Letter #37
Home Up Letter #2 Letter #3 Letter #4 Letter #5 Letter #6 Supplement Letter #7 Letter #8 Letter #9 Letter #10 Letter #11 Letter #12 Letter #13 Letter #14 Letter #15 Letter #16 Letter #17 Letter #18 Letter #19 Letter #20 Letter #21 Letter #22 Letter #23 Letter #24 Letter #25 Letter #26 Letter #27 Letter #28 Letter #29 Letter #30 Letter #31 Letter #32 Letter #33 Letter #34 Letter #35 Letter #36 Letter #37 Letter #38 Letter #39 Letter #40 Letter #41 Letter #42 Letter #43 Letter #44 Letter #45 Letter #46 Letter #47 Letter #48 Letter #49 Letter #50 Letter #51 Letter #52 Letter #53 Letter #54 Letter #55 Letter #56 Letter #57 Letter #58 Letter #59 Letter #60

 

WATCHMAN’S TEACHING LETTER

 

Monthly Letter #37; May, 2001 By: Teacher Clifton A. Emahiser

1012 N. Vine Street, Fostoria, Ohio 44830; Ph. (419)-435-2836

 

ISRAEL Covenant Two Seedline Racial IDENTITY

 

AN ANGLO-ISAAC-SON CAUCASIAN CULTURE AWARENESS TEACHING LETTER

 

This is my thirty-seventh monthly teaching letter and starts my fourth year of publication. This is a research effort into areas not generally covered by the average type of Bible study. When we really take the time to explore these various things, they are usually quite different than we ever imagined. We have to approach these topics like a detective in order to dig out all the assorted details. We have been comparing Egyptian history with that of the Bible in the last few lessons. Because we have covered so many aspects of this subject, there is not enough space to review them here. So that you won’t miss out on what was covered before this lesson, you may wish to get the back lessons leading up to where we find ourselves at the present time. You will notice, if you have been following this series, we have been establishing conclusions based on documentation from both Biblical and secular history along with archaeological evidence.

 

WALKING STEP BY STEP THROUGH ISRAEL’S SOJOURN IN EGYPT

FROM JOSEPH UNTIL JOSHUA

 

Because we will be discussing the Hyksos again in this lesson, I found a very good book entitled A Short History Of Ancient Egypt by T. G. H. James, who on page 95 made a very interesting observation concerning them:

 

“It seems that the Hyksos tried to behave like Egyptian rulers. Their god was Egyptian; they used Egyptian titles and put their names in cartouches; they built Egyptian-style buildings and appropriated Egyptian statues for their own use; they also appear to have fostered traditional Egyptian culture. It is a strange fact that some of the most interesting surviving papyrus texts were written at this time, including a long series of stories dealing with magical happenings in the Old Kingdom, the remarkable Ebers Papyrus which contains a large number of medical recipes and treatments, and the Rhind Mathematical Papyrus which was written down in the thirty-third year of the fourth Hyksos king, Apophis I (Apepi I). The peoples who are conveniently lumped together under the designation Hyksos do not demonstrate any distinctive national identity. They were undoubtedly Asiatic in origin, and they maintained trade links with Palestine and Syria, exploiting the opportunities offered by their control of the channels of communication with the east.”

 

You will have to admit these Hyksos were a strange people. They seem to have some of the same characteristics as the descendants of Cain. Maybe they should have called them Kyksos (like in “Jew”) instead of Hyksos.

 

In the last lesson, it was pointed out that the pharaohs of Egypt were depicted as the sun and that this didn’t necessarily indicate they were sun worshippers. As we will remember, in Joseph’s dream, his father, mother and brothers were spoken of as the sun, moon and stars and it was not in any way associated with the worship of these heavenly bodies. With Egypt, there were both actual sun worshippers and the depiction of rulers as the sun, and it is going to be necessary to be able to separate the one from the other, as on Egyptian monuments there are many examples of this.

 

Also, in the last lesson, we pondered upon the rapid population expansion of the Israelites in Egypt. As this population increased other conditions developed. As all these things were happening, we will have to consider some of the various political-religious-commercial activities which were going on at that time.

 

At the end of the 17th Egyptian Dynasty, at the time of Kamose, Egypt was divided into three unrelated sections. From these divisions, there were kings at Avaris, Thebes and Kush who negotiated commerce and trade as coequals. At Thebes, in the temple of Amun, Kamose erected a stele expressing his agreement with this situation saying in effect: “We are happy with our Black Land ... the flattest lands are plowed ... cattle graze in the marshes ... emmer is sent for our swine ... Should anyone aggress against us, we will retaliate.” Nevertheless, bemoaning the economic restraints imposed upon him by the king of Avaris, the Theban king resolved to end the partition complaining: “Why should I bother contemplating my gains while there is a ruler at Avaris and a Nubian, each one holding a portion of the Black Land and taking his slice of the country.” Kamose thus resented not having direct access of trade routes to Palestine and being prevented access to Nubian minerals. Monuments at Buhen exist which suggest his success in regaining control of Wawat. The Karnak stele documents in great detail Kamose’s assault on Avaris and putting the population of Nefrusy under the sword. A force was then dispatched to gain control of the oasis roads of Bahariya where a letter was intercepted from Apophis, king of Avaris, addressed to the king of Kush indicating that Avaris was already under attack. The city being heavily fortified could not be razed as Nefrusy was, but, nonetheless, its estates and orchards were plundered and stripped. In all this, its chariot-teams, bronze battle-axes, incense, oil, wood from Palestine, and precious metals along with stone were all looted. Thus Kamose returned to Thebes in triumph proving his authority had been demonstrated. This campaign would set a pattern of war to come against the Hyksos until driven out of the land. In such an atmosphere Joseph was sold into Egypt.

 

THE NEW KINGDOM

 

The “New Kingdom” of Egypt started with the 18th Dynasty and a pharaoh by the name of Amosis. As I stated before, there are various spellings for these Egyptian names. The 18th Egyptian Dynasty brought reunification in the reign of this pharaoh Amosis, son of Kamose. Amosis believed that the kings of Thebes were the legitimate successors of the Middle Kingdom whose obligation was to reunite the Black Land all the way from the Mediterranean through the Delta to and including Nubia. The war which was started by Kamose against Avaris and the occupying Hyksos was continued by Amosis. It was a long drawn-out aggression against Avaris, and the final war was launched late in Amosis’ reign. Some say perhaps in his 20th year. But it seems that Memphis, which appeared to be out of Kamose’s control, had finally fallen to Thebes. Apophis and Khemudy, the last king pharaohs of Avaris, witnessed their city being attacked repeatedly by Theban marine-style assault troops as many as five different times. Each attack was characterized by savage fighting on both sides. After Avaris fell, the Theban army crossed the Sinai to besiege a Palestinian fort called Sharuhen within Hyksos territory which helped them (the Hyksos) to maintain and control the flow of commerce. After three years of siege, the Egyptians were finally victorious, slaughtering many, if not nearly all of the Hyksos. No doubt, the Egyptians also took many of the Hyksos as slaves. Thus, the Theban government regained control over trade between Egypt and Palestine. The Egyptians under Amosis did not pursue the Hyksos on into Palestine at this time. It was some 61 years later that Thutmosis III advanced into that area.

 

By defeating the Hyksos, Amosis created a realm over a wide area almost as extensive as that of the Middle Kingdom. At last, the upper and lower Nile were once again united. The war that was started under Kamose was now terminated under Amosis. The main land trade routes to Palestine were now restored.

