Moses could very well have had leprosy - Egypt was being devastated by a deadly plague (the boils and blisters on humans and animals). The path through the sea of reeds would have been an escape route, not a trade route. The point of this post, is, however, that there are three pieces of evidence which independently link Moses to CP Tuthmosis (through the messengers to Jerusalem, and the invasion of Egypt by the Asiatics/Israelites/Hyksos, and also the disappearance of the Egyptian army), and also the first burial of the Apis bull. It is up to you to decide whether this is all just a coincidence.There seems to be several spelling of Crown Prince Tuthmosis. But not much under the spelling Ththmosis. Can you supply more information so that I am sure what pharaoh you are talking about or add a date to his throne?
Moses could very well have had leprosy - Egypt was being devastated by a deadly plague (the boils and blisters on humans and animals). The path through the sea of reeds would have been an escape route, not a trade route. The point of this post, is, however, that there are three pieces of evidence which independently link Moses to CP Tuthmosis (through the messengers to Jerusalem, and the invasion of Egypt by the Asiatics/Israelites/Hyksos, and also the disappearance of the Egyptian army), and also the first burial of the Apis bull. It is up to you to decide whether this is all just a coincidence.I am missing the “invasion of Egypt". I understand that the Asiatic/Israelites/Hyksos came to Egypt. The Egyptian religions are built on parts and ideas of the Asiatic religions. When you go back far enough on the timeline, all religion migrated out of India. The Israelites, called the Canaan’s at the time most likely traveled to Egypt each year to sell sheep and honey. And to work in the Flax Seed harvest. The Asiatic were always there and in Europe until many plagues of leprosy wiped out most of Asiatic lineage. The Hyksos most likely migrated to Goshen, which was part of an Asiatic kingdom outpost from India as old as Egypt itself. The Canaan burials methods were out of India. And the oldest burial methods were Red ochre burials or Adam burials out of India. Only after the exodus from Egypt did the burial method change from sky burials. Point being that Canaan was most likely seen by the Egyptians as occupied by Asians. Even at the time of Jesus, the Canaan area had a leprosy problem. I see the exodus as a money issue. Olive oil gave the Hyksos great power when they came. The Hyksos had expanded and changed the society in the 400 to 500 years they ruled. The olive oil farming had expanded around the Mediterranean shore line. And Ramses took advantage of Hyksos who were leaving Egypt because of the leprosy. Moses was not strong enough to keep what the leaving Hyksos had left him to control. And he had to get out of Egypt. As the bible said he promised his followers that he would take them to a land that had old olive orchards. And that was Canaan.
The invasion of Egypt during the reign of Amenhotep III’s reign is described by Manetho via Josephus. According to Manetho, Moses sent messengers to the Hyksos rulers of Jerusalem and summoned them to join him in his fight against A3. After some hesitation (apparently) they obliged and together with soldiers loyal to Moses, they confronted the Egyptian army under A3. A3 decided not to engage them and retreated to Ethiopia for 13 years. There is ample evidence in Nubia that A3 had stayed there for considerable time. At first it may seem ludicrous, but this embarrassing story is repeated in the EL Arsih Shrine Text (Asiatics had overrun Egypt), and in the Story of Joseph and Asenath (the Israelites boasting how they went to the assistance of the king’s eldest son, who had declared war upon his father, and how they had defeated the Egyptians.
I see what you are saying. Is it possible. Yes, I think so. Reasons being. If the Hyksos were still in Salem that could have been a military edge. The dating of the building of Memphis may be a problem in that Moses was to have taken people from other countries that were living in the new capital of Memphis back to their country with him in the Exodus.
Haven’t done much reading in this area for a decade now. Reason is I was hoping that the dating of the Burckle Crater would be funded. And that could establish a possible datum timeline for events and leave geological clues across the region.
The thought just occurred to me, whether the Old Testament as we know it, would not by any chance, in one way or another, also refer to an invasion of Egypt by the Israelites. And lo and behold, it does - Joseph’s brothers, exactly the same guys who, in the Story of Jospeh and Asenath, invaded Egypt at the request of the king’s eldest son, so the he (this son of the king), could kill his own father. Following the usual justification of their deeds, and the embellishments, etc., etc., we read in Josephus’ account of Joseph and his brothers, that they had come to Egypt, supposedly because of a famine in their land (Israel / Palestine may have been suffering the same deadly plagues that Egypt was), and that they had left Egypt and with “wagons full of corn, and gold, and silver.” This matches Manetho’s description of the Hyksos rulers invading Egypt and plundering it for at least a decade.
In Exodus 12:36 we read “The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians.” This must have been an attempt by a scribe or scribes who could not deny that the Israelites had plundered Egypt, but needed some feeble justification (BS, of course) for why Egypt had been plundered.
The thought just occurred to me, whether the Old Testament as we know it, would not by any chance, in one way or another, also refer to an invasion of Egypt by the Israelites. And lo and behold, it does - Joseph's brothers, exactly the same guys who, in the Story of Jospeh and Asenath, invaded Egypt at the request of the king's eldest son, so the he (this son of the king), could kill his own father. Following the usual justification of their deeds, and the embellishments, etc., etc., we read in Josephus' account of Joseph and his brothers, that they had come to Egypt, supposedly because of a famine in their land (Israel / Palestine may have been suffering the same deadly plagues that Egypt was), and that they had left Egypt and with "wagons full of corn, and gold, and silver." This matches Manetho's description of the Hyksos rulers invading Egypt and plundering it for at least a decade. In Exodus 12:36 we read "The LORD had made the Egyptians favorably disposed toward the people, and they gave them what they asked for; so they plundered the Egyptians." This must have been an attempt by a scribe or scribes who could not deny that the Israelites had plundered Egypt, but needed some feeble justification (BS, of course) for why Egypt had been plundered.This is a classic case of looking for an explanation of your own idea. And you have to twist the tale to make it work. Joseph was sold into slavery by his brothers and abandoned. Joseph's dream interpretation skills got him out of slavery and eventually into riches. His brothers showed up later because the famine, and their father died of old age. The OT stories were not "feeble attempts to justify" anything. Your Exodus citation is completely disconnected from the Joseph story anyway.
Yours is a classic case of someone believing every word as stated in the Bible.
I was watching a dentist discus the 18th dynasty royal overbite problem due to inbreeding. The overbite would of made it difficult to eat normal foods and a severe lisp would of made it difficult to understand them while speaking. When I heard this it brought back a memory of a bible verse during the exodus.
Exodus 4:10-13—And Moses said unto the Lord, O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou has spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue.
Makes me wonder if this is further evidence of a 18th dynasty royal connection. Sara would of married tutmose III when pretending to be Abe’s sister instead of husband. Isaac is born 9 months later. I believe this was a son of tutmose II putting the hebrews in the royal line of succession. Solomon could be Amenhotep III thats why joseph says god made me father to pharaoh because amenhotep III marries Tye josephs daughter making him father in law. The native egyptians would of hated this and when king tut dies his tomb was the only one not found and plundered. I believe its because no one really knew it was there cause they were trying to erase this hebrew blood line mistake form history. If you look at the stuff found in the tomb it wasn’t just tuts belongings. It was a collection of amenhoptep, akenhaten and tuts belongings and everything related to this new sun god mono religious revelution. The bible is really great with names and ages and blood lines and relatives going back thousands of years. But during this period it never named one of the pharaohs by name. Makes you wonder if it wasn’t only the egyptians who were trying to hide this information.