[1]

Joseph and Akhenaten: The Case for Reinterpreting Amarna

By Joseph Sniderman

Copyright 2011, Northborough, Massachusetts Preface:

The purpose of this paper is to present evidence of the strong correlations between the Pharaoh Akhenaten and the Amarna Period with the story of „How Joseph Saved Egypt from Famine,‟ one of the Joseph stories in the biblical book of Genesis. The strength of these correlations suggests that several age-old assumptions about Akhenaten need to be re-evaluated, and that by doing so, many of the enigmas currently associated with this period would be eliminated. (The Joseph stories can be found in Chapters 37 through 50 of the book of Genesis. The story of „how Joseph saved Egypt from famine‟ is told primarily in Chapter 41 and the last half of Chapter 47. This analysis perhaps looks at some of the lesser known details of the Amarna Period. For a more general overview of this period, some readily available titles are listed in the bibliography below.) Introduction (This Paper Intends to Show the Following):

Amenhotep III and Akhenaten are believed to have concurrently celebrated seven years of plenty by collecting and storing vast amounts of food. This was followed by seven years of famine and pestilence, despite Amenhotep III‟s efforts to protect against it. The whole world ended up „coming to buy food‟ from Akhenaten. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Akhenaten‟s rule was the result of an inheritance by birthright, whereas a foreign upbringing could explain so much that is unusual about him. And, there are several other correlations as well.

Amenhotep III celebrated „seven years of plenty‟. He cast aside millennia of Jubilee traditions to celebrate “especially good harvests” instead. To celebrate, he moved to a palace called “the place where things have been gathered” or “place of picking up”. The record harvests of his Jubilee Year 30 were quite noteworthy. And, unusually, he continued his Jubilee celebrations in Years 34 and 37. Akhenaten also celebrated „seven years of plenty‟. His Jubilees of his Years 4 through 10, inclusive, were of the same unusual type as Amenhotep III‟s and some scholars question “whether the two jubilees did not coincide.” Akhenaten is said to have celebrated his Jubilee on an on-going daily basis, and continued to be “in Jubilee” for a period of seven years (plus or minus one.) His Jubilee celebrations consisted of receiving food offerings and storing them in hastily constructed “temple” complexes. His first action as a ruler was the building of these “temple” complexes. This building project was a major undertaking. These “temples” were built throughout the land and they used a new rapid construction method to allow for their timely completion by unskilled laborers. They have virtually nothing in common with other temple architecture in Egypt. They were roofless compounds with stone perimeter walls that were filled with row after row of “offering stands” overflowing with flatbreads, meats, and all manner of foodstuffs. Supposedly, Akhenaten‟s “religious rites” during the Jubilee period were reduced to lavish food offerings, repeated “ad nauseam” on the wall murals, and, building a dense mass of these “altars”. His “temples” even had daily goals/quotas posted for the offerings expected. Everywhere, food was shown piled high on altars, in storerooms, and even in the palaces. Massive amounts of food were collected. After completing his constructions throughout the land, Akhenaten built the city of Akhetaten with its „Island Exulted in Jubilees‟, and filled its “temples” with food brought in by boat. Akhetaten‟s boundary stelae dedicated the city‟s produce and prophesied that the whole world would come to barter for sustenance. Although celebrating “good harvests”, Amenhotep III also commissioned over seven hundred special granite idols to protect the land from plague and pestilence.

The following seven years appear to have brought famine. Akhenaten‟s post-Jubilee years, roughly 11-17, were announced as a new phase to the reign as Akhenaten became “Lord of the Jubilee”. The post-Jubilee period is known to be a time of widespread plague and pestilence. During the post-Jubilee period no new “temples” were built, food offerings were no longer shown, and, the Egyptians showed off how fat they were. “The most important event of Akhenaten‟s last years” was when the whole world (North, South, East, West, and Islands) came to buy (barter an unusual collection of valuable non-food items) Akhenaten‟s food (his

[2]

“blessing” which granted them “the breath of life”). A seemingly little known fact is that Akhenaten deported the H‟Abiru out of Canaan following the massacre at Schechem. Eventually, Akhenaten ended up in control of the whole land and instituted taxation. The name of the chief Egyptian god was replaced with the name of Akhenaten‟s god throughout the land and the Egyptian temples were shut down. The Egyptian temples were abandoned and revenues were redirected to the state through tax-collectors. There has long been a debate over the issue of Akhenaten‟s co-regencies. Many scholars have argued that Akhenaten was in a continuous, or nearly continuous, „co-regency‟ throughout his whole reign. The opponents of the „long co-regency‟ theory base their opposition on the assumption that the two rulers were „co-equals‟. But, Akhenaten never claimed an unqualified „Ruler of Thebes‟ title. His efforts were said to be limited to his “cultic reform” and that he did not involve himself with the running of either the domestic or the foreign affairs of the country. Akhenaten did not seem to directly command the Egyptian public, but is known to have used intermediaries and foreigners instead.

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Akhenaten‟s rule was the result of an inheritance by birthright. Nothing is known about Akhenaten‟s childhood, while much is known about the other children of Amenhotep III. But, unlike the other royal children who made clear that they were the biological offspring of Pharaoh, Akhenaten only used the same filial terms that vassals used toward their suzerains. Akhenaten‟s early name, Amenhotep IV, rather than implying a royal birth, could just as easily be used to imply a foreign birth. And, this would not have been the first such time that Amenhotep III had promoted a commoner to a royal status with broad-ranging responsibilities. A foreign upbringing for Akhenaten could explain so much that is unusual about him. Immigrants from the Levant, or “Asiatics”, were numerous and well integrated into Egyptian society at this time. A foreign birth could explain Akhenaten‟s unusual physical appearance, his unusual cultural behaviors, his unusual taste in art, the unusual prominence of his chariot use, the unusual importance of his wife‟s role, his unusual religion, the backlash against foreigners that followed, and, the oral legends that tell of foreign rule during this period. There are other correlations as well. Akhenaten was first introduced as someone who had done something that all of the Egyptian gods and idols had failed to do. He was given in marriage to a priestess of On. Pharaoh‟s father had received the throne as the result of following a dream. Akhenaten built a city in the region called Qis[?], whose population included Asiatics, and which served as his „Pharaonic‟ or Capitol District. The Amarna Aftermath has correlations with the Exodus story as well. After Akhenaten died, a Pharaoh arose who knew not Akhenaten, and who had all of his constructions defaced or dismantled. The laborers that dismantled Akhetaten lived in poverty, but the population of Akhetaten continued to grow. The houses there had unusual red painted doorways. The city was abandoned so rapidly that there were houses left in various stages of construction. And, many tables that had held Jubilee flatbreads had still not been dismantled at the time of abandonment. Akhenaten‟s body was removed from its last known resting spot and has never been found, but this is not believed to have been the work of thieves. There are mainstream scholars who believe that the Israeli sojourn in Egypt lasted only a few decades. There are many strong correlations between the Amarna Period and the story of „how Joseph saved Egypt from famine.‟ These include Amenhotep III‟s and Akhenaten‟s concurrent celebrations of „seven years of plenty‟ during which they collected and stored vast amounts of food, the seven years of plague and pestilence that followed, Amenhotep III‟s efforts to protect against it, the whole world „coming to buy food‟ from Akhenaten, the lack of evidence to conclude that Akhenaten was a full pharaoh and son of Amenhotep III, and, Akhenaten‟s unusual physical and behavioral characteristics that would be explained by a foreign upbringing. There are the other correlations as well. The quality and quantity of the corresponding events and characteristics seem to go well beyond that which could be found purely by chance. This is not just a few commonly occurring characteristics and events. On the contrary, this involves nearly every line of the biblical story that one could reasonably expect to find mentioned in the public record. And, they find expression in events that seem to be relatively unique in the history of Egypt. This seems to defy mere coincidence. The view that Akhenaten was Joseph is amplified by the simple explanations it provides for so many of the events of the Amarna Period that have until now defied explanation. At the same time it provides a wealth of compelling cultural and political context to the events behind the biblical story in a way which seems unparalleled. A detailed reevaluation of the period, free from old but unwarranted assumptions, seems to be required.

[3]

Amenhotep III celebrated „seven years of plenty‟: Amenhotep III cast aside millennia of Jubilee traditions to celebrate „good harvests‟ instead:

For thousands of years Pharaohs had celebrated the thirtieth anniversary of their rule with a Jubilee having a proscribed set of unchanging rituals, such as „the ritual race‟, the „shooting of the arrows‟, and the „visiting of the shrines‟. But yet, for some unknown reason, Amenhotep III cast all these traditions aside and instead celebrated his Jubilee in a form which was claimed to be based on the writings of the Ancients and is said to have had something to do with “especially good harvests”. Aldred says, “The jubilees of Amenophis III were important national functions, carried out with full ceremonial as a result of antiquarian research into aspects of the rites in the remote Archaic period.” (p.266) He also says, “…a text in the tomb of Khereuf tells us that the king celebrated it according to ancient writings, for generations of men since the Time of the Ancestors had never observed such traditions. If this was so, the ritual must have followed closely the usage of Memphis where the Festival of the Sed originated in the days of the first pharaohs.” (p.161-162) Redford says, “All rites were performed, so Amenophis proudly declares, in conformance with the most ancient order of service, prescriptions that the king had found on dust-covered „writings of the ancients‟ in the archives.” (p.52) Redford also says,

“The sd-festival was a very ancient ritual, attested already in the 1st Dynasty

(31st-30th

century B.C.) and with roots in prehistoric times… Some evidence suggests an early connection with an especially high Nile flood, and therefore the fertility resulting in an especially good harvest….” [emphasis added] (p.124-125) It seems that the biblical story of the seven years of plenty could provide a simple explanation for why Amenhotep III celebrated this otherwise unknown form of Jubilee.

To celebrate, he moved to a palace called “the place where things have been gathered” or “place of picking up”:

To celebrate this Jubilee, Amenhotep III moved his court to a palace whose modern name means "the place where things have been gathered" or “place of picking up”. Redford says that he moved to Thebes in about his 29

th year of his reign (p.59), and that he resided there during the celebration of his three sd-festivals.