 

You may be wondering what we should learn from all of this particular Egyptian history during this time-period. It is simply this: If Joseph had been sold into the Delta area during the Hyksos period, and Jacob and his family were later settled there, they would have been in the middle of a war-zone. This war may have lasted up to 40 or 50 years. Nowhere in the Bible does it indicate such a thing! This should be powerful evidence that neither Joseph nor his family were affiliated with the Hyksos. If anything, Joseph may have been the instrument in Amosis’ hands to help drive them out. If Joseph would have been Grand Vizier to the Hyksos, as many Bible authorities claim, he surely could have gotten word to his family much sooner than he did. Joseph simply had to be locked into an area where he had no communication with Palestine. Have you ever wondered why Joseph didn’t try to get word to his father to inform him where he was? No doubt, he may have tried this many times. If he had been in the Delta area, he could very easily have sent word along the much traveled “Ways of Horus” into Retenu (Palestine) where his father was. On the other hand, if he was sold into the Theban area, it would have been very difficult to get word past the blockade at Avaris then being controlled by the Hyksos. By dominating Avaris, the Hyksos were able to control traffic both along land routes and also the waterways. It should be evident that Joseph was in a landlocked situation. If he were at Thebes, communication to Palestine would have been cut off for him. Not only did the Hyksos control the Delta area, but they occupied all of Palestine up beyond the Euphrates, even including the territory of the Hurrians. If Joseph were the Grand Vizier of the pharaoh at Avaris, surely he would have had the freedom to go visit his family in Palestine. It is obvious that Joseph had something blocking his way to return, or to even send a message home to his father.

 

JOSEPH WENT TO EGYPT BY A DIFFERENT WAY

 

There is evidence that when Joseph was sold to the Ishmaelites, they entered Egypt by a different way than normal. This can be found in The Lost Books Of The Bible and The Forgotten Books Of Eden in the “Testament of Zebulun” 1:28-30:

 

“28 And when Reuben came and heard that while he was away Joseph had been sold, he rent his garments, and mourning, said: 29 How shall I look on the face of my father Jacob? And he took the money and ran after the merchants, but as he failed to find them he returned grieving. 30 But the merchants had left the broad road and marched through the Troglodytes by a short cut.”

 

If this evidence is correct, the Ishmaelites took Joseph to Egypt by some other route than the usual way. Evidently the “broad road” spoken of in this reference was the “Way of Horus.” This was the main route in those days from the Delta to Retenu (Palestine). Therefore, it would only be reasonable to conclude that Joseph was taken someplace in Egypt other than the Delta. Not only that, but this “short cut” was probably the same road taken when the brothers went to Egypt to buy food and later when Jacob and his family went there, at Joseph’s instructions, to live.

 

JOSEPH’S PHARAOH, AMOSIS I

 

At this juncture, it would be a good idea to review the names of the pharaohs of the 18th Egyptian Dynasty. These Egyptian pharaohs are in the sequence as follows: š Amosis š Amenhotep I š Tuthmosis I š Tuthmosis II š Hatshepsut š Tuthmosis III š Amenhotep II š Tuthmosis IV š Amenhotep III š Amenhotep IV, (same as Akhenaten) š Tutankhamun š Ay š Horemheb. In addition to these named pharaohs, it would be well to mention that Kamose was the last pharaoh of the 17th Dynasty, as we are dealing with him in this lesson also. We are now going to consider the pharaohs from Amosis to Hatshepsut in their sequential order.

 

Because it is important to know everything we can about the events surrounding Joseph’s life, we really need to take a better look at Joseph’s pharaoh, Amosis I. As far as can be determined there was no Amosis II. Because Frank J. Cosentino, in his book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun, uses this designation of Amosis I in the following excerpts from his book, I am mentioning this so there will not be any confusion concerning it. One of the following paragraphs was quoted in lesson #32, but I will repeat it here:

 

Page 36: “The glory of liberating Egypt fell to Amosis I (1570-1546 B.C.), the first of the Eighteenth Dynasty. His reign ushered in the New Kingdom, a period of unparalleled progress and power which was to last almost five hundred years, from 1567 B.C. to 1080 B.C. This epoch, which also is called the Empire period, encompasses the Eighteenth through the Twentieth Dynasties.”

