Mendeh

You can't build a case for a historical Moses without some evidence of a historical Moses actually existing, and it doesn't. Moses is not mentioned anywhere in Egyptian texts. And because he isn't mentioned anywhere - there's no way you can show that he was a historical figure. You have submitted absolutely no evidence to suggest that the Egyptians have doctored their history in this time period; you have just assumed that they have because the Bible says so and found a potential motive for them doing so. Motives are easy to come by, but to give them any sticking-power, you actually need some evidence to back it up.

So far all you have done is put forward possible participants and allotted them possible actions and motives, a hypothesis with no supporting evidence. Find historical evidence in support of your hypothesis, and you have a workable theory. But all you have at the moment is a story of dodgy provenance, a date in Egyptian history, some possible personalities and some possible actions and motives, with absolutely no hard evidence backing any of it up.

You say you're not accusing the Egyptians of rewriting their history, but then you say that they've conveniently written Moses out of their history because he his presence was so much of an embarassment to them. The problem is, you'd see exactly the same thing if he was never there to start with. You've not described a Moses-shaped hole that can be observed in Egyptian history; you've described a bastardised account of Egyptian history and tried to cut a Moses-shaped hole into it without the slightest evidence to suggest that he was ever there to begin with.

"Maybe it is also worth mentioning that the Bible was never meant to be a historical document and so you can't expect it to record the deaths of every ruler - it only focuses on Israel."

You say it's not meant as a historical document, yet you're swallowing everything it has to say as fact.

Biff the unclean

Interesting that, just like the French, the Egyptians eat frogs.
Frogs were "unclean" to the Jews and a rain of them would have been awful to them.
But to the Egyptians it would have been like chocolate chip cookies falling from the sky.

Moses found out you just have to be careful what you wish for.

Celsus

davidH,

You are entering a bizarre world of pure conjecture the further you go into this. All you have demonstrated so far is that, if Moses had existed at the time the Bible said he did, then these Pharoahs would be his contemporaries. That proves absolutely nothing. What you need to do is approach it the same way the sciences work: (basically) evidence, hypothesis, test, conclusion. Rather, you are attempting something more like conclusion, hypothesis, conclusion(?) which is just stupid. Whatever you are currently trying to find out, and I have no doubt that you will, is based on your already made-up mind.

So to demonstrate whether the Exodus is possible, let me help you demonstrate the logistical feat of all this, taking the Biblical account literally:

We have 600,000 fighting men + women and children, which might come up to 2 million people. Water: In the desert, a man may need about 6-7 litres of water a day just to survive. Since these were probably hard times, let's say 5 litres, which means the Israelites would have needed to consume 10 million litres of water every day. I can't imagine how much that is, but I presume that's more than a few oases in the desert, that they would have to go through every day. That also represents a turnover of 146 billion litres of water in 40 years. If God had been miraculously supplying them with enough water, then the desert would have been green by the time they left.

Food: We know God provides them with quails and manna. Each man might get about two quails for his family to share, making 1.2 million quails needed. If each quail, on average, dropped a mere 2 grams of dropping in and around the Israelite camp, we would end up with almost 2 1/2 tons of birdshit strewn about their camp. If God provides quails just once a year, plus the combined dung of their cattle (probably a few tons a day), and their own excrement, we are dealing with a massive pile of shit.

We also know that they camped around Kadesh-Barnea (wilderness of Zin - Numbers 33) for 38 of the 40 years of "wandering". That means that 95% of the water and shit accumulated around there, and so we have several million tons of water, and thousands of tons of shit, all in a small area. A once-a-year rainfall might have cleaned it up slightly, but to conclude, the Israelites must have been swimming in shit for most of their Exodus. Alternatively, this would have made the desert quite lush and fertile, and so they would not have left a desert behind. Unless, of course, God also played the part of sanitation worker and cleaned it all up for them in a wonderful miracle. This must be the case since archaeological finds near Ein Qadis (the likely location of Kadesh) show no significant Bronze Age pottery, plants, shit or ancient water sources.

Conclusion: God shovelled shit and mud for forty years. No wonder he wanted to make the Israelites eat it.