Redford says, “All took place at Thebes „in [his] palace, [the “House-]of Rejoicing”‟ i.e., the new Malqata* palace…” (p.51) In his glossary, Redford defines Malqata as being from the Arabic and meaning the “place of picking up” (p.238) Descroches-Noblecourt says, “Today this royal compound is called Malkata, which in Arabic means „the place where things have been gathered‟...” (p.115) His moving to a palace of this name for celebrating his Jubilees could easily be explained by the biblical story of his intentions to gather the excess harvests of the seven years of plenty for use during the seven years of famine. There were record harvests in his Jubilee Year 30:

At the start of this Jubilee period, in Year 30, the supervisor of grain growing and harvest collection is shown in his tomb being rewarded for the bumper harvest of that year. Aldred says that Khaemhat, “the Overseer of the Granaries of Upper and Lower Egypt,… submits the report of a bumper harvest in Jubilee Year 30.” (p.165) As Redford puts it, “In year 30 Khaemhat handed in to the sovereign an exceptionally bounteous harvest-tax…” (p.48) The significance of the especially good harvests coinciding with Amenhotep III‟s Jubilee Year 30 is further indication of the beginning of the seven years of plenty. Unusually, he continued his Jubilee celebration in Years 34 and 37:

Then, for some unknown reason, Amenhotep III unusually holds two additional Jubilees, the second of these was in Year 34 and the third was in Year 37. Aldred says, “The first was celebrated as was normal in the king‟s thirtieth regnal year…” (p.266) Redford says, “The last decade of the reign [of Amenophis III]… witnessed the celebration of three sd-festivals in years 30, 34, and 37. To judge by the number of contemporary reliefs and paintings devoted to the commemoration of the celebrations, they must have been regarded as the most important events of the reign.” (p.51) The art of this Jubilee period is renowned for its depictions of the bounty of nature. Aldred says, regarding the scenes in Parennefer‟s tomb as being: "…pictures of traditional design in the style prevailing towards the end of the previous reign [Amenhotep III‟s], such as scenes of the grain and fruit harvest.…" (p.92) This abnormal repeating of the Jubilee could of course be easily explained by the biblical story as these would be seen as marking the middle and end points of the seven years of plenty.

[4]

Akhenaten also celebrated „seven years of plenty‟: Akhenaten‟s Jubilees, of his Years 4 through 10 inclusive, were of the same unusual type as Amenhotep III‟s and some scholars question “whether the two jubilees did not coincide”:

For reasons unknown, Akhenaten celebrated the same type of Jubilee of “especially good harvests” as Amenhotep III. Aldred says, “There are other features of the representation of the jubilee on the Karnak talatat which reveal that Amenophis IV was faithfully following the pattern that had been set by the festival in Regnal Year 30 of Amenophis III…. …there were other ceremonies which were doubtless of archaic or very ancient origin, redolent of that antiquarian research which was undertaken to enact the first jubilee of Amenophis III. … These are evidently close imitations of ritual observed at the first jubilee of Amenophis III, and one wonders, in fact, whether the two jubilees did not coincide.” [emphasis added] (p.266) Redford

says, “…Amenophis IV was aping his father Amenophis III not only in the format of his jubilee, but also in the details and extent of the relief representations devoted to the subject.” (p.130-131) The biblical story, of course, could provide a simple explanation for why Akhenaten celebrated the same otherwise-unknown type of Jubilee as Amenhotep III, as well as why it appears that the two celebrations were held concurrently. Akhenaten celebrated his Jubilee on an on-going daily basis for seven years (plus or minus one):

But, again for unknown reasons, Akhenaten started celebrating his Jubilee on his third anniversary instead of his thirtieth. Redford says, “Looming large… was the prospect of a jubilee early in his reign. What motivated him to even entertain the prospect is as unknown to us today as it probably was to his contemporaries; for jubilees were not traditionally celebrated before the thirtieth regnal year. Nevertheless, sometime early in his second year at the latest the intent crystallized in Amenophis IV‟s mind to celebrate a jubilee, a sd-festival as it was called, as his father had done in his last decade; and the time was set a few

months hence to coincide with the third anniversary of his accession to the throne.” (p.62) And, rather than holding discrete events, again for reasons unknown, his Jubilee was said to be conducted on an on-going, daily basis. Aldred says, “The assigning of the jubilee to the Aten as a daily event absolved the king from commemorating a periodic festival….” (p.267) Akhenaten continued this celebration for the next seven years, plus or minus one, as can be seen in his change of titles. Aldred says, “The codicil appended to Stelae A and B, dated to the fifth month of Year 8, is the last occasion on which the name of the Aten is given in a form which had first appeared in the early months of the reign. The next dated document is the representation of the durbar in the tombs of Huya and Meryre II, accompanied by a text dated to Year 12 in which the name of the Aten has been changed. …one of its titles, “Who is in Jubilee", has been changed to "Lord of Jubilees"….” [emphasis added] (p.278) The early start of Akhenaten‟s Jubilees, and their on-going daily nature for the next seven years, become easily explained when seen as the food collection process told about in the biblical story, as opposed to some type of weird religious revolution. Akhenaten‟s Jubilee celebrations consisted of receiving food offerings and storing them in hastily constructed “temple” complexes: Akhenaten‟s first action as a ruler was the building of “temple” complexes:

Aldred quotes the inscription at Gebel es Silsila as saying, “…the first time of His Majesty‟s giving command to the Master of Works… to undertake all constructions from one end of the country to the other…”. He goes on to explain, “The fact that the stela is undated, and the mention of a „first time‟, presumably indicate the monument commemorates the innovative decree of the king‟s reign.” (p.88-89) The Cambridge Ancient History also states, "It is significant that the first great event of his reign should be a decree marshaling all the resources of the land for building temples to his god…." (p.51) The biblical story could provide a simple explanation for why it was necessary for him to begin his reign with a building project. The “temple” building project was a major undertaking:

Aldred discussing the great stela at Gebel es Silsila, says, "…what this stela most vividly discloses is that from the first days of the new reign the populace of Egypt, the peasantry, workmen and nobility, were to be united in a great and pious undertaking, a labour of devotion to the king‟s new god." (p.89) Elsewhere he states, "This great undertaking was set in train almost as a national enterprise, with an energy that had hitherto been devoted to foreign campaigns, „to extend the borders of Egypt‟." (p.262) The Cambridge Ancient History points out that, "The rapid building of the new capital city at El-Amarna and temples to the new god in every major centre must have drained the land of its labour and economic resources…." (p.53) Building enough storage facilities to store the amount of food necessary to feed the whole population for seven years would be a massive undertaking. The biblical story could provide a simple explanation for why this type of marshalling of resources was necessary.

[5]

The “temples” were built throughout the land:

The Cambridge Ancient History says, "Temples to the Aten appear to have been raised in most of the principal towns of Egypt during these early years of the reign…” It also goes on to refer to them as “vast and numerous” (p.55)

Aldred says, “…limestone reliefs which have been dug up on various sites in the Nile

Delta apparently originated in demolished temples in Lower Egypt, especially at Memphis and Heliopolis. Monuments of the reign have been discovered on sites at various points in Egypt. …temples or shrines dedicated to the Aten appear to have been founded elsewhere, evidently at towns such as Hierakonpolis and Balamun…” (p.87) Also, as stated above, Aldred quotes the inscriptions at Gebel es Silsila as saying, “…to undertake all constructions from one end of the country to the other". (p.88) Like the biblical story of how the food storage facilities were built in every city of the land, so too were Akhenaten‟s constructions. The “temples” used a new rapid construction method to allow for their timely completion by unskilled laborers:

Aldred says, “The architects had devised a system of building and decorating the walls which was rapid and effective. The sandstone was selected from strata that allowed blocks measuring about a cubit in length (0.5 metres) to be easily prised out of their beds and readily handled by an untrained labour force. When such blocks were trimmed, they could be speedily built into walls of alternate headers and stretchers, with a generous application of gypsum plaster between the joints, to fill in blemishes and make all smooth. Such walls could be carved in sunk relief, a method of decoration which was less laborious and time-consuming than the more usual and elegant low relief…” (p.263) The Cambridge Ancient History points out that, “The impressment of workers by corvee shows the importance that the new king placed upon the swift fulfillment of his plans…. The remains of dismantled temples… betray distinct signs of the haste with which they were built, particularly in the often careless and summary cutting of the reliefs in a somewhat coarse granular stone." (p.53-54) And, Redford states, “As in all the construction undertaken during his reign, the buildings Akhenaten threw up were hastily designed and assembled. A modern engineer, asked to cast a judgment on the Gm.(t)-p3-itn temple in East Karnak, could scarcely opine that it was anything but jerry-built…." (p.144) Needing to have sufficient storage capacity in place at the start of the Jubilee would be a simple explanation for the hasty construction. Assuming that stone perimeter walls were required to protect the provisions in storage, unlike mud-brick walls which were vulnerable to burrowing critters, and knowing that stone construction was a very time-consuming process, a new technology such as this would be required to meet the rapid construction schedule with the resources available. These “temples” have virtually nothing in common with temple architecture in Egypt:

Aldred says, "The worship of a god in aniconic form simplified temple architecture which no longer had to consist of a „mansion‟ but reverted to the court, open to the sunlight, and to the colonnades of the ancient sun-temples." (p.245) Redford explains, “It is presumed that a good many of the forms he espoused were of Heliopolitan inspiration: the simple open layout adopted for his sun-temples, for example, is allegedly derived from a Heliopolitan original. All this may be the case, but at present no one can say with certainty. We know too little about Heliopolis – the site has not been and cannot be adequately excavated – to be confident in tracing elements of the new cult back to forms at home there." (p.138) However, the biblical story could offer a secular explanation for their design that seems more compelling than the religious ones. Although there is a popular interpretation of the biblical story that imagines that the food storage used the traditional Egyptian grain silos, this doesn‟t take into account that the annual losses due to flooding and burrowing critters render this method unusable. An open-air design, however, would allow the food to be dried in the sun and warm breezes. These “temples” were roofless compounds with stone perimeter walls that were filled with row after row of “offering stands” overflowing with flatbreads, meats, and all manner of foodstuffs:

Redford says of the Tni-mnw and Rwd-mnw complexes at Karnak, “A detailed examination of the reliefs by temple…. Tni-mnw, for example, displayed substantial sections of wall decorated with scenes… such as baking bread and storing wine….. Numerous other scenes that once adorned the same building show the king engaged in the usual offering ceremony…. Rwd-mnw likewise featured scenes of cultic import, though

now the offering scene is carried on in a series of roofless kiosks, with which we shall become familiar in the context of Gm(t)-p3-itn. Also displayed on the walls of Rwd-mnw were lengthy scenes showing the king and his court riding out to visit open-air installations comprising row upon row of ten-foot-tall offering stands, each laden with offerings of fowl, bread, and wine. On other walls, row upon row of domestic servants advanced, each with a container of foodstuffs on his head…. The purpose of Rwd-mnw and Tni-mnw eludes us, though it is a fair guess that it was cultic in some manner. No inscriptions have so far been matched that might make their function explicit… (p.71-72) [See also: Plate 4.9, Servants with flatbreads (p.74); Plate 7.11, The Jubilee with a veritable forest of offering tables (p.118)] The biblical story could provide a simpler explanation for this focus on food collection and storage than the religious explanation.

[6]

Supposedly, Akhenaten‟s “religious rites” during the Jubilee period were reduced to lavish food offerings, repeated „ad nauseam‟ on the wall murals, and, building a dense mass of “altars”:

Redford says, "The divine service offered to the Sun-disc is a drastic reduction of traditional practice, now that the new belief had forced the purging of all mythological symbolism. The only act retained is the essential food offering, and this is repeated ad nauseam in the reliefs. The most common term for offering is …, „making the great oblation,‟ specified in one text as consisting of „oxen, shorthorns, wine, incense, all things fine and pure and all vegetables.‟ The scene of driving, throwing, and slaughtering cattle runs in a long band along the bottom of jubilee reliefs in Gm.(t)-p^3-itn; everywhere servants carry bread, sweetmeats, haunches of beef, wine jars, etc. <P> In all such scenes one theme is stressed: the bounty of the king and of his father the sun. The plenty of the land of Egypt depends upon them alone." (p.180) As The Cambridge Ancient History puts it, “Because the Aten was not in tangible form, the daily ritual was of the simplest kind and centred around the presentation of lavish offerings. A later feature of the worship appears to have been the erection of a dense mass of altars in a vast area lying south of the „House of Rejoicing‟." (p.58) And, Aldred states, “The immense extent of the temple with its forest of offering-tables… heaped with consecrated food… is an indication of its importance to the cult." (p.247) Again, the biblical story offers a compelling explanation for this obsession with collecting food. Processing the food and storing it on altars/offering-tables/kiosks would raise it above the annual flood levels, thereby eliminating one of the prime reasons for annual losses.

These “temples” had daily goals/quotas posted for the offerings expected:

Redford says, "Amenophis IV was… careful to record the instructions that were to govern the operation of his new shrines. On steles or on the wall itself, near the entrance to his temples, the official prescriptions for the daily offerings to the sun god were inscribed for all to see. … A representative text reads as follows (TS 256): „[The god‟s offering which His Majesty laid down for his father] (the Sun-disc) as an offering menu for every day…: bit-bread, at a baker‟s ratio of forty, [x] loaves; pisn-loaves, at a baker‟s ratio of forty, eighty-seven loaves; [jugs of beer, at a brewing ration of twenty, thirty-three jugs; … to]tal of the various (types of) bread of the god‟s offering, 265; pigeons, two; incense, [one] hin-jar; vegetables, one bundle; vegetables,

four bunches; milk, [x] jugs…‟ and so forth. Much larger quantities are indicated in surviving offering-lists for the daily menu of the solar temple at Memphis. <P> Offering prescriptions for other shrines are preserved as well.… <P> It is not at all strange to find one of the chief priests obliged to supply part of the offerings…. One text (TS 8842) alludes to the „[bread and beer] comprising the impost quotas of every year destined for the House of the Sun-disc‟ and goes on in a broken context to imply that the high priest of the sun was somehow responsible for it." (p.134-135) The biblical story could provide a simple explanation for why this was so. Rather than trying to contrive a religious purpose for these “temples”, the need to collect the appropriate amount of food for each location would explain why they established quotas such as these. Everywhere, food was shown piled high on altars, in storerooms, and even in the palaces - massive amounts of food were collected:

Redford, describing the city of Akhetaten says, “On the northern side of the central quarter, and also east of the avenue, lay the largest temple of all, „the House of the Sun-disc.‟ This consisted of a vast rectangular walled enclosure measuring 760 by 290 meters, within which lay several independent temples. …Like most of the cultic installations, both here and at Thebes, all courts were open to the sky so the sun might shine on all the rites directed toward him. Offering tables groaning beneath the bounty bestowed by the sun were everywhere.” (p.146) Redford says of the offerings, “Parennefer was put in charge of the offerings in the new temples. Already large quantities of offerings were being diverted to the Disc at the expense of other temples, and Parennefer notes…: „…the corn-imposts of every other god are measured (merely) by oipe, but for the Disc they are measured in superabundance!‟" (p.60) Redford also describes, "A number of talatat, mainly from the 2

nd pylon, yield an insight of sorts into the riches of the new Theban temples. In

broken contexts they seem to list the assets of the establishment: …Elsewhere the totals seem staggering: 400,000 of an unspecified commodity, 22,000 great white loaves, 260 plus storage jars (of wine), and so forth. It is quite likely that here we have the provisions assembled for the jubilee. <P> The sheer mass of foodstuffs brought together by the state to be bestowed upon the people at the jubilee as the king‟s largesse, helps us better to appreciate the atmosphere of hilarity and fervent loyalty with which the plebes anticipated the festival. No better means could be imagined to bring the nation together and to remind its citizens of the political system to which they owed their all. …To serve pharaoh meant that one would eat!” (p.135-136) [See also: Plate 7.11, Forest of offering tables (p.118); Fig. 15, Palace and temple with food (p.121); Fig. 16, Palace with food, (p.124)] Aldred says of the temples, "The talatat from the other Aten temples at Karnak, the Rud-menu and the Teni-menu… are still being assembled and studied. The purpose of these temples is obscure at present, but…. There is also an immense display of viands heaped on altars and brought by phalanxes of servants to the palace or temple. The liberality of the king in dispensing food, the bounty of the Aten, the bounty of the

[7]

Aten, is seen at Karnak, and to a lesser extent at Amarna. The tithes that were levied upon royal estates, temple domains, towns and other institutions, as well as on high officials and priests, amounted to an immense quantity of bread beer, flesh, fowl, cattle, vegetables, cloth, oils, honey and commodities of all kinds, used not only for the daily upkeep of all the new temples and their staffs, but also as beneficent donations which the king gave to the local populace on feast days. This was particularly the case at the jubilee festival when enormous supplies of food and drink contributed by individuals and institutions all over the country were consumed at public feasts." (p.265) Aldred goes on to speculate that, "The considerable bounty of the Aten in the form of meat, pond-fowl, vegetables, loaves, wine, beer, incense and flower-offerings heaped on these altars, fed not only the officiating priests and temple staff but the local populace. No wonder a devotee should refer to Akhetaten as „this perfect place‟ where such largesse was lavished upon them by the king‟s agency." (p.275) [See also: Plates 65, 66, Food heaped on altars, 215] The Rock Tombs of El Amarna has tomb drawings showing the extent of food storage at Akhetaten. [See: Part I, Plates XXV-XXXIII, Food stored in temple buildings, temple courtyard, palace, other storehouses, granaries, stockyards, and boats; Part IV, Plate VI, Flatbreads in the temple courtyard.] Desroches-Noblecourt also has drawings showing the extent of storage. [See: Fig. 80, Reconstruction of great temple, 143; Fig. 81, Food stored in palace, 144] No other explanation seems able to compete with the biblical story for providing such a simple, reasonable explanation for why so much food was being stored.

[8]

After completing his constructions throughout the land, Akhenaten built the city of Akhetaten with its „Island Exulted in Jubilees‟, and filled its “temples” with food brought in by boat:

Aldred says that,"After the fifth year when the king changed his name to Akhenaten, and the new city of Akhetaten began to take shape, no further building was undertaken at Thebes during his reign." (p.85) Aldred also says, “By the end of the eighth regnal year a decisive stage had been reached in the king‟s projects and designs. Most of the township of Akhetaten had been established with the central administrative core largely built.” (p.273) Aldred says that Akhetaten‟s boundary stelae referred to the central city as the "Island Exalted in Jubilees". (p.65) Aldred has maps of the city showing the extent of the city devoted to the “temple”, warehouses, magazines, etc. (Fig. 7, p.53) and (Fig. 8, p.58) The model created for the Pharaohs of the Sun exhibit is also a good source for seeing the amount of food in storage. Aldred describes the main “temple” as “…an enormous structure, ¾ kilometer long by over ¼ kilometer wide…” and he lists as one of the main features the “forest of brick altars” (p.54) Murnane quotes the boundary stelae as saying, "Behold, [fill] Akhet-Aten with provisions – a storehouse for everything!" (p.75) But, Redford says, “There is no evidence that at Amarna additional jubilees were celebrated, and nothing comparable to the endless wall reliefs devoted to the subject at Thebes has as yet turned up at Akhetaten.” (p.148) But yet, the offering tables were overflowing. The Cambridge Ancient History says that the chief quays of the city "received the produce brought over daily from the cultivation on the west bank and from elsewhere." (p.58) The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part I – The Tomb of Meryra has a mural showing the ships arriving and the captains presenting their cargo. (Plate XXIX, "Outside the Gates") The accompanying text says, “The part of the picture comprised in Pl. xxix. shows the scene between the gate of the grainstore and the banks of the river. The fancy of the Egyptian artist was always closely in touch with fact, and here the picture includes a reminder that the temple tribute, like all other trade in Akhetaten, must arrive by water.” (p.34) Because the food storage at Akhetaten was not collected using local Jubilees, it becomes harder to accept the standard interpretation that links them together. Using the biblical story, it would seem reasonable to assume that the local storage quotas were exceeded “beyond measure” and that the excess was then shipped off to Akhetaten.

Akhetaten‟s boundary stelae dedicated the city‟s produce and prophesied that the whole world would come to barter for sustenance:

The Cambridge Ancient History says of Akhetaten, "The entire area so designated was dedicated to the Aten, together with all its produce including its human inhabitants." (p.57) Aldred says, "…he gave instructions as to the marking of the… site, which together with its produce would be dedicated to the Father, the Aten". (p.271) Aldred then goes on to quote the stelae as saying that, "…the Aten would send the people of all foreign lands to Akhetaten with gifts for the king whose god had enabled them to live and breathe". [emphasis added] (p.48) As Desroches-Noblecourt points out, these types of gifts are offered to the king “…with the tacit understanding that they were barter for goods of almost equivalent worth.” (p.206) A simple explanation for the building of this city is that is was intended to store the excess collections after the storage requirements of the cities throughout the land had been met. It seems that Akhenaten was granted this capitol district to make this excess available for sale to other nations.

[9]

Looking forward to less good times during the „seven years of plenty‟: Although celebrating “good harvests”, Amenhotep III commissioned over seven hundred special granite idols to protect the land from plague and pestilence:

Amenhotep III, in what has been seen as an attempt to protect the land from pestilence, commissioned the carving of over seven hundred granite idols, each carved with special prayers to protect a certain day of the year in one or the other of the Two Lands. Aldred says, “It has been estimated that over 700 granite statues of Sekhmet as a lion-headed woman, seated or standing, were installed on this site and nearly every Egyptological collection can boast of at least one example or a substantial fragment…. In their original state these hundreds of statues formed a kind of litany of the goddess under her various names and habitations, so providing a double prophylactic spell of the protection of the entire land during each specific day of the year… Above all she was the goddess of war and pestilence. We shall later refer to the prevalence of plague at this time of prosperity in the Levant…” (p.149) Aldred also says, “The 700 or more statues erected by Amenophis III of Sekhmet, the goddess of pestilence in Egypt, appears significant as a prophylactic measure to ward off disease from the nation….” (p.283) Again, the biblical story could offer the simple explanation that Amenhotep believed there was a famine coming. Furthermore, this could be seen as an effort to placate those Egyptians who had “failed” to interpret Pharaoh‟s dream by giving them the opportunity to prove that the gods of Egypt could protect the land and were strong enough to defeat the prophecy.

[10]

The seven years of famine:

Akhenaten‟s post-Jubilee years, roughly 11-17, were announced as a new phase to the reign as Akhenaten became “Lord of the Jubilee”:

It is widely known that Akhenaten‟s reign is divided into two halves that are very different in character from each other. A diptych announcing the new phase of the reign was carved in the cliffs at Aswan near the spot where seven or so years earlier a diptych had been carved to announce the original phase. (These diptychs show Amenhotep III and his chief builder on one side and Akhenaten and his chief builder on the other side, each in front of tables overflowing with food offerings.) Aldred says of these, “…it is not too daring to suggest that… Bek himself… chose this location eight years later to record another stage in the progress of the mighty works of the Aten cult.” (p.92-94) Aldred says that during the final seven or so years of Akhenaten‟s rule the Aten‟s title was changed from “Who is in Jubilee” to “Lord of the Jubilee”. (p.278) Aldred says, “The exact moment between Years 8 and 12 when this change of name was effected is not recorded in any pronouncement that has survived…. (p.278) Redford says this was done, “Around year 9, for some unknown reason…” (p.186) The biblical story obviously would provide a simple explanation for this otherwise inexplicable change in Akhenaten‟s reign. The post-Jubilee period was a time of widespread plague and pestilence:

Beginning in Akhenaten‟s Year 11, reports of widespread pestilence and plague begin to be received, and they appear to continue throughout the remaining seven years of his reign. Aldred says, “Plague was raging in the Near East. We hear from the king of Alashia that Nergal, the god of pestilence, was abroad in his land (Cyprus?), reducing the production of copper ingots for the pharaoh. Plague is also recorded on the mainland at Byblos and Sumura. …With the close connections between Egypt and the coastal region of the Levant, and with the coming and going of soldiers, captives, officials and traders, not to mention the importation of handmaidens, needlewomen, musicians and slaves directly into court circles, it would be surprising if the Egyptians could escape the scourge of epidemics. The 700 or more statues erected by Amenophis III of Sekhmet, the goddess of pestilence in Egypt, appears significant as a prophylactic measure to ward off disease from the nation, just as the Hittite king sought to deflect divine anger from his own people by offering up „plague prayers‟ to the offended gods.” (p.283) Redford says, "The sudden deaths attested from about year 11 on might find an explanation in the effects of a plague which, as Professor Helck has pointed out, was ravaging the Levant at this time. We hear of it first in the Amarna letters that come from the Phoenician coast. There, first in Sumur, the Egyptain headquarters for the region, and later in Byblos, the pestilence broke out, terrifying not only the inhabitants but the Egyptian officials as well. …we hear talk of plague at other coastal centers with which Sumur and Byblos were in contact…. Since Egypt had closer ties with the Levantine coast than Khatte did, the likelihood is that it spread to Egypt and wreaked havoc there as well." (p.187) Although “plague” and “pestilence” are not synonyms of “famine”, it does seem reasonable to speculate that plague and pestilence attacking the food crops would result in a disruption to the food supply. During the post-Jubilee period no new “temples” were built, food offerings were no longer shown, and the Egyptians showed off how fat they were:

It is impossible to prove a negative, so if anybody can contradict these statements, please do. This author has been unable to find any reports of any additional temple capacity being built during this period, and no murals showing food offerings dated to this period. The murals from this period do still show plenty of altars loaded with food, but the only offerings found from this period are incense. One of the murals from this period showed the two royal families feasting before food lade altars. (Desroches-Noblecourt, p.155) Also, this is perhaps the only time in history when the pharaohs of Egypt were willing to show off how fat they were. Aldred says, of the tomb murals from the later period, “Besides such changes in subject matter, there are also some modifications in the style of the tomb reliefs. …The features of the royal family tend to be less gaunt and lined than in earlier reliefs, and the appearance of their figures less exaggerated. Conversely, however, the paunch of the king is more pendulous….” (p.25-26) Aldred‟s Plate 26 also shows a very fat Amenophis III from this period. (p.80) The biblical story could provide the context for understanding how the Egyptian‟s pride in having plenty of food during a time of famine would allow them to set convention aside in this manner. “The most important event of Akhenaten‟s last years” was when the whole world (North, South, East, West, and Islands) came to buy (barter an unusual collection of valuable items) food (Akhenaten‟s “blessing” which granted them “the breath of life”):

Aldred says that, “The most important event of Akhenaten‟s last years is the durbar of Year 12 when a large concourse of representatives from vassal states and the great powers in Asia, Africa and the Aegean came to Akhetaten bearing gifts for the pharaoh, and begging his blessing. (p.279) The Cambridge Ancient History says that two scenes in the tombs of Huya and Meryre II show the king and queen as “they receive

[11]

gifts presented by delegates who according to the accompanying text, came from „Syria and Kush (the North and the South), the East and the West, and from the Islands in the Mediterranean, all countries being united for the occasion so that they might receive the king‟s blessing.‟” (p.60) Aldred quotes the accompanying text in the tomb of Huya as saying, “„The appearance of the King… and Queen… in order to receive the gifts of Syria and Kush, the West and the East, all lands united at the one time, and the Isles in the midst of the Great Green Sea [the Mediterranean], when they proffered gifts to the King upon the great throne of Akhetaten. Receiving the products of every land and granting them the breath of life.‟ “ (p.178) Aldred describes the scenes as, “Legates from the Hittite lands, Naharin, Cyprus(?), Syria and Palestine, together with Libya and Punt, parade before them…. They proffer their gifts – ornate weapons, chariots, horses, copper ingots, exotic animals, lions, oryxes, antelopes, great bowls, vases and rhytons in gold and silver, ostrich feathers and eggs, incense and gums fashioned in the shape of pyramids and obelisks. Also included in this rich treasure are young slave-girls and a number of rebel malcontents in handcuffs, escorted by armed guards…. <P> The African representatives make an equally resplendent appearance with gold in the form of dust in leather bags, or as massy rings sewn onto textiles, or trophies of barbaric workmanship; long-horned cattle accompany more exotic animals, hunting hounds and cheetahs held in leashes. Ebony is carried as logs or as finished furniture. More ostrich feathers and eggs appear, and resins and gums in baskets; slave women march in groups, their children in panniers slung on their backs, and other “black ivory”, shackled by slave-yokes, is hauled along with them.” (p.279-281) Aldred points out the unusual nature of the gifts being provided. He says, “Such scenes have generally been interpreted as the aftermath of some successful campaign, or the reception of annual tribute exacted from Egypt‟s vassals in Africa and Asia. The writer, however, has sought to show elsewhere that a different explanation is to be preferred for this ostentations display of ornate and precious goods…. The Egyptians, according to the evidence, led no military expeditions to the Aegean islands, or the Hittite lands, or to distant Punt, and yet these nations are listed among those who presented themselves at such displays. <P> Plunder, too, as distinct from gifts freely presented, is of quite a differ character and includes such items as armour and weapons gleaned from the field of battle, and severed hands and phalli of dead foemen used in the count of victory. Such trophies are sometimes represented on temple walls, but the subject does not belong to the decoration of private tomb-chapels. <P> While no Roman triumph is therefore in question, the gifts are different from annual taxes which the Egyptians occasionally imposed upon their imperial possessions in Asia, and regularly exacted from Nubia and Kush. The staples such as grain and timber are absent, and the objects presented are of great intrinsic value such as elaborately worked gold and silver vessels carried by the Asiatic and

Aegean delegates, or heavy gold rings made into ornate set-pieces proffered by the Nubians and Kushites. The Amarna Letters reveal that nearly every dispatch from the royal correspondents was accompanied by valuable gifts, which the pharaoh was generous in reciprocating. Such traffic has all the features of a primitive gift-giving economy; but however well regulated, it did not happen that the various messengers would arrive at the same time at the Egyptian court except by a concerted design.” [emphasis added] (p.179-180) [See: Fig. 27, Durbar of Year 12, 280-281] It seems especially odd to me that, given scholars belief that Akhenaten‟s sole religious ritual was the food offering, that authors such as Aldred do not interpret the lack of staples in the gifts as some kind of insult to the king.

Akhenaten was now “Lord of the Jubilee” of “especially good harvests” and the wall murals from this period show the whole central area of the city, which they called the “Island of Jubilees”, was devoted to food storage (see above). They also show that there was a treasury for storing the types of valuable non-food commodities being offered.

The Rock Tombs of El Amarna Part I says of one mural, “Here, again, the

greater part of the space is taken up with a reproduction of an extensive group of buildings devoted to various purposes, but chiefly serving as a treasury in days when the absence of currency made such a department resemble a huge depot.” (p.34) Later it continues, “Naturally, in the absence of inscriptions, the contents of the various jars and bundles are only to be surmised. The contents of magazine No. 2 are of chief interest, where we see stored some of the masterpieces of Syrian metal-work. The counterpart of all the forms here shown may be seen in the hands of Syrian tributaries (Several of them are being brought by Hittites on the east wall of the tomb of Meryra II).” (p.37) [See: Part I, Plate XXV, Investiture of Meryra] Desroches-Noblecourt has a map showing the location of the treasury. [See: Fig. 74, Town plan of Tell el Amarna, p.138] The murals also show that there was an otherwise overly-large police barracks to protect the treasury. Aldred shows the location on his map. [See: Fig. 7, Plan of the central city at Amarna, p.53] Besides, it was predicted on the boundary stele that the people of all foreign lands would come to Akhetaten. That this prediction came true would provide a reasonable explanation for why they would celebrate this event. It does not seem at all unreasonable to me to summarize the interpretation of this event with the statement “the whole world came to buy food from Akhenaten”.

[12]

Akhenaten deported the H‟Abiru out of Canaan following the massacre at Schechem:

Redford describes the `Apiru as,” a class of gypsylike renegades who hovered on the fringes of the urban society of the Canaanites." (p.200) The Cambridge Ancient History points out that the „Apiru were a different group from the more numerous Shasu, saying, “We must accordingly differentiate sharply between the two groups: both were donkey nomads, but the „Apiru were less nomadic that the Situ.” [bedawin (Shasu)] (p.111) Aldred says, “It is not surprising, therefore, to read in the Amarna Letters of defeats and withdrawals, not only in Syria, but further south in Central Palestine, where a serious threat developed through the ambitions of a guerilla chief, the Apiru Labaya of Shechem. He, however, met his end in a skirmish with loyalist forces; but his sons who succeeded him were no less factious.” (p.283) Descroches-Noblecourt says, “The Asian situation… was serious. …The court seemed indifferent to the Hapiru invasion in Palestine encouraged by Labaja…". (p.151) The Cambridge Ancient History quotes from an Amarna letter of Abdi-Kheba, saying "…or shall we do like Labaya and [his sons who] have given the land of Schechem to the „Apiru men…? …It has not infrequently been suggested that the episode… may also be reflected in… Genesis XXXIV." [emphasis added] (p.116) Genesis XXXIV is the story of how the grandsons of Laban, who had allied himself with the Hebrew Jacob through the marriage of his daughters, committed a massacre on the men of Schechem. Finally though, as Redford notes, “…Akehenaten deported numbers of the ‘Apiru to Nubia". [emphasis added] (p.200) Bringing people out of Canaan, let alone H‟Abiru who had committed a massacre at Schechem, is an extremely rare event. Admittedly, their publicized destination was Nubia, but that shouldn‟t necessarily be a problem, given that the route from Canaan to Nubia passes through Egypt. That would allow the family of Jacob to stop in Egypt while the rest of the tribe of Abram continued on, possibly explaining the origins of the Falashmura who lived there until this day. Akhenaten ended up in control of the whole land and instituted taxation: The name of the chief Egyptian god was replaced with the name of Akhenaten‟s god throughout the land and their temples were shut down:

Near the end of his reign, the name of Akhenaten‟s god began replacing the name of Amen-Re on monuments throughout the land. Aldred says, “The storm-clouds at the end of Akhenaten‟ reign must have oppressed his last two years. …The outburst of destruction that now assailed the monuments of Amun and his consort Mut has an element of desperation in its thoroughness and ubiquity. The tallest obelisks and highest architraves at Thebes were scaled to hammer out the name and figure of Amun. His statues were smashed; even small scarabs that bore his name were defaced…. Such iconoclasm has been dated to various periods in the reign….. In the writer‟s view this destruction belongs to the last years of the reign when crises were mounting.” (p.289-290) Redford says, “Amun was declared anathema. ……hatchetmen were dispatched to range throughout the temples of the land to desecrate the name „Amun‟ wherever it appeared on walls, steles, tombs, or objets d‟art. Amun‟s congeners Mut, Osiris, and others suffered too, but to a lesser extent. So widespread and thorough was this program of erasure, in fact, that today investigators can often date a piece as pre- or post-Amarna by examining the hieroglyphs for „Amun‟. (p.141-142) The biblical narrative could explain this as evidence of the Egyptians selling their holdings to Akhenaten. The Egyptian temples were abandoned and revenues were redirected to the state through tax-collectors:

Redford says, “It cannot be proven, but it seems likely that it was at this time that the temple estates, which had for half a decade suffered the diminution of their revenue, were now formally closed.” (p.142) He also

[13]

says, “The once-thriving administrative centers of Thebes and Memphis stood idle. Temples and government offices had been virtually shut down, and the sons of illustrious houses that had served pharaoh well suddenly found themselves bereft of function and court connection.” (p.153) Aldred says of Haremhab‟s Edict, "It seems clear from this Edict that the authority of the pharaoh during the Amarna period had grown considerably, presumably at the expense of the religious foundations. Much of the administration had consequently fallen into the hands of court officials, notably in the army. The result had been widespread corruption, the oppression of free men by fraudulent tax-collectors, and arbitrary exactions and requisitions by an undisciplined soldiery in the name of the king.” (p.301) This seems to be the exactly the type of situation that one would expect to find at the end of the seven years of famine if using the biblical account as a guide. Furthermore, it does not seem unrealistic to expect that the religious establishment had oversold the supposed benefits of their efforts to protect the land from pestilence and therefore the public turned their backs on them.

[14]

The issue of co-regency: Many scholars have argued that Akhenaten was in a continuous, or nearly continuous, „co-regency‟ throughout his whole reign:

Aldred says, “The co-regency of Amenophis III with his son, according to our view of the evidence, thus lasted for over twelve years…; disturbing as this conclusion may be, we shall have no option but to accept it.” (p.180) Aldred also says that, “…Akhenaten had a younger monarch ruling with him in his last years, as many scholars maintain, including Redford the arch-opponent of the idea of an earlier co-regency in the same reign.” (p.182) And indeed, Redford says, “The question is still debated as to whether Smenkhkare and Meretaten ever enjoyed an independent reign. …Smenkhkare‟s three years may have been wholly, or almost wholly, coeval with the final years of Akhenaten.” (p.188-189) Aldred explains, “On the face of it therefore, a co-regency between Amenophis III and his son Akhenaten is only to be expected, especially as the former pharaoh had a long reign, and conditions during his later years when he celebrated no fewer than three jubilees in seven years, and when his health may have been precarious in a plague-riden world, would have been conducive to the appointment of a junior partner.” (p.173) Aldred does see a two year period of independent rule for Akhenaten during the time that Chief Wife Tiye continued running the house of Amenhotep III following his death. The increased presence of Tiye, without her husband, in the later tomb reliefs at Amarna, coupled with Tiye‟s equality in size in the pictures of her with her husband when he was alive (Aldred, p.152), her correspondence with foreign leaders (Aldred, p.152 and Redford, p.166), and, the fact that Hapshetsut had ruled earlier in this dynasty, it seems reasonable to consider that Tiye kept the House of Amenhotep III running for some time after his death. If so, it would seem likely that she continued until her death, which happens to correspond with the time that Smenkhkare is thought to have begun his co-regency with Akhenaten. The continuity of the house of Amenhotep III should probably not be underestimated. This could also perhaps explain why, after always having gone directly to Pharaoh, Joseph is said to have gone to the „house of Pharaoh‟ in Gen 50:4 instead. The opponents of the „long co-regency‟ theory base their opposition on the assumption that the two rulers were „co-equals‟:

Aldred says, “Historians, nevertheless, have until recently taken the view that Akhenaten succeeded his father only on his death and ruled for his full term of seventeen years alone. In truth there is much that is attractive in this conclusion, which is held by an influential body of opinion and has been persuasively argued by Professor Redford. It avoids certain awkward problems, such as the existence of two courts ruling simultaneously for eleven or twelve years, which is the optimum period that has been assessed for such a co-regency. It also avoids the difficulty of the overlapping of powers, the division of responsibilities, and other perplexities which seem intractable, to our modern way of thinking, such as the existence of two rival cults which were presumably anathema to each other.” (p.173) However, the biblical story presents a type of power sharing arrangement that also eliminates these problems. If Akhenatens‟ rule was intentionally restricted to the “Jubilee” activities of collecting, storing, and distributing foods, then the issues around overlapping powers and division of responsibilities becomes moot. This is indeed what the evidence seems to suggest when viewed with an unbiased eye. Akhenaten never claimed an unqualified „Ruler of Thebes‟ title:

Aldred says that when Akhenaten came to power he used the same name as Amenhotep III, “…though accompanied by a slightly different epithet, „Divine Ruler of Thebes‟ in place of „Ruler of Thebes‟. (p.20-21) Because Akhenaten is the only supposed Pharaoh to not claim the normal „Ruler of Thebes‟ title, any interpretation must be, by its nature, purely speculative. Although the qualifier can be interpreted as an enhanced type of rulership, it could equally imply that his rule was of a restricted type. This restricted type of rule would parallel that described in Gen 41:40 when Pharaoh says that only in regards to the throne would he be greater than Joseph. Akhenaten‟s efforts were limited to his “cultic reform” and he did not involve himself with the running of either the domestic or the foreign affairs of the country:

Redford says, “…Akhenaten was willing to leave the running of everyday affairs, both foreign and domestic, in the hands of military and civilian intermediaries, while he pursued his program of cultic reform.” (p.233) Redford sees this as a flawed decision on the part of Akhenaten because he assumes an independent rule, but nevertheless, his observation here makes clear that Akhenaten‟s rule was limited in scope. If indeed Akhenaten had been a „sub-ruler‟ or a „domestic vassal‟ rather than a full ruler, then these limitations would not only be legitimate, but they would be expected.

[15]

Akhenaten did not directly command the Egyptian public. Instead he directed the nobles and courtiers to be his intermediaries, and used the foreign legions to provid his security:

Akhenaten‟s command of the labor force was through the nobles and courtiers. Aldred quotes the Gebel-es-Silsila stele as saying, "Verily, the nobles, the courtiers and the leaders of the superintendents [will act] as the controllers of the labour force…". (p.88) This seems to find a parallel in Gen 41:40 where Pharaoh puts Joseph in charge of his house to rule the land. And, rather than direct Egyptian soldiers, Aldred says the talatat from Karnak show a "predominance of the soldiery of Asia and Africa, a veritable foreign legion in attendance upon the king…" (p.265) There has been much speculation about why this was so. But, if Akhenaten was an immigrant, then it would be understandable that it would have been inappropriate to ask the populace to take orders from a foreigner in their own land.

[16]

There is insufficient evidence to conclude that Akhenaten‟s rule was the result of an inheritance by birthright:

Nothing is known about Akhenaten‟s childhood, while much is known about the other children of Amenhotep III:

Redford says, "In contrast to the frequent appearance of his brothers and sisters, Amenophis… is conspicuous by his absence from the monuments of his father. It may well be that he was intentionally kept in the background because of a congenital ailment which made him hideous to behold…. Be that as it may, it is a fact that Amenophis does not appear on monuments during his father‟s reign." (p.57-58) Unlike the other royal children who made clear that they were the offspring of Pharaoh, Akhenaten only used the same filial terms that vassals used toward their suzerains:

Aldred says that Tutankhuaten was referred to as "The King‟s Son, of his loins,…" (p.287) He also quotes another prince as being "The eldest son of the divine flesh…". (p.136) Redford says that the daughters of Akhenaten were called the "king‟s bodily daughters… born of the great king‟s wife Nefertity". (p.79-82) But yet, Akhenaten never is known to have made this claim. Instead, the filial terms he used were like those used by a vassal to their suzerain. As Redford explains, “…there were „great kings‟ and „lesser kings.‟ Great kings were very few in number… and if such relations were particularly close… the two monarchs were said to be „brothers.‟… „Lesser kings‟ were often vassals of great kings, and the relationship was spoken of in filial terms: the lesser king was the „son,‟ his suzerain his „father.‟” (p.40) Aldred confirms that "My Father" was one of the ways that the vassal kings addressed Pharaoh in the Amarna Letters. (p.184) That Akhenaten called the king „father‟, rather than implying biological descent, could just as easily be evidence of the „domestic vassal‟ nature of his rule. Akhenaten‟s early name, Amenhotep IV, instead of implying a royal birth, could imply a foreign birth:

Although Akhenaten first used the name Amenhotep, this does not necessarily indicate that he was the son of Pharaoh, as it was the common practice at this time for foreigners attaining high status to adopt the name of the ruling pharaoh. Redford says that foreigners attaining to high office "were sometimes given Egyptian names, usually compounded with the name of the reigning king." (p.28) This would not have been the first time that Amenhotep III had promoted a commoner to a royal status with broad-ranging responsibilities:

Redford says that Amenophis son of Hapu was a commoner who Amenophis III "promoted because of the soundness of his counsels" to a position of responsibility over the whole population. (p.47) Desroches-Noblecourt says that Amenophis, son of Hapu, was made a hereditary prince. She also says that the inscriptions on his statues at Karnak show that he was set up to be the intermediary between the people and the god Amun. (p.119) Aldred says that giving Amenophis, the son of a certain Hapu, "a man of no account, so we are asked to believe", a funerary temple among the royal mortuary temples was a "unique honor". (p.164-165)

[17]

A foreign upbringing for Akhenaten could explain so much that is unusual about him: Asiatics were numerous and well integrated into Egyptian society at this time:

The Cambridge Ancient History says that donkey caravans "continued to ply their ancient trade in the Amarna period". (p.114) Aldred says that "The story of Joseph reflects the manner" of an Asian immigration pattern that lasted "well into the Eighteenth Dynasty"; (p.117) that Asiatics were numerous and had a considerable impact on the culture; (p.118) and, that the development of the army, especially its chariot arm, had a significant role in bringing Asiatic influences to the culture. (p.131) Redford says that large numbers of true slaves appear in this period as a result of foreign conquest, and that Canaanites and Syrians began to voluntarily migrate, as well. Canaanite loan-words entered the language and sections of large cities were set aside for Asiatics. There were so many foreign slaves at Amenophis‟ mortuary temple that he claimed "their number is beyond knowing". Many Canaanites and Syrians attained high offices in the priesthood, palace, and army. (p.27-28) Aldred says of Chief Wife Tiye‟s father, “As Yuya was the Commander of the Chariotry, it is not improbable that he may have inherited some Asiatic blood, together with his calling, for Asiatics had had the reputation of being skilled in the government of horses since the incorporation of chariot forces into the Egyptian armies from the beginning of the Eighteenth Dynasty.” (p.96) A foreign birth could explain Akhenaten‟s unusual physical appearance:

There has been wide-ranging speculation about the reasons for Akhenaten‟s unusual appearance. Aldred says that Petrie had argued that Akhenaten‟s facial features showed an Asiatic heritage. (p.111) Redford‟s list of Akhenaten‟s peculiar facial features includes: "high cheekbones, full lips, arched brows, slender neck, and a rather supercilious expression." (p.63) A foreign birth could offer a very simple explanation for why Akhenaten did not look like all of the other Egyptians. …his unusual cultural behaviors:

Akhenaten was shown doing things that Egyptians didn‟t show. Aldred says that royalty embracing and kissing is rare "not only in Egyptian sculpture but also in the whole field of antique art" and that "Such a pose is found only in the Amarna Period" amongst Akhenaten‟s and Nefertiti‟s family. (Plate 36) Desroches-Noblecourt points out that in the Tomb of Huya Akhenaten‟s family is shown to be eating, while Tiye could not be shown so freely, because "Theban decorum prevailed". (p.154) A foreign birth could provide a simple explanation for this cultural variance. …his unusual taste in art:

Aldred says that the pictures in the Amarna tombs show "a style that differed markedly from what was generally accepted as the ancient Egyptian mode." (p.18) Aldred says that the colossi at Karnak "were of a startling character, carved in a bold, assured style, unlike any statues that had been found in Egypt…" (p.84) Aldred says, "The decoration of public buildings at Amarna made great use of inlays of polychrome faience, the first appearance of the characteristic Near Eastern contribution to architectural ceramics." (Plates 9 and10) He says this technique "was greatly exploited in the reign of Akhenaten" where "it vied with painting in architectural decoration." (p.56) He says "the whole effect [was] similar to cloisonne jewellery on a huge scale". (p.53) A foreign birth could provide a simple explanation for Akhenaten‟s unusual taste in art and architecture. …the unusual prominence of his chariot use:

Aldred says, "The chariot was the preferred conveyance for Akhenaten at Amarna, as distinct from the state palanquins…". (p.131) Redford says that large chariot scenes are common themes. (p.147) Aldred says that the royal road at Akhetaten was deliberately planned as a processional way for the state chariots, (p.131) which must have been "a novelty in Egypt" and a significant innovation. (p.68) The prominence of the chariot for Akhenaten is paralleled by the prominence of the chariot for Joseph in the biblical story. (Gen 41:43, 46:29, 50:9) If Akhenaten indeed had an Asiatic background, then it would seem reasonable to assume that there was probably some stereotyping involved in the prominence given his use of the chariot. …the unusual importance of his wife‟s role:

Redford says that Nefertiti had an "unexpectedly prominent role" at Karnak. She had her own temple and appeared on the talatat twice as often as Akhenaten does. She is shown doing things normally done by the pharaoh. (p.78) Redford says that Nefertiti‟s face was hacked out by iconoclasts at Karnak much more often than Akhenaten‟s was. (p.228) Aldred says that Nefertiti was called "The Heiress" and was probably close enough to the direct line of descent to have been made a Chief Wife. (p.222-223) Nefertiti‟s heiress daughters inherited the title and were often shown in murals, but any sons they may have had, were never shown. Nefertiti‟s prominent role could be easily explained if Akhenaten was not royal and needed this marriage to establish his bonafides.

[18]

…his unusual religion:

There are many parallels between Akhenaten‟s religion and biblical monotheism. Aldred says, “The monotheism that Akhenaten proclaims is not the henotheism of earlier times, the belief in one supreme god without any assertion of his unique nature, but the worship of an omnipotent and singular divinity. The full development of the king‟s thought is seen in the careful suppression later in the reign of the plural form of „god‟ wherever it appears in earlier texts. There was now but one god, and the king was his prophet.” (p.240) Aldred says, “The remarkable feature of this revolution in religious thought is that it apparently springs into life from the moment of the king‟s advent.” (p.244) Aldred says of the remnants found of Akhenaten‟s „teaching‟, “The drift of his discourse seems to be that the original forms of the gods were known from the catalogues and specifications which were preserved in temple libraries and consulted only perhaps by wise men or scholars. But though these gods might have been made of gold and precious stones they had somehow died or ceased to function and were now ineffective. The mysterious god which the king proclaimed was self-created, unique, eternal, universal and omnipresent in the daylight.” (p.244) Aldred says that Akhenaten condemned all of the rituals involved with crafting and serving the images of the Egyptian gods, and “represented his sole divinity by a symbol, an elaborate form of the hieroglyph for sunlight – the many–armed disk of the sun. …who fashions himself with his two hands, whom no craftsman has devised." (p.245) This hieroglyphic word, the word for sunrays, could easily explain the development of the tradition of the „Word‟ which is „Light‟, in later Western tradition. There are other correlations as well. Redford says,, “Certain affinities have long since been pointed out between the hymn to the sun-disk and Psalm 104, and the parallels are to be taken seriously.” (p.232-233) Freud believed that “Akhenaten was the mentor of Moses and the instigator of Jewish monotheism.” (Aldred, p.113). And Freud raises the question of whether the Egyptian god Aton is not indeed the same as the Hebrew god Adonai. (p.27-28) It seems very possible that the origins of Akhenaten‟s religions were from a Hebrew source. … the backlash against foreigners that followed:

The Pharaohs of the Sun, discussing the end of the Atenist regime, refers to "the anti-foreigner backlash that doubtless followed". (p.91) And, Aldred says that talatat showing Asiatic and Nubian troops had been the target of later iconoclasts, who had struck out their eyes. (Plate 61) This backlash can be more easily explained if Akhenaten himself had been a foreigner, as well. …the oral legends that tell of foreign rule:

Redford says that the oral traditions of the Egyptians speak of this period as a time when there was "a renewed attempt by „foreign rulers‟ to get control of Egypt." (p.231) Maybe these oral traditions did indeed have some basis in fact.

[19]

Other correlations:

Akhenaten was first introduced as someone who had done something that all of the Egyptian gods and idols had failed to do:

There are only a few fragments remaining of the „Teaching‟ that was used to introduce Akhenaten to the Egyptian people. In this teaching, as Redford says, "the king set on record his belief that the gods have somehow failed or „ceased‟ to be operative". (p.172) As Aldred puts it, “…they had somehow died or ceased to function and were now ineffective." (p.244) Publicizing a failure like this is quite a rare event, so this seems to be a strong parallel to the situation in Genesis 41 when all of the Egyptian wise men and priests were unable to interpret Pharaoh‟s dream that Joseph was able to interpret. Their embarrassment, or resentment, would seem to explain why they would try to redeem themselves with the construction of the 700+ Sekhmet idols, how they lost the respect of the Egyptian public, and why they felt it was necessary for them to erase all records of their failures after their return to power. He was given in marriage to a priestess of On:

Akhenatens wife‟s parents are unknown. Redford says. “No text known at present specifies the parentage of Nefertity.” (p.78) But, Nefertiti, without regard to her father, seems to have been a priest of On in her own right. Redford says that in the Hwt-bnbn Nefertiti is the only celebrant making the offerings to the sun-disc in this temple and colonnade. (p.78) He says that this temple, as well as its bnbn-stone, is related to the solar

cult at Heliopolis. (p.72) [See: Figure 7 (p.77)] Aldred says that this Mansion of the Ben-ben was "a temple devoted principally to the use of Nefertiti". The reliefs in this temple showed her "dominating the ritual". He goes on to say that, "The Ben-ben stone was originally the sacred fetish of the sun-cult in Heliopolis". (p.265) Given his wife‟s role performing the Heliopolitan rituals, it is not unreasonable to assume that her father was a priest as well. Whether that is so or not, it seems worth mentioning that the biblical phrase “daughter of a priest” could possibly have resulted from a mistranslation due to a cultural misunderstanding of a feminine form of a priest akin to “priestess”. It is well known that Akhenaten was greatly influenced by Heliopolis, the biblical On. Redford says of Akhenaten‟s innovations, “It is presumed that a good many of the forms he espoused were of Heliopolitan inspiration…. (p.138) Aldred says, "it was the teaching of Heliopolis (On of the Bible) that… profoundly influenced" Akhenaten. (p.259) He says that Akhenaten was surrounded by many Heliopolitans, like May, Bek, and Pawah the High Priest of On. (p.260) Pharaoh‟s father had received the throne as the result of following a dream:

We don‟t know if Amenhotep III had a dream or not. It is reasonable to assume that if he had, all mention of it would have been the targeted for destruction. However, it is reasonable to assume that he at least had reason to be predisposed to prophetic dreams, given that it was his own father, Tuthmose IV, who, though not in the direct line of succession, came to power as the result of following a famous prophetic dream. (Desroches-Noblecourt, p.35-36) This at least shows that dream interpreting was culturally appropriate at this time. Akhenaten built a city in the region called Qis[?], whose population included Asiatics, and which served as his „Pharaonic‟ or Capitol District:

The population of Akhenaten‟s city included Asiatics. Aldred says, that Akhetaten attracted “…a populace from afar, including foreigners from Asia and the Aegean together their families.” (p.277) The influence of the Asiatics at Akhetaten can be seen in the use of Near Eastern faience techniques (see above). The city was his Capitol District, but it was not located in, what later came to be known as, the Ramessides District. It seems possible that a later translator, unfamiliar with the limited „sub-ruler‟ nature of Joseph‟s reign, did not understand a phrase such as “Pharaonic District” and assumed that this Ramessides was the current updated name for the region. The Amarna Aftermath has correlations with the Exodus story: After Akhenaten died, a Pharaoh arose who knew not Akhenaten, and who had all of his constructions defaced or dismantled:

After Akhenaten‟s death, Tut and Ay, both of the royal family, ruled. As Aldred puts it, "The reins of government were picked up from the point where Amenophis III had dropped them." (p.295) Redford says that the Aten cult continued to thrive during this period. (p.207) It appears that historical revision was begun to restore the reputation of the priesthood by switching cause and effect and therefore proclaiming, as Redford puts it, “the doctrine that Egypt‟s woes stemmed directly from its ignoring the gods." (p.207-208), rather than vice versa. And then, General Horemheb, who knew not Akhenaten, took the throne. Redford says that Horemheb "was untainted by the Amarna heresy" (p.220) and, that "the new heir to power knew nothing of Akhenaten and his movement." [emphasis added] (p.222)

[20]

Aldred says that the defacing of the reliefs, statues, and names of the Amarna royalty occurred under Haremhab. Aldred says, “…the king now seemed determined to obliterate all visible traces of the Aten religion and its memorials in Thebes. …A campaign was now initiated, presumably at a high level, for the total destruction of the recent past. …The temples which Akhenaten raised to the Aten at Karnak were dismantled and the spoil employed as fill and foundations for new constructions, or stored against future re-use. By the time the Ramessides had climbed into the saddle, virtually all visible traces of the Amarna reform and its instigator had ceased to exist." (p.302) Redford says "…the first five years of Amenophis IV‟s reign represent a shocking hiatus in our historical knowledge. So thoroughly were memorials of this period eradicated on the morrow of the Amarna period, whether temple reliefs, steles, or tombs, that little if anything remained on public view for succeeding generations.” (p.64) He continues, “So complete and thorough was the destruction wrought by pharaoh Horemheb, whose reign terminates the Amarna period, that literally no stone was left upon another." (p.65) Redford says, “Not one block was left upon another at Akhetaten. Walls were torn down to their foundations, mud-bricks pillaged, and steles and statuary hopelessly smashed.” (p.227) It should be noted that the talatat stones that were re-used in Horemheb‟s constructions replaced the mud bricks that would normally have been used for this purpose. It would seem that this could correlate with the Exodus story of making bricks without straw. The laborers that dismantled Akhetaten lived in poverty:

Aldred says, "…that masons must have squatted in town for a long time removing worked stone…. Rough huts, for instance, with ovens and furnaces, had been run up within the walls of the Northern Palace and occupied by workmen concerned with this work of demolition.” (p.67-68) He says that when Petrie excavated, “…the houses proved to be remarkably denuded of household goods, not a single scrap of papyrus and scarcely even a potsherd.” (p.55) Aldred also says, “…the township had been thoroughly cleared out by its inhabitants before they evacuated it, and little was left behind of the everyday domestic furnishings so characteristic of similar abandoned sites elsewhere in Egypt.” (p.60) Aldred again says, "Any abandoned objects of the slightest use were doubtless purloined by the squatters who moved into their abandoned homes, and very few household goods have been excavated at Amarna, apart from those that had been hidden and forgotten." (p.296) The population of Akhetaten continued to grow through its years of poverty:

Aldred says that at the time Akhetaten was abandoned they were still building new houses that had been "left in various stages of construction." (p.63) The houses there had unusual red painted doorways:

Aldred says of Akhetaten‟s houses, "A feature of all such houses was the shrine in one of the principal rooms in the form of a false door with red-painted jambs, and a niche for a stela showing the royal family engaged in some cultic activity." (p.66) Admittedly, these are not lambs blood, but nevertheless this characteristic of an “Atenist” house seems to parallel the need for red door jambs in the Exodus story. The city was abandoned so rapidly that there were still houses in various stages of construction:

The Cambridge Ancient History says that Akhetaten was "still in the process of being built when it was abandoned". (p.57) Aldred says that when Akhetaten was abandoned there were houses "in various stages of construction". (p.63) This unplanned type of departure directly parallels the Exodus account. Many tables that had held Jubilee flatbreads were still not dismantled at the time of abandonment:

It seems reasonable to assume that the tables that were not dismantled were left standing because they still held leftover flatbreads. These decades old flatbreads could very well have a correlation to the bread of affliction in the Exodus story. Akhenaten‟s body was removed from its last known resting spot and has never been found, but this was not the work of thieves:

Aldred says that Akhenaten‟s body has not been identified. (p.109) He says that Tomb 55 "bore all the signs of having been opened since its original sealing and its contents deliberately desecrated by removing all traces of the name and features of the owner…" He says that the tomb was then re-sealed with a new blocking. (p.198) He says, “The „magic bricks‟ inscribed for Akhenaten suggest that his deposit was also there…. The presumption is that Akhenaten was removed from it together with his other burial trappings.” (p.208) Aldred says of the ransacking of the tomb, "At the same time it was apparent that this selective destruction was hardly the work of thieves, who would not have left any goldwork behind them nor bothered to close up the tomb with a new drystone blocking." (p.198)

[21]

There are mainstream scholars who believe that the Israeli sojourn in Egypt lasted only a few decades: The time between Akhenaten‟s rule and the abandonment of Akhetaten was a matter of decades, not centuries, as in the book of Exodus. But apparently this discrepancy has been anticipated by mainstream scholars. The Cambridge Ancient History, a mainstream source by just about any measure, says that the Israeli sojourn in Egypt "lasted only a few decades". (p.322) It would therefore seem probable that the veracity of the number of years given in Exodus should be questioned. This concludes the making of the case. There is so much more that could be said. There are weaker correlations and speculations that could be discussed, as well as the implications on interpretations of other events in the period. But, in the name of brevity, and so as to not distract from the purpose here, these discussions will have to be postponed for a later time.

[22]

Summary (List of Amarna Enigmas Explained):

The biblical narrative of the „seven years of plenty‟ would provide a simple explanation for why Amenhotep III cast aside millennia of traditions to celebrate his Jubilee in the manner of an ancient, though otherwise unknown, version having something to do with “especially good harvests” instead. It would explain why he would move to a palace called “the place where things have been gathered” or “place of picking up” to celebrate this Jubilee. It would provide the context for why they recorded the record harvests of his Jubilee Year 30. It would also explain why he would continue these Jubilee celebrations in Years 34 and 37, the mid-point and end-point of this seven year celebration. The biblical story of Joseph building storehouses and filling them with produce would provide a simple explanation for the nature and form of Akhenaten‟s Jubilees. It would explain why he celebrated the same unusual type of Jubilee of “especially good harvests” as Amenhotep III, and why it appears that these two jubilees coincided. This would also explain the on-going, daily nature of Akhenaten‟s Jubilee celebrations, and why he continued to celebrate this Jubilee over a period of roughly seven years. The urgent need for storehouses would explain why his first action as a ruler would have been the building of the so-called “temple” complexes and why this building project was such a major undertaking. It would explain why he needed to develop a new building technology, and why he needed to allow for the use of unskilled laborers. The use of these complexes as storehouses would explain why these “temples” have virtually nothing in common with other temple architecture in Egypt. It could provide the explanation for why these roofless compounds, with their stone perimeter walls, were filled with row after row of “offering stands” overflowing with flatbreads, meats, and all other manner of foodstuffs. It could explain that, rather than being “religious rites”, there was a secular purpose behind the lavish food offerings of the Jubilee period and the building of dense mass of “altars” to hold those offerings. The need for the each storehouse to have sufficient quantities on hand by the end of the seven years of plenty would explain why his “temples” would have needed to establish and publish the daily goals/quotas for the offerings required. It would explain why, year after year, increasing amounts of food were shown piled high on altars, in storerooms, and in the palaces, until it reached massive proportions. And, it could explain why he would ship the excess collections to a massive, centrally located facility of which it was prophesied that the whole world would come to barter for sustenance. Pharaoh‟s dream of the ensuing seven years of famine would provide a simple explanation for why Amenhotep III would commission over seven hundred special granite idols to protect the land from plague and pestilence. Because the Egyptian religious establishment had been admonished for failure in Akhenaten‟s Introductory Teachings, this could also be seen as giving them a chance to redeem themselves. The biblical story of „the seven years of famine‟ could explain the events and character of Akhenaten‟s post-Jubilee Years 11-17, approximately. This would explain why they announced this as a new phase of the reign and why his title changed from “Who is in Jubilee” to “Lord of the Jubilee” instead. It would provide the context for understanding this post-Jubilee period as a time of widespread plague and pestilence and why no new “temples” were built or food offerings shown. Because there was plenty to eat in Egypt during a time like this, it would explain why the Egyptians seem proud of how fat they were. It would explain why the most important event of Akhenaten‟s last years would have been when the whole world came to barter with him. It would provide an alternate viewpoint of the reasons behind the massacre at Schechem referenced in the Amarna Letters. It would provide additional context for why he would have wanted to deport the H‟Abiru out of Canaan. And finally, the Egyptians selling their land to buy food would explain how Akhenaten ended up in control of the whole land and instituted taxation, why the name of the chief Egyptian god was replaced with the name of Akhenaten‟s god throughout the land, and why the Egyptian temples were shut down and abandoned and their revenues redirected to the state through tax-collectors. The biblical story of how Joseph ruled in Egypt would explain the issues of an apparent „co-regency‟. It would explain why it appeared that Akhenaten was in a continuous „co-regency‟ throughout his whole reign. Being a „sub-regent‟ or vassal would explain why he did not claim an unqualified „Ruler of Thebes‟ title. It would explain why his efforts appear to be restricted to his “cultic reform” and why it is said that he did not otherwise involve himself with the running of the country. It would also explain why he only commanded Pharaoh‟s courtiers and the foreign legion, instead of the Egyptian public directly. The bible story of Joseph‟s foreign birth and move to Egypt could explain why there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Akhenaten‟s rule was the result of an inheritance by birthright. It could explain why nothing is known about Akhenaten‟s childhood, while much is known about the other children of Amenhotep III, and why, unlike the other royal children, Akhenaten never used the terms for biological offspring, but only used

[23]

the filial terms used by vassals toward their suzerain. It could explain why, as a foreigner achieving high status, he would have been given a name compounded with that of the ruling pharaoh. The biblical story of a foreign upbringing would explain so much that is unusual about Akhenaten. The story is supportable in this time period as Asiatics were numerous and well integrated into Egyptian society. A foreign birth would explain Akhenaten‟s unusual physical appearance, which was once said to have an Asiatic appearance. It would explain why his cultural behaviors would be out of the Egyptian mainstream, including his unusual taste in the arts. An Asiatic background would explain the unusual prominence of his chariot use. Not being from the royal family would explain the unusual importance of his “heiress” wife. Being from the tribe of Abraham would explain his unusual religion. And finally, it would explain the backlash against foreigners that followed, as well as the oral legends that spoke of a foreign rule. The biblical story of Joseph interpreting Pharaoh‟s dream, when all of the Egyptian religious establishment had failed to do so, would provides the missing information about what it was that Akhenaten was supposed to have done that all of the Egyptian gods and idols had failed to do as mentioned in his much defaced „Introductory Teaching‟. The biblical story of the years of slavery would explain the poverty in his city after he had left the scene. The exodus story would explain why the city was abandoned so rapidly. And finally, the story of Joseph‟s bones being exhumed and taken would explain the conditions found at Akhenaten‟s last known resting spot, where his body had been removed in antiquity and the tomb resealed while other valuable gold objects were left to remain inside.

[24]

Afterthoughts:

Having this many strong correlations seems unprecedented in this field. When the assumption of “unknown religious significance” is removed from the Amarna period, virtually every line of the story of Joseph that one could reasonably expect to find in the public record is not only seen, but amplified upon and given credible political and cultural contexts. There does not seem to be any other theory that can make the same claim. Whereas other theories seem to find just a handful of “nuggets” (like names and dates) amid a fictionalized “puffed up” narrative, this theory finds the opposite: a narrative stripped-down to its essentials, with a handful of apparently minor translation issues (like names and dates.) At the same time, virtually all of the enigmas currently associated with the mysterious Amarna period disappear. Again, there does not seem to be any other theory that can make the same claim. Whereas many theories about this period have developed sophisticated and complex ways to address a given enigma, or even a handful, they seem to leave more mysteries unaddressed than they solve. This theory provides a wide-ranging explanation for this enigmatic behavior. And, it is simple: they were motivated by a fear of a prolonged famine and were taking steps which included empowering an insightful, charismatic, creative, well-organized, young foreign immigrant to safeguard themselves from its effects. As mentioned above, there are a handful of discrepancies. People‟s names, the length of the sojourn, location of Goshen, and who-called-who father, are the main points of disagreement. The names used are not identical, but need to be analyzed for the degree of similarity or difference. The length of the sojourn could not be the 430 years given in the exodus story, but it does conform to the editors of The Cambridge Ancient History‟s expectation that it lasted only decades, so this doesn‟t seem to be a show stopper. Because the Year 30 is so central to the Egyptian story of the Jubilee, it is reasonable to suspect that Joseph being 30 years old when he entered Pharaoh‟s service is a mistranslation of it having been Year 30 when Joseph‟s prophecy of plenty began. It seems reasonable to speculate that other time spans, such as the 430 years, may have been similarly mistranslated from a dating scheme that the translator just wasn‟t familiar with. For instance, this could have originally been “4 calendars hence (after Amenhotep III‟s, Smenkhare‟s, Tutankhamen‟s, and Ay‟s), in the Year 30 (the combined length of the usurper Horemheb‟s 28 year reign and the short-lived 2 year reign of the relatively unknown Ramses I.) Finally, there is the issue of who called who Father. It seems reasonable to speculate that this is just the result of inverting the subject and object of the sentence, something that is not unheard of even in modern-day translating, probably influenced by the translator‟s cultural biases. So, that‟s not a lot of differences - a miniscule amount given the number of data-points in the story. But, it should be pointed out that there is a definite implication that the same can not be said for the story of Moses. One final point that should probably be discussed is the tendency of some investigators to underestimate the magnitude of the undertaking which would be required to store enough food to feed a population for seven years, assuming there was any truth to the biblical story at all. Most modern neighborhood grocery stores would probably be stripped bare in less than a month if they weren‟t restocked. It is hard to imagine the size of the warehouses required to support just one neighborhood for seven years, let alone a whole nation. There is also the issue that much of the food in our modern stores has a shelf-life of a year or less! Accomplishing the task that Joseph was supposed to have done, even with our technology, would be an incredible undertaking. But yet, in the popular imagination, Joseph is though to have accomplished this using the regular type of Egyptian granaries. Unfortunately, these granaries had an annual loss rate that was so high as to render them unusable for multi-year storage. For example, even an annual loss rate as low as fifteen percent would end up requiring almost five times as much food as would otherwise be required to gather each year, which is absolutely impossible. Akhenaten‟s food storage, being up on tables above the annual flooding and away from burrowing scavengers, being well ventilated, being open to the sun, and being surrounded by impenetrable stone perimeter walls, would have offered protection against the most common causes of food spoilage in that climate. Akhenaten‟s storehouses were also designed to bring in donations. Going from household to household to collect surplus produce would obviously have been quite a labor intensive to maintain over such a long period. But, by devoting a small percentage of the „take‟ to providing food and entertainment, including tours of these amazing facilities, he was able to entice the population itself to voluntarily provide the labor for transporting the „offerings‟ over and over again. Finally, it should be said, Joseph lived in Egypt, he functioned as an Egyptian, and he spoke in the Egyptian vocabulary that was available to him at the time. The ways he had to express himself may seem very strange to those of us unaccustomed with ancient Egyptian culture.

[25]

Well that‟s the pitch. Is it possible that a whole field of study could turn out to have been based on false assumptions? Is this a case of not being able to „see the forest through the trees?‟ The quantity and qualities of the correlations seem impossible to dismiss as coincidental. This document is just scratching the surface. But, it seems to hold out the promise that a major reassessment of the artifacts of the Amarna Period would provide a wealth of new information about biblical history beyond that presented here. Bibliography:

Aldred, Cyril, Akhenaten, King of Egypt, Thames and Hudson, London, 1988. Redford, Donald B., Akhenaten, The Heretic King, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1984. Desroches-Noblecourt, Christiane, Tutankhamen, Life and Death of a Pharaoh, Penguin Books, 1963. The Cambridge Ancient History, Third Edition, Volume II Part 2, History of the Middle East and the Aegean Region c.1380-1100 B.C., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1975. The Pharaohs of the Sun, Akhenaten, Nefertiti, Tutankhamen, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, 1999. Davies, N.deG., The Rock Tombs of El Amarna, Part I. – The Tomb of Meryra, , London, 1903. Murnane, William J., Texts from the Amarna Period in Egypt, Scholars Press, Atlanta, Georgia, 1995. Pendlebury, J.D.S., The City of Akhenaten, Part III, The Central City and the Official Quarters, Egyptian Exploration Society, London, 1951.

< End of Document: Joseph and Akhenaten: The Case for Reinterpreting Amarna>