 

Page 37: “... Unfriendly lords who opposed Amosis or who refused to support the war of liberation were dealt with forcefully and brutally by the king, who often paused in his war with the Hyksos to defeat or punish rival nomes. This is one of the reasons it took so long to expel the Syrians [Hyksos, as “Syrians” might be taken as Aram], a period estimated to be more than twenty years. Finally, after years of siege upon Avaris, Delta stronghold of the Hyksos, they were dislodged and began their retreat to lower Palestine.

 

Amosis I, now a great hero of Egypt, was in a position to eliminate the feudal system, and he did. He confiscated the lands and properties of the lords he defeated and stripped them of their peerage. Those who supported him during the long Hyksos war also turned their estates over to the pharaoh in return for retention of their old titles and offices. All of Egypt once again was the personal property of the pharaoh.”

 

Page 39: “Amosis I had continued his military campaigns in the north and south, but the greater part of his reign had been devoted to the expulsion of the Hyksos and reorganization of the state. The expansion of the empire was carried forward vigorously by his son, Amenophis I [Amenhotep I] (1546-1526 B.C.), and by the son’s successor, Thutmosis I (1526-1508 B.C.), who appeared to come from another line of the royal house. Through the sixteenth century B.C. the Egyptian armies completed the conquest of Nubia, between the First and Second Cataracts and of the country of Kush, between the Second and Fourth Cataracts. The armies then turned their attentions north, to Syria and Palestine, where a number of small feudal states existed. Strongest was the kingdom of Kadesh, still ruled by the Hyksos. The ethnic fabric of these small states included Semites, Hittites, Mitannis, Hapiru, and Iranians [not today’s Iranians]. After many invasions and battles over a period of half a century, Thutmosis I finally extended the empire into the valleys of the Euphrates, Tigris, and Orontes Rivers ...”

 

Page 107: “The forces of power in Egypt moved from north to south through its ancient history. Old Kingdom pharaohs (2686-2181 B.C.) were centered below the Delta near the location of contemporary Cairo. The Middle Kingdom (2040-1674 B.C.) established its seat of power 250 miles south. Thebes, located 425 miles below Cairo, gained supremacy in the New Kingdom (1567-1080 B.C.) started by the great pharaoh Amosis I. Thebes remained the capital through the subsequent periods of decadence and decline ...”

 

Of special importance on page 39 from above, is described the “ethnic fabric” of the small city-states throughout Palestine at this particular time in history. They included Semites, Hittites, Mitannis, Hapiru, and Iranians. I am sure that this is only a partial list, but at the same time, it substantiates the Bible, Genesis 15:19-21, where it includes: Kenites, Kenizzites, Kadmonites, Hittites, Perizzites, Rephaims, Amorites, Canaanites, Girgashites and Jebusites. These were a hodgepodge mixed-race group of people. These are the same peoples the Israelites, when entering Canaan, were given the commission to kill every man, woman and child without mercy. These are the same group of people, when Israel neglected that command, were to become the thorns in their sides and pricks in their eyes, Numbers 33:55, their descendants who we know today as “Jews.” These excerpts just quoted give us a better overall picture of what was really going on in Egypt during the period in which Joseph was sold, and when later his father and brothers joined him there. All this fills in a great deal of information which cannot be found entirely in the Bible. The second paragraph, quoted on page 37, is especially significant as it substantiates the Scripture where Joseph imposed a 20% income tax on the Egyptians and confiscated all their land and gave it to the pharaoh, Genesis 47:20-26. All this resulted in more power for the pharaoh to fight against the Hyksos.

 

In Mummies Myth And Magic, by Christine El Mahdy, page 86, we are told: “The mummy of Amosis ... founder of the Eighteenth Dynasty and the New Kingdom, shows him to have been uncircumcised. He suffered from arthritis and died while relatively young ...” On page 87, it goes on to indicate that he died in his mid to late twenties. This could account for why he didn’t pursue after the Hyksos into Palestine. Evidently, with the death of this pharaoh, the Egyptians lacked direction. It also suggests that the pharaoh might have been a teenager when Joseph interpreted his dream, and maybe, because of his age, why he decided to put Joseph in charge of his realm.

 

AMENHOTEP I

 

Upon the death of Amosis, his son, Amenhotep I, took the throne. There is not as much information on Amenhotep I as there is on Amosis. It seems that with Amenhotep I, the Egyptian expansion was directed toward the south after the victory over the Hyksos. In Bill Manley’s The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt, page 61, it says this: “However, during the reign of Amenhotep I (if not before), it became Egyptian policy to extend the southern boundary further than it had existed during the Middle Kingdom.” The attraction to the south was gold. Again in this same book on page 68: “Theban authorities recognized that the Nubian gold mines were the foundations on which Egypt could be reconstructed as a formidable commercial power. A policy of conquest directed towards the kingdom of Kush itself emerged when Amenhotep I founded a fortified Egyptian town at Shaat, beyond the Middle Kingdom border in Nubia; the king was determined ‘to extend the boundaries of the Black Land’, according to Ahmose-Saibana.” Again, on page 70 we read this: “There is no compelling evidence to suggest that Ahmose [Amosis I] exploited his success at Sharuhen by continuing his campaigns further into Palestine; his son and successor, Amenhotep I, appears not to have campaigned in Palestine at all.” Maybe the reason it is difficult to find much on Amenhotep I is because he died in his early twenties, according to Mummies Myth And Magic by Christine El Mahdy, page 86. One other thing which should be mentioned about him was he apparently left no male heir.

 

TUTHMOSIS I

 

Evidently, Tuthmosis I was the first pharaoh after Amosis to expand Egypt’s influence northward bypassing Palestine. For some insight on this, I will quote from The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt by Bill Manley, page 70:

 

“Within thirty years of Sharuhen, however, Thutmose I [Tuthmosis I] had led Egyptian armies as far as Naharin (which the Egyptians used as a synonym for Mittani [Hurrians]), and erected a stela on the banks of the Euphrates proclaiming the northern boundary of his domain. A list of place names apparently related to this campaign, inscribed on a monumental gate at Karnak, covers the area from Byblos along the coast toward Sumur, and across the mountains of Lebanon to the Orontes. The mention of Byblos is crucial: this major seaport had been the traditional point of contact between Egypt and the Levant. It is possible that Thutmose I [Tuthmosis I] avoided Palestine altogether and moved his armies to Byblos by sea, focussing his campaign (which may have been little more than a display of strength) inland on a region crossed by some of the major trade routes of the ancient Near East, linking the Levantine ports to Palestine, Anatolia, the lands of the king of Mittani, and beyond to Assyria.”

 

The next reference we are going to use is very important as it spells out the relationship of the pharaoh’s family for the next few generations. It is paramount that we understand this interrelation, or we will not completely understand the whole story. You may have to read the following quotation several times to fully comprehend it. It is from The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 40:

 

“... Thutmosis I gave special impetus to the temple building program. He instructed his brilliant architect Ineni to erect massive pylons (towered gateways) at the entrance to the Amun [Amen] temple at Karnak and two giant granite obelisks before the pylons.

 

“Thutmosis I had four children with his chief queen, only one of which lived beyond childhood, a girl named Hatshepsut. Among other children with lesser queens was a son named Thutmosis II who married his half-sister, Hatshepsut. The two could produce no immediate heirs but Thutmosis II fathered a son, Thutmosis III, with a concubine from his harem. The father, now king, named his son as co-regent. Thutmosis II died soon after and Thutmosis III, still a child, ascended to the throne. Hatshepsut, however, had great ambitions. At first she ruled in the name of the young king; but with guile[?] and skill she gained support from the chief viziers, nobles, commanders, and priests, thrust Thutmosis III into the background, and claimed co-regency by right of her birth.”

 

Let’s investigate Tuthmosis I from another source, as we will now be getting into some of the essential and basic elements of our story. There is a lot more to this Egyptian saga than we may have ever imagined, and we are about to find out some unusual and interesting matters of concern. For this I will quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 91-92:

 

“The Obelisk Of Thotmes I [Thutmosis I], King Of Egypt About 1546 B.C., At Karnak. Thothmes I, the son of Amenhetep I [Amenhotep I] by his Queen Senseneb, began to reign about 1546 B,C., and reigned about 30 years. On the day of his coronation, i.e. the 21st day of the 3rd month of the season Pert, he sent the copy of a decree to the Egyptian viceroy of Nubia, who dwelt at Elephantine, announcing his coronation and giving a list of titles that he had adopted. Soon after he ascended the throne he made a raid into Nubia; the general of his army was Aahmes, the son of Abana, a warrior who had fought against the Hyksos. The king was present at one engagement, and speared the leader of the enemy, and sailed down-stream with the dead body tied to the bow of his boat. The authority of Egypt in Nubia at that time seems to have been effective so far as the Island of Tombos, near the head of the Third Cataract [boundary differs from Cosentino]. Thotmes next devoted himself to consolidating the power of Egypt in Syria, and his victorious troops conquered the Shasu, a confederation of nomad tribes, and took possession of the country of Naharina. He set up a stele at a place called Ni, near the Euphrates, to mark the limit of his kingdom in the north, and this stele was standing in the reign of his grandson, Thothmes III [Tuthmosis III]. His raids in Nubia and in Syria brought him in much wealth, and a large portion of it he spent in building and repairing the temples of the great gods of Thebes and Abydos, i.e., Amen-Ra and Osiris.

 

“... He had two obelisks quarried at Aswan, and built a lighter nearly 200 feet long and 60 feet wide on which to transport them to Thebes, and they were set up under the direction of the official Anni in front of another pylon; the two pylons which Thothmes [Tuthmosis] built were united by a colonnade ... Thothmes I was the first king who set up obelisks in Thebes, and in view of the later religious history of the 18th Dynasty his action seems to show that he was favourably disposed to the doctrines of the priesthood of Heliopolis [Beth-shemish, or house of Shem], and that he wished to link the cult of Ra with that of the Theban god Amen. As Usertsen I had set up a pair of obelisks before the house of Ra at Heliopolis, so Thothmes I set up a pair before a pylon of the temple of Amen.” [Amen, Hebrew for truth.]

 

I don’t know whether or not you understand the significance of what you have just read, but this makes a connection of the god Amen-Ra of Egypt with the Priest of On (Joseph’s in-laws) at Heliopolis (Beth-shemish). If this is true, the god Amen represents the same deity as that of the Hebrews. I doubt very much whether the writer of this book had any idea that he was making such a connection. Also, I am sure many of us have been under the impression that an obelisk is a phallic symbol. If what Budge writes on page 19 is correct, it was the Arabs who came up with that idea. In the process of explaining the meaning of “Cleopatra’s Needles” it says in part: “... they [the Arabs] assigned them to her [Cleopatra], with perhaps an obscene suggestion that they resembled phalli lurking in their minds.” If it were the Arabs who gave the obelisks the meaning of phalli, that couldn’t have been the meaning to the Egyptians from the beginning. No doubt, obelisks have become known generally for, and adopted as phallic symbols as a secondary meaning at various times in history. On the Internet there was information on “Phallic Representations” under the title Women And Gender In Ancient Egypt by The Kelsey Museum of Archaeology which exhibits various Egyptian phallic figures and amulets, and there are no obelisks among them. It would seem, if an obelisk were a phallic symbol, they would have placed one at the top of the list. In the book Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 14 it says: “... it is probable that many of them were set up as funerary monuments, and were intended to indicate regeneration, new life, stability, and perhaps resurrection.” On page 6 of this same book it explains how obelisks were generally set up in pairs. Very seldom was one placed alone. It would be understandable, if one was placed alone, how one might imagine a phallic meaning, but how can one conceive such a meaning where they are placed in pairs?

 

TUTHMOSIS II

 

There is not a lot of information to pass along on Tuthmosis II except he was the husband of Queen Hatshepsut. Tuthmosis II and his queen were half brother-sisters. While Hatshepsut was of royal blood, Tuthmosis II was not. For more details on this, I will quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 98:

 

Hatshepsut was probably associated with her father, Thotmes I [Tuthmosis I], in the rule of the kingdom during the last few years of his life, and her power became greatly increased when she married her brother, Thothmes II, either before or immediately after her father’s death. Her husband died after a short, ineffective reign, and as her nephew, who later was known as Thothmes III, was then a child, she undertook to administer the kingdom.”

 

PHARAOH HATSHEPSUT

 

Because there is more material on Hatshepsut than can be presented in the rest of this lesson, it will be necessary to save it for later. Actually we did cover Hatshepsut somewhat previously, but there is more we should consider. To start with, in a quote from the book The Boehm Journey To Egypt, Land Of Tutankhamun by Frank J. Cosentino, page 120, we read this:

 

“It will be recalled that Hatshepsut was the first great queen of Egypt. She married Thutmosis II and after his death seized the throne from Thutmosis III, who after Hatshepsut’s demise was to become one of Egypt’s greatest warrior-kings. To secure her name in history and to prove herself equal to all the male pharaohs before her, she embarked on ambitious building programs during her twenty-year rule (1489-1469 B.C.).”

 

Princess Hatshepsut was the only surviving child of Tuthmosis I and his queen. As there is no word in the ancient Egyptian language for “queen”, the meaning was simply “king’s great wife.” Had Tuthmosis I had a son, he would have been in line to inherit the throne from his father. With Hatshepsut being a female, and no others contending for the throne, it could pass through her to whomever she might marry. There was a major flaw in this arrangement, as it left an opening for non-royal blood to gain the throne. In the Eighteenth Egyptian Dynasty this happened several times. In fact, Tuthmosis II, the half-brother who Hatshepsut married, is a case in point. The exact system of choosing a new king is not precisely known, but, in the 18th Dynasty, it seems that if there was no son to receive the honor, it was passed on through the oldest female, and in turn to her husband. The difference in the case with Hatshepsut, she took the throne herself after her husband died. It was probably a matter of guardianship at first until Tuthmosis III became of age, but Hatshepsut evidently decided to remain on the throne, denying Tuthmosis III his seat. In the end, this precipitated a bitter battle between Hatshepsut and Tuthmosis III.

 

In Egypt, the pharaoh often had many wives, and in some cases, married a half-sister. All this made the process of passing on the throne rather complex. Upon the death of Tuthmosis I, his son Tuthmosis II, by a minor wife, was married to his half-sister, Hatshepsut. By marrying Hatshepsut, it established Tuthmosis II’s right to the throne which lasted for twenty-two unexceptional years. When Tuthmosis II died, he left a daughter by Hatshepsut and a son, Tuthmosis III, by a minor wife. Hatshepsut then ruled seven years as regent for the young boy. After this time, Hatshepsut took it upon herself to change her title from “Queen” to “King.”

 

TUTHMOSIS III

 

There has been a question in the past whether Tuthmosis III was a son of Tuthmosis I or II. The book Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, page 126 says this: “Each has shown that we must hold Thothmes III to be the son of Thothmes II and not Thotmes I.”

 

For information on Tuthmosis III, I will again quote from Cleopatra’s Needles by E. A. Wallis Budge, pages 125-126:

 

“The Reign Of Thothmes III, 1500-1447 B.C. The parentage of Thothmes III [Tuthmosis III], the greatest of the kings of the 18th Dynasty, and probably the greatest of all the kings of Egypt, has been the subject of animated discussion for many years past, and even now Egyptologists are not agreed about the matter. There is no doubt that he was associated with the great Queen Hatshepsut in the rule of the kingdom, but what was his relationship to her? Some say that he was her half-brother ...”

 

We have much more to cover on this subject, and in the next few lessons, we will continue investigating the many interesting events which took place during Israel’s sojourn in Egypt.

 

 

 

HOME