Joel

P.S. As I've already hinted, your datings are going to get completely screwed once you hit real archaeological evidence, the most visible of which is the conquest of Canaan. To prevent wasting your own time, I advise you start from the evidence, not from Egyptian royal lineages.

davidH

OK I asked that people wait until I have finished the theory. It is true that so far I have shown that it is possible that according to the Egyptian pharaoh's Moses could have lived at that time - also that there could be a motive for the pharaoh wanting rid of Moses - and also why the pharaoh mentioned in the Bible was so suspicious of the Israelites.
So far that is mostly what I have done - and I have come up with a theory - tying the events in Egyptian history together with the Biblical account - and so far I have found that it fits in. An no amount of "crow-barring" needs to be done.

Ok, I will carry on with my theory - this part brings up some very interesting points.

We are up to the part when Moses flees - according to the Bible he is away for
40 years. Now this next point is extremely important to grasp.

First of all let us go to Egyptian history and have a look at which pharaoh died while Moses was away.

Moses fled Egypt in 1486 BC, so the time when the Bible says pharaoh (obviously the one that wanted Moses dead) died must be between 1486 and 1446.

So lets go to Egyptian history and see if a pharaoh did indeed died - as the Bible says.

Now this is where things get interesting.
Pharaoh when Moses fled was Thutmose II - but he died a mere 7 years after Moses had left, so why did God not let Moses return?
Reason - because all those that wanted Moses dead had not all died.

Now like I said last time - Thutmose II would have been completly dominated by Hatshepsut his wife. She considered herself her Father's heir and I have no doubt that she would have been the real bearer of power.
So as I said before I think it was Hatshepsut that wanted rid of Moses and was the one that tried to have him killed. - She obviously had the support of other officials as the verse mentions.
She had motive and she was the bearer of power.
Hatshepsut was the one that tried to kill Moses

Now you may say that the Bible says that the King of Egypt died and so how could this be referring to Hatshepsut?
Again if you take a look at Egyptian history you will see that Hatshepsut did put herself forward as a King. Go into some websites and you will read that she even wore the King's traditional clothing - some even suggest that she was trying to pretend that she was a man.
So the Bible is accurate if it refers to Hatshepsut as being the King of Egypt - it is also accurate if it refers to her as being the pharaoh that wanted Moses killed - because she was the one in control.

So my view is that it was Hatshepsut that was the one that wanted Moses dead.
So it was her that the Bible was referring to as the pharaoh that died when Moses was away for those 40 years.

So Moses coming back to Egypt in 1446 BC would have found Thutmoses III as the new pharaoh.

Hatshepsut now gone (disappeared actually - it is still unknown whether she died normally or was murdered by Thutmose III taking back power from her.) Thutmose III is the pharaoh that brought ruin on Egypt.

So I'm going to go into a bit of detail on Thutmose III and see if there is anything interesting that the Exodus could provide explanation's for.

Ok, I'll give a brief overview of Thutmose III.
Almost imediately after his sole ruler began he began expeditions to the Levant, (can anyone give an exact area for this?) where he tried to take control over a number of city states and towns who were under north-east Syria's control. We also have records of his impressive attack on Meggido (protected by chiefs in the Levant that should have been loyal to him). His victory is recorded as impressive and his bravery clearly mentioned.

You can find his campaigns listed on the link to a web page I gave above.

Now, what sort of effect would the Exodus have had on Egypt?
The Bible says that the pharaoh's army was destroyed - all the chariots with them. Now does this mean that the whole Egyptian army was destroyed? - I think not. I don't think pharaoh would have waited until his whole fighting force had gathered to go after the Israelites.
How many troops do you think pharaoh would have sent?

I personally don't see pharaoh has having died in the Biblical account. Although the Bible does mention that pharaoh led his army out to the Israelites - it doesn't say that he led them into the Red Sea.
Infact lets apply logic here - imagine you were pharaoh and had experienced all the plagues and you come to the Red Sea and it has split in 2 with the Israelites going through it.
Now are you going to go yourself?
I think the answer is pretty obvious - hardly, you will send your army in with their commanders. While you yourself stay safe.
Also supportive of this the Israelites song of victory doesn't mention pharaoh being dead - only his army.

Actually for the minute I will leave Thutmose III military campaigns and move on to more stuff - I'll come back later though.

Ok, The Exodus has now occurred.
One big question in Egypt is - who is repsonsible?
Why could our God's not protect us?
WHO IS TO BLAME FOR THIS?

This is what I can see everyone asking. Now the pharaoh Thutmose III has survived - Egyptian history still records him afterwards so this supports this.
So the pharaoh returns to Egypt - defeated so no way is this going to be recorded, it can't even be twisted to bring him out looking good.
So what does pharaoh do?

Number one priority is to prevent nations around from hearing about this defeat - according to the Bible this was unsuccessful because those in Canaan had heard about it.
Pharaoh has to replace the army he lost, and ensure that the Egyptian empire is secure from all threats.
If the loss was so great military wise we would expect him to make peace since he could no longer afford to keep up his campaigns.
The economy of Egypt also needs to be sorted out since many animals died and there was a lack of food (in all likelyhood).
If this was the case we would expect a lot of food (and seed)to be transported to Egypt from the lands under its rule. - As yet I haven't checked to see if this is the case.

However if the people began to have rebellious feelings towards him - after all it was him who refused to let them go...so I can see this happening. What does pharaoh do?

Put yourself in pharaoh's position - you have brought all this on Egypt and anger is beginning to be shown - what would you do?

I don't know about you but I know what I would do - I would divert their anger from me and try and place it on someone else - blaming it all on them.

I am assuming Thotmose III did this - he would have had to to try and redeem himself.
So again lets look at who would have been the best to put the blame on....?
The most obvious and likely person if you have been following my theory is of course HATSHEPSUT.
- Wasn't she the one that had tried to kill Moses in the first place? Moses then comes back and extracts his revenge with all the plagues on the Egyptians...
This is a perfect candidate and I think the people would have bought it. This pharaoh tries to kill Moses but fails and so Moses coming back punishes Egypt. Thotmose III may also have said that it was the Egyptian gods that were punishing the people through Moses because of what Hatshepsut had done.

Now here comes the really interesting part - that is actually visible in Egyptian history.

Thutmose III had Hatshepsut's monuments smashed and her name wiped off records. Her tomb was wrecked, along with the tombs of some of her officials.

Could those have been the other men the Bible says that died but had wanted Moses dead?
I think this supports my theory - and it gives Thutmose III a reason for doing this.

At this point you may feel like jumping in and saying that Thutmpose III destroyed Hatshepsut's monuments etc because he was angry at her reigning in his place. However as a website puts it
You will find it improbable that Thutmose III waited 20 years before taking out his anger. I think you will find that if you place the Exodus at the time when the Bible gives it - it explains why this happened.

Again, is there any other evidence in Egypt that would suggest that Thutmose III could have been the ruler of the Exodus?
Well actually there is - and it is something that Historians have not given an explanation for.

I quote from a website:

Again if as the Bible indicates, that he was the pharaoh of the Exodus and that he was the one that brought all of this on Egypt....things begin to fall into place and the reason for the above doesn't seem so puzzling after-all.

Marduk

I must commend you for your hard work and effort on this, it is all very interesting, but this time period in Egypt’s history (after the expulsion of the Hyksos) is know as Egypt’s Golden Age, when it was at the highest point of power and prestige since the days of the Pyramid builders. Kings from around the world kow-towed to Egypt in hopes that she’d be generous with her vast treasury of gold. Why does no one but the Hebrews know this Exodus story?

Mendeh

"OK I asked that people wait until I have finished the theory."

I can understand you'd prefer this, but you've hit problems from the beginning of the theory. Wouldn't it be better for you to sort them out first?
Also, if you want everyone to wait until you've finished, that'll give us a huge amount of work to do on a huge rebuttal, so it's better to do it in stages.

"So far that is mostly what I have done - and I have come up with a theory - tying the events in Egyptian history together with the Biblical account - and so far I have found that it fits in. An no amount of "crow-barring" needs to be done."

I disagree. Crow-barring is exactly what is happening. Egyptian history is being selectively quoted, with paragraphs of guesswork are being nailed on top of it with no evidence submitted to back it up.

MOSES'S AGE AND SOURCE RELIABILITY.

"We are up to the part when Moses flees - according to the Bible he is away for
40 years. Now this next point is extremely important to grasp."
That makes Moses around sixty by the time he returns to Egypt. I have to say, the dating seems to be up the spout. An historian that read Moses lived for 120 years would doubt that source immediately, yet it is being relied on hook, line and sinker for no good reason in the attempt to reconstruct what is supposed to have happened.

HATSHEPSUT TRIED TO KILL MOSES... NOPE.

"She considered herself her Father's heir and I have no doubt that she would have been the real bearer of power. So as I said before I think it was Hatshepsut that wanted rid of Moses and was the one that tried to have him killed... She had motive and she was the bearer of power. Hatshepsut was the one that tried to kill Moses"

Where is there ANY evidence to back that up? You've INVENTED a motive without any particular basis in known fact, just because you've got to find someone who might have wanted to kill Moses. You've named Hatshepsut without any evidence for assigning her that motive. Did she really go round killing off the other potential heirs to the throne? Absolutely NOT, and you've given absolutely no evidence from the historical record to suggest that she did.

"Now you may say that the Bible says that the King of Egypt died and so how could this be referring to Hatshepsut?"

Both Hatshepsut and Cleopatra used male titles, due to the solemn religious traditions involved with kingship (to do with the Elder Horus & Horus, and the Osiris myth). But as you've said, the Bible was written from an Israelite viewpoint, not an Egyptian one, so it's pushing it a bit to suggest that they remembered so many tiny details so accurately that you can trust the Biblical account of the Exodus almost completely, but they weren't capable of remembering the whopping great Egypt-embarrassing fact that Pharaoh was a woman...

"some even suggest that she was trying to pretend that she was a man."
Her name's a dead giveaway that she's a woman, it uses the feminine -t suffix.

In short, your claim that the Bible supports Hatshepsut being on the throne at the time is completely without foundation.


EXAMPLE OF A REAL EXODUS AND MILITARY DISASTER SPUN TO FAVOUR EGYPT.

"This is what I can see everyone asking. Now the pharaoh Thutmose III has survived - Egyptian history still records him afterwards so this supports this.
So the pharaoh returns to Egypt - defeated so no way is this going to be recorded, it can't even be twisted to bring him out looking good."


Actually, embarrassing military defeat and an exodus as described in the Bible _could be_ twisted to look good; and this was exactly what happened with an almost identical situation that began this dynasty and the New Kingdom; the surrender of Avaris, which _was_ an embarrassing defeat and prompted an exodus of massive proportions. "Hyksos allowed to leave Egypt peacefully as long as they promise not to beat up the poor Egyptians any more" got turned into "Triumphant pharaoh drives out the beastly Hyksos once and for all!" by the Egyptian spin-doctors, and as far as we know, the Egyptian masses bought it. The claim that the Exodus as described in the Bible couldn't be spun in Egypt's favour is amazing, considering that exactly this had happened not 200 years beforehand, and it becomes even more amazing when you consider that the account in the Bible is probably spun quite heavily in the Israelites' favour to start with.

"The economy of Egypt also needs to be sorted out since many animals died and there was a lack of food (in all likelyhood)."

I think this is the first test you've suggested so far that could actually provide some historical evidence. While you're at it, why not try and find out the infant mortality rates for the period, the harvests, military expenditure, etc., and MOST IMPORTANTLY, find out if there's any known cause for it. For example, it's no good finding out that harvests failed in that year unless you've also checked that the inundation was normal; you can't claim that there was a plague of locusts and Nile-blood if the flooding was so low that year that the harvest couldn't be expected to be any good.


THE STRUGGLE FOR THE SUCCESSION AFTER HATSHEPSUT'S DEATH

"You will find it improbable that Thutmose III waited 20 years before taking out his anger. I think you will find that if you place the Exodus at the time when the Bible gives it - it explains why this happened."

Thutmose III's most pressing concern when he regains power is securing his own lineage, at a time when support for Hatshepsut's line is extremely powerful within the court. The evidence shows a constant battle, from the beginning of Thutmose's regaining of power to the end of the reign of his son, Amenhotep II, to secure the lineage. At the time that he regains power, support for Hatshepsut is still far too strong to risk desecrating her memory in any way. It is only once the need to secure his own lineage becomes so pressing that it outweighs the risk of losing support that Thutmose III desecrates Hatshepsut's monuments:

- Puyemra and Intef, who served loyally under Hatshepsut, are still in key positions of authority until their death _just before the desecration gets underway_. Puyemra is the 2nd priest of Amun, and Intef, mayor of Thinis (Abydos) and governor of the oases. The priesthood of Amun supported Hatshepsut, and by this dynasty they are fast becoming as wealthy and influential as the royal family. Thutmose does everything he can to keep Hatshepsut's supporters from opposing him, including allowing them the honour of the King's name on their tombs.

- It is only when his failing health and the need to secure his lineage gives him no other option that Thutmose III takes action against Hatshepsut's lineage. The most that he has done until then against Hatshepsut's memory is depicting himself as far manlier than Hatshepsut on his own monuments.

- Having begun the desecration, Thutmose III then takes Amenhotep II as co-regent in the 51st year of his reign (1427 BC, two years before he dies), to ensure that everybody knows who the king wants to succeed him. He has to make absolutely clear that the rightful successor is his son, and not Hatshepsut's family line.

- The desecration obliterating mention of Hatshepsut to destroy her family's claim to the throne is then continued systematically under his son's reign. It is only when securing the succession becomes absolutely critical that Hatshepsut's line begins to be destroyed.

- Amenhotep II makes sure that no doubt is left in the people's mind that he is their rightful pharaoh: he is depicted both in pictures and biographies on stelas as strong and athletic, and masculine. A huge propaganda campaign is mounted to show him as a strong, MASCULINE leader, using the image of him shooting arrows from a chariot with the reigns tied round his waist, which is immortalised at Giza, reliefs in Thebes, as well as being miniaturised on scarabs that are found all over the Levant. The propaganda campaign for him was so massive that echoes of it can even be found echoing in the depiction of Achilles in the Iliad. He continues his father's vein with highly successful campaigns in the Levant, and makes sure to build and expand monuments and temples to the gods (he needs to get the support of the priesthood, who supported Hatshepsut's line). He installs close friends in key positions to ensure that he is unopposed by the government and administration.

"FOR some unexplained reason the memory of Thutmose III was not revered by the priests, although he had once been a priest himself, and never failed, on returning from his victorious campaigns, to make generous gifts to Amon's temple at Karnak. No folktales survive about his tyranny and impiety survive, as in the case of Khufu, the pyramid builder. He has suffered more from the conspiracy of silence."

None of this is a mystery once you realise one little fact. Thutmose III wasn't revered by the priests for a simple reason: the priesthood of Amun supported Hatshepsut's family line. In fact, Thutmose appeasing Amun at Karnak on every occasion he can is precisely what we would _expect_ from someone who fears the opposition of the priesthood of Amun. And why the strange 'conspiracy of silence' relating to his deeds? The answer becomes sadly obvious as soon as you realise who kept the history of Egypt: the priesthood of Amun.

Mendeh

I thought I would take this opportunity to summarise my rebuttal to davidH's argument so far, as this looks to be developing into a pretty long, straggling discussion.


"You are throwing out my theory because there is no evidence in Egyptian history that talks about it."
Yup. Last time I checked, in order to cross-reference something, one actually needs a second reference to do it.

"If you look at one of my other posts you will see that I give reasons why the Exodus (Biblical account) would never be recorded in history."
This relies on the assumption that the Exodus account actually happened to start with. davidH seems to assume the existence of a truly vast conspiracy theory, of which there is no evidence, to get out of the need to explain why there's zero corroborating evidence for a historical exodus.

FAULTY ASSUMPTION OF BEING ABLE TO NEATLY BOND THE EXODUS ONTO RECORDED HISTORY
"These are the dates that the Bible provides us with for the Exodus - if the Bible is correct then these dates should fit in with what was happening at that time in Egyptian history."

The Exodus doesn't even record the name of the Pharaoh, which given that it specifies the towns that the Israelites helped to build ("and they built for Pharaoh store-cities, Pithom and Raam'ses" Ex.1:11), seems extremely odd. Given its lack of content concerning affairs contemporary with the Ecodus events, it should be a simple matter to make the Bible's account fit with almost any time in Egyptian history that Egypt had an empire.
=====


CONTRADICTION OF DATING
Please see WRW Mattfeld's objections raised at the start of the discussion. Large section on problems with dating the exodus at his web-site: <a href="http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html" target="_blank">http://www.bibleorigins.net/ExodusTimnaSerabitelKhadim.html</a>
=====

NO EVIDENCE THAT ISRAELITES WERE IN EGYPT DURING AHMOSE'S REIGN OR LATER:
"So once the Hyksos had been dethroned the new Egyptian pharaoh's eyes would have turned to the Israelites living in the land. Although they had played no part, they were not Egyptian and so would have been regarded with fear and suspicion."

They would have done, IF the Israelites were actually living in Egypt at that time. And there isn't a shred of evidence that they actually were.
=====


"Exodus 1 v 9-11: the Israelites have become much to numerous for us ... if war breaks out will join our enemies, fight against us and leave the country.
This is exactly what you would expect Ahmose to say about the Israelites after he had come to power. We see here a remarkable parallel between the Biblical account and Egyptian history."

How is it a parallel? The only suggestion that the Israelites were living in Egypt at that time, and 'Pharaoh' (not 'Ahmose') said anything like that, comes from the Bible, and that isn't even a roughly contemporary source. No archaeological or contemporary literary sources even suggest that the Israelites were in Egypt at that time. There can't be a remarkable parallel when one only looks at claims from one source.

"[Options as to why the Egyptians didn't record the Exodus:]
1. It never happened.
2. Egyptians wanted it covered up.
If you go with option 1 then you have to be sure that you can say with certainty that if the Exodus did happen the Egyptians would have recorded it."

This is unimpressive reasoning, assuming that the only reason for taking option one is that the Egyptians didn't put down an Exodus account in writing. Surely a far better reason for going with option one is that there's absolutely no evidence to show that the Israelites were ever in Egypt at all, and the only source that suggests they were is both non-contemporary and heavily partisan. There's also absolutely no evidence at all for a cover-up.

And what about considering option 3: that perhaps the Exodus had some historical basis, but it bore very little relation in scale, date or detail to how the eventual story was recorded, and just wasn't worth noteworthy enough for the Egyptian authorities for any account from them to have survived.
=====


NO EVIDENCE AT ALL OF A HISTORICAL MOSES
davidH goes into a whole load of speculation about who might have been protecting Moses, who might have wanted him dead, etc. etc. But there isn't the slightest bit of evidence given to back any of it up, nor the slightest way suggested of verifying any of it. There is no Moses-shaped hole in Egyptian royal history at this time, and one can't just arbitrarily claim he was written out when there's zero evidence to suggest any such thing.
=====

SHAMELESSLY SELECTIVE QUOTING OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY
"You will find it improbable that Thutmose III waited 20 years before taking out his anger. I think you will find that if you place the Exodus at the time when the Bible gives it - it explains why this happened."

What isn't mentioned at all by davidH is the reason Egyptologists give for why Thutmose III waited 20 years before he started his wrecking. It was to do with the simple fact that his position on the throne was unstable, with Hatshepsut's line still a highly potent and influential force both at court and in the country. He waits for as long as he can before he acts, until the necessity of securing the succession forces him to destroy the Hatshepsut family legacy.

"FOR some unexplained reason the memory of Thutmose III was not revered by the priests, although he had once been a priest himself, and never failed, on returning from his victorious campaigns, to make generous gifts to Amon's temple at Karnak. No folktales survive about his tyranny and impiety survive, as in the case of Khufu, the pyramid builder. He has suffered more from the conspiracy of silence."

Thutmose III's memory wasn't revered by the priests because they supported the Hatshepsut family line, and his diligent efforts to placate them at the altar is precisely what we would expect of someone who was trying to keep them from outright opposition to him. Why do all his achievements suffer from a 'conspiracy of silence'? Because the men that kept the official history were the priests of Amun: who supported Hatshepsut.


CONCLUSION
In short, there isn't one decent piece of evidence that has been presented so far to support a historical Exodus and Moses. 'Amazing parallels' are drawn out of thin air, using only one source, the Bible. Right from the beginning it is assumedhat the Exodus account is reliable enough to bond neatly with Egyptian history, and when it's obvious that there's zero supporting Egyptian evidence, a conspiracy theory of truly epic proportions is posited to avoid the argument getting the bullet there and then.

The suggested dating is dubious to say the least. There has been shown absolutely no evidence besides one non-contemporary, partisan source that the Israelites were ever in Egypt to start with, nor that Moses was ever adopted and raised by members of the Egyptian court, nor that there was ever an exodus of Israelites of any magnitude whatsoever. The entire argument is scored right through with fragile assumptions and sophistic arguments. Mysteries are manufactured where none exist, for example why Thutmose III waited 20 years to trash Hatshepsut's memory, and why Thutmose could expect less-than-positive reporting from folklore.

edited to remove two-o-clock-in-the-morning vitriol that I had no right in posting.

[ November 09, 2002: Message edited by: Mendeh ]</p>

Kosh

At this time, I think we should all pause for a moement of <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> for Mendeh.

davidH, we're all still waiting for you to apologize for spreading urban legend/lies about Darwin and his deathbed over in MRD. I notice you have been conspicuously absent from that thread this it was shown to be "utter cobblers".

Mendeh

**bump**

Jayhawker Soule

Absolutely! <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />