protective function. “The two felines (at San Lorenzo) are of different sizes but fairly similar in shape. They sit so that their front and rear legs are nearly on the same plane…The cats display their upper fangs and central front teeth but without any tension that would convincingly indicate a threatening movement.”[11]

Like the lion of Asia, the jaguar was revered by the Mesoamericans. Mayan deities such as God L who is “the primary lord of the underworld” is often shown with jaguar ear or jaguar attire, and atop a jaguar throne.[12] Maya kings also donned jaguar pelts, and adopted the jaguar as part of their ruling name. One such ruling family is known as Jaguar Paw, who ruled the Maya city of Tikal in the fourth century.[13]  

Similarly, all over the Hindu-Buddhist kingdoms of South Asia, we find deities such as Buddha, Ganesha and others depicted seated on lion thrones. “The lion as the king of the beasts has long been the symbol of royalty; the throne on which Indian kings sat was called simhasan, “the seat of a lion” (or “lion-throne”), and had representations of lions on the base of the throne.”[14]  The surname “Singh” (meaning “lion”) was used by a long line of Rajput kings such as Jai Singh, Uday Singh etc.

Mayan Jaguar throne and Hindu Lion throne

The concept of lion guardians was prevalent all over West Asia, Greece and Egypt. In Mesopotamia, lions were the symbol of kingship. The Processional Way from the Ishtar Gate (in Babylon) to the temple of Marduk, was adorned with lion reliefs. In Assyria, Persia, and Anatolia, winged lions with the head of a man called lamassu (meaning “protective spirit”) were placed at the entrances to palaces and cities. A set of twelve squatting, snarling “guardian lions” were placed along the Sacred Way in Delos, Greece, reminiscent of the Avenue of Sphinxes in Egypt. 

Interestingly, in Egypt, the pharaoh sometimes sat on a “lion throne”, having images of lions sculpted into the throne. The Egyptian god Aker, who guarded the gates to the netherworld through which the sun entered the underworld at sunset and again emerged at dawn, was depicted in the form of two lions sitting back to back, supporting the horizon containing the sun-disk. Twin lion statues representing Aker were placed at the doors of palaces and tombs to protect against evil spirits.

Therefore, the ideas associated with the jaguar in Mesoamerica were not unique or unusual, but were widely prevalent in many Old World cultures. Stylistically, however, the Mesoamerican jaguars are most similar to those found in the Hindu-Buddhist temples. 

Guardian Lions in West Asia and Greece
Egypt – Lion Throne and Aker

The Olmecs, therefore, were not only earnest practitioners of yoga, but they appear to have been acquainted with the Hindu deities Shiva and Ganesha, and had adopted many elements of Hindu temple architecture such as the ganas, Kalamukha and the lion guardians. Their sudden appearance in Mesoamerica sometime around 1500 BCE, with all the evolved elements of their culture, can be most easily explained by a migration from the other side of the Pacific.

When we look at the various Olmec figurines in yogic poses, it becomes obvious that the Olmecs had distinct mongoloid features. Interestingly, some of the ceramic figurines of the yoga-practicing Western Mexico shaft tomb culture were named “Chinesco” by art dealers due to their Chinese-like appearance. For quite some time there have been talks of a Chinese presence in the Americas. In 1882, thirty ancient Chinese coins were discovered by a miner in British Columbia, in the auriferous sand twenty five feet below the surface.[15] The coins depicted the Chinese chronological cycle of sixty years, invented by the Emperor Huungti in 2637 BCE. In 1975, large numbers of Chinese stone anchors were discovered in 12 to 25 feet of water off the Palos Verdes peninsula south of Los Angeles. In an article titled Stone Anchors: Asiatic Shipwrecks Off the California Coast published in the Anthropological Journal of Canada, Prof. Moriarity and Prof. Pearson said that geological studies showed the stone anchors were not of Californian origin and cited this as evidence that Asiatic vessels reached the New World in pre-Columbian times.[16] 

Further fuel was added to the trans-pacific diffusion theory in 1996, when Dr. Michael Xu of the Texas Christian University put forward the hypothesis that the Olmecs may have emigrated from the Shang dynasty of ancient China.[17]

Migrations from AsiaMichael Xu had spent many years analyzing the inscriptions on a large number of Olmec jade, stone, and pottery artifacts, in particular the inscriptions on the six jade celts in Offering No.4 at La Venta. He was struck by how closely the symbols on these artifacts resembled Chinese bone inscriptions from the Shang dynasty (c. 1600 – 1046 BCE) who ruled in the Yellow River valley. “When I first brought my artifacts from the Americas to China, scholars there thought that I just had more samples of Shang writing” Xu says, “…The similarities are that striking.”[18] 

An emerging view amongst researchers is that the migration from China may have taken place during the Xia dynasty (c.2070 – 1600 BCE), which preceded the Shang dynasty.[19] The Olmecs called themselves “Xi” which could be derived from “Xia”. In addition, since the Olmecs did not have knowledge of metallurgy, the emigration should have taken place prior to the emergence of bronze metallurgy in China at around 1800 BCE during the Xia dynasty.

In 1975, Betty Meggers, a research archaeologist at the Smithsonian Institution, proposed a Shang dynasty influence in the Olmec culture. She thinks that Asian contact goes back even further, to around 3000 BCE. In 1965, she had observed striking similarities in the techniques and decoration motifs of the Jomon pottery of Japan and those excavated in Valdivia, Equador, and proposed a migration from Japan’s Jomon culture to Equador – an idea which was roundly criticized by archaeologists at that time – but has now found genetic corroboration.[20] 

Both Betty Meggers and Mike Xu believe that natural Pacific water flows, such as the Kuroshio Current from Japan and the Black Current from China, transported boats to the New World.[21] From the 1600s to the mid 1800s, several dozen Japanese ships were carried from Asia to North America along the powerful Kuroshio Currents.[22] It is improbable that such contact would have started only after the Europeans landed in America.

Mike Xu has pointed out that the Olmecs, like the Chinese, viewed jade as a precious and pure stone, which they carved into a variety of artifacts, including jade masks. A particular design called “Taotie” appears on Chinese jade artifacts and bronze vessels from the Shang dynasty. It is a gluttonous ogre mask, with large eyes, sharp fangs, and sometimes with no lower jaw. Scholars of religious symbolism regard it as the Chinese version of the “Kalamukha” depicted above the entrances to Hindu-Buddhist temples. The same design is depicted on the Olmec altar 4 at La Venta.

Fig 21: Jade Masks –  Chinese and Olmec
Fig 22: Taotie and Spiral motifs in China and Mesoamerica

The presence of the Kalamukha motif in Shang dynasty China is not surprising since there had always been a great deal of overlap between Chinese and Hindu religion, culture, philosophy, astronomy, and architecture. The Taoist philosophy is barely different from that of the Upanishads; the concept of energy meridians and chakras was known to both cultures; the Chinese concept of 28 lunar asterisms is same as the Indian Nakshatra system; and the Chinese calendric system, with its 12 year and 60 year cycles, is also prevalent in India.
Mike Xu mentions that both the Chinese and the Olmecs used a red pigment called cinnabar to decorate ceremonial objects.[23] I want to add that the custom of anointing ceremonial objects with red vermillion powder (which is obtained from cinnabar) continues to this day in India. Mike Xu also writes that the Olmecs and the Chinese have the practice of placing a few jade beads inside the mouth of the deceased.[24] An analogous practice in India is to place a few gold pieces on or inside the mouth (for gold carries the same sense of preciousness and purity in Indian culture as jade does in China).  Throughout Mesoamerica, right since the time of the Olmecs, conch-shell trumpets were used in a ritual context to announce the presence of the gods [25] – a practice that is still followed in Hindu and Buddhist religious ceremonies. Aztec kings signaled their troops to attack with conch shell trumpets [26], reminiscent of the Hindu mythological heroes in the epics such as the Mahabharata, who blew their conch-shells at the beginning of the battle. 

Fig 23: Conch shell trumpets were used extensively on either side of the Pacific for ritualistic purposes and announcing the beginning of battles.

It occurred to me that, because of the immense cultural overlaps between India and China, the Hindu-Buddhist influence in Olmec culture can be effectively explained by a migration from the Xia or Shang dynasty of China. Even yogic asanas, which the Olmecs practiced ardently, were known to the Chinese in the pre-Buddhist period. A number of jade statues from the Shang dynasty show people seated in the “Vajrasana” posture.

Fig 24: Shang Dynasty jade statue seated in the “Vajrasana” posture. Source: Wikimedia Commons

A pair of protective guardian lions stood outside Chinese temples, imperial palaces, and tombs from the Han dynasty onwards (206 BCE – CE 220) predating the arrival of Buddhist influence in China. The pair would consist of a male, leaning his paw upon an embroidered ball, possibly representing supremacy over the world, and a female with a cub under its paw, representing the cycle of life.[27] The stylistic representation is similar to that seen in the Hindu-Buddhist temples of India and South-east Asia, and the jaguar status of the Olmecs and other Mesoamerican cultures.

Fig 25: Stone statue of a guardian lion at Mount Emei in China. Source: Wikipedia

I could not find any Chinese version of the ganas – the dwarf figures that support the Hindu-Buddhist temple. But, what I did find is that both Shiva and Ganesha were a part of the Chinese religious tradition as early as the 4th century CE. A painting of the elephant-headed Ganesha, seated next to a four-armed, trishula-wielding Shiva, is found in Cave 285 at Dunhuang’s Mogao caves. The chamber was excavated in the Northern Wei dynasty (c.386-534 CE).[28] Thus, the knowledge of Ganesha and Shiva could have also passed on to the Olmecs through a migration from ancient China.

Fig 26: Ganesha and Shiva in Cave 285 at Duanhuang’s Mogao caves. Source:

The remarkable similarity between stepped pyramids on either side of the Pacific – which has already been pointed out by many researchers – is also very important indication of ancient contact between Asia and the Americas. The Olmec pyramid at La Venta, made of earth-fill, presently has a conical shape due to 2500 years of erosion. Originally, however, it was a rectangular pyramid with stepped sides.[29] It resembles the stepped pyramids of China, which were built as tombs for the elite, and the temple pyramids dedicated to Hindu gods in South-east Asia.

Fig 27: Stepped Pyramids on either side of the Pacific.

Undeniably, there is significant evidence suggesting that the Olmec civilization, which appeared in a fully formed state in Mexico sometime around 1500 BCE, adopted many elements of Hindu temple architecture, yogic practices and deities, as well as Chinese artistic styles, traditions, and the Shang script. 

These striking correlations can be effectively explained by migrations from Asia, most likely from the Xia or Shang dynasty of China. This was by no means the first wave of migration from Asia, or the last. Research archaeologist Betty Meggers theorizes that Asians have traveled to and from the Americas for thousands of years.  According to her, “Ancient man saw the ocean as a superhighway and not as a barrier”.[30] I have discussed further evidences for these trans-pacific contacts in a subsequent article titled “The Turtle supporting Mount Meru in Asian and Mesoamerican Art”.

Although trans-pacific diffusion theories were widely discussed in academic circles in the first half of the 20th century, since the 1970s American archaeologists have treated the subject with disdain, which has brought about a virtual moratorium on contact studies. “While European and Pacific archaeologists were still willing to consider diffusion, American archaeologists tended to see necessity as the mother of all inventions…With a few key exceptions, there was no serious discussion of transoceanic influences on the Americas between 1980 and 2005 in mainstream American journals.”[31] 

The volume of evidence in support of transoceanic contact between Asia and the Americas has been steadily growing, however, and the nature of the connections is so complex and precise that it cannot be explained away as an in-situ development.  One can only hope that a new generation of historians and archaeologists will shake off the rigid dogmas that seem to guide the mainstream version of history,  and take due account of the plethora of archaeological and cultural evidence that indicates deep connections between the ancient civilizations of Asia and the Americas.  


End Notes

 [1] “India Documents 900 Yoga Poses to Block Patents”, Voice of America News 11 Jun 2010 <>

[2] Nigel Davies, The Ancient Civilizations of Mexico (Penguin Books, 1982) 55.

[3] Andrei A. Znamensk, The Beauty of the Primitive: Shamanism and Western Imagination (Oxford University Press, 2007)182.

[4] Refer Note 1

[5] Western Mexico shaft tomb tradition, Wikipedia.

[6] Michael D.Coe,”Image of an Olmec ruler at Juxtlahuaca, Mexico”, Antiquity Vol. 79 No. 305, September 2005.

[7] “THE CASE OF THE MISSING ELEPHANT”, The Official Website of Zecharia Sitchin 2000 <>

[8] <–overhunting–wiped-woolly-mammoth-struggled-cope-rapid-climate-change-followed.html>

[9] Strange Figurines <>

[10] Adrian Snodgrass, The Symbolism of the Stupa (Motilal Banarsidass, 1992) 306.

[11] Carolyn E. Tate, Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture: The Unborn, Women, and Creation (University of Texas Press, 2012)126.

[12] Benson 1998: 64-65 taken from Wikipedia (Jaguars in Mesoamerican cultures)

[13] Coe 1999: 90 taken from Wikipedia (Jaguars in Mesoamerican cultures)

[14] Sehdev Kumar, A Thousand Petalled Lotus: Jain Temples of Rajasthan : Architecture & Iconography (Abhinav Publications, 2001)155.

[15] James Dean, “Anthropology”, The American Naturalist, University of Chicago Press for The American Society of Naturalists, January 1884, 18 (1): 98–99 taken from Wikipedia (Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories)

[16] Larry J.Pierson and James R. Moriarty, “Stone Anchors: Asiatic Shipwrecks off the California Coast,” Anthropological Journal of Canada, 18:17, 1980

[17] Jennifer Viegas, “Early Crossings: Scientists Debate Who Sailed to the New World First ” <>

[18] ibid.

[19] Christian Lemoy, Across the Pacific: From Ancient Asia to Precolombian America (2011) 45

[20] Brad Lepper, “JAPANESE FISHERMEN DISCOVER AMERICA 5,000 YEARS AGO?” Ohio History Connection 19 May. 2013 <>

[21] Jennifer Viegas, “Early Crossings: Scientists Debate Who Sailed to the New World First ” <>

[22] James  Wickersham, “Origin of the Indians–The Polynesian Route” American Antiquarian(1892)16:323-335 taken from Wikipedia (Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact theories)

[23] Jocelyn Selim, “Chinatown, 1000 B.C.” DISCOVER Vol. 21 No. 2 (February 2000) <>

[24] Ibid

[25] Bernardino de Sahagún, Florentine Codex: General History of the Things of New Spain, trans. Charles E. Dibble and Arthur J. O Anderson (University of Utah Press, 1950-1982)I:29

[26] Ross Hassig, Aztec Warfare: Imperial Expansion and Political Control (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1988) 96

[27] Wikipedia (Chinese Guardian Lions)

[28] Ganesh: Studies of an Asian God, ed. Robert L. Brown, (SUNY Press, 1991)271.

[29] Walter Robert Thurmond Witschey, Clifford T. Brown, Historical Dictionary of Mesoamerica (Scarecrow Press, 2012)180.

[30] Jennifer Viegas, “Early Crossings: Scientists Debate Who Sailed to the New World First ” <>

[31] Terry L. Jones, Alice A. Storey, Elizabeth A. Matisoo-Smith, José Miguel Ramírez-Aliaga

Rowman Altamira, Polynesians in America: Pre-Columbian Contacts with the New World (2011) 63

The REAL Age of Göbekli Tepe (NOT 9500 BC!)

Göbekli Tepe (known as Girê Mirazan or Xirabreşkê in Kurdish) is an archaeological site in the Southeastern Anatolia Region of Turkey ‘supposedly‘ dating to the Neolithic. German & Turkish archaeologists led by Klaus Schmidt have dated the site to the Pre-Pottery Neolithic between c. 9500 and 8000 BCE largely based on radiocarbon samples and the absence of pottery (see dating details).

However, several clues of the Göbekli Tepe archaeological site in Turkey make it certain that the site is NOWHERE NEAR as old as generally believed. And undoubtedly dates to the Bronze age instead of the Paleolithic.

In fact, it is incredibly common for sites in the near-east with known historic dates laying within the Hallstatt Radiocarbon Plateau of 550-750 BC to give anomalous radiocarbon determinations. And just as common for organic material buried in certain types of lime and pulverized limestone to give contaminated dates which are known to be too old. (see ManningVakninBen-Yosef, etc. See also radiocarbon considerations, volcanics & the hard water effect)

Göbekli Tepe undoubtedly falls within one of these three groups, along with many of the Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) sites in the region, mostly correlated to stylistic similarities to Jericho. The archaeological site of Jericho in Israel suffers from the same issue of likely volcanic or lime contamination (the site lays on a blocked drainage where ancient landslides blocking the drainage likely brought sub-surface waters saturated with lime into contact with dating material). Or possibly these sites were built during the same short period of spiked non-radiogenic bearing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels (possibly from a nearby volcanic field venting event from the massive Harrat Ash Shaam field in Syria or the nearby Karaca Dag volcanics.)

The first clue which makes the incorrect radiocarbon dates of Göbekli Tepe obvious is the column artwork. Particularly the bag motif in proximity to the avian vultures. This is a well known religious motif from both Neo-Assyrian (911-609 BC) artwork and the Urartu Kingdom (858-586 BC). The ‘bucket and cone‘ or bag and dobber used prolifically in Urartu art depicted the manual pollination of date palm trees with a synthetic stamen and was used to represent fertility and potency.

All three of the archaeological sites which house the religious artwork above are found within 250 miles of each other in the region of Assyria and ancient Urartu. Many similar motifs are found in numerous similar sites in the region. The more rudimentary style of the Göbekli Tepe artwork may suggest it was made earlier than the other examples, or it may just have just been carved by less talented artists and stone masons. But for these religious stylistic motifs to be 8000 years older is incredibly unlikely and borders on ridiculous. A better earliest range possibility would be 2670 BC, the last known major eruption of the Harrat Ash Shaam volcanic field (a likely source of non-radiogenic radiocarbon contamination).

Yet another evidence for the correct late bronze to early iron age date for the site lies in its similarity to other Urartu & Phoenician sites in the region. One of the most striking examples is comparing the architecture with the Phoenician Taulas of Menorca, Balearic Island. The layout of Göbekli Tepe and Menorca sites like Torralba d’en Salord and Torre d’en Galmés are almost identical. Undoubtedly influencing each other in their T-topped columns the site dates from as early as 1310 BC to as late as 300 BC Punic occupation.

Because of their striking similarity, many might confuse the images above of the Temple or Taula on Spain’s Balearic Islands of Menorca with Göbekli Tepe. Both are built in sprawling circular layouts, often on hills with T-shaped center roof columns and equispaced outer wall columns. (somewhat like Stonehenge.) Even the smaller side wall rock work is quite similar in many respects. Perhaps the most striking similarity is the celestial alignments and multi-room, rounded shared wall features.

The various animals found on the columns of Göbekli Tepe are not some early example of paleolithic animistic religion but instead representations of well known Bronze & Iron age constellation zodiac signs. Note for instance the crab/scorpion of Göbekli Tepe in comparison to the well known Babylonian astrology kudurru depicting a turtle, which was a symbol of Enki; 1125BC-1100 BCE. (from British Museum)

Another example of this ridiculous reliance on limestone contaminated radiocarbon dates of basketry is the Qumran area Muraba’at Cave, where a “Pre-Pottery Neolithic A” woven reed basket was found amidst numerous other artifacts, including a new dead-sea scroll fragment ALL clearly dating from 200 BC to 135 AD. The reed basket radiocarbon dating by Prof. Elisabetta Boaretto of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, the IAA, dated to 9,500 BC. Yet, a nearby skeleton (also obviously contaminated) radiocarbon dated to 4000 BC. While the caves artifacts mostly dated by coins, writing and other non-radiocarbon means all dated to around the turn of the Christian era. This kind of lack of recognition of date corruption is horrible science, but sadly has become a regional staple in the Pre-Pottery Neolithic dating sequence.

Cache of Bar Kokhba coins. Dating from the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt (115 CE) Found in the same cave as the ‘6000 BP’ burial, and 10500 BP basket! Parchment and Seeds were also found (Crappy & intellectually dishost archaeologist did not publish the radiocarbon dates of the seeds)

Pre-Pottery Neolithic A (PPNA) sites: Jericho, Hallan Cemi. Jerf el-Ahmar (9500 – 8700 BC) in present day Syria

Native American Myths & LDS The Three Degrees of Glory

Adapted from an article by Jason Jarrell and Sarah Farmer. The authors of Ages of the Giants: A Cultural History of the Tall Ones in Prehistoric America

The Ho-Chunk & Mesoamerican/Egyptian Connections

Among the Siouan speaking Ho-Chunk people of the Eastern Woodlands, Great Lakes , and the Plains is a belief which consists of a tiered or layered cosmos comprised of three basic “worlds”. The Sky World is the region above, where birds and flying things live. It is also the habitation of the great Thunderbirds, the stars, the sun and moon, and the creator.

The Earth World is the domain of mankind, plants, animals, and natural features. It could be called “our world” or the world of the living. The Earth World is a flat island or disk situated upon—and surrounded by—a primordial sea.

The third world is the Underworld, a vast water filled region immediately beneath the Earth World. This Underworld is the home of fish, snakes, and aquatic animals. It is also the domain of the Great Serpent and his minions. These powerful beings often enter the Earth World through natural springs, rivers, and lakes, which are connected to the Underworld oceans by a system of caverns.

The Great Serpent manifests in a multiplicity of forms, which fall between two extremes: a gigantic horned snake and a hybrid of feline and serpent features usually known as the Underwater Panther. He is also known to be the ruler or Ogimaa (“boss”) of a race of beings of similar form (Ibid). The Great Serpent exerts a deadly influence upon the Earth World. Emerging through natural waterways, the Great Serpent destroys human beings with drowning, floods, and other calamities, including disease.

For LDS people, these descriptions immediately bring to mind the imagery of the LDS Three Degrees of the afterworld taught by Joseph Smith. In his model, the three levels of the afterworld were composed of the Celestial or Sky realm, the Terrestrial or Earth Realm, and the Telestial or Haden/Underworld realm. (see this article for details)

Additionally one cant help but see the similarities to Mesoamerican iconography and belief systems revolving around Quetzalcoatl, the bird serpent and Tezcatlipoca the Jaguar nagual.

Rewrite this. Note the Egyptian similarities with the air, earth and underworld symbolized by the falcon (horus), snake (apep) and meeting place of earth with Thoth and Sekhmet.


Additionally, these concepts are found in the ancient British record called the Kolbrin. The following section of the Kolbrin comes from an ancient record called ‘The Book of Scrolls’ which contains an ancient Egyptian/Druidic temple ritual which sounds surprisingly similar to Native American rituals. In these rituals, the initiate or ‘aspiring one’ would be walked through various stages and teachings on his/her path to become an adapt who was “not of Earth, neither… of Heaven, [but at] the place where the two meet and intermingle.”

SCL:7:1 This is the manner whereby the Aspiring Ones of Earth may cross the dread horizon through residence within the Cavern of Stone. It is thus that men come to know the Truth concerning the Realms of Glory beyond the Western Horizon, but it is a path beset by great dangers and manifold terrors, and many return witless. SCL:7:2 The Aspiring One is of Earth, he is earthbound. He sits within the cavern before the Cauldron of Rebirth and Regeneration, and inhales the smoke from the brew of release. He rises above himself, flying on wings of five feathers, the names of which are recorded in the Book of Secret Mysteries, wherein are the awful recipes. There it is written that he may ascend like a falcon [eagle] and cannot go otherwise than as a falcon. He may not go in the manner of any other bird.

SCL:7:3 He escapes the call of Earth, its fetters fall from him. The Aspiring One leaves his attendants behind; he is not with them; he is not of Earth, neither is he of Heaven. He is at the place where the two meet and intermingle. SCL:7:4 His body moves without the spirit and partakes of the sour yellow bread of wide vision. The Aspiring One drinks the brew of grey barley and sips long at the wine of harish, eating the cakes of green brown horris. He eats the fruit of the releasing tree and drinks the brew of black fungus, which is in the smoke goblet. Thus, he sleeps and the attendants lay him down in the receptacle called the Womb of Rebirth. He is in the Place of Visions but remains like the masthead bird. (Book of Scrolls 7)

Write some more commentary here. Note that the record suggest the ancient britains were in contact with the New World.

SOF:12:11 We sailed with a large company towards the West and had nothing to fear, except the whirlpool, for the Red Men with us knew the way of the waters. For long days, we saw only the sea, and the landsighting birds all came back. SOF:12:12 We went out through the mouth of the sea into the sea of the Great River. Past the lands of white copper to the Place of Painted Men, where we drew up the ships and staked them. SOF:12:15 The ships were divided and those who wished to set up the eagle and serpent went to the Harbour of Giants in Belharia, SOF:12:17 We came to a bay, on one side of which was a forest and on the other a plain where herds grazed. For the men of that place, it was the time of the feast of fires and they held games upon the shore and ran races in cleared land behind. At this time, they would not fight, so we met them in peace. They wore garments woven in two parts and belted with hide. They had caps of skin or leather, and the tunic, which hung about them was darkly coloured in blue, green and brown. They enclosed their legs and feet in dressed skins, bound in front with throngs. They had many ornaments of copper, but little gold or silver, though their armbands and brooches shone like silver. They had the art of making copper like silver or gold. (Sons of Fire 12)

To the Native American Ho-Chunk, the Underworld powers are also known to kidnap children and infants. The Great Serpent is also considered a source of powerful magic or medicine, which can give victory in the hunt, warfare, love, and curing or cursing individuals or entire populations. One of the most commonly cited benefits of allying with the Underworld ruler is long life. Among the Anishnaabeg peoples of the northeast, medicine men that deal with the Underworld serpents are often considered practitioners of “ bad medicine .”

Underwater Panther rock painting. The Great Serpent, depicted as a hybrid feline with serpent features, is known as the Underwater Panther and rules the Underworld at Devil’s Lake

Underwater Panther rock painting. The Great Serpent, depicted as a hybrid feline with serpent features, is known as the Underwater Panther and rules the Underworld at Devil’s Lake. (Madman2001 / CC BY-SA 2.0 )

The Thunderbirds of the Sky World wage an endless war upon the denizens of the Underworld. As the Great Serpents or Panthers emerge from beneath, the Thunderbirds bring down lightning and fire upon them. The Thunderers also seize their enemies and carry them into the air, tearing them to pieces. As such, the Thunderbirds are considered the allies and helpers of mankind and are treated with great respect by Native American peoples. Their war against the serpents is essential to human survival on the Earth Disk:

As the elder brothers of the Indians, the thunderers are always active in their behalf, slaying the evil snakes from the underworld whenever they dare to appear on the surface. If they did not do this these snakes would overrun the earth, devouring mankind.

According to a Ho-Chunk account recorded by Folklorist Dorothy Brown a major battle in this ongoing war was fought at Devil’s Lake:

A quarrel once arose between the water spirits, or underwater panthers, who had a den in the depths of Devil’s Lake, and the Thunderbirds…The great birds, flying high above the lake’s surface, hurled their eggs (arrows or thunderbolts) into the waters and on the bluffs. The water monsters threw up great rocks and water-spouts from the bottom of the lake.

The Effects From the Battles Between the Entities at Devil’s Lake

The Ho-Chunk tradition has it that the battle resulted in the cracked and jagged rocky surfaces of the bluffs surrounding the lake. Although the Thunderbirds were ultimately victorious, “The water spirits were not all killed, and some are in Devil’s Lake to this day.”

According to Native informants interviewed by Thomas George, long ago a Ho-Chunk man fasted and prayed on the shores of the lake until one of the water spirits, “resembling a cat…with long tail and horns” rose from beneath the water and granted him the promise of long life. Brown also notes that the historic Native Americans made “offerings to the spirits of this lake, by depositing tobacco on boulders on the shore or by strewing it on the water.”

Historic Indians of the Great Lakes region made tobacco offerings to the Underworld spirits before water voyages in the hope of appeasing them and guaranteeing a safe voyage. The Ottawa made similar offerings to “the evil spirit, whose habitation was under the water…this was sacrificed to the evil spirit, not because they loved him, but to appease his wrath.”

Saunders recorded a Ho-Chuck legend in which a water spirit melted the ice and formed the channels of the Wisconsin Dells. This water spirit also formed all of the wild game and trees of the region from its own body before diving into a bottomless pit beneath Devil’s Lake.

This particular water spirit was a seven headed, green serpent entity , which demanded that the Ho-Chunk sacrifice their most beautiful girls to him as offerings. One year the water spirit demanded that the daughter of the chief be sacrificed, prompting a hero named River Child to secretly conspire with an old woman to raise an army to fight the serpent. River Child had been told by Spirit Fish to strike at the left eye of the monster’s center head, apparently its one weakness. On the day of the sacrifice the secret army attacked, and River Child tricked the beast into his net. He then plunged his knife into the left eye of the center head, killing the water spirit. River Child then married the chief’s daughter and the two founded “Old River Bottom” village.

The Origin of the Legends of Devil’s Lake

The Ho-Chunk legends of the Thunderers and Underworld powers at Devil’s Lake are rooted in the prehistoric past. Around 1,000 years ago, the Effigy Mound Culture , which spanned roughly 700 to 1100 AD, constructed several mounds around Devil’s Lake. On the southeastern shore of the lake, the ancients constructed a 150 foot (46 meters) long bird effigy with a forked tail, described by Birmingham & Rosebrough as “combining characteristics of a bird and a human being.”

In the traditions of the Algonquian and Siouan tribes, the Thunderbirds often assume the forms of human beings. They are often said to become winged men wielding bows with fire lit arrows in their conflict with the Underworld serpents. Interestingly, Birmingham & Rosebrough point out that a group of effigy mounds along the northern area of Devil’s Lake represent spirit entities “from the opposing lower world and include a bear, an unidentified animal, and a once-huge water spirit or panther.”

The bear is another animal often connected to the Underworld in northeastern cosmology. For example, the Menomini Indians considered the actual ruler of the Underworld to be a Great White Bear.

Obviously, the ancient mounds of Devil’s Lake align with the same cosmological belief system expressed in the Ho-Chunk traditions regarding the area, which could very well represent a continuity extending back in time to the Effigy Mound Culture. While the theory is by no means universally accepted, there have been many professional researchers who consider the Ho-Chunk to be among the actual biological descendants of the Effigy Mound builders.

Dr. William Romain has suggested that mound builders of the Eastern Woodlands chose locations, which inspired emotion and awe in the context of the ancient cosmology to build their monuments. The dark depths and the rocky bluffs of Devil’s Lake, where even sunlight seems restricted, would certainly have created an atmosphere ripe with spirit. The mythic associations of Devil’s Lake would appear to have been widely known long before the raising of the Effigy Mounds.

Boszhardt has reported a large Hopewell monitor pipe found in southeastern Minnesota, which bears etchings of horned lizard-like creatures and long tailed Underwater Panthers. The smoking pipe is made of Baraboo pipestone from one of the outcrops near Devil’s Lake.

The Hopewell mound building culture usually dates to between 100 BC and around 500 AD. Thus, the Devil’s Lake locality may have been considered a dwelling of the Underworld spirits for well over a millennium before the first Westerners entered the region.

Egyptian Pharaoh Kinglist Parallel

As mentioned on the Manetho excerpts page there are no surviving copies of the original Manetho, we must rely upon excerpts and fragments copied by later authors. The four of any significance were Eusebius, Syncellus, Africanus and Josephus. Below are the excerpts of Manetho preserved in their respective larger works.

To read their full works (and not just the Manetho excerpts see the following links.
Eusebius Chronicle (Public Domain Armenian Version by Robert Bedrosian, King lists starts on page p.39) Or download it as a pdf file. 

The transcription of the word ka became kheres in Greek, and the -ra at the end of a name was dropped, so that Men-kau-ra → Men-kheres.

Dynasty 1

 8 kings, 253 years18 kings, 2522 years3
1 The correct sum is 263 years
2 The correct sum is 258 years
3 Armenian Eusebius: 270 years
4 Armenian Eusebius: 30 years.
5 Armenian Eusebius: Memphses.

Dynasty 2

 9 kings of Memphis, 302 years9 kings, 297 years
1 Armenian Eusebius: Kekhoos

Dynasty 3

 9 kings of Memphis, 214 years8 kings of Memphis, 198 years

Dynasty 4

 8 kings of Memphis, 277 years117 kings of Memphis, 448 years
1 The correct sum is 284 years

Dynasty 5

 8 kings of Elephantine, 248 years131 kings of Elephantine, 100 years2
Neferirkara I Kakai3Nepherkheres20
Shepseskara Netjeruser4Sisires74Phiops394
Neferefra Isi5Kheres20
Niuserra Ini6Rhathoures44
Menkauhor Kaiu7Menkheres9
Djedkara Isesi8Tankheres44
1 The sum of the items given is 218 years.
2 Eusebius simply added 100 years for this dynasty in the total with the previous dynasties
3 Eusebius’ fifth dynasty kings actually belong to the sixth

Dynasty 6

 6 kings of Memphis, 203 years1203 years2
Pepi I2Phios53   
Nemtiemsaf I3Methusouphis7   
Pepi II4Phiops944Phiops394
Nemtiemsaf II5Menthesouphis1   
Netjerikara6Nitokris ♀12?Nitokris ♀
1 The sum of the items given is 197 years, probably added 100 instead of 94 for Phiops
2 No mention of number of kings, nor the capital. Only names Nitocris as part of the Sixth dynasty
3 Eusebius’ lists these kings in his fifth dynasty

Dynasty 7

70 kings of Memphis ruled for 70 days5 kings of Memphis ruled for 75 days1
No names mentioned
1 Armenian Eusebius has 75 years instead of 75 days

Dynasty 8

27 kings of Memphis, 146 years5 kings of Memphis, 100 years
No names mentioned

Dynasty 9

 19 kings of Herakleopolis , 409 years4 kings of Herakleopolis , 100 years
Wahkara Khety II1Akhthoës1Akhthoës

Dynasty 10

19 kings of Herakleopolis , 185 years
No names mentioned

Dynasty 11

 16 kings of Thebes, 43 years1
1 Sixteen kings ruled for 43 years, then Ammenemes for 16 years.

Between dynasties

Amenemhat I16Ammenemes1616Ammenemes16
Ammenemes was placed outside the dynasties – and not part of the Twelfth Dynasty, due to errors by the redactor of the Epitome.

Dynasty 12

 7 kings of Diospolis, 160 years7 kings of Diospolis, 245 years1
Senusret I1Sesonkhosis461Sesonkhosis46
Amenemhat II2Ammanemes382Ammanemes38
Senusret II + Senusret III3Sesostris483Sesostris48
Amenemhat III4Lakhares84Lamaris8
Neferusobek7Skemiophris ♀47
1 The correct sum is 182 years.

Note: The redactor of the Epitome failed to understand that Manetho’s narrative contained not only four kings named Amenemmes, and three kings named Sestoris, but most of them also had coregencies with their sons. This confusion of the identity of the kings and their reigns resulted in disarray – from Ammenemes to Skemiophris.

Dynasty 13

60 kings of Diospolis, 453 years
No names mentioned

Dynasty 14

76 kings of Xois, 184 years76 kings of Xois, 184 years1
No names mentioned
1 Armenian Eusebius: 484 years. Syncellus noted that another copy of Eusebius had 284 years.

Dynasty 15

 6 shepherd kings from Phoenicia, 284 yearsKings of Diospolis, 250 years2
* Eusebius place these kings in his seventeenth dynasty. Placed here for the sake of comparision with Africanus.
1 Eusebius place these kings in his seventeenth dynasty. The the two dynasties were likely interchanged.
2 from Eusebius’ 17th dynasty: foreign kings from Phoenicia who seized Memphis, 103 years
3 Armenian Eusebius: Aphophis reigned before Arkhles.

Dynasty 16

32 shepherd kings, 518 years5 kings of Thebes, 190 years
No names mentioned

Dynasty 17

 43 shepherd kings and
43 kings of Diospolis (Thebes), 151 years2
4 shepherd kings of Memphis, 103 years
1 Eusebius’ Dynasty XV has: Kings of Diospolis, 250 years. The two dynasties were likely interchanged.
2 The redactor of the epitome clearly misunderstood a summation by compounding two separate dynasties into one.

Dynasty 18

The reigns and names of this dynasty is quite confusing. This was likely due to there being four Amenhoteps and four Thutmoses, which were misunderstood by the writer of the Epitome. Add to that the already obscure Amarna Period and then the coregencies between kings.
PharaohAfricanusEusebiusJeromeJosephus 1
 16 kings of Diospolis,
263 years
14 kings of Diospolis,2
348 years
Kings of Diospolis,
348 years
246 years3
Ahmose I1Amos1Amosis251Amosis25Tethmosis25/4
Thutmose II2Khebros132Khebron132Chebron13Khebron13
Amenhotep I3Amenophthis2443Ammenophis213Ammenophis21Amenophis20/7
Hatshepsut4Amensis22      Amesses ♀21/9
Thutmose I5Misaphris134Miphres5124Mephres12Mephres12/9
Thutmose III6Misphragmouthosis265Misphragmouthosis265Mispharmuthosis26Mephramuthosis25/10
Thutmose IV7Touthmosis96Touthmosis96Thmosis9Thmosis9/8
Amenhotep II8Amenophis317Amenophis317Ammenophis31Amenophis30/10
Amenhotep III9Oros378Oros3668Orus38Oros36/5
Neferneferuaten710Akherres329Akhenkherses1289Achencheres12Akenkheres ♀12/1
?   13Kherres1513Cherres15  
1 Josephus did not indicate any kind of dynastic numbering, and thus no dynastic breaks.
2 The list contain 16 kings, not 14.
3 Added together for comparision (240 years plus 72 months.)
4 Goar emended this to 21 to fit with the summation: ‘Total 69 years from Amos to the rule of Misphragmouthosis’.
5 Armenian Eusebius: Misphres
6 Armenian Eusebius: 38 years
7 Josephus write that this ruler was female, which then can only mean Neferneferuaten.
8 Armenian Eusebius: 16 years
9 Armenian Eusebius: Athoris and Khenkheres names of Eusebius absent, Akherres follow directly after Akhenkherses
10 Probably Ramesses I of the 19th dynasty, based on the length of his known reign.
11 Probably Ramesses II of the 19th dynasty, based on the length of his known reign.

Dynasty 19

 6 kings of Diospolis, 209 years15 kings of Diospolis, 194 years
Seti I1Sethos511Sethos55
Ramesses II2Rhapsakes612Rhampses66
1 The sum of the items given is 204 years
2 Armenian Eusebius has 8 years

Dynasty 20

12 kings of Thebes, 135 years12 kings of Thebes, 178 years
No names mentioned

Dynasty 21

 7 kings of Tanis, 130 years17 kings of Tanis, 130 years
Smendes I1Smendes261Smendis26
Psusennes I2Psousennes462Psousennes41
Psusennes II7Psousennes147Psousennes35
1 The sum of the items given is 114 years

Dynasty 22

 9 kings of Bubastis, 120 years13 kings of Bubastis, 49 years
Shoshenq I1Sesonkhosis211Sesonkhosis21
Osorkon I2Osorthon152Osorthon15
Takelot I6Takelothis133Takelothis13
1 The sum of the items given is 116 years

Dynasty 23

 4 kings of Tanis, 89 years3 kings of Tanis, 44 years
Pedubast I1Petubates401Petubastis25
Osorkon III2Osorkho82Osorthon9
1 The name Zet might be a contraction of Ζητειται (“there is a question”), with the implication that the name is uncertain/unknown.

Dynasty 24


Dynasty 25

 3 Ethiopian kings, 40 years3 Ethiopian kings, 44 years

Dynasty 26

 9 kings of Sais, 150 years, 6 months9 kings of Sais, 167 years
    1Ammeris the Ethiopian121
Psamtik I4Psammetikhos545Psammetikhos452
Necho II5Nekhao II66Nekhao II33
Psamtik II6Psammouthis67Psammouthis17
Psamtik III9Psammekherites6m   
1 Armenian Eusebius has 18 years.
2 Armenian Eusebius has 44 years.
3 Armenian Eusebius has 6 years.

Dynasty 27

 8 Persian kings, 124 years, 4 months8 Persian kings, 120 years, 4 months
Cambyses II1Kambyses61Kambyses3
Darius I2Dareios363Dareios36
Xerxes I3Xerxes the Great214Xerxes21
Artaxerxes I5Artaxerxes415Artaxerxes40
Xerxes II6Xerxes2m6Xerxes II2m
Darius II8Dareios198Dareios191
1 Armenian Eusebius has 19 months instead of years.

Dynasty 28


Dynasty 29

 4 kings of Mendes, 20 years, 4 months4 kings of Mendes, 21 years, 4 months1
Nepherites I1Nepherites61Nepherites6
Nepherites II4Nepherites4m4Nepherites4m
    5Mouthis 21
1 Reigns equal the sum of the five listed kings, despite summary mentioning only four, suggesting one was an usurper.
2 Armenian Eusebius place Mouthis directly after Psammouthis.

Dynasty 30

 3 kings of Sebennytos, 38 years3 kings of Sebennytos, 20 years
Nectanebo I1Nektanebes181Nektanebes10
Djedhor Teos I2Teos22Teos2
Nectanebo II3Nektanebus183Nektanebos8

Dynasty 31

 3 Persian kings, 9 years3 Persian kings, 16 years
Artaxerxes III1Okhos21Okhos6
Darius III3Dareios43Dareios6

The lists of Africanus and Eusebius both end with the conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great.

Copied & adapted from Lundström, Peter. (2011). PHARAOH.SE Available at: [Accessed July. 2023]. The man, the lagend, may his name be immortalized and forever blessed.


  • Karst, J.Eusebius Werke 5: Die Chronik aus dem Armenischen übersetzt mit textkritischem Kommentar, GCS 20. (Leipzig: 1911)
  • Adler, W. and Tuffin, P.The Chronography of George Synkellos, (Oxford: 2002)
  • Waddell, W. G.Manetho, (Cambridge, Mass; London: 1940, Ed. 1964)
  • Mosshammer, Alden. A. (ed.)Georgii Syncelli Ecloga chronographica, (Berlin, Boston: 1984)

Excerpts from Manetho

As there are no surviving copies of the original Manetho, we must rely upon excerpts and fragments copied by later authors. The four of any significance were Eusebius, Syncellus, Africanus and Josephus. Below are the excerpts of Manetho preserved in their respective larger works.

To read their full works (and not just the Manetho excerpts see the following links.
Eusebius Chronicle (Public Domain Armenian Version by Robert Bedrosian, King lists starts on page p.39) Or download it as a pdf file. 
The History of Manetho as preserved by Josephus in ‘Against Apion
(Text below is mostly from Loeb Classical Library edition, 1940, public domain. footnotes and arrangement by Bill Thayer, the man, the legend. May his name be forever immortalized. Reproduced here because I’m going to do a ton of re-linking, and attaching to my revised chronology and interactive Map interface.)

Book I

Fr. 1 (from the Armenian Version of Eusebius, Chronica).
Dynasties of Gods, Demigods, and Spirits of the Dead.

From the Egyptian History of Manetho, who composed his account in three books. These deal with the Gods, the Demigods, the Spirits of the Dead, and the mortal kings who ruled Egypt down to Darius, king of the Persians.

1. The first man (or god) in Egypt is Hephaestus,​1 who is also renowned among the Egyptians as the discoverer of fire. His son, Helios (the Sun), was succeeded by Sôsis; then follow, in turn, Cronos, Osiris, Typhon, brother of Osiris, and lastly Orus, son of Osiris and Isis. These were the first to hold sway in Egypt. Thereafter, the kingship passed from one to another in unbroken succession down to Bydis (Bites)​2 through 13,900 years. The year I take, however, to be a lunar one, consisting, that is, of 30 days: what we now call a month the Egyptians used formerly to style a year.3

2. After the Gods, Demigods reigned for 1255 years,​4 and again another line of kings held sway for 1817 years: then came thirty more kings of Memphis,​5 reigning for 1790 years; and then again ten kings of This, reigning for 350 years.

3. There followed the rule of Spirits of the Dead and Demigods,​6 for 5813 years.

4. The total [of the last five groups] amounts to 11,000 years,​7 these however being lunar periods, or months. But, in truth, the whole rule of which the Egyptians tell — the rule of Gods, Demigods, and Spirits of the Dead — is reckoned to have comprised in all 24,900 lunar years, which make 2206​8 solar years.

5. Now, if you care to compare these figures with Hebrew chronology, you will find that they are in perfect harmony. Egypt is called Mestraïm​9 by the Hebrews; and Mestraïm lived <not> long after the Flood. For after the Flood, Cham (or Ham), son of Noah, begat Aegyptus or Mestraïm, who was the first to set out to establish himself in Egypt, at the time when the tribes began to disperse this way and that. Now the whole time from Adam to the Flood was, according to the Hebrews, 2242 years.

6. But, since the Egyptians claim by a sort of prerogative of antiquity that they have, before the Flood, a line of Gods, Demigods, and Spirits of the Dead, who reigned for more than 20,000 years, it clearly follows that these years should be reckoned  p9 as the same number of months as the years recorded by the Hebrews: that is, that all the months contained in the Hebrew record of years, should be reckoned as so many lunar years of the Egyptian calculation, in accordance with the total length of time reckoned from the creation of man in the beginning down to Mestraïm. Mestraïm was indeed the founder of the Egyptian race; and from him the first Egyptian dynasty must be held to spring.

7. But if the number of years is still in excess, it must be supposed that perhaps several Egyptian kings ruled at one and the same time; for they say that the rulers were kings of This, of Memphis, of Saïs, of Ethiopia, and of other places at the same time. It seems, moreover, that different kings held sway in different regions, and that each dynasty was confined to its own nome: thus it was not a succession of kings occupying the throne one after the other, but several kings reigning at the same time in different regions.​10 Hence arose the great total number of years. But let us leave this question and take up in detail the chronology of Egyptian history

(Continued in Fr. 7(b).)

Fr. 2 (from Syncellus)

Thereafter​11 Manetho tells also of five Egyptian tribes which formed thirty dynasties, comprising those whom they call Gods, Demigods, Spirits of the Dead, and mortal men. Of these Eusebius, “son” of Pamphilus, gives the following account in his Chronica: “Concerning Gods, Demigods, Spirits of the Dead, and mortal kings, the Egyptians have a long series of foolish myths. The most ancient Egyptian kings, indeed, alleged that their years were lunar years consisting of thirty days, whereas the Demigods who succeeded them gave the name hóroi to years which were three months long.” So Eusebius wrote with good reason, criticizing the Egyptians for their foolish talk; and in my opinion Panodôrus​12 is wrong in finding fault with Eusebius here, on the ground that Eusebius failed to explain the meaning of the historians, while Panodôrus thinks he himself succeeds by a somewhat novel method, as follows:

“From the creation of Adam, indeed, down to Enoch, i.e. to the general cosmic year 1282, the number of days was known in neither month nor year; but the Egregori (or ‘Watchers’),​13 who had  p13 descended to earth in the general cosmic year 1000, held converse with men, and taught them that the orbits of the two luminaries, being marked by the twelve signs of the Zodiac, are composed of 360 parts. Observing the moon’s orbit which is nearer the earth, smaller, and more conspicuous, as it has a period of thirty days, men decided that it should be reckoned as a year, since the orbit of the sun also was filled by the same twelve signs of the Zodiac with an equal number of parts, 360. So it came to pass that the reigns of the Gods who ruled among them for six generations in six dynasties were reckoned in years each consisting of a lunar cycle of thirty days. The total in lunar years is 11,985, or 969 solar years. By adding these to the 1058​14 solar years of the period before their reign, they reach the sum total of 2027 years.” Similarly, in the two dynasties of nine Demigods, — these being regarded as real, although they never existed, — Panodôrus strives to make up 214½ years out of 858 hóroi (periods of three months) or tropoi, so that with the 969 years they make, he says, 1183½, and these, when added to the 1058 years from the time of Adam to the reign of the Gods, complete a total of 2242 years down to the Flood.

Thus Panodôrus exerts himself to show that the Egyptian writings against God and against our divinely inspired Scriptures are really in agreement with them. In this he criticizes Eusebius, not understanding that these arguments of his, which are incapable of proof or of reasoning, have been proved  p15 against himself and against truth, since indeed . . . neither Babylon nor Chaldea was ruled by kings before the Flood, nor was Egypt before Mestrem, and in my opinion it was not even inhabited before that time. . . .

Fr. 3 (from Syncellus)

On the Antiquity of Egypt

Manetho of Sebennytus, chief priest of the accursed temples of Egypt, who lived later than Bêrôssos in the time of Ptolemy Philadelphus, writes to this Ptolemy, with the same utterance of lies as Bêrôssos, concerning six dynasties or six gods who never existed: these, he says, reigned for 11,985 years. The first of them, the god Hêphaestus, was king for 9000 years. Now some of our historians, reckoning these 9000 years as so many lunar months, and dividing the number of days in these 9000 lunar months by the 365 days in a year, find a total of 727¾ years. They imagine that they have attained a striking result, but one must rather say that it is a ludicrous falsehood which they have tried to pit against Truth.

The First Dynasty of Egypt

1. Hêphaestus reigned for 727¾ years.
2. Hêlios (the Sun), son of Hêphaestus, for 80⅙ years.
3. Agathodaemôn, for 56 7⁄12 years.
4. Cronos, for 40½ years.
5. Osiris and Isis, for 35 years.
6. Typhon, for 29 years.15


7. Ôrus, for 25 years.
8. Arês, for 23 years.
9. Anubis, for 17 years.
10. Hêraclês, for 15 years.
11. Apollô, for 25 years.
12. Ammôn, for 30 years.
13. Tithoês,​16 for 27 years.
14. Sôsus, for 32 years.
15 Zeus, for 20 years.17

Fr. 4​18 (from Excerpta Latina Barbari)

In the kingdom of Egypt we have the oldest of all kingdoms, and we are minded to record its beginning, as it is given by Manetho. First, I shall put down as follows the reigns of the Gods, as recorded by the Egyptians. Some say that the god Hêphaestus reigned in Egypt for 680 years; after him, Sol [Hêlios, the Sun], son of Hêphaestus, for 77 years: next, Sosinosiris [Sôsis and Osiris], for 320 years: then Orus the Ruler, for 28 years; and after him, Typhon, for 45 years. Total for the reigns of the Gods, 1550 years.19

Next come the reigns of the Demigods, as follows first, Anubes​20 for 83 years; then after him, Amusis, some say, was king. About him, Apiôn the grammarian,​21 who composed a history of Egypt, explained that he lived in the time of Inachus​22 who was king at the founding of Argos . . . for 67 years.23

  I. Thereafter he [Manetho] gave an account of the kings who were Spirits of the Dead, calling them also Demigods, . . . who reigned for 2100 years: he called them “very brave” (Heroes).
II. Mineus and seven of his descendants reigned for 253 years.​24
III. Bochus and eight other kings reigned for 302 years.
IV. Necherocheus and seven other kings for 214 years.
V. Similarly seventeen other kings for 277 years.
VI. Similarly twenty‑one other kings for 258 years.
VII. Othoi and seven other kings for 203 years.
VIII. Similarly fourteen other kings for 140 years.
IX. Similarly twenty other kings for 409 years.
X. Similarly seven other kings for 204 years.

Here ends the First Book of Manetho, which contains a period of 2100 years.25

XI.​26 A dynasty of kings of Diospolis, for 60 years.
XII. A dynasty of kings of Bubastus, for 153 years.
XIII. A dynasty of kings of Tanis, for 184 years.
XIV. A dynasty of kings of Sebennytus, for 224 years.
XV. A dynasty of kings of Memphis, for 318 years.
XVI. A dynasty of kings of Hêliopolis, for 221 years.
XVII. A dynasty of kings of Hermupolis, for 260 years.

The Second Book continues the record down to the Seventeenth Dynasty, and comprises 1520 years.​27 These are the Egyptian dynasties.

Fr. 5 (from the Chronicle of Malalas)

[After recording the reigns of Hêphaestus (1680 days),º Hêlios (4477​28 days),º Sôsis, Osiris, Hôrus, and Thulis, Malalas adds:]

These ancient reigns of early Egyptian kings are recorded by Manetho, and in his writings it is stated that the names of the five planets are given in other forms: Cronos [Saturn] they used to call the shining star; Zeus [Jupiter], the radiant star [Phaethôn]; Arês [Mars], the fiery star; Aphroditê [Venus], the fairest; Hermês [Mercury], the glittering star. These names were later explained by the wise Sôtatês [? Sôtadês or Palaephatus].29

The first king of Egypt belonged to the tribe of Cham [Ham], Noah’s son; he was Pharaôh, who was also called Narachô.

 Now, the ancient reigns in Egypt before King Narachô were set forth by the wise Manetho, as has already been mentioned.

Fr. 6 (from Syncellus)

Since a knowledge of the periods of the Egyptian dynasties from Mestraïm​30 down to Nectanabô​31 is on many occasions needful to those who occupy themselves with chronological investigations, and since the dynasties taken from Manetho’s History are set forth by ecclesiastical historians with discrepancies in respect both to the names of the kings and the length of their reigns, and also as to who was king when Joseph was governor of Egypt, and in whose reign thereafter Moses, — he who saw God, — led the Hebrews in their exodus from Egypt, I have judged it necessary to select two of the most famous recensions and to set them side by side — I mean the accounts of Africanus and of the later Eusebius, the so‑called “son” of Pamphilus, — so that with proper application one may apprehend the opinion which approaches nearest to Scriptural truth. It must, above all, be strictly understood that the Africanus increases by 20 years the period from Adam to the Flood, and instead of 2242 years he makes it out to be 2262 years, which appears to be incorrect. On the other hand, Eusebius keeps to the sound reckoning of 2242 years in agreement with Scripture. In regard to the period from the Flood down to Abraham and Moses, both have gone astray by 130  p27 years belonging to the second Caïnan, son of Arphaxad,​32 even one generation, the thirteenth, from Adam, as it is recorded by the divine evangelist Luke.​33 But Africanus, in the 20 years which he added between Adam and the Flood, anticipated this; and in the period of Caïnan and his successors, only 110 years remain. Hence, down to the first year of Abraham he reckoned 3202 years; but Eusebius, completely omitting those 130 years, gave 3184 years​34 as far as Abraham’s first year.

Dynasty I

According to Africanus

Here is the account which Africanus gives of the dynasties of Egypt pamphlet the Flood].

1. In succession to the spirits of the Dead, the Demigods, — the first royal house​35 numbers eight kings, the first of whom Mênês​36 of  p29 This​37 reigned for 62 years. He was carried off by a hippopotamus​38 and perished.
2. Athôthis, his son, for 57 years. He built the palace at Memphis;​39 and his anatomical works​40 are extant, for he was a physician.
3. Kenkenês, his son, for 31 years.
4. Uenephês, his son, for 23 years. In his reign a great famine seized Egypt. He erected the pyramids near Kôchômê.​41
5. Usaphaidos,​42a his son, for 20 years.
6. Miebidos,​42b his son, for 26 years.
7. Semempsês, his son, for 18 years. In his reign a very great calamity befell Egypt.
8. Biênechês, his son, for 26 years.

Total, 253 years.43

Eusebius also sets out the details of the First Dynasty in much the same way as Africanus.

Fr. 7 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.​44

Here is the account which Eusebius gives of the Egyptian dynasties [after the Flood].

In succession to the Spirits of the Dead and the Demigods, the Egyptians reckon the First Dynasty to consist of eight kings. Among these was Mênês, whose rule in Egypt was illustrious. I shall record the rulers of each race from the time of Mênês; their succession is as follows:

1. Mênês of This, with his [17, or in another copy] 7 descendants, — the king called Mên by Herodotus, — reigned for 60 years. He made a foreign expedition and won renown, but was carried off by a hippopotamus.
2. Athôthis, his son, ruled for 27 years. He built the palace at Memphis; he practised medicine and wrote anatomical books.
3. Kenkenês, his son, for 39 years.
4. Uenephês, for 42 years. In his reign famine seized the land. He built the pyramids near Kôchôme.
5. Usaphaïs, for 20 years.
6. Niebaïs, for 26 years.
7. Semempsês, for 18 years. In his reign there were many portents and a very great calamity.
8. Ubienthês, for 26 years.

The total of all reigns, 252 years.45

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

In succession to the Spirits of the Dead and the Demigods, the Egyptians reckon the First Dynasty to consist of eight kings. The first of these was Mênês, who won high renown in the government of his kingdom. Beginning with him, I shall carefully record the royal families one by one: their succession in detail is as follows:

-Mênês of This (whom Herodotus named Min) and his seven descendants. He reigned for 30 years, and advanced with his army beyond the frontiers of his realm, winning renown by his exploits. He was carried off by a hippopotamus god (?).​46
-Athothis, his son, held the throne for 27 years. He built for himself a royal palace at Memphis, and also practised the art of medicine, writing books on the method of anatomy.
-Cencenes, his son, for 39 years.
-Vavenephis, for 42 years. In his time famine seized the land. He reared pyramids near the town of Cho.
-Usaphaïs, for 20 years.
-Niebaïs, for 26 years.
-Mempses, for 18 years. In his reign many portents and a great pestilence occurred.
-Vibenthis, for 26 years.

Total for the dynasty, 252 years.47

2nd Dynasty II

Fr. 8 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Second Dynasty​48 consists of nine kings of This. The first was Boêthos, for 38 years. In his reign a chasm opened at Bubastus,​49 and many perished.
2. Kaiechôs, for 39 years. In his reign the bulls,​50 Apis at Memphis and Mnevis at Heliopolis, and the Mendesian goat were worshipped as gods.
3. Binôthris, for 47 years. In his reign it was decided that women​51 might hold the kingly office.
4. Tlas, for 17 years.
5. Sethenês, for 41 years.
6. Chairês, for 17 years.
7. Nephercherês, for 25 years. In his reign, the story goes, the Nile flowed blended with honey for 11 days.
8. Sesôchris, for 48 years: his stature was 5 cubits 3 palms.​52
9. Chenerês, for 30 years.

Total, 302 years.

Total for the First and Second Dynasties [after the Flood], 555 years, according to the second edition of Africanus.

Fr. 9 (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Second Dynasty consisted of nine kings.

-First came Bôchos, in whose reign a chasm opened at Bubastus, and many perished.
-He was succeeded by Kaichôos (or Chôos), in whose time Apis and Mnevis and also the Mendesian goat were worshipped as gods.
3. Biophis, in whose reign it was decided that women also might hold the kingly office. In the reigns of the three succeeding kings, no notable event occurred.
7. In the seventh reign, as the story goes, the Nile flowed blended with honey for 11 days.
8. Next. Sesôchris was king for 48 years: the greatness of his stature is said to have been 5 cubits 3 palms.
9. In the ninth reign there happened no event worthy of mention. These kings ruled for 297 years.

Total for the First and Second Dynasties, 549 years, according to the recension of Eusebius.

Fr. 10 Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Second Dynasty consisted of nine kings.

-First came Bôchus, in whose reign a huge hole opened at Bubastus, and swallowed up many persons.
-He was succeeded by Cechous, in whose time Apis and Mnevis and the Mendesian goat were worshipped as gods.
-Next came Biophis, in whose reign it was decreed by law that women might hold the royal office.
-In the reigns of the three succeeding kings, no notable event occurred.
-Under the seventh king fabulists tell how the river Nile flowed with honey as well as water for 11 days.
-Next, Sesochris ruled for 48 years: he is said to have been 5 cubits high and 3 palms broad.53
-Finally, under the ninth king no memorable event occurred.

These kings reigns for 297 years.

3rd Dynasty III

Fr. 11 (from Syncellus). The Account of Africanus.

The Third Dynasty​54 comprised nine kings of Memphis.

1. Necherôphês, for 28 years. In his reign the Libyans revolted against Egypt, and when the moon waxed beyond reckoning, they surrendered in terror.
2. Tosorthros,​55 for 29 years. <In his reign lived Imuthês,>​56 who because of his medical skill has the reputation of Asclepios among the  p43 Egyptians, and who was the inventor of the art of building with hewn stone. He also devoted attention to writing.
3. Tyreis (or Tyris), for 7 years.
4. Mesôchris, for 17 years.
5. Sôÿphis, for 16 years.
6. Tosertasis, for 19 years.
7. Achês, for 42 years.
8. Sêphuris, for 30 years.
9. Kerpherês, for 26 years.

Total, 214 years.

Total for the first three dynasties, according to Africanus, 769 years.

Fr. 12 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Third Dynasty consisted of eight kings of Memphis:

1. Necherôchis, in whose reign the Libyans revolted against Egypt, and when the moon waxed beyond reckoning, they surrendered in terror.
2. He was succeeded by Sesorthos . . . : he was styled Asclepios in Egypt because of his medical skill. He was also the inventor of the art of building with hewn stone, and devoted attention to writing as well.

The remaining six kings achieved nothing worthy of mention. These eight kings reigned for 198 years.

Total for the first three dynasties, according to Eusebius, 747 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Third Dynasty consisted of eight kings of Memphis:

-Necherochis, in whose reign the Libyans revolted against Egypt: later when the moon waxed unseasonably, they were terrified and returned to their allegiance.
-Next came Sosorthus . . .: he was styled Aesculapius by the Egyptian because of his medical skill. He was also the inventor of building with hewn stone; and in addition he devoted care to the writing of books.

The six remaining kings did nothing worthy of mention. The reigns of the whole dynasty amount to 197 years.

4th Dynasty IV

Fr. 14 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Fourth Dynasty​57 comprised eight kings of Memphis, belonging to a different line:

1. Sôris, for 29 years.
2. Suphis [I], for 63 years. He reared the Great Pyramid,​58 which Herodotus says was built by Cheops. Suphis conceived a contempt for the gods: he also composed the Sacred Book, which I acquired in my visit to Egypt​59 because of its high renown.
3. Suphis [II], for 66 years.
4. Mencherês, for 63 years.
5. Ratoisês, for 25 years.
6. Bicheris, for 22 years.
7. Sebercherês, for 7 years.
8. Thamphthis, for 9 years.

Total, 277 years.60

Total for the first four dynasties [after the Flood], 1046 years according to Africanus.

Fr. 15 (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Fourth Dynasty comprised seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different royal line.

Of these the third was Suphis, the builder of the Great Pyramid, which Herodotus says was built by Cheops. Suphis conceived a contempt for the gods, but repenting of this, he composed the Sacred Book, which the Egyptians hold in high esteem.

Of the remaining kings no achievement worthy of mention has been recorded.

This dynasty reigned for 448 years.

Total for the first four dynasties [after the Flood], 1195 years according to Eusebius.

Fr. 16 Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Fourth Dynasty consisted of seventeen kings of Memphis belonging to a different royal line. The third of these kings, Suphis, was the builder of the Great Pyramid, which Herodotus declares to have been built by Cheops. Suphis behaved arrogantly towards the gods themselves: then, in penitence, he composed the Sacred Book in which the Egyptians believe they possess a great treasure. Of the remaining kings nothing worthy of mention is recorded in history. The reigns of the whole dynasty amount to 448 years.

5th Dynasty V

Fr. 18 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Fifth Dynasty​61 was composed of eight kings of Elephantine:

1. Usercherês, for 28 years.
2. Sephrês, for 13 years.
3. Nephercherês, for 20 years.
4. Sisirês, for 7 years.
5. Cherês, for 20 years.
6. Rathurês, for 44 years.
7. Mencherês, for 9 years.
8. Tancherês (? Tatcherês), for 44 years.
9. Onnus, for 33 years.

Total, 248 years.62

Along with the aforementioned 1046 years of the first four dynasties, this amounts to 1294 years.

Fr. 19 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Fifth Dynasty consisted of thirty‑one kings of Elephantine. Of these the first was Othoês,​63 who was murdered by his bodyguard.

 p53 The fourth king, Phiôps, succeeding when six years old, reigned until his hundredth year. Thus, along with the aforementioned 1195 years of the first four dynasties, this amounts to 1295 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Fifth Dynasty consisted of thirty‑one kings of Elephantine. Of these the first was Othius, who was killed by his attendants. The fourth king was Phiôps, who held the royal office from his sixth​64 right down to his hundredth year.

6th Dynasty VI

Fr. 20 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Sixth Dynasty​65 consisted of six kings of Memphis:

1. Othoês, for 30 years: he was murdered by his bodyguard.
2. Phius, for 53 years.
3. Methusuphis, for 7 years.
4. Phiôps, who began to reign at the age of six, and continued until his hundredth year.​66
5. Menthesuphis, for 1 year.
6. Nitôcris,​67 the noblest and loveliest of the women of her time, of fair complexion, the builder of the third pyramid, reigned for 12 years.

Total, 203 years.​68 Along with the aforementioned 1294 years of the first five dynasties, this amounts to 1497 years.

Fr. 21 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Sixth Dynasty.

There was a queen Nitôcris, the noblest and loveliest of the women of her time; she had a fair complexion, and is said to have built the third pyramid.

 p57 These rulers (or this ruler) reigned for three years: in another copy, 203 years. Along with the aforementioned 1295 years of the first five dynasties, this amounts to 1498 years.

(Syncellus adds:) It must be noted how much less accurate Eusebius is than Africanus in the number of kings he gives, in the omission of names, and in dates, although he practically repeats the account of Africanus in the same words.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Sixth Dynasty. There was a queen Nitôcris, braver than all the men of her time, the most beautiful of all the women, fair-skinned with red cheeks. By her, it is said, the third pyramid was reared, with the aspect of a mountain.

The united reigns of all the kings amount to 203 years.

7th Dynasty VII

Fr. 23 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Seventh Dynasty​69 consisted of seventy kings of Memphis, who reigned for 70 days.

Fr. 24 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Seventh Dynasty consisted of five kings of Memphis, who reigned for 75 days.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Seventh Dynasty consisted of five kings of Memphis, who held sway for 75 days.

8th Dynasty VIII

Fr. 25 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Eighth Dynasty​70 consisted of twenty-seven kings of Memphis, who reigned for 146 years. Along with the aforementioned reigns, this amounts to 1639 years for the first eight dynasties.

Fr. 25 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Eighth Dynasty consisted of five kings of Memphis, who reigned for 100 years. Along with the aforementioned reigns, this amounts to 1598 years for the first eight dynasties.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Eighth Dynasty consisted of five​71 kings of Memphis, whose rule lasted for 100 years.

9th Dynasty IX

Fr. 27 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Ninth Dynasty​72 consisted of nineteen kings of Hêracleopolis, who reigned for 409 years. The first of these, King Achthoês,​73 behaving more cruelly than his predecessors, wrought woes for the people of all Egypt, but afterwards he was smitten with madness, and was killed by a crocodile.74

Fr. 28 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Ninth Dynasty consisted of four kings of Hêracleopolis, who reigned for 100 years. The first of these, King Achthô ês, behaving more cruelly than his predecessors, wrought woes for the people of all Egypt, but afterwards he was smitten with madness, and was killed by a crocodile.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Ninth Dynasty consisted of four kings of Heracleopolis, reigning for 100 years. The first of these, King Ochthôis,​75 was more cruel than all his  p63 predecessors, and visited the whole of Egypt with dire disasters. Finally, he was seized with madness and devoured by a crocodile.

10th Dynasty X

Fr. 29 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Tenth Dynasty consisted of nineteen kings of Hêracleopolis, who reigned for 185 years.

Fr. 30 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Tenth Dynasty consisted of nineteen kings of Hêracleopolis, who reigned for 185 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Tenth Dynasty consisted of nineteen kings of Hêracleopolis, who reigned for 185 years.

11th Dynasty XI

Fr. 31 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Eleventh Dynasty​76 consisted of sixteen kings of Diospolis [or Thebes], who reigned for 43 years. In succession to these, Ammenemês​77 ruled for 16 years.

Here ends the First Book of Manetho.

Total for the reigns of 192 kings, 2300 years 70 days.

Fr. 32 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Eleventh Dynasty consisted of sixteen kings of Diospolis [or Thebes], who reigned for 43 years. In succession to these, Ammenemês ruled for 16 years.

Here ends the First Book of Manetho.

Total for the reigns of 192 kings, 2300 years 79 days.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Eleventh Dynasty consisted of sixteen kings of Diospolis [or Thebes], who reigned for 43 years. In succession to these, Ammenemes ruled for 16 years.

Here ends the First Book of Manetho.

Total for the reigns of 192 kings, 2300 years.

The Editor’s Notes:

1 The Pre‑dynastic Period begins with a group of gods, “consisting of the Great Ennead of Heliopolis in the form in which it was worshipped at Memphis” (T. E. Peet, Cambridge Ancient History, I p250). After summarizing §§ 1‑3 Peet adds: “From the historical point of view there is little to be made of this”. See Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums5, I.ii p102 f. for the Egyptian traditions of the Pre‑dynastic Period. In the Turin Papyrus the Gods are given in the same order: (Ptah), Rê, (Shu), Geb, Osiris, Sêth (200 years), Horus (300 years), Thoth (3126 years), MaꜤat, Har, . . . Total . . . . See Meyer, Aeg. Chron. p116, and cf. Fr. 3.

2 The name Bydis (or Bites) seems to be the Egyptian bı͗ty 𓆤𓏏𓀭 “king” (from bı͗t 𓆤𓏏𓏤 “bee”), the title of the kings of Lower Egypt: see the Palermo Stone, and cf. Herodotus, IV.155, “the Libyans call their king ‘Battos’ ” (P. E. Newberry). Bitys appears in late times as a translator or interpreter of Hermetical writings: see Iamblich. De Mysteriis, VIII.5 (= Scott, Hermetica, IV p34) where the prophet Bitys is said to have translated [for King Ammôn] a book (The Way to Higher Thingsi.e. a treatise on the theurgic or supernatural means of attaining to union with the Demiurgus) which he found inscribed in hieroglyphs in a shrine at Saïs in Egypt. Cf. the pseudo-Manetho, App. I.

3 There is no evidence that the Egyptian year was ever equal to a month: there were short years (each of 360 days) and long years (see Fr. 49).

4 See Excerpta Latina Barbari (Fr. 4) for the beginning of this dynasty: “First, Anubis . . .”.

5 Corroborated by the Turin Papyrus, Col. II: “of Memphis”.

6 “Demigods” should be in apposition to “Spirits of the Dead” (νέκυες ἡμίθεοι), as in Excerpta Latina Barbari (Fr. 4) and Africanus (Fr. 6. 1). These are perhaps the Shemsu Hor 𓅃𓌞𓋴𓂻𓏥, the Followers or Worshippers of Horus, of the Turin Papyrus: see H. R. Hall, Cambridge Ancient History, I p265. Before King Mênês (Fr. 6), the king of Upper Egypt who imposed his sway upon the fertile Delta and founded the First Dynasty, — the Shemsu Hor, the men of the Falcon Clan whose original home was in the West Delta, had formed an earlier united kingdom by conquering Upper Egypt: see V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East, 1934, p8,º based upon Breasted, Bull. Instit. Franç. Arch. Or. XXX (Cairo, 1930), pp710 ff., and Schäfer’s criticism, Orient. Literaturz. 1932, p704.

7 The exact total of the items given is 11,025 years. So also 24,900 infra is a round number for 24,925.

8 Boeckh, Manetho und die Hundssternperiode, , corrects this to 2046.

9 Mestraïm: the Mizraïm of O. T. Genesis x.6: Arabic Miṣrun, Cuneiform Muṣri, Miṣri (Egypt). Mizraïm is a dual name-form, perhaps to be explained in reference to the two great native divisions of Egypt, Upper and Lower.

10 For the contemporaneous existence of a number of petty kingdoms in Egypt, see the Piankhi stele, Breasted, Ancient Records, IV §§ 830, 878, and the passage from Artapanus, Concerning the Jews, quoted on n. 3. T. Nicklin (in his Studies in Egyptian Chronology, 1928‑29, p39) says: “The Manethonian Dynasties are not lists of rulers over all Egypt, but lists partly of more or less independent princes, partly of princely lines from which later sprang rulers over all Egypt. (Cf. the Scottish Stuarts, or the Electors of Hanover.) Some were mere Mayors of the Palace or princelets maintaining a precarious independence, or even more subordinate Governors of nomes, from whom, however, descended subsequent monarchs. (Cf. the Heptarchy in England.)”

11 This passage follows after Appendix I, p210.

12 Panodôrus (fl. 395‑408 A.D.) and his contemporary Annianus were Egyptian monks who wrote on Chronology with the purpose of harmonizing Chaldean and Egyptian systems with that of the Jews. Panodôrus used (and perhaps composed) the Book of Sôthis (App. IV).

13 Ἐγρήγοροι, “Watchers, Angels” — in Enoch, 179, of the angels who fell in love with the daughters of men. The Greek word Ἐγρήγοροι is a mispronunciation of the Aramaic word used in Enoch, 179.

14 See Intro. p. xxviii.º

15 Total, 969 years.

16 Total, 214 years. Total for Gods and Demigods, 1183 years. See Fr. 2.

17 This extract made by an anonymous and ignorant scribe depends chiefly upon Africanus. See Weill, La fin du moyen empire égyptien, pp640642 f.655 f. Gelzer and Bauer have inferred that the Greek account translated by Barbarus was either the work of the Egyptian monk Annianus (see Fr. 2, p11 n. 2) or at least a source derived from him (Laqueur, R.‑E. XIV.1, 1081).

18 For the divinity Tithoês in two inscriptions of Coptos, see O. Guéraud in Ann. Serv. Antiq., 35 (1935), pp5 f.

19 The actual total of the items given is 1150 years.

20 The translation follows the restored Greek original: see note 3 on the text.

21 Apiôn the grammarian, born in Upper Egypt, lived at Rome in the time of Tiberius, Gaius, and Claudius: Tiberius called him by the nickname of “cymbalum mundi”.​* As leader of the anti-Jewish movement, Apiôn was later attacked by Josephus in his Contra Apionem.

The quotation from Apiôn appears to derive in part from the History of Ptolemy of Mendês: see Tatian, Or. adversus Graecos, § 38, in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, VI.880‑882, and in Müller, F. H. G. IV p485 (quoted in F. H. G. II p533). (Ptolemy of Mendês dated the Exodus to the reign of Amôsis, who was contemporary with Inachus. Apiôn in the fourth volume of his Aegyptiaca (in five volumes) stated that Auaris was destroyed by Amôsis.) Much matter must have been common to the works of Ptolemy of Mendês and Apiôn: cf. Africanus in Eusebius, Praepar. Evang. X.10, “Apiôn says that in the time of Inachus Moses led out the Jews”. Cf. Fr. 52, 153, 9.

* Thayer’s Note: Pliny, Nat. Hist. praef. 25.

22 The founder of the First Dynasty of kings of Argos, Inachus is said to have died twenty generations before the Fall of Troy, i.e. circa 1850 B.C. Aegyptus and Danaus were fifth in descent from Inachus: cf. Fr. 50, § 102.

23 This appears to be the length of the reign of Amôsis, not of Inachus. Cf. Fr. 52, 1, where Africanus as recorded by Syncellus omits the number of years.

24 The totals given by Barbarus are generally those of Africanus. Barbarus omits Manetho’s Dynasty VII; and Potestas X is explained by Gelzer (Sextus Julius Africanus, p199) as being Manetho’s X + XI + Ammenemes (16 years) = 244 years. Total, 2300.

25 The actual total of the items given is 2260 years.

26 Potestas XI is Manetho’s Dynasty XII. Barbarus therefore gives Dynasties XII‑XVIII: the totals (corrected by Meyer, Aeg. Chron. 99, n. 2) are — XII. 160, XIII. 453, XIV. 184, XV. 284, XVI. 518, XVII. 151, XVIII. 262 (+ XIX. 209). Sum total for Book II, 2221 years; cf. Fr. 55 Africanus, 56 Eus. (Arm.), 2121 years.

The names of Potestates XII‑XVII, or Dynasties XIII‑XVIII, come from some other source than Manetho: the Tanites of Potestas XIII or Dynasty XIV appear to correspond with the Hyksôs, just as in the Book of Sôthis (App. IV); while others may be local dynasties of the Hyksôs age. The kings of Hermupolis (Potestas XVII) apparently denote the kings of the Eighteenth Dynasty, whose names indicate the cult of the Moon-deities ʾIoḥ and Thôth of Hermupolis (Meyer, Gesch.5 I.ii. p326).

27 The actual total of the items given is 1420 years.

28 4407 codd.

29 Palaephatus of Egypt, or Athens, wrote on Egyptian theology and mythology, c. 200 B.C., — more than seven centuries earlier than Malalas himself (c. A.D. 491‑578).

30 See p7 n. 2.

31 Nectanabô or Nectanebus, the last king of Dynasty XXX.

32 Arphaxad, son of Shem: O. T. Genesis x.22. “Arphaxad” is probably a Mesopotamian name (W. F. Albright, The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible2, 1932‑3, p139).

33 N. T. Luke iii.36.

34 Eusebius reckoned 2242 years from Adam to the Flood, and 942 years from the Flood to Abraham.

35 Dynasties I and II, the Thinites: c. 3200-c. 2780 B.C.

Note. — The dates which have been adopted throughout this book are those of Eduard Meyer, except where another authority is specified. Meyer’s revised dates (as in Die Älter Chronologie . . ., 1931) may conveniently be found in G. Steindorff’s chapter on Ancient History in Baedeker8, pp. ci ff. In the Cambridge Ancient History, vol. I, H. R. Hall gives for the dynasties a series of dates which differ from those of Breasted and the German School: he assigns earlier dates to the first twelve dynasties, e.g. Dynasty I c. 3500 B.C. A. Scharff, on the other hand, dates the beginning of Dynasty I c. 3000 B.C. (Journ. of Eg. Arch. XIV, 1928, pp275 f.).

Dynasty I. For the identifications of Manetho’s kings with monumental and other evidence, see Meyer, Geschichte des Altertums5, I.ii p140: he identifies (1) Mênês, (2) Atoti I, II, III, (5) Usaphaïs, (6) Miebis.

(3) Kenkenês and (5) Usaphaïs are two names of the same king: see Newberry and Wainwright, “King Udymu (Den) and the Palermo Stone” in Ancient Egypt, 1914, p148 ff.

36 On Mênês (c. 3200 B.C.) see P. E. Newberry in Winifred Brunton’s Great Ones of Ancient Egypt, 1929: Min in Herodotus, II.4.

37 This (Anc. Egyptian Theny), near Girga, about 310 miles S. of Cairo (Baedeker8, p231), the capital of the nome of This, and the seat of the First and Second Dynasties. The cemetery of the First Dynasty kings was near Abydos: see Petrie, Royal Tombs, I and II, and Baedeker8, p260.

38 For a representation of a king fighting with a hippopotamus, see a seal-impression in Petrie, Royal Tombs, II.vii.6; and for a hippopotamus-hunt, see a year-name of Udymu, Schäfer, Palermo Stone, p20, No. 8.

With the whole story, cf. the miraculous deliverance of Mênas by a crocodile in Diodorus Siculus, I.89.

39 Building of palace at Memphis — by Min or Mênês, Herodotus, II.99Josephus, Ant. VIII.6.2 (155); by his son Athôthis, says Manetho; by Uchoreus, Diod. I.50.

40 For the later study of anatomy (including, perhaps, the practice of vivisection) by kings of Ptolemaic Egypt, see G. Lumbroso, Glossarios.v. Ἀνατομική.

41 Kôchômê has been identified with Sakkâra, and excavations carried out there in the Archaic Cemetery from 1935 by W. B. Emery (assisted by Zaki Saad) have gone far to confirm Manetho. Several tombs which date from the First Dynasty were discovered at Sakkâra in 1937 and 1938. One of these, the tomb of Nebetka under the 5th king of Dynasty I, was found to contain in its interior a stepped-pyramid construction of brickwork: during the building the form of the tomb was altered to a palace-façade mastaba.

42a 42b These forms are really the genitives of the names Usaphaïs and Miebis.

43 The actual total of the items given in 263 years.

44 The version (transmitted to us by Syncellus) which Eusebius gives of the Epitome of Manetho shows considerable differences from Africanus, both in the names of kings and in the length of their reigns. Peet (Egypt and the Old Testament, pp25 f.), says: “The astonishing variations between their figures are an eloquent testimony to what may happen to numbers in a few centuries through textual corruption.” Petrie (History of Egypt, I p. viii) compares the corruptions in such late Greek chronicles as those of the Ptolemies (c. 5c A.D.).

45 The actual total of the items given is 258 years.

46 See note 2 on the text.

47 Karst gives 270 years as the total transmitted in the Armenian version. The total of the items as given above is 228 years.

48 Dynasty II — to c. 2780 B.C. For identifications with the Monuments, etc., see Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p146; he identifies (1) Boêthos, (2) Kaiechôs or Kechôus, (3) Binôthris, (4) Tlas, (5) Sethenês, (7) Nephercherês, (8) Sesôchris. For (1) to (5), see G. A. Reisner, The Development of the Egyptian Tomb, 1936, p123.

49 Bubastus or Bubastis (Baedeker8, p181), near Zagazig in the Delta: Anc. Egyptian Per‑Baste 𓉐𓏤𓎰𓏏𓏏, the Pi‑beseth of Ezekiel xxx.17. See also Herodotus, II.60137 f. The kings of Dynasty XXII resided at Bubastis.

Earthquakes have always been rare in Egypt (Euseb., Chron. Graec. p42, l. 25; Pliny, H. N. II.82; but Bubastis is situated in an unstable region: see H. G. Lyons in Cairo Scientific Journal, I (1907), p182. It stands on an earthquake line, which runs to Crete. A deep boring made at Bubastis failed to reach rock.

50 The worship of Apis is earlier even than Dynasty II: see Palermo Stone, Schäfer, p21, No. 12 (in reign of Udymu). For Apis, see Herodotus, II.153, and Diod. Sic. I.84, 85 (where all three animals are mentioned). The goat was a cult animal in very early times: cf. Herodotus, II.46.

51 No queens’ names are recorded in the Royal Lists of Abydos and Karnak. Herodotus (II.100) records one queen: Diod. Sic. I.44 (from Hecataeus) reckons the number of Egyptian queens as five.

52 The stature of each king is said to be noted in the records mentioned by Diodorus Siculus, Diod. Sic. I.44.4Cf. infraFr. 35, No. 3App. II No. 6 (p216).

53 For this absurd perversion of the Greek words, see p36 n. 1: πλάτος was added, perhaps as a corruption of παλαιστῶν, and replaced μέγεθος in the Greek version of Eusebius.

54 The Old Kingdom, Dynasties III‑V: c. 2780-c. 2420 B.C.

Dynasty III, c. 2780-c. 2720 B.C. For identifications with monumental and other evidence, see Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p174: he identifies (2) Tosorthos (Zoser I — “the Holy”), and holds that (1) Necherôphês is one name of KhaꜤsekhemui, (6) Tosertasis may be Zoser II Atoti, and (9) Kerpherês may be NeferkerêꜤ II.

55 Zoser was not the first builder with hewn stone: his predecessor, KhaꜤsekhemui, used squared blocks of limestone for building purposes; see Petrie, Royal Tombs, II p13. Granite blocks had already formed the floor of the tomb of Udymu (Dynasty I).

Two tombs of Zoser are known: (1) a mastaba at Bêt Khallâf near This (Baedeker8, p231), see J. Garstang, Mahâsna and Bêt Khallâf; and (2) the famous Step Pyramid at Sakkâra, which was the work of the great architect Imhotep (Baedeker8, p156 f.).

56 If the emendation in the text be not accepted, the statement would surely be too inaccurate to be attributed to Manetho. The Egyptian Asclepios was Imouth or Imhotep of Memphis, physician and architect to King Zoser, afterwards deified: on Philae (now for the most part submerged) Ptolemy II Philadelphus built a little temple to Imhotep. See Sethe, Untersuchungen, II.4 (1902): J. B. Hurry, Imhotep (Oxford, 1926).

One of the Oxyrhynchus Papyri, edited by Grenfell and Hunt, P. Oxy. XI.1381, of the 2c A.D., has for its subject the eulogy of Imuthês-Asclepius: the fragment preserved is part of the prelude. See G. Manteuffel, De Opusculis Graecis Aegypti e papyris, ostracis, lapidibusque collectis, 1930, No. 3.

57 Dynasty IV, c. 2720-c. 2560 B.C. For identifications with monumental and other evidence, see Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p181: he identifies (1) Sôris (Snofru), (2) Suphis I (Cheops, Khufu), then after DedefreꜤ (not mentioned by Manetho), (3) Suphis II (Chephren), (4) Mencherês (Mycerinus), and finally (an uncertain identification), (7) Sebercherês (Shepseskaf). For (3) Chephren and (4) Mycerinus, Diodorus I.64 gives the good variants (3) Chabryês and (4) Mencherinus. On the Chronology of Dynasty IV, see Reisner, Mycerinus (cf. infra, note 2), pp243 ff. Reisner reads the name Dedefrê in the form Radedef, and identifies it with Ratoisês.

The Greek tales of the oppression of Egypt by Cheops and Chephren, etc., are believed to be the inventions of dragomans. Cf. Herodotus, II.124 (contempt for the gods), 129 (Mycerinus), with How and Wells’s notes.º Africanus has, moreover, acquired as a treasure the “sacred book” of Cheops.

58 On the Pyramids of Giza, see Baedeker8, pp133 ff.; Noel F. Wheeler, “Pyramids and their Purpose,” Antiquity, 1935, pp5‑21, 161‑189, 292‑304; and for the fourth king of Dynasty IV see G. A. Reisner, Mycerinus: The Temples of the Third Pyramid at Giza, 1931. Notwithstanding their colossal dimensions and marvellous construction, the Pyramids have not escaped detraction: Frontinus (De Aquis, I.16) contrasts “the idle pyramids” with “the indispensable structures” of the several aqueducts at Rome; and Pliny (H. N. 36, 8, § 75) finds in the pyramids “an idle and foolish ostentation of royal wealth”. But the pyramids have, at any rate, preserved the names of their builders, especially Cheops, to all future ages, although, as Sir Thomas Browne characteristically wrote (Urn‑Burial, Chap. 5): “To . . . be but pyramidally extant is a fallacy of duration” . . . “Who can but pity the founder of the Pyramids?” The modern Egyptologist says: “The Great Pyramid is the earliest and most impressive witness . . . to the final emergence of organized society from prehistoric chaos and local conflict” (J. H. Breasted, History of Egypt, p119).

59 Africanus went from Palestine to Alexandria, attracted by the renown of the philosopher Heraclas, Bishop of Alexandria: see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI.31, 2.

Thayer’s Note: also, if much later and possibly derivative, Bede, Chronicle, A. M. 4197.

60 The MS. A gives as total 274: the items add to 284.

61 Dynasty V c. 2560-c. 2420 B.C. For identifications with monumental and other evidence, see Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p203: his list runs (1) Userkaf, (2) SahurêꜤ, (3) NefererkerêꜤ Kakai, (4) NefrefrêꜤ or ShepseskerêꜤ, (5) KhaꜤneferrêꜤ, (6) NeweserrêꜤ Ini, (7) Menkeuhor (Akeuhor), (8) DedkerêꜤ Asosi, (9) Unas.

62 The items total 218 years; but if the reign of Othoês, the first king of Dynasty VI is added, the total will then be 248 years.

63 In the chronology of Eusebius, Dynasty V is suppressed: the kings whom he mentions belong to Dynasty VI.

64 Karst translates the Armenian as referring to the sixtieth year — “began to rule at the age of 60”; but Aucher’s Armenian test has the equivalent of sexennis, “six years old” (Margoliouth).

65 Dynasties VI‑VIII, the last Memphites, c. 2420-c. 2240 B.C. Dynasty VI Meyer (Geschichte5, I.ii p236) identifies as follows: (1) Othoês (Teti or Atoti), then after UserkerêꜤ, (2) Phius (Pepi I), (3) Methusuphis (MerenrêꜤ I), (4) Phiôps (Pepi II), (5) Menthesuphis (MerenrêꜤ II), (6) Nitôcris. Sethe (Sesostris, p3) draws attention to the intentional differentiation of the same family-name — Phius for Pepi I, Phiôps for Pepi II; so also (3) Methusuphis and (5) Menthesuphis, and cf. infra on Psametik in Dynasty XXVI. Are these variations due to Manetho or to his source?

66 The remarkable descriptions of social disorganization and anarchy, addressed to an aged king in the Leiden Papyrus of Ipuwer and known as The Admonitions of an Egyptian Sage, are, according to Erman, to be associated with the end of this reign: see A. Erman, “Die Mahnworte eines ägyptischen Propheten” in Sitz. der preuss. Akad. der Wissenschaften, XLII, 1919, p813.

67 Nitôcris is doubtless the Neit‑oḳre(t)𓈖𓏏𓏯𓇋𓈎𓂋𓏏𓏭𓅆of the Turin Papyrus: the name means “Neith is Excellent” (cf. App. II Eratosthenes, No. 22, Ἀθηνᾶ νικηφόρος), and was a favourite name under the Saïte Dynasty (Dyn. XXVI), which was devoted to the worship of Neith. See Herodotus, II.100134Diod. Sic. I.64.14 (if Rhodôpis is to be identified with Nitôcris), Strabo 17.1.33 (a Cinderella-like story), Pliny, N. H. 36.12.78, and G. A. Wainwright, Sky‑Religion, pp41 ff.

A queen’s reign ending the Dynasty is followed by a period of confusion, just as after Dyn. XII, when Queen Scemiophris (SebeknofrurêꜤ) closes the line: cf. perhaps, in Dyn. IV, Thamphthis, of whom nothing is known.

In 1932 Professor Selim Hassan discovered at Giza the tomb of Queen Khentkawes, a tomb of monumental dimensions, the so‑called fourth or “false” pyramid. Khentkawes was the daughter of Mycerinus; and, disregarding the chronological difficulty, H. Junker, in Mitteilungen des Deutschen Instituts für Ägyptische Altertumskunde in Kairo, III.2 (1932), pp144‑149, put forward the theory that the name Nitôcris is derived from Khentkawes, and that Manetho refers here to the so‑called fourth pyramid, which merits the description (Fr. 21 (b)), — “with the aspect of a mountain”. See further B. van de Walle in L’Antiquité Classique, 3 (1934), pp303‑312.

68 The correct total is 197 years: the reign of Phiôps is reckoned at 100, instead of 94 years (the Turin Papyrus gives 90 + x years).

69 Dynasty VII — a mere interregnum, or period of confusion until one king gained supreme power.

70 Dynasty VIII, according to Barbarus (Fr. 4) fourteen kings for 140 years: according to Meyer, probably eighteen kings who reigned for 146 years.

“The Turin Papyrus closes the first great period of Egyptian history at the end of what appears to be Manetho’s VIIIth Dynasty (the last Memphites)”: it reckons 955 years from Dynasty I to Dynasties VII and VIII. (H. R. Hall in C. A. H. I pp298, 170). See A. Scharff in J. Eg. Arch. XIV, 1928, p275.

71 So Aucher, Petermann, and Karst.

72 Dynasties IX and X c. 2240-c. 2100 B.C. — two series of nineteen kings, both from Hêracleopolis (Baedeker8, p218), near the modern village of Ahnâsia (Ancient Egyptian Hat‑nen-nesut {  𓉗𓏏𓉐𓇓𓀔𓈖𓈖𓏏𓊖}), 77 miles S. of Cairo, c. 9 miles S. of the entrance to the Fayûm.

The Turin Papyrus gives eighteen kings for Dynasties IX and X as opposed to Manetho’s thirty-eight.

Manetho’s account of Dynasty IX is best preserved by Africanus. Barbarus has almost the same figures — twenty kings for 409 years.

73 Achthoês: in the Turin Papyrus Akhtôi (Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p247 — three kings of this name). Meyer conjectures that the “cruelty” of Achthoês may be violent or forcible oppression of the feudal nobility.

74 Cf. p28 n. 2.

75 Okhthovis (Petermann’s translation), -ov- representing the long o.

76 The Middle Kingdom, Dynasties XI‑XIII: c. 2100-c. 1700 B.C.

Dynasty XI (c. 2100-c. 2000 B.C.) with its seat at Thebes; sixteen kings of Thebes ruling for only 43 years (Manetho): Turin Papyrus gives six kings with more than 160 years.

77 Ammenemês is Amenemhêt I: see pp66 f., nn. 1, 2.

Book II

12th Dynasty XII

Fr. 34 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

From the Second Book of Manetho.

The Twelfth Dynasty​1 consisted of seven kings of Diospolis.

1. Sesonchosis, son of Ammanemês, for 46 years.
2. Ammanemês, for 38 years: he was murdered by his own eunuchs.​2
3. Sesôstris, for 48 years: in nine years he subdued the whole of Asia, and Europe as far as Thrace, everywhere erecting memorials of  p69 his conquest of the tribes.​3 Upon stelae [pillars] he engraved for a valiant race the secret parts of a man, for an ignoble race those of a woman.​4 Accordingly he was esteemed by the Egyptians as the next in rank to Osiris.
4. Lacharês (Lamarês),​5 for 8 years: he built the Labyrinth​6 in the Arsinoïte nome as his own tomb.
5. Amerês, for 8 years.
6. Ammenemês, for 8 years.
7. Scemiophris, his sister, for 4 years.

Total, 160 years.

Fr. 35 (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

From the Second Book of Manetho.

The twelfth Dynasty consisted of seven kings of Diospolis. The first of these, Sesonchosis, son of Ammenemês, reigned for 46 years.

1. Ammanemês, for 38 years: he was murdered by his own eunuchs.
2. Sesôstris, for 48 years: he is said to have been 4 cubits 3 palms 2 fingers’ breadths in stature. In nine years he subdued the whole of Asia, and Europe as far as Thrace, everywhere erecting memorials of his conquest of the tribes. Upon stelae [pillars] he engraved for a valiant race the secret parts of a man, for an ignoble race those of a woman. Accordingly he was esteemed by the Egyptians as the next in rank to Osiris.

Next to him Lamaris reigned for 8 years: he built the Labyrinth in the Arsinoïte nome as his own tomb.

His successors ruled for 42 years, and the reigns of the whole dynasty amounted to 245 years.7

Fr. 36. Armenian Version of Eusebius.

From the Second Book of Manetho.

The Twelfth Dynasty consisted of seven kings of Diospolis. The first of these, Sesonchosis, son of Ammenemês, reigned for 46 years.

2. Ammenemês, for 38 years; he was murdered by his own eunuchs.
3. Sesôstris, for 48 years: he is said to have been 4 cubits 3 palms 2 fingers’ breadths in  p73 stature. In nine years he subdued the whole of Asia, and Europe as far as Thrace. Everywhere he set up memorials of his subjugation of each tribe: among valiant races he engraved upon pillars a man’s secret parts, among unwarlike races a woman’s, as a sign of disgrace.​8 Wherefore he was honoured by the Egyptians next to Osiris.

His successor, Lampares, reigned for 8 years: in the Arsinoïte nome he built the many-chambered​9 Labyrinth as his own tomb.

The succeeding kings ruled for 42 years.

Total for the whole dynasty, 245 years.

13th Dynasty XIII

Fr. 38º (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Thirteenth Dynasty​10 consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.

Fr. 39 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Thirteenth Dynasty consisted of sixty kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 453 years.

14th Dynasty XIV

Fr. 41 (a)º (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Fourteenth Dynasty​11 consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 184 years.

(b) According to Eusebius.

The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 184 years, — in another copy, 484 years.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Fourteenth Dynasty consisted of seventy‑six kings of Xoïs, who reigned for 484 years.

The Hyksôs Age, c. 1700-c. 1580 B.C.​12

Fr. 42 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.14, §§ 73‑92).

[Josephus is citing the records of neighbouring nations in proof of the antiquity of the Jews.]

73 I will begin with Egyptian documents. These I cannot indeed set before you in their ancient form; but in Manetho we have a native Egyptian who which was manifestly imbued with Greek culture. He wrote in Greek the history of his nation, translated, as he himself tells us, from sacred tablets;​13 and on many  p79 points of Egyptian history he convicts Herodotus​14 of having erred through ignorance. 74 In the second book of his History of Egypt, this writer Manetho speaks of us as follows. I shall quote his own words, just as if I had brought forward the man himself as a witness:15

75 “Tutimaeus.​16 In his reign, for what cause I know not, a blast of God smote us; and unexpectedly, from the regions of the East, invaders of obscure race marched in confidence of victory against our land. By main force they easily seized it without striking a blow;​17 76 and having overpowered the rulers of the land, they then burned our cities ruthlessly, razed to the ground the temples of the gods, and treated all the natives with a cruel hostility, massacring some and leading into slavery the wives and children of others. 77 Finally, they appointed as king one of their number whose name was  p81 Salitis.​18 He had his seat at Memphis, levying tribute from Upper and Lower Egypt, and always leaving garrisons behind in the most advantageous positions. Above all, he fortified the district to the east, foreseeing that the Assyrians,​19 as they grew stronger, would one day covet and attack his kingdom.

78 “In the Saïte [Sethroïte] nome​20 he found a city very favourably situated on the east of the Bubastite branch​21 of the Nile, and called Auaris​22 after an  p83 ancient religious tradition.​23 This place he rebuilt and fortified with massive walls, planting there a garrison of as many as 240,000 heavy-armed men to guard his frontier. 79 Here he would come in summer-time, partly to serve out rations and pay his troops, partly to train them carefully in manoeuvres and so strike terror into foreign tribes. 80 After reigning for 19 years, Salitis died; and a second king, named Bnôn,​24 succeeded and reigned for 44 years. Next to him came Apachnan, who ruled for 36 years and 7 months;​25 then Apôphis for 61, and Iannas for 50 years and 1 month; 81 then finally Assis for 49 years and 2 months. These six kings, their first rulers, were ever more and more eager to extirpate the Egyptian stock. 82 Their race as a whole was called  p85 Hyksôs,​26 that is ‘king-shepherds’: for hyk in the sacred language means ‘king’, and sôs in common speech is ‘shepherd’ or ‘shepherds’;​27 hence the compound word ‘Hyksôs’. Some say that they were Arabs.”​28

83 In another copy​29 the expression hyk, it is said, does not mean “kings”: on the contrary, the compound refers to “captive-shepherds”.​30 In Egyptian hyk, in fact, and hak when aspirated expressly denote “captives”.​31 This explanation seems to me the more convincing and more in keeping with ancient history.

84 These kings whom I have enumerated above, and their descendants, ruling over the so‑called Shepherds, dominated Egypt, according to Manetho, for 511  p87 years.​32 85 Thereafter, he says, there came a revolt of the kings of the Thebaïd and the rest of Egypt against the Shepherds, and a fierce and prolonged war broke out between them. 86 By a king whose name was Misphragmuthôsis,​33 the Shepherds, he says, were defeated, driven out of all the rest of Egypt, and confined in a region measuring within its circumference 10,000 arûrae,​34 by name Auaris. 87 According to Manetho, the Shepherds enclosed this whole area with a high, strong wall, in order to safeguard all their possessions and spoils. 88 Thummôsis, the son of Misphragmuthôsis (he continues), attempted by siege to force them to surrender, blockading the fortress with an army of 480,000 men. Finally, giving up the siege in despair, he concluded  p89 a treaty by which they should all depart from Egypt and go unmolested where they pleased. 89 On these terms the Shepherds, with their possessions and households complete, no fewer than 240,000 persons,​35 left Egypt and journeyed over the desert into Syria. 90 There, dreading the power of the Assyrians who were at that time masters of Asia, they built in the land now called Judaea a city large enough to hold all those thousands of people, and gave it the name of Jerusalem.36

91 In another book​37 of his History of Egypt Manetho says that this race of so‑called Shepherds is, in the sacred books of Egypt, described as “captives”; and his statement is correct. With our remotest ancestors, indeed, it was a hereditary custom to feed sheep; and as they lived a nomadic life, they were called Shepherds.​38 92 On the other hand, in the Egyptian records they were not unreasonably styled Captives, since our ancestor Joseph told the king of Egypt​39 that he was a captive, and later, with the  p91 king’s consent, summoned his brethren to Egypt. But I shall investigate this subject more fully in another place.40

15th Dynasty XV

Fr. 43 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.​41

The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherd Kings. There were six foreign kings from Phoenicia,​42 who seized Memphis: in the Sethroïte nome they founded a town, from which base they subdued Egypt.

-The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: the Saïte nome​43 is called after him.
2. Bnôn, for 44 years.
3. Pachnan [Apachnan], for 61 years.
4. Staan,​44 for 50 years.
5. Archlês,​45 for 49 years.
6. Aphôphis,​46 (Aphobis), for 61 years.

Total, 284 years.

Fr. 44 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Fifteenth Dynasty consisted of kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 250 years.

16th Dynasty XVI

Fr. 45 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Sixteenth Dynasty were Shepherd Kings again, 32 in number: they reigned for 518 years.47

Fr. 46 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Sixteenth Dynasty were kings of Thebes, 5 in number: they reigned for 190 years.

17th Dynasty XVII

Fr. 47 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Seventeenth Dynasty​48 were Shepherd Kings again, 43 in number, and kings of Thebes or Diospolis, 43 in number.

Total of the reigns of the Shepherd Kings and the Theban kings, 151 years.49

Fr. 48 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Seventeenth Dynasty were Shepherds and brothers:​50 they were foreign kings from Phoenicia, who seized Memphis.

The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: the Saïte nome​51 is called after him. These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt.

2. Bnôn, for 40 years.
3. Aphôphis, for 14 years.
-After him Archlês reigned for 30 years.

Total, 103 years.

It was in their time that Joseph was appointed king of Egypt.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Seventeenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherds, who were brothers​52 from Phoenicia and foreign kings: they seized Memphis. The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: from him, too, the Saïte nome​53 derived its name. These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town from which they made a raid and subdued Egypt.

The second king was Bnon, for 40 years.

Next, Archlês, for 30 years.

Aphophis, for 14 years.

Total, 103 years.

It was in their time that Joseph appears to have ruled in Egypt.54

Fr. 49 (from the Scholia to Plato).

Saïtic, of Saïs. From the Aegyptiaca of Manetho. The Seventeenth Dynasty consisted of Shepherds: they were brothers​55 from Phoenicia, foreign kings, who seized Memphis. The first of these kings, Saïtês, reigned for 19 years: the Saïte nome​56 is called after him. These kings founded in the Sethroïte nome a town, from which as a base they subdued Egypt.

The second of these kings, Bnôn, reigned for 40 years; the third, Archaês, for 30 years; and the fourth, Aphôphis, for 14 years. Total, 103 years.

Saïtês added 12 hours to the month, to make its length 30 days; and he added 6 days to the year, which thus comprised 365 days.57

18-19th Dynasties, XVIII,​58 XIX

Fr. 50 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.15, 16, §§ 93‑105) — (continued from Fr. 42).

93 For the present I am citing the Egyptians as witnesses to this antiquity of ours. I shall therefore resume my quotations from Manetho’s works in their reference to chronology. His account is as follows: 94 “After the departure of the tribe of the Shepherds from Egypt to Jerusalem, Tethmôsis,​59 the king who drove them out of Egypt, reigned for 25 years 4 months until his death, when he was succeeded by his son Chebrôn, who ruled for 13 years. 95 After him Amenôphis reigned for 20 years 7 months; then his sister Amessis for 21 years 9 months; then her son Mêphrês for 12 years 9 months; then his son Mêphramuthôsis for 25 years 10 months; 96 then his son Thmôsis for 9 years 8 months; then his son Amenôphis  p103 for 30 years 10 months;​60 then his son Ôrus for 36 years 5 months; then his daughter Acenchêrês for 12 years 1 month; then her brother Rathôtis for 9 years; 97 then his son Acenchêrês for 12 years 5 months, his son Acenchêrês II for 12 years 3 months, his son Harmaïs for 4 years 1 month, his son Ramessês for 1 year 4 months, his son Harmessês Miamûn​61 for 66 years 2 months, his son Amenôphis for 19 years 6 months, 98 and his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês,​62 whose power lay in his cavalry and his fleet. This king appointed his brother Harmaïs viceroy of Egypt, and invested him with all the royal prerogatives, except that he charged him not to wear a diadem, nor to wrong the queen, the mother of his children, and to refrain likewise from the royal concubines. 99 He then set out on an expedition against Cyprus and Phoenicia and later against the Assyrians and the  p105 Medes; and he subjugated them all, some by the sword, others without a blow and merely by the menace of his mighty host. In the pride of his conquests, he continued his advance with still greater boldness, and subdued the cities and lands of the East. 100 When a considerable time had elapsed, Harmaïs who had been left behind in Egypt, recklessly contravened all his brother’s injunctions. He outraged the queen and proceeded to make free with the concubines; then, following the advice of his friends, he began to wear a diadem and rose in revolt against his brother. 101 The warden of the priests of Egypt​63 then wrote a letter which he sent to Sethôsis, revealing all the details, including the revolt of his brother Harmaïs. Sethôsis forthwith returned to Pêlusium​64 and took possession of his kingdom;​65 102 and the land was named Aegyptus after him. It is said that Sethôs was called Aegyptus, and his brother Harmaïs, Danaus.”66

 p107 103 Such is Manetho’s account; and, if the time is reckoned according to the years mentioned, it is clear that the so‑called Shepherds, our ancestors, quitted Egypt and settled in our land 393 years​67 before the coming of Danaus to Argos. Yet the Argives regard Danaus as belonging to a remote antiquity.​68 104 Thus Manetho has given us evidence from Egyptian records upon two very important points: first, upon our coming to Egypt from elsewhere; and secondly, upon our departure from Egypt at a date so remote that it preceded the Trojan war​69 by wellnigh a thousand years.​70 105 As for the additions which Manetho has made, not from the Egyptian records, but, as he has himself admitted, from anonymous legendary tales,​71 I shall later refute them in detail, and show the improbability of his lying stories.

Fr. 51​72 (from Theophilus, Ad Autolyc. III.19).

Moses was the leader of the Jews, as I have already said, when they had been expelled from Egypt by  p109 King Pharaôh whose name was Tethmôsis. After the expulsion of the people, this king, it is said, reigned for 25 years 4 months, according to Manetho’s reckoning.

After him, Chebrôn ruled for 13 years.
After him, Amenôphis, for 20 years 7 months.
After him, his sister Amessê, for 21 years 1 month [9 months in Josephus]After her, Mêphrês, for 12 years 9 months.
After him, Mêphrammuthôsis, for 20 years [25 years in Josephus] 10 months.
After him, Tuthmôsês, for 9 years 8 months.
After him, Amenôphis, for 30 years 10 months.
After him, Ôrus, for 36 years 5 months.
Next, his daughter [Acenchêrês] reigned for 12 years 1 month.
After her, [Rathôtis, for 9 years.
After him, Acenchêrês, for 12 years 5 months.
After him, Ac]enchêrês [II], for 12 years 3 months.
His son Harmaïs, for 4 years 1 month.
After him, Ramessês for 1 year and 4 months.
After him, Ramessês Miammû(n), for 66 years 2 months.
After him, Amenôphis, for 19 years 6 months.
Then, his son Sethôs, also called Ramessês, for 10 years. He is said to have possessed a large force of cavalry and an organized fleet.

18th Dynasty XVIII

Fr. 52 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Eighteenth Dynasty​73 consisted of 16 kings of Diospolis.

-The first of these was Amôs, in whose reign Moses went forth from Egypt,​74 as I​75 here declare; but, according to the convincing evidence of the present calculation​76 it follows that in this reign Moses was still young.
-The second king of the Eighteenth Dynasty, according to Africanus, was Chebrôs, who reigned for 13 years.
-The third king, Amenôphthis,​77 reigned for 24 (21) years.
-The fourth king (queen), Amensis (Amersis), reigned for 22 years.
-The fifth, Misaphris, for 13 years.
-The sixth, Misphragmuthôsis, for 26 years: in his reign the flood of Deucalion’s time occurred.

Total, according to Africanus, down to the reign of Amôsis, also called Misphragmuthôsis, 69 years. Of the length of the reign of Amôs he said nothing at all.

7. Tuthmôsis, for 9 years.
8. Amenôphis, for 31 years. This is the king who was reputed to be Memnôn and a speaking statue.​78
9. Ôrus, for 37 years.
10. Acherrês,​79 for 32 years.
11. Rathôs, for 6 years.
12. Chebrês, for 12 years.
13. Acherrês, for 12 years.
14. Armesis, for 5 years.
15. Ramessês, for 1 year.
16. Amenôphath (Amenôph), for 19 years.

Total, 263 years.

Fr. 53 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Eighteenth Dynasty consisted of fourteen kings of Diospolis.

The first of these, Amôsis, reigned for 25 years.
2. The second, Chebrôn, for 13 years.
3. Ammenôphis, for 21 years.
4. Miphrês, for 12 years.
5. Misphragmuthôsis, for 26 years.

Total from Amôsis, the first king of this Eighteenth Dynasty, down to the reign of Misphragmuthôsis amounts, according to Eusebius, to 71 years; and there are five kings, not six. For he omitted the fourth king, Amensês, mentioned by Africanus and the others, and thus cut off the 22 years of his reign.

6. Tuthmôsis, for 9 years.
7. Amenôphis, for 31 years. This is the king who was reputed to be Memnôn and a speaking statue.​80
8. Ôrus, for 36 years (in another copy, 38 years).
9. Achenchersês [for 12 years].
[Athôris, for 39 years (? 9).][Cencherês] for 16 years.

About this time Moses led the Jews in their march out of Egypt. (Syncellus adds: Eusebius alone places in this reign the exodus of Israel under Moses, although no argument supports him, but all his predecessors hold a contrary view, as he testifies.)

10. Acherrês, for 8 years.
11. Cherrês, for 15 years.
12. Armaïs, also called Danaus, for 5 years: thereafter, he was banished from Egypt and, fleeing from his brother Aegyptus, he arrived in Greece, and, seizing Argos, he ruled over the Argives.
13. Ramessês, also called Aegyptus, for 68 years.
14. Ammenôphis, for 40 years.

Total, 348 years.

Eusebius assigns 85 years more than Africanus to the Eighteenth Dynasty. (Syncellus elsewhere says: Eusebius leaves out two kings, but adds 85 years, setting down 348 years instead of the 263 years of the reckoning of Africanus.)

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Eighteenth Dynasty consisted of fourteen kings of Diospolis. The first of these, Amoses, reigned for 25 years.

2. Chebron, for 13 years.
3. Amophis, for 21 years.
4. Memphres, for 12 years.
5. Mispharmuthosis, for 26 years.
6. Tuthmosis, for 9 years.
7. Amenophis, for 31 years. This is the king who was reputed to be Memnon, a speaking stone.
8. Orus, for 28 years.
9. Achencheres . . ., for 16 years. In his time Moses became leader of the Hebrews in their exodus from Egypt.
10. Acherres, for 8 years.
11. Cherres, for 15 years.
12. Armaïs, also called Danaus, for 5 years: at the end of this time he was banished from the land of Egypt. Fleeing from his brother Aegyptus, he escaped to Greece, and after capturing Argos, he held sway over the Argives.
13. Ramesses, also called Aegyptus, for 68 years.
14. Amenophis, for 40 years.

Total for the dynasty, 348 years.

Fr. 54 (from Josephus, Contra Apionem, I.26‑31, §§ 227‑287).

(Josephus discusses the calumnies of the Egyptians against the Jews, whom they hate.)

227 The first writer upon whom I shall dwell is one whom I used a little earlier as a witness to our antiquity. 228 I refer to Manetho. This writer, who had undertaken to translate the history of Egypt from the sacred books, began by stating that our ancestors came against Egypt with many tens of thousands and gained the mastery over the inhabitants; and then he himself admitted that at a later date again they were driven out of the country, occupied what is now Judaea, founded Jerusalem, and built the temple.​81 Up to this point he followed the chronicles: 229 thereafter,  p121 by offering to record the legends and current talk about the Jews, he took the liberty of interpolating improbable tales in his desire to confuse with us a crowd of Egyptians, who for leprosy and other maladies​82 had been condemned, he says, to banishment from Egypt. 230 After citing a king Amenôphis, a fictitious person, — for which reason he did not venture to define the length of his reign, although in the case of the other kings he adds their years precisely, — Manetho attaches to him certain legends, having doubtless forgotten that according to his own chronicle the exodus of the Shepherds to Jerusalem took place 518 years​83 earlier. 231 For Tethmôsis was king when they set out; and, according to Manetho, the intervening reigns thereafter occupied 393 years down to the two brothers Sethôs and Hermaeus, the former of whom, he says, took the new name of Aegyptus, the latter that of Danaus. Sethôs drove out Hermaeus and reigned for 59 years; then Rampsês, the elder of his sons, for 66 years. 232 Thus, after admitting that so many years had elapsed since our forefathers left Egypt, Manetho now interpolates this intruding Amenôphis. This king, he states, conceived a desire to behold the gods, as Ôr,​84 one of his predecessors on  p123 the throne, had done; and he communicated his desire to his namesake Amenôphis,​85 Paapis’ son, who, in virtue of his wisdom and knowledge of the future, was reputed to be a partaker in the divine nature. 233 This namesake, then, replied that he would be able to see the gods if he cleansed the whole land of lepers and other polluted persons. 234 The king was delighted, and assembled​86 all those in Egypt whose bodies were wasted by disease: they numbered 80,000 persons.  p125 235 These he cast into the stone-quarries​87 to the east of the Nile, there to work segregated from the rest of the Egyptians. Among them, Manetho adds, there were some of the learned priests, who had been attacked by leprosy. 236 Then this wise seer Amenôphis was filled with dread of divine wrath against himself and the king if the outrage done to these persons should be discovered; and he added a prediction that certain allies would join the polluted people and would take possession of Egypt for 13 years. Not venturing to make this prophecy himself to the king, he left a full account of it in writing, and then took his own life. The king was filled with despondency. 237 Then Manetho continues as follows (I quote his account verbatim): “When the men in the stone-quarries had suffered hardships for a considerable time, they begged the king to assign to them as a dwelling-place and a refuge the deserted city of the Shepherds, Auaris, and he consented. According to religious tradition​88 this city was from earliest times dedicated to Typhôn. 238 Occupying this city and using the region as a base for revolt, they appointed as their leader one of the priests of Hêliopolis called Osarsêph,89  p127 and took an oath of obedience to him in everything. 239 First of all, he made it a law​90 that they should neither worship the gods nor refrain from any of the animals​91 prescribed as especially sacred in Egypt, but should sacrifice and consume all alike, and that they should have intercourse with none save those of their own confederacy. 240 After framing a great number of laws like these, completely opposed to Egyptian custom, he ordered them with their multitude of hands, to repair the walls of the city and make ready for war against King Amenôphis. 241 Then, acting in concert with certain other priests and polluted persons like himself, he sent an embassy to the Shepherds who had been expelled by Tethmôsis,​92 in the city called Jerusalem; and, setting forth the circumstances of himself and his companions in distress, he begged them to unite wholeheartedly in an attack upon Egypt. 242 He offered to conduct them first to their ancestral home at Auaris, to provide their hosts with lavish supplies, to fight on their behalf whenever need arose, and to bring Egypt without difficulty under their sway. 243 Overjoyed at the proposal, all the Shepherds, to the number of 200,000, eagerly set out,  p129 and before long arrived at Auaris. When Amenôphis, king of Egypt, learned of their invasion, he was sorely troubled, for he recalled the prediction of Amenôphis, son of Paapis. 244 First, he gathered a multitude of Egyptians; and having taken counsel with the leading men among them, he summoned to his presence the sacred animals which were held in greatest reverence in the temples, and gave instructions to each group of priests to conceal the images of the gods as securely as possible. 245 As for his five-year‑old son Rapsês,​93 he sent him safely away to his friend.​94 He then crossed the Nile with as many as 300,000 of the bravest warriors of Egypt, and met the enemy. But, instead of joining battle, 246 he decided that he must not fight against the gods, and made a hasty retreat to Memphis. There he took into his charge Apis and the other sacred animals which he had summoned to that place; and forthwith he set off for Ethiopia​95 with his whole army and the host of Egyptians. The Ethiopian king, who, in gratitude for a service, had become his subject, 247 welcomed him, maintained the whole multitude with such products of the country as were fit for human consumption,  p131 assigned to them cities and villages sufficient for the destined period of 13 years’ banishment from his realm, and especially stationed an Ethiopian army on the frontiers of Egypt to guard King Amenôphis and his followers. 248 Meanwhile, the Solymites [or dwellers in Jerusalem] made a descent along with the polluted Egyptians, and treated the people so impiously and savagely that the domination of the Shepherds seemed like a golden age to those who witnessed the present enormities. 249 For not only did they set towns and villages on fire, pillaging the temples and mutilating images of the gods without restraint, but they also made a practice of using the sanctuaries as kitchens to roast the sacred animals which the people worshipped: and they would compel the priests and prophets to sacrifice and butcher the beasts, afterwards casting the men forth naked. 250 It is said that the priest who framed their constitution and their laws was a native of Hêliopolis, named Osarsêph after the god Osiris, worshipped at Hêliopolis; but when he joined this people, he changed his name and was called Moses.”96

251 Such, then, are the Egyptian stories about the Jews,​97 together with many other tales which I pass  p133 by for brevity’s sake. Manetho adds, however, that, at a later date, Amenôphis advanced from Ethiopia with a large army, his son Rampsês also leading a force, and that the two together joined battle with the Shepherds and their polluted allies, and defeated them, killing many and pursuing the others to the frontiers of Syria. 252 This then, with other tales of a like nature, is Manetho’s account. Before I give proof that his words are manifest lies and nonsense, I shall mention one particular point, which bears upon my later refutation of other writers. Manetho has made one concession to us. He has admitted that our race was not Egyptian in origin, but came into Egypt from elsewhere, took possession of the land, and afterwards left it. 253 But that we were not, at a later time, mixed up with disease-ravaged Egyptians, and that, so far from being one of these, Moses, the leader of our people, lived many generations earlier, I shall endeavour to prove from Manetho’s own statements.

254 To begin with, the reason which he suggests for his fiction is ridiculous. “King Amenôphis,” he says, “conceived a desire to see the gods.” Gods indeed! If he means the gods established by their ordinances, — bull, goat, crocodiles, and dog‑faced baboons, — he had them before his eyes; 255 and as for the gods of heaven, how could he see them? And why did he conceive this eager desire? Because, by Zeus,​98 before his time another king  p135 had seen them! From this predecessor, then, he had learned their nature and the manner in which he had seen them, and in consequence he had no need of a new system. 256 Moreover, the prophet by whose aid the king expected to succeed in his endeavour, was a sage. How, then, did he fail to foresee the impossibility of realizing this desire? It did, in fact, come to naught. And what reason had he for ascribing the invisibility of the gods to the presence of cripples or lepers? Divine wrath is due to impious deeds, not to physical deformities. 257 Next, how could 80,000 lepers and invalids be gathered together in practically a single day? The prophet had bidden him expel the cripples from Egypt, but the king cast them into stone-quarries, as if he needed labourers, not as if his purpose was to purge the land. 258 Manetho says, moreover, that the prophet took his own life, because he foresaw the anger of the gods and the fate in store for Egypt, but left in writing his prediction to the king. 259 Then how was it that the prophet had not from the first foreknowledge of his own death? Why did he not forthwith oppose the king’s desire to see the gods? Was it reasonable to be afraid of misfortunes which were not to happen in his time? Or what worse fate could have been his than that which he hastened to inflict upon himself?

260 But let us now examine​99 the most ridiculous part  p137 of the whole story. Although he had learned these facts, and conceived a dread of the future, the king did not, even then, expel from his land those cripples of whose taint he had previously been bidden to purge Egypt, but instead, at their request, he gave them as their city (Manetho says) the former habitation of the Shepherds, Auaris, as it was called. 261 Here, he adds, they assembled, and selected as their leader a man who had formerly been a priest in Heliopolis. This man (according to Manetho) instructed them not to worship the gods nor to refrain from the animals revered in Egypt, but to sacrifice and devour them all, and to have intercourse with none save those of their own confederacy. Then having bound his followers by oath to abide strictly by these laws, he fortified Auaris and waged war against the king. 262 This leader, Manetho adds, sent to Jerusalem, inviting the people to join in alliance with him, and promising to give them Auaris, which, he reminded them, was the ancestral home of those who would come from Jerusalem, and would serve as a base for their conquest of the whole of Egypt. 263 Then, continues Manetho, they advanced with an army of 200,000 men; and Amenôphis, king of Egypt, thinking he ought not to fight against the gods, fled straightway into Ethiopia after enjoining that Apis and some of the other sacred animals should be entrusted to the custody of the priests. 264 Thereafter, the men from Jerusalem came on, made desolate the cities, burned down the temples, massacred  p139 the priests, and, in short, committed every possible kind of lawlessness and savagery. 265 The priest who framed their constitution and their laws was, according to Manetho, a native of Hêliopolis, Osarsêph by name, after Osiris the god worshipped in Hêliopolis: but he changed his name and called himself Moses. 266 Thirteen years later — this being the destined period of his exile — Amenôphis, according to Manetho, advanced from Ethiopia with a large army, and joining battle with the Shepherds and the polluted people, he defeated them, killing many, after pursuing them to the frontiers of Syria.

267 Here again Manetho fails to realize the improbability of his lying tale. Even if the lepers and their accompanying horde were previously angry with the king and the others who had treated them thus in obedience to the seer’s prediction, certainly when they had left the stone-quarries and received from him a city and land, they would have grown more kindly disposed to him. 268 If indeed they still hated him, they would have plotted against him personally, instead of declaring war against the whole people; for obviously so large a company must have had numerous relatives in Egypt. 269 Notwithstanding, once they had resolved to make war on the Egyptians, they would never have ventured to direct their warfare against their gods, nor would they have framed laws completely opposed to the ancestral code under which they had been brought up. 270 We must, however, be grateful to Manetho for stating that the  p141 authors of this lawlessness were not the newcomers from Jerusalem, but that company of people who were themselves Egyptians, and that it was, above all, their priests who devised the scheme and bound the multitude by oath.

271 Moreover, how absurd it is to imagine that, while none of their relatives and friends joined in the revolt and shared in the perils of war, these polluted persons sent to Jerusalem and gained allies there! 272 What alliance, what connexion had previously existed between them? Why, on the contrary, they were enemies, and differed widely in customs. Yet Manetho says that they lent a ready ear to the promise that they would occupy Egypt, just as if they were not thoroughly acquainted with the country from which they had been forcibly expelled! 273 Now, if they had been in straitened or unusual circumstances, they would perhaps have taken the risk; but dwelling, as they did, in a prosperous city and enjoying the fruits of an ample country, superior to Egypt, why ever should they be likely to hazard their lives by succouring their former foes, those maimed cripples, whom none even of their own kinsfolk could endure? For of course they did not foresee that the king would take flight. 274 On the contrary, Manetho has himself stated that the son​100 of  p143 Amenôphis marched with 300,000 men to confront them at Pêlusium. This was certainly known to those already present; but how could they possibly guess that he would charting his mind and flee? 275 Manetho next says that, after conquering Egypt, the invaders from Jerusalem committed many heinous crimes; and for these he reproaches them, just as if he had not brought them in as enemies, or as if he was bound to accuse allies from abroad of actions which before their arrival native Egyptians were performing and had sworn to perform. 276 But, years later, Amenôphis returned to the attack, conquered the enemy in battle, and drove them, with slaughter, right to Syria. So perfectly easy a prey is Egypt to invaders, no matter whence they come! 277 And yet those who at that time conquered the land, on learning that Amenôphis was alive, neither fortified the passes between it and Ethiopia, although their resources were amply sufficient, nor did they keep the rest of their forces in readiness! Amenôphis, according to Manetho, pursued them with carnage over the sandy desert right to Syria. But obviously it is no easy matter for an army to cross the desert even without fighting.

278 Thus, according to Manetho, our race is not of Egyptian origin, nor did it receive any admixture of Egyptians. For, naturally, many of the lepers and invalids died in the stone-quarries during their long term of hardship, many others in the subsequent battles, and most of all in the final engagement and the rout.

 p145 279 It remains for me to reply to Manetho’s statements about Moses. The Egyptians regard him as a wonderful, even a divine being, but wish to claim him as their own by an incredible calumny, alleging that he belonged to Hêliopolis and was dismissed from his priesthood there owing to leprosy. 280 The records, however, show that he lived 518 years​101 earlier, and led our forefathers up out of Egypt to the land which we inhabit at the present time. 281 And that he suffered from no such physical affliction is clear from his own words. He has, in fact, forbidden lepers​102 either to stay in a town or to make their abode in a village; they must go about in solitude, with their garments rent. Anyone who touches them or lives under the same roof with them he considers unclean. 282 Moreover, even if the malady is cured and the leper resumes normal health, Moses has prescribed certain rites of purification — to cleanse himself in a bath of spring-water and to shave off all his hair, — and enjoins the performance of a number of different sacrifices before entrance into the holy city. 283 Yet it would have been natural, on the contrary, for a victim of this scourge to show some consideration and kindly feeling for those who shared the same misfortune. 284 It was not only about lepers that he framed such laws: those who had even the slightest mutilation of the body were disqualified for the priesthood;​103 and if a priest in the course of his ministry met with an  p147 accident of this nature, he was deprived of his office. 285 How improbable, then, that Moses should be so foolish as to frame these laws, or that men brought together by such misfortunes should approve of legislation against themselves, to their own shame and injury! 286 But, further, the name, too, has been transformed in an extremely improbable way. According to Manetho, Moses was called Osarsêph. These names, however, are not interchangeable: the true name means “one saved out of the water,” for water is called “mō‑y” by the Egyptians.104

287 It is now, therefore, sufficiently obvious, I think, that, so long as Manetho followed the ancient records, he did not stray far from the truth; but when he turned to unauthorized legends, he either combined them in an improbable form or else gave credence to certain prejudiced informants.

19th Dynasty XIX

Fr. 55 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Nineteenth Dynasty​105 consisted of seven (six) kings of Diospolis.

1. Sethôs, for 51 years.
2. Rapsacês, for 61 (66) years.
3. Ammenephthês, for 20 years.
4. Ramessês, for 60 years.
5. Ammenemnês, for 5 years.
6. Thuôris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose time Troy was taken,​106 reigned for 7 years.

Total, 209 years.

Sum total in the Second Book of Manetho, ninety‑six kings, for 2121 years.107

Fr. 56 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Nineteenth Dynasty consisted of five kings of Diospolis.

1. Sethôs, for 55 years.
2. Rampsês, for 66 years.
3. Ammenephthis, for 40 years.
4. Ammenemês, for 26 years.
5. Thuôris, who in Homer is called Polybus, husband of Alcandra, and in whose reign Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years.

Total, 194 years.

Sum total in the Second Book of Manetho, for ninety‑two kings, 1121 (2121) years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Nineteenth Dynasty consisted of five kings of Diospolis.

1. Sethos, for 55 years.
2. Rampses, for 66 years.
3. Amenephthis, for 8 years.
4. Ammenemes, for 26 years.
5. Thuoris, by Homer called the active and gallant Polybus, in whose time Troy was taken, reigned for 7 years.

Total, 194 years.

In the Second Book of Manetho there is a total of ninety‑two kings, reigning for 2121 years.

The Editor’s Notes:

1 Dynasty XII, c. 2000‑1790 B.C. (Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p270). Including Ammenemês whom Manetho places between Dynasty XI and Dynasty XII, there are eight rulers in Dynasty XII. — (1) Ammenemês (Amenemhêt I), (2) Sesonchôsis (Senwosret or Sesôstris I), (3) Ammanemêsº (Amenemhêt II), (4) Sesôstris II (omitted by Manetho), (5) Sesôstris (Senwosret III), (6) Manetho’s Lamarês and Amerês (Amenemhêt III, NemaꜤtrêꜤ), (7) Ammenemês (Amenemhêt IV), (8) Scemiophris (Queen SebeknofrurêꜤ). For (5), the great Sesôstris (1887‑1850 B.C.) of Herodotus, II.102Diod. Sic. I.53 ff., see Sethe, Unters. zur Gesch. . . . Aeg. II.1, and Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii p268. The name of Amenemhêt bespeaks his Theban origin; he removed the capital further north to Dahshûr, a more central position — “Controller of the Two Lands,” as its Egyptian name means. Thus the kings of Dynasty XII are kings who came from Thebes, but ruled at Dahshûr.

In Dynasty XII the conquests of Dynasty VI in the south were extended; and Sesôstris III was the first Egyptian king to conquer Syria. Among works of peace the great irrigation schemes in the Fayûm perpetuated the name of Amenemhêt III in “Lake Moeris”. (See G. Caton-Thompson and E. W. Gardner, The Desert Fayûm, 1934.) Manetho mentions his building of the Labyrinth; it is significant that after the reign of Sesôstris III and his wide foreign conquests, his son should have built the Labyrinth. Vases of the Kamares type from Crete have been found at Kahûn, not far from the Labyrinth.

2 See A. de Buck (Mélanges Maspero, vol. I, 1935, 847‑52) for a new interpretation of the purpose of The Instruction of Amenemmes: in this political pamphlet the dead king speaks from the tomb in support of his son Sesostris, now holding the throne in spite of strong opposition, and violently denounces the ungrateful ruffians who murdered him. It seems probable that Manetho’s note here refers to the death of Ammenemês I (Battiscombe Gunn).

3 See Ägyptische Inschriften aus den Museen zu Berlin, I p257, for a stele at Semneh with an inscription in which the great Sesôstris pours contempt upon his enemies, the Nubians.

4 For the sexual symbols represented upon pillars, see Hdt. II.102106Diod. Sic. I.55.8cf. the representation of mutilated captives on one of the walls of the Ramesseum, Diod. Sic. I.48.2. It has been suggested that Herodotus, who saw the pillars of Sesostris in Palestine, may possibly have mistaken an Assyrian for an Egyptian relief.

5 For other names of Amenemhêt III, see note on Marês, App. II, No. 35, p224.

6 The Labyrinth is correctly attributed by Manetho to Amenemhêt III, who built it as his mortuary temple (contrast Herodotus, II.148, who assigns this monument to the Dodecarchy). The Fayûm was a place of great importance during this dynasty, from Amenemhêt I onwards.

The description of the nome as “Arsinoïte” has often been suspected as a later interpolation; but if “Arsinoïte” was used by Manetho himself, it gives as a date in his life the year 256 B.C. when Ptolemy Philadelphus commemorated Queen Arsinoe (d. 270 B.C.) in the new name of the nome. (Cf. Intro. p. xivº for a possible reference to Manetho, the historian of Egypt, in 241 B.C.)

7 The items given add to 182 years.

8 The Armenian has a word here for “sufferings” or “torments” (Margoliouth): Karst expresses the general meaning as — “he engraved their oppression through (or, by means of) . . .”

9 Karst translates this word by “das höhlenwendelgangförmige”.

10 Dynasty XIII, 1790-c. 1700 B.C. In the Turin Papyrus there is a corresponding group of sixty kings: see the list in Meyer, Geschichte5, I.ii pp308 f., one of them being a name ending in -mes, perhaps Dedumes, the king Τουτίμαιος of Fr. 42. The twenty-fifth king in the Turin Papyrus, Col. VII, KhaꜤneferrêꜤ Sebekhotp IV, is probably the King Chenephrês of whom Artapanus (1c B.C.) says that he was “king of the regions above Memphis (for there were at that time many kings in Egypt)” in the lifetime of Moses (Artapanus, Concerning the Jews, quoted by Euseb., Praepar. Evang. IX.27: see also Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I.23, 154).

11 Dynasties XIV‑XVII, the Hyksôs Age: c. 1700‑1580 B.C.

Dynasty XIV. Nothing is known of the kings of Dynasty XIV, whose seat was at Xoïs (Sakha) in the West Delta — an island and town in the Sebennytic nome (Strabo, 17.1.19). They were not rulers of Upper Egypt, but probably of the West Delta only. At this period there was, it is probable, another contemporary dynasty in Upper Egypt (Dynasty XVII of Manetho).

In the Turin Papyrus there is a long series of rulers’ names corresponding to this dynasty; but the number given by Manetho (76) was not approximated in the Papyrus which shows between twenty and thirty names of kings. Not one of these names is preserved on the Monuments, nor on the Karnak Tablet. The kings of Dynasty XIV, and even the last kings of Dynasty XIII, reigned simultaneously with the Hyksôs kings: cf. the double series of kings in Dynasty XVII. In the Royal Lists of Abydos and Sakkâra the rulers of Dynasties XIII‑XVII are altogether omitted. The Royal List of Karnak gives a selection of about thirty-five names of Dynasties XIII‑XVII, omitting Dynasty XIV and the Hyksôs.

12 The invasion of the Hyksôs took place at some time in Dynasty XIII: hence the succeeding anarchy in a period of foreign domination. The later Egyptians looked back upon it as the Jews did upon the Babylonian captivity, or the English upon the Danish terror. The keen desire of the Egyptians to forget about the Hyksôs usurpation accounts in part for our ignorance of what actually happened: “it is with apparent unwillingness that they chronicle any events connected with it” (Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, p69). In Egyptian texts the “infamous” (Hyksôs) were denoted as ꜤAmu, a title also given to the Hittites and their allies by Ramessês II in the poem of the Battle of Kadesh (ed. Kuentz, § 97). Perhaps they were combined with Hittites who in 1925 B.C. brought the kingdom of Babel to an end. It is certain that with the Hyksôs numerous Semites came into Egypt: some of the Hyksôs kings have Semitic names. For the presence of an important Hurrian element among the Hyksôs, see E. A. Speiser, “Ethnic Movements,” in Ann. of Amer. Sch. of Or. Res. XIII (1932), p51. The Hyksôs brought with them from Asia their tribal god, which was assimilated by the Egyptian to Sêth, the god of foreign parts, of the desert, and of the enemy.

In the first half of the second millennium B.C. the Hyksôs ruled a great kingdom in Palestine and Syria (Meyer, Geschichte5, I § 304); and when their power was broken down by the arrival of hostile tribes, King Amôsis took advantage of their plight to drive the Hyksôs out of Egypt (A. Jirku, “Aufstieg und Untergang der Hyksôs,” in Journ. of the Palestine Orient. Soc. XII, 1932, p60).

A dim tradition of Hyksôs-rule is possibly preserved in Herodotus, II.128. Perhaps “the shepherd Philitis” in that passage is connected with “Philistines,” a tribe which may have formed part of these invaders. There is confusion between two periodsof oppression of the common people, — under the pyramid-builders and under the Hyksôs. For a translation of the Egyptian records which illustrate the Hyksôs period, see Battiscombe Gunn and Alan H. Gardiner, J. Eg. Arch. V, 1918, pp36‑56, “The Expulsion of the Hyksôs”.

13 The word “tablets” is a probable emendation, since Manetho would naturally base his History upon temple-archives on stone as well as on papyrus: cf. the Palermo Stone, the Turin Papyrus, etc. (Intro. pp. xxi ff.).º

14 Cf. Manetho, Fr. 88.

15 This account of the Hyksôs invasion is obviously derived from popular Egyptian tales, the characteristics of which are deeply imprinted upon it. Meyer (Geschichte5, I.ii p313) quotes from papyri and inscriptions passages of similar style and content, e.g. Pap. Sallier I describing the war with the Hyksôs, and mentioning “Lord Apôpi in Auaris,” and an inscription of Queen Hatshepsut from the Speos Artemidos, referring to the occupation of Auaris. See Breasted, Ancient Records, I § 24, II §§ 296 ff. Meyer adds that he would not be surprised if Manetho’s description reappeared word for word one day in a hieratic papyrus. Cf. § 75 ὁ θεός: § 76 the crimes of the Hyksôs (Fr. 54, § 249, those of the Solymites and their polluted allies): § 77 the upper and lower lands: §§ 78, 237 religious tradition to explain the name of Auaris and its dedication to Typhôn: § 99 hollow phrases about military expeditions of Sethôs: § 237 the form of the phrase ὡς χρόνος ἱκανὸς διῆλθεν, and many other passages. See also Weill, La fin du moyen empire égyptien, pp76 ff.

16 See Fr. 38, n. 3.

17 The success of the Hyksôs may have been due to superior archery and to the use of horse-drawn chariots, previously unknown in Egypt (Maspero, Hist. Anc. II p51; Petrie, Hyksos and Israelite Cities, p70; H. R. Hall, Anc. Hist. of Near East8, p213), as well as to superior weapons of bronze (H. R. Hall, C. A. H. I p291 n., 312 f.).

18 The name may be Semitic (cf. Hebr. shallit), but it has not been found on the monuments. Possibly it is not strictly a proper name, but rather a title like “prince,” “general”: “sultan” comes from the same root.

19 Cf. § 90. Manetho regards as historically true the Greek tales of the great Assyrian Empire of Ninus and Semiramis. The period referred to here is much earlier than the time when Assyria began to harass the Mediterranean regions.

20 If “Saïte” is correct here, it has nothing to do with the famous Saïs, but is probably used for “Tanite”: cf.  Herodotus, II.17Strabo 17.1.20 (P. Montet in Revue Biblique, XXXIX 1930). The Sethroïte nome (Fr. 4348,º 49) is in the extreme E. of the Delta, adjoining the Tanite nome. For Sethroê see H. Junker, Zeit. f. äg. Sprache 75, 1939, p78.

21 For Bubastis see Fr. 8 n. 2. The Bubastite branch is the farthest E., the next being the Tanitic.

22 Auaris, in Ancient Egyptian HetwaꜤret, “town of the desert strip,” but this meaning does not explain the “religious tradition”. (The older interpretations, “house of the flight,” “house of the leg,” were attached to the Seth-Typhôn legend: cf. n. 3 infra.) Tanis was a stronghold of the Hyksôs: in O. T. Numbers xiii.22, “Now Hebron (in S. Palestine) was built seven years before Zoan in Egypt,” Zoan is Tanis (DjaꜤnet), and the statement probably refers to the Hyksôs age. Sethe cautiously said, “Seth is the god of the Hyksôs cities, Tanis and Auaris.” But in Revue Biblique, XXXIX, 1930, pp5‑28, Pierre Montet, the excavator of Tanis, brought forward reasons to identify Auaris and Pi‑RaꜤmesses with Tanis; and Alan H. Gardiner (J. Eg. Arch. XIX, 1933, pp122‑128) gave further evidence this view (p126): “San el‑Hagar marks the site of the city successively called Auaris, Pi‑RaꜤmesse, and Tanis”. In spite of the criticism of Raymond Weill (J. Eg. Arch. XXI, 1935, pp10‑25), who cited a hieroglyphic document (found in the temple of Ptah in Memphis) in which Auaris and “the field (or land) of Tanis” are separate, Pierre Montet (Syria, XVII, 1936, pp200‑202) maintains the identity of Auaris, Pi‑RaꜤmesses, and Tanis. [So does H. Junker, Zeit. f. äg. Sprache 75, 1939, pp63‑84.]

Meanwhile, a new identification of Pi‑RaꜤmessês had been suggested: by excavation M. Hamza (Annales du Service des Antiquités de l’Égypte, XXX 1930, p65) found evidence tending to identify Pi‑RaꜤmessês with the palace of Ramessês II at Tell el‑Yahudîya, near Kantîr, c. 25 kilometres south of Tanis; and William C. Hayes (Glazed Tiles from a Palace of Ramessês II at Kantîr: The Metropolitan Museum of Art Papers, No. 3, 1937) supports this theory that Kantîr was the Delta residence of the Ramesside kings of Egypt, pointing out that there is a practically unbroken series of royal Ramesside monuments which cover a period of almost 200 years.

In 1906 Petrie discovered at Kantîr a vast fortified encampment of Hyksôs date and a Hyksôs cemetery: see Petrie, Hyksôs and Israelite Cities, pp3‑16 (the earthwork ramparts of the camp were intended to protect an army of chariots).

23 See Fr. 54, § 237, for its connexion with Seth-Typhon, to whom the tribal god of the Hyksôs was assimilated.

24 Of these Hyksôs names Bnôn and Apachnan are unexplained. Apôpi (the name of several kings — at least three), and perhaps Asêth (Assis), seem to be pure Egyptian: Iannas is presumed to be Khian, whose cartouche turned up surprisingly and significantly on the lid of an alabastron in the Palace of Minos at Knossos in Crete, as well as on a basalt lion from Baghdad. On Khian, see Griffith in Proc. of Soc. of Bibl. Arch. XIX (1897), pp294 f., 297.

25 In his History (and for short reigns in the Epitome, see e.g. Dynasty XXVII) Manetho reckoned by months as well as by years, like the Turin Papyrus and the Palermo Stone: see Intro. pp. xxii f.º

26 Hyksôs, “rulers of foreign lands” (Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, III p171, 29). Another form of the name, Hykussôs, is preserved by Eusebius, but it is uncertain whether the medial -u- is really authentic — the Egyptian plural (Meyer). Hyk = ruler of a pastoral people, a sheikh.

“The Hyksôs, like the foreign Kassite Dynasty in Babylonia, adopted the higher culture of the conquered country” (J. Garstang, The Heritage of Solomon, 1934, p62).

27 This is correct: for the Egyptian word śʾsw, “Bedouins,” which in Coptic became shós, “a herdsman,” see Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, IV p412, 10 (B. G.).

28 In a papyrus (2/3c A.D.) quoted by Wilcken in Archiv für Pap. III (1906), pp188 ff. (Chrestomathie, I.ii p322) ἄμμος ὑκσιωτική is mentioned — aloe [or cement (Preisigke)] from the land of the Hyksiôtae, apparently in Arabia. This gives some support to the statement in the text.

29 Josephus, in revising this treatise just as he revised his Antiquities, appears to have used a second version of Manetho’s Aegyptiaca. Did Josephus ever have before him Manetho’s original work? Laqueur thinks it more probable that Josephus consulted revisions of Manetho made from the Philo- or the anti-Semitic point of view: see Intro. p. xviii.º Since the third century B.C. an extensive literature on the origin of the Jews had arisen.

30 This appears to be a Jewish explanation (§ 91), to harmonize with the story of Joseph.

31 The reference here is to the Egyptian word ḥʾḳ, “booty,” “prisoners of war” (Erman-Grapow, Wörterbuch, III p33) (B. G.).

32 This number of years, much too high for the length of the Hyksôs sway in Egypt, may perhaps refer to the whole period of their rule in Palestine and Syria: see A. Jirku, in Journ. of the Palestine Orient. Soc. XII, 1932, p51 n. 4.

33 Misphragmuthôsis, i.e. MenkheperrêꜤ (Tuthmôsis III) and his son Thummôsis, i.e. Tuthmôsis IV, are here said to have driven out the Hyksôs. In Fr. 50, § 94, Tethmôsis is named as the conqueror. In point of historical fact the victorious king was Amôsis, and he took Auaris by main force: the genuine Manetho must surely have given this name which is preserved by Africanus and Eusebius, as also by Apiôn in Tatian, adv. Graecos, § 38. See p101 n. 2, and cf.  Meyer, Aeg. Chron., pp73 f.

Weill, La fin du moyen empire égyptien, p95, explains the error by assuming that the exploit of the capture of Auaris was usurped by Tuthmôsis IV, as it was usurped earlier by Hatshepsut and later by Ramessês III.

Breasted (C. A. H. II p83) holds that, since with the catastrophic fall of Kadesh on the Orontes before the arms of Tuthmôsis III the last vestige of the Hyksôs power disappeared, the tradition of late Greek days made Tuthmôsis III the conqueror of the Hyksôs. He points out that the name Misphragmuthôsis is to be identified with the two cartouche-names of Tuthmôsis III: it is a corruption of “MenkheperrêꜤ Tuthmôsis”.

34 Lit. “with a circumference of 10,000 arûrae”. The text (which cannot be attributed as it stands to Manetho — τὴν περίμετρον must be a later addition) implies a wrong use of arûra as a measure of length; it is, in reality, a measure of area, about half an acre.

Thayer’s Note: See the article Arura in Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities.

35 240,000 — the number of the garrison mentioned in § 78, where they are described as “hoplites”.

36 On the origin of “Jeru-šalem,” see A. Jirku in Zeitschr. d. Deutsch. Morgenl. Gesellschaft, 90 (1936), pp * 10 * f.: the first part, Jeru-, is non‑Semitic (cf. O. T. Ezek. xvi.2452 Sam. xxiv.16, and the names Jeru‑baꜤal, Jeru-‘el; also, Jaru-wataš in an inscr. of Boghazköi); the second part, Šalem, is a Canaanitish divine name, found in the texts of Ras esh‑Shamra. The name of the city occurs in the El‑Amarna Letters in the form “Urusalimmu,” the oldest literary mention of Jerusalem.

37 Cf. § 83 for the same information, there attributed to “another copy”.

38 Cf. O. T. Genesis xlvi.32‑34xlvii.3.

39 In the Biblical narrative Joseph told the chief butler or cup‑bearer (Genesis xl.15). The margin of the Florentine MS. has a note on this passage: “In another copy (i.e. of the treatise Against Apion) the following reading was found — ‘he was sold by his brethren and brought down into Egypt to the king of Egypt; and later, again, with the king’s consent, summoned his brethren to Egypt’.”

40 The reference seems to be to Fr. 54, § 227 ff., but ἐν ἄλλοις usually refers to a separate work.

41 Africanus gives a less correct list than Josephus (cf. the transposition of Apôphis to the end): there is further corruption in Eusebius (Fr. 48) and the Book of Sôthis (App. IV).

42 This statement of the Phoenician origin of the Hyksôs kings has generally been discredited until recently: now the Ras esh‑Shamra tablets, which imply a pantheon strikingly similar to that of the Hyksôs, have shown that the Hyksôs were closely related to the Phoenicians.

43 See p80 n. 3. The Saïte nome proper, as opposed to this “Tanite” nome, is mentioned in Egyptian texts of the Old Kingdom. For the famous Saïs, the seat of Dynasty XXVI (now Sa El‑Hagar, see Baedeker8, p36 — N. W. of Tanta on the right bank of the Rosetta branch), the centre of the cult of Neith, “the metropolis of the lower country” (Strabo, 17.1.18)cf. Herodotus, II.62Diod. I.28.4 (for its relation to Athens).

44 For Iannas (in Josephus), the Khian of the Monuments, see p83 n. 2.

45 Archlês here, and in Eusebius (Fr. 48), corresponds with Assis (or Aseth) in Josephus (Fr. 42, § 80); but the change in the form of the name is extraordinary.

46 The length of reign (61 years, as in Josephus) leads one to believe that Africanus has transposed Apôphis from the 4th place to the 6th; but in point of fact the last Hyksôs king whom we know by name was called Apepi.

47 Barbarus gives 318 years (p23, XV); Meyer conjectures that the true number is 418 (Aeg. Chron. p99). Contrast Fr. 42, § 84 (511 years).

48 See H. E. Winlock, “Tombs of the Seventeenth Dynasty at Thebes,” in J. Eg. Arch. X pp217 ff.

49 Barbarus gives 221 years (p23, XVI). According to Manetho the total length of the foreign usurpation probably was 929 years (260 in Josephus + 518 + 151). Josephus (Fr. 42, § 84) gives 511 years. These statements, even if based on actual traditions, have no weight as compared with the certain data of the Monuments. The almost complete lack of buildings of the Hyksôs time and the close connexion of the Thebans of Dynasty XVII with those of Dynasty XIII tend to show that the Hyksôs rule in the Nile Valley lasted for about a hundred and twenty years, c. 1700‑1580 B.C. Under one of the Theban kings, TaꜤo, who bore the epithet “The Brave,” war with the Hyksôs broke out c. 1590 B.C.; Kamose, the last king of the Dynasty XVII, continued the war of independence, and Amôsis (of Dynasty XVIII) finally expelled the usurpers.

50 This must be a mistake of transcription: see note 2 on the text.

51 See Fr. 42, § 78, n. 3Fr. 43, n. 4.

52 See p95 n. 3.

53 See p80 n. 3.

54 The Armenian text of this sentence is rather difficult, but Professor Margoliouth, pointing out that the Armenian present infinitive is used here for the perfect, approves of this rendering. Karst translates the Armenian in the following sense: “It is under these kings that Joseph arises, to rule over Egypt”.

55 See p95 n. 3.

56 See p80 n. 3.

57 The addition of 5 days (not 6, as above) to the short year of 360 days was made long before the Hyksôs age: it goes back to at least the Pyramid Age, and probably earlier. The introduction of the calendar, making an artificial reconciliation of the lunar and solar years, perhaps as early as 4236 B.C., is believed to give the earliest fixed date in human history: see V. Gordon Childe, New Light on the Most Ancient East, 1934, pp 4 f.º

58 The New Kingdom: Dynasties XVIII‑XX: c. 1580-c. 1100 B.C.

Dynasty XVIII c. 1580‑1310 B.C.

For identification with the monumental evidence which is firmly established, see Meyer, Geschichte2, II.1, p78: the names and order of the first nine kings are: (1) Amôsis  p101 (Chebrôn is unexplained), (2) Amenôphis I, (3) Tuthmôsis I, (4) Tuthmôsis II, (5) Hatshepsut (apparently Manetho’s Amessis or Amensis: the same length of reign, 21 years), (6) Tuthmosis III (corresponding to Mêphrês, i.e. MenkheperrêꜤ or MeshperêꜤ, and Misphragmuthôsis, i.e. MenkheperrêꜤ Thutmose), (7) Amenôphis II, (8) Tuthmôsis IV (the order of these two being reversed by Manetho), (9) Amenôphis III (Hôrus, the same length of reign, 36 years).

The remaining kings of the dynasty are: Amenôphis IV (Akhnaten, see p123 n. 1), SemenkhkarêꜤ (? Acenchêrês), TûtꜤankhamon (? Chebrês), Ay (? Acherrês): see C. A. H. II p702. On rulers Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6, see Wm. F. Edgerton, The Thutmosid Succession, 1933.

For Dynasty XIX, see p148 n. 1.

59 Tethmôsis = Amôsis: see note on Misphragmuthôsis, Fr. 42, § 86. For the scarab of Amôsis see Plate 1, 3.

60 Howard Carter (Tutankhamen, III p3) points out that monuments of Amenôphis III are dated to his 37th year, perhaps even to his 40th year; and he explains that Manetho has given the length of his reign as sole ruler. More commonly, the high figures assigned to the reigns of kings may be explained by the assumption that overlapping co‑regencies have been included.

61 Miamûn = Mey‑amûn, “beloved of Amûn”.

62 The margin of the Florentine MS. has a note here: “The following reading was found in another copy: ‘After him Sethôsis and Ramessês, two brothers. The former, with a strong fleet, blockaded his murderous (?) adversaries by sea. Not long after, he slew Ramessês and appointed another of his brothers, Harmaïs, as viceroy of Egypt.’ ” This is intended as a correction of the text of Josephus, but it contains the error of the Florentine MS. in the reading Σέθωσις καὶ Ῥαμέσσης. Sethôsis is the Sesostris of Herodotus, II.102, where his naval expedition in the “Red Sea” is described.

Meyer, Aeg. Chron. p91, considers the words “also called Ramessês” an addition to Manetho. See § 245.

W. Struve (see p148 n. 1) would here emend Sethôs into Sesôs, which was a name of Ramesês II: according to the monuments he reigned for 67 years (cf. Fr. 55, 2), and his triumphant Asiatic campaigns were told by Hecataeus of Abdera (Osymandyas in Diodorus Siculus, I.47 ff.).

63 A frequent title from the Old Kingdom onwards is “overseer of the priests of Upper and Lower Egypt,” later applied to the high priest of Amûn. The emendation ἱερῶν (for ἱερέων) is supported by a reference in a papyrus of about the time of Manetho.

64 See Fr. 54, § 274, n. 1 (pp140‑141).

65 With the return of Sethôsis to a country in revolt, cf. Herodotus, II.107 (return of Sesostris and the perilous banquet), Diod. Sic. I.57.6‑8. The tale appears to be a piece of folklore (Maspero, Journ. des Savants, 1901, pp599, 665 ff.). See Wainwright, Sky‑Religion, p48.

66 Danaus: cf.  § 231. See Meyer, Aeg. Chron. p75, for the theory that the identification of Sethôs and Harmaïs with Aegyptus and Danaus is due, not to Manetho, but to a Jewish commentator or interpolator.

The tradition is that Danaus, a king of Egypt, was expelled by his brother and fled to Argos with his fifty daughters, and there “the sons of Aegyptus” were slain by “the daughters of Danaus.” The legend appears to have existed in Egypt as well as in Greece: see Diod. Sic. I.28.297.2. For attempts to explain the story in terms of Aegean pre‑history, see J. L. Myres, Who Were the Greeks? (1930), pp323 ff.: M. P. Nilsson, The Mycenaean Origin of Greek Mythology (1932), p64.

67 This total is reckoned from Tethmôsis (Amôsis) to the end of the reign of Sethôsis, the latter being taken as 60 years (cf.  § 231, where Sethôs is said to have reigned for 59 years after driving out Hermaeus).

68 The mythical King Inachus was held to be still more ancient: cf. Fr. 4, 1 (p19 n. 4).

69 The traditional date of the Trojan war is 1192‑1183 B.C.

70 This appears to be about four times too high a figure: 250 years would be a nearer estimate.

71 Cf. Fr. 54, §§ 229287, for Manetho’s use of popular traditions.

72 This list of Dynasties XVIII, XIX is obviously derived wholly from Josephus, any variations from the text of Josephus being merely corruptions. Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch, wrote his apologia for the Christian faith (three books addressed to a friend Autolycus) in the second half of the 2c A.D.

73 See p100 n. 1.

74 See p101 n. 2. On the basis of new evidence scholars now tend to conclude that the Exodus took place c. 1445 B.C. (see e.g. J. W. Jack, The Date of the Exodus, 1925): Jericho fell c. 1400 B.C. (J. Garstang, The Heritage of Solomon, 1934, p281).

75 I.e. Africanus.

76 I.e. by Syncellus.

77 This Greek transcription of “Amenḥotpe,” retaining both the labial and the dental, is the fullest form of the name, “Amenôthês” showing assimilation: “Amenôphis,” which is regularly used to represent “Amenḥotpe,” actually comes from another name, “Amen(em)ôpe” (B. G.). The month Phamenôth (February-March) is named from the “feast of Amenôthês”.

78 This note about Memnôn in both Africanus and Eusebius should be transferred to the ninth king of the dynasty, Ôrus or Amenôphis III.

The reference is to the two monolithic colossi of Amenôphis III (Baedeker8, pp345 f.): see Pausanias, I.42 (the Thebans say it was a statue not of Memnôn, but of Phamenôph, who dwelt in those parts) with J. G. Frazer’s note (vol. II pp530 f.), and Tacitus, Ann. II.61. Amenôphis III (Memnôn) is correctly named in Greek Amenôth and Phamenôth by the poetess Balbilla (time of Hadrian): see Werner Peek in Mitt. des Deutsch. Inst. für äg. Alt. in Kairo, V.1 (1934), pp96, 99; Sammelbuch, 8211, 8213.

79 For possible identifications of Nos. 10, 12, and 13 see p101 n. 1. Nos. 14, 15, and 16 should be transferred to Dynasty XIX: see p148 n. 1. Armesis (Armaïs) is probably Haremhab; Ramessês, vizier of Haremhab and afterwards Ramessês I, was probably of Heliopolitan origin (P. E. Newberry).

80 See p113 n. 1.

81 According to O. T. 1 Kings vi.1, the building of Solomon’s Temple was begun 480 years after the Exodus: if the Exodus is dated c. 1445 B.C. (see p110 n. 2), the Temple was founded c. 965 B.C.

82 Cf. “the botch (or boil) of Egypt” (perhaps elephantiasis), Deuteronomy xxviii.27.

Thayer’s Note: An echo of this Graeco-Roman association of leprosy with the Jews may possibly be found several centuries later in Ammian: XXII.5.5, and my note there.

83 This number seems to be obtained by adding 393 + 59 + 66: in that case the reign of Sethôsis is counted twice, (1) as 60, (2) as 59 years (cf. Fr. 50, § 103).

84 Ôr, or Hôrus, is the ninth king in Manetho’s list of Dynasty XVIII (Frs. 5152), in reality Amenôphis III. Reinach points out that Herodotus (II.42) tells the same story of the Egyptian Heracles, and conjectures that there is perhaps confusion with the god Hôrus.

85 For this Amenôphis, a historical personage, later deified (cf. the deification of Imhotep, Fr. 11), Amenḥotpe, son of Hapu, and minister of Amenôphis III, see G. Maspero, New Light on Ancient Egypt (1909), pp189‑195: Sethe, in Aegyptiaca (Ebers, Festschrift), 1897, pp107‑116: Breasted, Anc. Rec. II §§ 911 ff.; Warren R. Dawson, The Bridle of Pegasus, 1930, pp49‑79. In 1934‑35 excavations by the French Institute, Cairo, revealed all that remains of the splendour of the funerary temple of Amenḥotpe, son of Hapu, among a series of such temples to the N. of Medinet Habu: see Robichon and Varille, Le Temple du Scribe Royal Amenhotep, Fils de Hapou, I, Cairo, 1936. An inscription of the 3c B.C. (and therefore contemporary with Manetho), headed Ἀμενώτου ὑποθῆκαι, “Precepts of Amenôtes or Amenôphis,” was published by Wilcken in Aegyptiaca, 1897, pp142 ff. It is inscribed upon a limestone ostracon of Deir-el‑Bahri; and the first three injunctions run: “Practise wisdom along with justice,” “Revere both the gods and your parents,” “Take counsel at leisure, but accomplish speedily whatever you do”.

An ostracon, found at Deir-el‑Bahri, and giving the draft of an inscription concerning the deified Amenôphis, was published by A. Bataille, Études de Papyrologie, IV (1938), pp125‑131: it celebrates the cure of a certain Polyaratos. See O. Guéraud in Bull. Inst. Fr. d’Arch. Or., XXVII (1927), pp121 ff., P. Jouguet, “Les Grands Dieux de la Pierre Sainte à Thèbes,” Mélanges Glotz, II pp493‑500.

For the historical interpretation of this whole passage, §§ 232‑251, see Meyer, Geschichte2, II.1, pp421 ff. King Amenôphis is at one time Merneptah, son of Rameses II; at another time, Amenôphis IV (Akhnaten), some 200 years earlier. The doings of the polluted, the persecution of the gods, and the slander of the holy animals, clearly portray the fury of Akhnaten and his followers against Egyptian religion. For a popular Egyptian parallel to §§ 232 ff., see the Potter’s Oracle, one of the Rainer Papyri (3c A.D.) edited by Wilcken in Hermes, XL 1905, pp544 ff. and by G. Manteuffel, De Opusculis Graecis Aegypti e papyris, ostracis, lapidibusque collectis, 1930, No. 7; and cf. the prophecy of the lamb, Manetho, Fr. 64.

For a theory about the identity of the polluted (they are the troops of Sethôs I, sent to Tanis by his father Ramessês I during the ascendancy of Haremhab), see P. Montet, “La Stèle de l’An 400 Retrouvée,” in Kémi, III 1935, pp191‑215.

86 In an incredibly short time (§ 257).

87 The quarries of Tura were known to Herodotus (II.124) as the source of building-stone for the Pyramids.

On forced labour in quarries in Ptolemaic times, Reinach refers to Bouché-Leclercq, Histoire des Lagides, III.241; IV.193, 337 f.

88 Cf. Fr. 42, § 78.

89 Osarsêph, the leader of the movement, is later (§ 250) identified with Moses. The name Osarsêph is a possible Egyptian name: cf. Ranke, Personennamen I p85, No. 3 wsı͗r‑spʾ. Wilcken (Chrestomathie, I.1, p106) derives the name from a holy animal Sêph; but the Jews would naturally see in it a form of the name Joseph.

90 “Does the author know that the Decalogue begins with an admonition to have no other god but Jehovah? Or does he recall Greek lists of duties (Xen., Mem. IV.4, 19; Carmen Aureum, V.1; cf. Dieterich, Nekyia, pp146 f.) which inculcate reverence for the gods as the first precept?” (Reinach). Add Isocrates, Ad Demonicum, §§ 13, 16, and the Precepts of Sansnôs (2c‑3c A.D.), as inscribed in Nubia, CIG III.5041 (Wilcken, Chrestomathie, I.ii p147, No. 116) — the first precept is “Revere the divinity”.

91 Cf. Tac., Hist. V.4: the Jews under Moses sacrificed the ram as if to insult Ammôn, and the bull, because the Egyptians worship Apis. Cf. O. T. Leviticus xvi.3.

92 Tethmôsis for Amôsis, as in Fr. 50 (§ 94).

93 Rapsês: doubtless an error for Rampsês. There is confusion here: the grandfather is Ramessês II. See Meyer (Aeg. Chron. p91), who considers the words “Sethôs also called” an interpolation (cf. § 98), intended to identify a Sethôs son of Amenôphis and a Ramessês son of Amenôphis.

94 A curious indefiniteness: the reference may be to the king of Ethiopia, mentioned in the next section.

95 The truth is that Ethiopia (Nubia, Cush) was at that time a province of the kingdom of the Pharaohs.

96 According to Meyer (Aeg. Chron. p77), this section with its identification of Osarsêph and Moses is due to an anti-Semitic commentator on Manetho. It is interesting that Osiris should be thus identified with the mysterious god of the Jews, whose name must not be uttered.

97 Cf. Hecataeus of Abdera (in Diodorus Siculus, XL.3): the Jews are foreigners expelled from Egypt because of a plague. See Meyer, Geschichte2, II.1, p424. Hecataeus lived for some time at the court of Ptolemy I (323‑285 B.C.), and used Egyptian sources for his AegyptiacaCf. Intro. pp. xxiv f.º

98 A strange expression which seems to belong to an anti-Semitic polemic. In Josephus, C. Apion II.263 (a passage about Socrates), νὴ Δία has been restored to the text by Niese’s conjecture.

99 The passage §§ 260‑266 repeats unnecessarily the substance of §§ 237‑250: possibly these are extracts from two treatises utilizing the same material.

100 In § 245 we are told that Amenôphis himself led his host in this useless march, and that his son was only 5 years old. Only here is Pêlusium mentioned as the destination of the march.

Pêlusium, “the celebrated eastern seaport and key to Egypt” (Baedeker8, pp197 f.), the famous frontier fortress, in ancient Egyptian Śnw. A scarab of the late Twelfth Dynasty or early Thirteenth, published by Newberry in J. Eg. Arch. XVIII (1932), p141, shows the place-name within the fortress-sign. The name Pêlusium is from πηλός “mud”; cf. Strabo, 17.1.21, for the muddy pools or marshes round Pêlusium.

101 518 years. See n. on § 230.

102 For the laws of leprosy, here summarized, see O. T. Leviticus xiii (especially 45 f.) and xiv.

103 Cf.  O. T. Leviticus xxi.17‑23 (exclusion from the priesthood of anyone “that hath a blemish”).

104 The same etymology (with the necessary addition that ὐσῆς means “saved”) recurs in Josephus, Antiq. II.228; cf. Philo, De Vita Moysis, I.4, § 17. There is a word in Ancient Egyptian, mw {𓈗}, meaning “water,” but the connexion with the name Moses is hypothetical. Similar forms appear as personal names in Pharaonic times, e.g. Ms.ı͗ from the Old Kingdom, Ms (very common) from the New Kingdom. In Exodus ii.10 “Moses” is “drawn out” (Hebr. mashah of the water — a derivation “hardly meant to be taken seriously” (T. H. Robinson, in Oesterley and Robinson, History of Israel, I p81).

See further Alan H. Gardiner, “The Egyptian Origin of some English Personal Names,” in Journ. of Amer. Orient. Soc. 56 (1936), pp192‑4. Gardiner points out (p195, n. 28) that ὐσῆς (mentioned above) is clearly a perversion of ασιης [or ἑσιῆς = Egyptian ḥsy {𓎛𓎿𓋴𓏭𓀁}, “praised,” LS9], the Greek equivalent of the Coptic hasie, “favoured”; but an Egyptian became “favoured” by the fact of being drowned, not by being saved from drowning.

105 Dynasty XIX: c. 1310‑1200 B.C. The lists given by Africanus and Eusebius for Dynasty XIX are in very bad confusion. Armaïs (Haremhab) should begin the line, which Meyer gives as follows:—

Haremhab: Ramessês I: Sethôs I: Ramessês II (the Louis Quatorze of Egyptian history: 67 years, see Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV § 471; C. A. H. II pp139 ff.): Merneptah: Amenmesês: Merneptah II. Siptah: Sethôs II: Ramessês Siptah: Sethôs II: Ramessês Siptah: <Arus the Syrian>.

W. Struve (De Ara ἀπὸ Μενόφρεως und die XIX. Dynastie Manethos, in Zeitschr. für äg. Sprache, Bd. 63 (1928), pp45‑50) gives a revised sequence with additional identifications: (1) Harmaïs (Haremhab), (2) Ramessês I, (3) Amenôphath (Seti I Merneptah), (4) Sesôs (Struve’s emendation for Sethôs), also called Ramessês Miamoun [Ramessês II Seso], (5) Amenephthês (Merneptah), (6) [Amenophthês or Menophthês, emended from the form Menophrês in Theon of Alexandria], (Seti II Merneptah), (7) Ramessês III Siptah, (8) Ammenemes (Amenmeses), (9) Thuôris or Thuôsris, also called Siphthas. Cf. Petrie, History of Egypt, III pp120 ff. Struve points also to a new Sôthis date, 1318 B.C., in the reign of Seti I (according to Petrie’s chronology, 1326‑1300 B.C.).

106 The Fall of Troy was traditionally dated 1183 B.C.; cf. p107 n. 3.

In Homer, Odyssey, IV.126, a golden distaff and a silver work-basket with wheels beneath and golden rims, — treasures in the palace of Menelaus at Sparta, — are described as gifts to Helen from “Alcandrê, the wife of Polybus who dwelt in Egyptian Thebes where the amplest store of wealth is laid up in men’s houses”; while to Menelaus himself Polybus had given two silver baths, two tripods, and ten talents of gold. See W. H. D. Rouse, The Story of Odysseus, 1937, p56: “Polybos was a great nobleman in the Egyptian Thebes, with a palace full of treasures.”

107 For the corrected total of Book II, see Fr. 4, n. 4 (246 or 289 kings for 2221 years). The wide difference between the number of kings (96 or 92 as compared with 246 or 289) is puzzling: Meyer conjectures that about 150 or 193 of the larger numbers were ephemeral or co‑regents.

Book III

20th Dynasty XX

Fr. 57 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

From the Third Book of Manetho.

The Twentieth Dynasty​1 consisted of twelve kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 135 years.

(b) According to Eusebius.

From the Third Book of Manetho.

The Twentieth Dynasty consisted of twelve kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 178 years.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

From the Third Book of Manetho.

The Twentieth Dynasty consisted of twelve kings of Diospolis, who reigned for 172 years.

Dynasty XXI

Fr. 58 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-first Dynasty​2 consisted of seven kings of Tanis.

1. Smendês,​3 for 26 years.
2. Psusen(n)ês I,​4 for 46 years.
3. Nephercherês (Nephelcherês), for 4 years.
4. Amenôphthis, for 9 years.
5. Osochôr, for 6 years.
6. Psinachês, for 9 years.
7. Psusennes [II] (Susennês), for 14 years.

Total, 130 years.5

Fr. 59 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-first Dynasty consisted of seven kings of Tanis.

1. Smendis, for 26 years.
2. Psusennês, for 41 years.
3. Nephercherês, for 4 years.
4. Amenôphthis, for 9 years.
5. Osochôr, for 6 years.
6. Psinachês, for 9 years.
7. Psusennês, for 35 years.

Total, 130 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-first Dynasty consisted of seven kings of Tanis.

1. Smendis, for 26 years.
2. Psusennes, for 41 years.
3. Nephercheres, for 4 years.
4. Amenophthis, for 9 years.
5. Osochor, for 6 years.
6. Psinnaches, for 9 years.
7. Psusennes, for 35 years.

Total, 130 years.

22nd Dynasty XXII

Fr. 60 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-second Dynasty​6 consisted of nine kings of Bubastus.

1. Sesônchis, for 21 years.
2. Osorthôn,​7 for 15 years.
3, 4, 5. Three other kings, for 25 [29] years.
6. Takelôthis, for 13 years.
7, 8, 9. Three other kings, for 42 years.

Total, 120 years.8

Fr. 61 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-second Dynasty consisted of three kings of Bubastus.

1. Sesônchôsis, for 21 years.
2. Osorthôn, for 15 years.
3. Takelôthis, for 13 years.

Total, 49 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-second Dynasty consisted of three kings of Bubastus.

1. Sesonchosis, for 21 years.
2. Osorthon,​9 for 15 years.
3. Tacelothis, for 13 years.

Total, 49 years.

23rd Dynasty XXIII

Fr. 62 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-third Dynasty​10 consisted of four kings of Tanis.

1. Petubatês, for 40 years: in his reign the Olympic festival​11 was first celebrated.
2. Osorchô, for 8 years: the Egyptians call him Hêraclês.​12
3. Psammûs, for 10 years.
4. Zêt,​13 for 31 years (34).

Total, 89 years.

Fr. 63 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-third Dynasty consisted of three kings of Tanis.

1. Petubastis,​14 for 25 years.
2. Osorthôn, for 9 years: the Egyptians called him Hêraclês.
3. Psammûs, for 10 years.

Total, 44 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-third Dynasty consisted of three kings of Tanis.

1. Petubastis, for 25 years.

2. Osorthon, whom the Egyptians named Hercules: for 9 years.

3. Psammus, for 10 years.

Total, 44 years.

24th Dynasty XXIV

Fr. 64 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-fourth Dynasty.​15

Bochchôris of Saïs, for 6 years: in his reign a lamb​16 spoke​17 . . . 990 years.

Fr. 65 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-fourth Dynasty.

Bochchôris of Saïs, for 44 years: in his reign a lamb spoke. Total, 44 years.18

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-fourth Dynasty.

Bocchoris of Saïs, for 44 years: in his reign a lamb spoke.

25th Dynasty XXV

Fr. 66 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty​19 consisted of three Ethiopian kings.

1. Sabacôn,​20 who, taking Bochchôris captive, burned him alive, and reigned for 8 years.
2. Sebichôs, his son, for 14 years.
3. Tarcus,​21º for 18 years.

Total, 40 years.

Fr. 67 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty consisted of three Ethiopian kings.

1. Sabacôn, who, taking Bochchôris captive, burned him alive, and reigned for 12 years.
2. Sebichôs, his son, for 12 years.
3. Taracus, for 20 years.

Total, 44 years.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-fifth Dynasty consisted of three Ethiopian kings.

1. Sabacon, who, taking Bocchoris captive, burned him alive, and reigned for 12 years.
2. Sebichos, his son, for 12 years.
3. Saracus (Taracus), for 20 years.

Total, 44 years.

26th Dynasty XXVI

Fr. 68 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-sixth Dynasty​22 consisted of nine kings of Saïs.

1. Stephinatês, for 7 years.
2. Nechepsôs, for 6 years.
3. Nechaô, for 8 years.
4. Psammêtichus,​23 for 54 years.
5. Nechaô​24 the Second, for 6 years: he took Jerusalem, and led King Iôachaz captive into Egypt.
6. Psammuthis the Second, for 6 years.
7. Uaphris,​25 for 19 years: the remnant of the Jews fled to him, when Jerusalem was captured by the Assyrians.
8. Amôsis,​26 for 44 years.

Psammecheritês,​27 for 6 months.

Total, 150 years 6 months.

Fr. 69 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-sixth Dynasty consisted of nine kings of Saïs.

1. Ammeris the Ethiopian, for 12 years.
2. Stephinathis, for 7 years.
3. Nechepsôs, for 6 years.
4. Nechaô, for 8 years.
5. Psammêtichus, for 45 [44] years.
6. Nechaô the Second, for 6 years: he took Jerusalem, and led King Iôachaz captive into Egypt.
7. Psammuthis the Second, also called Psammêtichus, for 17 years.
8. Uaphris, for 25 years: the remnant of the Jews fled to him, when Jerusalem was captured by the Assyrians.
9. Amôsis, for 42 years.

Total, 163 years.28

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-sixth Dynasty consisted of nine kings of Saïs.

1. Ameres the Ethiopian, for 18 years.
2. Stephinathes, for 7 years.
3. Nechepsos, for 6 years.
4. Nechao, for 8 years.
5. Psametichus,º for 44 years.
6. Nechao the Second, for 6 years: he took Jerusalem, and led King Ioachaz captive into Egypt.
7. Psammuthes the Second, also called Psammetichus, for 17 years.
8. Uaphres, for 25 years: the remnant of the Jews took refuge with him, when Jerusalem was subjugated by the Assyrians.
9. Amosis, for 42 years.

Total, 167 years.

Dynasty XXVII

Fr. 70 (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-seventh Dynasty​29 consisted of eight Persian kings.

1. Cambysês in the fifth year of his kingship over the Persians became king of Egypt and ruled for 6 years.
2. Darius, son of Hystaspês, for 36 years.
3. Xerxês the Great, for 21 years.
4. Artabanus,​30 for 7 months.
5. Artaxerxês,​31 for 41 years.
6. Xerxês,​32 for 2 months.
7. Sogdianus, for 7 months.
8. Darius, son of Xerxês, for 19 years.

Total, 124 years 4 months.

Fr. 71 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-seventh Dynasty consisted of eight Persian kings.

1. Cambysês in the fifth year of his kingship became king of Egypt, and ruled for 3 years.
2. Magi, for 7 months.
3. Darius, for 36 years.
4. Xerxês, son of Darius, for 21 years.
5. Artaxerxês of the long hand, for 40 years.
6. Xerxês the Second, for 2 months.
7. Sogdianus, for 7 months.
8. Darius, son of Xerxês, for 19 years.

Total, 120 years 4 months.

(b) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-seventh Dynasty consisted of eight Persian kings.

1. Cambysês in the fifth​33 year of his kingship became king of Egypt, and ruled for 3 years.
2. Magi, for 7 months.
3. Darius, for 36 years.
4. Xerxes, son of Darius, for 21 years.
5. Artaxerxes, for 40 years.
6. Xerxes the Second, for 2 months.
7. Sogdianus, for 7 months.
8. Darius, son of Xerxes, for 19 years.

Total, 120 years 4 months.

28th Dynasty XXVIII

Fr. 72 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-eighth Dynasty.​34 Amyrteos of Saïs, for 6 years.

(b) According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-eighth Dynasty. Amyrtaeus of Saïs, for 6 years.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-eighth Dynasty. Amyrtes of Saïs, for 6 years.35

29th Dynasty XXIX

Fr. 73 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Twenty-ninth Dynasty:​36 four kings of Mendês.

1. Nepheritês, for 6 years.
2. Achôris, for 13 years.
3. Psammuthis, for 1 year.
4. Nepheritês [II], for 4 months.

Total, 20 years 4 months.

(b) According to Eusebius.

The Twenty-ninth Dynasty: four kings​37 of Mendês.

1. Nepheritês, for 6 years.
2. Achôris, for 13 years.
3. Psammuthis, for 1 year.
4. Nepheritês [II], for 4 months.
5. Muthis, for 1 year.

Total, 21 years 4 months.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Twenty-ninth Dynasty consisted of four kings of Mendês.

1. Nepherites, for 6 years.
2. Achoris, for 13 years.
3. Psamuthes, for 1 year.
4. Muthes, for 1 year.
5. Nepheritês [II], for 4 months.

Total, 21 years and 4 months.

30th Dynasty XXX

Fr. 74 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Thirtieth Dynasty​38 consisted of three kings of Sebennytus.

1. Nectanebês, for 18 years.

2. Teôs, for 2 years.

3. Nectanebus,​39 for 18 years.

Total, 38 years.

(b) According to Eusebius.

The Thirtieth Dynasty consisted of three kings of Sebennytus.

1. Nectanebês, for 10 years.
2. Teôs, for 2 years.
3. Nectanebus, for 8 years.

Total, 20 years.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Thirtieth Dynasty consisted of 3 kings of Sebennytus.

1. Nectanebes, for 10 years.
2. Teos, for 2 years.
3. Nectanebus, for 8 years.

Total, 20 years.

31st Dynasty XXXI

Fr. 75 (a) (from Syncellus). According to Africanus.

The Thirty-first Dynasty​40 consisted of three Persian kings.

1. Ôchus in the twentieth year​41 of his kingship over the Persians became king of Egypt, and ruled for 2 years.
2. Arsês, for 3 years.
3. Darius, for 4 years.

Total of years in Book III, 1050 years​42 [850].

Here ends the History of Manetho.

(b) According to Eusebius.

The Thirty-first Dynasty consisted of three Persian kings.

1. Ôchus in the twentieth year of his kingship over the Persians conquered Egypt, and ruled for 6 years.
2. His successor was Arsês, son of Ôchus, who reigned for 4 years.
3. Next, Darius reigned for 6 years: he was put to death by Alexander of Macedon.

These are the contents of the Third Book of Manetho.

Here ends the History of Manetho.

(c) Armenian Version of Eusebius.

The Thirty-first Dynasty consisted of Persian kings.

1. Ochus in the twentieth year of his kingship over the Persians seized Egypt and held it for 6 years.
2. His successor was Arses, son of Ochus, who reigned for 4 years.
3. Next, Darius reigned for 6 years: he was put to death by Alexander of Macedon.

These are the contents of the Third Book​43 of Manetho.

The Editor’s Notes:

1 Dynasty XX c. 1200‑1090 B.C.

Setnakht: Ramessês III c. 1200‑1168: Ramessês IV‑XI c. 1168‑1090. Manetho’s 12 kings probably included Ramessês XII and Herihor. The Great Papyrus Harris (time of Ramessês III) describes the anarchy between Dynasties XIX and XX: see Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV § 398.

A revised list of Dynasty XX is given by Newberry in Elliot Smith and Warren Dawson, Egyptian Mummies, 1924: see also T. E. Peet in J. Eg. Arch. XIV (1928), pp52 f.

2 Dynasty XXI, resident at Tanis, c. 1090‑950 B.C. (a dark period in Egyptian history). For identifications with monumental and other evidence see Meyer, Geschichte2, II.2, p20 n. This Tanite Dynasty overlapped with the Theban Dynasty XX: see the Report of Wenamon, Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV §§ 557‑591; C. A. H. II pp192 ff.

3 For Smendês or Nesbenebded, a local noble of Tanis, who seized the whole Delta and made himself king of Lower Egypt, see C. A. H. II p191; III pp253 f.

4 In Egyptian, Psusennes is PsukheꜤmnê, “the star appearing in Thebes”. In 1939‑40 tombs of certain kings of Dynasties XXI and XXII were excavated by P. Montet at Tanis, the most valuable being the intact tomb of Psusennês I, with its rich funerary equipment: in several chambers sarcophagi, vases of many kinds, and jewels were found, including the funerary outfit of Amenôphthis (Amon‑em‑apt, son of Psusennês I) and the silver sarcophagus of a certain Sesonchôsis (not the first king of Dynasty XII), (Ann. Serv. Antiq. tt. XXXIX f., 1939‑40).

5 Actual total of items, 114 years. Eusebius is probably correct with 41 years for 2nd king and 35 years for 7th (Meyer).

6 Dynasty XXII c. 950‑730 B.C., kings of Libyan origin resident at Bubastis. For identifications with the monumental and other evidence see Meyer, Geschichte2, II.2, p58. The first king, Sesonchôsis (Shishak, O. T. 1 Kings xiv.252 Chron. xii) overthrew the Tanites c. 940 B.C. About 930 B.C. he captured Jerusalem and plundered the Temple of Solomon: see Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, 1922, pp158 ff. Albright (The Archaeology of Palestine and the Bible2, 1932‑3, p199) dates the conquest of Judah by Shishak between 924 and 917 B.C.

7 The name Osorthôn is another form of Osorchô (Dynasty XXIII No. 2 — Africanus), the Egyptian Osorkon.

8 Actual total of items, 116 years.

9 Osorthôs (Aucher, Karst).

10 Dynasty XXIII, resident at Tanis: the records of these kings (dated by Breasted 745‑718 B.C.) are much confused. The name Petubatês (see Fr. 63 for the usual Grecized form Petubastis) represents the Egyptian Pedibaste. For King Osorcho (Osorkon III) see the stele of Piankhi, king of Ethiopia, whose vassal Osorkon became (Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV §§ 807, 811, 872, 878). Psammûs has not been identified.

11 The date of the first Olympic festival was conventionally fixed at 776‑775 B.C.

12 See G. A. Wainwright, Sky‑Religion, pp35 f.

13 The fact that the name Zêt, occurring in Africanus alone, is wrapped in obscurity, has led Flinders Petrie to suggest (“The Mysterious Zêt” in Ancient Egypt, 1914, p32) that the Greek letters are a contraction for ζητεῖται or other word connected with ζητέω, meaning “A question (remains),” or “Query, about 31 years”: for 31 years at this time no single ruler seemed to be predominant, and further search was needed to settle who should be entered as the king of Egypt. “Zêt.” is found in wall-inscriptions at Pompeii: see Diehl, Pompeianische Wandinschriften, No. 682. The next inscription, No. 683, gives “Zêtêma ” in full: a riddle follows.

14 For a demotic romance of the time of Petubastis in one of the Rainer Papyri, see Krall in Vienna Oriental Journal, XVII (1903), 1: it is also found in papyri of Paris and Strassburg. Parallels may be drawn between this romance and Manetho; cf. Spiegelberg, Der Sagenkreis des Königs Petubastis (Leipzig, 1910), pp8 f.

15 Dynasty XXIV, c. 720-c. 715 B.C. Before Bocchoris, his father Tefnachte of Saïs (Tnephachthus in Diodorus Siculus, I.45.2) became the most powerful among the chiefs of the Delta (c. 730‑720 B.C.).

For King Bocchoris see Alexandre Moret, De Bocchori Rege, 1903. Cf. Diodorus Siculus, I.6579.1 (law of contract: Bocchoris legislated for commerce), and 94.5. See Breasted, Anc. Rec. IV § 884: the only extant monuments of King Bocchoris are a few Serapeum stelae and a wall inscription, which record the burial of an Apis in the sixth year of his reign.

16 See especially the demotic story (8 B.C.) of the prophetic lamb, quoted by Krall in Festgaben für Büdinger, pp3‑11 (Innsbruck, 1898): the lamb prophesied the conquest and enslavement of Egypt by Assyria, and the removal of her gods to Nineveh. Cf. Aelian, De Nat. Anim. XII.3, and Manetho, Fr. 54, §§ 232 ff. A reference to Manetho’s description of the oracular lamb is preserved in Pseudo-Plutarch, De proverbiis Alexandrinorum (Crusius, 1887), No. 21, τὸ ἀρνίον σοι λελάληκεν. Αἰγύπτιοι τοῦτο ἀνέγραψαν ὡς ἀνθρωπείᾳ φωνῇ λαλῆσαν (or, as in Suidas, ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ, ὥς φασιν, ἀνθρωπείᾳ φωνῇ ἐλάλησεν). εὑρέθη δὲ ἔχον βασίλειον δράκοντα ἐπὶ τῆς κεφαλῆς αὐτοῦ πτερωτόν (Suidas adds, ἔχοντα μῆκος πήχεων δ´), καὶ τῶν βασιλέων τινὶ λελάληκε τὰ μέλλοντα (“The lamb has spoken to you. Egyptians have recorded a lamb speaking with a human voice [or, in Egypt, they say, a lamb spoke with a human voice]. It was found to have upon its head a royal winged serpent [4 cubits in length]; and it foretold the future to one of the kings.”) See Meyer, Ein neues Bruchstück Manethos über das Lamm des Bokchoris in Zeitschr. für Ägypt. Sprache, XLVI (1910), pp135 f.: he points out the Egyptian character of the description — the royal uraeus, four cubits long, with ostrich feathers on both sides. Cf. Weill, La fin du moyen empire égyptien, pp116, 622.

17 Here some essential words have been omitted from the text.

18 Contrast the “6 years” assigned to Bocchoris by Africanus (Fr. 64): it is suspicious that Eusebius should give 44 years for each of Dynasties XXIII, XXIV, and XXV.

19 Dynasty XXV (Ethiopian), c. 715‑663 B.C.: the three kings are Shabaka, Shabatka, and Taharka.

20 Cf. Herodotus, II.137 (Sabacôs).

Shabaka had a great reputation for mildness and kind rule: Petrie (Religious Life, 1924, pp193 f.) explains that Bochchoris was treated like a mock king in the ancient festival, the burning ceremonially destroying his kingly character. See Wainwright, Sky‑Religion, pp38 ff.

21 Taharka: in O. T. 2 Kings xix.9, Tirhakah, King of Ethiopia. See Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, 1922, pp175 ff.

22 Dynasty XXVI, 663‑525 B.C.

Saïs (see p91 n. 4), now grown in power, with foreign aid asserts independence, and rules over Egypt. Herodotus, II.151 ff., supports the version of Africanus but differs in (5) Necôs 16 years (Ch. 159), and (7) Apries 25 years (Ch. 161) (22 years in Diod. Sic. I.68). Eusebius (Fr. 69) has preserved the Ethiopian Ammeris (i.e. Tanutamûn) at the beginning of Dynasty XXVI: so in the Book of Sothis (App. IV), No. 78, Amaês, 38 years.

23 Psammêtichus I (Psametik) = Psammêtk, “man, or vendor, of mixed wine,” cf. Herodotus, II.151 (Griffith in Catalogue of Demotic Papyri in the Rylands Library, III pp44, 201). See Diod. Sic. I.66, 67.

24 Nechaô is an old name, an Egyptian plural form, “belonging to the kas” or bulls (Apis and Mnevis), O. T. 2 Chron. xxxvi.2‑4. Battle of Megiddo, 609 B.C.: defeat and death of King Josiah by Necho (2 Kings xxiii.29xxiv.1xxv.26). Johoahaz, son of Josiah, was led captive into Egypt. For these events, see Peet, Egypt and the Old Testament, 1922, p181 ff.

25 Uaphris or Apries, in Egyptian WaḥibprêꜤ, the Hophra of the O. T. Capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, 587 B.C. See Peet, op. cit. pp185 ff.

26 Amôsis should be Amasis (Iaʽḥmase), the general of Uaphris or Apries: Amasis was first made co‑regent with Apries (569 B.C.), then two years later, after a battle, he became sole monarch.

On the character of Amasis, “the darling of the people and of popular legend,” see the demotic papyrus translated by Spiegelberg, The Credibility of Herodotus’ Account of Egypt (trans. Blackman), pp29 f.

27 Psammêtichus III, defeated by Cambyses the Persian, 525 B.C. The three Psametiks are differentiated as Psammêtichus, Psammuthis, and Psammecheritês (cf. Fr. 20, n. 1).

28 If 44 years are assigned to (5) Psammêtichus, the actual total is 167, as in the Armenian Version.

29 Persian Domination, 525‑332 B.C.

Dynasty XXVII, 525‑404 B.C. After conquering Egypt, Cambyses reigned three years, 525/4‑523/2 B.C. See Cambridge Ancient History, VI pp137 ff.

An interesting papyrus fragment (P. Baden 4 No. 59: 5c A.D. — see the facsimile in Plate III) contains this Dynasty in a form which differs in some respects from the versions given by Africanus and Eusebius. Like Eusebius the papyrus inserts the Magi, and calls Artaxerxês “the Long-handed” and his successor Xerxês “the Second”: as in Africanus, Darius is “son of Hysta[spês]” and Xerxês is “the Great”. To Cambysês the papyrus gives 6½ years: to the Magi, 7½ months. The conquest of Egypt is assigned to the fourth year of Cambysês’ reign, and it was in that year that the campaign began. Artaxerxês is described as “the son” (i.e. of Xerxês); while Darius II is correctly named “the Illegitimate”. See Bilabel’s note on the papyrus (l.c.).

30 Artabanus, vizier, and murderer of Xerxês I, 465 B.C.

31 Artaxerxês I, “Long-hand” (“whether from a physical peculiarity or political capacity is uncertain,” C. A. H. VI p2), 465‑424 B.C.

32 Xerxês II was murdered by his half-brother Sogdianus, who was in turn defeated and put to death in 423 B.C. by another half-brother Ochus (Darius II, nicknamed Nothos, “the Illegitimate”), not “son of Xerxês”. Darius II died in 404 B.C.

33 The Armenian text has “15th”.

34 Dynasty XXVIII‑XXX, Egyptian kings: 404‑341 B.C. — a brief period of independence.

Dynasty XXVIII, Amyrtaeus of Saïs, 404‑399 B.C.: no Egyptian king of this name is known on the monuments. See Werner Schur in Klio, XX 1926, pp273 ff.

35 6 years (Aucher, Karst): 6 months (Müller). The Armenian words for “month” and “year” are so similar that corruption is likely (Margoliouth).

36 Dynasty XXIX, resident at Mendês in E. Delta (Baedeker8, p183), 398‑381 B.C. On the sequence of these rulers see H. R. Hall in C. A. H. VI p145 and n.

37 Muthis or Muthês was a usurper, hence the number of kings is given as four. He is unknown to the Monuments. Aucher suggests that the name Muthis may be merely a repetition, curtailed, of the name Psammuthis.

38 Dynasty XXX, resident at Sebennytus (see Intro. p. xiii),º 380‑343 B.C.: Nectanebês I (Nekhtenêbef), 380‑363, Teôs or Tachôs (Zedḥôr), 362‑361, Nectanebus II (Nekhthoreḥbe), 360‑343. See E. Meyer, Zur Geschichte der 30. Dynastie in Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache, Bd. 67, pp68‑70.

It is certain that Manetho knew only 30 dynasties and ended with the conquest of Egypt by Ôchus: see Unger, Chronol. des Manetho, pp334 f. Under Olymp. 107 (i.e. 352‑348 B.C.), Jerome (Chronicle, p203 Fotheringham, p121 Helm) notes: Ochus Aegyptum tenuit, Nectanebo in Aethiopiam pulso, in quo Aegyptiorum regnum destructum est. Huc usque Manethos. (“Ochus possessed Egypt, when he had driven Nectanebô into Ethiopia: thereby the kingship of the Egyptians was destroyed. So far Manetho [or, Here ends the History of Manetho]”).

39 For the later renown of this king as magician in popular legend, see the Dream of Nectonabôs, in Wilcken, Urkunden der Ptolemäerzeit, I pp369 ff.

40 Dynasty XXXI is not due to Manetho, but was added later to preserve the continuity, — perhaps with the use of material furnished by Manetho himself. No total is given by Africanus and Eusebius, — a further proof that the whole Dynasty is additional. In another passage (p486) Syncellus states: “Manetho wrote an account of the 31 (an error for 30) Dynasties of Egypt down to the time of Ôchus and Nectanebô”: although mistaken about the number of the Dynasties, Syncellus is in the main correct.

41 The 20th year of the kingship of Ôchus was 343 B.C.: the phrase is parallel to that used in Fr. 70, 1, and appears therefore to be Manetho’s expression.

42 The totals given by Africanus in Book III are 135, 130, 120, 89, 6, 40, 150+, 124+, 6, 20+, 38, i.e. 858+ years. To reduce to 850, assign 116 years to Dynasty XXII (as the items add), and 120 to Dynasty XXVII (Meyer).

43 Third Book (Aucher, Karst): Second Book (Müller). The Armenian words for “second” and “third” have similar forms; hence the corruption (Margoliouth).

The Mystery of the Secret Mithraic Initiation Temple/Chambers of Rome in the 1st-3rd Centuries

Did these initiation/temple rites play a role in the Christianization of the Roman Empire?

Adapted from an article written by Flavio Bariero.

Locations of Mithraic initiation chambers or temples so far identified by archeologists. The map misses the many now found in Crimea, Syria, Turkey and Iran.

The spread of a Greco-Mithraic cult throughout the Roman empire corresponded almost exactly with the destruction of the Jewish temple and State in 70-130 AD (as well as Roman-Armenian wars), and lasted until the edict of Constantine and Christian legalization and spread of the Roman state. During this period literally hundreds of underground “Mithraic Initiation Chambers” were built and maintained throughout the empire, mixing motifs of Greco-Roman Mithraic religious motifs, with fully biblical iconography. They seem to concentrate not just in Rome, but in Roman border areas where large military garrisons would have been stationed such as along the Rhine, Danube and Hadrian’s wall in England.

Greco-Roman Mithraism has been the topic of overwhelming scholarly study, discussion and debate. One aspect of Mithraic iconography that is rarely discussed however, is the similarity of Mithraic symbols to that of Judaism’s most foundational cultural events. Such as a dualistic allusion to Moses sacrifice of the Bull in Leviticus X:xx among scorpions, snakes and dogs (see ref) and Elijah’s emergence from the Cave, being fed by ravens (ref), then ascending to heaven in a chariot of fire just as is portrayed in so many of the Mithraic reliefs.

-Prove the point that these cults came out of Israeli/Armenia. The fact that the 3rd highest initiation level was Persian/Persa should be the biggest indicator that these are Parthian Refugees, not Romans or Greeks. No Roman would want to be associated with Persians or a Parthian God.
-Most don’t know that Armenia had an INCREDIBLY similar history to ancient Israel. It was the northern boundary of the Assyrian Empire and precisely where the Northern Tribes of Israel are said to have been taken by Shalamazer or Assyria.
-It was conquered into the Roman empire by Lucullus five years after Pompey took Jerusalem.
-The Roman empire left much of the ruling structure of the ‘Kingdom of Armenia‘ intact. Which stretched from the Caspian and Northern part of Armenia across Turkey/Iran and into Syria & Israel. This is why Herod the Great and so much of the Herodian Dynasty was Armenian or Cappadocian. (see the family tree here)
-Their concentration near military borders and outposts seems to suggest a connection with Roman mercenaries and axillaries. Perhaps heavily from Gothic/Parthian conquered territories. (was there perhaps a treaty made in the Caucuse Steppe where roman citizenship could be gained by serving in the Roman Military?

-[Be sure to explain Hellenized Judaism too. Use this article on “The Metamorphosis of the Sun God in Ancient Synagogues in Israel” or The Sun God in the Synagogue and how Jewish synagogues in Israel and Syria were using Greco-Roman zodiacs and sun gods.
-Note the similarities between the tauroctony and Moses/Elijah motifs! (quote scriptures)
-Not similarities of the sun god and zodiac in Jewish synogogs.
-Note the timing
-Note the relationship to Armenia. Article saying mithras was a patron god there…
-Is there evidence that Jews were conscripted into the Roman Military after conquest?
-Why a Persian/Zorastrian/Armenian God? Goths don’t cross the Danube until 376 AD… but might early migrations have preceded Alaric?
-Check out the Epic of Gilgimesh’s ‘Slaying of the Bull of Heaven‘. Could it be that the Armenians are combining the Babylonian Bull of Heaven with Moses/Elijahs Sacrifice of the Bull with the Greko Sun God? This seems incredibly likely.
-The below narrative lacks evidence of ANY Christian motifs in Mithraic chambers… but maybe they are a more universalist priesthood of jews/christians/greeks?
-Level three was a ‘persian’, why would that be the case unless there was a connection to Persia/Armenia

Emperor Constantine, Mithras

Coin showing Emperor Constantine and the God Mithras on the opposite side

On 384 AD Vettius Agorius Praetextatus, the last “papa” (acronym of the words Pater Patrum = Fathers’ Father) of the so called Cult of Mithras, died in Rome. His name, and his religious and political appointments, are written on the basement of St Peters’ Basilica, together with the names of a long list of other Roman senators, spanning a period from 305 to 390. The one thing that they have in common is that they all are “patres” of  Mithras. As many as nine among them have the supreme title of Pater Patrum, clear evidence that it was here, inside the Vatican, that the supreme leader of the mithraic organization resided, on the site of the most sacred Basilica of Christianity, erected by Constantine the Great in 320 a.D. For at least 70 years the supreme leaders of two “religions” that were always supposed to be competitors, if not sworn enemies, lived peacefully and in perfect harmony side by side. It was the same Praetextatus, as prefect of the city, who defended Damasus against his opponents, on 367, and confirmed him as bishop of Rome. 

Praetextatus often declared that he willingly had accepted to be baptized, if  the see of St. Peter was offered to him. Following his death, however, the opposite happened. The title of Pater Patrum fell (today we would say by default) upon Damasus’ successor, the bishop Siricius, who was the first, in the Church’s history, to assume the title of “papa” (pope). Together with it he took also upon himself a long series of other prerogatives, titles, symbols, objects and possessions, which passed en masse from Mithraism to Christianity.
It was a true handover from the Mithraic pope to the Christian one, which we can only  understand in the light of what had happened the year before, 383. On that date, the Senate almost unanimously voted for the abolition of paganism and all its symbols in Rome and throughout the Western empire. A vote that always puzzled the historians, because in their opinion the majority of the senators were pagans and represented the last stronghold of paganism against the irresistible advance of Christianity. This opinion, however, is utterly in disagreement with what during those same years the bishop of Milan, Ambrose, used to declare, that the Christians had the majority in the senate.  Who is right, Ambrose or modern historians?

The bishop of Milan was a member of a great senatorial family and closely followed the Roman events; so it is unlikely that he could be wrong on a matter of that kind. On the other hand, we cannot give the lie to the historians, because written and archaeological evidence confirm that the majority of the Roman senators were at that time “patres” of the Sol Invictus Mithras (the Invincible Sun Mithras), and therefore, according to common opinion, they were definitely pagans. What nobody seems to have understood, however, is that the two affiliations, to Mithras and to Christianity, were perfectly compatible. There is no lack of historical evidence to prove it. 

The most significant of many possible examples is emperor Constantine the Great. He was an affiliate of Sol Invictus Mithras and never disowned it, not even when he openly embraced Christianity, and declared himself to be “God’s servant” and a sort of “universal bishop”. His biographer Eusebius hails him as the “new Moses”, but Constantine was baptized only on his death bed, and he never stopped minting coins with mithraic symbols on one side and Christian ones on the opposite; he even erected in Constantinople a colossal statue of himself wrapped up in mithraic symbols.
As for the Roman senators, several contemporary sources, starting from St. Jerome, affirm that most of their wives and daughters were Christian. An extant example is St. Ambrose, himself a pagan and the son of a Mithraic pagan (the prefect of Gaul Ambrose), according to historians, although  there is no doubt that his family was Christian and lived in a profoundly Christian environment. From his childhood, indeed, Ambrose loved to play the part of a bishop, and in the year 353, in St. Peter’s, his sister Marcellina, still a young girl, received the veil of the consecrated virgins from Pope Liberius in person. Formally, however, he remained a pagan until he was designated bishop of Milan. He was actually baptized only fifteen days before being consecrated bishop. The fact is that in that period, Christians destined for a public career were baptized only at the point of death, or when, for one reason or another, they decided to embrace the ecclesiastic career. This was normal practice. The senator Nectarius, who was designated bishop of Antioch by the council of Constantinople in 381, was forced to postpone the consecration ceremony because he had to arrange first for his own baptism.

After the abolition of paganism all Roman senators became Christians overnight, starting with the very Symmachus who went down in History for his stern defence  of “pagan” traditions in front of emperor Valentinian. A few years later, in fact, emperor Teodosius, the most fanatic persecutor of heretics and pagans, appointed him as a consul, the highest position in the Roman bureaucracy.  

How is it possible, one might ask, that people could follow two different religions at the same time? This is the essential point. There is an enormous and incredible misunderstanding about the so-called “cult” of the Sol Invictus Mithras, which is always presented as a “religion”, arisen in parallel with Christianity and in competition with it. Some historians go so far as to maintain that this religion was so popular and deeply rooted in Roman society that it very nearly won the race with Christianity.

Yet there is absolute evidence that the so called “cult” of Mithras, in Rome, was not a religion, but an esoteric organization, with several levels of initiation, which from the oriental religion had borrowed only the name and a few exterior symbols. For what concerns contents, scope and operative procedures, however, the Roman Mithras had nothing in common with the Persian god.

The Roman Mithraic institution can in no way be defined as a religion devoted to the worship of the Sun – no more than modern Freemasonry can be defined as a religion devoted to the worship of the Great Architect of the Universe. The comparison with modern Freemasonry is quite appropriate and very helpful for understanding what kind of organization we are talking about. Actually, the two institutions are quite similar in their essential characteristic. Freemasonry’s adepts are not requested to profess any particular creed, but only to believe in the existence of a Supreme Being, however defined. This Entity is represented in all masonic temples as the Sun, inserted in a triangle, and with a name which is the same given by the Pythagoreans to the Sun. In these temples ceremonies of various kind and rituals are performed, that never have a religious character. Religion is explicitly banned from masonic temples, but in his private life every adept is free to follow whatever creed he likes.

A link between the mithraic and the masonic institutions is far from improbable, as there are profound similarities in the architecture and decoration of the respective temples, symbols, rituals and so on; but it’s a theme outside the scope of this article. The comparison has been made only with the purpose of  stressing the point that Mithraism was not a religion dedicated to the worship of a specific divinity, but a secret association of mutual assistance, whose members were free, in their public life, to worship whatever god  they liked.

And yet all the adepts of Mithras apparently shared a common attitude towards religion. This is a well known fact. It is the same Praetextatus who exposes in an exhaustive way the philosophy of his organisation in the book “Saturnalia”, written by Macrobius around 430 AD (well after the abolition of paganism). In a long conversation with other great mithraic senators, like Symmachus and Flavianus, Praetextatus affirms that all the different gods of the pagan religion are only different manifestations (or even different names) of  a unique supreme Entity, represented by the Sun, the Great Architect of the Universe. This syncretistic vision has been defined, with full reason, as “monotheistic paganism”. 
Most historians agree that the followers of Mithras were monotheists; what they fail to underline is the fact that their particular syncretistic vision allowed them to “infiltrate” and get hold of the cult (and revenues) of all pagan divinities. In fact all mithraic grottos harboured (exactly as the masonic temples of today) a host of pagans gods like Saturn, Athena, Venus, Hercules and so on, and the adepts of Mithras in their public life were priests at the service not only of the Sun (who was worshipped in public temples which had nothing to do with the mithraic grottos), but also of all the other Roman gods.

In fact, all the senators who figure in the inscriptions at the base of St Peters’ Basilica, alongside the titles of vir clarissimus (senator), pater, or pater patrum in the cult of Sol Invictus Mithras, also held a long series of other religious positions: sacerdos,  hierophanta, archibucolus of Brontes or of Hecate, Isis, and Liberius; maior augur, quindecimvir sacris faciundis and even pontifex of various pagan cults. They were also in charge of the college of the Vestal Virgins and of the sacred fire of Vesta. In the senate, there was no manifestation of cult connected to the pagan tradition that was not celebrated by a senator adhering to the Sol Invictus Mithras. That same senator most of the time was backed by a Christian family.

So, what were they, pagans or Christians? The available evidence on this point is ambiguous. Also the character of Mithras himself, as he is depicted by Christian writers, is absolutely ambiguous. A long series of analogies exists between him and Jesus. Mithras was born on December 25 in a stable to a virgin, surrounded by shepherds who brought gifts. He was venerated on the day of the Sun (Sunday). He bore a halo around his head. He celebrated a last supper with his faithful followers before returning to his father. He was said not to have died, but to have ascended to heaven from where he would return in the last days to raise the dead and judge them, sending the good to Paradise and the evil to Hell. He guaranteed his followers immortality after baptism.

Furthermore, the followers of Mithras believed in the immortality of the soul, the last judgment, and the resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. They celebrated the atoning death of a saviour who had risen on a Sunday. They celebrated a ceremony corresponding to the Catholic Mass during which they consumed consecrated bread and wine in memory of the last supper of Mithras—and during the ceremony they used hymns, bells, candles, and holy water. Indeed, they shared with Christians a long series of other beliefs and ritual practices, to the point that they were practically indistinguishable from each other in the eyes of the pagans and also of many Christians. 

Early picture of Jesus as the Good Shepherd in the catacomb of Callixtus (Rome)

Jesus as the Good Shepherd in the catacomb of Callixtus (Rome)
Apollo Belvedere

The existence of a connection between Christianity and the sun cult from the earliest times is recognized by the church fathers, too. Tertullian writes that the pagans “. . . believe that the Christian God is the Sun, because it is a well-known fact that we pray turning towards the rising Sun, and that on the Sun’s day we give ourselves to jubilation” (Tertullian, Ad Nationes 1, 13). He attempts to justify this substantial commonality to the eyes of the Christian faithful, attributing it to Satan’s plagiarism of the most sacred rites and beliefs of the Christian religion.

Constantine believed that Jesus Christ and Sol Invictus Mithras were both aspects of the same Superior Divinity. He was certainly not the only one to have this conviction. Neoplatonism contended that the religion of the sun represented a “bridge” between paganism and Christianity. Jesus was often called by the name Sol Justitiae (Sun of Justice) and was represented by statues that were similar to the young Apollo (strangely enough, Michelangelo represented the Christ of the Universal Judgment with the face of the Apollo Belvedere). Clement of Alexandria describes Jesus driving the chariot of the sun across the sky, and a mosaic of the fourth century shows him on the chariot while he ascends to heaven, represented by the sun. On some coins of the fourth century, the Christian banner at the top reads “Sol Invictus.” A large part of the Roman population believed that Christianity and the worship of the Sun were closely connected, if not the same.

For a very long time the Romans kept on worshipping both the Sun and Christ. On 410 pope Innocentius authorized the resumption of ceremonies in honour of the Sun, hoping so to save Rome from the Visigoths. And in 460 pope Leo the Great wrote: “most Christians, before entering the Basilica of St Peter, turn towards the sun and bow in its honour.” The bishop of Troy openly continued to profess his worship of the Sun even during his episcopate. Another important example in this sense is that of Synesius of Cyrene, a disciple of the famous Neoplatonic philosopher Hypatia, who was killed by the mob in Alexandria on 415. Synesius, not yet baptized, was elected bishop of Ptolemais and metropolitan bishop of Cyrenaica, but he accepted the position only on condition that he did not have to retract his Neoplatonic ideas or renounce his worship of the Sun.

In the light of all of this, how should we consider the position of Mithraists towards Christianity? Competitors or cooperators? Friends or enemies? Perhaps the best indication is given by the coins minted by emperor Constantine until 320 AD, with Christian symbols on one side, mithraic symbols on the other. 

Were Jesus and Mithras two faces of the same coin?

The Origins of Mithraism and Christianity

In order to explain the strict relation between Christianity and Mithraism we have to go back to their origins.
Christianity, as we know it, is by universal recognition a creation of St Paul, the Pharisee who was sent to Rome around 61 AD, where he founded the first Christian community of the capital.  The religion imposed by Paul in Rome was quite different from that preached by Jesus in Palestine and put into practice by James the Just, who was subsequently the leader of the Christian community of Jerusalem. Jesus’ preaching was in line with the way of living and thinking of the sect known as the Essenes. The doctrinal contents of Christianity as it emerged in Rome, at the end of the 1st century, are extraordinarily close instead to those of the sect of the Pharisees, to which Paul belonged.
Paul was executed probably in 67 by Nero, together with most of his followers. The Roman Christian community was virtually wiped out by Nero’s persecution. We do not have the slightest information about what happened to this community during the following 30 years; a very disturbing blackout of news, because something very important happened in Rome at that period. In fact, some of the most eminent citizens of the capital were converted, like the consul Flavius Clemens, cousin of emperor Domitian; besides the Roman Church assumed a monarchic structure and imposed its leadership on all the Christian communities of the empire, which had to adjust their structure and their doctrine accordingly. This is proved by a long letter of pope Clemens to the Corinthians, written towards the end of Domitian’s reign, where his leadership is clearly stated.

This means that during the years of the blackout, somebody who had access to the imperial house had revived the Roman Christian community to such a point that  it could impose its authority upon all the other Christian communities. And it was “somebody” who perfectly knew the doctrine and thinking of Paul, 100%  Pharisaic.
The mithraic organization also was born in that same period and in that same environment.  Given the scarcity of written documents on the subject, the origin and the spread of the cult of Mithras are known to us almost exclusively from archaeological evidence (remains of mithraea, dedicatory inscriptions, iconography and statues of the god, reliefs, paintings, and mosaics) that survived in large quantities throughout the Roman empire. These archaeological testimonies prove conclusively that, apart from their common name, there was no relationship at all between the Roman cult of Mithras and the oriental religion from which it is supposed to derive. In the whole of the Persian world, in fact, there is nothing that can be compared to a Roman mithraeum. Almost all the mithraic monuments can be dated with relative precision and bear dedicatory inscriptions. As a result, the times and the circumstances of the spread of the Sol Invictus Mithras (these three names are indissolubly linked in all inscriptions, so there is no doubt that they refer to the same and only institution) are known to us with reasonable certainty. Also known are the names, professions, and responsibilities of a large number of people connected to it.

The first mithraeum discovered was set up in Rome at the time of Domitian, and there are precise indications that it was attended by people close to the imperial family, in particular Jewish freedmen. The mithraeum, in fact, was dedicated by a certain Titus Flavius Iginus Ephebianus, a freedman of emperor Titus Flavius, and therefore almost certainly a Romanised Jew. From Rome the mithraic organization spread, during the following century, all over the western empire.
There is a third event, which happened in that same period, connected somehow to the imperial family and to the Jewish environment, to which no particular attention was ever given by the historians: the arrival in Rome of an important group of persons, 15 Jewish high priests, with their families and relatives. They belonged to a priestly class that had ruled Jerusalem for half a millennium, since the return from the Babylonian exile, when 24 priestly lines had stipulated a covenant amongst themselves and created a secret organization with the scope of securing the families’ fortunes, through the exclusive ownership of the Temple and the exclusive administration of the priesthood.
The Roman domination of Judea had been marked by passionate tensions on the religious level, which had provoked a series of revolts, the last of which, in AD 66, was fatal for the Jewish nation and for the priestly family. With the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus Flavius in AD 70, the Temple, the instrument of the family’s power, was razed to the ground, never to be rebuilt, and the priests were killed by the thousands.

There were survivors, of course, in particular a group of 15 high priests, who had sided with the Romans, surrendering to Titus the treasure of the Temple, and for that reason they had been kept in their properties and were given Roman citizenship. They then followed Titus to Rome, where they apparently disappeared from the stage of history, never again to play a visible role – apart from the one who undoubtedly was the leader of that group, Josephus Flavius.

Josephus was a priest who belonged to the first of the 24 priestly family lines. At the time of the revolt against Rome, he had played a leading role in the events that tormented Palestine. Sent by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin to be governor of Galilee, he had been the first to fight against the legions of the Roman general Titus Flavius Vespasianus, who had been ordered by Nero to quell the revolt. Barricaded inside the fortress of Jotapata, he bravely withstood the Roman troops’ siege. When the city finally capitulated, he surrendered, asking to be granted a personal audience with Vespasian (The Jewish War, III, 8, 9). Their meeting led to an upturn in the fortunes of Vespasian, as well as in those of Josephus: the former was shortly to become emperor in Rome, while the latter not only had his life spared, but not long afterward, was “adopted” into the emperor’s family and assumed the name Flavius. He then received Roman citizenship, a patrician villa in Rome, a life income and an enormous estate. The prize of his treason.

The priests of this group had one thing in common: they were all traitors of their people and therefore certainly banished from the Jewish community. But they all belonged to a millenarian family line, bound together by the secret organization created by Ezra, and possessing a unique specialisation and experience in running a religion and, through it, a country. The scattered remnants of the Roman Christian community offered them a wonderful opportunity to profit from their millennial experience.

We don’t know anything about their activity in Rome, but we have clear hints of it through the writings of Josephus Flavius. After a few years he started to write down the history of the events of which he had been a protagonist, with the aim, apparently, of justifying his betrayal and that of his companions. It was God’s will, he claims, who called him to build a Spiritual Temple, instead of the material one destroyed by Titus. These words certainly were not addressed to Jewish ears, but to Christian ones. Most historians are sceptical about the fact that Josephus was a Christian, and yet the evidence in his writings is compelling. In a famous passage (the so called Testimonium Flavianum) in his book Jewish Antiquities, he reveals his acceptance of two fundamental points, the resurrection of Jesus, and his identification with the Messiah of prophecies, which are necessary and sufficient condition for a Jew of that time to be considered a Christian. The Christian sympathies of Josephus also clearly emanate from other passages of the same work, where he speaks with great admiration of John the Baptist as well as of James, the brother of Jesus.

Roman bust (Israel) said to be of Josephus Flavius

Roman bust (Israel) said to be of Josephus Flavius

Josephus Flavius and St Paul

The arguments used by Josephus Flavius to justify his own betrayal and that of his brethren seem to echo the words of St. Paul. The two seem to be perfectly in agreement with regard to their attitude towards the Roman world. Paul, for example, considered it his task to free the church of Jesus from the narrowness of Judaism and from the land of Judaea and to make it universal, linking it to Rome. They are also in agreement on other significant points: for example, both of them declare their belief in the doctrines of the Pharisees, which were those that were wholly received by the Roman church.

There are sufficient historical indications to lead us to consider it for certain that the two knew each other and were linked by a strong friendship. In the Acts of the Apostles, we read that after reaching Jerusalem, Paul was brought before the high priests and the Sanhedrin to be judged (Acts 22:30). He defended himself:

“Brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question.” And when he had so said, there arose a dissension between the Pharisees and the Sadducees: and the multitude was divided. For the Sadducees say that there is no resurrection, neither angel, nor spirit: but the Pharisees confess both. And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying, “We find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” And when there arose a great dissension, the chief captain, fearing lest Paul should have been pulled in pieces by them, commanded the soldiers to go down, and to take him by force from among them.”

Josephus was a high-ranking priest and he was in Jerusalem at that time; he certainly was present at that assembly. He had joined the sect of the Pharisees at the age of nineteen and so he must have been among those priests who stood up to defend Paul. The apostle was then handed over to the Roman governor, Felix, who kept him under arrest for some time, until he was sent to Rome, together with some other prisoners (Acts 27:1), to be judged by the emperor, to whom, as a Roman citizen, Paul had appealed. In Rome, he spent two years in prison (Acts 28:39) before being set free in AD 63 or 64.

In his autobiography (Life, 3.13), Josephus says:

“Between the age of twenty-six and twenty-seven I embarked on a journey to Rome, for the following reason. During the period when he was governor of Judaea, Felix had sent some priests to Rome to justify themselves before the emperor; I knew them to be excellent people, who had been arrested on insignificant charges. As I desired to devise a plan to save them, . . . I journeyed to Rome.”

Somehow, Josephus succeeded in reaching Rome, where he made friends with Aliturus, a Jewish mime who was appreciated by Nero. Thanks to Aliturus, he was introduced to Poppaea, the wife of the emperor, and through her agency, he succeeded in freeing the priests (Life,  3.16).

The correspondence of dates, facts, and people involved is so perfect that it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Josephus went to Rome, at his own personal risk and expense, specifically to free Paul and his companions, and that it was due to his intervention that the apostle was released. This presupposes that the relationship between the two was much closer than that of a simple occasional acquaintance. Thus Josephus must have known much more about Christianity than is evident from his works, and his knowledge came directly from the teaching of Paul, of whom, in all likelihood, he was a disciple.

When Josephus returned to Rome in AD 70, his master had been executed, together with most of the Christians he had converted, his fatherland had been annihilated, the Temple destroyed, the priestly family almost exterminated, his reputation tarnished by the stain of treachery. He must have been animated by very strong desires for redemption and revenge. Besides he probably felt responsible for the destinies of the humiliated remnants of one of the greatest families in the world, the 15 high priests who shared his same condition. There is information about a meeting presided over by Josephus Flavius, unquestionably the strongest and most important character in that group of people, during the course of which  the priests examined the situation of their family and decided on a strategy to improve its fortunes. Josephus lucidly conceived a plan that in those circumstances would have appeared to anybody else to be of the utmost folly. This man, sitting amid the smoking ruins of what had been his fatherland, surrounded by a few humiliated, disconsolate survivors rejected by their fellow countrymen, aspired to no less than conquering that enormous, powerful Empire that had defeated him, and establishing his descendants and those of the men around him as the ruling class of that Empire.
The first step in that strategy was taking control of the newborn Christian religion and transforming it into a solid basis of power for the priestly family. Having come to Rome in the entourage of Titus, and thus strong in the emperor’s protection and well supplied from an economic point of view, these priests could not have encountered great problems in taking over the leadership of the tiny group of Christians who had survived Nero’s persecutions, legitimated as they were by the relationship of Josephus Flavius with Paul.

Only six years had passed since he sought Paul’s freedom from Roman imprisonment. The Apostle of the Nations must have died at least three years before. Josephus must have felt a moral obligation to continue the deeds of his ancient master whose doctrine he knew perfectly, and, sensing its potential for propagation in the Roman world, he dedicated himself and his organization of priests to its practical implementation. Once he had created a strong Christian community in the capital, it could not have been difficult for the priests to also impose its authority on the other Christian communities scattered around the Empire—first of all, on those that had been created or catechized by Paul himself.

Josephus Flavius and Sol Invictus Mithras

Josephus Flavius knew all too well that no religion has a future unless it is an integral part of a system of political power. It was a concept innate in the DNA, so to speak, of the priests of Judah that religion and political power should live together in symbiosis, mutually sustaining each other. It is unimaginable that he could think that the new religion would spread throughout the Empire independently, or even in opposition to political power. His first aim, therefore, was to seize power. Thanks not only to the millennial experience of his family, but also to his own life experience, Josephus knew all too well that political power, especially in an elephantine organism such as the Roman Empire, was based on military power, and military power was based on economic power, and economic power on the ability to influence and control the financial leverage of the country. His plan must have envisaged that the priestly family would sooner or later take control of these levers. Then the Empire would be in his hands, and the new religion would be the main instrument to maintain control of it.

What was Josephus’ plan to achieve this ambitious project? He didn’t have to invent anything; the model was there: the secret organization created by Ezra a few centuries earlier, which had assured power and prosperity  to the priestly families for half a millennium. He only had to make a few changes, in order to disguise this institution in the pagan world as a mystery religion, dedicated to the Greek god Helios, the Sun, for his undoubted assonance with the Jewish god El Elyon. He was represented as invincible, the Sol Invictus, to spur the morale of his adepts, and at his side was put, as an inseparable companion, a solar divinity of that same Mesopotamia from where the Jews had originated, Mithras, the Sun’s envoy on Earth to redeem humanity; and all around them, in the mithraea, the statues of various divinities, Athena, Hercules, Venus and so on. A clear reference to God Father, and his envoy on earth Jesus, surrounded by their attributes of wisdom, strength, beauty and so on, that was well understood by the Christians, but was perfectly pagan to a pagan’s eye (probably this organization was proposed by St. Paul himself, who came from Tarsus, a town dedicated to Mithras, with a bull on its banner).

This organization didn’t have any religious purpose: its scope was to preserve union between the priestly families and assure their security and wealth, through mutual support and a common strategy, aimed at infiltrating all the positions of power in the Roman society.

It was secret. In spite of the fact that it lasted for three centuries and it had thousands of members, most of them very cultured men, there isn’t a single word written by a member about what was going on during the meetings of the mithraic institution, what decisions were taken and so on. This means that absolute secrecy was always maintained about the works that were held in a mithraeum.

Access was evidently reserved to the descendants of priestly families, at least at the operative level, from the fourth grade up (occasionally people of different origins could be accepted in the first three grades, as in the case of emperor Commodus). This system of recruitment is perfectly in line with the historical and archaeological evidence. Even at the peak of its power and diffusion, the Sol Invictus Mithras appears to be an elitist institution, with a very limited number of members.  Most mithraea were very small in size and could not harbour more than 20 people. It was definitely not a mass religion, but an organisation to which only the top leaders of the army and of the imperial bureaucracy were admitted.  Yet, we don’t know anything about the enlisting policy of the Sol Invictus Mithras. Did it recruit its members amongst the high ranks of Roman society, or was the opposite true – that it was the members of this organization who “infiltrated” all the positions of power of that society? Historical evidence favours the hypothesis that membership in the institution was reserved on an ethnic basis.  Access to it, at least at the operative level, was most likely reserved for descendants of the group of the Jewish priests who came to Rome after the destruction of Jerusalem.

The Sol Invictus Mithras conquers the Roman Empire

Monumental pivoting altar of Mithras in Heddernheim Germany

The monumental pivoting altar of Mithras of Heddernheim, near Frankfurt (Germany)

Written sources and the archaeological testimonies give evidence that from Domitian on Rome always remained the most important centre of the Sol Invictus Mithras institution, which had become firmly entrenched at the very heart of the imperial administration, both in the palace and among the Praetorian Guard.  From Rome, very soon the organization spread to nearby Ostia, the port with the greatest volume of trading in the world, as goods and foodstuffs from every part of the Empire arrived to delight the insatiable appetite of the capital. In the course of the second and third centuries, almost forty mithraea were built there, clear evidence that the members of the institution had taken control of trading activities, source of incomparable incomes and economic power.

Subsequently, it spread to the rest of the Empire. The first mithraea to arise outside the Roman circle were built, shortly before AD 110,  in Pannonia,  at Poetovium,  the main customs centre of the region, then in the military garrison of Carnuntum, and soon after in all the Danubian provinces (Rhaetia, Noricum, Pannonia, Mesia, and Dacia). The followers of the cult of Mithras included the customs officers, who collected a tax on every kind of transport dispatched from Italy toward central Europe and vice versa; the imperial functionaries who controlled transport, the post, the administration of finance and mines; and last, the military troops of the garrisons scattered along the border. Almost in the same period as in the Danubian region, the cult of Mithras started to appear in the basin of the Rhine, at Bonn and Treves. This was followed by Britannia, Spain, and North Africa, where mithraea appeared in the early decades of the second century, always associated with administrative centres  and military garrisons.

Archaeological evidence, therefore, conclusively demonstrates that throughout the second century AD, the members of Sol Invictus Mithras occupied the main positions in the public administration, becoming the dominant class in the outlying provinces of the Empire—especially in central and northern Europe. We have seen that the members of Sol Invictus Mithras had infiltrated also the pagan religion, taking control of the cult of the main divinities, starting with the Sun.

The winning move, however, which made the success of the Mithraic institution irresistible, was that of seizing control of the army. Josephus Flavius knew, from direct experience, that the army could become the arbiter of the imperial throne. Whoever controlled the army controlled the Empire. The main aim fixed by him for the Mithraic organization, therefore, must have been infiltrating the army and taking control of it.  

Soon, mithraea sprang up in all the places where Roman garrisons were stationed. Within a century, the cult of Mithras had succeeded in controlling all the Roman legions stationed in the provinces and along the borders, to the point that the worship of Sol Invictus Mithras is often considered by historians to be the “religion” typical of Roman soldiers.
Even before the army, however, the attention of Sol Invictus had been concentrated on the Praetorian Guard, the emperor’s personal guard. It is not by chance that the second known dedicatory inscription of a Mithraic character regards a commander of the Praetorium, and that the concentration of mithraea was particularly high in the area surrounding the Praetorian barracks. The infiltration of this body must have started under the Flavian emperors. They could count on the unconditional loyalty of many Jewish freedmen who owed them everything—their lives, their safety, and their well-being. The Roman emperors were somewhat reluctant to entrust their personal safety to officers who came from the ranks of the Roman senate, their main political adversary, and so the ranks of their personal guard were mainly filled with freedmen and members of the equestrian class. This must have favoured the Sol Invictus, which made the Praetorium its unchallenged fief from the beginning of the second century on.

Once it achieved control of the Praetorium and the army, the Sol Invictus Mithras was able to put its hands also on the imperial office. This actually happened on 193 AD, when Septimius Severus was proclaimed emperor by the army. Born in Leptis Magna, in North Africa, to an equestrian family of high-ranking bureaucrats, he was certainly an affiliate of the Mithraic organization, having married Julia Domna, sister of Bassianus, a high priest of Sol Invictus. From then on, the imperial office was the prerogative of the Sol Invictus Mithras, as all emperors were proclaimed and/or removed by the army or by the praetorian guard.

As far as we can judge with hindsight, the final objective of the strategy devised by Josephus Flavius was the complete substitution of the ruling class of the Roman Empire with members of Sol Invictus Mithras. This result was achieved in less than two centuries, thanks to the policy enforced by the Mithraic emperors. The backbone of the Roman imperial administration was formed by new families of unknown origins, that had emerged at the end of the first century and the beginning of the second, in antagonism to the senatorial aristocracy, traditionally opposed to the imperial power.  They formed the so called “equestrian” order which soon became the undisputed fiefdom of the Sol Invictus Mithras. For sure most of the families of the 15 Jewish priests of Josephus Flavius’ entourage, rich, well-connected and enjoying imperial favour, ended up belonging to this order.

The Sol Invictus emperors all belonged to the equestrian order and governed in open opposition to the senate, humiliating it, depriving it of its prerogatives and wealth, and striking it physically with exile and execution of a great number of its high-profile members. At the same time, they started introducing equestrian families into the senate. This policy had been initiated by Septimius Severus and developed by Gallienus (who, we must remember, was also the author of the first Edict of Tolerance toward Christianity) who established by decree that all those who had held the position of provincial governors or prefects of the Praetorian Guard, both appointments reserved for the equestrian order, would enter by right into the senatorial ranks. This right was later extended to other categories of functionaries, high bureaucrats and high-ranking army officers (all members of the mithraic institution). As a result, within a few decades, virtually the whole equestrian class passed into the ranks of the senate, outnumbering the families of the original Italic and Roman aristocracy.

In the meantime the spread of Christianity throughout the empire proceeded at a steady pace. Wherever the representatives of Mithras arrived, there a Christian community immediately sprang up. By the end of the second century, there were already at least four bishop’s sees in Britannia, sixteen in Gaul, sixteen in Spain, and one in practically every big city in North Africa and the Middle East. In 261 Christianity was recognized as lawful religion by the mithraic Gallienus and was proclaimed the official religion of the empire by the mithraic Constantine at the beginning of the fourth century, although it was still a minority in Roman society. It was then gradually enforced upon the population of the empire, with a series of measures that culminated at the end of the fourth century with the abolition of the pagan religions and the mass “conversion” of the Roman Senate. 

The final situation regarding the ruling class of the Western Empire was the following: the ancient nobility of pagan origin had virtually disappeared and the new great nobility, that identified itself with the senatorial class of the landowners, was made up by former members of the Sol Invictus Mithras. On the religious level, paganism had been eliminated and Christianity had become the religion of all the inhabitants of the Empire; it was controlled by ecclesiastical hierarchies, coming entirely from the senatorial class,  endowed with immense landed properties and quasi-royal powers within their sees.

The priestly families had become the absolute masters of that same Empire that had destroyed Israel and the Temple of Jerusalem. All its high offices, both civil and religious, and all its wealth were in their hands, and supreme power had been entrusted in perpetuity, by divine right, to the most illustrious of the priestly tribes, the “Gens Flavia” (starting from Constantine all Roman emperors bore the name of Flavius), in all likelihood descendants of Josephus Flavius.
Three centuries earlier, Josephus had written with pride: “My family is not obscure, on the contrary, it is of priestly descent: as in all peoples there is a different foundation of the nobility, so with us the excellence of the line is confirmed by its belonging to the priestly order” (Life 1.1).  By the end of the fourth century his descendants had every right to apply those same words to the Roman Empire.

At that point the institution of the Sol Invictus Mithras was no more necessary to boost the fortunes of the priestly family and it was disposed of. It had been the instrument of the most successful conspiracy in History.

See Adm. Flavio Barbiero’s biography on the site of the Conference of Quantavolution in Athens, 2011

Related bibliography

  • F. Barbiero, The secret society of Moses, Inner Traditions, Rochester, Vermont, 2010
  • B. Griffith, The archaeological evidence for Mithraism in imperial Rome, University of Michigan, 1993
  • Cumont, Franz, The Mysteries of Mithras, White Fish, Mont.  Kessinger, 1910
  • M.J. Vermaseren, Corpus inscriptionum et monumentorum religionis Mithriacae, 2 vols. (1956 and 1960)·
  • Reinhold Merkelbach, Mithras il Signore delle grotte [Mitsras: The Master of the Caves] Genoa: ECIG, 1988
  • Daniels, C. M., “The role of the Roman Army in the spread and practise of Mithraism” in John Hinnells, ed. Mithraic Studies, Vol. II, 1975
  • K. Bihlmeyer and H. Tuechle, Storia della Chiesa [The History of the Church], (Brescia: Morcelliana,1994),
  • Lucio De Giovanni, L’ imperatore Costantino e il mondo pagano [The Emperor Constantine and the Pagan World] (Naples: D’Auria, 2003)
  • Marta Sordi, I cristiani e l’impero romano [The Christians and the Roman Empire] (Milan: Jaca, 1983).
  • Gavin, F. The Jewish Antecedent of the Christian Sacraments. London: Macmillan,1928.
  • Leon, H. J. The Jews of Ancient Rome. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society
  • Gibbon, Edward. The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. London: Penguin, 1994
  • Maier, Paul L. Eusebius—The Church History. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1999
  • Josephus Flavius, Autobiography, The Jewish War
  • Macrobius, Saturnalia
  • Aurelius Victor, De Caesaribus,  Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1994.

Re-examining what the scriptures say about the “Only True Church” Doctrine

:image {“id”:13935,”sizeSlug”:”full”,”linkDestination”:”media”} –>

67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church (D&C 10:67–68).


In this article I hope to show from numerous scriptures in the New Testament, the Book of Mormon & the Doctrine & Covenants that the “one true church” of Jesus Christ mentioned in most of LDS scriptures appears to be a non-denominational “spiritual church” or heavenly church which manifests as a cultural movement and NOT an exclusivist Christian sect as has been established in LDS tradition.[def] I also hope to show in this and other articles in this series that Judaism, Christianity and Mormonism were created to be a symbol, or type/archetype of this heavenly church, which should seek to establish & bring forth a temporal version of the “true and living church” spoken of in D&C 1:30. The “only true church”, or Kingdom of god/heaven would be something earthly churches aspire to and lead people to, not an inherent right that comes with priesthood keys. The scriptures toward the end of this article hit the point home, and show that like Peter and other apostle’s constant misunderstanding of Jesus teachings—Joseph and modern church leaders may have also misunderstood and overlooked LDS scriptures which clearly teach that the “only true church” is a heavenly church instead of specific religious sect or denomination. A global spiritual brotherhood which all the good people and faiths of earth are destined toward if the follow the path of love and selflessness. It seems to this author that religious scripture, like good music and poetry, is made to be somewhat ambiguous on many issues, and cultures use that ambiguity to promote love and selflessness or egocentrism and pride.  It is my hope that by looking at the following scriptural arguments that the LDS people might choose to focus on scriptures which promote religious pluralism, and not those which promote exclusivity and pride.

Outline of points covered in the article
-The cultural overuse of the only true church concept in LDS testimonies too often follows the example of the Book of Mormon Zoramites. (see Alma 31:12–21)
-The Book of Mormon, Bible and Doctrine and Covenants teach that Christ’s one true church (as well as the church of the devil) are spiritual churches which transcend organizational and priesthood lines. (D&C 10:67–68, 1 Ne 14:10Moroni 7:16–17, Mark 9:38–402 Nephi 10:16Matt 12:30, etc)
-The Doctrine & Covenants (D&C 10:67–68) clearly teaches the condition required to be part of Christ’s Spiritual Church. Declaring more or less than that definition threatens Mormonisms’ membership in Christ’s one true spiritual church.
-A temporal sect or religion’s “trueness” or whether they can be classified as part of the “one true church”, depends on how well they copy, obey or “come unto” the spiritual church in heaven. (D&C 10:53–59,67–69)
-The separation of the wheat and the tares at the end of the age is synonymous with Christ’s separation of the Church of God and Church of the devil. The point of the parable revolves around the difficulty for humans to distinguish between the two. (see Matt 13:37–43, D&C 86:1–3, D&C 88:94)
-D&C 10:52–54 makes it clear that Christ’s spiritual church existed on earth before the restoration of the LDS sect. Joseph Smith’s church & priesthood were meant to “build up” and correct the already existing spiritual church on earth. And to be a symbol and archetype of the end-epoch separating and gathering process (see Heb 8:5;9:23-24;10:1; Alma 13:16).
-Mormonism should never boast of being the only true church until Messiah’s final gathering of all people and churches in One Body, and that universal brotherhood or kingdom is ready to “present to the Father”.
-Interpreting D&C 1:30 to suggest the LDS church is ‘the ONLY true church’, contradicts other scriptural evidence concerning the matter. We LDS people need to relook at the conditional nature of what the verse actually says–and stop using it as a pillar of exclusivity. (see exegesis of D&C 1:30)

Zoramitism in the LDS Church

As much as I love the good in Mormonism, it seems to me that many of us in the LDS church have focused too much on a prideful reading of D&C 1:30, and discount an abundance of scriptural information to the contrary, in order to support the tradition of being “the only true church”. Like the biblical Pharisees and Zoramites in the Book of Mormon, we sometimes twist the scriptures in a manner that makes us think that God has “separated us” and “elected us to be saved”, while “all around us are elected to be cast by [his] wrath down to hell” (or lower kingdoms until we do their temple work). Understanding the pride inherent in our doctrines is the first step in unraveling what I believe to be egocentric scriptural interpretations which crept into the church from its earliest days. The similarities between the Book of Mormon account of the Zoramites and the average Mormon testimony in Fast & Testimony Meeting should be enough to convict us and open our hearts to the need to look closer at what the scriptures teach concerning the only true church doctrine. For those unfamiliar with the story of the Zoramites, let’s read through Alma’s experience for some insight into this extremely prideful sect—one that LDS people don’t want to be like!

12 Now, when they had come into the land, behold, to their astonishment they found that the Zoramites had built synagogues, and that they did gather themselves together on one day of the week, which day they did call the day of the Lord; and they did worship after a manner which Alma and his brethren had never beheld;
13 For they had a place built up in the center of their synagogue, a place for standing, which was high above the head; and the top thereof would only admit one person.
14 Therefore, whosoever desired to worship must go forth and stand upon the top thereof, and stretch forth his hands towards heaven, and cry with a loud voice, saying:
15 Holy, holy God; we believe that thou art God, and we believe that thou art holy, and that thou wast a spirit, and that thou art a spirit, and that thou wilt be a spirit forever.
16 Holy God, we believe that thou hast separated us from our brethren; and we do not believe in the tradition of our brethren, which was handed down to them by the childishness of their fathers; but we believe that thou hast elected us to be thy holy children; and also thou hast made it known unto us that there shall be no Christ.
17 But thou art the same yesterday, today, and forever; and thou hast elected us that we shall be saved, whilst all around us are elected to be cast by thy wrath down to hell; for the which holiness, O God, we thank thee; and we also thank thee that thou hast elected us, that we may not be led away after the foolish traditions of our brethren, which doth bind them down to a belief of Christ, which doth lead their hearts to wander far from thee, our God.
18 And again we thank thee, O God, that we are a chosen and a holy people. Amen.
19 Now it came to pass that after Alma and his brethren and his sons had heard these prayers, they were astonished beyond all measure.
20 For behold, every man did go forth and offer up these same prayers.
21 Now the place was called by them Rameumptom, which, being interpreted, is the holy stand. (Alma 31:12–21)

Although the beliefs of the Zoramites concerning the nature of God and Christ were different than our own, we come too close to sharing the same pride concerning salvation. Like all fundamentalist sects, the Zoramites saw themselves as a “chosen and holy people”. Like us, the Zoramites truly believed that their doctrines, divine election, (and likely priesthood & ordinances)  made them the only true church, “elected by God to be saved”. They did not understand the following concepts taught by Nephi, and reiterated by Moroni, Jesus and other prophets—that until Zion is fully established & redeemed, the only true church is a spiritual church which transcends cultural and organizational lines.

The ‘Only Two Churches’ are ‘Spiritual Churches’ or Social Movements

I suggest the LDS concept of being the ‘only true church’ is promoted by a small handful of misunderstood scriptures. One example is Nephi’s vision of the two churches. In his vision given in 1 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, Nephi was taught that there are only two churches, the church of the Lamb of God (or the true church), and the church of the devil (the false church). This vision is often used to support the idea that there is only one true church on earth — however, since Nephi’s vision specifies that everyone on earth belongs to one of these two churches— it should be obvious that term “church” here is referring to a “spiritual” church or ideological allegiance and not just a temporal sect or ecclesiastical organization. Lets look at what the verse says,

10 And [The angel of the Lord] said unto me: Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil; wherefore, whoso belongeth not to the church of the Lamb of God belongeth to that great church, which is the mother of abominations; and she is the whore of all the earth. (1 Ne 14:10)

It should be apparent from the context of this verse, that the term “church” in this scripture, can not be referring to the most popular modern definition of the word church (which is a specific religious denomination). Since the verse says “there are save two churches only”, defining “church” as a denomination would mean there could only be two religious denominations in existence, and everyone on earth would have to be a member of one or the other.

As implied by the context and noted by other authors, the word church anciently, often had a much broader meaning than it does now (Hebrew qahal or edah; Greek ekklesia). For instance, in Greek texts it referred more broadly to a general assembly, or political association of people who bonded together and shared the same beliefs or loyalties. Scholars have noted that the modern concept of a church as a separate priesthood organization or religious denomination, didn’t exist among Jews of the first and second temple periods. Instead the differing religious groups or “schools of thought” as Josephus called them, were forced to work together to manage the Jewish theocratic state despite their conflicting ideologies.

In regards to Nephi’s vision of two churches, LDS apostles and church leaders have often misunderstood the scriptural use of the word “church” by arguing an inconsistent definition-— suggesting on one hand that the “church of the lamb of God” refers to a literal ecclesiastical organization (the LDS church and its ancient equivalent), but yet that the “church of the devil” refers to a figurative or spiritual church that transcends organizational lines. Others have tried to define the Church of the Devil in Nephi’s vision as the Catholic or American Evangelical Churches. However any interpretation to make either “the church of the Lamb of God” OR “the church of the devil” into literal Christian organizations or sects, contradicts the principle taught in Moroni 7 where he teaches that “every thing which inviteth to do good… is of God” and “whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil… is of the devil”.

16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him. (Moroni 7:16–17)

12 And whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do good is of me; for good cometh of none save it be of me. I am the same that leadeth men to all good… (Ether 4:12)

The idea sometimes pushed by early church leaders that every other Christian denomination BUT the LDS church was the Church of the devil would be a complete contradiction to Moroni’s words. How could Catholicism or protestantism for instance be the “church of the devil” when the devil “persuadeth no man to do good[0], no not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him“! The idea is prideful and contradictory and has subsequently been abandoned by most modern LDS teachers. But at the same time, how could the LDS church be the “only true church” when according to Nephi and other scriptures THERE ARE ONLY TWO CHURCHES? According to Nephi’s vision, holding that the LDS denomination is the only true church requires all others to be part of the church of the devil, which as we will see in this article goes contrary to the words of Moroni, Christ’s and the Joseph’s Doctrine and Covenants. The answer to this apparent contradiction is that Both Moroni and Nephi for the most part taught a broad spiritual version of Christ’s true church. [1]

Is it any wonder that we are scorned as being a cult by other churches when we repeatedly infer that they are part of the church of the devil? (Perhaps some LDS members don’t realize it, but our insistence that we are the ONLY true church infers by definition that unlike us, all others are false!).

To make either the Church of God OR the Church of the Devil into one particular organization is to twist the scriptures on the matter.

Early LDS Church leaders were not alone in their misunderstanding of the spiritual nature of the “church” Christ taught.  In the New Testament John and other apostles make this same mistake when they forbid a man who would not follow them, from casting out demons by Christ’s name and authority. Jesus rebuked them and teaches the same principle as Nephi and Moroni. No-one who does good in Christ’s name is of the devil—and the apostolic followers weren’t the only one’s allowed to act with Christ’s authority. Because all who do good in Christ’s name are part of Christ’s spiritual church.

38 John said to Jesus, “Teacher, we saw someone forcing demons out of a person by using the power and authority of your name. We tried to stop him because he was not one of us.”
39 Jesus said, “Don’t stop him! No one who works a miracle in my name can turn around and speak evil of me.
40 Whoever isn’t against us is for us. (Mark 9:38–40 GWT)

Nephi makes essentially the same statement using reverse logic later in his writings as he explains the nature of both the true church of Christ and the False church of the devil. (Christ also says almost the exact thing in Matt 12:30)

“Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish; for they are they who are the whore of all the earth; for they who are not for me are against me, saith our God.” (2 Nephi 10:16, see also Matt 12:30)

So Christ in one place says “whoever is not against us–is for us”, but in another place says (along with Nephi) “whoever is not for us–is against us” (see Matt 12:30). These statements are a complete contradictions if you try to define Christ’s church as a closed ecclesiastical organization. (see footnote 4) They can only be harmonized if you see them as a restatement of the same forced spiritual dichotomy used over and over in scripture which teaches that those who do good and are heading toward love are part of the spiritual church of God, and those who do evil and are fighting good are part of the church of the devil. And that every ecclesiastical church, sect, denomination, religion, person or nation is constantly aligning themselves with one or the other in everything they do–and will eventually have to chose allegiances in the heavenly or spiritual battle. Understanding this logic shows how the verses mentioned above support the idea of a spiritual church… and not just a temporal church.


The Good vs. Evil Dichotomy in Scripture

The binary or dichotomy of good vs. evil is taught throughout the scriptures. And perhaps nowhere is the idea that these terms transcend organizational lines taught better than in the parable of the wheat and the tares. In the parable the Master commands his servants to plant wheat in a field— but when it grows he find tares MIXED WITHIN the wheat. He tells his servants to allow them to grow together, least pulling out the tares, “ye root up also the wheat with them”.  The meaning of this parable is explained not only in the New Testament but also in D&C 86 & 88, where we learn that that “the field was the world, and the apostles were the sowers of the seed” (D&C 86:2), the good seed are the children of Christ’s kingdom (true church), and the tares are the church of the devil or bad people and bad works that come from twisted doctrine (Matt 13:38, D&C 88:94).

37 …He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom [Christ’s true church]; but the tares are the children of the wicked one [ie. devil’s church, see D&C 88:94];
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.
41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;
42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matt 13:37–43, see also D&C 86:1–3)

Verse 38 (clarified in D&C 88:94) makes it clear that in this parable the wheat are the kingdom or church of Christ, and the tares are the ‘kingdom or church of the devil’. And the whole point of the parable is that it is hard to tell the difference between the two because they look so similar and grow together within each organization! Both the wheat and the tares exist within every religion, culture and kingdom. There are tares in “Christ’s Kingdom”, and wheat among the Gentiles. But it is not until “the end of the world” (end or close of the age in most translations) that Christ and his angels (not mortal servants) will separate the two; gathering the wheat into heaven and burning the tares with the stubble to prepare a new crop cycle. [2].

[[defs]]Spiritual Church: A social movement. A state of being. A type of spiritual nature or character which binds like-minded people together.  And organization which exists in heaven with which people can align themselves in thought and behavior.

Organizational or Temporal Church: A specific religious organization or denomination on the earth, bound together by specific ordinances, priesthood and leadership.[[defs]]


The Temporal Church as a Copy or ‘Type’ of the Spiritual Church

In the revelations given to Joseph Smith in Doctrine and Covenants ten, the “trueness” of a temporal or denominational church appear to be dependant on how well it copies or aligns itself with the spiritual church as it exists in heaven. Apparently, when the Heavenly Church commits a dispensation or makes a covenant with a people, the leaders are given a charge or responsibility to be a type, copy or microcosm of that true spiritual church which exists in heaven— to be a “light” or example (Heb 8:5;9:23-24;10:1; Alma 13:16). As they succeed they can be classified as a “true and living” church or religion (meaning they are legitimate or approved by the church in heaven). The spiritual church in heaven influences sweeping social movements in every part of the earth. Within each dispensation, every good/true organization or church adds to Christ’s true spiritual church, but if they fail, they do the opposite. This point is explained to Joseph Smith in D&C 10, a revelation given in 1829 before the LDS church was even organized. Take note of the changing use of the word “church” and the distinctions that are made between the spiritual church, and the temporal or denominational copy Joseph is charged with establishing. Red text and parenthetical annotations are mine.

52 And now, behold, according to their [the Nephites] faith in their prayers will I bring this part of my gospel to the knowledge of my people. Behold, I do not bring it to destroy that which they have received, but to build it up.
53 And for this cause have I said: If this generation harden not their hearts, I will establish my church among them.
54 Now I do not say this to destroy my church, but I say this to build up my church;
(“my church” in v. 54 is obviously referring to his spiritual church, since the LDS temporal church was not yet organized, and would otherwise make no sense in this context. For instance, why would “establishing” his temporal church destroy his temporal church when it did not even exist yet? (or had already been destroyed by apostasy- see next article in series) Obviously it’s saying, “I’m not revealing this part of my gospel to destroy the part of my church that the Gentiles already have, but I’m doing it to build up my overall spiritual church which includes all denominations who are coming unto me…”)
55 Therefore, whosoever belongeth to my church need not fear, for such shall inherit the kingdom of heaven.
(once again “my church is referring to his spiritual church. And more importantly he stresses that those who belong to his spiritual church don’t need to fear this new temporal church, because any member of his spiritual church will inherit the kingdom of heaven)
56 But it is they who do not fear me, neither keep my commandments but build up churches unto themselves to get gain, yea, and all those that do wickedly and build up the kingdom of the devil—yea, verily, verily, I say unto you, that it is they that I will disturb, and cause to tremble and shake to the center.
(Only temporal churches which are part of the spiritual church of the devil need to fear being disturbed by this new organizational church)
67 Behold, this is my doctrine—whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.
(In this verse ‘my church’, is once again a spiritual church. Not Mormonism, or any one specific organization, sect or denomination. “His church” is a spiritual association of people who are repentant and “coming unto Christ”— the head and archetype of the heavenly church)
68 Whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same is not of me, but is against me; therefore he is not of my church.
(Once again, “my church” must be referring to a spiritual association, as attempting to define it as a organizational church would not make much sense in this context)
69 And now, behold, whosoever is of my church, and endureth of my church to the end, him will I establish upon my rock [or gospel. see D&C 11:24], and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them. (D&C 10:52–69)
(All those who are of Christ’s spiritual church will eventually be gathered into his “rock” and heavenly kingdom.) [3]

The bottom line of this excerpt is found in verse 67 where the spiritual nature of Christ’s church is specifically explained. It says “whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church“. And equally important is the idea that “whosoever declareth more or less than this, the same… is not of my church”. The purpose of a temporal church is to symbolize, copy and “build up” his spiritual church. Pride within a temporal church aligns us with the devil, putting us in opposition to Christ’s spiritual church.

When we or our leaders stand up in conference or fast and testimony meeting and preach like the Zoramites and Pharisees that just because of our priesthood, or revelations we alone are “the only true church”, we run the risk of being “not of His church!” (v.68 see also 3 Ne 11:28–30) Christ’s church is not proud, it is not boastful. It understands that all who do good are members of the true church. It understands that teaching doctrines of elitism or exclusivity only lead to idolatry, contention and division. It understands that there are multiple valid priesthood lines on earth, and that ALL earthly religion that leads to good can be classified as part of God’s true church (a principle Paul the Apostle taught and a point we will cover in our next article).

Paul, who received a priesthood independent of Peter’s, tried relentlessly to teach these principles over and over to the orthodox Jews of his day who believed they were God’s only true people–and that salvation could come only by their system of laws and ordinances. Instead he tried to teach them that salvation does not come by the Jewish (or even Christian) law, ordinances, or outward religion (Gal 2:16-21, Eph 2:8–18, Rom 3-8, Acts 15:10, 1 Cor 15:56), but that the Jewish temporal religion was a symbol trying to point people to the salvation of the true heavenly church which is lead by Christ and his equals (Col 2:16-19Heb 10:1).  He goes as far as to say that when Gentiles follow their consciences and keep the Spirit of the Jewish law, “they are a [religious] law of themselves” (Rom 2:14, Gal 5:18, 2 Cor 3:6) — because a loving Christlike character “is the fulfilling of the law” (Gal 5:14, Rom 13:10).  He says religious strictures and commandments were not intended for the righteous, but for the “lawless, disobedient, ungodly, sinners, murderers, whoremongers and liars” (1 Tim 1:9–10). He calls the temporal church and its laws a “schoolmaster” or temporary “tutor” designed only to bring us to Christ and a true Christ-like Character (Gal 3:24–25, Gal 4:1–5). He calls those who seek salvation by looking to the temporal church, “slaves to the law” (v. 5, 25) comparing them to Hagar and Ishmael while encouraging his followers to be free by following the heavenly church, which he refers to as “the heavenly Jerusalem”, who “is our mother” (see Gal 4:4,9-10,21-31. also Heb 12:22). He understood the need of earthly churches with authority, but didn’t want his followers to fall captive to an exclusivist, prideful sectarian mindset the Jews had developed.

At the end of the age or “world”, Christ apparently will gather ALL his sheep from among ALL the churches of earth and the spirit realm—exalting them into a heavenly kingdom of God (D&C 29:26–29; 27:11-14; 84:100). In addition to the New Testament, the Book of Mormon gives us a template to how this occurrence might happen at the end of each major age (3 Ne 11). We as Latter-day Saints believe Joseph Smith was charged with helping to begin and aid in the earthly aspect of that final gathering process.  But we should note that one of the first items of business which Christ addressed among the Nephite people was to chastise them for their “disputations”, and teach them that whoever has the spirit of contention, is “not of me, but is of the devil” (or part of the devil’s church). Perhaps we as Mormons shouldn’t be surprised when Christ comes to us as a people and we not only get this same chastisement, but are dumbfounded when many prophets from other churches are chosen over our apostles to administer the unified political & religious kingdom![4]  Just as the Jews couldn’t accept that the Messiah would call obscure publicans, and fishermen (who held no Jewish priesthood) to lead his kingdom instead of their beloved highest religious priests.

Much like the Jews, Joseph Smith and the early Saints were also repeatedly chastised in the Doctrine and Covenants concerning their pride, boasting & contentions and were told that if they didn’t repent they wouldn’t be allowed to help in the work (D&C 20:32–34, D&C 3:10–11; 23:1, D&C 38:39, D&C 90:17, D&C 98:20, D&C 121:37). Despite these warnings, statements like the following from Joseph Smith set a tone of Pharisaical pride and antagonism which has persisted in the church for over 100 years,

“…all the priests who adhere to the sectarian religions of the day with all their followers, without one exception, receive their portion with the devil and his angels.”   (The Elders Journal, Joseph Smith Jr., editor, vol.1, no.4, p.60.)

Expand More Quotes
Here are a few more examples of the church’s continuing pride and animosity toward other Christian religions…
If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation. There is no salvation outside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. (Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p. 670) The only principle upon which they judge me [Joseph Smith] is by comparing my acts with the foolish traditions of their fathers and nonsensical teachings of hireling priests, whose object and aim were to keep the people in ignorance for the sake of filthy lucre; or as the prophet says, to feed themselves, not the flock. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Deseret Book, 1977, p. 315) “What is it that inspires professors of Christianity generally with a hope of salvation? It is that smooth, sophisticated influence of the devil, by which he deceives the whole world.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 270) When Joseph Smith was asked “Do you believe the Bible?” he replied “If we do,we are the only people under heaven that does, for there are none of the religious sects of the day that do.” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 119) . . .he that confesseth not that Jesus has come in the flesh and sent Joseph Smith with the fullness of the Gospel to this generation, is not of God, but is anti-christ. (Journal of Discourses, vol. 9, p. 312) This is not just another Church. This is not just one of a family of Christian churches. This is the Church and kingdom of God, the only true Church upon the face of the earth . . . (Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, pp. 164-165)

The Source of LDS Religious Exclusivism

In regards to the LDS only true church doctrine, the basis of it seems to come almost exclusively from the scriptural verse D&C 1:30. Despite all the contrary counsel and scripture, a phrase from this single verse has become the Mormon motto of testimony and religious exclusivism often used to define our faithfulness. It reads,

 30 And also those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this [or my see v.1, spiritual] church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased, speaking unto the church collectively and not individually— (D&C 1:30)

Since its foundation, the Saints have failed to grasp the scripture’s loose and often dualistic definition of the word “church” defined in D&C 10:67 & 1 Nephi as a spiritual movement and not just a specific sect. They read and focus on what they wanted to hear, which was that the LDS sect itself was intrinsically “the only true church”, instead of what the verse actually says which is that Joseph and the early Saints were (like the founders of democracy) laying the foundation of the coming out of obscurity of the Lord’s spiritual church (see v.1), which is and will be “the only true and living church… with which the Lord was well pleased”. (footnote 6) This interpretation should be obvious, since its the spiritual church that had fallen into “obscurity and darkness” NOT the LDS sect. But instead of putting a major focus on the concepts taught in D&C 10:52–69, the Church has followed the lead of the Zoramites and Pharisees and adopted a few out of context words from this single verse to be one of the most recited testimonial phrases recited in our religion.

See this article for a closer look at D&C 1:30 (a piece by piece scriptural exegesis)

In fact, the early saints were really only told they if they proved worthy, they might be given the privilege (along with others; see v.1 & D&C 49:8) of helping to found a legitimized sect which would eventually correctly typify or be synonymous with God’s universal true spiritual church (as per D&C 10). One with the power to guide the other sects of America. And once they were to succeed in helping to “gather all things in Christ; both which are in heaven and which are on earth” (Eph. 1:10; D&C 27:13), that organization might even one day be given a political kingdom and power to help unify all sects of Christendom into one universal union of brotherhood (just as the United States has tried to do).

But instead of taking this verse in the context of a conditional “preamble” of how to build Zion (the realization of the only true church), the Saints have pridefully used this scripture as the foundation of our elitist & exclusive truth claims. Instead of using this verse to unify Christianity, we used it to divide ourselves from Christianity. We use it to justify our vain ambitions of having exclusive control of God’s church, kingdom, power and authority, with a false exclusive claim on God’s prophets and priesthood (see the next article in this series for details on this).

According to Joseph’s 1838 retelling of his first vision, it appears the Lord was not “well pleased” with the other churches of the era since Joseph remembers being told they were “all corrupt” and were “all wrong” (JS-H 1:19). However, in Joseph’s 1832 account of the first vision, instead of God saying all other churches of his day were “wrong”, Jesus quotes biblical passages affirming that throughout ALL history there were, “none that doeth good, no not one” and “all have turned aside from the gospel” (see Psalms 14:3, Rom 3:10,23). It seems human nature that the church’s of every dispensation eventually declare “more or less” than the doctrine of d&C 10 which states that “he who repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church”. Instead of respecting the spiritual gifts of prophecy and revelation of those outside their denominations and cooperating with each other to build Zion, the church’s end up fighting with each other in the spirit of contention— pretending to be the only true church, crying “Lo here! and Lo there” (JS-H 1:5). It seems to me that if the Lord of Joseph’s revelations was not pleased with them it was because they all were acting a lot like the modern Catholic Church, LDS Church and Christian Fundamentalist sects sometimes do! Too often put sect membership and adherence to their sectarian creeds, manifestos and proclamations above ecumenical cooperation (JS-H 1:19). They talked the talk but they were too interested in being right & gaining converts, than to humbly work with each other on a truly equal footing to establish a “Zion” civil society. And worst of all they rejected the spirit of prophecy (revelation) in anyone outside their fold. They likely all believed that if God did somehow have inspiration for the world, it would come through their church leaders and would prove that they were right.[5]

On the other hand the Heavenly Church was apparently pleased with fledgling LDS church, because it was about to get the opportunity to help the church in heaven to begin the process of establishing Zion on earth by gathering all of Christ’s people and churches together into a nation of freedom, unity and democracy. The heavenly church had just completed the truly phenomenal task of beginning the industrial revolution and establishing one of the first nations in human history with both democracy and true religious liberty; and an individual with a strong gift for clairvoyance and clairaudience (gift of revelation) had now become a channel to attempt to establish a living example of Zion or a Utopian Society. To ground and establish a society which would be a perfect copy of the only true church or kingdom which exists in heaven. A society matching the one described in 4 Nephi of the Book of Mormon, where “there were no disputations among them”; one where there were no schisms or divisions “but all were one and partakers of the heavenly gift”. One where there were neither rich nor poor, bond nor free, but all people were truly free, united and equal under God, with all things in common, of one heart and one mind.


Failure of the Saints and Hope for the Future

But here’s the travesty… the early Saints and early American idealists failed to build God’s utopian Zion or perfect copy of the only true Church of heaven in their dispensation — and the Doctrine & Covenants catalogs their failure. From their failed attempts to unify with each other and the Christian churches of the era, to their failed experiments of living the law of social & economic equality (consecration), to their mega-failure in finding greater gender/marital freedom & equality (polygamy), the early saints laid the foundation for Zion and the grounding of the true spiritual church to earth, but because of ignorance, “division”, “pride”, “unbelief”, “disobedience”, “lust” and sexual exploitation the LDS leadership turned on each other and killed the prophet (primarily over Joseph’s polygamy, monetary and power issues), broke into schisms and were “driven [back] into the wilderness”. They wanted the kingdom solely for themselves, and because of this pride they weren’t allowed to “redeem Zion” (see D&C 105:9–13). [6] Much like Isaiah, Jeremiah and John the Baptist, both Joseph Smith and the Church became archetypes or living metaphors as promised—but instead of representing God’s heavenly Church, they ended up becoming a symbol and foreshadow of the future of the American Experiment itself. Much like the prophet King David being forbidden to finish building the Temple as a curse for his murders and fornication  — It seems to me that Joseph and the Saints were “given over to their lusts” to follow the dictates of their own hearts just as ancient Israel was time and time again (see Romans 1:21–24; Psalms 81:11–12; Acts 7:42, Jeremiah 3:17; 7:24; 9:14; 11:8; 13:10; D&C 3:4–9). Joseph and the early saints were essentially made into examples and mirrors as a foreshadowing warning of what would eventually become of the United States (see Ben Kathryn 64:13-14; 33:1-3; 18:17).

As the Saints were driven into isolation to “be taught more perfectly” (D&C 105:9–10) and work out their sexual and economic issues, God’s Spirit seems to have been poured out on the groups most aligned with his spiritual church. American reformational protestantism temporarily became the most prosperous and politically influential religious force in the nation (and perhaps the world)—apparently waiting for the dawn of the coming age when the LDS people along with Latin Christians, reformational Islam, restored Judah and other Saints of restorationism would humble themselves, repent and find the degree of unity, humility, pluralism and wisdom needed to be the global political leaders for the final dispensation. (2 Ne 30:1–10, 3 Ne 21:6–26)

I believe the establishment of God’s true church and a more perfect world or utopian Zion is still strongly underway. Heaven has been leading the various member of God’s “true spiritual church” to push for these changes not only in Europe, Latin America and the United States but in all the world. (Especially agnostic China!) It has been moving the world closer to equality by breaking up monarchies, empires, religious fundamentalism and dictatorships. It has been using the good people of the world to advance the cause of freedom and equality. It has been pouring god’s spirit upon the whole world and giving dreams and visions to the movers and shakers of humanity (Joel 2:28–29 ). It has been working to create unity in the nations of the world for the purpose of freedom and peace, while at the same time the wicked church of the devil works to build up oppressive empires and divisive religions, mean spirited organizations and destructive philosophies.

The LDS Church has grown to be an influential player in the world, and as the wall between us and the world breaks down we have a choice. Will we put away our fundamentalist traditions and acknowledging the true equality and brotherhood of Christianity and all mankind? Will we take our place as an archetype, divine copy and example of a humble, balanced, self-sacrificing government and people?  As America’s imperial ambitions cause its political system to struggle will we step up to take the place of the faltering churches in pushing for the Utopian dream of a truly equal American Zion? Or like the early Saints and ancient Jews who looked beyond the mark, will we insist that we are the sole owners of the kingdom, and cause greater division with our brethren through insisting that we alone are God’s “only true church?”

Other Articles In This Series

Article 1. Re-examining what LDS scriptures say about the ‘Only True Church’ doctrine.

Article 2.  A Doctrinal Look at The Universal Priesthood of God & Its Relationship to LDS exclusive truth claims.

Article 3.   Re-examining the LDS adoption of the protestant fundamentalist view of the “Great Apostasy”.

Article 4. Clearing up Misunderstandings in the LDS View of the Afterlife (The 3 Degrees of Glory and their support for religious pluralism)


A Revised Egyptian Chronology. Errors in Early Iron Age through Bronze Age Radiocarbon Correlations.


Near-eastern prehistory is in need of a significant chronological overhaul. Egyptian & Babylonian timelines as well as global radiocarbon date correlations for our modern views of prehistory are off by at least 500 years. This largely because of previously unrecognized mistakes in the ancient Egyptian timeline which were then propagated into most other near-eastern prehistory timelines and even radiocarbon correlations curves.

These timeline mistakes were made as early as 70 AD in the writings of Josephus (and later Christian redactors of the Greco-Egyptian historian Menetho) whose desires to correlate biblical events such as Moses & the Exodus into Egyptian history caused them to place the Hyksos of the Second Intermediate Period during the Egyptian Captivity of Israel (1802–1550 BC). When in fact, this period actually correlates with the post exilic period of 1300-1050 BC. This false correlation was then propagated into modern archaeology by early Christian scientists & enthusiasts who were enamored with the idea of many of the impressive Ramesean monuments being related to Biblical Egyptian stories. Ironically, because of that desire of early religiously motivated archaeologists, most prehistory scholars today do not see many of the accounts in the bible before about 850 BC as reliable history because the accepted timelines create so many problems with biblical accounts vs archaeological correlations.

My first premonitions for the need of a chronological adjustment came from early encounters with the numerous ‘repeats’ of events, empires and individuals in the near-east prehistoric record. Old Babylon vs. Neo Babylon. Old Assyria vs Neo Assyria. Mythical Ramesses & Seti vs the New Kingdom characters vs Persian references. Mythical Sargon vs Sargon II. Bronze age Nebuchadnezzar I vs Nebuchadnezzar II. Then my suspicions were truly validated when I began to compare the ancient Kolbrin text to true history. In its pages are amazing references to Egyptian & near-east history & myth with a specific reference equating a red haired Canaanite King (obviously David) warring with Pharaoh Ahmose/Thothmose.

Now even our radiocarbon correlation curve institutions have made the early Iron age Hallstatt radiocarbon anomaly (450-950 BC) into a plateau when it should be a cliff (rewrite, simplify). At around 500-850 BC, radiocarbon dates very quickly jump from nearly correct readings to 300-350 years too old! (c14 1050 BC = 750 BC) But because of the incorrect Egyptian dating, radiocarbon correlators who did in fact realize the need for correlation, but went the wrong direction! (c14 1050 BC = 1150-1350 BC!). Undoubtedly, very low CO2 levels played a part, with plants up taking lower amounts of c14 than the historic average during the early iron age & bronze ages. (put the details down in the article)

Note (rewrite and put this in body) A huge part of the mixup is the partially mythical story of the brothers Ramesses/Seti (also called Egypt). These brothers conquered from Egypt to Anatolia & Greece and became a powerful mythos behind the common ties of Greece, Phoenicia and Egypt. The original story may be as old as the great monuments of Egypt itself, but throughout Egyptian history, any pharaoh who expanded Egyptian territory into Anatolia took the title Rameses. This included Sesostris I (1800 BC – note that Herodotus mentions a carving of Sesostris in Nif Dagi, thought by Archaeologist to be Ramesses II), Kamose/Ahmose (1000 BC) who subjugated Israel & the Phoenicians, Amasis/Apries who conquered to the Euphrates. The title was then adopted by Darius & Alexander/Ptolemy to legitimize the Greco-Egyptian Empire.

Actual DateHistorically Known Empire or CultureArchaeologically Dated EquivalentArcheol. Date
1400-1000 BCAmalekites / Davidic KingdomEarly/Late Hyksos Dynasties 14-161725-1550 BC
1037-931 BCSaul/ David (&Jonatan)/ SolomonSaltis (Beon)/ Khyan (Jannas)/ Apophis (Apepi)1620-1550 BC
1069-609 BCThird Intermediate to Late PeriodEgyptian New Kingdom1550-1069 BC
911-609 BCNeo Assyrian EmpireMiddle Assyrian Empire (parts)1365–1050 BC
605-556 BCNeo Babylonian Dynasty (X)Babylon Dynasty IV & Sargonid Dynasty1153-609 BC
605-562 BCNebuchadnezzar II (same person as >)Nebuchadnezzar I1121-1100 BC
722-560 BCMedes/Babylonians/Early PersiansElam/Kassites1531-1155 BC
732-530 BCGreeks/Early PersiansSea Peoples/Hittites1292-1189 BC


Near-eastern prehistory is a patchwork of ancient floating chronologies hashed together over the last 300 years on often contradictory data garnered from archaeological contexts (such as radiocarbon dates, king lists and monuments) combined with historical sources like the Bible, Eusebius/Africanus, Josephus, (quoting Manetho), Herodotus and more. Small revisions and adjustments to these correlations has been an ongoing process, worked on continually by many authors. However, only from time to time do authors attempt major revisions which reassess the very foundations that modern dating techniques are based on. In this paper I attempt to show that largescale global and regional fluctuations in the earth’s magnetic field have caused massive gaps and repeats in current prehistory paradigms which have not yet been addressed by any of the available radiocarbon calibration curves.

The primary evidence of these radiocarbon fluctuations are seen in the well known ‘wiggles’ or variations in ancient radiocarbon levels such as seen in the Hallstatt Plateau. Radiocarbon variation during this era have made the dating of artifacts with known dates from 800-400 BC nearly impossible. Archaeologists familiar with this radiocarbon phenomena have referred to the Hallsatt Plateau as “the 1st millennium BC radiocarbon disaster” (see James, 19933) During this period the geomagnetic field in the Near East was characterized by “rapid changes and high intensity values, including several spikes of more than twice the intensity of today’s field.” (see Manning, Vaknin, Ben-Yosef, etc.)

The anomaly is named after the late Bronze Age Hallstatt period in which it most notably manifests as well as the salt mines of Hallstatt Austria which form the type locality for the site. Disturbingly, this period of geomagnetic/radiocarbon instability was not found by dendrochronologists or geochronologists, but only by archaeologists working with near-eastern settings of known age. Predominately Biblical sites with archaeological evidence which could not be confused from historical contexts. This means, were it not for the fact that archaeologists positively knew the sites actual date and reported the faulty radiocarbon result, the false age would likely never been discovered.

Furthermore, I believe that this anomalous “plateau” has been misinterpreted by geochronologists and its logical effects on Bronze Age dates ignored. Instead of a “plateau”, I believe the Hallstatt anomaly actually a general cliff in the dating regimen, with a number of small range series spikes. Spikes which causes artifacts with true ages between 800-400 BC to yield dates of 3000-1400 BC! And although the phenomena is recognized on the “historical end” in settings known from the bible to date to 800-400 BC, it is often missed in archaeological contexts without positive historical markers.

“When dealing with the period after ~800 BCE, our archaeomagnetic dating is particularly useful, due to the plateau in the radiocarbon calibration curve which limits high resolution dating. During this period the geomagnetic field in this region was characterized by rapid changes and high intensity values, including several spikes of more than twice the intensity of today’s field”

(In Reconstructing biblical military campaigns using geomagnetic field data, Yoav Vaknin, 2022)

Thus we get various sites or artifacts with a radiocarbon dates around 2400 BC which actually date to around 800 BC. Even the type locality of Hallstatt Austria for which the radiocarbon plateau is named shows a suspicious bimodal array of dates covering not only the early Iron Age of 800-500 BC, but recently a middle Bronze age array of dates from 1200-800 BC have manifest in the area which I suspect are actually just anomalous dates from one of the several radiocarbon peaks which existed during the seventh to ninth century BC. (see Agerskov et al and Grabner et al)

Dipole moment or general magnetic field polarity for the last 9000 years (from Nilsson, et al, 2022). The authors note the sharp drop in strength at 600 BC (400-900 BC), which coincides with the Hallstatt Platea. Note similar rapid changes in dipole strength occur at c14 dates of 3000-4000 BC & 6500-7000 BC which likely correspond to similar unrecognized radiocarbon anomalies. Note also the 650/700 year cycles.

Nilsson, Suttie, Stoner & Muscheler. Recurrent ancient geomagnetic field anomalies shed light on future evolution of the South Atlantic Anomaly. Nature, 2022 (great read)





Or… [give a few more examples from my repeating culture chart up top and then propose the idea that the cause has been staring us in the face with the biblical account of the “sundial of Ahaz” which points to a rapid true polar wandering event (TPW), which I believe is only one example of many episodes of axial instability. Something which caused sea travel across the Atlantic and pacific to grind to a halt, because of increased volcanism on the spreading ridges. Also, that this is a 700 yr cycle with known occurrences at: Moses 1500 BC, Hezekiah 780/722 BC, 33 AD, 774/5 AD/820 AD, 1482 AD, and the next due around 2200 AD, major instability seen in 586 BC, Babylonian burning of Jerusalem]

In this article I offer a fairly large revision created by large scale repeating patterns I’ve noticed over my decades of research supported by new information from Britain’s mysterious and controversial ancient history book, The Kolbrin. Although dismissed by many who don’t understand it. The Kolbrin contains some of the most impressive Near-eastern and British history of any book in its spurious mystical-history genre.

One of the most intriguing historical references in the Kolbrin is a section suggesting that Pharaoh Ahmose (called Atmose, SOF 6:9) was a contemporary with King David and Hiram of Tyre mentioned in the Bible (ref). The reference reads as following:

“In the days when Hiram [of Tyre] came to Egypt, the Pharaoh Athmos ruled. In those days, Egypt was at war with the Abramites, for their great red-headed king had committed adultery with the wife of a prince of Paran. The remorseful king reaped as he had sown, for his favourite daughter was ravished by her own brother, and his wives were humiliated and ravished before the eyes of all men.”

(Sons of Fire:6:9)

Although many Pharaohs have used titles similar to Ahmose (son of iah/Jah), The thing that makes this reference so impressive is the way that following its logic ties together several other historical parallels between Egyptian Chronology and the Bible.

For instance. Because Ahmose is well known as the is the first Pharoah of the 300-400 year long 18th Dynasty who freed the Egyptian Delta from the mysterious late Hyksos. Placing Ahmose (who is usually dated to about 1550 BC) as a contemporary of David
-means the hysos were Israelite (and earlier amalakites), which the kolbrin mentions
-means the amarna letters match hoshea
-means the nubian pharoes are likely the same as the ethiopian menationed in the bible AND the 25th dynasty ethiopians
-explains why akenhaten was a monotheist, because they were allied with Israel from david’s time but now began to side with the assyrians
-explains why Herodotus seems to match with Menetho’s amasis myth with Greeks and the Ramesses/Sethos brothers? (rethink this logic)
-puts the ramesses as ptolemies! (column in alexandria, lots of other temples, and an understanding of Ptolmies claim to the throne because of the legend of Sethos and Ramesses who founded lydia? in Greece and was a greek sympathizer.

Kolbrin offers a few other chronological markers to correlate Thutmose II (called Tathomasis, MAN:34:29) and Akhenaten (called Nabihaton, MAN:34:29) to the same dynasty.
This adjustment pushes the end of the Eighteenth dynasty to around 700 BC solving the mystery of why the Greek Historian Herodotus places Sethos of the 19 dynasty at around 700 BC, as well as why every retelling of Manetho’s work omit the Pharaohs of the 20th Ramesside dynasty. And why Egyptian temple chronology inscriptions like the Abydos, and Saqqara lists stop at Ramesses II, yet match almost perfectly with the Egyptian Menetho’s work who lived during Ptolemy II.

Fix this animation. its timeline is wrong.

All of these points of evidence point toward a historical parallel or synchronicity which I have been suspecting for years. Which is that the Ramesside dynasty and the Ptolemaic dynasty are actually one and the same.

coming soon: a correlation chart like this one, but with the dates, dynasties and famous pharaohs more prominent..

The Ptolemaic dynasty which includes Pharaohs Ptolemy I to X or so, is known from Greek and Roman historical sources [note x] and is therefore dated historically from 332 to 45 BC. The Ramesside dynasty on the other hand, also includes Pharaohs I to X (Ramesses I to XI) but information for them is derived almost entirely from radiocarbon dated archeological sources giving dates from 1190 to 1077 BC.

Each of these dynasties were among the most prolific builders in Egyptian history, strangely building on the same sites and temples throughout Egypt [fn]. In fact, almost without fail, known Ptolemaic motifs or writing will show up randomly within major Ramesside buildings and vise versa. “Strangely”, ALL of the resplendent Tombs of the Rameses have been found and carbon dated. But for some “unknown reason”, ZERO of the famed “more recent” Ptolemy tombs have been found. In fact historical king lists derived from Herodotus as well as Manetho (a historian commissioned by Ptolemy II) do not include the Ramesside 20th dynasty in them at all! Instead in the Manetho accounts of Josephus, Eusebius & African we are given dynastic lists which match almost perfectly with king list on Rameses temples, with a few non-Theban disjointed dynasties thrown in after. I see this as clear evidence that the king lists on the Ramesside temples of Abydos and Karnak which radiocarbon date to around 1100 BC, actually came from Ptolemies’ historian Manetho who lived around 300 BC.

Even the famous Lighthouse of Alexandria, historically known to have been by Ptolemy II built around 270 BC, when recently excavated curiously contained “half a dozen columns carved in the Egyptian style had markings dating back to Ramses II, nearly a millennium before Alexandria was founded.” (see Smithsonian article) This phenomena of mismatched artifacts of Ptolmaic/Ramesside periods, if far more the rule than the exception. (ref)

“Curiously, half a dozen columns carved in the Egyptian style had markings dating back to Ramses II, nearly a millennium before Alexandria was founded.”

This phenomena of Ramesside artifacts being mixed in with Ptolemaic artifacts is incredibly common.

And the strange repeated near-east history does not stop there. Sargon of Akkad, radiocarbon dated to xxx is likewise unbelievably similar to Sargon the Assyrian historically dated to xxx. And again Sargon’s palace has not been found. Although his brothers mask…

Likewise entire cultures have come to “repeat” in our modern chronologies as historically dated sites and artifacts conflict with radiocarbon & Egyptian dated


Ancient variations in ancient native carbon-dioxide and radiocarbon levels are known to skew radiocarbon dates for given time periods. This is something all scientists well studied in radiocarbon dating understand. Several calibration curves (such as IntCal) have been created to attempt to ‘correct’ for these variations in order to translate a laboratory ‘radiocarbon date’ to a true calendar date. In this paper I propose that a previously undetected large variation in atmospheric carbon dioxide occurred from at least the onset of the Christian era to around the second millennium BCE in the Mediterranean region. This variation skews dates for the given period up to a 1000+ years causing our modern models of pre-Christian history to essentially ‘repeat’– with written historic empire and dynasty sequences from about 100-900 BCE, duplicating in an artificial ‘radiocarbon dated history’ dating from about 900-4000 BCE.

[—add illustration here or at top with the IntCal correlation curve next to my proposed correlation curve —]

Thus the well known historically dated empire and dynasty sequences of the Grecian, Median, Persian, Neo Babylonian and Neo Assyrian Empires, completely repeat with an identical radiocarbon dated empire and dynasty sequence of the ‘sea peoples’, Hittite, Hyksos, Old Babylonian or Sumerian and Akkadian Empires. I propose that these latter empires are identical to the former. This repetition of history caused by insufficiently calibrated dates, of course should have been obvious to the scientific community of the mid twentieth century, however I suggest that Early Christian archaeologists and historians were eager to have the tales of the bible validated by archaeological findings. And it just so happened that radiocarbon dates for many of the most monumental architecture there (New Kingdom) happened to radiocarbon date to about the time that the Israelites in the Bible were supposedly slaves in that land. Additionally the prestige and ability to publish when one finds archaeological evidence of ‘new and previously unknown empires’ as well as a lack of general understanding among archaeologist at the tenuous results of uncalibrated radiocarbon dates caused them to overlook the obvious ‘repetition’ of history that these radiometrically dated archaeological finds were creating in the broader view of prehistory.

So even though Manetho who was commissioned by Ptolemy III around 240 BC, starts his famous ‘history of Egypt’ going back in time from Rameses II, archaeologist discarded the obvious fact that Rameses II WAS IN FACT Ptolemy II, in favor of the idea that Rameses (one of the most prolific builders in Egyptian history) was actually the Rameses of the bible’s story of Moses. Forget the fact that Rameses dynasty has countless similarities to the Ptolemaic dynasty or that the second most important Persian/Egyptian historian Herodotus says nothing of the Rameses New Kingdom dynasty. [rewrite… this isn’t true]

These mistakes took hold because of a disastrous coincidence. This being that radiocarbon dates just happened to somewhat correlate in certain areas with the erroneous histories of Eusebius, and Jerome who cherry picked & added to the works of Manetho in order to create an Egyptian & Mesopotamian timeline that fit the bible. [fn. he himself says in the beginning of his book ‘Chronicles’, that he was seeking to “establish how long before the life-giving revelation [of Christ] Moses and the Hebrew prophets who succeeded him lived and what they, filled with the divine spirit, said before [the time of Christ]” (Chronicles, p.5) However, a simple look at Josephus ‘Against Apion‘, who Eusebius quotes at length shows that Eusebius almost certainly added to both Josephus and Manetho’s king list every dynasty after the New Kingdom. Its obvious Josephus’ Egyptian history was trying to wrongly prove that the ‘Shepard Kings’ of Manetho were actually the Jews of Moses from around 1600 BC. When in fact they are actually Persians of 500 BC. (rewite this whole thing. Outline it.) Note on how many king lists start with Rameses/Seti. The Abydos, the , Why? Because, like Manetho they were comisioned by Ptolemy to legitimize his dynasty!] So this is the troubled foundation that Willard Libby and radiocarbon dating entered the scene on. And because the radiocarbon dates for the famed Ramesses and Atmose dynasties somewhat loosely matched the “historical” dates (the historical dates have since been changed by over 500 years, so I use the term ‘loosely’, loosely. [I need to compare the dates of the artifacts found in this analysis of libby’s work, (here’s the original chart from Libby, see this too) As well as many taken since in this work as in this study. And find a pre-Libby Egyptian chronology from the 40‘s just before Libby and see how they actually correlate. I’ll bet they hardly do AT ALL, but I MUST prove this. And I need to write out this paragraph better

But because it roughly correlated with the biblical story and false or skewed historic sequences built on poor biblical correlations they ran with it. And since then the field of prehistory has been built on so many studies based on circular reasoning and those initial false histories that the entire scientific community has simply explained away the thousands of examples where historically dated and radiometrically dated artifacts seem like they should belong to the same culture or timeframe and yet do not. An occurrence which has given rise to confusing nomenclatures like old Babylon vs neo-Babylon (ie. historically dated Babylon vs. radiocarbon dated Babylon)

Eusebius, one of the three sources we have of Menetho, says of the account,

Perhaps it happened that there were many kings in Egypt at the same time. They say that some of them were kings of Thinis, some of Memphis, some of Sais, and some of Ethiopia; and there were yet others in other places. And as it seems that these dynasties ruled each in its own [time, but] no, it is very unlikely that they ruled in succession to each other. Rather, some of them ruled in one place, and others in another place. Therefore the increase in the number of years can be explained in that way. But we will leave this matter, and proceed to the details of the chronology of the Egyptians… (Eusebius. p.137)


LIST OF POSSIBLE DUPLICATED HISTORY (things that seem strangely repetitive)


Hyksos Pharoah Khyan holds an enormous ritual feast just before the abandoment of his palace, filling several 5 m (16 ft) wide pits with animal bones and thousands of pottery fragments in consequence. Some of these fragments came from an array of vessels produced by the Kerma culture of Nubia (allies). This sounds a lot like Saul or David. Both David & Solomon conquer from the Euphrates to Gath & the Border of Egypt. (Joshua 15:20,47 / Isaiah 27:12; 1 Chron 18:1,3; 1 Kings 4:21)

The Sea peoples “Philistine” called Peleset (Egyptian: pwrꜣsꜣtj) or Pulasati from the Temple of Ramses III at Medinet Habu (1150 BC) likely match with Phoenician/Palestine groups mentioned in Assyrian texts from 720-600 BC like Iamani of Ashdod. The biblical early Philistines & Amalekites were Hyksos. (and ruled all the way to Memphis at one point)

Hammurabi as Solomon (1770 BC = 990 BC) – NOPE

-the distinct similarities between not only Hammurabi’s law code but also his songs and biblical law and psalms is far to strong to be coincidence. Many historians dismiss the account of 1 Chronicles 18 and 2 Samuel 8 where David is said to have conquered the land to the Euphrates River. However several authors see extensive evidence for this occurence in a correlation with Zimri-Lim & Hammurabi . See Hammurabi and Zimri-Lim as Contemporaries of Solomon by Damien Mackey
-there are strong similarities between the goring ox of Exodus 21 and the same occurrence in what is called LH 251 of Hammurabi’s Code. Just as striking are the contrasts between the Torah Law and Hammurabi’s Code (see: LH 16, 19, 106, 197, 209, 210, 229 and 230) in the laws of runaway slaves, the rejection of cross-generational civil punishment, and even the famous lex talionis.

Hyksos & Ahmose I as Amalekites & David (1570 = 1000 BC)

-There is overwhelming archaeological and epigraphical evidence showing that the Kolbrin not only solves the identity of Manetho & Josephus’ Hyksos Shepherd Kings. But also that the Egyptian timeline is in need of revision.

Josephus goes to great lengths to try and prove the Hyksos as captive Israelites under Moses. But the Kolbrin has this to say, “In the days when Hiram [of Tyre] came to Egypt, the Pharaoh Athmos ruled. In those days, Egypt was at war with the Abramites, for their great red-headed king had committed adultery with the wife of a prince of Paran. The remorseful king reaped as he had sown, for his favourite daughter was ravished by her own brother, and his wives were humiliated and ravished before the eyes of all men.”

(Sons of Fire:6:9)

The identity of this “red haired” king as David is easily recognized from both the description of his red hair in 1 Samuel 16:12 as well as the story of the rape of his daughter Tamar by Amnon her half brother in 2 Samuel 13:1-21.

Archaeologists have failed to find any evidence that the Davidic kingdom achieved any of the size or importance given it in the Bible, but if David is in fact the king who warred with Egypt during the reign of one called Athmos (Ahmose I?), then what Manetho says works well the the biblical record (the current version of which came from Alexandria in the same decade as Menetho!). In Against Apion, Josephus quotes Manetho in stating that the first shepherd king’s name was Salatis who conquered both upper and lower Egypt and even built a palace in Memphis. He left garrisons throughout Egypt building a primary outpost in Avaris, which he walled and left 240,000 men to keep it.

After his death it states that his successor Beon (Soloman?) reigned 44 years, a series of five puppet kings/governess are named who all together hold Egypt as a vassal for some 278 years.

Finally, Manetho says, Under Tethmosis (thought to be Ahmose I), the kings of Thebes and the other parts of Egypt “made an insurrection against the shepherds, and that there a terrible and long war was made between them.” He says further, “That under a king, whose name was Alisphragmuthosis, the shepherds were subdued by him, and were indeed driven out of other parts of Egypt, but were shut up in a place that contained ten thousand acres; this place was named Avaris.” Manetho says, “That the shepherds built a wall round all this place, which was a large and a strong wall, and this in order to keep all their possessions and their prey within a place of strength, but that Thummosis the son of Alisphragmuthosis made an attempt to take them by force and by siege, with four hundred and eighty thousand men to lie rotund about them” (Against Apion, Bk 1 v14)

As unbelievable as this account is, especially in supposing Saul or David to be the first Shepherd king, its hard to dispute the evidence of the scores of severed hands found in Averis around the time of Ahmose I. (see article on it here). Compare that to 2 Samuel 4:12 which tells us, “And David commanded his young men, and they killed them and cut off their hands and feet and hanged them beside the pool at Hebron”. This may have been a common practice and thus coincidence. OR this may be evidence that David was in Avaris during the reign of Ahmose. Archaeologists say of Averis, “At Avaris, the evidence shows a small group of settlers from the Canaan/Syria area settled on virgin ground, rapidly grew to a huge population”

What’s I propose is that the Hyksos were Amalekites and Canaanites that continually fought Israel until David conquered or killed them all. And the last few Hyksos were actually David, Solomon and Rehoboam (who was then conquered by Egypt and Jeroboam after 4 years). Another point of evidence might be Sheshi, the Hyksos king thought to be Manatho’s Salitis, he leaves hundreds of some of the first Scarabs to appear throughout Canaan, Egypt and Nubia. David is known to have allied with Nubia, and Solomon allied with Egypt. Why is ‘the seal of Solomon such a big legend? A match?

There’s more evidence here..  Read and add it.

(Note this also suggests then, that David conquered to the rivers (Mesopotamia).. Judah including egypt, and the northern kingdom including all of Syria and perhaps parts of Assyria?

-Tell el-Dab near Avaris (northeast delta) has a population explosion during 1590 and 1570 BCE, could this be evidence of David taking it from the Amalekites? (this is speculative, learn more)

Hyksos as Early Persians (or David’s Kingdom in one instance?) –NOPE

Summary of Correlations
-Note that the term ‘Hyksos’ is used on the tomb of Petosiris to designate Artaxerxes III the Persian. ref
-The Kolbrin tells of a war between Egypt and the Abramites who were led by a red haired king who perfectly fits the description of David in the days of the Phoenician Hiram and Pharaoh Ahmose. (although names like Ahmose might have been re-used over and over, and red hair kings who cut off hands might have been common for centuries)
-Ahmose is well known as being the Pharaoh who drove out the Hyksos. (he should be the Pharaoh who let them in)
-Manetho says Hyksos were Jewish (Cananite?) aggressors (give all details of this). Josephus tried (poorly) to prove they were captives.
-Archaeology shows: They spoke Aramaic & Canaanite dialects.
-They likely lived close by and were prolific, because they had been migrating into Egypt for a few centuries. ref ref.
-War in the Hyksos takeover could have been partly minimal. Instead they used diplomacy and expansion. ref
-They had a custom of cutting off hands as a bounty, Just as 2 Samuel 4:12 says David did. ref.
-They seem to have been in alliance with the Nubians of Ethiopia (ref)
-The independent Thebans came to battle the Hyksos (because of an argument over hippos) and were defeated (is this in the bible?) ref
-They are the ones who bring the compound/composite bow and horse chariot to Egypt. Their Asiatic technology advances Egypt. ref
-they wore bright colored Canaanite clothing. ref (1900 BC to 1750 BC)

Behistun Inscription lists the lands conquered and ruled by Darius the Great. It includes Egypt. (and lists his genealogy)
-Isaiah 44:28 reads: “says of Cyrus ‘He is My shepherd, And he will carry out all My desire’.”.
-Be sure in the paper to note that Sumerian kings in general were known ash shepherd kings. Two kings on the Sumerian King list are literally called ‘shepherds’, “Etana, the shepherd, who ascended to heaven and consolidated all the foreign countries” and “Lugalbanda the shepherd.” Urukagina who reigned seven years in Lagash around 2375 B.C is also called a shepherd king.

Ninteenth Dynasty Correlations Overview
-It seems unlikely that the 19the dynasty is cohesive. It is likely missing people and time. The question is where? I suspect the biginning (after Ahmose, because I’ll bet their two of them), Middle (ideas?) and End (Seti could be pre-Alexander?)

Ahmose & Pinedjem II as Contemporary of David (1550 =1000 BC)
-The Tomb/Mummy of Ahmose I (1549–1524 BC) is thought to have ‘been relocated from its original burial place… and re-wrapped’ in the 21st dynasty because the name of Pinedjem II (990-976 BC.) is on his wrappings! (ref) More likely Pinedjem II was Ahmose’ high priest, or his father Pinedjem I (-1032 BC), again making him a contemporary of David like the Kolbrin says.
-In fact the mummies of pharaohs Ahmose I, Amenhotep I, Thutmose II, Thutmose III, Ramesses I, Seti I, Ramesses II, and Ramesses IX were ALL put in Pinedjem II’s tomb! (
-Note that Ahmose is credited with bringing war horses to Egypt. (ref) Its thought this technology came from the Hyksos because of evidence from Avaris. (ref). This works with the fact that the bibles first mention is of the Canaanite’s (king Jabin, Judges 4) surrounding Israel. (ref, ref) The first use BY Israel seems to be David stealing 1000 chariots & 100 horses from King of Zobah at the Border of the Eurphratees (1 chron 18:3-6, 2 Sam 8:3–6), which Solomon multiplies into 12,000 horses (1 Kings 10:26). Only by Persian times are war-horses ubiquitous.

Egyptian Syria Kadesh as Biblical Gaza Kadesh? (1506 – 1274 BC = 722 – 600 BC) PROBABLY NOT
-First problem is there’s three of them. One in Negiv, one in southeast Gaza, and one in Syria. So its confusing.
-King Hoskiah comes from here in Kolbrin. (SOF 7. probably the Gaza one on the border of Egypt)
-Thutmosis first battles Mitanni there in 1504 BC. Armana letter EA189 tells of the Habiru taking the city and then mayor loyal to Pharaoh taking it back around 1350 BC. Seti I with Ramesses II his son retakes it & Carchemish from Hittites in 1306 and then 1274 BC. These are all believed to be the Syrian Kadesh. BUUT Ahmose I, Tuthmosis III and Ramesses III are all known to have fought important battles in Gaza Kadesh..
-A major link is Ptolemy II’s epic battle of Raphia/Gaza (which is likely Ramesses II’s Kadesh) which could be the same as Ramesses II
-Nebuchadnezzar II was defeated against the Egyptian army under pharaoh Necho II at Migdol near Gaza Kadesh, which he later takes in 568 BC. And Cambyses I looses to Egypt there in 529 BC.

—————– radiocarbon date bump? (older) ——————–

Sargon of Akkad as Sennacherib/Sargon II of Assyria (2200 BC = 722 BC) NOPE

-Several rulers take the title of ‘Sargon of Akkad’, causing much confusion.
-Might the pole shift of Ahaz in 736 BC have cause radiocarbon dates to get OLDER again for a time? Or is Sargon just dated wrong?
-Sargon the Great of Akkas founds the Akkadian empire in (2334–2279) is almost certainly the same person as Sennacherib of neo-Assyria (705-681 BC). Note that Sargon the Great (of Akkad) is known mostly from Assyrian tablets from the 700’s !!!! Much info of him comes from a “Neo-Assyrian text from the 7th century BC purporting to be Sargon’s autobiography”. His name is “identical to the name of the Neo-Assyrian king Sargon II” (
Sennecherib/Sargon II makes Nineveh his glorious capital, but Sargon of Akkad’s capital hasn’t been found, nor have any contemporary documents of his life! Why? Because Sargon of Akkad is an invention to explain the radiocarbon and Egyptian chronology discrepancies found in archaeology. (see chronology of the near east)
(note: Shalmaneser V is the one who carried off Israel in 722 BC)

-This discrepancy is almost certainly caused by a volcano or major global climate change event giving rise to a major marine reservoir effect in the near east or global changes in carbon reservoirs.
-Archaeology in the city of Elba (home of the Elba Tablets) shows three destructions at 2500-2300 BC reportedly by Sargon of Akkad. A second destruction dates to 2050-1950 BC, a third at 1600 BC by Hittites and never recovers. On a circular Tel dates same as great pyramids and Stonehenge
-This is fitting, suggesting Assyrian war drove the builders of Stone Hinge to Britain at the same time as Hoskiah and the Sons of Light. Around 720 BC.

Mari in Syria Destroyed by both Sargon and Hammurabi, is largely dated by radiocarbon (and 25k tablets found in its library), is a great place to sort out who Sargon and Hammurabi are. I think in this case Hammurabi is actually Darius? re-using the old title for Solomon. Ḫapiru (“Hebrews”) mentioned but so also remarkably are the Banu Yamina (“Benjaminites”) which they say lived NORTH of Mari (showing ancient Israel’s boundaries larger than supposed).
-It’s relationship to Tel Hazor is another important key, as Hazor is mentioned in the Mari Tablets, Amarna letters, Annals of Thutmose II, Anastasi papyrus AND Egyptian Execration text. Although I feel like its likely Tel Hazor is NOT the same as the ancient, the records speaking of it should help to correlate dates.

Thutmose III as Necho II-probably no (1479 – 1425 BC = 610–595 BC) NOPE
-they both fight battles in many similiar places. Particluarly against the nubians
-Necho II works on the Suez canal and Tuthomse II at least has a residence out there…
-They both are the ONLY pharoahs to cross the Euphrates! (because Necho was helping the Assyrians fight the rising Babylonians)
-They both fight in the Battle of Megiddo! (take Megiddo and control the region. 1457 BC vs. 609 BC)
-see Defacing of Monuments for thutmose vs Necho

Thutmose III Battle of Megiddo as Necho II Battle of Megiddo?-probably no (1457 = 609 BC)
-This might be the best example of why these two are the same person. They both have epoch “battle of megiddos”. These two battles with the same name and same location are believed to be two separate events simply because one is dated archaeologically w/ Egyptian history and the other biblically. You can read about them here and here
Or see:

The Armana Letters as Letters Between Ethiopia and Rulers of Judah from 2 Kings 17:4. (1352 BC = 720 BC) YES!
These letters provide the best opportunity to revising Egyptian chronology of the 18th dynasty. These letters attest to a very strong Egyptian state which allies with Canaan as well as Turkey & Babylon. The main aggressor being the Hirbu who seemed to be a raiders.
Letter EA287 is a great example where the ruler of Jerusalem begs for help from Kushite archers of the Amarna Egyptian kings. Compare that to 2 Kings 19:9 & Isaiah 37:9 where we’re told that the “King of Ethiopia (Kush), waged war against Sennacherib in reign of King Hezekiah” (about 716–687 BC) and 2 Kings 17:4 that says that king Hoshea (730-721 BC) sent letters to “So, King of Egypt”. So is often erroneously attributed to Osorkon IV who ruled nothing… but is FAR more likely Oros or Shebitko (who are likely the same person), even though one is the father of 18th dynasty Akhenaten and the other the 25th dynasty Nubian Pharaoh who fought Sennacherib.
-In the Bible, Ethiopians/Cushites are presented as ruling Egypt all the way from Hezekiah ~720 BC and Isaiah (Isa 18-20, 2 Kings 19) to presumably just before Josiah and the Pharoah Necho II around 620 BC. I believe archaeologists mistake the Assyrians of Nineveh who were actually Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar II. Jeremiah & Ezekiel prophesy of his conquering of Egypt, but because of the mix-up, historians/archaeologists don’t believe Babylon every conquered Egypt. Archaeologists believe the 25th dynasty Cushites gained control of Egypt by aligning with the Assyrians around 720 BC. But I’m pretty sure its actually the Babylonians, who Josiah was aligned with. 25 & 26 dynasties are probably somewhat concurrent as Egypt, just like Israel is in a north/south civil war going back and forth on whether to align with Assyria or Babylon. These correlate with the 18 dynasty which is also mixed between Monotheistic Cushite and Egyptian Pharaohs.
-The Kolbrin explains that the Monotheism of Akhenaten had long been part of Egyptian religion but hidden from the commoners who held deeply entrenched polytheistic beliefs. The Armana Letters show the growing power and influence of these Nubian rulers and their treaties with those of Canaan and Babylon.
Insights from the Armana Letters:
-lots of letters from Asqalon king Widia. And Ashkalon was taken by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar. (supposedly later in history but I say actually during the neo-Assyrian & neo-Babylonian conquests)
-five letters to Lakis (Lachish, Israel), really pertinent because seven Lachish Letters were found there dating to likely just before Nebuchadnezzar in 588BC. (but these are in paleo-Hebrew & Amarna was cuneiform, There’s also a Lachish Relief in Assyria which is cuneiform I think). NOTE THAT LACHISH is the Lachish reliefs show this is where Sennacherib (actually Nebuchadnezzar II) attacked Jerusalem from… further proving that Lachish was smartly aligned with Babylon, but Jerusalem flipped allegiance and sided with Pharaoh.

Sartrap Aryandes & The New Kingdom.(524 BC = 1020 BC) NOPE! In the final days of Egypt new kingdom (1570-1070 BC) non-coin form of silver shaped like rings and gold pieces shaped like sheep centuries were exchanged before the minting coins out different metals. (ref) Herodotus and later Polyaenus claimed “that the satrap started minting his own silver coinage, calling it aryandic in opposition to the golden, already existing, daric, thus irritating the Persian king.” (ref, Herodotus, Histories IV, 166 )

18th Dynasty Thutmose III (or Ay) as relative of 25th Dynasty Piye & Shabaka. (1479-1425 BC = 747-705 BC)
A Shabaka inscription in the Temple of Ptah @ Karnak built by Thutmose III suggest Piye & Shabaka somehow closely related to Thutmose & Hatshepsut or Ay?. Piye was Kushite and Hatshepsut ‘conquered’ Nubia and had her monuments defaced by later Egyptians (likely because she was a foreign Ethiopian wife of Thutmose that somehow gained the kingdom for Nubia instead of a native of Karnak who simply ruled Nubia!). Both Shabaka & Hatshepsut were prolific builders. (of course everyone in this age is. I’m pretty sure either these rulers overlap with either the Kushite/Nubian rulers of the 25th dynasty or the Egyptians that retake Egypt from them in the 26th! The same parallel of builders happens between 18th and 25th dynasties in The Temple of Amun at Jabel Barkal in Sudan.

Note that both the the 18th AND 25th dynasties are closely related to Kush/Nubia. The 25th are said to be Kushite rulers who controlled Middle Egypt, whereas the 18th are said to be Middle Kingdom rulars who controlled Kush/Sudan. Ether way, Assyria is closely involved with both (shown by the Amarna letters for the 25th).

There may even be a relationship between the names of monotheistic Amarna (Akanaten’s new capitol name for the Beni Amran tribe), Solomon’s close alliance with Sheba and Armenia with its relationship to Israel.

Ramesses Dynasty as Ptolemies (1292–1051 BC = 332-80 BC)
-From Ramesses I to Ramesses XI was 241 years vs. Ptolemy I to Ptolemy XI was 252 years! What are the chances?! thats huge, because it shows the historical dates are mixed up, but fairly accurate overall!!!
-The temple walls at Medinet Habu suggest the ‘sea peoples’ were composed (at least in part) of the Minoans from Crete. ‘Coincidentally’, again Ptolemy (especially Ptolemy V) engaged in long wars with Crete (see Cretan Wars). So the Minoans who radiocarbon date from 2000-1100 BC, are actually just radiocarbon/Egyptian dated Macedonian Cretans. The Hyksos of Avaris have a lot of Minoan artifacts too. (could Averis be by/where the real Pi-Ramesses is? (if its not alexandria and was really on the east delta)

Twenty-First Dynasty (1077-1051) Likely Pre-Roman Ptolemies? (80 – 44 BC?)
-Note that Ptolemy I’s, Ptolemy III and Ptolemy X are married to Berenice I,II & III ; AND Setnakhte, Ramesses III and Ramesses X are married to Tiy, Tiye and Tyti. This is no coincidence. Note these wives might unravel the duplicity in Seti II&II as Seti II was also married to Tiye (also spelled Tiy or Tiaa). So Seti II maybe the same person as Senakhte or a family member?. Note there seems to be three titles used among Ptolemy consorts, Bernice, Arsinoe and Cleopatra. Likewise there seems to be three names in 18/19 dynasty consorts Tiye, Nefertari, Meritamon. Use these to unravel people.
-This really needs to be looked at, most importantly to see if there are actually radiocarbon dates on the latest Ramesses or figures like Neferkare/Amenemnisu to see if radiocarbon years are still off by 1000 years at this point, or if they equilize part way through the Ptolemaic period but Egyptologist discard the dates that suddenly get younger.

Other Notes on Repeating History

-Temple of Hibis is one of the only existing temples known to be built by Darius I. (my bet is all others were redone by Ramesses/Ptolemy). “The temple bears a close resemblance – both architecturally and regarding inscribed texts – to Theban temples of the New Kingdom and also of the Ptolemaic period” (which means perhaps you can use its architecture to compare things built by Ahmose who might be the vassal pharaoh of Darius?
-another good way to Link Darius to a Pharaoh is his known work on the Darius Canal. Aristotle and Strabo say Sesostris is the first to try building the canal (just before Darius), which Egyptologist correlate with  12th Dynasty, Pharaoh Senusret III (1878–1839 BC). Which may be based on nothing… But many articles say the Suez canal was worked on during the new kingdom. (so Amhose I? is Darius?) see here and here. Thutmose II had a residence out there, so that more evidence.

-Rameses Horus name means “The strong bull who rejuvenates the royalty”. The Apis Bull was the Egyptian equivilent of Savior (Just like Ptolemy Soter/Savior). Ptolemy created the new God Ser-apis (Zues-Apis Bull). built his great Serapeum in Alexandria, nearby the famous library, to elevate his new god as a deity (see here & here). Since at least Cambyses the bull was ritually killed (like Spanish bull fighters), embalmed and then resurrected. “Coincidentally”, a Serapeum in Saqqara was built by Ramesses II to embalm bulls just like the Sarapeum in Alexandria built by Ptolemy. Ptolemy II (of course) then “extended” and adds to it as well (actually the same builder!).

-Mithras Scene. This tradition of killing, interring/mummifying and resurrecting the zues-apis bull serves as the backdrop for the Christ narrative. It is almost certainly what is represented in Mithraic tauroctony and was practiced not just in Egypt but also Turkey and Italy. Many Serapeum‘s or Bull Tombs are found in Egypt, Turkey & Italy.

-Note that many temples such as the Temple of Khonsu, are “originally constructed” by Ramesses I,II, or III but then have sections thought to be “added” by Ptolemy I,II, or III. Why? Because they are the same people, but archaeologists have aspects attributed to one or the other (such as Greek writing vs radiocarbon dates or c14 dated paraphernalia that contradict, forcing them to hypothesize a ‘dual’ construction. (other examples?)

-also Temple of Edfu. “started during the reign of Ptolemy III Euergetes and completed in 57 BC under Ptolemy XII Auletes. It was built on the site of an earlier, smaller temple also dedicated to Horus… [built under] the New Kingdom rulers Ramesses I, Seti I and Ramesses II”

-same thing happens with Dendera Temple complex. Egyptologists know from inscriptions that the temple was built by Nectanebo II around (360–343 BC), but radiocarbon and other associated evidence leads them to believe it was built ontop of a temple by Pepi I and/or an Eighteenth dynasty ruler from (1550 – 1292 BC).

-In the Esna temple, An out of place “Jam of a Gateway” from the reign of Thutmose II (Eighteenth Dynasty) his strangely placed as a door sill in the Esna temple known to be the work of Ptolemy III Euergetes (known as a “restorer of Egypt” because so many things are re-used in his building projects”. Or is it that…

-Why is it that pieces of King Ramses II statue were found in the Ptolmaic temple of Kom Ombo?
Note how the Ptolemaic temple of Kom Ombo has the same motifs and honors the same gods as a “previous” temple built by the Ramesses in the New Kingom. “A temple was already built in the New Kingdom to honor these gods”

-Cuneiform inscriptions from Hattusa, Turkey mention Mithra and that Hittite king Suppiluliuma (reigned between 1344 to 1322 BCE) who achieved fame as a great warrior and statesman, ordered the recording of a peace treaty between himself and the Armenian king Šattivaz (reigned ca. 1350-1320 BCE). Mithra isn’t found again until the fourth century BC under Achaemenid king Xerxes (son of Darius) and Armenian king Tiridates.

-Medinet Habu and The temple of Anum inscribed as built by Hatshepsut and Thutmose III but then “modified” in the Greco-Roman period. (Yet its artwork still has paint! one of the best preserved temples in Egypt)

-Temple of Amun at Medinet Habu (which is Ramesses III funerary complex has a ‘Gate of the Ptolemies’ built by …

-Tuna el-Gebel, like pretty much all ptolmaic temple complexes has 18-20th/New Kingdom foundations and temples sprinkled throughout (where they have c14 dates or writing that correlates it to ‘Older’ Dynasties.

-Records of Ramesses III talk about a crop failure that might be a volcanic eruption. An ash layer is found in peat deposits that radiocarbon dates to 1087-1006 BC.

-Ramesses III killed (or close to) in ‘harem conspiracy’ led by his second wife Tiye, ct scans shows wounds from multiple attackers which seem fatal but debate exists. Ptolemy II’s wife is exiled for plotting his murder. Records say she failed, but perhaps that was a lie to hide the murder from the people. Ptolemy III takes throne and pays his mom a stipend in her exile in coptus. Its unknown what punishments’ Tiye received.

-Ramesses III – X are not in any king lists. Sources include: The hieratic Harris Papyrus,

  • The Temple of Amun at KarnACK: The temple complex was built by the pharaohs of the New Kingdom, including Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis III, and Ramses II. But then Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator “added” a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon, a temple of Isis and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Horus at Edfu: built by Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple, such as a pylon, and a birth house
  • The Temple of Khonsu at Luxor: built by Tuthmosis III, Amenhotep III and Ramses II but Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon, and a birth house
  • The Temple of Isis at Philae: built by Nectanebo I, and Ptolemy II Philadelphus and Ptolemy IV Philopator added structures to the temple complex.
  • The Temple of Amun at Thebes: built by pharaohs such as Amenhotep I, Tuthmosis III, and Ramses II
  • The Temple of Montu at Medamud: built by Ramses II (perhaps on an Old Kingdom Sanctuary), but with structures from the Ptolemy VIII period.
  • The Temple of Seti I at Abydos: built by Seti I, yet Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Sobek at Crocodilopolis: built by Ramses II but Ptolemy III Euergetes and Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Ptah at Memphis: built by Ramses II complete with a 36 foot high statue of himself, but Ptolemy IV Philopator added a number of structures to the temple complex, such as a pylon and a birth house.
  • The Temple of Ptah at Luxor/Karnak contains mixed motifs from Thutmose III & Shabaka (1479-1412 = 705-690 BC) as well as Ramesside & Ptolmaic pharoes (1200’s = 200’s BC). Built by Thutmose III, but Ptolmaic ‘additions include’ in first gateway crosses an enclosed cartouche of Ptolemy VI. On the interior façade of the first gateway are passages of Ptolemy XI and Ptolemy XIII. The second and fourth gateways contain cartouches in the name of Shabaka. The third gateway cartouche is in the name of Ptolemy XIII. The fifth gateway leading to the portico columns of Ptolemy III contains the title of Tuthmosis III and on the gate contains the name of Ptolemy III.
  • The Temple of Amun at Jebel Barkal, Sudan was also built by 18th AND 25th dynasty rulers. In the 18th, at least Thutmose III, Amenhotep IV (Akhenaten), Tutankhamun and Horemheb as well as worked on by Seti I & possibly Ramesses II. This seems to suggest that ALL these pharaoh’s were associated with Nubia. The site was then ‘neglected’ until the reign of Nubian King Piye who added extensively to it. (forerunner to Shabaka) Once again this seems to show a synchronism or parallel between the 18th AND 25th dynasties. Close study of these will likely show them to be repeats of the same dynasty.,_Jebel_Barkal

Important Events of Judah & Israel in Relation to Egypt & Mesopotamia
-Saul/David/Solomon appear to gain first independence from Canaanites & Amalekites
-in ~920 BC, Jeroboam flees to Egypt, allies with them and comes back to conquer Judah making Israel a vassal of Egypt (date)
– 700-900 BC, are somewhat of an Egyptian dark age. Probably when the Armarna letters occur!
-in 701 BCE, Hezekiah of Judah, Lule king of Sidon, Sidka, king of Ascalon and the king of Ekron formed an alliance with Egypt against Assyria (with Pharoah ___?), nevertheless, Sennacherib conquers the Northern Kingdom and parts of Judah (701 BC?), but stops short of Jerusalem & Egypt.
– in 671 Assyrian Esarhaddon sacks Memphis, conquers Egypt, takes massive spoils and captives to Assyria, appoints new rulers at every level including Necho I as king at Sais (673-663 BC)
– in 667 BC Ashurbanipal, quells revolts, reasserts Assyrian rule in Egypt
– in 655 BC Psamtik I threw off his ties to the Assyrians and allies with Greece.
– by 635 BC Egypt recaptures Ashdod.
– in 650-600, Egyptians were actively aiding the Assyrians in an attempt to help them survive from growing power of Babylon.
– in 609 BC, Jehoahaz, became king, the king of Egypt, Necho I (put into power by the Assyrians), rushed into Judah and deposed him, and Judah again became a tribute state of Egypt
– in 605 Babylon defeats Egypt at Carchemish and then Ashkelon.. (Jer 46:2). Jer & Ezek prophesied that Babylon would destroy Egypt (Ezek 29-32). But historians believe NO Babylonian army took Egypt, and Egypt stayed independent from the Assyrian conquest to the Persian Conquest.
– from 589-570 BC Apries or Biblical Pharaoh Hophra of Jer 44:30, 43:8-13, Ezekiel 17:15, is the one Hezekiah tries to ally with against Babylon. This suggests Israel was formerly independent of Egypt. Likely since the Assyrian fall of Egypt.

Actual DateHistorically Known Empire or CultureArchaeologically Dated EquivalentArcheol. Date
911-609 BCNeo Assyrian EmpireOld Assyrian Empire2600-2154 BC
605-556 BCNeo Babylonian EmpireOld Babylonian Empire1894-1595 BC
460-332 BCLate Achaemenes occupation of EgyptAhmose gains Egyptian semi-independence. Takes Memphis & battles averis.1550–1320 BC
332-30 BCPtolemaic Kingdom of EgyptRamessid 19th Dynasty of Egypt1292-1189 BC

Note 1: Egyptian artifacts first show up in Mesopotamia in Nimrud, which becomes a major Assyrian capital in 1350 BC. This date

Table of Pharaohs mentioned in the Kolbrin and possible correlations.

Actual DateKolbrin NameEquiv?Hist. DateDetails
~2400HanokNoahGLN:4:29 Hanok and the Ark/great ship. Had three brothers who divided the land.
BeltsheraBabel?GLN 3:7-9 The floodgates [of Atuma] were opened… “the people left… Shinara..fled up a mountain… built a gateway to heaven”
1450 BCAnked(Moses)MAN 6:1-48 Story of Moses & the Destroyer. “Kair taught these things to the Children of Light.. before the death of the Pharaoh Anked”. Mentions places: Remwar, Noshari, Maha, Pikaroth, Mara. City/God called “Thom”
970 BCAthmosAhmose1550 BCSOF 6:9 HUGE. This verse suggests that the Hyksos were Davidic Israel! David warred with Egypt at the same time Ahmose chased the Shepherd kings out.
910?TathomasisThutmose I or IV?1490 BCIf this is true… then Akhenaten is NOT Darius, but likely a follower of Babylon or Israel‘s cult.
772?NabihatonAkhenaten1352 BCMAN 34:29 Starts the story of how he had a demon and corrupted Egypt. Mother is Towi (Tiye) Name composed of Fathers ‘Nab’ adn ‘henaten’.
720 BCNafohiaunknown??SOF 1:1 “Father of sons of light (Hoskiah) came out of Egypt in days of Pharaoh Nafohia. (Should be about the time of the Assyrian conquest or Sargon of Akkad?)

Table of Pharaohs mentioned in the Bible and possible correlations.

Actual DateBible NameEquiv?Hist. DateDetails
?Rameses?unknown!1546 BCGen 47:11, Ex 1:11, Ex 12:37, Num 33:3–5 A pharaoh named Rameses is never mentioned in the Bible, but Joseph settles Jacob & his family “in the land of Rameses” and Israel “built Pithom & Rameses and on (named as Heliopolis east of Cairo in Spt.) as store cities for Pharaoh before fleeing to Succoth just before the Exodus. Rameses in the bible is thus just a region/city in Egypt meaning “Ra created it”. (see biblehub).
?Pharaoh??1 Kings 11:18–23. Hadad flees to Egypt from Paran, Pharaoh gives him wife Tahpenes’ sister to wife. They have son Genubath who’s raised in Pharaoh’s household.
?Pharaoh??1 Kings 3:1, 9:16 Gives Solomon his daughter and city of captured Gezer in Alliance. Thutmose III (1479–1425 BC) has inscription of conquering Gezer. Armana period leaders swear allegiance to Egypt. Siamun & Psusennes II common matches.
?Shishak??943-922 1 Kings 11:40 & 2 Chronicles 12:2 Tell of his Jeroboam’s escape to Egypt and return with Shishak to take Jerusalem.
?So’unknown730 BC2 Kings 17:4 says that king Hoshea sent letters to “So, King of Egypt”.  commonly identified with Osorkon IV (730–715 BC)
?Tirhakahunknown715 – 6862 Kings 19:9 & Isaiah 37:9. King of Ethiopia (Kush), waged war against Sennacherib in reign of King Hezekiah.. Some scholars have identified him as the pharaoh Taharqa (Ethiopia ruled Egypt from this point to Necho/Babylon, much like the late 18th dynasty)
sameNecho Necho II610–5952 Chron 35:20, 36:4, 35:22. Necho puts his brother Jehoiakim on throne of Judah (609 BC). Necho battles kills Josiah in Carchemish (605 BC). Takes King Jehoahaz captive in another Carchemish battle? Read and put dates.
sameHophraApries589-570Jer 44:30. I will give Pharaoh Hophra king of Egypt into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those who seek his life, as I gave Zedekiah king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar. Also mentions Pathros (upper), Noph (lower) & Tehpanhes border Egypt (43:7)

-One of the most important things in the Kolbrin is CRT 7:5 which explains that the Mayan/Aztec Calendar is the correct cycle for the destroyer, NOT the later Israelite 49 year cycle. “Habaris… taught them the mysteries concerning the wheel of the year and divided the year into a … a great year circle of fifty-two years, a hundred and four of which was the circle of The Destroyer”

Egyptian King Lists

HERODOTUS- The king list given us by Herodotus is all over the place but helps us to understand how likely it is that those of Manetho are completely erroneous is too. Since Herodotus lived 484-425 BC just after Darius we can likely trust the 26th dynasty names he lists. One big question is… where does the 18th dynasty fit in? It is the last true names in Menetho & Abydos/Saqqara King Lists made by Ptolemy III so I think it makes sense that these were all ruler between Darius & Ptolemy.

ChapTransPharaohMenethoM. DynSM. DATE
2.99.2MinaNarmerMenes1st dynasty62/ 3150 BC
2.100.2NitokrisNetjerikaraNitokris6th dynasty12/ 2182–2179 BC
2.101.1MoeriusAmenemhat IIIAmmenemes11? dyn16
2.102.1SesostrisSenusret IIISesostris12th dynasty48/ 1878–1860 BC
2.121.1RhampsinitosRamesses IIInot present
2.124KheopsKhufuSouphis?4th dynasty63/ 2589–2566 BC
2.127KhephrenKhafraSouphis?4th dynasty66/ 2558–2532 BC
2.129MycerinusMenkauraMenkheres4rth dynasty63/ 2532–2503 BC
2.137Sabakon/NeferkareShabakaSeberkheres? Sabakon? 4rth? 25th?8/ 705–690 BC
2.140.2AmurtaiouAmyrtaeusAmurtaios28th dynasty6/ 404–398 BC
2.141.1SethosShebitko? Seti?Sebikhos? Sethos?25th? 19th?55/ 714–705 BC
2.151.2PsammetikhosPsamtik IPsammetikhos26th dynasty54/ 664–610 BC
2.152.1NeconNecho INekhao26th dynasty8/ 672–664 BC
2.158.1NecosNecho IINekhao II26th dynasty6/ 610–595 BC
2.159.3PsammiPsamtik IIPsammouthis?26th dynasty6/595–589 BC
2.161ApriesApriesOuaphris26th dynasty25/ 589–570 BC
2.172AmasisAmasisAmosis26th dynasty44/ 570–526 BC
3.14-15PsammetichusPsamtik IIIPsammekherites?26th dynasty6m 526–525 BC
MesutreCambyses IISon of Cyrus the Great27th dynasty6/ 525-522 BC
SetetureDarius Ithen Xerxes, artexerxes, Darius II27th dynasty36/ 522-486 BC


Does the fact that Herodotus has ZERO New Kingdom (18th dynasty) Pharoah’s suggest that most the 18th came AFTER cyrus? Or is it because they are all right after David and are too OLD for accurate records?
-Amasis II might be a good match with Thutmose III based on both their conquests of Cyprus, power and military prowess. Thutmose II lead at least 17 campaigns from Syria to Nubia.

-Josephus last Pharoah reference is Sethos of whome he says, after Amenophis came… “Sethosis, and Ramesses, two brethren: the former of whom had a naval force; and in an hostile manner destroyed those that met him upon the sea. But as he slew Ramesses in no long time afterward, so he appointed another of his brethren [named Armais] to be his deputy over Egypt.” then… “For Manetho says, that Sethosis was himself called Egyptus: as was his brother Armais called Danaus” He sums the whole history as those who “inhabited this country, three hundred ninety and three years before Danaus came to Argos” (read it here).
Danaus is a famous legend, but like Herodotus, it seems very likely referring to Darius? My logic is this… Look at Armesis and Kherres in Eusibius. Josephus prolog suggests all the last pharoahs are contemporary with him. Is it coincidence that the last 2 pharaohs in Herodotus are named Amasis/Amosis and Apries? Probably not!

Footnotes In Paper

x. [[Sources of the Ptolmaic Dynasty include: 1. The “Canon of Kings” is an ancient Egyptian list of pharaohs that includes the Ptolemaic dynasty. It is inscribed on the walls of the temple of Seti I at Abydos, and is one of the oldest surviving king lists from ancient Egypt.
2. The “Alexandria List” is another ancient Egyptian king list that includes the Ptolemaic pharaohs. It was discovered in the Serapeum of Alexandria, a temple dedicated to the god Serapis.
3. The “Turin Canon” is an ancient Egyptian papyrus that contains a list of pharaohs, including the Ptolemaic dynasty. It was discovered in the 1820s in Turin, Italy and is now housed in the Museo Egizio in Turin.
4. The “Chronicle of the Pharaohs” by the Egyptian priest Manetho, written during the Ptolemaic period provides a list of the pharaohs of Egypt from the earliest times to his own day, including the Ptolemaic pharaohs.
5. The “Roman historian” Appian of Alexandria, wrote about the history of the Roman Republic and Roman Empire, including the Ptolemaic dynasty.
6. Plutarch, a Greek historian, biographer, and essayist wrote about Ptolemy I Soter and Ptolemy II Philadelphus in his biography “Life of Alexander” and “Life of Demetrius”]]

y. [[Egyptian temples which share

z. [[Sources that detail Ramesside period Pharaohs after Ramesses III are limited to: 1. Primarily archaeological information from the Tombs in the Valley of the Kings.
2. A little from a relief in the Temple of Ramesses III in Medinet Habu.
3. Papyri and ostraca discovered in various locations in Egypt, including Deir el-Medina


The history of Manetho as preserved by Eusebius, and Jerome (Armenian version). Or perhaps better, by Dynasty (book I, book II)

The History of Manetho as preserved by Josephus in ‘Against Apion‘

The Histories by herodotus. (1890, Macaulay translation. 2013 Rawlinson Translation. Egyptian section spans from [99-172] )

Strabo’s Geography has some important information on Egypt. Has a great catalogue of translated ancient egyptian texts from 800 BC – 50 BC (chronological order) and even better one of all dates earlier than 800 BC. Pdf’s most with hieroglyphic transcriptions., best resource on king lists and cartouches. (be sure to check out its library & bibliography)

Digital Egypt. This whole site could be turned into a map like my North America Archaeology one. I probably should. resources on king lists, dynasties and tombs.

Overview and back-check check of Willard Libby’s initial paper “on the age of things”.

Huge amount of information on dates and cultures. Egypt and the Mediterranean. Radiocarbon Dating and Egyptian Chronology

Histomap of the world. An old empire harmony chart.

Babylonian Chronicles. Babylonian Chronicles – Wikipedia

Egyptian texts: St Andrews Corpus, attalus,

Huge number of artifacts used as original sources: List of inscriptions in biblical archaeology – Wikipedia

Faulty radiocarbon dates in Pompeii. Lindroos, Alf & Heinemeier, J. et al (2011). Problems in radiocarbon dating of Roman pozzolana mortars. Building Roma Aeterna. Current Research On Roman Mortar and Concrete. 214-230.

Radiocarbon dating in ‘The Manchester Museum Mummy Project‘, illustrated how different materials can produce large discrepancies in radiocarbon results, illustrating the importance of consistency and proper methods in gathering radiocarbon samples. (cloth vs bone on Egyptian mummies resulted in 1000 year + different results. A re-wrapping is assumed.)

Family Tree of the Ramessean 19th Dynasty

Family Tree of the Ptolemaic Dynasty

Radiocarbon Dating:
20 instances of false rings since 1932: Actual article here: (Extrapolating that data suggests a two thousand year old tree could have as many as 400 in a 2000 year old tree.)

Libby presentation summarizing first publications:
Initial Libby paper (first page):

Re-dating some of Libby initial samples:

Some new radiocarbon dates on major Egyptian periods.

186 radiocarbon dates from 1st dynasty Egypt. An absolute chronology for early Egypt using radiocarbon dating and Bayesian statistical modelling. Dee, Michael, Shortland, Andrew, Et al. Royal Society Publishing, Nov 2013 [put these in teh libby table next to pre-c14 dates to show how off they are!]

Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Ramsay et al. Probably the most complete paper of assorted dates.
Read the paper here:
Supplemental Material Here:

Pre-carbon dating chronologies:

Mediterranean radiocarbon off from northern Europe:

Mediterranean radiocarbon offsets and calendar dates for prehistory. (Intcal adjustments for meditranian dates, especially because of santorini issues) webmap:

Global radiocarbon database: webmap: