Living in Truth:
Archaeology and the Patriarchs

Chapter 10   Book Navigator    Chapter 12

by Charles N. Pope
Copyright 1999-2004, 2016 by Charles Pope
United States Library of Congress
All rights reserved under International and
Pan-American Copyright Conventions

Chapter 11
"All My Will"
(The Rise and Fall of King Saul)


Name Associations

Biblical Name(s) Egyptian Name(s)
Terah Shua, Abiel, Tou/Toi, Maoch Senakhtenre, Tao I, Apophis I
Abram  Abdon, Eliab Djehuty, Teti, Ibrim
Gideon Mamre, Baal, Jerub-baal, Sequenenre, Tao II, Apophis II
  Agag  
Nahor II Zur, Zohar, Caleb II King of Nahrin/Mitanni
Eshcol  Abimelech, Nadab Thutmose I
Aner Hanun  Amenhotep I
Thahash Shelah, Nahash Ahmose I, Shalmaneser I?
Haran Kish, Achish Chieftain of Cush
Iscah Othniel, Saul Kamose

Ingratitude

The Hebron Alliance (Gen. 14:13), which included Amenhotep I (Aner) and Thutmose I (Eshcol), and was led by Tao II (Mamre/Gideon) and the Lord (Abram) claimed credit for the miraculous liberation from Mesopotamia. However, their right to rule Egypt and Canaan was denied by the family "Godfather," Tao I (Terah-Melchizedek). Tao I bypassed the sons of both Abram and Nahor, and instead chose a son of their younger brother Haran to be his new successor. This decision was protested and another bloody civil war ensued. Tao II was the first to resist the will of his father Tao I and consequently became the first royal casualty. As it says in Judges 8:34-35 (NIV), they "did not remember the Lord [Abram] their God,a who had rescued them from the hands of all their enemies on every side. They also failed to show gratitude to the family of Jerub-baal (that is, Gideon) [Tao II] for all the good things he had done for them."

The "disrespect" of Jerub-baal is recalled in the Egyptian New Kingdom story called the "Quarrel of Apophis and Sequenenre." The tale begins by stating that the land of Egypt was in distress, literally topsy-turvy, upside down. It then explains why. Apophis (Tao I), ruler of the Delta, decided to make Seth his personal god and offer him sacrifices in the same manner as Re. This was a preposterous and backward (although not entirely unprecedented) thing to do in Lower Egypt! Apophis then sent word to his son Sequenenre (Tao II) directing him to do something about the hippopotami of Thebes in Upper Egypt. The hippopotamus was a symbol of chaos and of the god Seth. Effectively, Apophis was honoring Seth in the Delta, but denouncing Seth in Thebes, just the opposite of the traditional practice. Confused and offended, Sequenenre composed an equally ridiculous response and sent it back to Apophis. He chose to conclude on a defiant note, stating that his trust was in no other god but the "King of the Gods, Amen-Re." 

The nickname of Tao II, Jerub-baal ("Contends with Baal"), begins to take on another meaning at this point. The title of the tale ("The Quarrel of Apophis and Sequenenre") itself indicates that it was his own father Baal (Tao I) with whom Gideon (Tao II) was now in dispute. "In every probability, as Sir Gaston Maspero observed,b the story was 'simply the local variant of a theme popular throughout the entire East. The kings of those times were wont to send one another problems to be solved on all sorts of matters, the condition being that they should pay one another a kind of tribute or fine according as they should answer well or ill to the questions put to them.' "c In this case, a father (Apophis I) was testing his son (Apophis II) to see if he was both wise and faithful.

Prior to the Egyptian New Kingdom, Apophis was a mythological serpent thought to be both an aspect and nemesis of Re. It had to be defeated and beheaded every night by Seth before the sun could rise. However, by the Late Period in Egypt, Apophis was more closely associated with Seth, "god of evil and darkness."d Possibly, this change in role was precipitated by the antics of King Apophis I in the early New Kingdom. The choice of Apophis as a throne name in Lower Egypt would have been unusual in itself. However, two pharaohs of the 6th Dynasty were also known by the name Pepi, a variant of Apophis. The 6th Dynasty was also a period of division in the Patriarchal family (as was discussed in Chapter 5). King Apophis of the 15th Dynasty would have been looking to the 6th Dynasty pharaohs for inspiration in dealing with like circumstances. As in that earlier time, the prevailing darkness and chaos required the appeasement of the deity Apophis. "The Quarrel of Apophis and Sequenenre" indicates an acceptance of chaos as a cyclical phenomenon, and that kings were expected to employ drastic and unorthodox measures to restore order.

In the Delta, King Apophis was not quelled by the quill of his son, and "after many days" he sent another rider to Sequenenre. This time the envoy was emphatic: "It is King Apophis who sends to thee, saying: 'Have the hippopotamus pool which is in the orient of the City done [away] with! For they do not let sleep come to me by day or by night,' and the noise is (in) the ears of his city."e This hilarious missive was actually a serious mandate from Apophis I (Tao I) to his Egyptian heir Apophis II (Tao II). The elder Apophis was directing his namesake and designated successor (as the "true Horus") to dispose of his "Seth-ite" rivals and secure his kingdom.1 The story relates that upon receiving this second dispatch from Apophis, Tao II and his advisors sat "silent and wept for a long time."f The younger Apophis was certainly familiar with the metaphor used by his father, and its deadly implications. However, we are left to wonder whether he wept because he did not wish to kill his brothers, or for some other reason? 

The conclusion to the story has been lost. Therefore the fuller meaning must be deduced using the context provided by the Bible. Tao II was actually crying the "tears of Esau" over his own lost birthright. In other words, because of his inaction and flippant reply, Tao II himself was now among those who were to be "done away with" at his father's command. His kingship over Egypt and Canaan was being revoked and given to a rival brother. Sequenenre contritely sent word back to Apophis saying that he was then prepared to all he had willed. Nevertheless, the damage had been done. According to the Book of Judges, Tao I (there called Joash) had earlier defended the disrespectful action of Tao II (Gideon) when he tore down the altar of Baal (Seth). But times had changed and his changeable father with them.

Rebel with a Separatist Cause

The initial concern of the elder Apophis was not the younger Apophis, but the insubordination of another prince - the newly appointed pharaoh Kamose. It was the loud boasting of this particular "hippo" that caused Apophis the most discomfort. The "Mighty Kamose," as he liked to call himself, was identified in the previous chapter as Iscah, the son of Abram's younger brother Haran. In the Kings/Chronicles history he is instead named as King Saul son of Kish. The equivalence of Kish and Haran was also demonstrated in the previous chapter. Upon his election, Kamose immediately rejected the authority of his elders and began to set his own course. He disagreed with his grandfather's recovery plan. In his mind, it was time to cut ties with Mesopotamia and expel all "Asiatics" along with their eastern "witchcraft." He resented paying taxes from his own dominions in Egypt to finance new wars in Mesopotamia, even those of his grandfather who appointed him. Kamose memorialized his insolence toward Apophis by stating: "Your authority is restricted inasmuch as you, in your capacity as suzerain, have made me a chief."g It is clear from the words of Apophis in the "Quarrel" that unquestioned obedience was expected from all of his sons and grandsons, regardless of the offices they had received. Favor could arbitrarily be extended by the senior king. It could summarily also be removed.

It is evident that Kamose, like Tao II, also received one or more provocative messages from Apophis.h While Tao II sulked, Kamose stewed (Note 2). Having been newly appointed by Tao I, Kamose was outraged over being so quickly disinherited. The advisors of the angry Kamose urged him to accept the decision of Tao I and to be content with the territory that he presently controlled. However, Kamose informs us in his inscription at Thebes that he refused counsel and marched on Lower Egypt. According to 1 Samuel 15:4, Saul raised an army of 200,000 men in order to attack the "Amelekites." These were joined by 10,000 men from Judah. In 1 Samuel 11, Saul earlier defeated Nahash of Judah (pharaoh Ahmose, see Note 3 below). Therefore, the 10,000 men of Judah were provided to Kamose (Saul) by Ahmose (Nahash) as tribute. 

Although it was Kamose who led the forces against Avaris, credit is generally given to his subordinate Ahmose (Nahash) for capturing Avaris and ridding Egypt of the Hyksos. This was called into question by Alan Gardiner in Egypt of the Pharaohs, and revisited by Velikovsky in Ages in Chaos. The inscriptions left by one of the military officers under Ahmose indicate that Ahmose did not fight against Avaris alone. In fact the boasting of the officer betrays the fact that Ahmose played a relatively minor supporting role in the siege of the city. The officer, whose name was Ahmose son of Ibana, proudly describes how he killed two men and captured another. For this he was decorated three times. After Avaris fell, the officer carried off four slaves. This hardly amounts to a conquest of epic proportions. 

In the inscriptions of Ahmose son of Ibana, the identity of "his majesty" is deliberately made ambiguous. It is not possible to know what king was actually being referred to by any given instance of this phrase. Moreover, the officer does not give his own sovereign, Pharaoh Ahmose, credit for leading the battle. Rather, he states: "One besieged the city of Avaris" and "One captured Avaris."i Egyptologists do not know whom that "One" may have been who besieged and captured Avaris, therefore Ahmose is made the vanquisher of the Hyksos by default. The siege of Ahmose on Avaris is presently thought to have taken place many years after that of Kamose. However, it is now clear that is was a single, combined siege. For his minor contribution to the heroics, Pharaoh Ahmose was later mistakenly dubbed founder of the Egyptian New Kingdom.j

The Kings/Chronicles narrative correctly names King Saul (Kamose) and not Nahash (Ahmose) as the one who captured the "city of the Amalekites" and brought its king Agog back to the prophet Samuel alive. The Biblical city of the Amalekites is named in Egyptian sources as Avaris of the "vile Asiatics." In Ages in Chaos, Immanuel Velikovsky deduced that Biblical Agog king of the Amalekites was a corrupted or alternative spelling of Apop (Apophis), and that Agog was none other than King Apophis. As a basis, he notes that in the Mesha stela of this period the early Hebrew the letters g (gimel) and p (pei) both resembled the number 7, and can only be differentiated by the size of the angle formed between the two segments.k By the time Kamose reached Avaris, the elder Apophis had already withdrawn with his army. The city fell to Kamose, little thanks to the assistance of his "ally" Ahmose. Kamose also succeeded in taking the younger Apophis (Tao II) into custody, either at Avaris or elsewhere.

Hollow Victory

Despite the great victory of Saul, the Bible states: "Then the word of the Lord [Apophis I] came to Samuel: 'I am grieved that I have made Saul [Kamose] king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions."l Though not agreeing with "the Lord," Samuel searches for Saul in order to give him the bad news. The charges waged against Saul include a reference to the noisome sound of sheep and oxen bleating in Samuel's ear! This echoes the words of Apophis in the "Quarrel," and confirms that Kamose had received the same instruction as Tao II to eliminate subversive elements in the royal family and within the local populace. Neither had performed as directed. The demands, even if unreasonable and unnecessary, were not fully met and the decision was then made to remove both Tao II and Kamose as junior kings. The Biblical account is simply expressing that same sentiment after the fact, and justifying "the Lord's" decision to anoint a new successor in their places. 

In the Kings/Chronicles narrative, proud Saul humbles himself before Samuel and seeks to win back the good graces of "the Lord" (whom he had just attacked). Samuel only reinforces the "Lord's" disapproval of him. For the sake of appearances, Samuel agrees to stand beside Saul and offer gestures of worship toward the Lord (Tao I). However, the mind of the Lord was already made up . . . again. Abram had been his first heir. After the flight from Babylon, Mamre/Gideon (Tao II) was elevated in status. Tao II was a "wavering warrior" after his father's own name and nature, but he too was rejected in favor of Saul (Kamose). Finally, the Lord decided Saul also did not have the "right stuff"m and rejected him in favor of a new prince.

Saul had spared Agag along with the healthy livestock of Egypt.n Upon hearing this, Samuel demands that Agag be delivered up to him: "Then Samuel said, 'Bring me Agag king of the Amalekites.' Agag came to him confidently, thinking, 'Surely the bitterness of death is past.' "o Nevertheless, "Samuel hewed Agag in pieces before the Lord in Gilgal,"p that is, in the presence of Tao I. The surviving mummy of Tao II (Agog) is a gruesome witness to his own execution. Agag/Gideon (Apophis II) had earlier killed his own grandfather Zalmunneh (Agum II/Kakrime) by this same primitive ritual.q After capturing Zalmunnah, Gideon (Tao II) chose to "strike him down" rather than imposing a treaty with concessions and letting him go. After the capture of Gideon (Agag-Tao II) by Saul (Kamose), Samuel sentenced him to the identical fate. Contradictions and double standards abound in this passage, which the Biblical author does not try to hide. It was Tao II who effectively restored the status of his father Tao I as a living god by defeating and killing the father of Tao I. Tao II is nonetheless condemned to die for having shown no mercy on his faithless grandfather, and for sparing his own faithful brothers.

Samuel obviously sympathized with Saul, but had nothing but contempt for Agag (Gideon/Tao II). Although not made explicit, there was also a personal vendetta to settle. The slain grandfather of Agag was also the father of Samuel (see Chart 7). Samuel and Jesse/Joash/Terah had the same father, but different mothers. The mother of Samuel was actually the favored wife, but was "barren" for a long time. In fulfillment of a vow, Samuel was devoted to the temple rather than being earmarked for kingship. Nevertheless, he remained devoted both to his father and served as High Priest of Yahweh-Amun under his elder half-brother who did become king. Instead of ordering his men to "fall upon" his nephew Agag, Samuel performed the killing with his own hands. He first explained to Agag that his execution was just: "Live by the sword, die by the sword." However, Agag was not condemned for killing commoners, or even his royal brothers and political sons. He was being held accountable for the death of a superior, for killing God himself. Samuel was not content to strike a single fatal blow, but hacked the body of Agag again and again. 

The use of the word "bitter" in connection with the execution of Agag is important, because it is a word play on the name of Mamre, nickname of Tao II (Gideon-Agag) in the Book of Genesis (see Chapter 10). It is also of note that Tao II is called "king of the Amalekites." Amalek is identified as the first among nations in Num 24:20. Agag was one of its exalted kings, as suggested by Num 24:7. The name Amalek could be interpreted as "The Toiling God-Kings," and probably refers to the pyramid restoring Old Kingdom pharaohs. In the context of the Patriarchal narratives, the Amalekites would represent widely dispersed tribes that descended from Old Kingdom pharaohs, and which remained a formidable threat and resource to Middle Kingdom and even New Kingdom pharaohs. The New Kingdom ruler Agag (Apophis II) is himself being compared specifically with the Old Kingdom (6th Dynasty) pharaoh Pepi II. In Chapter 5 it was shown that Pepi II had been the co-regent of Pepi I, just as Apophis II later served under Apophis I. Apophis II ruled over Amalekites in Egypt and no doubt used them in the struggle with his brothers. However, Apophis II was not an Amalekite, per se.

Biblical Saul (Kamose) could not be seized by the Lord (Tao I) and struck down along with Agag (Tao II). He was protected by his large army and personal bodyguard. However, his strength was not sufficient to induce the Lord to restore favor and kingship. Biblical Saul did not address the Lord directly, but only through Samuel priest. In other words, Kamose did not have a personal audience with Tao I, but communicated only through the intermediary Samuel. The Lord denied Saul (Kamose) grace, but could not prevent him from returning to Thebes where he exulted in the plundering of Avaris. From a distance, Kamose resumed his bombastic tone and reveled in his intimidation of the Lord (Tao I/Apophis I). In his famous stela, he expressed nothing but hatred for Apophis I, and even threatened to "slit open his belly."2 However, the next belly that he was to pierce with a sword would be his own. Kamose underestimated the influence and resolve that the "perpetuated one" Apophis still possessed. Apophis at last succeeded in summoning the chieftain of Cush.r Outnumbered and outmaneuvered, proud Kamose chose suicide over surrender.

The Greek legend of "Kadmose the Phoenician"s may be another memory of Pharaoh Kamose. Like Kadmose, Kamose came from Phoenicia and establish a promising new dynasty in Egypt. And like Kadmose, Kamose only lasted about three years in Thebes.t In 1 Samuel 13:1, the Hebrew Bible states that hostilities with the Philistines began in year two of King Saul's reign, at which time he had already been rejected as king. Saul was killed a short time later. The Septuagint inserts a "forty-" and thereby incorrectly ascribes to Saul a reign of forty-two years instead of two years. This is an example of later editing. Therefore, the sudden demise of the newly crowned Kamose is consistent in Biblical, Egyptian and Greek recollections.

Dark Horse Wins Run-Off Election

With respect to the disinheritance of Saul, we are told that Samuel grieved for a long time. Eventually, he is ordered by the Lord (Tao I) to go and anoint David as king. At this juncture (1 Samuel 15) in the Kings/Chronicles narrative, we know nothing of David or why he was considered worthy to replace the likes of Abram, Agog/Gideon and Saul. It is necessary for the author to go back in time to tell us the story of David and how this "Super Hero" came to be. In order to do so, the Biblical author twists together the anointing of the adult David with an earlier election from David's childhood. In Samuel 16, a much younger David is picked out from among his many elder brothers by "the Lord." At that time, the role of the Lord would not have been played by David's father Jesse (Tao I), but by his grandfather Obed (Ammisaduqa/Kakrime). After he is favored by Obed, the narrative then proceeds to describe the trials and wiles of David up until the time of Saul's disgrace and defeat by King Achish and the Philistines (1 Samuel 31).

The first great victory of David (Thutmose) is not mentioned in the Kings/Chronicles narrative. He was one of four "brothers" in Geneses 14 who banded together in order to win independence for the oppressed clan of Terah.u As discussed in the previous chapter, Thutmose (Eshcol) was already in Hebron with Amenhotep (Aner) and Tao II (Mamre) when Abram arrived and began preparations for the defense of Canaan and Egypt.  This Hebron was near or within the district of ancient Thebes in Upper Egypt. Archaeology of the Hebron in Palestine indicates that it was not yet in existence at this time. Thutmose was already a regional king at this time, or would be soon after the defeat of the armies of Mesopotamia. However, in what must have been a stunning surprise, Tao subsequently named his grandson Kamose as his new successor.

Kamose (Saul) and Thutmose (David) would have first come into close contact when Kamose accepted his appointment and took up residence as pharaoh in Thebes of Upper Egypt. Thutmose first won the confidence of the new pharaoh by killing the giant Goliath, possibly a legendary Ethiopian Troglodyte. In this time period, there were still Philistines along the Nile. According to Genesis 10:13-14, the first Philistines were not of Greek origin, but were the descendants of Mizraim (Egypt) son of Ham. However, the wide-ranging Mizraim is also said to be the father of the Caphtorites (natives of the island of Cyprus in the Mediterranean Sea). Perhaps, these two isolated groups did have more in common than intact prepuces. A young and insecure pharaoh Kamose was drawn to the war-tested Thutmose. Both the son of Saul, Jonathan (Neshi?) and his daughter Michal were smitten with David. He won the heart of Michal, but Saul made him earn her hand by killing 100 Philistines.v He killed 200 instead. Saul eventually became insanely jealous of the spectacular success and popularity of Thutmose, or so we are told in the Biblical account. Hounded by Saul, David made peace with the King of the Philistines and was given refuge by him.

Count of Kish and King of Cush

In 1 Samuel 27 & 29, we are told that David became an ally of King Achish son of Maoch. The name Maoch means "oppressed," and is a pseudonym for the deposed Terah. Achish is called a Philistine king (as Agag was called an Amalekite), but he too was actually a member of the extended Patriarchal family. Kish (keesh) and Achish (aw-keesh') are both a play on words with Kush/Cush. He was also the "chieftain of Cush" that Apophis I called upon when he was threatened by Kamose. In his appeal to "his son the chieftain of Cush," Apophis makes the case that Kamose had rebelled against the both of them by his unauthorized raids on their respective lands. In exchange for support, Apophis offered to make this chieftain of Cush a king in Lower Egypt as well.

The attack of Achish on Saul is another example from this time period of a son being at odds with his own father.w David had been living among the Philistines of Cush for over a year, and was eager to fight on the side of Achish in the battle in which Saul died. However, the commanders of the Philistine group were suspicious of David and demanded that he leave with his men. He was denied the glory of bringing down Saul, so David affirmed his election by attacking the Amalekites. In this way, he was seen as fulfilling the genocidal task assigned to Tao II and Kamose, and could claim to be their better. Saul was put back in his place by his father Kish (Achish) and the Philistine army. Rather than surrender and suffer execution, the wounded Saul killed himself on the battlefield. Those loyal to Kamose established a surviving son of his (Biblical Ish-Bosheth) as king in his place. After two years of conflict, this king was assassinated and David was made "King over all Israel." It was then that Thutmose captured "Jerusalem" (the royal residence in Western Thebes) and assumed the title of pharaoh. 

In 2 Samuel 5, the next move of David is to obtain permission from "the Lord" for an attack on the "Philistines." David gets the approval he seeks.x This indicates that the former chieftain of Cush (Achish) was dead and Thutmose was given his franchise by Tao I who yet lived.3 This war corresponds to the Nubian campaign of Thutmose in his Year 2. At the third cataract of the Nile, the record left by Thutmose was particularly macabre: "... gore floods their valleys, ... the pieces hacked from them are too much for the birds ..."y Thutmose I was a man who would not flinch in bloodshed. He would fulfill all of the Lord's will for slaughter. The place of David's victory over the Philistines is named Baal Perazim, "the Lord who breaks out." David is quoted as saying, "As waters break out, the Lord has broken out against my enemies before me."z It evokes the turbulence of the waters at this Nile cataract and possibly also the time of year (inundation).

Royal Friendship Lasts for a Day

Many years after becoming king of the Philistines and all Israel, David/Eshcol (Thutmose) also turned against his former ally Hanun/Aner (Amenhotep). In Samuel 10, David sends delegates to express his condolences to Hanun (Amenhotep) the Ammonite (and Amun-ite).aa Nahash (Ahmose),4 the father of Hanun had just passed away. However, Hanun's advisors warn him that David's men are probably posing as spies. The delegates are thoroughly humiliated and sent back to David. This becomes the casus belli for David to attack Hanun, kill him, and capture his city. The demise of Amenhotep (Aner/Hanun) was ironically at the hands of his former ally Thutmose (Eshcol/David). Blood may be thicker than water, but the quest for kingship was the only enduring loyalty of ancient royalty. The triumph of Thutmose over all of his royal rivals was complete.

The 25-year reign of Amenhotep is presently thought to have followed the 21-28 year reign of his father Ahmose. However, the Kings/Chronicles narrative indicates that the death of the younger Amenhotep (Hanun) followed closely after that of Ahmose (Nahash).  Therefore, the reign of Amenhotep completely overlapped that of Ahmose, or nearly so.ab The famous campaign of Ahmose was actually a joint campaign with Kamose against Tao II. It is considered, rightfully or not, as a turning point in Egyptian history, and referred to as "The Expulsion of the Hyksos." Although this may have been the first significant action of Ahmose in Egypt, he had been a king for over a decade. The battle was dated to his Year 11. Ahmose (Biblical Nahash/Thahash) was the third son of Nahor, the favored brother of Abraham. The two eldest sons of Nahor were disgraced, which would have made Ahmose the heir apparent in Mitanni (Aram Naharaim). Ahmose and Amenhotep derived their authority from Nahor, who may not have assumed pharaonic titles. Tao II and Kamose were direct descendants of Tao I (Terah) who certainly did. This means that at least five pharaohs were ruling at one time! See Chart 16 for the chronology of the Hyksos Period and early New Kingdom.

The Hyksos kings of Babylon granted authority to their own sons as well as to "Asiatic" noblemen as a practical means of absentee rule in Egypt. However, after the Fall of Babylon to a rival line, the princes of the last great Hyksos king Apophis I maneuvered in order to rule Egypt directly rather than through "Asiatic" intermediaries. Asiatic influences were severed and denounced as treasonous. Once a new dynasty had been firmly established, there would have been a tendency for royals to portray themselves as native rulers, and not descending from or associated in any way with foreign oppressors. They were the self-proclaimed saviors of Egypt from the chaotic period that preceded them. A more accurate model of the "War Against the Hyksos" is simply a dynastic feud (real or staged) among closely related royal persons. Each blamed their rivals for the devastation caused by civil war. Each attempted to slander the other by associating them with ignoble elements of the population that were indiscriminately exploited in the fight for dominance. Within this framework, it is possible to better understand the application of confused and conflated terms such as "Hyksos" and "Asiatics" found in archaeological records and "Amalekites" and "Philistines" in Biblical narratives.


  1. Judges 6:36-40
  2. Les contes populaires de l'Egypte ancienne, 4th ed. pp. xxvi-xxvii.
  3. T.G.H. James, An Introduction to Ancient Egypt, pp 112-3.
  4. Anthony S. Mercatante, Who's Who in Egyptian Mythology, p 13.
  5. "The Hyksos in Egypt" in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. Pritchard, ed., pp 231-2.
  6. Sallier Papyrus I, translation: Gunn and Gardiner, Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, V (1918), 40-42
  7. Donald Redford, Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times, p 119.
  8. Kamose stela, Line 1, refers to a "miserable answer" sent to him from Apophis. See translation and commentary in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. Pritchard, ed., pp 232-3, 554-5. Virtually all we know about Kamose from archaeology is contained in a single reconstructed stela.
  9. Translation by James Henry Breasted.
  10. The error was first promulgated by Manetho in the 3rd Century BC.
  11. Immanuel Velikovsky, Ages of Chaos, p 72.
  12. 1 Samuel 15: 10-11 (NIV)
  13. See 1 Samuel 10:22
  14. 1 Samuel 15:9
  15. 1 Samuel 15:32 (NIV)
  16. 1 Samuel 15:33 (KJV). Killed as the Serpent/Apophis, and Rimush of Sargon’s Dynasty.
  17. Judges 8:19-21
  18. The site of the battle is presumed to be in Palestine, however this may have been the result of later retelling or toponym transfer. 
  19. The name of Kadmose derived initially from one of the gods, and is probably a Greek name of the Egyptian god Re.
  20. The Greek root kad(h) means "cover, shelter, care (for)." In Latin kad means "to fall."  Saul was the king of Israel who fell from grace, and the one who fell on his sword.
  21. In the epic battle of "four kings against five," Thutmose is named as Eshcol. See Chapter 10 of this book.
  22. 1 Samuel 18:20
  23. See also Robert Graves, The Greek Myths, 159.4.
  24. In 2 Sam. 8:9-10, Thutmose I (David) is again shown favor by Tao I, who is named there as Toi, "The Wavering One." After being rejected himself by his own father, Tao I then rejected Djehuty (Abram), Tao II (Mamre/Gideon) and Kamose (Saul) before selecting Thutmose I (David).
  25. Robert Morkot, The Black Pharaohs, p 71.
  26. 2 Samuel 5:20-21 (NIV). Baal Perazim translated by NIV, footnote d.
  27. 2 Samuel 10 and 1 Chronicles 19
  28. If the reign of Amenhotep was greater than 25 years in length, then he still would not have been the first prince to become a king before his own father. The precedent was set by Auibre, who became king before his father Inyotef IV.

Note 1:

"A scene from the contest of Horus and Seth at Edfu temple. Horus, astride his papyrus boat harpoons the figure of Seth in the form of a tiny hippopotamus (beneath the prow). In effect this is an act of suppression by the legitimate heir to the Egyptian throne (i.e., the pharaoh as Horus) of nature's chaotic forces (epitomized by the lumbering hippo)."

- David Rohl, Legend, caption for figure 409, p 351

The reference to the noise of animals causing loss of sleep is also one that is suggestive of killing, however in this case commoners.

"The land became wide, the people became numerous, the land bellowed like wild oxen.  The god was disturbed by their uproar.  [Enlil] heard their clamor (and) said to the great gods; 'Oppressive has become the clamor of mankind.  By their uproar they prevent sleep ...' "

Enlil then proposed a number of methods by which their numbers can be reduced.

"Legend of Atrahasis" in Ancient Near Eastern Texts, J. Pritchard, ed., p 104.

Note 2:

An inscription of Kamose dated to his Year 3 reads:

"I should like to know what serves this strength of mine when a chieftain is in Avaris and another in Kush, and I sit united with an Asiatic and a Nubian, each man in possession of his slice of this Egypt, and I cannot pass by him as far as Memphis. See, he holds Khmun [Hermopolis] and no man has respite from spoilation through servitude to the Setyu.  I will grapple with him and slit open his belly. My desire is to deliver Egypt and smite the Asiatics ... I fared downstream in might to overthrow the Asiatics by command of Amun ..."

-Alan Gardiner (1961), Egypt of the Pharaohs, p 166.

(See also this quote and commentary in Joyce Tyldesley, Hatchepsut, p 23.)

The allies and rivals alluded to by Kamose are identified as follows:  Apophis I/Tao I (Terah) was the chieftain in Avaris;  Apophis II/Tao II (Mamre) is the "Asiatic" and Amenhotep I (Aner) possibly the "Nubian.  Amenhotep I was in one instance depicted with a black face.  He may have taken his cue from the earlier Amenemhet I, who called himself "the Nubian."  Tao II and Amenhotep would have been holding court as pharaohs alongside Kamose in Thebes, however Kamose considered his election to be the greater.

Thutmose I (Eshcol) was a chieftain, but not yet a pharaoh.  The chieftain in Kush represented another prince, Achish (Haran) king of the "Philistines."  

Within the ancient royal court, any and every advantage was exploited by competing siblings in order to claim and hold the right to kingly succession. The racial or regional attributes of a prince's mother was a convenient means of discrimination.  From a strictly visual inspection of the early 18th Dynasty royal mummies, Caucasian, African and even Oriental features are apparent.  Ironically, this suggests that despite their guarded gene pool, these rulers were what we would consider today to be decidedly interracial.  Because of sterility, royal marriages were likely arranged between sons and daughters with were as dissimilar as possible.  This was no guarantee of fertility, but it did help to preserve racial diversity within the royal line.

Note 3:

According to Genesis 11:28-32, Terah died in the city of Haran and his son Haran died in Ur prior to the death of Terah. However, we find that both remained living and active long after Terah was deposed in Babylon.  We can only speculate that Kish/Haran returned to Mesopotamia and died after an attempt, successful or otherwise, to reclaim kingship in Ur.  The Lord Tao (Terah) died within a few years of helping Thutmose become king in Cush.  Strangely, we find that Achish is still alive at least 33 years later in the reign of Solomon.  We must assume that the reference to Achish in 1 Kings 2:39 is misplaced or mistaken. 

Note 4:

Ahmose, "founder of the Egyptian New Kingdom" is revealed in the Bible as Thahash, Nahor's third son through his "concubine" Reumah. Tahash/Thahash means "a (clean) animal with fur," probably a species of antelope;-badger; prob. of foreign derivation. This nickname reflects the character of Ahmose.  Th'ah-ash would represent a play on words with the Babylonian word ash (Child/Born) and the Egyptian name Ah-mose (Child/Born of the Moon).  The Egyptian Mose is the equivalent to the Chaldean Ash. Nahash is a further play on words, and has the meaning of "snake."  This was not necessarily a pejorative epithet in ancient times.

BOOK ONLINE - Living in Truth - Contents | Part I Charts | Part II Charts | Part III Charts - Tutorials - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 - Supplements - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
Chapters - 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41